Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA [Archive] - Page 11

glenb

29th Dec 2022, 05:36

To the Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), the Honorable Ms. Catherine King MP, My name is Glen Buckley, you will have some awareness of my matter. My business of more than a decade was closed down by an employee of CASA.

On the 9th of December 2022, I sent you the first of a set of five allegations of misconduct against two senior Executives of CASA.

· Ms Pip Spence, CEO of CASA and,

· Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.

Specifically, those allegations were related to the deliberate and considered provision of grossly false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman’s investigation, with the intention to pervert the findings of that investigation.

Over the coming days, I hope to complete and submit the second of those five allegations, and I will attend to the remainder as early as practical in the New Year.

Please note that this correspondence is not one of those five allegations, however it is highly relevant to the entire matter, and is one of the core matters.

I am fully satisfied that both Ms Spence and Mr Aleck are fully aware that CASA have acted unlawfully when CASA closed my business, and they have each been aware of that for a significant period of time.

I am fully satisfied that with that awareness Ms. Spence is attempting to “cover up” this matter by facilitating disinformation to that investigation, frustrating processes, choosing not to access the truth when it is readily available to her in her role, and in situations where she knows the truth she chooses not to share that information when she should.

I believe this correspondence, the supporting evidence, the substantive nature of the allegations, and the ease with which truthfulness can be ascertained, must call into question the integrity of both Ms. Spence and Mr Aleck, and their suitability to continue in their respective roles, pending an investigation into their conduct, and most especially considering the seniority of their positions and the function of the Department that they lead.

Misconduct at such senior levels within CASA has the potential to impact on the safety of aviation, I feel you will be compelled to take action on this matter.

Before I proceed to the point of this correspondence, I will provide some required, underpinning knowledge.

On 23rd October 2018, and despite daily contact with my CASA team who had never raised any concerns, I received a written notification from CASA that I apparently I had been operating my business unlawfully for over 8 years, and that it was most likely that my business was to be shut down by CASA in as little as 7 days.

CASA immediately prevented me taking on any new customers, existing customers were advised that I was operating unlawfully, and what CASA termed an “administrative freeze,” was placed on all CASA regulatory tasks including the addition of Key Personnel, addition of courses, renewal of flight simulators etc.

Those crippling trading restrictions cost my family well in excess of $10,000 per week as we retained all staff despite being denied revenue, and remained in place for a staggering 8 months, until Mr Aleck stood by his initial determination of October 23rd 2018 and forced all remaining customers to leave because the structure I had adopted for the last 8 years was now determined to be unlawful.

Throughout that entire 8-month period from initial notification in October 2018, to the closure in June 2019 Mr Aleck, in his role, adopted a method that denied me any right of review or appeal. From having an established, safe and compliant business at 9AM on October 23rd, 2018, through to the closure of the business eight months later with the associated harm caused, at no stage did I have any right of review or appeal to that determination by CASA.. None.

This was not a safety allegation, there were no allegations by CASA of any wrongdoing or bad intent.

Apparently, if CASA is to be believed, I had overlooked the legislative requirements and I had been operating unlawfully for over 8 years. It was an innocent mistake.

Somehow, despite all the meetings with CASA, daily communication with my CASA team, high level routine audits, revalidations, approvals, submissions of base applications, manual submissions, and over one hundred CASA site visits etc, CASA was not aware of my structure throughout those 8 years, and had only just realised my structure, and that it was illegal in October 2018. As soon as CASA realised, Mr Aleck acted quickly and advised me in writing that I was operating illegally and imposed the trading restrictions in place for 8 months while Mr Aleck considered whether to lift the trading restrictions and permit my business to continue operating.

In order to have the trading restrictions lifted, I apparently had to come up with a single paragraph in my commercial agreements with my customers that would satisfy Mr Aleck.

Absolutely all legislative requirements were already attended to and contained within our CASA approved Exposition/Operations Manual.This was an additional requirement outside of the legislation, and one that I was willing and able to attend to, but I did need clear and concise guidance.

However, for reasons known only to Mr Aleck I was unable to come up with that single paragraph of wording in my commercial agreements with customers that would satisfy Mr Aleck, and apparently he could not lift the crippling trading restrictions until that paragraph was resolved to his full satisfaction.

After 8 months, with me unable to come up with that paragraph, Mr Aleck stood by his initial opinion of October 2018, and CASA forced all remaining customers to leave.

There was never any allegation of wrongdoing or poor-quality control etc. It was simply that I had overlooked, and CASA had not picked up on, for over 8 years that what I was doing was illegal.

Despite the fact that I had delivered industry leading levels of safety and compliance, throughout the 12 years of operation and 8 years in our current CASA approved structure, it was now deemed unlawful, nothing could be done to assist me,and the business was to be closed.

Mr Aleck made his determination that my business was operating unlawfully against two pieces of legislation and what is referred to as an “Aviation Ruling.” The Aviation Ruling was repealed by CASA shortly after they used it as the basis to close my business down. The allegations were that I had breached.

· Section 27a of the Civil Aviation Act

· CASR 141.050

· The Aviation Ruling (later repealed)

There were never any allegations against safety, no allegations that I did not have operational control, no allegations against any breaches of procedures in our CASA approved manuals, no requirements to alter any of our procedures in any way.

It was a change of opinion by CASA that because I utilised personnel that were not also my employees, I was in breach of those regulations according to CASA.

As the Owner of that business, there was never any doubt in my mind that the allegations of regulatory breaches were so absurd that I had concerns about “intent”.

I knew I was not operating unlawfully, and that Mr Aleck was manipulating legislation to achieve his desired outcome and bring harm to me. Most likely because I had taken an industry lead on raising concerns about the proposed new legislation not being “fit for purpose”, and the passage of time has clearly demonstrated that it is not. I had also raised concerns of the impact of the proposed legislation on Australian owned businesses and most particularly those in regional areas. Similarly, the passage of time has demonstrated that my concerns were valid. As the employee responsible for that legislation, I can now understand that Mr aleck may have taken offence.

For that and other reasons, I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck targeted me, and most especially as I was the only operator that he shut down. CASA permitted the identical structure with other operators and continues to do so today. CASA led the Ombudsman to believe that I was doing something unique when the truth is that it was not unique, and CASA had always formally approved the identical structure, not only for me but for many operators.

To the point of this correspondence.

Ms Spence and Mr Aleck are both fully aware that CASA had no valid basis in law to close my business, and they have been for a significant period of time.

Since receipt of that notification of October 23rd 2018, through until this day, I robustly maintain that there was no breach of those regulations, and I was not operating unlawfully. In fact, drawing on 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry it was ludicrous, and obviously not well intentioned that a CASA employee would use the legislation in this way.

There can be no doubt that both Ms Spence and Mr Aleck are fully aware, and have been for some time, that the truth is that there were never any breaches of either of the two pieces of legislation or the Aviation Ruling, and CASA had no valid reason to close my business, and that CASA has acted unlawfully.

Mr Aleck was clearly abusing the significant power that he wields, including the power to close businesses based on his “opinion:”

To support my assertion that those two CASA Executives are fully aware, and have been for some time, that CASA acted unlawfully when it closed my business, consider the following timeline.

October 23rd, 2018, CASA advised me that I am supposedly operating unlawfully and have been for many years , CASA immediately placed crippling trading restrictions on the business. No legal advice has been sought by CASA at this stage. It is the “opinion” of Mr Aleck only.

April 30th 2019, CASA wrote to me advising that after 6 months with the trading restrictions in place, Mr Aleck has only now, finally received his first external and independent legal advice, when CASA wrote to me and stated;

“CASA has now received the external legal advice and that it has confirmed, inter alia, that Part 141 certificate holder is not precluded from entering into contractual arrangements with other parties to deliver flight training activities.”

There can be no doubt that by April 30th 2019 with the trading restrictions in place for 6 months, Mr Alecks application of opinion has been found to have no valid legal basis, and he is now fully aware of that, and the reasonable expectation is that with that knowledge he was again presented with the opportunity to act with good intent, and yet again he chose not to.

This is significant because by the end of April 2019, with the benefit of that legal advice Mr Aleck was presented with a further opportunity to either

· admit error, and work collaboratively to avoid any further harm being caused, or

· relentlessly continue to pursue his agenda to cause harm to me and my business.

Predictably, Mr Aleck chose the latter.

June 30th, 2019, Mr Aleck advises that he is standing by his initial determination, despite being in receipt of the independent legal advice he received two months earlier, the business is to be “dismantled”, and he deems the structure unlawful. CASA then contacted my remaining customers and forced them to find alternative arrangements for their own continued operations, including my own flying school of 12 years, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT).

The business structure adopted for the last 8 years was deemed unlawful because I utilised personnel that were not always my direct employees. i.e., they were employees of another entity.

Quite simply Mr Aleck was wrong, and he was fully aware of that before he continued with his decision to close my business. Mr Aleck closed my business two months after receipt of that independent and external legal advice. Understandably, CASA refused to provide me a copy with that legal advice, however it would be a document that the Minister could access.

If there can be any doubt remaining that Mr Aleck was fully aware he was acting unlawfully before he made the decision to close my business in mid-2019, then there can be no doubt that he became aware he had acted unlawfully twelve months after he closed my business when Phase One of the Ombudsman’s report was released.

25th June 2020, Phase One of the Ombudsman investigation

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0nyon53qllhuvyh/Phase%201%20report.pdf?dl=0

Mr Aleck was fully aware that the decision to close my business in June 2019 was unlawful and this was further validated on the 25th June 2020, being twelve months after CASA closed my business, the Ombudsman wrote to me at the conclusion of Phase One of the investigation. In that correspondence he stated.

“As of October 2016, no Australian legislation prohibited 'franchising' of an AOC, subject only to the exclusivity of the AOC holder’s operational control, and that remained the case as of 25 March 2020. There would be no legal or regulatory impediment to Mr Buckley or APTA selling or licencing intellectual property in the form of its AOC exposition to other FTO. And there would be no legal or regulatory impediment to CASA issuing part 142 Permissions on submission of those expositions by another FTO.”

I am fully satisfied that by June 2020, Mr Aleck had access to, and was fully aware that he had acted unlawfully. He knew that before he closed my business based on CASAs own legal advice, and this was reinforced to him when the Ombudsman Report was released after he had closed my business.

For complete clarity regarding this correspondence.

I robustly maintained throughout this entire matter that there were very clearly no regulatory breaches, and that the legislation was being manipulated by Mr Aleck to achieve his desired outcome. His actions and decisions were not motivated by the safety of aviation but for other reasons that were not well intentioned. It was personal, and I was targeted by him.

Mr Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs was aware in April of 2019 when CASA finally sought and received its first external and independent legal advice

.

On receipt of that advice, he was aware that he had no valid legal basis to declare my business unlawful, and place crippling trading restrictions on it, six months earlier in October of 2018

.

With that legal advice received in April of 2019, Mr Aleck pursued his agenda regardless, and closed the business down two months later in June of 2019. He had no valid legal basis to do this.

Phase One of the Ombudsman Report received by CASA in June of 2020 would have again alerted CASA to the fact that Mr Aleck had no valid legal basis to close my business, although by now the business had been shut down for twelve months.

Ms Pip Spence commenced as the CEO of CASA in May of 2021. I acknowledge that Ms. Spence was not the CEO of CASA at the time that CASA unlawfully closed my business. Ms Spence however has been in the role for 18 months and is fully aware that CASA acted unlawfully. I have made her aware in writing throughout her tenure and she has access to those documents i.e. the Ombudsman Phase one report and CASAs own legal advice. I have also provided her with the contact details of current CASA employees who have offered to tell the truth on this matter.

This correspondence is not intended as an allegation against Ms Spence or Mr Aleck, as I will attend to that in the subsequent correspondence.

The purpose of this correspondence is to ensure that there is an awareness within the office of the Minister that there is existing knowledge at the most senior levels within CASA that CASA have acted unlawfully, and that was known before the decision was made to close my business, and Ms spence has been made aware of that.

It is possible that some Executives of CASA could take action and make decisions to cover up this matter, as I am fully satisfied they have.

I have approached Ms Spence requesting a well-intentioned meeting, but she steadfastly refuses to meet with me.

I truly believe that this matter could be bought to a prompt resolution if Ms Spence was to clearly articulate to the Minister, and also to me, whether CASA maintains the same position that it did in October of 2018, i.e. that I was operating in breach of

· Section 27a of the Civil Aviation Act

· CASR 141.050

· The Aviation Ruling (later repealed)

Although the response from Ms Spence may be lengthy, as I anticipate it will be, it needs only be one word, and that would be a yes or a no. In fact, if I may respectfully put forward a suggestion. The response could ideally commence with the “yes” or a “no”, and then perhaps be followed up with the supporting information.

I anticipate Ms Spence may be reluctant to respond prior to the release of the Ombudsman’s report, but this is an entirely separate matter and gets to the core matters of ethics and integrity. CASA must surely have its own position on this matter. Has its position changed substantially or does CASA stand by Mr Alecks decision making.

I believe that Ms Spence will divert away from a simple yes or no response as that would implicate her.

If she is compelled to respond as she should be, my expectation is that she will answer in the affirmative. An offence in October of 2018, would still be an offence unless there had been any legislative change, which there has not. CASA has had four years to consider their decision to close my business and have access to their own legal advice and the Ombudsman’s report. CASA should be “big enough” to make its own position clear on this matter. It should be able to reiterate that position independent of the Ombudsman.

If Ms Spence admits that the truth is that there is no legislative breach, and that CASA erred, that opens up the path for well intentioned discussion.

If as I allege, both Ms Spence and Ms Aleck have been responsible for providing false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s inquiry then I can understand their preference to postpone responding until after reports are released

.

A reluctance for CASA to reiterate its stance on the regulatory breaches alleged of October 2018.

.

Ms Spence and Mr Aleck are already aware that they have acted unlawfully. If they are not prepared to restate their current position that must surely raise concerns at Ministerial level as to intent, ethics and integrity. Whilst it may not be an “offence” to be aware that you have acted unlawfully to close someone’s business and cause so much harm, it certainly speaks to ethics and integrity, something that has been eroded over the last decade, and could potentially lead someone to mislead an inquiry.

I reiterate that this is not a matter of a “simple administrative error”. It is a matter of a single CASA employee abusing his significant power. Mr Alecks decisions were considered and deliberate. Mr Aleck has the purported reputation and experience to be able to make considered decisions. He was and is fully aware that he has no valid legal or safety case to have closed my business, and when one considers the drawn out nature of the proceedings over more than four years, one must question the motivation, ethics, and integrity of the CASA Executives involved, including the CEO of CASA.

Thank you for your time, may I respectfully request an acknowledgement of receipt of this correspondence, and I shall write to you over coming months with the further four of the five allegations against Ms Spence and Mr Aleck.

Thankyou for your consideration, Glen Buckley

Additional Material.

An industry forum is discussing this matter, and has had over 1,000,000 views which has been very encouraging. You can access it via here. I draw your attention to Posts #2350 and #2351 where I have addressed the ludicrous nature of alleged regulatory breaches in more detail. Those two particular posts form part of an allegation of misfeasance in public office that I am preparing, but will provide more detailed information.
Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 118 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-118.html)
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/AEdFTp7LXH9TbMbllzj2mD59HSz7RomeeX8dSB9UYFNV=s40-p-mo ReplyReply to allForward

Lead Balloon

29th Dec 2022, 06:15

Glen

In your post #2512 of 29 Dec 22 you said, among other things:April 30th 2019, CASA wrote to me advising that after 6 months with the trading restrictions in place, Mr Aleck has only now, finally received his first external and independent legal advice, when CASA wrote to me and stated;

“CASA has now received the external legal advice and that it has confirmed, inter alia, that Part 141 certificate holder is not precluded from entering into contractual arrangements with other parties to deliver flight training activities.”Have you mentioned or posted a copy of this correspondence before?

I’m entirely unsurprised by the gist of the external legal advice. Presumably it was given by someone who’d read the legislation and understood the law of agency (unlike whoever drafted the email to you of March 2019).

But did I miss a mention or copy of the correspondence in one of your earlier posts?

glenb

29th Dec 2022, 11:08

i’m driving home from work now with an hours drive ahead of me. i will post the correspondence as soon as i can in the morning, cheers. Glen

glenb

29th Dec 2022, 20:07

Good Morning Lead Balloon.

The following link will give you access to the "Peter White" file, with all correspondence in chronological order.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/02bl4ah8n6id27h/AAAknPcdxVj_oHsntPSlE3joa?dl=0
I hope that works, obviously advise if it doesn't, noting that I am at work till 11PM with very little internet/phone access. Cheers. Glen.

Lead Balloon

29th Dec 2022, 22:03

Well there it is, in black and white at the para numbered '1':From: White, Peter%[email protected]%3E

Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2019 2:32 PMTo: Glen Buckley%[email protected]%3E; Derek Buckley%[email protected]%3E

Subject: Update from CASA regarding CASA seeking external advice and 'Contracts'

[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Glen and Derek,

I acknowledge you have forwarded correspondence to Mr Joe Rule today regarding a potential meeting in relation to ‘claims’ against CASA. This email is not in response to that matter–rather, a follow up to my earlier phone call wherein I communicated that CASA was seeking external counsel advice and also seeking external legal advice, the latter to draft a ‘model contract’.

I can advise the following:

1.CASA has now received the external counsel advice and it has confirmed, inter alia, that a Part 141 certificate holder is not ‘precluded’ from entering into contractual arrangements with other parties to deliver flight training activities;

2.CASA has issued instructions to external legal providers for the provision of ‘model clauses’ that would meet the minimum regulatory requirements to enable ‘1’ above. CASA expects this work to be provided to CASA by 15 May 2019. Following receipt and review of this material, CASA would then provide to you/APTA.

a. I note my correspondence ‘Interim Operational Arrangements’ issued on 12 February 2019 is for the period up to and including Monday 13 May 2019. I advise I am prepared to extend the ‘Interim Operational Arrangements’ for an additional three months to facilitate this regulatory submission process.

3. Following receipt of external advice, CASA is now of the view that any instructor that is not an APTA employee, that is delivering flight training under the APTA Part 141, requires a separate Part 141.035 approval.

a. In order to assist APTA, CASA is prepared to provide this approval by way of a single Instrument.

This can be undertaken parallel to the contractual arrangements (in other words, no additional timeframe). CASA is also prepared to consider waiving any associated fees if this is something APTA would request. To facilitate this action CASA would require the following:

i. The names of all non-APTA employees that are delivering, or intending to deliver, Part 141 training; and their respective ARN

I trust this email will be informative and of assistance.

If you would like to progress the extension of ‘Interim Operational Arrangements’ please advise via return email and I will action. In addition, if you would like CASA to facilitate Part 141.035 approvals for non-APTA employees as per above, please provide me with names and respective ARNs.

Kind regards

Peter M. WhiteWhy didn't you proceed as proposed (other than being exhausted and broke as a result of what APTA had been put through)?

Lead Balloon

29th Dec 2022, 22:07

Does anyone know if the instructor involved in the VH-CYO tragedy was the subject of a Part 141.035 approval and contractual terms required by CASA? According to the ATSB report:Two private pilots (students), who were members of the Sunshine Coast Aero Club, contracted an aerobatics instructor to provide aerobatic flight training in the aero club’s Cessna A150M Aerobat (Aerobat), registered VH-CYO. That training included theoretical and practical training aspects.

As the instructor did not work at the aero club, the aero club’s chief flying instructor (CFI) conducted a check flight with the instructor in the Aerobat to assess the instructor’s ability. ...

LAME2

29th Dec 2022, 22:59

this paragraph from the atsb report could be read two ways.

The Aerobat was recently purchased with the intent to conduct aerobatic instructional flights for its members. At the time of the accident, the aero club did not have a Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 141 certificate to conduct flight training in a VH registered aircraft, nor was it required for an instructor to conduct spin or aerobatics flight training. There were no aerobatics-trained instructors at the aero club.

The aero club sought the assistance of a contracted aerobatics instructor to conduct the aerobatic flight training, utilising the instructor’s own flight training approval. The first aerobatic flight training conducted by the aero club utilising VH-CYO was the week prior to the accident with the flight instructor who was on board the accident flight.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2021/aair/ao-2021-025

Lead Balloon

29th Dec 2022, 23:07

That is nonsensical in its own terms. Either the aerobatic flight training was conducted by the club, or it wasn't. If the instructor was authorised to conduct the training in his own right, there was no need for the CFI of the club to do a check flight with the instructor.

glenb

16th Jan 2023, 19:54

Dear Lead Balloon,

First let me apologize for the delayed response. You have been an exceptional supporter, and i didn't mean to be disrespectful. At the insistence of my family and Doctor, I attempted one month completely free of this matter for my mental health. I bought myself a fishing rod and went off air into the bush for some solitude, up around Jamieson, Woods Point.etc. I took my laptop along with me, and on day one stepped on it accidentally and broke it into two pieces, inadvertently ensuring i didnt break my commitment to my doctor and family.

Im back into it and full steam ahead.

The relatively short answer to your question from post #2516 is......

The trading restrictions had been in place for over 6 months at this stage. The very business model that i spent two years working with 10 CASA personnel on was established to handle 10 schools initially. Once Mr Aleck had changed "CASA"s mind in October 2018,, and prevented any further schools joining APTA, as you are aware i personally incurred costs in excess of $10,000 per week in order to meet the payroll. Once my own family funds had been exhausted, my parents had stepped in and contributed $300,000 to continue operations and meet my payroll obligations. By now, understandably, staff were becoming less confident that this matter would be resolved and began seeking alternative employment. The business was getting hit with some large payouts of entitlements. I appreciate that Im not directly answering your question here, but I am trying to set the background. I was under enormous pressure, my parents had offered one final tranche of money to maintain staff, but by now there was no doubt in my mind that Mr Aleck had no intention to resolve this whatsoever.

So what do i believe happened.

There are two categories of school the less complex Part 141 and the more complex Part 142. APTA was one of Australia's first Flight Training Organizations to obtain the Part 141 and 142 Approval. Approximately 95% of revenue derived from Part 142 operations.

Part 142 operations were referred to as the Contracted Checking and Recurrent Training regulations. If you read the Part 142 legislation, you quickly ascertain that it is in fact written for exactly what I was doing, and CASA had approved me for years earlier.

Our Part 142 operations made up over 95% of revenue. The Part 141 Operations were minimal and non-consequential to the business. You will note that all CASA correspondence refers to Part 141 operations and approvals only, which were of little or no interest to me.

CASA had not even begun to address the Part 142 issues, which is what I needed resolved.

What do i think really happened? CASA knew that they had right royally ballsed this up and were trying to cover it up. I had asked them on multiple occasions to address Part 142 operations and not Part 141 operations. They ignored my requests. Most likely because by now they knew that in fact Mr Aleck had absolutely no valid basis to take the action he did, and in fact I was not acting unlawfully. CASA couldnt address the Part 142 matters because that would have exposed the matter, and exposed the Achilles heel in CASAs case.

The matter was obviously many months awy from being resolved, and it was most likely that it would never be.

A bit brief sorry, back to work and just typing awy on the side of the road.

Cheers all, Glen

.

Global Aviator

17th Jan 2023, 01:41

Glen,

The most important question… Did you catch any fish?

It really is amazing what a digital detox can do, I’m not talking from experience!

Ready for the go fund me when required!

tossbag

17th Jan 2023, 07:32

Ready for the go fund me when required!

Glen, get on it.

Sunfish

28th Jan 2023, 22:59

Glen, did you know anything about the goings on at SOAR? I am wondering why CASA seemed to be asleep at the wheel when it came to regulating that organisation (SOAR), yet they couldn't eliminate you and your high quality training product from the industry fast enough.

A comparison of treatment by CASA might be illuminating.

Squawk7700

29th Jan 2023, 09:50

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/920x2000/0babf2e2_f5e8_4877_b428_b3901b2b9025_0866d523242b4ae986a3c63 9ff2ea8a62e3723f7.png

Sunfish

29th Jan 2023, 12:43

What did CASA know about SOAR and when did they know it ?

Given what SOAR students have alleged about SOAR, as well as its public accident record, and given the microscopic surveillance of APTA by CASA, as demonstrated by the correspondence between Glen in his role at APTA as chronicled on PPRUNE, would it be unreasonable to assume that SOAR was subject to the same level of scrutiny as APTA?

If so, why wasn’t SOAR shut down by CASA like they did to Glen and APTA?

How does CASA’s apparent tolerance of the safety basket case that was SOAR and it’s demonstrated vendetta against a safety paragon like APTA measure up against CASA’S mission ?

Could the public be justified in thinking that what we have witnessed is at the very least, a massive and intolerable mis allocation of CASA resources in pursuing APTA while ignoring the real safety disaster that was SOAR?

…….and that might be is the most charitable interpretation of CASA actions.

Alpha Whiskey Bravo

31st Jan 2023, 02:02

It would be very interesting if it was the same Flying Operations Inspector that was "Servicing" both organisations wouldn't it?

tossbag

31st Jan 2023, 03:15

AWB, funny in that it was??

Alpha Whiskey Bravo

31st Jan 2023, 11:20

AWB, funny in that it was??

Interesting, definitely NOT funny!

aroa

31st Jan 2023, 21:07

Av perons should be aware that with CAsA it’s “different strokes” for different folks. It’s a recipe for corruption, and since CAsA protects its criminal own, what’s the problem. Some outfits are sunk, unfit others allowed to swim on.
CAsAs mantra that they do no wrong and not deal with the problems just means… this is how it is and always will be unless the rotten place can be dismantled and rebuilt.

glenb

3rd Feb 2023, 21:05

Please note this is in drafty form. very close to finished, but I wanted to get it up here today. Im off air from now to midnight. keen on feedback.

Cheers. GlenTo the Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), the Honourable Ms. Catherine King MP.

I have included other recipients in this correspondence including the Honourable Ms. Carina Garland as my local MP, and who is assisting me and my family with this matter

I fully understand that I could be subject to prosecution if I was found to be raising these claims in a vindictive or vexatious manner.

The allegation against CASA Employees- Ms Spence and Mr Aleck

My name is Glen Buckley. Please accept the second of the five allegations, regarding the provision of false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation by two members of the senior management of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). Those employees are:

1. Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs who has provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office investigation on five occasions. These are not errors or omissions; these are considered and deliberate decisions. The false and misleading information has been provided to the Ombudsman investigation to pervert the findings of that investigation and presumably cover up Mr Alecks own misconduct/misfeasance.

2. Ms Pip Spence CEO of CASA who has facilitated the provision of that false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation on each of those five occasions, and I am fully satisfied that she is complicit in this matter. Ms. Spence, perhaps more than any other person in Australia has ready access to the truth. Some time ago, I provided her with the contact details of a current long serving CASA employee, who would be the Subject Matter Expert within CASA on this matter, and who offered to tell the truth if asked.

Assuming that Ms Spence availed herself of that opportunity, as would be reasonably expected of her, then she is also fully aware of the truth, has been for a significant period of time.

If the Ministers Office would like me to provide the contact details of the current CASA Employee, please advise me, and I will promptly facilitate that request, alternatively Ms Spence could also promptly provide that employees details.

The Ministers Office could establish direct contact with that Employee, promptly ascertain the truth, and act accordingly. The extent of the deceptive conduct/misfeasance will be promptly identified if the Ministers Office chooses this option.

Whilst making these allegations against Ms. Spence, I acknowledge that she is relatively new to the role having come from a completely different Government Department and could not reasonably be expected to have a comprehensive understanding of the flight training sector of the industry.

Ms Spence however is a Subject Matter Expert on Government Department operations, ethics, integrity, CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, community expectations, administrative procedures, governance etc. commensurate with her senior position within the Public Service. By choosing to mislead and frustrate fair processes she prolongs the harm caused to me and my family, and in my opinion is therefore complicit.

The false and misleading information has been provided on five occasions, on five different matters, and each is substantive in nature.

In this correspondence I will attend to the second of the five allegations only. I will send you the additional three allegations, as soon as is practical.

I apologize that there will be at least five pieces of correspondence, each raising a separate allegation. As I explained previously, I have adopted this approach for two reasons.

1. The first being that the impact of this matter has had a substantial impact on my health, and now my wife’s. A lengthier single piece of correspondence covering five or more allegations is not something that I am able to attend to at the moment.

2. Secondly, it should not be necessary. If you are able to promptly clarify this second allegation in conjunction with the first allegation sent to your office on 09/12/22, I feel you will be compelled to act. In your decision making I ask you to also consider the lawfulness or not of this entire matter, and that was attended to, in brief, in the correspondence that I sent to you on 29/12/22.

I feel you will be compelled to act, and most especially because of the seniority of each of their respective positions, and the responsibility of the Department that they lead, i.e., the Nations aviation safety regulator, CASA. No doubt you will also need to consider any potential impact on the safety of aviation if they were to remain in their respective roles, and my substantive allegations were later to be found true. i.e. misconduct/misfeasance.

These are not vindictive or vexatious allegations that I make, these are genuine concerns about the ethics and integrity of senior executives within CASA that has the potential to impact individuals, business and perhaps most importantly, the safety of aviation, as it has already done.

Summary of the first of five allegations, sent to your Office on 09/12/22

You will recall that the first allegation sent to your Office on 09/12/22 related to whether Mr Aleck had misled the Ombudsman’s office as to whether or not CASA had always, and on every occasion permitted and formally approved the exact same structure that I had adopted for over 8 years.

Mr Aleck initially asserted to the Ombudsman that CASA had NEVER permitted this identical structure that I had adopted for over eight years.

During the investigation, Mr Alecks deceptiveness became apparent. My understanding is that Mr Alecks representations to the Ombudsman may have adjusted from one of, ‘CASA never permitted this structure” to “On very rare occasions CASA may have permitted something similar to the structure that Glen adopted”. This representation is still very far from the truth, and I cannot emphasise how very far from the truth.

I had truthfully asserted by drawing on my 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry, that CASA had always and, on every occasion, permitted and formally approved the identical structure that I had adopted, and in fact CASA continues to approve that identical structure. I provided you with an example of the most recent approval to another operator at Moorabbin. This clearly demonstrates the level of deception perpetrated by the two named individuals to the Ombudsman investigation.

Quite clearly the named CASA Executives have misled the Ombudsman. If the Ombudsman is of the opinion that I was doing something unique, something that had not been done before, something not conventional, something not CASA approved, then the Ombudsman has clearly been misled, and substantially so.

The very clear and easily proven truth is that the identical structure that I had adopted was standard industry practice and was adopted on multiple occasions by multiple operators throughout my 25 years in the industry. On every occasion with full CASA knowledge and approval, as it was in my case.

The level of deception being perpetrated can easily be proven because quite simply, on every one of those occasions the additional base could not commence operations until CASA had done an onsite assessment and formally approved the base to commence operations. An extremely comprehensive process with CASA processing those applications prior to approval. On occasion those approvals could take up to 10 months for CASA to issue. For Mr Aleck to assert that CASA first became aware of the specific nature of my operation, only after 8 years, and having formally issued multiple base approvals throughout that period, would be laughable, had it not caused so much unnecessary harm and trauma.

The reality is that Mr Alecks conduct is more akin to “criminal” than “laughable.” I say that because he was not compelled to make any of the decisions that he made, and he was not compelled to take any of the actions that he did. He had no supporting safety case, there was no breach of any regulations. His conduct cannot be justified.

The level of deception being perpetrated is staggering, and I can think of no other appropriate word. It is blatant. It is deliberate, and it can only be intended to pervert the outcome of the Ombudsman investigation.

If the Ministers Office was to approach any CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) of more than 10 years’ experience, and ask them, I have no doubt at all that this matter would be instantly resolved and the truth revealed, that in fact I was not the first, I was one of many, and the truth is that it was, and continues to be, completely standard industry practice with full CASA approval, with the most recent approval being issued to another operator at Moorabbin over the last few weeks.

The point being that CASA, or rather Mr Aleck specifically, had led the Ombudsman Office to believe that I was doing something different and unique, when in fact what I was doing was completely standard industry practice, and continues to be so today. Importantly. This issue is black or white, there is no grey area, the truth can be promptly ascertained.

Either CASA never permitted the identical structure that I adopted as Ms Spence and Mr Aleck falsely assert, or CASA always and on every occasion regularly approved the identical structure that I utilised, and continues to do so as of today, as I assert, and as will any of the CASA Flight Operations Inspectors with expertise and experience in the Flight Training Sector.

It is critical to ascertain this core matter. If it had never been done before as Mr Aleck and Ms Spence assert, then obviously my claim that I was a victim of targeted malice would have little basis.

If it can be truthfully established that this was in fact standard industry practice, throughout my 25 years in the industry, was commonplace, and always fully approved by CASA amongst many operators, and I was the only Operator shut down, then my claim that I was the victim of targeted malice by Mr Aleck, covered up by Ms. Spence would be more likely to have a valid basis.

For that reason, it is essential that the Minister obtains a very clear determination on this from the CASA Board, or whoever you deem appropriate, and who is also prepared to be accountable for providing you with that information.

It is essential that you ascertain whether CASA always permitted the identical structure, or CASA never permitted the identical structure. The response from CASA to the Minister could be promptly attended to, as it requires only a very short response, and CASA has ready access to that information.

Regarding this correspondence may I respectfully request an acknowledgement of receipt.

Second submission to your Office regarding the lawfulness or not of Mr Alecks decision making.

The second piece of correspondence sent to your office on 29/12/22 was not an allegation of providing false and misleading information but attended to the lawfulness or not of CASAs actions. As you are aware, I allege that Mr Aleck abused his significant power to bring harm to me, my family, and my business, as he quite clearly has done, and he had no lawful basis to do so. You will recall that the Ombudsman had found that there was no regulatory breach, CASA had erred, and detriment could have been caused, as it most clearly has.

The purpose of this correspondence- The Second Allegation of providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.

Please accept this as the third piece of correspondence sent to your office on my matter, noting it is the second of the five, allegations of CASA Executives, specifically Ms Spence and Mr Aleck providing, or being complicit in, providing false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s investigation

This second allegation relates to the specific date, that CASA first became fully aware of the structure that I had adopted.

Mr Aleck, and Ms Spence falsely and absurdly assert that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation only in October of 2018, at which time Mr Aleck, without drawing on any external legal advice, and applying his opinion only, determined that my business of more than a decade was now operating unlawfully, and he acted promptly to close it down as soon as CASA became aware.

The truth is that CASA was fully aware of my structure for at least 8 years, and later in this correspondence I will introduce you to an Expert Witness, who has offered to come forward and tell the truth. I believe that his testimony alone will expose the misconduct/misfeasance of Mr Aleck, and call Ms Spences governance of this matter into question.

If this correspondence alone does not compel you to act, I have no doubt you will be compelled to act upon receipt of the Witness Statement. I anticipate you receiving that Witness Statement approximately 7 days prior to the submission of my third allegation, being my next allegation.

Of the almost 1000 CASA Employees within CASA, this witness, a senior ex CASA employee, during his period within CASA was inextricably involved with APTA from inception, through to design, peer review, and formal approval of APTA. He is without any doubt at all the single most qualified person to address this topic, and bring truthfulness to this entire matter.

That being whether or not Mr Aleck is being highly deceptive by representing to CASA that CASA first became fully aware of the exact structure of my business only in October of 2018.

For Ms Spence and Mr Aleck to assert that CASA first became aware of the specific nature of my organisation in October 2018, after I had operated for more than 8 years utilising that structure is truly absurd. It is so far removed from the truth that it can only indicate bad intent. For complete clarity. It is a blatant lie.

I have dealt with this extensively in other correspondence, so will attend to it only briefly here. There is an overwhelming body of evidence to support my contention that CASA was fully aware of my structure for many years prior, here I list only 10 dot points, of which there are literally hundreds.

This limited sampling will raise concerns as to the truthfulness or not of Mr Alecks and Ms Spences assertions that CASA first became fully aware of my structure in October 2018. Any remaining doubt will be completely dispelled once you receive correspondence from the expert witness.

1. CASA first formally approved me to adopt that identical structure over 8 years prior. This was an extensive and formal process. CASA will hold records. I refer you to ask CASA about our first base “AV8” in Darwin and the date that that was first approved, adopting the identical structure that I was using in October 2018.

2. CASA revalidated a significantly upgraded system in April 2017, (one and a half years before CASA supposedly first found out). The leadup to this CASA revalidation in April 2017 required an investment by me, of several hundred thousand dollars, as I worked literally across a desk from 10 CASA employees over a two-year period. I can provide the Ministers Office with the contact details of two current CASA employees who were involved in the APTA project 2 years before Ms Spence and Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman believe. This process over 2 years was to specifically design with CASA a Single Authorisation, multi base, multi entity model, exactly as we did, and that is what makes this matter so absurd and leaves me with no doubt that the reversal of CASA approval of my business was personal, and vindictive.

3. CASA audited my operation in November 2017. This was the scheduled Level One audit that was standard operating procedure and conducted routinely 6 months after the revalidation in April. This involved a team of CASA personnel onsite over a one-week period, including visits to each of our CASA approved bases. To seriously suggest that this audit occurred in November of 2017, and nobody from CASA was aware of the structure, or didn’t become aware of the structure for almost another year is just not at all plausible. Not at all. This single point alone with no other evidence at all is indicative of the level of deceit, hence my allegation of misfeasance in public office.

4. CASA formally approved bases under it and spent up to ten months considering and issuing those approvals. It was an extensive regulatory process, and CASA issued those approvals on multiple occasions, over may years, after lengthy well considered processes, that fees were paid for. This occurred on multiple occasions over many years before Mr Aleck falsely claims that CASA first became aware.

5. CASA personnel directed struggling schools to APTA 18 months before CASA supposedly first found out about my structure. Case in point are both the Ballarat Aero Club (within your own electorate) and the Latrobe Valley Aero Club. Quite simply, you could approach the Ballarat Aero Club, and ask them if they thought CASA was aware. I am very confident you will find that CASA actually directed them toward APTA. How could it possibly be that CASA employees were directing struggling schools to APTA in early 2017, shortly after CASA had approved the structure, yet somehow “CASA” weren’t fully aware of the structure, if Mr Aleck is to be believed, for another 18 months.

6. The Media were doing stories on the revalidation and expansion of APTA 18 months before CASA first supposedly found out. Another single point that must raise concerns about the truthfulness or not of any representations that CASA first became fully aware as late as October 2018, when Mr Aleck acted promptly to close the business.

7. I met at least weekly with CASA personnel throughout the 8 years leading up to when CASA first supposedly found out about it, in October 2018, the topic of those meetings was based around exactly what we were doing.

CASA utilised a team of specialists referred to as a “Certificate Management Team” or CMT. Within that team was a CASA specialist on Flying School Operations, a specialist on Safety, and a specialist on Maintenance and Airworthiness. Each CASA Team, and in my case CMT2, had responsibility for a group of I estimate to be 20 flying schools. These Teams were the first contact with CASA. Throughout the decade that I operated my business I was in daily communication via telephone, email, face to face meetings, audits, safety meetings etc etc. with my CASA team.

The very point of the CMT was that they needed to “know what was going on”, as they very clearly did. For Mr Aleck to suggest that I maintained an eight-year professional relationship with my same CMT, and that they were not fully aware of the structure that I had adopted throughout eight of the 10 years of operating is just not plausible. That single point alone must raise serious doubts as to the assertions made by Ms Spence and Mr Aleck.

8. I invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars investing in upgrading and revalidating all systems and procedures and personnel throughout 2015, 2016, and early 2017 as I worked literally across a desk with 10 CASA personnel, and my CMT attending to 600 CASA specified criteria, and in conjunction with my management team and technical writer submitted thousands of pages of associated documentation throughout that period. There is no reason that I would invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in my business and not be open with CASA. It makes no sense at all. That single issue alone must raise concerns as to the truthfulness of representations made to the Ombudsman Office.

9. I have irrefutable evidence and confirmation from CASA that they received my proposed contracts two years before they claim they first became aware of my structure. The ONLY reason I would even have a contract was if I was operating in the structure that I was operating in. Providing CASA with those contracts 2 years prior would have alerted CASA to the structure that I was adopting.

10. CASA personnel, past and present have offered to tell the truth on the matter, although the Ombudsman is unable to access those personnel as the Ombudsman is restricted to communications with the Agency Representative only, being Mr Aleck. The Ministers office will be able to access these personnel, that the Ombudsman cannot. I can provide you with names and contact details provided they are afforded appropriate protections regarding ongoing employment within CASA.

I could go on and on and on, I really could. By now it should be unnecessary.

I am fully satisfied Mr Aleck has provided, and Ms Spence has facilitated, the provision of false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation regarding the date that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation. The following timeline clearly demonstrates the level of deception being propagated by Ms. Spence and Mr. Aleck, and must raise serious concerns at Ministerial level.

On the 12th April 2019, CASAs own Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) made the following finding.

“I don’t consider CASA treated APTA fairly when its approach changed on 23 October 2018. That’s because collectively as an organisation, CASA had an awareness of the APTA business model for a significant period of time prior to its compliance with the regulation being called into question. In changing its position so drastically, the circumstances were such that CASA’s actions weren’t fair, given APTA’s likely to have relied on CASA’s failure to highlight any concerns when conducting its operations and planning.

Importantly, on the 12th of April 2019 the CASA ICC has now identified that CASA was aware for a “significant period of time prior” to the 23rd of October of 2018 when Mr Aleck wrongfully declared my business unlawful.

I must draw attention to the integrity of the CASA ICC, Mr Hanton in making that finding. It is a very significant finding and speaks very much to his integrity and independence. Something that Mr Hanton, personally is acknowledged for throughout the industry, despite the structural challenges of his position.

glenb

3rd Feb 2023, 21:06

My position has always been that CASA was fully aware of the exact nature of my business model since they approved my first satellite base in Darwin, and had literally hundreds, if not thousands of opportunities to become fully aware through the following eight years that I built my business with full and formal CASA approval.

It is important to reiterate that Mr Aleck, CASAs Executive Manager for Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs was the sole decision maker in my matter, he is the single person that closed down my business. He did not consult with anyone, including the CASA Board. He acted alone, and his decision making was not subjected to any scrutiny or any independent external legal advice. I had no right of review or appeal. Ms Spence will be fully aware of that and be in a position to promptly confirm or deny that directly with the Ministers Office.

Unfortunately for me, Mr Aleck is also the “Agency Representative” for CASA. He is the sole individual that communicates on behalf of CASA with any Ombudsman investigation. The Ombudsman communicates only with Mr Aleck. Mr Aleck manages the flow of information/disinformation and interpretation of that information to the Ombudsman investigation.

It is possible, and must be considered, that if a person whose decision making is under investigation, is also the same sole individual responsible for provision of information to a subsequent investigation, that person may be tempted to provide false and misleading information, in order to cover up their misconduct, and most especially so if they were confident that they would not subjected to any organisational scrutiny.

My fair and reasonable presumption is that at any date after the 12th of April 2019 the “CASA position” would be that of their own CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner findings that in fact CASA was, to use the CASA ICCs words, “aware for a significant period of time prior”.

It is this finding that makes the matter so absurd. How could something that CASA knew about for many years, approved for many years, and audited over many years, suddenly become unlawful.

Concerningly, the Ombudsman wrote to me on July 21st, 2021, two years after the CASA ICC released the CASA finding and states the complete opposite to the CASA ICC finding, advising that they will be discontinuing the investigation and not be investigating my matter because Mr Aleck had provided the Ombudsman’s Office with; “a reasonable explanation of CASAs view that it was not fully aware of the specific nature of APTA’s operations until just prior to issuing the notice in October 2018.”

We have this concerning discrepancy, CASAs own ICC finds that in fact CASA knew for a significant time prior, yet the Ombudsman determines that the investigation will not be continuing because now, somehow CASA did not know for a significant period of time prior. The Ombudsman has arrived at this determination solely on advice provided by Mr Aleck, in his role as the Agency Representative for CASA.

This is absurd, CASAs own ICC makes a finding that CASA did know what I was doing yet subsequently, Mr Aleck, as the Agency representative for CASA convinces the Ombudsman Office to discontinue the investigation because apparently CASA now adopts the position that in fact didn’t become aware eight years prior, but they only became aware just prior to closing the business in October of 2018.

Surely that must raise concerns about the ethics and integrity of these CASA employees at Ministerial level. For Mr Aleck to purport to the Ombudsman Office that CASA first became aware of the structure that I had adopted only in October of 2018 must surely meet the threshold of misconduct.

Surely if CASAs own ICC finds that CASA knew of my operation for a significant period of time prior, that should be the official position presented to an Ombudsman investigation by the organisation being CASA, and not the complete opposite.

The single question that would fully resolve this matter.

If I could respectfully suggest to the Minister that the following question is put to CASA. A clear and concise response to this single question will immediately demonstrate the significant nature of the disinformation provided by CASA employees to the Ombudsman investigation.

Recall that Mr Aleck has led the Ombudsman Office to be of the view that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation, only in October 2018.

I claim that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of my operation for at least eight years prior, and CASA was afforded hundreds if not thousands of opportunities to become fully aware throughout those eight years before Mr Aleck falsely claims CASA first became fully aware.

By its very nature, there must be an occurrence that made CASA become aware. What is that occurrence, and most importantly what is the date that CASA concede that they first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation.

I have made multiple requests to have this date identified to me. Ms Spence steadfastly refuses to identify that date to me. It cannot be disputed that this is a fair and reasonable request. The only reason that Ms Spence would refuse to identify that date, is because a truthful response from CASA would expose this matter in its entirety.

For clarity.

If Mr Aleck/Ms Spence claim that CASA only first became aware of the exact nature of my business just prior to October 23rd 2018, yet I claim that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of my business over 8 years prior, then there is obviously a significant disparity, which is potentially indicative as to the level of deception being perpetrated by one Party or another.

CASA must have first become fully aware of the specific nature of my structure because of an occurrence. That may have been a comment, a meeting, documents, feedback, an approval. On some particular day because of some occurrence CASA must have first have become fully aware of the specific nature of my operation, and according to Mr Aleck that was just prior to the issuance of the notification on October 23rd 2018.

It would be reasonable that CASA advise the Ministers Office of the exact date and occurrence at which CASA concur that they first became fully aware of the specific nature of my structure.

The Ministers Office could also put the following question to the Ombudsman Office.

Has either Ms. Pip Spence as the CEO of CASA with expert knowledge on this matter, or Mr. Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, acting as the sole representative of CASA in communications with the Ombudsman, as part of that investigation, led the Ombudsman’s investigation to be of the view that the CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my business some time just prior to October 2018?

The expectation is that the date and event nominated by CASA would be a date and event just prior to October 23rd 2018.

I suggest to you that Ms Spence will have a strong preference not to nominate that date and occurrence, and will provide the Ministers Office a lengthy response as to why she cannot nominate the date and occurrence. In laymans terms, it would be the date and occurrence that CASA smacked itself in the forehead and said, “oops that’s what he’s doing.”

She will not provide the date and occurrence because by nominating the truthful date and occurrence when CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation, she will be presented with two options. Either,

· Nominate the truthful date and expose the entire matter or

· Deliberately mislead the Minister.

Why would CASA Executives choose to mislead the Ombudsman’s investigation as to the date that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation

It is essential that I address my perceived motivation for the conduct of Ms. Spence and Mr Aleck.

CASA closed me down because they determined that I was operating unlawfully. The Ombudsman subsequently found that I was not operating unlawfully.

CASA, and specifically Mr Aleck has made a substantial error.

My business was clearly not unlawful, and CASA had no basis to close it down, that has always been my view, and the Ombudsman findings in phase one support that contention very clearly. It was not unlawful.

Despite Ms Spences refusal to address this matter with me, I am fully satisfied that Ms Spence is fully aware that CASA acted unlawfully, and has known this throughout her tenure.

So it therefore becomes a central theme of how much did CASA really know, and for how long did CASA really know.

As impractical as it is, If CASA really had no idea of what I was doing for 8 years that would be indicative of gross systemic deficiencies within the regulator. Obviously, the levels of industry oversight would be dangerously deficient, and that alone would warrant significant internal review of procedures within CASA. If an Operator operated unlawfully for eight years without CASA becoming aware despite thousands of opportunities over the eight years, then the potential impact on safety of that deficiency in oversight would be alarming.

I’m not suggesting for one moment that the above scenario is what happened. That would be impossible.

What I am suggesting is that Mr Aleck acted unlawfully and vindictively, and his malice was targeted specifically towards, me and my family business.

I’m suggesting that CASA did know of the exact structure of my business for many years. What happened was Mr Aleck saw an opportunity to potentially manipulate the legislation and abuse his significant power to bring harm to me personally. He has done it before to others. He has done for many years and continhes to operate unchecked within the organisation which further empowers his misconduct.

Mr Alecks mistake was simply an error of judgement. He believed that he would get away with it, as he nearly has again. This time however his victim has pursued justice for four years and will continue to do so.

As soon as CASA became aware that they had erred, good intent should have prevailed, and well-intentioned discussion could have resolved this entire matter many years ago. Well intentioned discussion all those years ago would have eliminated, or at least significantly reduced the trauma and harm caused. Sadly, what followed was a culture of bullying, intimidation, and coverup that causes only greater trauma, as it most certainly has.

The Ombudsman did also go on in Phase one of the investigation to state that this error by CASA had the potential to cause detriment to me, and others as it most clearly has. There is no doubt in my mind, and as the person most affected, CASAs attempt to cover up this matter over the last four years have only compounded that harm.

Of significant concern is just how involved CASA was in the design and approval of that system that Mr Aleck determined to be unlawful in October 2018.

This is a significant matter. The reason being. Mr Aleck has led the Ombudsman Office to be of the view that CASA first became fully aware of my structure in the weeks prior to October 2018.

It is a ludicrous proposition that Mr Aleck has put to the Ombudsman’s Office. The truth is that CASA was fully aware of the structure that I had adopted for eight years, and that can easily be proven. It is a black and white matter.

Introduction of Witness to the Minister.

Dear Minister, I have been extremely reluctant to involve anybody else in this matter to date. Numerous witnesses, experts, current CASA employees, and ex CASA employees have contacted me over the last four years, offering to tell the truth on this matter.

I have avoided accepting any of those offers, because I am acutely aware of how vindictively some CASA employees can act, and of the significant power that they wield.

After 4 years, and being fully satisfied that both Ms Spence, and Mr Aleck have committed the offence of misfeasance in public office, and of providing false and misleading advice to an investigation, and being fully satisfied that those same individuals are abusing their significant power and authority to cover up this matter, I have made the decision from today, to begin accepting those offers, and the first “witness” that I am calling on is Mr XXXXXX. Mr XXXXX would be considered a Subject Matter Expert as to when CASA first became aware of the exact nature of the structure that I had adopted.

You will recall that Mr Aleck and Ms Spence claim that date to be “just prior to October 2018” when CASA wrongfully determined my business to be illegal.

I have attached a sampling of emails almost 2 ½ years before Ms Spence and Mr Aleck claim that CASA first became aware of the structure. These emails should leave your office in no doubt that the Ombudsman Office has been misled, and CASA was at least fully aware of the structure many years prior.

The emails that will promptly identify the substantive level of disinformation can be accessed via Appendix Six.

· Email 20th June 2016 To CASA addressing the concept of an alliance of flight training organisations.

· Email 21 June 2016 To CASA advising my timeline for expanding operations and specifically visiting flying schools. In that correspondence I actually request that someone from CASA meet with me and potentially interested Members.

· Email 23rd June 2016. I attached and submitted a detailed proposal of the concept to CASA by way of an attachment to this email.

· Email 13 July 2016, I contact CASA to advise that I have got significant interest, and intend to add a further base, I also advise that it is likely we will be adding another base.

· Email 1st August 2016 Advising CASA that I am officially changing the name of the business from MFT to APTA to more accurately reflect what APTA is actually about i.e. a “collaborative approach’ between the schools that will be APTA Members.

· Email August 1st 2016 from CASA advising that they will meet with me 4 days later at Moorabbin Airport to discuss the details. The feedback from the meeting four days later was highly supportive and encouraging.

· Email 26th April 2017, Emails arranging for the CASA Regional Manager to come to the APTA Head Office to present our Approvals as a revalidated Part 141/142 Organisation approximately 4 months before the deadline of September 1st 2017 ( shortly after CASA will postpone this Transition date 12 months to September 1st 2018 due to the low uptake of flying schools that will be able to complete the process in time). Extensive conversations about APTA left no doubt in the mind of the attending CASA personnel of what APTA was all about.

· Email 7 October 2017, being one year prior to CASAs reversal of APTA in which I refer to my meeting in Canberra with Mr Graeme Crawford on 18th January 2017. This email refers to Mr Crawford querying me about the APTA project.

· Email 26 April 2017 from the CASA Executive Manager of the Aviation Group, and second in charge of CASA at the time, Mr Graeme Crawford congratulating me and my APTA team.

I claim that that CASA was aware for 8 years, prior to the date that they have led the Ombudsman to believe, and if they weren’t, they most certainly became aware at least 2 ½ years prior to the date that Ms Spence and Mr Aleck falsely assert. It is this specific matter that the witness, Mr Derek Fox can attest to.

Please be assured that there are dozens of witnesses, and all prepared to tell the truth on this matter. My intention is to use a “drip feed” approach and introduce them to you one at a time, to minimise the number of people exposed to any potential vindictive action from a CASA employee.

My hope is that you will be compelled to act before I have exposed too many individuals, to too much potential harm.

Regarding Mr XXXXX as a witness,

Approximately 18 months to 2 years ago, I bumped into an ex-CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) by the name of Mr XXXXX.

Mr XXXXX has impeccable credentials with many years in the Airforce as a Pilot, and many years’ experience operating at the most senior level of some of the World’s leading airlines. I am told anecdotally that he was also a shortlisted candidate for the position of the CEO of CASA.

At our chance meeting at that regional petrol station, Mr XXXXX offered to come forward and tell the truth on this matter if that was required of him. Despite my reluctance to do so to date, I have now decided to accept his offer to tell the truth on this matter, and I am making an approach to him.

This is the first contact with him since our chance encounter over 18 months ago. I acknowledge that his situation may have changed, but in the following correspondence I am proceeding on the assumption that his offer to tell the truth still stands. Obviously, I will fully respect his position if the passage of time has affected that offer, and he would prefer to withdraw his offer.

Mr XXXXX is receiving this entire body correspondence for the first time, and he is receiving it at the same time as the Ministers Office. He has absolutely no prior expectation of receiving this correspondence. My intention is to maintain the integrity of the process.

Mr XXXXX was allocated to my APTA project over 2 years before Mr Aleck and Ms Spence have led the Ombudsman to believe that CASA first became aware of the structure of my organisation. He was one of the ten CASA employees that worked across a desk from me and my management team as my family invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars redesigning every system and procedure to fully comply with the new legislation.

Every single procedure was designed exactly for the purpose of providing a single authorisation, multi base multi entity approach to flight training. Every procedure was assessed by CASA against those criteria.

My point being that CASA was fully aware of the exact nature of my organisation for many years before October 2018 as Mr Aleck falsely claims.

My initial correspondence to Mr XXXXX follows

Dear Mr XXXXX,

I apologise that this is my initial contact with you.

The only contact I have had with you since CASA closed my business down in October of 2018, was that chance encounter at a regional petrol station, and I estimate that was over 18 months ago.

At that encounter, despite you having left the employ of CASA, you advised me that you would be prepared to tell the truth, and that you “retained extraneous notes on the matter”.

I am sorry to put you “on the spot”, and I do acknowledge that I have done that. I hope you understand that it is essential that I maintain the integrity of the process. I did not want to establish contact with you prior, to avoid any suggestion of collusion.

You extended an offer at that chance encounter, to come forward and simply tell the truth on this matter. The passage of time has been substantial, and I understand that circumstances may have changed.

I am writing to you as one of the CASA employees that was heavily involved in the revalidation of APTA from mid-2016, through to its formal approval in April of 2017.

My best recollection is that you were allocated to the APTA project, after I had met with the then second in charge of CASA, Mr Graeme Crawford. At that meeting with Mr Crawford, I had raised my concerns about lack of resources within CASA, and how we were waiting for CASA to catch up with our backlog of workload held up within CASA. Mr Crawford gave me a commitment, that CASA would direct more resources to my Project and you were tasked to the Project. That Project being the APTA Project.

Whilst I do not expect you to have detailed knowledge of my matter after you left the employ of CASA, you are aware that CASA closed my business down approximately four years ago. A Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation was initiated, and in phase one of that investigation found that CASA had erred and what I was doing was not illegal.

I believe that what happened was that once CASA realised they had no lawful basis to close my business down, CASA was in a position where they had to admit error or attempt to cover up this matter, and Mr Aleck opted for the latter.

From my perspective, the entire matter is quite absurd. I built that exact business from the ground up in conjunction with a team of CASA personnel over a 2 year period, of which you were a member of that team. CASA fully revalidated this structure in April 2017 after I had invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars to gain to meet all CASA requirements.

Mr Aleck claims that CASA didn’t first become aware of the structure until October 2018. I am of the opinion that CASA is trying to mislead the Ombudsman into believing that CASA didn’t know what I was doing, because if the truth was identified it would raise the question, “if CASA knew what I was doing for eight years, or at least the 2 ½ that you can you can attest to, and fully approved my operation, what made CASA change their mind?

The purpose of this letter to you and the intended outcome.

Can I respectfully call on you to submit one piece of correspondence to the Minster and the CASA Board.

Can I ask that you simply tell the truth on this matter. Can I ask that you specifically address the likelihood that CASA first became fully aware of my structure in October 2018, considering that it was revalidated by CASA in April of 2017, and you were heavily involved in that revalidation process in the years leading up to that revalidation as one.

That correspondence would be addressed to both the Minister (insert email address) and the CASA Board, and specifically the CEO (insert email address)

I reiterate that I will respect your decision if you choose not to be involved in this matter. My allegations are substantial i.e. misfeasance in public office and misleading a commonwealth investigation. With regards to Ms. Spence, I am fully satisfied that Ms Spence has facoilitated that misconduct.

Your witness statement would be critical to this entire matter and may have significant ramifications with CASA, I appreciate that you need to consider your options carefully.

Thankyou in anticipation of your assistance.

Glen Buckley

Sunfish

4th Feb 2023, 02:23

As the unfolding evidence in the Royal Commission into Robo - Debt demonstrates, these people couldn't care less about what you think or what stakeholders think but their worst characteristic is that they cannot be trusted.

The primary conclusion of the Forsyth review, is that AsA, CASA and ATSB are not trusted by industry.

The treatment of Glen Buckley and others (for example the color blind pilot community) indicates that nothing has changed. Without trust, all the Hubs and information campaigns are worthless.

Welcome to the Third World. The long term trajectory of Australian Aviation, all of it, is now predictable.

Lead Balloon

4th Feb 2023, 03:28

Having watched the hearings of the Robodebt Royal Commission so far, I have to agree with Sunfish. Google "Kathryn Campbell $900,000". The whole edifice is rotten at the top.

MagnumPI

8th Feb 2023, 09:38

Hi Glen,

I have been following your saga since the start. I've never met you, but I have been barracking for you in your quest for justice. I hope you're doing well.

As Lead and others have pointed out, the complete lack of integrity within senior ranks of the Public Service is alarming. Observing snippets of the 'Robodebt' hearings and watching these very senior bureaucrats and elected officials deny any real accountability for a monumental ****-up that drove some victims to the point of suicide makes me angry.

I digress. Back to you and your dogged pursuit of those in CASA who made decisions that led to the destruction of your business.

One of the things that I think your campaign would benefit from is a website that clearly summarises the chronology of what happened, articulates your major points, and has all the supporting material archived and available. This thread - with thousands of replies and over a million views - no doubt continues to be important, but it is difficult to navigate and is also largely unmoderated. Not all replies have bolstered your case.

It's also worth remembering that bulletin boards are dying. There's a reason this website looks like something from the early 2000s, because it is. There's a very real risk that the owners of this board may respond to a legal threat by removing the thread, and then you're pretty much cooked. After all, they're not necessarily on your side - and this website is just one in a portfolio of mishmash bulletin boards that they use to flog advertising - that's it.

My fear is that they are trying to label you as a sort of vexatious litigant. A crazy, or a nut whose correspondence can be wholly disregarded. This thread does read like a stream of consciousness, and that may not actually help your campaign.

A domain can be purchased for < $10 a year. Hosting is also very cheap. Wordpress (or similar) is available free and easily set up. I am sure that in amongst the thousands of replies and over a million views there'd be a web dev who could help you set this up and even get a nice free theme installed for you to get it looking fancy. From there, it would then simply be a case of adding content DIY, which is very straightforward to do through a WYSIWYG editor.

Once the website is done, you could also ramp up the social media pressure. I'm no PR Manager or expert in this field, but I do know that politicians (and, by extension, the senior bureaucrats they appoint) are very wary of a social media campaign.

tossbag

9th Feb 2023, 08:48

Mate, I don't know 100% but the owners of this board must have made a decision about Glen, his claims and whether Glen has agreed to have his details released in the event of CASA coming after him......

There's a very good reason why CASA, and anyone named by Glen is not coming after him. Have a think about it.

I hope, as most people do, that Glen's strategy works here.

There are quite a few people posting here that know exactly what happened. And they will dust off their suits to make the trip to whatever court this ends up in.

Egos being egos should see the good thing happen.

glenb

11th Feb 2023, 18:20

Global Aviator,

I didn't catch a single fish I'm sheepishly proud to say. I've been a long-time camper chugging around the bush in my 50-year-old 4wd, with the swag on the top. I probably look somewhat like i would be a member of the Hunters, Shooters and Fishers party. Far from it.

Whilst away i bumped into 2 rather wasted fellas, who caught a fish. The dehooking was rather messy to put it mildly., and the fish was quite small. The eventual decision was made to release the fish, and "let it go".

My connotation of "let it go", is somewhat akin to "set it free", a somewhat uplifting experience.

I watched this young rainbow trout, half swim, half float with its innards somewhat like a teenager's sock coming out of the washing machine. That is to say, inside out.

Just prior to getting sucked downstream i did see it do a sort of flick as though it was trying to communicate something, which i interpreted as "cheers fellas nice bumping into you, have a nice day" and off he or she went to continue enjoying its youth with a hook sitting nicely inside the inverted stomach.

IInstead, I elected to practice casting and dealing with a rather nasty "birds' nest?", which became a bit frustrating, and i put the rod aside rather than stress myself. It was relaxing but I will be back. I'm finishing up my current employment in a couple of weeks and heading off solo camping for a week, with some revised fishing equipment including a proper "dehooked" and the knowledge of how to use it properly.

Not quite sure what I'll be up to after that.

I did also buy a pack of "barbless" hooks. I said, "are these any good", his response, "I've never used them, never would".

I will let you know how my next trip goes, but I will take supplies as though i don't catch a fish.

What i did get to have was a sensational detox, and breaking the laptop was probably a blessing. I sat for extended periods in what was initially freezing water flowing rapidly over rocks, with a backdrop of steep mountains, it was truly beautiful. The sounds of the water falling over the rocks was very therapeutic. At night i had the swag set up watching the campfire with the sounds of the river in the background. Uhhhhhhh

glenb

11th Feb 2023, 19:00

Toss Bag, appreciate the gesture on the GoFundMe. Still an option but not until i put that option to the CASA Board i.e., a clear direction as to whether it is communicate or litigate.

Regarding this bulletin board and accepting my posts. I agree. I am very appreciative of the forum. At risk of being a bit dramatic, some years ago I was in a pretty bad place over all of this, because I had impacted on so many. At that time, it was this forum that got me over the line. Having never had any mental trauma previously, and as anyone that suffers depression or anxiety knows, that RUOK cliche is spot on.

Expressions of support and empathy carry a lot of weight. I know the forum isn't too concerned about those aspects of it, but nevertheless, it's important to me personally, and I can attest to it.

I agree, Pprune most likely has considered this forum, and at this stage decide that it is permitted.

CASA have never asked me to stop or made any attempt to silence me. Without sounding too cocky, I never thought they would. If they took me to the Court, they would get to fund the case which would expose the misconduct. Similarly, if CASA were to approach PPrune, PPrune may only be compelled to act if a legal threat was made by CASA. I doubt that CASA would do that. It would only draw attention to the matter.

Consider this, Mr Aleck earns several hundred thousand dollars a year, and has done for many years. He is an older gentleman in what would be considered anyone's latter years. Its is highly likely that he is working for the enormous personal satisfaction that the job brings him rather than dire financial necessity. The reasonable assumption would be that he could comfortably retire at any stage.

If i was in his position, and these allegations were raised by someone against me, I would robustly defend those allegations. If my defense of those allegations was hamstrung by my employment, and I had no economic necessity to stay in that employment, I would leave it. I would then use two weeks of my significant salary to initiate legal action.

Assuming my moral compass didn't point me the right way, I might decide to hang around for another 5 years or so, earn another $1,500,000 to $2,000,000, and get another few hundred thousand into the Super for a rainy day, besides, if you love the job and enjoy it so much, why not stay on. Job satisfaction is very important.

I assume also that PPrune has considered the significance of the matter. If my allegations were found to true, there is the potential to impact on the safety of aviation. It is also a public interest matter. Absolutely everything i have said on here is the truth, and I accept absolute and total liability for every single statement that i have made on here.

Im heading off to Fat Daddys breakfast club, cheers folk

glenb

11th Feb 2023, 19:11

Sunfish, interesting you draw on SOAR. It will be in upcoming correspondence. This will be something that I can attend to in great detail. The PERSON behind the operation did so under my AOC with CASA knowledge and approval initially. Whilst not a direct employee, he did operate under my AOC.

In fact the CASA approved SOAR manuals were predominantly APTA manuals with striking similarities with the exception of Headers and footers, and some editing slips where MFT or APTA remained.

Whilst that individual was operating from my building, he did try and convince me to adapt my business model to his intended business model. Something that had no appeal to me, and It was immediately shut down, which led to him going his own way, and SOAR was born.

This is something I can speak to with detailed knowledge and will do so, soon. Cheers Glen

Bend alot

5th Mar 2023, 07:35

Thanks for taking my call, enjoy the evening with your wonderful wife.

aroa

5th Mar 2023, 21:28

From my dealings with Dr Discrepancy aka J Aleck I believe he stays in CAsA because being such a legal wizard, the framework of the establishment would fall apart if he wasn’t there to continually hold it together with his vast knowledge.
He,s one of those people with the “I’m indispensable “mindset.
And what a fabulously rewarding trough it is.
Sad thing is if he popped his clogs tomorrow CAsA and the world would just roll on as always.

havick

1st Apr 2023, 22:55

Hi Glen, hope you’re doing well.

any updates at all since your last correspondence?

glenb

3rd Apr 2023, 21:40

Good Morning Magnum,
Thanks for the feedback, and sorry for the delay in responding. Regarding a website, i take on board what you say, and certainly a consideration going forward. One thing that I will say about PPrune is that i very much value the interactive nature of it and the feedback that i get from people. Something that could get lost if I was to set up a website. The other concern that i have is that people may not visit it, as its a single purpose destination unlike Pprune where people go to to look at a range of topics. Saying that i do agree and i think that will be the next logical step.

To be transparent, I have had my "one flew over the cuckoo's nest moment", and i am currently in a psychiatric facility, after a family intervention. The cumulative toll of this over the last four years finally caught up with me, and here I am. Its actually been very good for me, and i anticipate being out in two to three weeks, ready to dust myself off and move forward. First thing is to get myself into a new job.
appreciate you following the story, and sticking by my side. Cheers and thanks Glen.

glenb

3rd Apr 2023, 23:13

As you may recall for those that have been folowing prior to the last election we had Liberal MP, Ms Gladys Liu who refused to even meet with me during her tenure. Prior to the election i spoke to the Labor Candidate Ms carina Garland who assured me that the would assist me if elected. I received this rather brief correspondence from her office the other day.

If there was any doubt in my mind about the importance of independent representatives, it has been dispelled.Hi Glen,

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you.

As agreed, we have raised your case directly with Minister King’s office and they have advised that we are unable to assist further with this matter.

I’m sorry I don’t have better news.

Kind regards,

Jarrod Panther

Office of Dr Carina Garland MP

Federal Member for Chisholm

MagnumPI

4th Apr 2023, 00:44

Hi Glen,

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you.

As agreed, we have raised your case directly with Minister King’s office and they have advised that we are unable to assist further with this matter.

I’m sorry I don’t have better news.

Kind regards,

Jarrod Panther

Office of Dr Carina Garland MP

Federal Member for Chisholm

That's an outrageous reply from one of her staffers.

Do I take it that they are unwilling to assist you further in any way?

Glen, I'm glad to hear that you are getting help, but saddened that this saga has driven you to this point.

aroa

4th Apr 2023, 01:47

Glen, Sorry to hear were you are at, and I’m sure the outcome will be extra positive
Getting totally stressed out mentally doesn’t do your physical condition any good either and when your are run down to the max that’s when one becomes vulnerable to infections and your immunity is under strain.
I speak for experience here, currently still unwell. SO as I found out too late a good physical condition is imperative for mind AND body.
Go well.

Responses from Pollywafflers…had the same. Not worth a cracker.

Sunfish

4th Apr 2023, 05:19

we are unable to assist further with this matter.

That is because CASA has been set up at arms length from Government. It was done this way to shield the Government of the day from any liability for air accidents; We have an independent Reserve Bank for exactly the same reason; to shield the Government from peoples rage over interest rate increases. The Minister has only marginal involvement through her statement of expectations.

It's called a Faustian Bargain*

Successive Governments are protected from aviation liability by CASA in return for allowing CASA to rape the aviation industry at will.

I hope Glen Buckley makes a full recovery. He says, I think, that he is currently in a psychiatric ward courtesy of CASA. This apparently also explains the non appearance of AOPAs Tuesday youtube broadcast.

*Faustian bargain," a deal with the devil trading a soul for diabolical powers; eg. eternal youth.

Global Aviator

4th Apr 2023, 06:04

AND THIS IS HOW IT goes, the powers that be don't give a fcuk about Glen, the people he thinks he's let down, or anyone. They just want to push him until well....... They will think they have succeeded.

I for one will start by throwing a measly $100 into a gofundme campaign for Glen, be it for survival or to put to a solicitor. I have no idea how they work but know how to click the buttons to donate.

This really is outrageous.

MagnumPI

5th Apr 2023, 03:42

Meanwhile, this just in - more vomit-inducing rubbish from the top mandarin at CASA:

Director of Aviation Safety, Pip Spence

Safety is CASA's key objective but it depends on much more than simply being a regulator.

We're keenly aware that every passenger who boards an aircraft in Australia expects their safety authority and industry to work together to ensure they safely reach their destination.

It's a sector-wide responsibility that would get nowhere without the cooperation and actions of individuals, aviation operators and the companies that support them.

That's why we recently reviewed and endorsed the regulatory philosophy that guides us in making our decisions and, we hope, supports you.

That philosophy commits us to approaching our regulatory functions consultatively and collaboratively while taking into account relevant considerations such as cost.

It also requires us to communicate meaningfully with stakeholders, build trust and respect and fairly balance the need for consistency with flexibility.

As a safety authority, there are occasions when we need to take legitimate action against people flouting the rules.

When this happens, our regulatory philosophy tells us to employ a rational 'just culture', proportionality and discretion as well as natural justice and fairness in exercising our powers.

Having a regulatory philosophy is a good start but we also need to be seen to be applying it.

A practical example of the regulatory philosophy in action is our General Aviation Workplan (https://updates.communication.casa.gov.au/link/id/zzzz642cebb7c7264801Pzzzz5f2f722112ca5272/page.html) aimed at reducing the regulatory burden on the general aviation sector and some of the specific initiatives we are working to.

Where was just culture, proportionality, discretion, natural justice, and fairness applied in Glen's case?

Clinton McKenzie

5th Apr 2023, 03:57

There was no Youtube broadcast from AOPA last night (Tuesday 4 April) because Ben Morgan and I were in Mudgee at an aerodrome user's meeting with the aerodrome operator (the local Council).

However, lots of work has continued, in the background, on the arrangements for broadcasts (plural) that relate to Glen's plight. I expect Ben will make an announcement later today about the broadcast planned for next Tuesday (11 April).

glenb

9th Apr 2023, 00:02

An upcoming Facebook conference that should prove very revealing

Upcoming Facebook conference by AOPA

Sunfish

9th Apr 2023, 15:03

Glen, $10 to your nominated charity if this tell - all, as advertised, is streamed.

I'm willing to bet that it will be suppressed either by injunction, or if I heard right that the person is serving RAAF, than by a direct order from above to shut up quoting military law.

I hope I lose this bet.

mcoates

9th Apr 2023, 21:53

aroa

10th Apr 2023, 06:38

Port #2548 MagnumP1.. Upchuck from Ms Spence. Obviously been taking lesson from Dr Discrepancy.
What load of tosh ! In the real world application of all those lovely motherhood statements disappear like they were never made.

Sunfish

11th Apr 2023, 13:10

Bugger. looks like I won my bet.

Lets see:
-serving RAAF - conduct prejudicial etc.
- former CASA - confidentiality clauses
- then defamation.

Thirsty

11th Apr 2023, 15:52

Hi Glen,
I've watched with horror and frustration, and seen the dramatic effect it has had on your livelihood and health to be the one with your finger stuck in the dike as the raging seas pound away. Not daring to get involved as I don't know the full details of your matter. I would venture to say that you haven't drilled down to the fine details either, being too close to the action be able to put it into writing to cover all the aspects.

There is a glimmer of hope I can offer you, that may strike firmly at this grave injustice that hasn't been remedied.

Will you join the top of the queue for a mention at the proposed National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) about to start operating in Australia? See https://www.ag.gov.au/integrity/national-anti-corruption-commission - it has been a long time coming, and while it may not be the best that is available, at least something has finally been agreed by the politicians.

They will be keen to show they have teeth, and if there is a political witch-hunt to be made out, they will possibly take the ball and run far with it. I must comment cynically, as with the Robodebt Royal Commission, if the current government can score political mileage from it, rest assured they will support your case for their own ends.

Understandably, the incumbent politician Catherine King will possibly not have any involvement in what has happened in the past, and will not be wise to get involved, so will be able to steer clear of getting caught in the backlash when the questions start to fly. Previous ministers from the other party would probably be quaking in their boots once called. Rest assured the public servants and qangos will all develop SEVERE amnesia! Be sure the paper trail is carefully preserved and consistent to combat this.

I would recommend you have professional legal help to navigate your submission however. I would suggest you are out of your depth here if you continue to fly solo. A GoFundMe campaign may be one way of ensuring enough funds are raised to start the ball rolling.

You should also have the media prepped. Manufactured outrage in social media eventually got the Robodebt Royal Commission rolling.

I can advise from observation over many years in the hallowed halls of our federal parliament that Inquiries and Royal Commissions are never announced unless the outcomes are known beforehand, and the scapegoats carefully identified, and their foreign postings to cushy overseas jobs pre-determined. In your case a Royal Commission may not be necessary, as the scapegoats will be clearly identified in the pages of these forums, and submissions your legal representative will put forward on your behalf.

I cannot emphasise strongly enough that you definitely need professional assistance, as you will be pitted against the public service, advised by the Attorney General, and their lawyers. I'm sorry to be blunt, but the sad history documented in these forums clearly shows you are out of your depth against these faceless qangos. You need to hit them hard the first time so they don't have time to again draw their wagons into a circle.

Plan your strategy well, and be bold!

You may find a keen young lawyer that would be willing to work pro bono (free) as a stepping stone to their fame and fortune in taking your case on.

Watch the Australian movie 'The Castle' for ideas. [You want Lawrence Hammill, not Dennis Denuto helping you!]

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fUL75TeNrI - the ninety minutes of deep humour masking a very serious subject of truth and fundamental rights may brighten up your day considerably. It is nearly compulsory viewing for legal students in Australia, and will possibly clarify your mind in what direction to take. [Fun fact: the house near YMEN that was part of the movie is sadly recently gone up country, but you can see the street just over the fence]

Best of luck with it, and I hope your health issues are temporary and fully reversible.

Thirsty

11th Apr 2023, 16:00

Suggestion: Carefully take snapshots of the entire contents of this thread, regularly, as the takedown injunction to the hoster will be unannounced, swift and bulletproof.

mcoates

12th Apr 2023, 03:09

Bugger. looks like I won my bet.

Lets see:
-serving RAAF - conduct prejudicial etc.
- former CASA - confidentiality clauses
- then defamation.

Does this mean we are not getting the "Tell-All" update as mentioned in the video by Mr. Morgan ?

Sunfish

12th Apr 2023, 03:46

Wish I knew. As has been pointed out, it's not a good idea to telegraph all your punches and you should make sure an offshore (outside Australian jurisdiction) third party has copies of the story, if Mr, Morgan gets "warm" and actually alarms CASA, they can bankrupt AOPA via legal fees without raising a sweat,

Squawk7700

12th Apr 2023, 03:53

mcoates

12th Apr 2023, 04:12

So basically you have no idea and it’s still going ahead or did someone post something about it elsewhere such as Ben?

this is what confused me also, I was waiting for an update, as in, the next part of the story but then comments were made that it wasn't going to happen and somebody won their bet that it wasn't going to happen. This makes me believe it is not going to happen from the outside looking in but I know there is significant interest in what is going on here and a resolution to Glen's issues. This is why I originally asked if it had been shut down after those comments came through ?

Sunfish

12th Apr 2023, 09:56

Dunno. I was under the impression that Tuesday night was AOPA night. Disappointed as a result. There is power and momentum in developing a regular weekly broadcast because people get used to it and make time to listen.

Flaming galah

12th Apr 2023, 22:42

Clinton said it was scheduled for Tuesday 11 April. Ben said in the teaser that the time will be posted over the weekend. Since then the silence from AOPA has been deafening. Though I’m sure it will go ahead and that we will be updated today.

Sunfish

13th Apr 2023, 00:40

Suggestion: Carefully take snapshots of the entire contents of this thread, regularly, as the takedown injunction to the hoster will be unannounced, swift and bulletproof.

go to he pacific.

hit archive

page 6, thread 1347

11 page images to save.

glenb

13th Apr 2023, 08:23

Although I am not aware of the details, I believe that Sunfish could slide that $10 donation that he offered back into the wallet for now. A disappointing turn of events for the time being. My hope is that I will be proceeding without that witness at this stage, although I am awaiting confirmation from AOPA, Cheers. Glen.

glenb

13th Apr 2023, 08:46

Sitting here in my room with Netflix and tried to access The castle. Sadly its not on Netflix, so will be essential watching soon after i am allowed back home over coming weeks.

Regarding your suggestions of images of the pages, I'm on to it. Cheers.

Regarding the NACC, I have reviewed the website, and be assured I will be making every effort to have this matter raised at it, but I have no doubt that the Minister will do everything within her power to stop that happening.

Thanks so much for your involvement and suggestions. Cheers. Glen.

Sunfish

13th Apr 2023, 15:32

Someone please tell me that AOPA hasn't crashed because the sudden silence is deafening.

The punishment for not leaving the public service with an honourable line of retreat is "freezing out". Your phone calls are unanswered. Invitations dry up. You are now outside the big tent and they no longer care.

I am getting the distinct impression that we may have a Minister eager to demonstrate her green credentials by gutting what is left of GA and RAA by encouraging CASA to stand firm against calls for reform of any sort and generally doing her level best to prevent any expansion of the sector unless it is electric and very, very, quiet.

Forget about Avmed changes, 760kg., owner maintenance, privaatisation. access to controlled airspace and so on.

glenb

15th Apr 2023, 00:58

Dear Ombudsman's Office,

In your correspondence dated 8th February, the correspondence stated "Part of your complaint was that you believed APTA was treated unfairly and differently to other Flight Training Organisations (FTO’s). You told us that there are other FTO’s operating under the umbrella of a third-party AOC. At the conclusion of my review, I asked questions of CASA about this issue as part of my further inquiries for the purpose of obtaining assurance APTA wasn’t treated unfairly. "

As you are aware, I have claimed that CASA has misled the Ombudsman's office on five separate issues. In this correspondence, I would like to address only the issue mentioned above.

I think that this matter is perhaps the single most important matter that needs to be resolved in my mind.

As you are aware, and drawing on my 25 years experience in the industry, there is no doubt that this was completely standard industry practice, with formal CASA approval. I provided you numerous examples including the fact that both Ballarat aero Club and Latrobe Valley Aero Club had operated under such an arrangement with other Operators up until the day before that they joined APTA. I provided another example that Moorabbin Flying Services had operated under the same arrangement with Moorabbin Aviation Services, and The Peninsula Aero Club has an ongoing CASA approved arrangement with the Latrobe Valley Aero Club. There are many more examples throughout Australia, although I will refer only to these in this correspondence.

I was concerned that a matter that should be so easy to confirm remains unconfirmed after more than 4 years of the ongoing investigation.

CASAs position was that it was never permitted and the initial correspondence from CASA in October 2018, confirmed CASAs position.

Please be assured that i am not asking for the Ombudsman Office to reopen the investigation, and to be frank, I very much regret involving the Ombudsman's Office in this matter.

However, it is important that the Ombudsman's Office confirms whether CASA never permitted such an arrangement or whether CASA has always and on every occasion permitted such an arrangement.

May I respectfully request that once the Ombudsman's Office has ascertained whether the arrangement was never permitted or it was always permitted, could I respectfully request that you advise me of such.

Thankyou in anticipation of your assistance.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

glenb

15th Apr 2023, 01:00

Dear Ombudsmans office,

Could i respectfully request confirmation that you have received this request.

Cheers. Glen Buckley

glenb

15th Apr 2023, 01:02

To The Ombudsman's Office,

I am just following up on the previous email. Once the Ombudsman's Office has been able to determine whether CASA always or never permitted this arrangement, can you confirm that I would be entitled to that information, which is integral to this entire matter, and i would have expected to be fully clarified at the onset of the investigation over 4 years ago. This truly should be a black and white matter.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

glenb

15th Apr 2023, 01:04

For the attention of Catherine, Senior Complaints Officer. Ref 2019-713834

Good morning, for clarity I am the father of Glen Buckley from APTA, you will be aware that Glen has asked the Ombudsman to look into the actions of CASA which caused the closure of his flying School, APTA. Unfortunately, currently Glen is in hospital having had a breakdown due to the stress brought about by this situation and I am trying to clarify for myself a couple items which he has mentioned.
I realise that you have done a detailed investigation and do not wish to take up too much more of your time but hope you can clarify my questions below.

Glen recently advised me that in the course of the Ombudsman’s investigation you may only speak to and gather information from one nominated person from within CASA, can you please confirm that this statement is correct?

If you did speak to other personal within CASA I would assume that you spoke to the CMT 2 team who aided Glen and his team in the development of the “APTA” concept some year or two prior to October 2018. Can you please confirm if you spoke to the Team Leader of CMT2. I am personally aware that the development of the APTA concept was under discussion with CMT 2 a year or two before October 2018.

If you were limited to speaking to only one spokesperson, I fail to understand how the Ombudsman could make a fair and just investigation. It would be tantamount to two vehicles have a collision in front of a number of eye witnesses but the police can only take evidence from the drivers of the two vehicles involved, in this scenario there is an obvious likelihood of bias or incorrect information. I am sure you will agree that in this scenario for an even and fair investigation the police need to interview all the witnesses. Hence my the reason for questions above.

Appreciate your early response.

Kind Regards
Derek Buckley

glenb

19th Apr 2023, 07:16

It doesnt answer the question that i asked, but here is the Ombudsmans response.

Dear Mr Buckley,

I refer to your email dated 28 March 2023, in which you expressed dissatisfaction that Catherine’s decision letter did not express a view about whether APTA had been treated fairly compared to other Flight Training Organisations (FTO). Catherine is on leave from the Office but, in her absence, I reviewed her records of investigation. From these, I can see that she considered, and sought information from CASA about this issue and ultimately decided she could not confidently conclude who (within CASA) knew what about your business model at what time, to assess the way your business was treated compared to other similar organisations. I apologise that this conclusion was not explained more clearly in her letter of decision.

Noting this investigation is closed, our Office may file but not necessarily respond to any further correspondence you send on the matter.

Kind regards

Tom Rebetzke

A/g Assistant Director | Complex Investigations

ACT and Commonwealth Investigations

COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN

Global Aviator

19th Apr 2023, 08:14

Ombudsman office………..

WHAT A DISGRACE!

It appears to me that if you take on one gubmint department you are taking them all on.

Glen have you actually ever received a straight answer from anyone? This would drive anyone round the bend.

Clearly they want you to give up. Let’s hope ya don’t. GOFUNDME!

glenb

19th Apr 2023, 09:09

missy

19th Apr 2023, 13:55

My initial thougfht is 60 minutes, I would welcome any suggestions or direction, and the reasoning if anybody can assist. Cheers. Glen.
CRIKEY, I miss Ben Sandilands (RIP), 5½ years on and no-one has stepped into his shoes.

Sunfish

19th Apr 2023, 19:14

Appreciate the encouragement.

I am out from hospital, and feeling good, although perhaps not quite as good as i had hoped. Thanks for that, it landed at a good time. My next correspondence must be to a single piece of media. I want one well directed bullet before giving up and adopting what is called "radical acceptance", something I learnt recently. My initial thougfht is 60 minutes, I would welcome any suggestions or direction, and the reasoning if anybody can assist. Cheers. Glen.

Glen, I hope you are feeling better.

‘Some people in the media are aware of your situation, including very capable people. However the challenge for them is how to cut through your verbiage and turn your complaint into a thirty second sound bite that fits on less than one A4 page and that reaches out and grabs TV viewers by the short and curlies between ads for beer and on-line betting. You cannot do this yourself and there are other important stories to write and that is just dealing with your. side of the story let alone the wall of obfuscation put up by CASA and the Ombudsman.

In my opinion a Royal Commission is needed and it won’t happen. I know one or two retired judges who could cut through this case like a razor but they are already chairing other enquiries and are seriously over worked even in retirement.

‘’CASA and the Ombudsman are counting on the media being too busy to try and unravel your story and I think they are correct in that belief.,

So welcome to the third world. yesterday somebody told me their story about losing $400,000 thanks to CASA duplicity and I assume there are many others. Decisions appear and then evaporate for no reason. Why last year we were promised medical reform and RAA increased weight limits. Today? Nobody knows anything, “we need more consultation about the need for more consultations about consultation” “The regulations say this, well perhaps in your case they don’t”. “maybe you could get an exemption, maybe not, who knows? Who can tell?” “Manana - call me next week I might have some news”.

Doing business was better in Indonesia.

glenb

19th Apr 2023, 19:55

Appreciate your input and involvement. Seems your sleeping patterns are disrupted as much as mine. Good to see you up and about early and not wasting the day.

fury308

26th Apr 2023, 23:54

G’day Glen,

I don’t know you, but it seems we are about the same age, so there’s some common ground! I don’t have a dog in this fight, but wanted to send a message of support.

I’m somewhat concerned about your health and the toll this fight is taking on you and no doubt your family - so my question is - after I see that you recently mentioned the idea of giving up, why don’t you take the advice of so many here and lawyer up instead? Use the go fund me account to get started.

I say this because it seems to me that you are indeed a principled and decent person who, even if were guilty of what CASA suggest, has been unfairly treated in the extreme - that is, the punishment doesn’t fit the crime (if there were a crime).

It is admirable that you wish to pursue this fight in a gentlemanly way and give the people in power a chance to do the right thing - my opinion is, they won’t! They haven’t yet and they will not.

You have lost so much, to get to this point where you’re about to give in - without actually trying to go down the legal path, using a professional. So is it time to lawyer up? Let someone else do the heavy lifting.

The recent shutdown of the AOPA interview I thought was rather telling, if your opponents had nothing to fear, they’d have nothing to hide.

Could or should the focus of this thread change from fighting this as you have been, to; how to fight it using a professional in this field? Asking again from scratch, for the smart contributors to provide some options such as, media coverage, retired judges, witnesses, subpoenas or whatever else will get traction and then, have a lawyer do it. Perhaps a starting point could be to hire Lead Balloon for a few hours? LB is already familiar with the complexities of this case and could possibly come up with a legal recommendation of how to get focused on a path to force this matter to a conclusion. (sorry LB, I’m suggesting you and/or anyone else, as a starting point, that has the legal nous to give this matter the direction it needs)

For the record, I and I’m sure many others are always hopeful when you have posted previously because we revel in “the chance” that the next thing you do might just be it, but you’re running out of energy and willpower and rightly so after all you’ve been through.

Importantly, no disrespect here whatsoever when I use the words give up, give in, use a professional or change focus etc . Your persistence and effort to fight the way you have are inspirational and show clearly the decent person you are - if the opponents wish to fight in the mud, you generally need to join them - get a good lawyer.

I sincerely wish you all the best regardless of which way you go, but you’ve already paid a very high price to decide to walk now without having tried the one approach that may work?

…and I will contribute to the go fund me account, could somebody point me in the right direction please?

As an add on, I’d like to express my gratitude to the many contributors here who have no doubt spent lots of time and effort on various aspects of this matter - I can’t name everyone but Lead Balloon, Sunfish, Sandy Reith to name but a few…there are many others.

fury…

LAME2

27th Apr 2023, 00:50

I agree with fury. It’s time to take the next step.

vne165

27th Apr 2023, 01:31

Standing by to contribute if you decide to go get 'em Glen.
If you decide to, take the gloves off mate.

Valdiviano

27th Apr 2023, 06:11

I will contribute, you decide how to use it, fight them or a bit of wellbeing for you and family.

tossbag

27th Apr 2023, 11:05

Yes Glen, we're waiting to contribute. And I personally don't care how you use it either.

Bend alot

27th Apr 2023, 19:46

I'm in.

1746

28th Apr 2023, 02:54

I'm in!

Sandy Reith

1st May 2023, 05:36

Glen has been fighting for us all, I’m in too, no problem and in for a substantial amount as I’m sure many of us will gladly contribute because wrong should not stand, it’s our democracy and freedoms which are dependent on justice.

A substantial fighting fund will not only allow Glen to engage a legal representative but also may gain the attention of media and politicians.

There’s no doubt that Glen has been treated unjustly in an appalling manner by an out of control bureaucracy. Glen’s attempts to appeal to reason and fairness through the official means of complaint of both CASA and the Ombudsman, have demonstrated to us all that these avenues are for show only. They purport to be impartial routes to just out outcomes but in reality are all part of the make work justification to keep the salary factories of GI (Government Industries) busy and hoping that the taxpayer doesn’t notice the waste and incompetence.

Glen’s spirited appeals and carefully crafted submissions are all basis for what can come with a legal attack. Including showing that he’s tried to have his Parliamentary representatives take up his case, this is all groundwork so that no one can hide behind feigned ignorance of his case.

But one final point to Glen, any money that I donate has no strings, I’d like to see a you win legally but totally you and family welfare first if you decide otherwise.

Global Aviator

1st May 2023, 06:27

Sandy,

Very well said and I agree.

Finally got around to watching The Castle again the other night.

tossbag

1st May 2023, 07:26

Anyone who knows the backstory of Glen's fight is disgusted at the corruption inside that organisation. Sandy is correct, this affects anyone that operates under CASA's jurisdiction. Get onboard in any capacity you can.

kitchen bench

1st May 2023, 08:30

I’m a starter, too.
Has something been set up yet to which to contribute?
if not, when?

Squawk7700

1st May 2023, 09:58

Seems you found it Fury.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/glen-buckley-v-casa

Global Aviator

1st May 2023, 13:00

Just a small donation to make sure it was correct, this is the email to confirm. Was great to see a few already beat me to the link! Donation date: 1 May 2023 Donation to: Glen Buckley vs. CASA

Cedrik

2nd May 2023, 10:38

Gofundme has a 12% charge for donating? Is there a bank account to donate to rather than that?

vne165

2nd May 2023, 12:54

Cedrik,
hear hear, good call.

Sandy Reith

2nd May 2023, 17:03

With respect I don’t think Gofundme has unreasonable fees and does have some great advantages, such as sharing and other means of publicity. The brand name alone has some kudos and allows comments with some details of all of the donors gathered in one place.

The screenshot is from their website.
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/920x2000/f2e7da42_ab00_473f_831c_102911ba9469_5417f167071de5b985815de d60615d70341ab541.png

mcoates

3rd May 2023, 03:26

As a member of the readership of this website, we have devoted significant time and emotional investment towards perusing the narrative of Glen.

Our commitment has not only involved the expenditure of time, but also the manifestation of compassion, offers of support, and discourse with others when the opportunity arose to deliberate upon these issues.

Upon viewing the video declaration made by Ben Morgan, I experienced a sensation of enthusiasm on behalf of Glen and other individuals who possess a direct interest in the matter, as I believed that progress was finally going to be achieved. Analogously, like many others, I monitored the website with regularity in anticipation of the promised update, which, regrettably, never transpired.

The lack of a comprehensive explanation as to the factors that impeded the realisation of the promised update leaves me to wonder why such an occurrence came to pass.

I presume that there may be others who share my inquisitiveness regarding the causes behind this unfulfilled commitment. Is there any chance that an individual could shed light on the reasons that hindered the delivery of the promised update?

Is it possible that there exist hidden forces operating in the background that prevented the disclosure of this information?

Waiting in anticipation for an update....

mcoates

3rd May 2023, 05:14

Found this somewhere else...

The website PPRuNe is where members of the aviation community are discussing the case of Glenn Buckley, an Australian small business owner who has been in a long-running dispute with the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

The thread contains a series of posts made by various members, expressing their opinions on the case. Some members express support for Buckley and question the actions of CASA, while others provide alternative viewpoints and defend CASA's actions. Several members also share their personal experiences and insights regarding CASA's regulatory practices, highlighting both positive and negative experiences.

The thread also includes updates on the case, including a video announcement made by a pilot named Ben Morgan, who claimed to have new information that would be released soon. However, some members of the forum were skeptical of the announcement, and questioned the validity of the claims made by Morgan.

Throughout the discussion, members also provide links to relevant news articles and legal documents related to the case, offering additional context and information. Some members also suggest potential avenues for resolving the dispute, such as pursuing legal action or advocating for changes in regulatory practices.

Overall, the thread provides a detailed and nuanced discussion of the case of Glenn Buckley and the larger issue of regulatory practices in the aviation industry. While opinions vary among members, the discussion highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in regulatory agencies and the potential impact of regulatory disputes on small businesses and individuals dealing with the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

Sandy Reith

3rd May 2023, 05:42

mcoates, wonder if you could find the author? Also it would be interesting to know where that article was published.

From the tone of its general description of this thread, it posits that there’s some kind of balance for and against Glen’s horrendous predicament. The indisputable reality is that the thread conveys an extremely strong belief that Glen Buckley has been very badly treated.

That belief is well founded by any measure, the facts speak for themselves. The article steers clear of details that make the case exceptional.

For example how Glen has been banned from working in General Aviation by the expedient of CASA threatening a prospective employer, quite apart from having his business smashed for no good reason.

megan

3rd May 2023, 06:11

For example how Glen has been banned from working in General Aviation by the expedient of CASA threatening a prospective employerIs there any depth to which CASA won't stoop, surely there is a "Four Corners" in all of this.

Sandy Reith

3rd May 2023, 06:36

Megan, correct, I’m sure there’s a story for some journalists to shine light on this injustice.
Whether the ABC as yet another independent government body would be prepared to expose wrongdoing in CASA is a matter for conjecture.

Glen and his family have suffered enormously and deserve compensation, any publicity could help to achieve this outcome.

mcoates

3rd May 2023, 08:05

Sunfish

3rd May 2023, 08:08

Celtic2912

3rd May 2023, 09:01

Gofundme has a 12% charge for donating? Is there a bank account to donate to rather than that?
There is a sliding scale that you can move as you wish. I chose 2.5% as the fee I was prepared to pay to Glen's fund. I would hate to think that others would be deterred from donating due to the charge.

Sandy Reith

3rd May 2023, 09:31

Some Journalists know about the case but there are competing stories….. Ben Morgan’s man is key.

Am I correct in thinking that Albo is the architect of CASA and the Act?

If so, then I know a few politicians who might be interested.

Don’t know whose brainchild it was to create the independent corporate we now know as the (Un) Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

Perhaps some smart mandarins who figured they could ride on the back of Brit. PM Margaret Thatcher’s privatisation policies and thus unhook their salaries from the regular Public Service pay scales and allow them greater scope for improving working conditions and perhaps pursue pet projects.

However it was implemented in1988 by Labor Minister for Transport Gareth Evans and Parliament passed the new Act which still supports the denial of the Westminster system of responsible government. Evans turfed out the administration of aviation out of his Department and probably heaved a sigh of relief. Unfortunately his salary didn’t take the dive it should have in light of his much reduced responsibility.

Then in 2009 another Labor Minister of Transport did the same with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), guess who? Well who’d a thunk it? Anthony Albanese. In his reading speech his main justification was that the body should not be subject of politics. What a great idea, take that thought to its logical conclusion and we could run all of government in this manner, no need for elected MPs at all.

The abject performance of today’s ATSB is testament to Albanese’s naïveté and muddle headed approach to removing Ministerial oversight from the various arms of government. The idea that the taxpayer can employ some people to carry out functions most effectively and efficiently at the lowest reasonable cost without any real oversight is pie in the sky. The ATSB’s performance after 2009 was so poor that the Canadian Board of Transportation was brought in to audit our ATSB. The report would make you blush.

The obvious trend of government by monopoly independent corporations is causing a real shift in power away from our elected representatives. CASA has been at it for thirty five years, and very successfully for them. Big money, CEO Pip Spence is paid $650,000.00 pa, which is considerably more than the Minister.

Sooner or later something must give, General Aviation (GA) is too important to be truncated and hindered at every turn by the out of control make work salary factory that is today’s CASA. The many aspects of GA include its part as an element of National security because aerial mobility is a crucial factor considering our small population and large continent.

My fervent hope is that Glen Buckley receives due compensation and that his case will contribute a notoriety about the dysfunction and waste caused by CASA.

alphacentauri

11th May 2023, 06:03

In response to the ATSB repcon on Airserivces recent (heavy) use of TIBA, CASA has provided this gem in relation to a clear breach of the regs

"......and is actively engaging directly with Airservices Australia (AA) to assist them to address the underlying drivers so that they can deliver services to the expected level."

Just imagine if the same courtesy had been extended to Glen; ".....and is actively engaging directly with Glen Buckley to assist him to address the underlying drivers so that he can deliver services to the expected level."

Keep up the fight Glen,
Alpha

Sandy Reith

11th May 2023, 07:16

Alpha has found yet another colossal CASA contradiction in both what it says and how it actually operates.

“…. address the underlying drivers so that they can deliver services to the expected level."

As far as the many bureaucratically induced inflictions on GA is concerned CASA is incapable of making the necessary reforms.

Similarly it will not admit its culpability towards Glen Buckley and the Board and Ms Spence are shamefully in error for allowing this awful episode to remain unresolved. https://gofund.me/1799a035

glenb

16th May 2023, 07:50

I'm sorry, I've been absent for a while. I have adopted a new time management strategy based on some expert advice, with the intention of preserving my mental health. I appreciate the boost to the Gofundme. I am immensely appreciative and emotionally buoyed, by it.

It should be entirely unnecessary. The industry should not have to fund an investigation into misconduct.

I know that I have been stubborn on this, and that it has frustrated many, but if I seriously have to litigate to demonstrate misconduct within the most senior levels of CASA, it is simply ludicrous.

Going forward, I am going to make videos, again on expert advice. They will take far less time, and i will be able to make my point far more clearly. My first one will be on here and will be to my Local Member expressing my concern as a 57 year resident of the Electorate, as to her response to me, which i posted on here recently.

This matter, simply will not go away, I will not let it, and i thank you all for your ongoing support.

Regarding the tell all piece that AOPA was bringing. My understanding is that it is postponed, not cancelled. Ben Morgan reached out to me last night and advised that he has been in contact with the person that was to partake. That individual does have some more important matters that need to be considered, and I fully respect that. I am in this for the long haul, I want CASA employees coming forward when they are comfortable and ready.

I need to be very clear on this. That individual is not out to "bash" CASA. He wants to raise serious concerns that have the potential to impact on the safety of aviation.in this Country. He is doing this with the very real likelihood, that a vindictive element may choose to bring harm to him, as they have to me. This individual, is not after grandstanding or becoming a celebrity, and Im sure he would remain anonymous if he could do so effectively. I have met with this individual on a couple of protracted occasions recently. He holds an enormous amount of firsthand knowledge on my matter, and his testimony and telling of the truth would be very important. If he chooses not to do it, I fully respect that. AOPAs challenge is to create that environment, and my hope is that it can be achieved, as I believe it will be. I believe there is significant desire within AOPA to expose this matter in its entirety.

Cheers. Glen.

glenb

16th May 2023, 07:51

Dear Dr. Carina Garland,

In regard to your officer Jarrod Panther’s reply on your behalf to Glen Buckley, I request that you personally make yourself familiar with the salient features of his case.

I support Glen’s pursuit of justice, he has had wrong treatment at the hands of CASA and its disgraceful treatment of him must be redressed.

It is the duty of a Parliamentary representative to pursue the claim of a constituent. Otherwise why have single member constituent representatives? This is a fundamental element of our democratic system.

I vigorously implore you to look again at an obvious injustice that has been perpetrated against Glen Buckley and his well crafted flying training organisation which assisted smaller flying schools and aero clubs to maintain their flying training abilities in the face of a new and far more complex environment of rules, compared to regulations and procedures than pertained in the past (and nothing like the workable system that applies in the USA).

Without the involvement of MPs who are willing to step up and truly represent their constituents at an individual level we deny the basis of single member representatives and responsible government.

Kind regards, and always ready to engage or answer your questions.

Sandy Reith

glenb

16th May 2023, 08:16

I only found about this letter from my wife. I need to paint the picture without getting too graphic I had reached the absolute limit, i really had. I had reached the rock bottom. The response from Ms Garland, was my tipping point. I felt so betrayed and let down by her in her role as my Local MP.

It was the final tipping point. My sisters literally saved my life and were able to get me to see one of Australia's leading Psychiatrists almost immediately in the city, early on a Saturday. I had two options. Follow his advice or go on a 6-month waiting list to find another psychiatrist. Within hours i was in a psych ward and remained there for over two weeks.

My wife has come home from work to find her husband had been whisked off. She was in total shock, as i had hidden it well.

I had met with Ms Garland previously, but unbeknown to me, my wife had organized her own meeting with Ms Garland. My wife is not a native English Speaker and was highly emotional. I have elected, with my wife's 51% consent, to publish this letter. This is not my wife, I have NEVER EVER heard her react to anything in a similar manner.

Dear Ms Garland,

I’m requesting to have meeting with you.

My husband Glen received email from you, and it was very disappointing and disgusting, the way you wrote to him. There was no explanation about why you can’t help with Glen’s issue. I heard about you saying to Glen during election that you can help. Glen believed you and spent so much time and money to distribute leaflets for you.

Glen has been hospitalised today because of this.

We might be nothing to you but we are good people always trying to help people. We deserve to get treated as human beings. All you people need is to treat people with respect like I was brought up in Japan.

I would like to have meeting with you and I would also like you to organise a meeting with CASA’s minister. My children would like to attend.

Before we move on, we need to understand why CASA bullied Glen, and destroyed his life completely.

If something happened to Glen, I will never ever forgive CASA. My children are old enough so I don’t mind ending up the rest of my life in jail.

I expect you to organise meeting with me ASAP. I work everyday for long hours and I only have Fridays at 1pm available.

Please reply with respect and treat us like human.

Kind Regards
Sonoko Buckley

mcoates

16th May 2023, 21:46

CASA forgets, or really doesn't care, that what they do affects REAL PEOPLE !

glenb

26th May 2023, 08:59

26/05/23

Dear Mr. Buckley

In my correspondence to you over the last 18 months I committed to meet with you to discuss the issues you have raised about CASAs oversight of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA) after the Ombudsman had finalized its review of your concerns.

CASA has now received the outcome of the Ombudsman ‘s review and I have had the opportunity to consider its findings. Overall, I consider the Ombudsman ‘s report confirms the position that I put to you previously, which is that;

CASA ‘s October 2018 notice of intention to decline APTAs significant changes applications was not a decision to close APTA. and was a reasonable and appropriate action for CASA to take in the circumstances.
CASA had required evidence of contracts with other operators as evidence of operational control before a request for contracts was made to APTA
CASA’s request for contracts from APTA was supported by legislation and civil aviation regulation and was not unreasonable.
CASA did not mislead the ombudsman ‘s office.

That said what is apparent is that CASA is yet to acknowledge the Industry Complaints Commissioners ((ICC) findings of 18th of July 2019. The ICC found that the timing of the change in CASA‘s regulatory approach in October 2018, and the manner in which it was communicated to APTA was likely to be unfair, even though the regulatory approach itself was appropriate and reasonable. The ICC also concluded that CASA had taken a different position about APTA business model without forewarning and, collectively, it was likely to have had sufficient information about APTAs, business and operational model prior to October 2018 to form a position about it’s compliance with regulation.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the ICCs findings on these issues and to set out CASA, accepts those conclusions Reflecting on those findings on behalf of CASA. I would like to extend our apologies for the timing and manner of CASA ‘s correspondence of 23 October 2018, that APTAS significant change application may not be approved. I accept that it was likely that you had relied on information from CASA on temporary bases in developing APTAs processes, and CASA change of position on these issues would’ve been unexpected and unsettling. It is apparent that with the benefit of hindsight, once CASA and identified the issues with the proposed model we could and should’ve taken a more collaborative approach in working through these issues with you earlier than we did.

In light of the significant concerns you have raised with me, I did want to confirm that while the ICC concluded in 2019 "that it was likely that CASA collectively was likely to have had sufficient information about APTA‘s business and operational model prior to October 2018 to form a position about its compliance with regulation", neither the ICC nor the Ombudsman concluded that Dr Jonathan Aleck had any involvement in the oversight of APTA prior to 23 October 2018.

Please let my office know a suitable time to discuss your concerns and I will make the necessary arrangements.

Yours sincerely Pip Spence

joe_bloggs

26th May 2023, 09:41

Jeez Glen. I hope this is that crack in the dam wall we have all been waiting on.

”I would like to extend our apologies for the timing and manner of CASA ‘s correspondence of 23 October 2018, …It is apparent that with the benefit of hindsight, once CASA and identified the issues with the proposed model we could and should’ve taken a more collaborative approach in working through these issues with you earlier than we did”

Perhaps time to have a discussion with your legal folks.

I have a big smile on my face!

glenb

26th May 2023, 10:29

I must say, I am somewhat encouraged, but the CASA beast is a crafty devil. Working on my next maneuver.

Sandy Reith

26th May 2023, 16:58

“taken a more collaborative approach in working through these issues with you earlier than we did.”

I think that is a lie.

I would be asking “what collaborative approach” are you referring to?

Ms Spence is trying to limit the damage which is evident to anyone with knowledge of the basic facts.

At any rate such admission, shockingly late admission, is welcome, but only the beginning of the start. Will she be able to find the courage to deal with this horrendous miscarriage of justice and begin to restore some semblance of respect for CASA?

Hope springs eternal but at least a legal challenge must surely have more legs with Ms. Spence’s admission.

CASA may think it has an academic point about the chain of responsibility as an excuse for its devastating reversal but in real life there was nothing in APTA’s model that was fundamentally wrong in practice.

Then look at the flying schools in the USA where individual instructors can teach flying either solely or in business groups without Part 141 or 142 approvals.

Never forget the big picture of CASA’s control freak mentality and the colossal damage it’s done to General Aviation in Australia. Damage that has implications for our aviation strength as a Nation including our readiness from a security point of view because aerial mobility is a crucial factor in the defence of Australia.

LAME2

27th May 2023, 00:30

crafty devil

I agree. I would get legal interpretation on her language. I still think this case will only be resolved in the courts. There are”weasel words” being used to play down their responsibilities to your situation.

Sunfish

27th May 2023, 04:19

Sorry for shouting but: DO NOT ANSWER THAT LETTER WITHOUT LEGAL ADVICE because in my opinion, it misrepresents and trivialises CASAs bad behaviour and by not challenging each and every assertion in it you are accepting their version of events. Your letter in reply needs to start with “Without Prejudice “ I think, but I am not a lawyer.

Given the assertion made, it’s going to be a long reply…... More to follow. Sandy is right.

Sunfish

27th May 2023, 07:06

Repeat after me :
In loving memory of David Wells, Senior Partner in Mallesons

IN GOOD FAITH

- fairness

- honesty

- reasonableness

-not undermining the contractual objectives

-not acting arbitrarily or capriciously

-having regard to the interests of the other party, without having to subordinate one’s own interests to the interests of the other.

CASA's actions towards Buckley and APTA from 23 October were not in good faith.

CASA has now received the outcome of the Ombudsman ‘s review and I have had the opportunity to consider its findings. Overall, I consider the Ombudsman ‘s report confirms the position that I put to you previously, which is that;

CASA ‘s October 2018 notice of intention to decline APTAs significant changes applications was not a decision to close APTA. and was a reasonable and appropriate action for CASA to take in the circumstances.

Comment: This is bull****. It effectively closed APTA. As It was not a decision it could not be appealed. What "circumstances"? It represented a complete 180 degree change of CASAs attitude to APTA OVERNIGHT WITH NO REASONS GIVEN. Given that this matter had nothing to do with safety and considering both the known effect and magnitude of this change it is reasonable to expect firstly a detailed explanation of the reason for this policy change, followed by good faith negotiations by both parties to accommodate the changes. Buckley tried CASA didn't. Even if there was a legislative impediment, I would have thought an exemption was not out of the question. No good faith.

CASA's actions towards Buckley and APTA from 23 October were not in good faith.

CASA had required evidence of contracts with other operators as evidence of operational control before a request for contracts was made to APTA
CASA’s request for contracts from APTA was supported by legislation and civil aviation regulation and was not unreasonable.

Yes, contracts were provided. That isn't the issue. CASA refused to specify the nature of the defect and specify a remedy in the contracts supplied - no good faith.

CASA did not mislead the ombudsman ‘s office.

?????

Sunfish

27th May 2023, 07:12

I accept that it was likely that you had relied on information from CASA on temporary bases in developing APTAs processes, and CASA change of position on these issues would’ve been unexpected and unsettling.

Why did CASA change its position? Is CASA allowed to take positions? I thought the regulations spelled out the requirements?

Sandy Reith

27th May 2023, 07:58

Sunfish …”Why did CASA change its position? Is CASA allowed to take positions? I thought the regulations spelled out the requirements?”

Exactly. And what about “operational control?”

Who is in control in a teaching environment? Obviously we have regulatory standards and then we have the PIC and the judgement of a testing Officer because we are talking about teaching someone to fly.

CASA have persuaded Parliament to inappropriately migrate virtually all the rules into the criminal code, how many more layers of “operational control” do you need?

If it wasn’t for the horrendous consequences, in the first instance to Glen Buckley, his family and APTA employees and associated parties, you could describe the CASA play book as farcical. In the second instance the whole of GA, which includes thousands of people, aircraft owners, maintainers, suppliers and all of the economic generating activities and services, continues to suffer untold losses.

And safety, what a joke, zero encouragement to those of us who could contribute to flying training and GA activity are dissuaded at every turn, be it a completely unreal medical certification process or the mountain of super expensive time consuming and useless paperwork and the waste of the ASIC to boot.

Not one word do we hear from the CASA Board to Government about the loss of critical airport infrastructure, loss of flying schools or questioning the ASIC or loss of maintenance personnel. The Board is an irresponsible and costly irrelevance and should be disbanded.

Sunfish

27th May 2023, 10:04

I appreciate that this didn’t happen on Spence or the current Boards watch, but Why did CASA go to extraordinary lengths to close down APTA - a high quality operator and hound its founder, Glen Buckley, out of the industry, while turning a blind eye to the perhaps criminal behaviour of a sleazy, unsafe, fraudulent flight training school called SOAR?

Hundreds of students who trained at collapsed flight school Soar are set to receive a five-figure payout after agreeing to a $33 million settlement.

Soar collapsed into administration on 29 December (https://australianaviation.com.au/2021/01/we-wont-take-your-call-says-collapsed-flight-school-soar/) 2020, but it was already indirectly facing a class action from students arguing its standards were so poor it didn’t meet the subsequent requirements to obtain a pilot licence.

The payout means many former students will now be able to enrol in new courses and qualifications after having used up their limited student loans.

The case was brought by Gordon Legal against Melbourne TAFE provider Box Hill Institute (BHI) –students studied the theory element of their diploma of aviation at BHI but undertook the practical flying elements at Soar………

………

More seriously, the ATSB is also investigating (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2020/aair/ao-2020-059/) an incident that saw a Soar Aviation instructor and student die when one of its Aquila AT01s crashed in NSW in 2020.

More recently, in a separate incident (https://australianaviation.com.au/2021/05/soar-aviation-crash-student-flew-without-permission/), the ATSB in May 2021 said a Soar Aviation student pilot who crashed his Bristell aircraft and suffered serious head injuries didn’t have permission to conduct the flight solo.

However, the report revealed the trainee believed he did have authorisation, despite clearly not following the correct procedures.

https://australianaviation.com.au/2022/10/33m-payout-for-students-at-collapsed-flight-school-soar/

Sandy Reith

27th May 2023, 12:19

Quote:

Sunfish , 27th May 2023 21:04
“I appreciate that this didn’t happen on Spence or the current Boards watch,..,”

True, but the “sins of the fathers are visited on their offspring (read successors)” and in this case by full measure because CASA is a corporate entity. It was quite deliberately created as such by Parliament. There will be no hiding from its hideous misdeeds by pretending that it was someone else, and so far thankfully we are not hearing that argument.

Truth be we hear nothing of value whatsoever from the Board and it has had every opportunity to converse with Glen Buckley and find an equitable redress for Glen Buckley.

MalcolmReynolds

27th May 2023, 13:37

Glen, definitely engage some lawyers before answering that letter. Since it is all happening in Melbourne, the "Vibe of it" demands a QC (now I guess a KC). Pity Lawrence Hammil QC isn't available (Bud Tingwell). However it is time to get serious about nailing these bastards at CASA to the wall! As Jack said in that same movie..."yeah Fark 'em!" 👍

glenb

4th Jun 2023, 21:06

04/06/2023

Dear Ms Spence,

Thank you for the letter, dated 25 May 2023, extending the invitation to meet with my wife and I, to discuss the profound and harmful impact CASA’s actions have had, and continue to have, on us and the mental burden we carry for all the persons impacted so unnecessarily by this, including many valued and loyal staff, customers, suppliers, and students who depended on us.

I believe that the meeting would be protracted and take up to 4 hours to attend to the matter in its entirety, and to minimise any ongoing ‘ping pong’ subsequent to the meeting, which obviously best serves both our interests.

We fully appreciate that you will have existing commitments, but our preference would be to delay the meeting until your schedule would accommodate a meeting of 4 hours’ duration. I do not anticipate that it would exceed 4 hours, but I do believe it will consume the majority of the 4 hours. The allegations and the associated impacts are significant as you will appreciate.

As you may be aware, the industry initiated a crowdfunding page to assist me in this matter and those funds could be used to facilitate travel for my wife and I to Canberra, noting that may be your more preferred venue, although obviously a meeting in Melbourne is an option. I will leave the determination of time and venue to you. My wife and I will accommodate any preferred option provided we can have 14 days’ notice.

Once you have the opportunity to determine a suitable date and venue, could you also please advise me of any other attendees that you anticipate joining us on the day. At this stage, my intention is that only my wife and I attend. As a request, could I ask that the Chair of the CASA Board, or his nominee also be present, and I have forwarded this correspondence to the CASA Board. I feel there should be an awareness at Board level, although I will respect your determination on this matter.

I initially intended to provide the fairly brief response to your letter. However, I feel compelled to address some of the statements made in it. By allowing those statements to go “unchecked” in written correspondence, it may incorrectly suggest that I accept those statements when clearly my wife and I, do not.

CASA’s 23 October 2018 letter and restrictions was sent on the pretext that CASA had suddenly become aware of some new and important information about the arrangements between APTA, its alliance members and the individuals and aircraft utilised in flying training operations.

In fact, as has been proven, the truth is that CASA was fully aware of the fine detail of those arrangements and worked ‘side-by-side’ with APTA, for a very long time, assessing them against regulatory requirements for exactly the purpose of providing a “single AOC, multi base, multi entity, approach to flight training using personnel that were not necessarily my employees, and, ultimately, recertifying them to the new legislation in April of 2017. The suggestion in your 25 May 2023 letter to the effect that CASA somehow did not know about or was not on notice of those arrangements until some sudden revelation sometime in 2018 is simply wrong in fact.

I ask that you consider the obvious possibility that the ‘the right hand didn’t know what the left hand was doing’ in CASA, and that it is neither appropriate nor reasonable for CASA to expect an ‘outsider’ like APTA and my family to bear the brunt of the capricious consequences of internal CASA dysfunction and disagreement.

I also ask you to consider that the motivation may have been more “sinister” than the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing. It is possible that a CASA employee or small group of CASA Executives may have been deliberately prolonging a resolution, to in fact cause maximum commercial harm to me personally.

I believe that it is worth reiterating our perspective prior to the meeting to ensure that the meeting can be as effective as possible because me must arrive at the truth.

Regarding your first dot point. ‘CASAs October 2018 notice of intention to decline APTAs significant changes applications was not a decision to close APTA. and was a reasonable and appropriate action for CASA to take in the circumstances”.

I must clarify this. The notification of intention to decline APTA’s significant change applications for the addition of further bases in CASA’s letter dated 23 October 2018 which you refer to in your correspondence, was not, of itself, the issue which caused so much harm.

Admittedly that alone was concerning, particularly in light of the fact that CASA had approved multiple bases for me over the previous decade, as well as for many other flight training organisations across Australia, in what was an identical proposal. The complete reversal was totally unexpected, and unjustified, and more concerning because it was directed at my business only, and not others against all precedent.

Most of the harm however was caused by the surrounding restrictions placed on the business by CASA and the unjustifiably long duration that those restrictions remained in place. CASA was fully aware of the commercial impact of the trading restrictions, because I notified CASA in writing on multiple occasions of the impact

These CASA imposed trading restrictions remained in place for eight months, costing me and my family well in excess of $10,000 to $15,000 every week they were in place to avoid staff redundancies, and to meet staff salaries. Throughout the 8 months I had no avenue of appeal against those restrictions. I was completely at the mercy of a CASA employees opinion.

The business was allowed to continue operating in the short term based on CASA issuing a number of subsequent “interim approvals” to allow me to continue operating. These short-term interim approvals were as short as 24 hours, but never longer than 90 days.

These “interim approvals” impacted significantly and immediately on the business by preventing APTA taking on new members, and the previously CASA approved bases unable to enrol new students into courses, past the expiry date of the CASA interim approvals. This effectively prevented the business taking on any new customers, as most courses were of 18 months duration. A course of 18 months obviously being far in excess of the duration of the interim approvals on the business that CASA had imposed. Please understand that as a Registered Training Organisation (RTO), these restrictions impacted significantly, and unnecessarily on the organisation.

For clarity, CASA placed restrictions on APTA’s business in its entirety. The entire business was given only seven days’ certainty of operation. This was much much more than a proposed notice to reject two significant change applications.

CASA advised that all previously approved bases were now determined to be “unauthorised” despite the fact that they had been operating for, in some cases, as long as a decade, and all of those operations had been assessed and certified by CASA previously against regulatory requirements applicable to APTA as the sole AOC holder.

CASA even included Melbourne Flight Training in its list of “unauthorised operations”, even though Melbourne Flight Training was always, and remained the original APTA flying school covered by APTA’s original AOC. Melbourne Flight Training was merely the name of the entity whose name changed to APTA. I hope that this can be explained to me at our meeting.

Additionally, as you are aware CASA placed an administrative “freeze” on processing any regulatory tasks for the business in its entirety. These included upgrading of CASA required Key Personnel, not processing requests for courses waiting to be added, and refusal to process applications for new flight simulators that were essential to course delivery. This “Administrative Freeze was placed on the business in its entirety.

Additionally in that correspondence from CASA in October 2018, I was threatened with prosecution because, according to CASA, APTA had facilitated operations in contravention of regulatory requirements. CASA also wrote to APTA’s customers and advised them that APTA was operating unlawfully, and that they could also be subject to prosecution. All of this, and yet I had no right of appeal.

If there were any safety concerns, CASA would have adopted a different approach. The approach adopted by CASA was most certainly the approach that caused the most commercial harm and reputational harm to my family and our business, while achieving absolutely no safety benefit. If it were a safety concern that was driving CASAs actions, CASA should have prevented all flying operations, instead CASA restricted new members and students enrolling, but permitted existing students and bases to continue trading albeit under short term interim approvals. The safety issue or concern, if they existed cannot have been significant if existing customers and students were permitted to remain in the short term.

The restrictions were harmful, and entirely unnecessary and CASA was not compelled to take that course of action. Restrictions that I believe were placed unlawfully on the business, and could have and should been lifted at any time, This single action would have allowed me to return somewhat, to business as usual.

Consider also the reputational harm caused to the business when the industry becomes aware that CASA has imposed the most substantive restrictions placed on any flying school ever. Reputationally a decade of developing an industry leading reputation of safety and compliance is destroyed.

For many years I have led industry to believe that I am fully CASA approved, as I was. I have taken on many additional bases with full CASA approval over the previous decade. Many have seen me do it successfully during that decade, and they have placed their trust and confidence in me. Suddenly, after a decade of operations and with no concerns having ever been raised CASA advises me that the entire structure, I had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in, and three years of working side by side with CASA to meet the new regulatory procedures and is approved for that very specific purpose. It has been redesigned with CASA for the new regulations, fully approved to the new regulations, yet is declared unlawful less than two months after those regulations are introduced.

So, although CASA’s 23 October 2018 letter was not technically a decision to close APTA, the practical consequences of CASA’s surrounding actions effectively crushed the financial and reputational viability of the business and sent me broke including the loss of my family home, along with three hundred thousand dollars contributed by my parents to maintain staff salaries and prevent redundancies during the eight months that the trading restrictions are in place.

I urge you to read that original notification of October 2018. It was the initial contact, it advised that the entire business was operating unlawfully, had 7 days to operate, and me and my members were potentially subject to prosecution, and all bases including mine was now determined to be “unauthorised”. This notification and subsequent approach by CASA were much much more than a proposal to reject the most recent application to add two new bases. It was effectively notifying that my business of ten years would not be permitted to continue operating.

Regarding dot point two.

“CASA had required evidence of contracts with other operators as evidence of operational control before a request for contracts was made to APTA”.

That statement is misleading, and I feel compelled to address it. The truth is that CASA never required evidence of contracts from other flight training operators.

I have confirmed this with operators that had been doing exactly what I was doing over the previous 25 years. All advise me that CASA was not involved in commercial contracts at all within the flight training environment, and never required commercial contracts from them.

On this matter, I believe that CASA has provided false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation. I believe that you have also been misled Ms Spence.

On this matter, I intend to make an FOI request for any existing commercial contracts that CASA has required of any operator, where the operator has had to outline matters of operational control within a commercial contract which CASA is not a signatory to.

This is fundamental. Matters of operational control are specified in the CASA approved Operations /Exposition that CASA has control over.

Matters of operational control are not specified in “commercial contracts” because CASA is not a party to those commercial contracts.

The significance of this is that the Exposition is the Master CASA approved document specifying matters of operational control.

A “commercial contract is not.

The content of that commercial contract can replicate the CASA approved procedures within the Exposition, but it cannot be the primary source location to stipulate those procedures of operational control. Not without the changes going into the Exposition first.

Pending the release of my FOI request, this is something that you may choose to initiate from within your office.

The significance of this matter is that every single piece of legislation and all additional considerations for this exact operating structure that I had adopted for a decade were already fully contained within the CASA approved Exposition. The truth is that there were no deficiencies. My hope is that prior to our meeting you can discuss with the CASA Executive Management that were involved in my matter, and very clearly and specifically identify what procedures were deficient or absent in the CASA approved Exposition, that CASA wanted to address in the commercial contracts, and not in the Exposition.

It would be ideal if you could present me with some scenarios that CASA feels had not been considered or attended to.

Furthermore, the statement, “before a request for contracts was made to APTA” does not accurately represent the situation. It suggests that I did not have contracts and that CASA made a request for contracts.

The truth is that despite there being no previous requirement from CASA on any operators operating in the same structure that I adopted, to provide commercial contracts, I had supplied them to CASA on multiple occasions over the previous years to CASA as a courtesy. Until now, CASA showed little interest, as they were “commercial contracts”

By legislation those matters of operational control, safety etc must be contained within the Operations Manual/Exposition as ours were. I have spoken to other Operators that adopted the same model as mine and they assure me that CASA never require contracts. I can see that this may be a point of contention, and prior to our meeting I will make a FOI request for the contracts that CASA has advised the Ombudsman’s office that they held, so that we can clarify this matter on the day.

It was APTA that initiated the commercial contracts years prior, and I had provided them to CASA as a courtesy. There was never any objection from me to fully resolve the contract issue. The issue was that CASA was unable to provide me the requirements that they wanted in the contract.

Please note that on 30 April 2019, with the crippling trading restrictions in place for 6 months, CASA informed me that CASA had only now issued instructions to external legal service providers for the provision of ‘model clauses’ for contractual arrangements that would meet the minimum regulatory requirements imposed by CASA. Up until that point, CASA was effectively demanding that APTA guess what words CASA wanted to read in contracts in order to satisfy CASA. Recall that EVERYTHING was already attended to in the CASA approved Exposition, and perhaps that is something you can clarify at our meeting.

Unfortunately, by the point at which CASA finally took an ‘appropriate and reasonable’ approach to its contract clauses demand, I was exhausted financially, physically and mentally. I could not bear the prospect of CASA coming up with yet another and different “appropriate and reasonable” “regulatory approach” at it did shortly afterward when CASA determined that all personnel operating under the AOC MUST also be employees, which very clearly has no basis in law, and CASA have no requirement in the legislation that anyone be an” employee”. The very plain and simple truth is that no-one must be an employee, and that includes all positions including instructors, CEOs, Head of operations, safety Manager etc. No-one.

Regarding dot point three.

“Request for contracts from APTA was supported by legislation and civil aviation regulation and was not unreasonable.”

On this point it is very important that there be a very clear distinction between the what the CASA Exposition is, and what it contains as per the regulations, as mine did, and what a commercial contract is.

I maintain that there is no legislation at all that suggests or requires that matters of operational control are contained within a commercial contract.

As somebody who has operated within the flight training environment for over 25 years, that requirement is as bizarre, as it is absurd.

May I respectfully request that at that meeting you are able to direct me to the legislation that you refer to.

Regarding dot point four.

“CASA did not mislead the ombudsman ‘s office.”

Until now I have steadfastly maintained that Mr Aleck has been responsible for providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation. In recent correspondence you suggested that it was in fact the CASA ICC that was responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman’s Office. I hope that at the meeting we can clarify who, and what stage, which personnel or CASA Departments were responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman’s Office investigation.

At this point I will say this: If, as you say, the “regulatory approach” that CASA took after 2018 was “appropriate and reasonable”, that “regulatory approach” should have been taken by CASA during the processes through which CASA worked ‘side-by-side’ with APTA and certified all of that which CASA subsequently determined to be “unauthorised”. If CASA had done that a decade prior when we opened our first base or during 2016, 2017, and 2018 as I redesigned APTA with CASA to meet the new regulatory structure, it would have become clear that CASA was not going to permit me to continue adopting the structure that I had been using over the previous decade.

Had CASA not encouraged me to develop APTA, and revalidated APTA 18 months prior, and if I was made aware that the process was at substantial risk of turning into a complex and expensive regulatory nightmare, I would have abandoned the concept and my family and I would not have lost all that we have lost.

Instead, I was encouraged by CASA to believe the concept and the arrangements APTA put in place complied with regulatory requirements, without any mention of the “regulatory approach” you say was “appropriate and reasonable”.

Regarding your characterisation of CASA’s 23 October 2018 letter as “unexpected and unsettling”, please note that the letter effectively said that all that I had built, that all of the blood, sweat and tears I had shed, that all of the money invested by my family and I, that all of the work done with and by CASA to get it all certified, was all for nought. And I was a criminal.

A much-higher-than-expected electricity bill is “unexpected and unsettling”, Ms Spence. Losing an entire life’s work is devastating. That devastation has been wrought on my family and me. Your characterisation seemed quite trivialising, and it led my wife to insisting she participate in this meeting as one of the persons most affected by CASA’s actions.

These are all matters that we can discuss in greater detail at a professional and well-intentioned meeting.

I should point out that I have a YouTube broadcast on this subject going to air next Tuesday (6 June 2023) evening. Whilst I certainly don’t expect you to watch that live presentation, I will arrange for a link to be sent to your Office, and may I respectfully request that you view that prior to our meeting.

Ms. Spence, please be assured that I am not trying to be combative. But CASA has delayed properly remedying the injustice done to my family and me for too long, and we have paid a very high price for that delay, not only financially but mentally and physically. My wife and I hope that you will come to the meeting with a concrete proposal to bring that delay and associated suffering and trauma to an end, and ensuring that no other General Aviation Business is ever subjected to such treatment again. We look forward to the meeting.

At that meeting and to ensure we can both "cover as much ground as practical", may I respectfully request that you have access to the following documents, and similarly please advise if you have any suggestions or requirements of me.

CASAs Regulatory Philosophy
Copy of the initial notification sent to me. October 2018.
CASA Regulatory Enforcement Manual
Aviation Ruling
CARs

For your information and as possible resources to review prior to our meeting, I draw your attention to the Crowd Fundraising page. Not so much for the monetary value of it, but the accompanying comments are revealing of this entire matter and demonstrate the widespread industry concern of this matter in its entirety. Admittedly many of the supporters are individuals I have engaged with whilst I worked in General Aviation, but many of the supporters are anonymous, and may not be personally known to me. Fundraiser for Glen Buckley by Cale Johnston : Glen Buckley vs. CASA (gofundme.com) (https://www.gofundme.com/f/glen-buckley-v-casa?utm_campaign=p_cp+share-sheet&utm_content=undefined&utm_medium=copy_link_all&utm_source=customer&utm_term=undefined)

You will also be aware that I have restricted the discussion of this matter to two discrete pilot forums, rather than wider social media. Those two forums being Aunty Pru and Pprune. The Pprune thread on this matter has attracted well over 1,000,000 views and thousands of revealing comments by concerned industry participants, and a link to that thread can be accessed here. I appreciate that it is easy to be dismissive of such forums, but I sincerely believe that the associated comments by industry professionals must be considered in the wider context of this matter. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa.html)

If I may finish with this request. I asked my wife what a “blue sky” would look like. She wanted two things.

She wanted to walk out of our meeting knowing very clearly what it was that her husband did wrong because like I, she simply cannot understand “what I did wrong”. You will appreciate the connotations that surround a person having their aviation business closed down by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and we would like that clearly identified to us.

Secondly, my wife, like me, would like to obtain a full understanding as to why this entire matter occurred. Why couldn’t it have been fully resolved prior to CASA placing any restrictions at all on the business. Specifically, she would like someone to explain why this whole matter in its absolute entirety could not have been avoided by a well-intentioned discussion of less than 4 hours.

Again, I thank you for providing this opportunity, we appreciate the opportunity you have provided, and we look forward to a professional, respectful, and productive meeting at your earliest practical convenience. I hope that this correspondence has demonstrated the requirement for the meeting to be somewhat protracted.

Yours sincerely

Glen Buckley

Global Aviator

4th Jun 2023, 23:27

Glen,

You have certainly built a great case, well you’ve been bullied and smacked around the head so stating the obvious is a great case.

What really baffles me reading through all of this is the no issue with safety aspect. If there was then I would assume a show cause notice or immediate suspension of AOC, however no, a chosen dirty way was taken.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority is the biggest oxymoron out there. Civil Aviation Authority it should be.

If you and your wife do go to Canberra, go on book QF business class, I’ll throw a few more bucks into the fund.

It certainly feels like it’s coming to the part when we won’t hear from you on here (meaning nice settlement and gag order).

Keep fighting!

MagnumPI

4th Jun 2023, 23:53

Please, Glen...don't go to that meeting without a legal representative who can help you put your points forward in the best possible way.

It will be extremely difficult if not impossible for you or your wife to separate the emotion from the issues - and I don't mean that in a negative way - but going without a legal representative to help keep you composed and on point would be akin to representing yourself in court in your own defence. It's always a bad idea!

CASA will almost certainly have a legal representative there...

Clinton McKenzie

5th Jun 2023, 00:30

The YouTube broadcast is scheduled for 7pm EST tomorrow (Tuesday) 6 June: https://www.youtube.com/live/7qkZ7xiqNu0?feature=share

tossbag

5th Jun 2023, 03:27

but Why did CASA go to extraordinary lengths to close down APTA?

Because it was one CASA prick who didn't like Glen who influenced the rest of CASA.

# Disclaimer: Not all of CASA are pricks. Although the organisation itself has a tendency to turn a non-prick into a prick if one is not careful.

fury308

5th Jun 2023, 06:41

I strongly agree with MagnumPI on this, please take a lawyer to that meeting Glen!!! PLEASE!

fury...

Sandy Reith

5th Jun 2023, 07:12

Glen’s letter in response is cogent and well written to set the scene. I would agree for the Buckleys to retain a lawyer, preferably well briefed. And of course the GoFundme money would be well spent for this exercise but that is entirely at the Buckley’s discretion.

Sandy Reith

5th Jun 2023, 07:40

I’ve had no response to my email to Glen Buckley’s federal MP about supporting his case. Sadly this is symptomatic of the way in which our democracy needs improvement. It seems from Glen’s information this MP has done nothing towards helping as promised to Glen prior to the election.

I believe the whole idea of single member electorates is to enhance the concept of personal representation in the Parliament.

It’s up to us all to keep contacting our MPs and State Senators because eventually with numbers the message will be noticed. Better still is to get really involved in politics for an improved democracy.

Sunfish

5th Jun 2023, 14:23

I’ve had no response to my email to Glen Buckley’s federal MP about supporting his case.

GLen is an anglo white male apparently heterosexual. Of course he won’t get any help from his Labor MP.

Sunfish

5th Jun 2023, 14:43

GLEN, GET A LAWYER!

For a start, your letter MUST state In its first sentence “I refer to my previous correspondence “ - which statement automatically means You are including ALL of your previous correspondence with CASA in your discussion. Without those words your claim can be limited very quickly by a skilled lawyer. Please, please, get a senior commercial lawyer on your team otherwise you and your wife are going to be ambushed at your meeting and chopped up.

Furthermore, and sorry for being sexist, but unless your wife is a lawyer with an encyclopedic knowledge of the regulations she is going to be out of her depth. No good can come of this meeting unless you have an experienced lawyer with you who is fully conversant with your case. You are going to be facing an experienced and fully briefed team with all the facts at their fingertips. They may have rehearsed their responses ( I would). They will already have expert legal advice on their potential liability and a game plan to minimise it. You on the other hand, won’t.

Sandy Reith

5th Jun 2023, 15:37

GLen is an anglo white male apparently heterosexual. Of course he won’t get any help from his Labor MP.

That might be a fair inference from today’s political landscape but with respect unless we use the system and keep on expecting a better result then what is the alternative?

In addition, when or if further revelations about Glen Buckley’s case become publicised then his MP, and others like mine who have been notified of this scandalous situation, cannot fall about saying they knew nothing.

Unfortunately politicians have become the ‘ whipping boys (or girls) for all of society’s ills while only a tiny minority actually engage with any political organisation let alone their constituent MP.

We need publicity and political action.

Sunfish

5th Jun 2023, 20:32

Amen Sandy, I was being sarcastic. I wish Glen all the best but I worry…….

glenb

5th Jun 2023, 20:43

You are correct, there is no safety case at all or any deficiency ever identified by CASA, and that is what makes this entire matter so outrageous.

The only single argument that CASA put to me was that all personnel operating under my AOC needed to be my employees. It was made to clear to me that if I made them all my employees, there would be no concerns. That was the solution.

That is not what APTA was designed for. It was designed for 10 entities to join my approval to operate to one set of procedures, and in all matters regarding regulatory and safety, it was the one organization.

It is that structure that CASA determined to be unlawful in my organization despite it being completely standard CASA approved practice, throughout my 25 years in the industry.

CASA have craftily confirmed there position that CASA must be satisfied. This was different. This was CASA becoming unsatisfied, but with no explanation.

Every single comprehensive procedure was attended to in our CASA approved Exposition. We were not new to this; we had been doing it successfully for a decade. There were no identified quality issues. If so they would have been initiated through a process.

This was a totally unexpected notification, with no prior warning whatsoever. It was a legal determination from Mr Aleck, or someone within his department.

CASA were fully satisfied with every procedure that i had written, they had peer reviewed, approved, and audited on multiple occasions.

It is all so totally unnecessary. It was not a quality control issue.

CASAs argument was that you cannot have operational control over someone who is not also an employee. Obviously i disagrree.

Highly appreciative of your involvement and support. Cheers. Glen

glenb

5th Jun 2023, 21:14

Wow folks, ive got everyone in my ear to get a lawyer, and I trully do ": get it".

I know that is the next step if it cannot be avoided.

It's a bit of a personal thing. The engagement of lawyers is the end of "good intent". The entire process moves to one of combat and no goodwill. My hope is that I can exhaust every single option that is available to me. Being let down by Local MP was indeed a big blow, but not all options are exhausted. There is the option of an Act of Grace Payment which may be an option to undo some of the harm caused.

Ms. Spences response regarding "attendees" from CASA will be very revealing and set the tone of that meeting. If lawyers are attending, then I will have lawyers, please be assured of that.
Ms Spence may choose to have Mr. Aleck present, but if that is the case I will have to clarify if he is present as one of the CASA employees i have made allegations against, of if he is present as legal counsel.

The nature of my allegations is substantial. Either way someone deserves to be held accountable.

Either one or more CASA employees have acted unlawfully, or I have. I have made many public allegations against Members of CASA senior executive. If my allegations are false, vindictive and vexatious, those CASA employees should initiate some legal action against me.

I was considering writing to Ms Garland my local MP, i note that Minister King has directed Ms Garland not to assist me in this matter. I am considering bypassing the Minister and writing to the PM directly requesting that a nominee from his department attend, as my allegations of misconduct are creeping into his MPs and Ministers. There can be no doubt that they are trying to cover up this matter. My correspondence and requests for meeting goes totally unacknowledged.

As a total aside, I'm sitting here in a 24-hour pancake parlor drinking far too much coffee.

Considering that the Ombudsman conducted a four-year investigation and found nothing at all wrong with the way CASA acted and no suggestions to any systematic improvements, Ms Spence would possibly not have met with me.

The only one that has found any potential "issues" is in fact the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner. A man I have had the good fortune to engage with on a number of occasions. While the ICC does come under criticism for its structure, the incumbent is exceptional. Not because he agreed with me on some issues, but because he is a man of integrity, and good intention..

In recent correspondence Ms Spence suggested that the ICC had been responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman. I do not believe that to be true, and that is not what I was informed by the Ombudsman's office.

Very clearly i want to restate that I do not believe that Mr Hanton, the CASA ICC would ever provide false and/or misleading information to the ombudsman. I believe that Ms Spence is attempting to bring additional credibility to CASA regarding the information that they provided.

Sandy Reith

5th Jun 2023, 21:44

Quote Glen:- “CASAs argument was that you cannot have operational control over someone who is not also an employee.”

This is a nonsense argument by CASA, it’s plain that to be a member of APTA the business must follow the APTA procedures, procedures that the business is paying to have in place.

But much stronger still is the fact that CASA has an arsenal of highly detailed rules. Rules that it inappropriately persuaded Parliament to migrate practically the lot (mostly were misdemeanours) into the criminal code.

Some of our ‘criminal acts’ don’t even get a mention at all in the USA, and where any instructor, or group of instructors, may teach without any form of Part 141/142 AOC type permission.

How much more control do you need? And what is the point of it? Training is statistically about the safest type of GA flying, and it’s the resulting standard by testing that’s the real issue.

One could liken Glen’s APTA organisation to gaining a Council building permit and the follow up by the building inspector. The owner and builder and sub contractors don’t have to be Council employees.

To satisfy CASA perhaps a real time surveillance camera and two way communication with a CASA ‘expert’ throughout every flight? Talk about control freaks, they have no bounds.

CASA is out of control, the Board and senior management have shown that they are incompetent and irresponsible.

The Board has buried its head in the sand and is incapable of facing the truth of their failure to rein in the Iron Ring or stop the colossal damage inflicted by CASA on GA as a whole.

As for Ms. Spence she has one chance left to make recompense and save her reputation by meeting with the Buckleys and quickly acting to compensate, then reset CASA and cauterise where necessary.

Highly unlikely that good, but worth a shot, good luck Glen.

MagnumPI

5th Jun 2023, 22:57

tossbag

6th Jun 2023, 07:59

Glen's knowledge and memory of what happened, if you haven't already noticed, is comprehensive, impeccable. These clowns won't be putting anything over him in this meeting.

PiperCameron

6th Jun 2023, 08:08

Glen's knowledge and memory of what happened, if you haven't already noticed, is comprehensive, impeccable. These clowns won't be putting anything over him in this meeting.

You can be sure that, yes they will! Glen's "knowledge and memory of what happened" counts for naught in a battle of He Said/She Said. They're bigger, so his guns need to be bigger too: not just a lawyer, but the reams of supporting paperwork and correspondence also.

Forget the Truth - you need Proof.

Sandy Reith

6th Jun 2023, 09:04

Quote MagnumPI:-

“Fire up the GoFundMe, find a lawyer experienced in aviation law that is so aggressive that you don't even like them, and give 'em hell.”

Agreed the GoFundMe needs a strong campaign looking for substantial donations, and not solely for the good of Glen and his family but as demonstration to all of government that we, as Australians, won’t tolerate such blatant injustice.

Not perhaps strongly relevant but thinking on ‘operational control’ DCA used to force operational control on aircraft in flight and during the flight planning stage, at least for IFR ops. This practice was then abandoned for what reason I’m not aware. Maybe because they directed an airliner to fly into a storm over Botany Bay which didn’t turn out too well.

mcoates

6th Jun 2023, 10:24

Shame only 10 to 12 watching live.... Just sad we are all so complacent

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/444x108/untitled2_b97aa319477370fe382e49b0fb8ce5e8852efede.jpg

tossbag

6th Jun 2023, 10:39

You're an absolute legend Glen, proud to have worked for and with you :ok:

Clinton McKenzie

6th Jun 2023, 11:55

My apologies for the poor quality of the video. I had no choice but to hotspot off my phone. Will avoid that for future videos.

Sandy Reith

6th Jun 2023, 20:14

Thanks to both Glen and Clinton, you have clarified the issues and exposed the inexcusable manner of CASA’s extraordinary course of injustice towards Glen Buckley, his family and all those myriad others who have been wrongly impacted.

Glen mentioned holding off on the GoFundMe until we know the result of his meeting with Ms. Spence. I say pile in whatever you can afford, and think in $hundreds or $thousands because Glen deserves every support possible.

What might be canvassed in a future video is how CASA prevented Glen from working as a pilot for another operator after they shut him down for no good reason. What has happened here couldn’t be worse than your most severe nightmare that waking doesn’t stop.

And it bares repeating that justice for Glen Buckley is extremely important for all of General Aviation, not to mention fair dealing by all government instrumentalities.

Clinton McKenzie

7th Jun 2023, 01:04

I will shortly publish a link to an edited version of the YouTube video, with the technical glitches deleted.

Clinton McKenzie

7th Jun 2023, 02:24

Here is the edited version, with the bits affected by the technical glitches deleted: https://youtu.be/T0p--ME24w0

Sunfish

7th Jun 2023, 11:50

Glens “crime” was to attack CASAS cash flow. Using one AOC multiple times instead of each operator having to reinvent the wheel at a cost of what? $300,000 per flying school? Say 8 members of APTA that would cost CASA $2,400,000 in ‘’fees”.

‘’Then there are 8 annual income streams from the schools as they make changes to their operations in the course of business. APTA had the potential to save its members a great deal of money tHat would normally be spent with CASA. I can see why CASA was threatened - $$$. CASA makes about $10.5 million in fees annually although their costs are hundreds of millions. Are there any kpis tied to revenue generation, if so, whose?

‘’Why was Glen drummed out of the industry? Why to prevent him from building APTA MK. II of course. It would be possible and logical for industry members clubbing together like APTA to save money that would ordinarily be spent with CASA for their approval of more miles of shelfware. Simples, Glen threatened CASAS extortion racket.

And another thing….. as most will know, if you want to establish a company, any accountant will supply you with a cardboard box containing the required registers, generic articles of association, share certificates and a rubber corporate stamp, It’s all personalised by the simple use of the of the find and replace function. Last company I bought this way was $700 and 95% of the work is completed for you. Why isn’t a similar product available for aviation operators?

LAME2

8th Jun 2023, 07:04

I would not disagree with your view Sunfish but Glen also criticised the Authority in regard to the new regulation suite. That would have ruffled a few feathers in their nest. When they had the opportunity, payback was delivered.

I was googling on an unrelated matter “Peter Rundle RAAF” and found a PDF titled “sub02a.pdf on the APH website in relation to an “Inquiry into the Administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority” from back in 2007/2008. Page 7 in particular gave me a chuckle, as pasted below. Should be the basis for an episode of Utopia on the ABC. Everything old is new again. How many inquiries do we need?

COINCIDENCE – The Operator had criticised CASA at a NT Aviation Association Meeting which was attended by a CASA representative – CASA refused to renew that AOC about 3 months later having advised the Operator they were going to conduct more surveillance.
NOTE – Back in the 1980’s Operators in Townsville were advised in a friendly term by an Examiner of Airmen not to criticise the Dept, as some Dept policy will fail tests of persons who criticise the Dept

Sandy Reith

8th Jun 2023, 09:08

Glen Buckley’s case is incredible, he has described it himself as bizarre, but it isn’t, because, as Karon says, he is not the first. Not by a long shot. The CASA modus operandi has had many years of refinement and steadily becoming more brazen and arrogant.

It’s time to lance the boil.
Ring, write contact your local MP and State Senators, support Glen Buckley.
https://gofund.me/1799a035

megan

9th Jun 2023, 02:53

CASA refused to renew that AOC about 3 months laterWas that Hardy's, remember some years ago CASA closed them down over a Xmas period leaving folk wondering if they still had a job, some threw their towel in not knowing the company's or their personal future, bar stewards.

Sandy Reith

9th Jun 2023, 06:35

They shut down Brian Reddish’s Harvey Bay fixed and rotary wing operation by not renewing his Chief Pilot status. Then sat on the nominations proffered as replacements. Aircraft on hire purchase at beginning of busy tourist season. Yeah, that’ll learn ‘im.

Why? Probably the work of a disgruntled young pilot who was tired of washing planes coupled with the fact that CASA had asked Brian to work as an FOI for them but he refused and set up a good GA business instead. Years ago.

SIUYA

9th Jun 2023, 07:13

According to Appendix B of the Legal Services Directions 2017, the Commonwealth and Commonwealth agencies are to behave as model litigants in the conduct of litigation. CASA is a government body.

In civil litigation matters, Model Litigant rules provide that government agencies should, wherever possible:

act honestly, consistently, and fairly in handling claims and litigation
deal with claims promptly
make an early assessment of the government’s prospects of success
pay legitimate claims promptly
not take advantage of a party who lacks resources to litigate a legitimate claim
keep costs to a minimum e.g. not rely on a merely technical defence
consider alternative dispute resolution (ADR) options.

Hands up who thinks CASA is a model litigant? :mad:

LAME2

9th Jun 2023, 08:31

Was that Hardy's, remember some years ago CASA closed them down over a Xmas period leaving folk wondering if they still had a job, some threw their towel in not knowing the company's or their personal future, bar stewards.

interesting read.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-08/nt-airline-grounded-over-safety-concerns/4416704

then……

https://amp.9news.com.au/article/45ec1520-8b2d-49ec-a833-4e1cc1cb8786

Am I seeing a pattern?

Sandy Reith

9th Jun 2023, 10:14

Is there a pattern? Certainly there’s a pattern and as far as noting the ‘Model Litigant’ provisions of Commonwealth law they don’t apply in the CASA playbook if there’s no case before a court.

Easy, make sure it doesn’t get to court by breaking their whipping boy financially and mentally by stringing out and holding out. Perfect examples Brian Reddish and Glen Buckley. If it does get to court in some cases they will settle at the last moment, no doubt with non disclosure conditions.

But the CASA Iron Ring isn’t even too fussed about its own underlings and possibly leaving them hanging out if things go wrong. Often enough crucial letters of demand and accusation by CASA are signed by a lower level patsy.

If and when the media and or some MP starts a campaign to correct CASA nothing will change.

LAME2

9th Jun 2023, 23:03

I had no knowledge of Brian Reddish so some googling came up with this article from 2013. 10 years ago and no change has occurred. Two comments from the article stand out;

CASA must answer for its actions, says Entsch | Pro Aviation (http://proaviation.com.au/2013/05/10/casa-must-answer-for-its-actions-says-entsch/)

“CASA are on a ‘go slow’ campaign to send Barrier bankrupt“

and

“You get individuals with a vested interest employed in these positions and they want to prove a point… They drive airlines into the ground and they cite safety as a reason for doing it, so it becomes very difficult for anyone to speak out.“I see Barrier in this category – the airline has had no opportunity whatsoever of being able to test any of the information they are charged with including these false allegations. You do have to ask if there is a vendetta.”

Global Aviator

10th Jun 2023, 00:00

Was that Hardy's, remember some years ago CASA closed them down over a Xmas period leaving folk wondering if they still had a job, some threw their towel in not knowing the company's or their personal future, bar stewards.

Not the only ones that have had the fun of the afternoon fax…..

If you’ve been in the industry long enough I’m sure you’ve had your own personal CAA/CASA unbelievables! To many times it becomes personal. I can name so many great CAA/CASA employees but it only takes one pr*ck with a bee in his bonnet and life gets very difficult.

I really do hope that Glen with the support of us all can teach this disgraceful system a lesson.

Sandy Reith

10th Jun 2023, 05:09

They put LAMEs out of business in exactly the same way. I recall two such instances, there’d be a long list. Often the small one man band with perhaps two or three employees simply folded and went away.

Likely they were too honest or not clever enough. One outback LAME in particular, whose name escapes me, had been held in high regard for years but was clobbered in the usual manner.

Then the classic case of Glen Butson of Polar Aviation who argued a point of view with one CASA inspector. He took CASA to court unsuccessfully and declared that he’d spent $1,000,000 to prove that CASA can do whatever it likes.

The latter is obviously not always the case but it’s a very arduous road to take on the juggernaut that couldn’t care less about due process and is always about might over right.

Take the private owner they took to court for illegal maintenance declaring they found the left hand elevator off his aircraft on his hangar floor. Too bad for CASA their lies were exposed, in part because that particular aircraft had an all flying slab tailplane.

aroa

10th Jun 2023, 08:15

Aah Sandy. down memory lane.

The Tale of the Wilga Tail. A classic example of the buggery that CAsA can heap upon its chosen target.
In this event…I found out by FOI* that the (false) sworn statements by the 3 AWIs were determined by the AFP to be 2 breaches of the Crimes Act ,fraud and conspiracy.. and “ that they had collaborated in the making of those statements.”

Dr Discrepancy**aka J Aleck diverted any Federal action to be for QLD where the offences occurred.
CAsA never went there.

I sent the brief of evidence that I had given the AFP to the QLD Police and that dragged on into nowhere.

Earlier Das Carmody did perjury by changing my allegations of illegalities to just breaches of the Code of Conduct.
To polish their turd, a1/4 mil contract investigator with the thus restricted brief found that they had done so.
The investigator persons pvt comment as ..”they should all be in jail.”
Punishment for the CAsA persons involved…the wet lettuce leaf.
Of the AWls R Clark walked/ was shown the door as I had mentioned his own aviation ‘indescretions’
Peter Larard took early retirement after a few years ‘ Stress of the Job’ poor dears.
John Retski ..Ops normal
With him, there is another CASA cover up example of further criminal offence. A bashing threat by phone.

No doubt about the Iron Ring, they surely do protect their own. CAsA corporate way of Justarse.

* You know ..that’s the paperwork you get that’s mostly black. Should be called FONI
**The moniker comes as a result of a verbal upchuck from Aleck to explain that the false sworn statements were really the fault of dircrepant wording. !!
I kid you not

CAsA is the most disgusting deplorable bureaucracy that has done tremendous damage to aviation to the detriment of this nation.

Glad I’m now retired and well out of it.

Sandy Reith

10th Jun 2023, 09:18

Aroa, thanks for the details, sorry to bring back the memories but the years slip by and these deeds must not be forgotten to give context to the fight.

Sunfish

10th Jun 2023, 09:45

The Mechanism by which Government and that includes Government Corporations like CASA, ATSB and AsA, damages the aviation industry is that their substandard and untrustworthy behaviour increases risk and inefficiency in any commercial transaction.

That increases total risk of investment in aviation compared to other opportunities.

Increased risk requires a higher rate of return to make investment worthwhile.

if required rate is higher that say, that which can be achieved by property development, then investment funds flow to property development not aviation business development.

Reduced investment means less economic activity and that means less aviation jobs.

Glens case and others, if factual, depress aviation investment in Australia, period.

Proof? Visit NZ and look at their industry growth since changing to FAA refs. There is no contest.

Sandy Reith

10th Jun 2023, 10:46

Quote Sunfish:- “Glens case and others, if factual, depress aviation investment in Australia, period.”

With respect I think the evidence of factual information is overwhelming proof of this very serious blot on our democracy.

Rightly expressed the severe economic depression of General Aviation is one grave consequence that also has negative National security implications.

But maybe worse is the collective understanding that this is bully rule unchecked and damages to individuals is the real way of government, this undermines all the fundamentals of our way of life.

Slippery_Pete

10th Jun 2023, 23:22

The fundamental problem with CASA is that the pay is less than the private sector.

That’s why their ranks are full of industry rejects, weirdos and assholes with an axe to grind.

If a pilot or engineer or lawyer can comfortably earn say 2-300k in the private sector, but they’re at CASA earning 120-150k/year, why do you think that is?

Until CASA pays significantly BETTER money than the private sector, they’ll always get the **** from the bottom of the pile. It will always remain a dysfunctional group of industry rejects, people with terrible people skills, people with an axe to grind, people who want to make themselves big by making others small, and people whose ego prevents them from ever admitting an error or apologising.

megan

10th Jun 2023, 23:39

Perhaps the industry needs a "Voice" to cabinet as is being proposed to fix other issues.

Clare Prop

10th Jun 2023, 23:43

Flaming galah

11th Jun 2023, 01:11

No doubt about the Iron Ring, they surely do protect their own. CAsA corporate way of Justarse.

You should take this to the new federal ICAC!

megan

11th Jun 2023, 03:03

Quote Glen:- “CASAs argument was that you cannot have operational control over someone who is not also an employee.”

so how come they have been turning a blind eye to the disgraceful practice of sham contracting all these years?I'm told my previous employer wanted to go to all being on an individual contract, CASA apparently told them engineers signing out work had to be on their books as employees and not contractors, likewise pilots in position as division manager, CP or C&T. When that became a feature in the last 20 years I don't know, contractors were unknown in my time. Contractor labour is far easier to get rid of if some one gets a bee in their bonnet, also more likely to do what they're told, particularly operating at variance with regs.

Clare Prop

11th Jun 2023, 07:20

I'm told my previous employer wanted to go to all being on an individual contract, CASA apparently told them engineers signing out work had to be on their books as employees and not contractors, likewise pilots in position as division manager, CP or C&T. When that became a feature in the last 20 years I don't know, contractors were unknown in my time. Contractor labour is far easier to get rid of if some one gets a bee in their bonnet, also more likely to do what they're told, particularly operating at variance with regs.
PIlots and instructors can't be contractors because they have to follow the direction of a HOO/Chief Pilot/Ops manual etc. Even if this means someone with special skills writes that bit of the manual. However many schools tell newbies to "get an ABN and send me an invoice once a month" because they are then able to fiddle the tax, super, public liability etc, leaving those people wide open to a world of hurt, but taking advantage of their desperation for a job, as well as paying them a fraction of what is a pretty small award. Plus of course undercutting the employers who are doing the right thing.
This has been commonplace in GA and until reading this I didn't realise CASA cared if people were employed legally or not. Not just the senior staff, everyone should be as important in a workplace as safety doesn't just come from the top. Someone who is being exploited is probably more likely to be a safety risk. The tax office have been turning a blind eye to this for years.

Lead Balloon

11th Jun 2023, 07:57

You’re effectively arguing that there should be a civil aviation safety rule that says all people involved with any activity relevant to the safety of operations authorised by a certificate or approval must be employed under a contract of service with the holder of the certificate or approval and, therefore, not as independent contractors or any other kind of ‘non-employee’. Everyone must be on the payroll of the certificate or approval holder as an employee.

I don’t think the rules have ever said that and doubt they ever will.

Sandy Reith

11th Jun 2023, 09:37

With respect Clare Prop as one who was mostly an employer in GA ops but also an employee I think in regard to:- “Someone who is being exploited is probably more likely to be a safety risk.” It’s not a one way street.

Our labour laws have become so hidebound that employers may have great difficulty in removing an employee who the employer regards as a “risk.”

In regard to value of remuneration there has to be an element that regards business reality and that is that a free market that actually gives us our high standard of living. Like human nature it’s far from perfect but there’s no alternative that’s shown to improve the lot of society. I think we’ve often said that the government should fix things, and surely they will but at what cost? I give you the (Un) Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Clare Prop

11th Jun 2023, 11:13

Wages shouldn't be used as a way of undercutting people. If the free market means that people are paying their pilots a pittance to be cheaper than the mob next door then there is a big problem with the way that business operates. If a company can't afford to pay the award as an absolute minimum then they shouldn't be operating.

I've been both an employee and, for the last 27 years, an employer in GA . I have always paid the award plus bonuses and all my staff have all the protections of being employed. I get what you are saying about getting rid of bad ones, so be careful who you employ; yes it can be a problem...unless they are casual. Give them the 25% loading they are entitled to and it is more flexible for both parties. The danger is when people think they are covered by things like third party lability and as a "Contractor" they aren't, and they can now toddle off to Fair Work and the boss can find themselves up for years of back pay including super, and quite rightly.

I believe CASA should insist that anyone employed to work in accordance with an ops Manual or equivalent should be employees. Not just the so-called key personnel but all the way to the newest most junior members of operational staff. They are all key personnel. We all know it only takes one bad apple to cause absolute havok. So treat them right.

CASA themselves have their Human Factors videos where one of the pilots is up all night driving taxis to make ends meet and the safety issues that raises.

I'm sorry to hijack your thread Glen

Sandy Reith

11th Jun 2023, 17:32

Clare Prop, bending back to the thread, CASA itself employs contractors.

Very importantly in this instance it was the outside lawyer’s advice that put CASA straight. Incredible when you think on the facts that CASA with its own expensive legal department couldn’t read their own regulations and have made such a muck up all over the place.

There are multitudes of other professions involving safety where contracting is commonplace where standards are acceptable.

In another instance CASA contracted John King of King’s Schools to advise on training reforms. He stated that some 70% of USA pilots were taught by individual instructors, or groups of instructors in business together, outside of their Part 142/142 system. Of course this ‘free enterprise’ type of environment did not impress CASA and so more wasted time and money down the drain. CASA pressed on with its impossibly complex rules that are directly leading to CASA’s vicious treatment of Glen Buckley.

I think to support Glen and GA we should concentrate on persuading government to intervene with a fair compensation package.

And at the same time press for a Department of Aviation and CASA disbandment.

glenb

12th Jun 2023, 20:35

Draft letter, finalised, removed and finalised copy refer #2675

Chronic Snoozer

13th Jun 2023, 01:42

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.

First sentence of point 7.

aroa

13th Jun 2023, 04:17

Hi Glen.
You maybe have already looked through the statements regarding the new agency NACC and what it may investigate. There’s some interesting reading in there, examples which bring CAsA strongly to mind.

National Anti-Corruption Commission. Opens its door 1 July ‘23

Could this be a place whereby some stakes can be driven into the heart of that foul beast CAsA?
Time will tell.

After my post 2656 of June 10, that blew on some embers that are still warm.
Maybe my material is too historical, but any ‘code’ does not override the Law, and crimes unpunished remain so.

Very best regards.

Clinton McKenzie

13th Jun 2023, 05:25

A short post script to last Tuesday's video has been scheduled for tomorrow (Wednesday 14 June) at 7 pm Sydney / Melbourne time: https://www.youtube.com/live/G1ROaoHxcao?feature=share

glenb

13th Jun 2023, 20:18

Clinton, I must publicly thank you for your ongoing assistance in my matter throughout the four years. For those that don't know Clinton or his background, i will say that he would be considered one of Australia's Subject Matter Expertson this entire matter, and i will leave it at that.

Clinton is someone I had never met until our broadcast last week but has been involved in this thread. Invariably a supporter, but on occasion I have ruffled his feathers. His support has been sensational, as have so many others.

Clinton and I have arranged a fairly short broadcast tonight. I had hoped to do it last night to put some consistency into the Tuesdays, but unfortunately, I wasn't available.

Tonight, I believe we will be discussing the direction from CASA that my continuing employment was no longer tenable, and the completely outrageous allegation made by the CASA CEO to Senators that I had stalked and assaulted CASA employees.

Cheers all, and Mark, if you are seeing this, thanks so much for the email. We will have a beverage..

glenb

13th Jun 2023, 21:07

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

glenb

14th Jun 2023, 08:06

CASA Ref: F23/21245

Dear Glen

I acknowledge receipt of your request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

CASA received your request on 14 June 2023 and the 30 day statutory period for processing your request commenced from the day after that date. You should therefore expect a decision from us by 14 July 2023. However, the period of 30 days may be extended if we need to consult third parties or for other reasons. We will advise you if this happens.

You will be notified of any charges in relation to your request as soon as possible, before we process any requested documents or impose a final charge.

When we have made a decision about your FOI request, we will send you a letter explaining our decision and your review and appeal rights.

We will contact you using the email address you provided. Please advise if you would prefer us to use an alternative means of contact.

I have summarised your request as follows – (please let me know if I have left anything out):

I am requesting CASA provide me with copies of commercial contracts that CASA retains of any operator in the flight training industry. If more than 5 located, the most recent five that CASA retain or have been involved in.

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.

A copy of the contract between APTA and Latrobe Valley Aero Club, that was finalised in or around June 2019.

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.

Date range: 1 November 1938 – 31 October 2018

I will liaise with the relevant CASA Officers to locate the documents in scope and will be in touch in due course.

Kind Regards,

Sandy Reith

14th Jun 2023, 18:54

I know it’s an Australian habit to correspond with informality but I find it very annoying, especially when an official government letter starts with ‘Dear Glen’ and ends with ‘Kind regards’.

It’s one thing to be on first name basis on the phone but in the circumstances of CASA’s intolerable, relentless and inexcusable attack on Glen Buckley the habit really grates.

in regard to the Glen Buckley and Clinton McKenzie follow up video the additional point of Shane Carmody’s unjustified attack on Glen Buckley was well made. This was another example of the CASA Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). Carmody’s accusations of assault and stalking were ludicrous considering that CASA presents no evidence or saw fit to institute its own procedures to protect or counter such “stalking” and “assault.”

How despicable can you get? Certainly the facts won’t stand in the way of CASA’s arrogant pursuit of anyone daring to probe or question the probity of its actions.

MalcolmReynolds

15th Jun 2023, 02:50

Glen, did you really request FOI from 1938 to 2018?? That will keep them busy for quite a while methinks!

FrankPilot

15th Jun 2023, 04:17

SRFred

15th Jun 2023, 04:18

Glen, did you really request FOI from 1938 to 2018?? That will keep them busy for quite a while methinks!

Probably result in an eye watering cost quote before they even consider doing anything.

Global Aviator

15th Jun 2023, 09:16

Probably result in an eye watering cost quote before they even consider doing anything.

If so we fire up more into the go fund me!

glenb

15th Jun 2023, 09:46

Recall that CASA initially said the structure was unlawful, and gave me only 7 days certainty of operation

It then became an issue of "wording" in contracts, which I couldn't satisfy.

All I needed was for CASA to identify whose and what responsibilities i needed to attend to.

Despite the extended date range, I suggest CASA will fail to produce a single contract that they have ever required of any operator in the flight training industry since 1938. To suggest that mattes of operational control would be specified only in a commercial contract and not in the Exposition is quite simply absurd.

I look forward to the results. Cheers.

Sandy Reith

15th Jun 2023, 10:01

I used Glen’s company a few years ago to get my controlled airspace endorsement and to hire aircraft. I met Glen a few times. I am a former CASA employee. I support Glen. I wish I could help more - sign a petition or something? Cheers.
Having spoken to Glen only a few occasions, but never met, it’s good to hear from FrankPilot and others, who like myself have been impressed by Glen’s attitude and who has continued to engage in a civilised manner (with an odd excursion, very understandably).

I think we can all spend a few minutes writing to our federal MPs and State Senators telling them enough is enough and we demand restitution and recompense for Glen Buckley. Doesn’t have to be a long letter.

And I think make known our views here, and elsewhere in the social media, and to our aviation associations that we want action.

And not just for Glen’s sake but for the wider implications that go right to the heart of our democracy. https://gofund.me/1799a035
Would a few hundred or a couple of thousand be missed in a years time? And maybe again some more. Cheers.

glenb

16th Jun 2023, 23:36

This post contained a draft that was finalised and sent.
The draft copy was removed from here, and the finalised version is at Post # 2686

Sandy Reith

17th Jun 2023, 00:49

Quote GB, “If anybody has any feed back, keen to receive it. Cheers folks. Planning to send this Sunday night”

Likely outcome:- SILENCE

Great to see Glen putting the wood on CASA and creating the environment where there’s no wriggle room other than to face the truth of its scandalous and harmful misdeeds.

glenb

18th Jun 2023, 20:48

19/06/23 FOI Request

Allegation by ex CASA CEO, Mr Shane Carmody to Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, that I, Glen Buckley, “stalked and assaulted” CASA Employees. (My reference: Pprune#2686)

Pertinent information to this request

This request will be of a significant nature and may well need involvement from Mr Aleck in his role as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Services.

I have distributed this FOI request with the following recipients.

My Local MP, Ms Carina Garland. I am a lifelong resident of the Electorate of Chisholm, both my wife and I have had the opportunity to meet with Ms Garland separately as our local Labor MP.

Ms Garland was assisting me as a constituent, until I was disappointed to hear that she had been directed by the Minister Catherine King to discontinue assisting me any further.

Irrespective of Ms Garland being directed not to assist me and my family as residents of her Electorate, she would be the Subject Matter Expert on this matter in its entirety within the Government, and it essential that I keep her Office fully informed as this matter develops.

I have also included two pilot forums which are referred to later in this correspondence. I have asked one of those forums, being the Aunty Pru Forum to ensure that they include my local MP, Ms Garland in their ongoing mailing list, to ensure that she is fully informed of my matter, and others that impact on the industry. My intention is to place CASAs response to this FOI request onto those websites, in order to let the wider community, determine if I have stalked or assaulted CASA staff, and attempt to somewhat restore my reputation.

I have requested CASA to approach the police on Mr Carmody’s allegations, for a full investigation but CASA have chosen not to, for their own reasons. If CASA is not prepared to approach the police on the allegations of stalking and assaulting of CASA staff, then CASA should formally withdraw that statement made by the CASA CEO at the time, Mr Shane Carmody.

I have included the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner for his awareness of this request, although at this stage it needs no involvement from that office, other than to be aware of “what it is that I am seeking from CASA”. That may be the subject of an upcoming complaint from me, although it is not at this stage

Background to this request.

On 20/11/2020 before Senate, Mr Carmody PSM alleged that I had “stalked and assaulted CASA staff.”

I understand that he was able to make those allegations against me in that setting, and I have little recourse against those statements, due to the Parliamentary Privilege afforded him.

When ex CASA CEO Mr Shane Carmody PSM was awarded the Public Service Medal, the citation noted that his actions and conduct had “led to a rebuilding of industry confidence in the regulator.”

The “industry” had no input into that award. It was understandably a political award, rather than an “industry” award, or an award based on any feedback from the “industry”.

I do not believe that Mr Carmody PSM should hold that award.

From my personal experience, I found his conduct, not to be in accordance with the obligations placed on him as an employee of the Public Service, the significant position that he held within CASA, and the harm that he caused to me personally.

That is my firmly held opinion.

The purpose of this FOI request is not to work towards financial recompense, what I am seeking is reputational recompense, and in order to achieve that objective, it is necessary that I demonstrate that Mr Carmody PSM was providing false and misleading information about me, to the Senate. I am seeking only reputational recompense, and that is the sole reason for this request.

I have two “core” issues, ongoing with CASA at the moment.

Issue one- CASAs false allegation that I had “stalked and assaulted” CASA staff. The subject of this request.

Issue Two-The decision by CASA that my business of ten years was declared unauthorised and illegal by CASA.

This request is ONLY related to issue one, being the allegation that I have “stalked and assaulted CASA staff”.

Mr Carmody made an allegation to the Senators that I had “stalked and assaulted CASA staff”.

I absolutely deny this statement. This is not a truthful statement.

Mr Carmody PSM, would have been aware that he was making a false statement to the Senators when he made that statement, because quite simply there would have been no evidence available to him to make that statement.

That statement was made for no other reason than to cause harm to me. I am fully satisfied that Mr Carmody deliberately provided false and misleading information to the Senators with the intention to bring harm to me, and my reputation, and to discredit me before industry.

For complete clarity I have never stalked or assaulted any person in my life and have not ever stalked or assaulted any CASA employee. Ever. Be absolutely assured of that. This FOI request will support my assertions.

There is an industry forum referred to as Aunty Pru (AP). This forum is operated by two very dedicated volunteers that collate an enormous library of information on CASA and have been an invaluable source of information for me, in relation to my other issue with CASA.

I asked AP if they had a copy of the footage of that presentation where Mr Carmody made that allegation, and they have provided it to me via the attached link. GA Inquiry - 20/11/20: Carmody Capers CASA - Part I - YouTube

In support of my assertion that I have never stalked or assaulted any person ever in my life, I have completed a Statutory Declaration to that effect and that original copy has been posted to the CASA CEO today.

There are now only two possible outcomes.

1. Glen Buckley has made a false statutory declaration,

OR

2. Mr Shane Carmody PSM has made a false and misleading statement to the Senators on 20/11/20

The purpose of this request is to restore my reputation, and my mental health. This entire experience with CASA on both issues has been traumatic on me and my family, as well as many others. I am only seeking the truth.

I have made requests of the current CASA CEO to correct that false and misleading statement made to Senate, and for her own reasons she has chosen not to.

What I am ultimately seeking from CASA is the following simple statement. Importantly, I am not requesting that Mr Carmody’s name be published in that statement. My intention is not to harm Mr Carmody’s reputation, but rather to restore my own reputation.

For the information of the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner, I would potentially be seeking the following statement, be issued by CASA, but I will await the response to this FOI request before proceeding.

“On 20/11/20 before Senate, the CASA CEO at the time made allegations that Mr Glen Buckley had stalked and assaulted CASA staff.

No allegations of either the stalking or assaulting of CASA staff was ever bought to the attention of the police, at that time, or at any time since.

CASA now acknowledges that statement to Senate was likely to be false and misleading, and CASA completely withdraws all allegations or suggestions that Mr Buckley has EVER stalked or assaulted any CASA employee/s”.

The documents that I am seeking.

I am seeking that CASA release all documents that CASA hold that directly relate to the allegation made by the ex-CASA CEO to the Senators that Glen Buckley had either stalked, or assaulted CASA staff. Those documents would specifically address the legislated definitions of stalking and assaulting. It may include witness statements, security camera footage, CASAs own OHS documentation etc.

I am requesting that the response be provided in two separate files to clearly identify which documents are in support of the allegation of stalking CASA employees, and a separate file identifying documents in support of the allegation of assaulting CASA employees.

I anticipate that those documents will have to redacted to some extent, but I am hoping to identify specific dates of stalking and assault.

If in the case of the assault of the CASA employee/s, I am hoping to identify if these incident/s occurred in the presence of any witnesses, and if those witness statements corroborate those allegations.

I am lead to believe by comments made by Ms Spence, that she may be able to provide further information. My understanding is that one of the offences may have occurred in the foyer of the CASA building in Melbourne, although I am not sure if that is the stalking offence or the assault. Nevertheless, the foyer has several security personnel present, security camera recording etc, so there would be footage, and witness statements etc.

Any injuries that were incurred by the employees that were assaulted by me.

I ask that the released documents address specifically and only the alleged crimes of

· Stalking, and

· Assault

My assumption is that these crimes are most likely to have occurred in my home State of Victoria, therefore my reasonable assumption is that the CASA released documents address those specific crimes only as defined in legislation.

As I am trying to protect my own personal reputation that was damaged by CASA, I ask that consideration be given to waiving any associated charges.

Thankyou for your assistance in this matter. To the person within the FOI Office that is dealing with this matter, please be assured that there is no animosity whatsoever towards you, or your office. I appreciate that the “tone” of this letter is somewhat assertive and be assured that it is not directed to you personally.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

SIUYA

19th Jun 2023, 00:45

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/534x361/capture_b9f5414145660f20fb7143e309243346dc055cf8.gif

glenb

19th Jun 2023, 06:40

i just had the best laugh i had in years. Sitting here with a good friend,,and we loved it.

MalcolmReynolds

19th Jun 2023, 09:11

I would say that you are being especially gracious Glen. I would be EXTREMELY PERSONAL and ABUSE THE CRAP OUTTA CASA! THEY DESERVE IT!!! Good on you mate, I hope you get a positive result.

glenb

19th Jun 2023, 23:11

20/06/23 (My reference – Pprune #2690)

Dear Keeley,

Thank you for getting back to me, and providing the opportunity for me to clarify the documents that I am seeking.

On 14/06/23 I submitted an FOI request. (My reference Pprune #2675)

On 14/06/23, you responded seeking further clarification. (My reference Pprune #2676)

I apologise for my delayed response and acknowledge that may impact on your proposed response times.

Let me again apologise to you in advance. Whilst I appreciate that you are the recipient of this email, I have added some additional detail to.

a.) assist you, and

b.) ensure that my Local MP Carina Garland remains fully briefed on this matter and is therefore included in this correspondence, as are some other Parties.

I have highlighted and italicised some points from your correspondence that I would like top put some additional clarity around.

As with previous correspondence, the “tone” of the letter is not intended to be directed at you or your Office in any way.

“I am requesting CASA provide me with copies of commercial contracts that CASA retains of any operator in the flight training industry. If more than 5 are located, the most recent five that CASA retain or have been involved in.”

To clarify this point.

In October 2018, CASA determined that my business of over ten years had suddenly overnight become unlawful, and unauthorised, despite it operating in the same structure for over a decade, and there being no change to the regulations.

Apparently, CASA had only just become aware of its structure after more than a decade, and that awareness by CASA occurred in October 2018, or at least that is what CASA led the Ombudsman to believe, and surprisingly and concerningly, the Ombudsman accepted.

CASA has recently confirmed that the truth is that it was likely to have been aware of the structure for many years, and that its previous position that it asserted to the Ombudsman’s investigation was therefore false and misleading.

Nevertheless, in October 2018, CASA placed trading restrictions on my business that made it impossible to operate, the most significant being the multiple subsequent short-term approvals to continue operating.

As a Registered Training Operator delivering courses of 18 months duration, it was impossible to enrol students in 18-month courses when the business was operating on multiple short-term approvals.

These CASA issued “interim approvals” to continue operaetrying in the short term were as short as minute by minute, sometimes 7 days, never more than weeks

The impact of these restrictions was crippling on the business, the Members that CASA had previously approved, and the Members left in limbo for 8 months while CASA considered it.

All I needed to do, to have the “interim approval to continue operations” lifted by was to come up with wording in my commercial contracts regarding operational control that would satisfy Mr Aleck.

With 25 years industry experience, I was completely unable to come up with the wording that would satisfy him, and therefore have my trading restrictions lifted.

I must clarify that on this matter, I have no doubt that CASA has provided false and misleading information to the Ombudsman.

CASA has led the Ombudsman to believe that they previously required Operators to outline matters of operational control within commercial contracts between two parties that CASA is not a signatory to, something that I was not able to achieve.

I know that to be false.

Matters of operational control are contained within the CASA approved Exposition, and not within Commercial contracts.

If for some bizarre reason, matters of operational control were suddenly required by CASA to be contained within a commercial contract that CASA refused to be a signatory to, then those procedures might replicate procedures in the Exposition. But! It is preposterous and unsafe to have matters of Operational Control outlined only in commercial agreements and not addressed in the Exposition.

However, the Ombudsman has accepted CASAs false and misleading information, and the purpose of this FOI request is to expose that false and misleading information provided by CASA to the Ombudsman.

So to add clarity to the query.

The Ombudsman has accepted CASAs “word” that CASA had previously required contracts to outline matters of Operational Control.

If CASA is able to produce 5 copies of contracts that they have required of other flight training operators to demonstrate matters of operational control, it would go someway to refuting my allegation that CASA never required contracts of other Operators, and that I was the victim of targeted malice by a CASA.

For clarity, I do not believe that CASA will hold 5 contracts over that 80 year date range that

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

To clarify this request.

CASA claimed that the structure that I adopted had never been adopted before, that it was unlawful, unauthorised, subjected me to possible prosecution etc.

What makes this entire matter so concerning is that the exact structure that I adopted had been standard industry practice since, and fully CASA approved since I first entered the industry in 1982, and I presume for many decades prior.

For CASA to assert that what I was doing is unique is truly beyond comprehension, and the industry in its entirety would be fully aware of that.

However, the Ombudsman was unable to determine at the end of the four-year investigation if it was never permitted by CASA or if it was always permitted by CASA.

The undeniable truth, and something that the Ombudsman Office failed to address is that both Ballarat Aero Club and Latrobe Valley Aero Club had the same arrangement with two different flight training Organisations until the very day before they joined APTA.

This makes a mockery of CASAs assertion, and the subsequent acceptance by the Ombudsman investigation that the structure was unique, and never previously permitted by CASA.

It was the application to join APTA by these two aero clubs that CASA used to determine what I was doing was unlawful, but could possibly be deemed lawful if I could come up with the required wording in my contracts.

It would be logical that if two Aero clubs had been permitted to continue under an arrangement with other Flight Training Operators the day before they went to join APTA, then they must have held contracts that satisfied CASA.

After all, I had been determined to be unlawfully operating, subject to prosecution, given 7 days continuity of operations, because my contract wording wasn’t acceptable. Obviously the contracts required by CASA of the other two flight training operators the day prior to them joining APTA had been acceptable.

The reason that I am seeking these two contracts as part of the five contracts, is because these two contracts, if they exist, would clearly demonstrate what was acceptable to CASA and highlight “whose” and “what” responsibilities it was that I failed to attend to. Something that I still have no idea about, despite multiple requests for CASA to be more specific about what “matters of operational control” needed to be attended to in commercial contracts, and something that the Ombudsman investigation was unable to identify.

If CASA was unable to produce the contracts that they required of those two aero clubs in their previous agreements, yet the next day declared my business unlawful then that would support my assertion that I was personally targeted by CASA.

I do not believe that CASA ever required commercial contracts of any other operator in the flight training industry. I do not believe that these contracts exist, and I believe the 4-year Ombudsman investigation consistently took the Agencies (CASA) ‘word.”

A copy of the contract between APTA and Latrobe Valley Aero Club, that was finalised in or around June 2019.

Immediately after I handed control over to the new Owners they were able to resolve the issue, and a contract was promptly finalised with CASA.

These two new owners were not flight instructors and had no experience in the flight training industry. One owned a “security” business, and the other admittedly had some flying experience overseas. Their knowledge of Australian legislation was negligible, yet they worked with CASA to produce an acceptable document.

That contract that CASA finally approved, is I believe the first ever such agreement that CASA has required of any flight training operator in the industry.

That document that CASA accepted is being requested by me.

It is a major industry document, because it will clearly highlight what was acceptable to CASA regarding matters of operational control, and it will highlight what it was that I could not achieve in 8 months despite my best intent and effort.

“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”

To clarify this matter.

I am specifically requesting that these documents be highly redacted. I would ask that the redactions remain in place to assist me in assessing the size of the document.

The ONLY component that I need is matters of operational control. Everything else can be redacted.

To maintain consistency the same person highlighting CASAs acceptable matters of operational control, would most likely have to be the same person within CASA that deemed my contracts unacceptable.

Date range: 1 November 1938 – 31 October 2018

The date range was admittedly long, the purpose of that was to clearly demonstrate that since Australia had a an aviation safety Body, they never required matters of operational control to be contained exclusively within commercial contracts.

My suggestion was that if in fact CASA had truthfully required contracts of other operators doing exactly what I was doing, and that has occurred on hundreds of occasions, then 5 contracts would be in existence from the 12 months prior to CASA determining my structure unlawful in October 2018.

In order to reduce the workload, I will reduce the date range from 2006 until October 2018, being the duration that I operated my business in that structure without CASAs knowledge apparently.

“I will liaise with the relevant CASA Officers to locate the documents in scope and will be in touch in due course.”

On this matter I must insist that Mr Aleck CASA Executive manager of Legal, International and regulatory affairs is involved.

I met personally with Mr Aleck. I met every legislative requirement. It was Mr Alecks opinion that I needed to appease and could not do so for 8 months.

If CASA had previously required contracts, which I doubt, then those contracts must have been acceptable to Mr Aleck and his Department previously. In order to determine what is acceptable to Mr Aleck, then it seems reasonable that he be involved.

If CASAs narrative has changed, and there was a different decision maker other than Mr Aleck then that employee should be involved in this process. Perhaps clarify with Mr Aleck as to whether or not he was the decision maker.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

glenb

21st Jun 2023, 20:52

Our ref: 2019-713834

Dear Mr Buckley

Finalisation of Complaint – Civil Aviation Safety Authority

I am writing to confirm the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman (the Office) has finalised our investigation into your complaint about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

I note that you contacted the Office in November 2022, asking to withdraw your complaint. I apologise that I did not respond earlier.

While I understand you requested the complaint to be withdrawn and finalised during your contact in November 2022, I had formed the view with the support of my supervisor that we would send a final request for information to CASA to bring outstanding issues raised in your complaint to a close. I flagged this with you as a possible course of action on 3 November 2022.

I received additional information from CASA in December 2022 and am now satisfied that further investigation by the Office is not required in relation to the matters you raised. I am satisfied that the matters of administration raised by your complaint have now been adequately responded to by CASA, and further investigation would not obtain a different or better outcome for you. We will notify CASA of the outcome of our investigation and may provide feedback to CASA for its consideration as part of that notice.

Consistent with your previous request not to receive detailed findings of our investigation, I have not set out the details of my findings in this email. If you would like additional information, please let the Office know and further details about my conclusions can be provided to you.

Ombudsman’s Office satisfied that CASA has not mislead the Office

In advising that your complaint has been finalised, I would like to reiterate my earlier advice that I do not believe CASA has mislead the Office in responding to our investigation. The Office will advise CASA of this as well.

I understand your concern that CASA may have told us that it did not have awareness of the APTA model prior to October 2018. I apologise if information conveyed to you by the Office in the past seemed to suggest that CASA did not have any awareness of the APTA model prior to October 2018.

Complaint Officer Mark’s email to you dated 23 December 2020 concluded that the evidence available suggested the legal area of CASA had not been made aware of the business structure used by APTA prior to October 2018. This should be distinguished from CASA more broadly. My review and subsequent inquiries confirm that CASA has acknowledged it had an awareness of the APTA model, including in the Industry Complaints Commissioner decision dated 18 July 2019.

Act of Grace

We have previously discussed the availability of the Act of Grace Scheme with you. If you wish to pursue this, further information can be obtained from the Department of Finance, including at their website - Act of Grace Payments | Department of Finance (https://www.finance.gov.au/individuals/act-grace-payments-waiver-debts-commonwealth-compensation-detriment-caused-defective-administration-cdda/act-grace-payments). This is a discretionary scheme, and there is no automatic entitlement to payment.

Legal Advice

If you wish to pursue legal action against CASA, you should obtain independent legal advice in relation to whether there is a possible cause of action and relevant time limits that may apply to your circumstances.

Closure of your file

Thank you for your patience as we have considered your matter. I hope you can see that we have taken your concerns seriously, engaged with yourself and CASA to obtain relevant information, and reached the conclusion that no further investigation is warranted after carefully considering the concerns you raised.

We review complaints only once. This means that as I have looked at the matter afresh, the Office will not consider the same complaint again, unless you can present us with new evidence that would cause us to change our decision. We will consider, but may not respond to, further correspondence received once this review and complaint file is closed.

Yours sincerely

glenb

21st Jun 2023, 20:55

Could you please forward me a copy of your report.

Thankyou. Glen

glenb

21st Jun 2023, 20:57

Dear Mr Buckley

Thank you for your email of 10 February 2023.

You have asked Catherine (Senior Complaints Officer) for a copy of the report relating to your complaint. As Catherine is currently on leave, I am responding on her behalf.

I understand that your request relates to Catherine’s advice to you in her email dated 8 February 2023 that she had not sent the details of her findings to you as you had requested for this not to occur. Prior to taking leave, Catherine had produced a more detailed letter which she asked me to send to you if you requested it. Please find that letter attached to this email.

Yours sincerely

Tom

glenb

21st Jun 2023, 21:16

2019-713834
8 February 2023

Mr Glen Buckley
Sent by email only to: [email protected]

Dear Mr Buckley

Finalisation of complaint about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority

I am writing to provide my findings in the review and further investigation of your complaint about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

I would like to thank you for your ongoing patience while I have completed this investigation. The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman (the Office) aims to provide fast and efficient review and
investigation outcomes, however there are times when the nature of a complaint means it will take us longer to complete than we anticipate. Over the past 12 months, the Office also experienced very
high demand for service, and this has also contributed to the delay. I apologise that you have not received the level of service we seek to provide in your contact with the Office in this matter.

Our role
When assessing complaints, our jurisdiction is limited to ‘matters of administration’ by the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Ombudsman Act). While we can look at the merits of a decision, we only do
so to the extent necessary to determine whether an agency has met the standards of administration we expect of Commonwealth agencies.

Where decisions require judgement or discretion, such as an assessment of the operational model adopted by the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA), we accept there can be more than one outcome available to an agency, and we focus on whether the outcome provided was reasonably open to the agency to make, rather than whether there might be a different or more preferable,response. We do not have the power to direct an agency to change its decision or take particular action as we do not provide the type of merits review conducted by tribunals and courts, which look at what the ‘correct or preferable decision’ should have been and, unlike the Ombudsman, also have the power to make orders to substitute a better decision.

In my role as Review Officer, my role was to assess whether the process Mike and Mark followed was fair and adequate to address the concerns you raised and to determine if the conclusions they
reached were reasonable and properly explained to you. In the review I considered the information on your complaint file. This included your original complaint to this Office, your correspondence with
CASA, information provided by CASA and your contact with our Office over the course of your complaint and our review. I was satisfied the conclusions reached in the initial complaint were
reasonable, but that there were additional questions we could ask of CASA to clarify issues of concern to you.

After I finalised the review, I asked further questions of CASA. I have received a response from CASA and am now satisfied that no further investigation of your complaint is required at this time. I will
explain my reasons for this conclusion in this letter.

Background

On 26 November 2019, you complained to the Office about an email sent by Mr Jason McHeyzer on 27 August 2019 to the new CEO of APTA. You asked for a statement from CASA as to whether the
direction in the email from Mr McHeyzer was lawful, and for an apology. Our initial assessment noted that the only practical outcome the Office may be about to achieve was an apology from CASA. You told us at this time that you did not intend to pursue your rights regarding a possible ‘unfair dismissal’ by APTA.

Your complaint was allocated to Investigation Officer Mike Buss. In December 2019, Mike commenced investigation into your complaint. He asked questions of CASA about Mr McHeyzer’s
role within CASA, the email sent by Mr McHeyzer and additional questions about the Part 142authorisation process by CASA and the notice issued to APTA on 23 October 2018. CASA responded to our investigation and provided numerous documents in support of its response.

On 14 January 2020, you provided a summary of your complaint to our Office. You stated that you believed you had been treated deliberately and unfairly by CASA. You said you did not believe CASA
was engaging with you in good faith and stated that despite multiple attempts to contact the CASA Board, your contacts were ignored and not acknowledged for over 6 months. You complained about
restrictions being placed on your business and stated that there had not been any safety concerns raised by CASA.

Mike asked further questions of CASA in late January 2020, including about the email from Mr McHeyzer, CASA’s reliance on Aviation Ruling 1 of 2006, and about the ability of a Flight Training
Organisation (FTO) to operate under the Air Operators Certificate (AOC) of another FTO. CASA once again provided a detailed response to the questions asked.

On 20 April 2020, the Office sent CASA ‘preliminary views’ under s8(3) of the Ombudsman Act 1976.These views made comments about the relevance on Aviation Ruling 1 of 2006 in the context of the
updated regulatory framework that came into effect in 2014 and the reference to this ruling in the notice of 23 October 2018. It also provided views about CASA’s knowledge of the APTA model from as early as October 2016. CASA provided a response to the view on 22 May 2020 and the Office wrote to CASA again on 23 June 2020. Mike then provided a summary of his conclusions to you in a
letter dated 25 June 2020.

In August 2020, Mike asked for additional information from CASA, which was received in September 2020, around the same time that Investigation Officer Mark became responsible for your complaint. I can see that you continued to contact CASA regarding your complaint while it was being considered by the Office.

You had asked for a statement of reasons from CASA regarding its use of the Aviation Ruling and concept of a franchised AOC. You asked CASA to stop misleading the Ombudsman’s
Office. You also made detailed submissions to this Office regarding ‘Phase 2’ of the investigation.Mark spoke with you on 23 November 2020 and then wrote to you with his assessment of your
complaint on 23 December 2020. In that email, Mark advised that he had formed the view that further investigation of your complaint was not warranted as our Office could not achieve a substantially different outcome for you. You provided 3 detailed responses by email on 19 January 2021, 10 February 2021, and 19 February 2021. You spoke with Mark again on 4 May 2021. You then
provided further information and submissions to the Office.

Mark wrote to you on 1 July 2021 to advise that he had considered the information you had provided, and that he was affirming his decision not to investigate further. He concluded that CASA
had given our Office a reasonable explanation for its view that it was not ‘fully aware’ of how APTA was operating and acknowledged your differing view. He was not satisfied that CASA had misled this
Office. He explained that he did not believe further investigation would cause him to form the view that CASA’s concerns about the APTA model were unreasonable.

Mark provided a further response to you on 11 August 2021 and 23 September 2021. You provided responded to both the Office and CASA following this, expressing your view that CASA had misled
the Office about its knowledge of the APTA model.

Review of complaint

On 19 November 2021, we wrote to you advising that the Office would review how we had handled your complaint, and that this would be done based on the information received from both you and CASA.

The review was initiated due to:
1. Correspondence received from you following Mark’s decision to finalise his investigation of your complaint, and
2. Contact from the CEO of CASA, Ms Pip Spencer, in light of your correspondence to CASA following Mark’s decision.

You have provided further information to the Office, and I have spoken with you on 17 February 2022, 20 April 2022, 10 August 2022 and 24 August 2022. As explained earlier, I have considered the
information contained in our records, as well as information obtained during my discussions with you. I was not involved in the original decision.

Review Findings

Email from Jason McHeyzer on 27 August 2019 Mark considered the information obtained from CASA about this issue and concluded that we were not able to obtain a different practical outcome regarding the email, and that further investigation of this issue was not warranted. He acknowledged that the new owner of APTA may have felt some pressure from CASA regarding your role when they received the email from Mr McHeyzer, but that ultimately any decision about employment was for APTA to make. I reviewed the information we hold about this issue, including your submissions that the email amounted to a ‘direction’ from CASA to your employer, and that the email amounted to a finding that you were not a ‘fit and proper person’ to hold a CASA approved key position with APTA. I am satisfied that CASA did not intend the email to be a direction to your employer to cease your employment, and I am satisfied the evidence supports CASA’s position that Mr McHeyzer took steps to clarify this shortly after the email was sent.

You were able to complain to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) about Mr McHeyzer’s email and the ICC issued a preliminary decision dated 16 October 2019 where it found
the email was ‘unreasonable and inappropriate’. Mr McHeyzer responded to the preliminary decision, providing a written apology to you on 19 October 2019. I note that you asked the ICC not
to speak with Mr Naser Qushair, the new owner of APTA. This prevented the ICC obtaining information from him that may have been relevant to its assessment of your complaint.
I understand that you also had the option of making an unfair dismissal claim against APTA, and that you decided not to follow this path. That was a choice that was yours to make.
In your conversation with me on 10 August 2022, you said you were entitled to know what statements you had been making that led to Mr McHeyzer’s email. I am satisfied that Mr McHeyzer
provided an explanation in his apology to you on 19 October 2019 and referred to your contact with the Prime Minister. In addition, on 7 December 2020 you acknowledged to the Office that you had been commenting on PPRuNE about CASA around the time of Mr McHeyzer’s email.

I am satisfied that on review no further investigation of this issue is warranted in all the circumstances.

Notice to APTA - 23 October 2018

Mike considered CASA’s reliance on Aviation Ruling 1 of 2006, Franchise AOC Arrangements in the Notice to APTA dated 23 October 2018. He formed a preliminary view that no Australian legislation prohibited the ‘franchising’ of an AOC and noted the Ruling referred to a regulatory scheme no longer in place. In response, CASA agreed generally with the fact that a ‘franchise-like’ arrangement was not prohibited but referred to legislation and regulations stating that authorisations were not transferrable. CASA also noted that any agreement between an authorisation holder and a third party must demonstrate the authority of the authorisation holder over the third party. I can see this is consistent with the advice CASA gave you in your discussions in 2019 that there may be ways for the APTA model to work within the scope of existing civil aviation legislation and regulations, provided it could be satisfied that APTA maintained full control of operators working under its authorisation. When Mark considered the complaint, he concluded that despite the reference to the Aviation Ruling in the Notice, our Office could not be critical of CASA for forming the view that the APTA model may not have been complying with aviation legislation and regulations.

This is because it had obtained information and advice suggesting the model used by APTA was different to what CASA understood it to be when it had transitioned APTA to the new regulatory scheme, and when it had previously added new bases to ATPA’s authorisations. Mark also told you that he was satisfied that CASA had provided us with a reasonable explanation for its view that CASA was not ‘fully aware’ of the APTA model prior to October 2018. I understand that prior to October 2018 CASA had accepted that APTA was itself conducting flight training in the various locations, under its own authorisations. In October 2018 CASA sought legal advice about the possibility that it was separate legal entities, not APTA itself, conducting the flight training operations. In my review of your complaint, I accepted that the conclusions Mark reached were open to him to make, and that he explained his decision to you. I can see that you have provided information to the Office showing you had discussed the APTA model with CASA prior to October 2018, and it should have had a general understanding of what you were trying to achieve. I would like to make it clear that CASA has also provided substantial
information, including emails between you and CASA in 2016 and 2017 that also demonstrate that you had discussions with CASA about the APTA concept during that time.

I note your advice that CASA had approved significant change requests for both MFT and APTA prior to October 2018 to add new operating bases to relevant authorisations and can see this did occur.
However, I do not believe this means CASA could not reach a different view about how the regulations applied to APTA. I can see that CASA obtained legal advice regarding the APTA model for
the purpose of the Significant Change application. After receiving advice, CASA sent the notice dated 23 October 2018 where it advised you of its intention to refuse the request to add new bases and
invited APTA to provide additional information. It is important to note that the wording of the notice was not a decision to close APTA.

When I completed the review, I decided there were further inquiries our Office could make with CASA to clarify parts of its earlier response to us about the Notice. The scope of my additional inquiries was limited to questions about the requirement for contracts to show operational control
and clarification of information regarding CASA engagement with MFT and APTA prior to October 2018. The purpose of the further inquiries was to provide assurance about the way CASA engaged with you, noting the ICC has already concluded that the way CASA advised you of its change to regulatory approach was likely unfair and not in line with its Regulatory Philosophy. Operators using substantially the same model as APTA

Part of your complaint was that you believed APTA was treated unfairly and differently to other Flight Training Organisations (FTO’s). You told us that there are other FTO’s operating under the
umbrella of a third-party AOC. At the conclusion of my review, I asked questions of CASA about this issue as part of my further inquiries for the purpose of obtaining assurance APTA wasn’t treated
unfairly.

Request to meet with the CASA Board You complained that you made multiple requests to meet the CASA Board, and say these requests were ignored for at least six months. Your complaint record shows that you did make multiple requests to meet with the CASA board, and that this was declined. CASA has provided information showing it advised you that the board was being kept updated on your matter, but that it deemed your concerns to be an operational matter, and more appropriately dealt with by CASA staff. I have no reason to be critical of this response in the circumstances. I can see from emails provided by you and by CASA that you had ongoing communication with CASA following the October 2018 notice,
including multiple meetings, including with senior staff such as Peter White, Craig Martin and Shane Carmody, then then CEO of CASA. I am satisfied that no further investigation of this issue is warranted in all the circumstances.

Temporary bases

You complained that in the October 2018 Notice, CASA told you that the use of ‘temporary bases’ was likely unauthorised, but that you had adopted a model recommended by CASA and used CASA’s
own sample document as the basis for this procedure. In a report prepared by CASA in December 2018, CASA acknowledged that APTA was referred to its
own sample manuals for Part 141 and Part 142, which included a broad ability to conduct flight training at temporary bases. I acknowledge that you likely relied on information from CASA in
developing your process for using temporary bases, and that CASA’s change of position on this issue would have been a shock to you.

I considered this issue as part of my review of your complaint. I am satisfied that while there was scope for CASA to engage with you in a more informal way prior to the notice of 23 October 2018, its
concern as to whether the use of temporary bases complied with the legislation was reasonable and it was appropriate for it to seek more information from APTA about this. I understand that when
CASA identified its own documents had been used by APTA, it did not pursue this issue. This was open to CASA to do.

I am satisfied that no further investigation of this issue is warranted in all the circumstances.

Complaint outcome – further inquiries
I asked further questions of CASA about its engagement with you and APTA both before and after the notice dated 23 October 2018 was sent. I asked about the requirement to show operational
control, the requirement to provide contracts and CASA’s engagement with you when it sought information about the APTA model. CASA responded to further inquiries from the Office in November 2022 and has provide information and evidence to satisfy me that:

 Operational control was not a new concept that was created by CASA and applied to APTA in
this matter.
 CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of
operational control before it made this request of APTA.
 Legislation and civil aviation regulations do support the basis for CASA’s request for
contracts from APTA, notwithstanding the legislation does not specifically require contracts.
 While you had provided sample contracts to CASA prior to the notice, it was not
unreasonable for it to request signed contracts to show the actual agreement in place
between APTA and its affiliates.
 CASA engaged with you and your father in a collaborative way following the notice of 23
October 2018, despite your view that CASA did not engage with you fairly.
 CASA had been provided with information from you about the intent of the APTA model
prior to October 2018, and there may have been opportunities for CASA to engage with you
in a more collaborative way to raise its concerns, prior to sending APTA the formal letter of
23 October 2018.

I can see that you had a close working relationship with your CASA inspectorate team during the time that Melbourne Flight Training / APTA transitioned to the new regulatory regime. I accept that you had provided information to CASA about the APTA model prior to October 2018, and it was reasonable for you to believe that CASA understood how the model worked. However, at the point
in time when CASA inspectors became concerned that the APTA model may not have been consistent with what civil aviation legislation and regulations permitted, it was reasonable for CASA
to take steps to clarify how APTA worked, and to seek evidence to support the model’s compliance.

While the notice of 23 October 2018 that CASA intended to refuse the Significant Change application likely came as a shock, it was an invitation for APTA to provide further information to CASA to allow
the application to be finalised. I acknowledge that it may have been beneficial if CASA had taken a more collaborative approach to seeking this information, including by having a more informal
discussion with you first.

Allegations that CASA has mislead the Ombudsman’s Office

I note that you have made allegations that CASA has mislead the Office. I can see you raised this concern as early as July 2020 after Mike sent you an update regarding ‘Phase One’ of his
investigation. You raised further concerns following Mark’s email to you dated 23 December 2020 and during the course of my review of your initial complaint. Having considered the information provided to the Office by yourself and CASA during the investigation, I do not believe CASA has mislead our office, or sought to withhold information from us. The information and evidence provided by CASA has been detailed and showed its engagement with you both before and after the October 2018 notice. The information does show that CASA was, and should have been, aware of the APTA model prior to October 2018. CASA has acknowledged this to our Office and to you.

The information provided by CASA also supports its position that it engaged with you following the October 2018 notice and sought to assist you to provide information that would have satisfied CASA
of the ‘operational control’ requirement. As set out above, I am satisfied the change in regulatory
position was open to CASA, while acknowledging the process could have been managed better. I appreciate the circumstances of the notice in October 2018 must have come as a shock to you, and
do not seek to diminish the impact of the regulatory change on your business model and yourself personally, however I do not agree with your view that CASA has misled the Office about material aspects of your complaint.

Conclusion

Having considered the issues raised in your complaint and assessing the information obtained during the investigation of your complaint by the Office, I am satisfied that no further investigation of your
complaint is warranted in all the circumstances. As I advised in my email dated 8 February 2023, we have now closed your complaint file. While this may not be the outcome you were hoping for, I hope you can see we have taken your complaint seriously and have thoroughly considered the concerns you raised. Thank you for bringing your concerns to the attention of the Ombudsman’s Office.

Yours sincerely
Catherine
Senior Complaint Officer
Complaints Branch

glenb

21st Jun 2023, 21:20

Dear Ombudsman's Office,

In your correspondence dated 8th February, the correspondence stated

"Part of your complaint was that you believed APTA was treated unfairly and differently to other Flight Training Organisations (FTO’s). You told us that there are other FTO’s operating under the umbrella of a third-party AOC. At the conclusion of my review, I asked questions of CASA about this issue as part of my further inquiries for the purpose of obtaining assurance APTA wasn’t treated unfairly. "

As you are aware, I have claimed that CASA has misled the Ombudsman's office on five separate issues. In this correspondence, I would like to address only the issue mentioned above.

I think that this matter is perhaps the single most important matter that needs to be resolved in my mind.

As you are aware, and drawing on my 25 years experience in the industry, there is no doubt that this was completely standard industry practice, with formal CASA approval. I provided you numerous examples including the fact that both Ballarat aero Club and Latrobe Valley Aero Club had operated under such an arrangement with other Operators up until the day before that they joined APTA. I provided another example that Moorabbin Flying Services had operated under the same arrangement with Moorabbin Aviation Services, and The Peninsula Aero Club has an ongoing CASA approved arrangement with the Latrobe Valley Aero Club. There are many more examples throughout Australia, although I will refer only to these in this correspondence.

I was concerned that a matter that should be so easy to confirm remains unconfirmed after more than 4 years of the ongoing investigation.

CASAs position was that it was never permitted and the initial correspondence from CASA in October 2018, confirmed CASAs position.

Please be assured that i am not asking for the Ombudsman Office to reopen the investigation, and to be frank, I very much regret involving the Ombudsman's Office in this matter.

However, it is important that the Ombudsman's Office confirms whether CASA never permitted such an arrangement or whether CASA has always and on every occasion permitted such an arrangement.

May I respectfully request that once the Ombudsman's Office has ascertained whether the arrangement was never permitted or it was always permitted, could I respectfully request that you advise me of such.

Thankyou in anticipation of your assistance.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

glenb

21st Jun 2023, 21:21

glenb

21st Jun 2023, 21:22

joe_bloggs

21st Jun 2023, 23:13

More weasel words- my bolding.

Good to see its starting to fall apart.

“After I finalised the review, … no further investigation of your complaint is required at this time…”

“had given our Office a reasonable explanation for its view that it was not ‘fully aware’ of how APTA was operating and acknowledged your differing view. He was not satisfied that CASA had misled this Office”

“and the ICC issued a preliminary decision dated 16 October 2019 where it found the email was ‘unreasonable and inappropriate’. providing a written apology to you on 19 October 2019.”

“suggesting the model used by APTA was different to what CASA understood it to be when it had transitioned APTA to the new regulatory scheme,”

“I would like to make it clear that CASA has also provided substantial information, including emails between you and CASA in 2016 and 2017 that also demonstrate that you had discussions with CASA about the APTA concept during that time.”

“the ICC has already concluded that the way CASA advised you of its change to regulatory approach was likely unfair and not in line with its Regulatory Philosophy.”

“I acknowledge that you likely relied on information from CASA in developing your process for using temporary bases, and that CASA’s change of position on this issue would have been a shock to you.”

“I accept that you had provided information to CASA about the APTA model prior to October 2018, and it was reasonable for you to believe that CASA understood how the model worked.”

“I acknowledge that it may have been beneficial if CASA had taken a more collaborative approach to seeking this information,”

“The information does show that CASA was, and should have been, aware of the APTA model prior to October 2018. CASA has acknowledged this to our Office and to you.”

“As set out above, I am satisfied the change in regulatory position was open to CASA, while acknowledging the process could have been managed better.”

“I can see that she considered, and sought information from CASA about this issue and ultimately decided she could not confidently conclude who (within CASA) knew what about your business model at what time,”

Clinton McKenzie

21st Jun 2023, 23:14

Dear Mr Buckley,

I refer to your email dated 28 March 2023, in which you expressed dissatisfaction that Catherine’s decision letter did not express a view about whether APTA had been treated fairly compared to other Flight Training Organisations (FTO). Catherine is on leave from the Office but, in her absence, I reviewed her records of investigation. From these, I can see that she considered, and sought information from CASA about this issue and ultimately decided she could not confidently conclude who (within CASA) knew what about your business model at what time, to assess the way your business was treated compared to other similar organisations. I apologise that this conclusion was not explained more clearly in her letter of decision.

Noting this investigation is closed, our Office may file but not necessarily respond to any further correspondence you send on the matter.

Kind regardsAs I said in one of our recent video discussions, Glen, the most appalling thing for me out of the RoboDebt Royal Commission hearings was the revelations as to the extent of the deterioration of the Commonwealth Ombudsman function. The Ombudsman’s Office was sent some ‘RoboDebt’s all fine and dandy and legal, nothing to see here’ correspondence from the policy Department, the Ombudsman’s Office asked ‘are you sure about that and have you given us all the legal advice you’ve received’, the policy Department said ‘yep’ and the Ombudsman just drank that Koolaide.

The Ombudsman’s Office was fed misleading information, the Ombudsman’s Office suspected the information was misleading, but didn’t dig any further. We know, from the hearings of the Royal Commission, what would have been dug up if the Ombudsman’s Office had done its job properly.

The ‘explanation’ given to you for the ‘conclusion’ of and the closing of the ‘investigation’ of your allegation that ATPA was treated differently and unfairly compared to other FTOs by CASA is, in and of itself, an admission that the Ombudsman’s Office did not do a proper investigation! It’s breathtaking that the Office is now so busted that it thinks that a reasonable explanation for not finding out whether APTA was treated differently and unfairly compared to other FTOs is that the Ombudsman’s Office looked at some information provided by CASA and couldn’t work out who in CASA knew what.

Differing levels of knowledge and ignorance of different individuals within CASA could be the cause of the very problem which the Ombudsman was supposed to be investigating! The Ombudsman’s Office’s job was to first get to the bottom of whether APTA was actually subjected by CASA to regulatory requirements to which other FTOs were not subjected in similar circumstances, irrespective of the cause of that differential regulatory treatment. If APTA was in fact subjected by CASA to regulatory requirements to which other FTOs in similar circumstances were not subjected – such as APTA being required to provide copies of contracts, containing clauses to the satisfaction of CASA, because non-employees were engaged in the delivery of flying training under the authority of APTA’s AOC, but other FTOs who engaged non-employees were not required by CASA to provide copies of contracts with those clauses - that’s the failure of administration that the Ombudsman’s Office is supposed to identify.

The next step is to identify the cause of that failure and to fix the cause. For example, if it turns out that CASA is an internal governance basket case, such that different silos of the organisation have different levels of knowledge and views about what regulatory requirements apply to FTOs in similar circumstances, and interpret and enforce those requirements differently while having internal arguments about who’s right and who’s wrong, that governance failure is the cause of the problem. Best to fix that.

I shake my head in disbelief in much of what I read coming out of the Ombudsman’s Office on this and other matters in last few years. It’s no wonder to me that faith in politicians and the institutions of government is at an all time low.

Sandy Reith

22nd Jun 2023, 07:51

CASA is a basket case and so are all the independent government authorised monopoly bodies that purport to carry out duties that should be undertaken by Departments of Government with a Minister at head.

Unfortunately there’s been an almost universal and naive belief that all ills will be banished by appointing an independent body to administer parts of government responsibilities, an umpire just like the footy! The rules of football are simple in the extreme compared to the ever changing complexities of society.

These bodies inevitably become self serving because human nature needs incentives to keep the line. It’s one thing to create a limited time task force or inquiry for one off concerns, entirely another to expect one government body to be critical of another or work to crucial time lines in an economical and efficient manner.

IBACS, Ombudsman offices for just about everything, the likes of CASA, ATSB and AirServices, and don’t worry numerous others can be found in the 1200 Commonwealth instrumentalities.

We should disband the lot and put all those main areas of government administration into Westminster style Departments with Ministers at head.

For the others, properly resource the police, courts and MP’s offices and let the voter decide.

I’m afraid we are all responsible for letting silly ideas like ‘Ombudsman’ become established with zero critical analysis.

But back to the thread, we need full publicity to influence the body politic, maybe coupled with legal action.

glenb

24th Jun 2023, 00:46

Dear Mr Rebetzke,

On 08/02/23 the Ombudsman Office wrote to me advising that the investigation into my matter was now closed. ( Ombudsman Reference 2019-713834. My reference Pprune #2691)
On 10/02/23, I wrote to the Ombudsman requesting the release of further details. (My reference Pprune #2692)
On 17/02/23. The Ombudsman provided me with those further details. (my reference Pprune #2693 and #2694)
On 28/03/23. I wrote to the Ombudsman seeking further clarification regarding the following, which was fundamental to the entire investigation.

CASA had maintained to the Ombudsman that the structure I adopted was unique and new, and CASA had no prior knowledge or involvement in it. CASA claimed that they had never permitted that structure previously and that it was unlawful, unauthorised, and I was subject to prosecution.

I truthfully maintained that the structure that I adopted was not unique, and was completely standard industry practice with full CASA knowledge, and in fact formal approval by CASA on literally hundreds of occasions over decades. I maintained that CASA worked with me over a three year period designing it, with CASA formally revalidating my structure in April of 2017.

To me, and in fact the entire flight training industry that is following this matter, the CASA proposition to the Ombudsman Office was so preposterous that the expectation was that the Ombudsman Office would soon resolve this matter. i.e. did CASA ALWAYS permit this structure, or did CASA NEVER permit this structure.

It is concerning after a four year investigation, no doubt one of the longest that the Ombudsman Office has ever done. The Ombudsman Office has been totally unable to resolve this very simple matter. Something that could truthfully be resolved with a single 5 minute telephone call. It really is that simple.It requires a telephone call to any CASA Flight Operations Inspector. and it would be immediately resolved.

In regard to your response however it does not address the critical issue that I was seeking clarification about.

I was asking if the Ombudsman Office was able to determine if CASA had always permitted the structure that I adopted, or had CASA never permitted that structure.

In your response 15/04/23 you advised that "the Ombudsman sought information from CASA about this issue and ultimately decided she could not confidently conclude who (within CASA) knew what about your business model at what time, to assess the way your business was treated compared to other similar organisations. ".

The question that I put to you was not "who knew in CASA", but had CASA always permitted other Operators to adopt the identical structure that I adopted.

It appears to me that throughout the four year investigation, the Ombudsman's Office consistently avoided the critical issues in this investigation,, and pursued a path of "convenience" and to be perfectly frank, has gone to great lengths to protect and collaborate with the Agency being CASA. There are gross technical errors in the investigation, which I will address in separate correspondence as suggestions for improvements to the way the Ombudsman Office conducts investigations..

Whether it is a result of the false and misleading information provided by the CASA Executive, or whether it is something from within the Ombudsman's Office, I am unable to determine. Nevertheless, it is a matter that must be addressed, and a truthful and honest response from the Ombudsman's office will bring clarity and credibility to the matter, additionally it will assist me to ascertain where the "confusion" exists.

I will attempt to reframe my question to bring additional clarity. I truly believe that I am entitled to a response to this question, as it is fundamental to the entire mater.

This question has nothing to do with whether CASA was aware or not of the structure that I adopted. This question has nothing to do with who knew, or who did not know. This question has nothing to do with Glen Buckley or APTA. This is a question about whether CASA regularly, always, and on every occasion permitted Operators on hundreds of occasions to adopt the structure that I adopted throughout the flight training industry.

There are only two alternatives.

Either.

Since at least 1982, when I entered the industry. CASA had ,on each and every occasion, permitted and formally approved the identical structure that I had adopted. It was completely standard industry practice, and formally approved by CASA on every occasion. The structure that I adopted was completely standard CASA approved industry practice. It was commonly adopted throughout Australia, and I provided multiple examples to the Ombudsman's Office.

or

CASA never permitted it, as Mr Aleck has led the Ombudsman's office to believe.

I apologize if the nature of this correspondence appears somewhat terse, that is not my intention, but after more than four years I am increasingly frustrated.

Yours respectfully Glen Buckley

glenb

25th Jun 2023, 20:50

On 14/06/23 I submitted an FOI request to CASA regarding "contracts". (My reference Pprune #2675)
On 14/06/23 you responded seeking further clarification. (My reference Pprune #2676, CASA reference F23/21245)
On 20/06/23, I provided additional information. (My reference Pprune #2690)

Received from FOI 23/06/23OFFICIAL

Good morning Glen

Thank you for providing this additional clarification below. Upon my initial discussions with the relevant CASA business unit it would appear your request is quite broad, particularly item 1 of your request - “I am requesting CASA provide me with copies of commercial contracts that CASA retains of any operator in the flight training industry.

I have been informed CASA retains a number of commercial contracts on file, operators will identify to CASA agreements and contracts for various flight operational matters, ie aircraft hire , aircraft lease, training and checking, conduct of flight training which I believe would all currently fall within scope of your current request.

I’ll ask that you narrow the scope further regarding item 1 of your request, if possible defining what contracts specifically that your request relates to.
https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif

Kind Regards,

glenb

27th Jun 2023, 20:07

On 26/05/23, Ms Spence, CASA CEO wrote to me offering a meeting. My reference Pprune post #2608

On 04/06023, i responded to Ms. Spence, clarifying some issues. My reference Pprune post #2620

On 27/06/23, I received the following correspondence, and I am keen on any suggestions regarding the next step.

My initial thoughts are to hold off to October, as I believe a Board Member should be involved, or do I go back and request ANY board Member to facilitate an earlier date. Be assured that if i am waiting until October, I will be working feverishly in the background, and potentially engaging a lawyer to attend. As the CASA ICC is a lawyer, although in the role of the ICC, not as legal counsel, it may be more productive with a lawyer by my side.

Dear Mr Buckley

Thank you for the information you have provided in your email of 5 June 2023. While I appreciate you reiterating your perspective, it is important to note that the points that you have addressed in my email to you of 25 May 2023 are my summary of the findings of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s investigation not a reflection of CASA’s views.

While I (and the CASA Chair) remain committed to the undertakings I gave you on 19 November 2021 and 7 January 2022 to meet with you to discuss the outcome of the Ombudsman’s independent investigation once it had been finalised, we are unable to commit to the four hours you request and can instead offer a meeting of up to two hours. It is also not our intention to revisit the matters you have raised again, given these have now been reviewed by the Ombudsman. If you do not accept the Ombudsman’s investigation findings, you should take this up with that Office rather than CASA.

In terms of scheduling the meeting, Mr Binskin will be unavailable until October 2023. If you would prefer to meet with me in Mr Binskin’s absence sooner than that, please contact Rosie Tsikleas from my Office to make arrangements. The only other CASA representative I propose to attend any meeting is Jonathan Hanton, CASA’s Industry Complaints Commissioner.

Regards

Pip

glenb

27th Jun 2023, 21:23

28/06/23

Dear Keeley, (CASA FOI Office)

On 14/06/23 I submitted an FOI request to CASA regarding "contracts". (My reference Pprune #2675)
On 14/06/23 You responded seeking further clarification. (My reference Pprune #2676, CASA reference F23/21245)
On 20/06/23, I provided additional information. (My reference Pprune #2690)
On 23/06/23, You responded seeking further clarification. (My reference Pprune # 2702)

My response to that request for additional information follows. (My reference pprune XXXXXX)

Thank you for the further follow up regarding my FOI request for "contracts."

Ironically, the issue that you are experiencing is exactly the very same issue that I experienced. for 8 months in my dealings with CASA, iI is indeed very "broad", to use your words. Where does one begin with such a "broad" requirement?

To be upfront with you.

I am fully satisfied that CASA personnel with significant power within CASA,chose to use that power inappropriately to bring harm to me personally, and that they were successful in achieving that objective. I do not believe that their actions and decisions were motivated by the safety of aviation.

In October 2018, , after I had been operating my flying school, in that same structure for over a decade, with no prior warning,CASA advised me that I was now suddenly operating unlawfully, and placed crippling trading restrictions on my business that cost well in excess of $10,000 per week, throughout the 8 months.

The crux of the matter in its entirety, was that a CASA employee had made a determination that ALL personnel operating under my AOC must also be my Employees, they could not be an Employee of another Entity. It was a preposterous assertion. That restriction has never been placed on any other Flight Training Organisation in this Country ever., That ludicrous position put forward by CASA has absolutely no legislative basis whatsoever, and it applied to my Organisation only.

Had all personnel operating under my AOC, also been my own Employees, the fact is that CASA would never have taken any action against me, and my business, and that is why this matter in its entirety is so preposterous.

However, CASA advised that if I could change the wording in my existing commercial contracts with the customers, to the satisfaction of a CASA Employee then the trading restrictions could potentially be lifted, I would have the trading restrictions lifted, and potentially return to Business as Usual, as it would become lawful again.

I believe that the entire "wording in the contract" issue was a complete farce. It was used by CASA to maintain the trading restrictions for a staggering 8 months. It is inexplicable that such a simple task could not be resolved.

The entire matter should have been totally and fully resolved in a matter of a few hours. It is outrageous that it was still unresolved after 8 months., with crippling trading restrictions in place throughout that time..The CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, simply could not be satisfied, and until he was satisfied, the crippling trading restrictions were to remain in place.

In your correspondence you stated "I have been informed CASA retains a number of commercial contracts on file, operators will identify to CASA agreements and contracts for various flight operational matters, ie aircraft hire , aircraft lease, training and checking, conduct of flight training which I believe would all currently fall within scope of your current request."

I fully understand that, as I also had such agreements all CASA approved ,on those matters. Those documents are undoubtedly operational documents, and would be contained within the organisation's Exposition, as mine were. These are completely standard industry practice, and those are the documents that I am seeking. There was never any suggestion from CASA that there were any deficiencies in this area.

This was an entirely different requirement. It was truly bizarre. The document that CASA were insisting on involvement in is the commercial agreement between APTA and its Members.

CASA was insisting on involvement in the wording of our existing "commercial" contracts, not the CASA Exposition/Operations Manual. Commercial contracts that would not normally attend to matters of operational control., and traditionally have no CASA involvement at all.

The matter was increasingly bizarre, because CASA insisted on wording in the commercial contracts, although CASA refused to be a signatory to those commercial contracts, despite insisting on wording that satisfied CASA. All other Parties were fully satisfied with the wording, and it had been checked by lawyers on multiple occasions.

CASA was never able to identify to me whose responsibilities I was to be attending to, or what those responsibilities were. It was as difficult a challenge for me as it is for you,so I do appreciate your difficult position.

The purpose of the request is to demonstrate that the requirements and associated trading restrictions placed on my business were unique and targeted at me personally

I need to be very clear on this. I am fully satisfied that CASA has never stipulated the requirements that were placed on me, on any other Operator. I do not believe that CASA will have these contracts on file.

I have put substantial thought into how to frame this request, in order to bring clarity to the request, I am hopeful that this attends to it. It's a long sentence, but i just can't work out how to shorten it sorry.

Request One.

I am requesting that CASA provide me with contracts or the relevant content of contracts from within the flight training industry prior to October 2018, and since 1938 that demonstrates in those contracts'

the clauses which CASA had previously required, so as to demonstrate to the satisfaction of CASA,, that flying training certificate / approval holders, have the level of operational control required by the regulations, over personnel who are not employees of the certificate approval holder, which the level of control would not exist without those contracts

I do not believe that CASA will hold any such contracts.

Request Two

My operation was determined to be unlawful by CASA and CASA placed trading restrictions on my business that were to remain in place until I could satisfy CASA as to the wording of the commercial contracts. The trigger for this action by CASA was my application to add the Latrobe Valley Aero Club. as a Member.

The very day prior to my application, CASA by its own admission had facilitated a long term and ongoing "arrangement" between another AOC Holder , and Latrobe Valley Aero Club.

Then, after Latrobe Valley requests to transfer from the previous AOC holder to APTA in an identical arrangement.o APTA, it is my business that gets determined to be illegal and has trading restrictions placed on it, until I can come up with wording in those commercial contracts to satisfy the CASA Employee.

My expectation is that CASA would have stipulated the same requirement on the previous AOC Holder delivering flight training through Latrobe Valley as they did on me. I was unable to resolve this issue in 8 months, therefore I would like to see what an Agreement looks like that did satisfy CASA, and that would be the Agreement CASA required up until the day prior of the other AOC Holder.

Please understand that I believe CASA has been deceptive in its dealing with the Ombudsman, and this document in fact was never required of the other Operator by CASA, and was in fact never required of ANY flight training operator ever.

Request Three

As in Request Two, I am requesting the contract that Ballarat Aero Club had in place with the AOC Holder until the day prior to them joining APTA. As in request Two, I do not believe that this document exists. As with the Latrobe Valley Aero Club, I am advised that no such contract was in place, and that CASA never placed any requirements on either Party.This was a new and unique requirement placed on me.

Request Four

With my 25 years experience in the flight training industry, I was unable to resolve the wording in the contracts to CASAs satisfaction for 8 months, and the trading restrictions remained in place.

After I exited the Business and two new individuals took over the business, with no flight training experience, they were able to immediately resolve the entire matter to CASAs full satisfaction for the Latrobe Valley aero Club

This agreement was perhaps the first such agreement that CASA ever required or approved. in Australia to attend to This document does exist and I am requiring a copy of that, as it will clearly identify what it was that I was deficient in, if anything.

This document will clearly identify how the new CEO was able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of CASA,, that APTA now suddenly had the level of operational control required by the regulations, over personnel who are not employees of APTA, which the level of control would not exist without those contracts

Other contracts that were provided to the Ombudsman

The Commonwealth Ombudsman arrived 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.”.

I am fully satisfied that CASA has misled the Ombudsman on this matter. This was not about aircraft leasing or hiring agreements, this was a specific requirement placed on my business regarding the personnel who were not also my employees.

I am requesting I be provided with the same contracts that were provided to the Ombudsman as "evidence" of CASAs assertion that they had required contracts. Whilst i doubt that the Ombudsman came to such a substantial finding without requesting any evidence, could you please advise me if that is the case, and then I obviously would not expect you to provide contracts

Other contracts- CASA nominated

I would invite CASA to provide any other contracts that they feel may refute my allegation that CASA has never required contracts of any other operator in the flight training industry to stipulate requirements similar to those placed on me.

I note that you had referred this matter to a CASA ``Business Unit", and they came back with this additional request, and I can see that there appears to be some confusion. May I respectfully request that Mr Aleck, the decision maker in my matter, be involved in that Business Unit as he is the subject matter expert within CASA.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

Flaming galah

27th Jun 2023, 23:46

As the CASA ICC is a lawyer, although in the role of the ICC, not as legal counsel, it may be more productive with a lawyer by my side.

Productive? Compulsory. It’s no coincidence another acronym for ICC is Indelibly Corrupt Cretin.

Sandy Reith

27th Jun 2023, 23:49

Quote Ms. Spence, “Mr Binskin will be unavailable until October 2023.”

Mr. Binskin is not available during the next three months and it seems hasn’t nominated a deputy. The nature of Glen Buckley’s predicament and the overly long passage of time towards any fair resolution should see a degree of urgency being applied.

Why not one or two of the other Board members? But then in the words of Ms. Spence when Glen received the infamous email of 2018 that effectively, out of the blue, smashed his business, she said it must have been “unsettling.”

Ms. Spence should acknowledge that to characterise the news from CASA as “unsettling” was wrong.

That start to this Glen Buckley state of injustice would properly and correctly be described as nothing short of traumatic. A gut wrenching nightmare that’s continued for nearly five years and remains a blot on our Nation, quite apart from the damage to Glen Buckley, his family, employees and many others.

sagesau

28th Jun 2023, 01:35

Seems like CASA is making changes to other satellite training organisations with a similar theme to what they have done to Glen. Nowhere near the draconian manner but it makes interesting reading. The Northam Aero club (WA)has some info in their April 23 newsletter beginning on page 4 https://www.northamaeroclub.com/Fly_About_April_2023.pdf ro the link to their newsletters if you don't want to directly link to a pdf https://www.northamaeroclub.com/flyabout.php
They (CASA) have insisted that the clubs instructor be directly employed by the AOC holder, RACWA, rather than the Northam Aero club which has been operating under the RACWA AOC for the last 50 odd years!

Sandy Reith

28th Jun 2023, 04:54

Sagesau, good call and hardly surprising that reality that they’ve tried to hide is starting to surface.

Glen’s extraordinary persistence might be paying off as Ms. Spence starts to see the light.

No doubt CASA will no longer employ consultants and now they will have to employ all testing officers because nothing can be accomplished by contractors or personnel who are not directly employed.

I hope Northam Aero Club fights back, in fact all the GA community in WA should be involved.

LAME2

28th Jun 2023, 06:43

I’m not sure what position Kevin holds but let me ask,

if it’s as easy as one specific appointment in each location is employed by the AOC holder, why not put that to Glen at the time?

also I notice in Glens writings above he says “to the satisfaction of a CASA employee”, I understood they approved Glens operation at a late stage and then rescinded the approval within 24 hours. Possibly after the meeting with CASA, Glen and his accountant.

I still believe this will only be settled by the courts. I also believe your endeavours to extract details from CASA will help in your preparations for that. You will have to meet with Pip and CASA though otherwise they will argue you did not have good faith. Just don’t agree to anything unless you’re entirely satisfied with their outcome.

Sandy Reith

28th Jun 2023, 07:12

I’d suggest that CASA is on a much belated path to justify its abominable treatment of Glen Buckley. I would say to CASA, why bother?

You are far too late and you think that you can quietly make all hunky dory and no one will notice?
So pathetic and gutless.

And let’s look at the difference for the students of the Northam Aero Club. Reading their instructors advice, the one result of conforming with the latest strictures from CASA is very simple. They will pay more.

Well done CASA, one more nail in GA’s coffin.

glenb

29th Jun 2023, 21:03

On 26/05 CASA CEO Ms Pip Spence wrote to me, confirming her commitment to meet with me. ( My reference Pprune# 2608)
On 04/06, I responded to that offer, clarifying some potential misconceptions.( My reference Pprune #2620)
On 27/06 ,CASA CEO Ms. Pip Spence responded. (My reference Pprune #2703)
My response follows. (My reference Pprune # 2711)

Dear Ms. Tsikleas,

My name is Glen Buckley,

I presume you will have some familiarity with my matter.

Ms Spence has extended an offer to meet me, in her role as the CEO of CASA. I would like to accept that meeting.

In order, for the Board Chair to be involved in that meeting ,then it would be necessary to wait until October due to the Chairpersons availability.

I feel it is essential that the Chair of the CASA Board be in attendance.I am somewhat disappointed in the protracted time frame, nevertheless i would like to proceed with arrangements for that October meeting.

Please advise a suitable date and location, and I shall make the necessary arrangements.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

Lead Balloon

29th Jun 2023, 23:52

It is ghastly watching you spending so much time and energy on so much futile activity, Glen. As each day passes you are one step closer to being prevented from pursuing whatever legal rights you might have had. I hope it is genuinely therapeutic for you, because it’s not doing your chances of compensation much good.

The Chairman’s too busy to meet with you for at least the next 3 months. (Why you care if the Chairman attends is beyond me, but it’s your call.) The duration of the meeting has been halved from what you requested. Read the body language: They don’t care. If they cared, they would already have written you a big cheque.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if the meeting were held on 23 October. Five years on. A meeting. What a breakthrough.

Captain, you must listen: You are past PNR on a track that confines you to being a minor inconvenience until fuel exhaustion. Please get your family to read this thread. All of it. Twice.

Please.

MagnumPI

30th Jun 2023, 00:17

Unless you pursue them aggressively with a suitably equipped legal team, they won't care. Without this, you are likely to experience firsthand a meeting where the DAS will nod sympathetically, express regret, but ultimately deny you what you are seeking or anything close to redress.

The meeting will be carefully controlled with security likely briefed if things get heated so you can be ejected. If that were to happen, it may actually suit their narrative.The ICC will bring a lettuce leaf to fan himself when things get hot.

What you're heading for is the bureaucratic equivalent of when a politician has to give an audience to a victim. There will be motherhood statements, perhaps an acknowledgement that things might change, but little chance of anything meaningful resulting.

If there was any chance of them offering you compensation they'd have a legal counsel on hand to get terms down. It's been made clear that this won't be happening, which means they've already decided they don't have to give you diddly squat.

185skywagon

30th Jun 2023, 00:35

Said Chairman spotted in Thargomindah on Tuesday night, tripping around in his 182.

LAME2

30th Jun 2023, 00:47

Off to the Big Red Bash perhaps. Very important for him to attend……

Thirsty

1st Jul 2023, 03:26

Hi Glen,
I had a quick perusal of the letter from the submission of CASA to Parliament addressed to Susan McDonald (CASA Ref: F20/258) where there has been a discussion of the merits of you case from their aspect. See https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=f09c6c7c-8d79-48b3-b581-ee2e639e81bd&subId=695929

I compare it to your last few posts and seem to detect a change in tone to one that is a little more conciliatory and willingness to leave the matter behind with subtle offers to monetary reparation. Even in 2020 they mention they had offered $5000 plus up to $2500 for legal expenses. While this may seem an insult for somebody that has lost their livelihood, it opens the way for a well prepared legal case to have the matter finalised to the satisfaction of all parties. Maybe they are hinting, and you haven't got the hint that they may be willing to settle for some monetary value to make it all go away? Maybe it is now a case of how much rather than why should I? Have you looked at it and thought about it from that aspect?

Your case will not be settled by a meeting with a government minister, head of government department, or a gentleman's handshake over a glass of beer. It will be done in a court of law, with wigs at twenty paces. If you have a well prepared case, I suspect it will be settled to your complete satisfaction before it comes up for hearing.

The threat of The National Anti-Corruption Commission (which commences today) may serve to hasten a clarity of recall of those involved should the matter be referred to them for investigation. Yes, they can look at retrospective cases such as yours which seem to fit their bailiwick quite neatly. Note the current rage for all parties involved in the release of information regarding the NSW equivalent anti-corruption investigation of our dear recently departed premier Gladys, and embarrassment for all involved, both in the results and how they have been portrayed in the media. I am certain various legal heads are carefully donning their wigs, honing their spears and counting the shekels (I use that word advisedly) that will be proferred should it come up for legal review. Time will tell.

The article on the ABC (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-01/national-anti-corruption-commission-gets-underway/102543658) would indicate that matters can be referred to them by any person, even anonymously, which one of the esteemed readers of this forum may be prompted to do should you fail to do so. The Commission, of course have extensive powers of investigation, and can demand, bolstered by law, information you have politely pleaded for from various individuals and departments in your lengthy pursuit of justice for your cause. They may uncover evidence that produces solid substantiation to some of your claims, some of which you may not be aware of based on the investigation you have made to date.

Your case should be tried based on facts and substantive evidence, something CASA accuses you of not providing (repeatedly) in their parliamentary submission. The trial of your cause should not be in these forums, which by their nature only are an opportunity for people to express their opinions (mostly of support). While they say where there is smoke there is fire, I suspect having a well represented legal case may have swiftly brought this matter to a most satisfying close to you many years ago had you sought support in the courts of law rather than the court of public opinion.

The following is blunt but somebody may need to be cruel to be kind:

Lawyer up, gather your evidence, have it reviewed and presented in a format that is clearly in your favour from a legal aspect, and go forth and conquer. Stop trying to be an amateur lawyer and a cheapskate - you are definitely not doing your case any good - your area of speciality is flying, not law. Get a team on your side that know what they are doing, experts in law. Like in the movie "The Castle", get rid of Farouk, Dennis Denuto, and get Lawrence Hammill on your case. Your well-intentioned but frustrated attempts (clearly documented in these forums) are evidence this is the case - they have blocked you at every twist and turn, because they have proper advice from their legal teams. Crowd-funding will not pay for your case, but will pay a good lawyer to determine if your case has enough merit to pursue and for how much - listen to that advice. If you win your case or get offered a settlement it can include your legal costs as well. Time to pony up and do it properly, do it once, and get it over and done with. If that doesn't work, at least you can say you gave it your best shot, put it behind you and move on with life instead of it taking over your life completely and affecting those you love as well. Getting token sympathy or legal advice from here at PPRuNe will not bring your case to a faster conclusion.

jakessalvage

1st Jul 2023, 04:13

If you have had any dealings with Jonathan Hanson you'd know how inaccurate your acronym is of his role and decisions.

aroa

1st Jul 2023, 06:52

NACC born today. We can only hope it’s a well nurtured child of Government and grows to healthy adulthood.
Time will tell.
Retrospective.Good oh. Might as well chuck something in and see what happens.
Curious.

glenb

1st Jul 2023, 21:57

02/07/23

My reference Pprune #2719

Dear Ms Spence,

Please accept this follow up correspondence in regard to our meeting in October 2023.

Thank you for facilitating a meeting of 2 hours. I appreciate that you won’t walk out the room on the 121st minute, nevertheless I believe that we can achieve what we need to achieve, in a well-intentioned two-hour meeting.

I have had a few days to reflect, and after a rather restless night, made the decision to write to you this morning.

I don’t want you to be “broadsided” at that meeting, so the purpose of this letter is to ensure that we have clear expectations, and I appreciate you outlining, that you don’t want to be going over “old ground”.

Please understand that from my perspective, my business, livelihood, health has been impacted. Our family lost absolutely everything, including our family home as a result of this.

My mental health has been devastated by this entire episode, and the sad truth is that in the depths of depression, and on the cusp of taking my own life a couple of months ago, I ended up in a psychiatric facility. I am now a patient of one of Australia’s leading psychiatrists, and a psychologist. After a lifetime of avoiding any medication, I am now on antidepressants. My family lost absolutely everything. Their home, their savings, their Father and Husband.

This matter in its entirety was completely avoidable.

From my personal perspective, without any doubt, the most heartbreaking aspect of this entire matter has been my loss of self-esteem and self-respect because of all the people that have been impacted by placing their trust and confidence in me.

I would like to achieve the following outcomes during that two-hour meeting.

Expected Outcome One- Act of Grace Payment

I am of the opinion that CASA unlawfully and with targeted malice took action that closed my business and was entirely unnecessary. There were no legitimate safety concerns nor were there any regulatory breaches, and at all times I operated fully in accordance with all CASA approved procedures in my Exposition/Operations Manual.

I believe that I have a valid basis for a claim against CASA. That is not my preferred option.

Throughout the last five years, I have gone further than could be reasonably expected of any person to avoid litigation. Litigation suggests to me that there is a complete breakdown of “good intent”. It is unnecessarily combative, protracted and distracts resources.

My preferred course of action is to put forward a request for an Act of Grace payment. This request would not be successful if it were opposed by CASA.

My hope is that An Act of Grace payment could be considered an Alternative Dispute Resolution, as outlined in Appendix B of the Legal Services Directions 2017, where it states

“the Commonwealth and Commonwealth agencies are to behave as model litigants in the conduct of litigation.

In civil litigation matters, Model Litigant rules provide that government agencies should, wherever possible:

act honestly, consistently, and fairly in handling claims and litigation
deal with claims promptly
make an early assessment of the government’s prospects of success
pay legitimate claims promptly
not take advantage of a party who lacks resources to litigate a legitimate claim
keep costs to a minimum e.g. not rely on a merely technical defence
consider alternative dispute resolution (ADR) options.”

At the end of that two-hour meeting, I would like to obtain a decision from you and the Chair of the Board, whether or not CASA will oppose that claim for an Act of Grace payment.

For simplicity of the Act of Grace Payment, it would be for the purpose of compensating/reimbursing staff, customers, students, Suppliers, the other businesses closed down by CASA actions, and others who were dependant on me.

It would not contain any claim for me personally, or for the harm and trauma caused to me. I would waive any claim to those aspects in the interests of a prompt resolution, by way of an Act of Grace Payment By rectifying the harm caused to so many, it would lift an enormous mental burden from me, and at least go some way to resolving this entire matter and allowing me to move forward with my life.

It seems entirely reasonable that if CASA simply “changes its mind” about a business after 10 years, the persons affected by that change of “interpretation” of the law, should not be impacted, just as a homeowner is reimbursed when the house is to be bulldozed for a road. It is an entirely reasonable expectation.

If the CASA Chair and CEO determine that they will oppose an Act of Grace Payment, then I can see little benefit in waiting until October to receive that information.

Could you please advise if you would be in a position to advise me at the conclusion of that meeting if CASA will oppose my request for an Act of Grace Payment?

Expected Outcome Two- Why this matter could not be fully resolved in 4 hours.

As you are aware, I am fully satisfied that this matter could have been fully resolved in four hours, yet it dragged on for over 8 months, and was still not resolved. I am fully satisfied that if CASA was acting in Good Faith this matter and its associated harm could have been completely avoided.

I would like to obtain CASAs explanation on why this matter could not be fully resolved in four hours.

There must have been some reason from CASAs perspective as to why it was not easily resolved in one meeting of less than four hours. If I could explain that to my family, the people impacted, and the wider industry, it would assist me greatly.

In order to go someway to restoring my reputation I would like to be able to explain to those that were dependent on me, as to why I could not resolve this apparently simple matter to CASAs full satisfaction. It seems an entirely reasonable expectation, and I am sure you will concur.

Expected Outcome Three- The single issue was all personnekl were not directly employed by me.

The most distressing part of the last five years has been that I have no idea what I did wrong. I do not know what piece of legislation was breached. I don’t know what specific mistake that I made, I have no idea which of my procedures was deficient, I have no idea of any safety concerns.

My understanding is that because I utilised personnel under my AOC that were not always also my employees, I was in breach of the regulations.

That was effectively the single issue.

Had every one of those personnel operating under my AOC been directly employed by me, then CASA would never have raised any concerns at all, and my business would not ever have been contacted by CASA or had any action taken against it, as Craig Martin from CASA advised me in writing, ‘For the avoidance of doubt, flight training can be conducted by APTA Employees only, not Employees of Affiliates’

I would like to exit that meeting with a clear understanding of this requirement by CASA. It is not a requirement, and has never been a legislative requirement. This seems to be a restriction placed only on my own flying school and not on the other 300 flight training organisations in Australia.

So, my question would be. If all personnel operating under my AOC were also directly employed by me, would CASA ever have imposed the trading restrictions, and if so, could you identify the justification.

Expected Outcome Four- Allegation of misfeasancev in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.

One month prior to that meeting I will provide.

· The CASA Board,

· The CASA CEO, The CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner

· My Local Labor MP for Chisholm, Ms Carina Garland

with a substantial document outlining my allegations of Misfeasance in Public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs.

If that document can be considered prior to that meeting, my intention would be that I formally submit that document to the CASA ICC for an internal investigation.

If CASA choose not to conduct their own internal investigation, then I will pursue alternatives.

I believe that Mr Aleck would support that request. I have made significant allegations against his conduct, and I expect that he would be supportive of any investigation to refute my allegations.

Expected Outcome Five

On the initial notification of 23rd October 2018, CASA placed trading restrictions on my business, based on alleged contravention of the following four rules and regulations, and these are the only four allegations that have ever been put forward to me.

· Paragraph 7 of the Aviation Ruling

· Section 27 (8) of the Civil Aviation Act

· Section 29 of the Civil Aviation Act

· CASR 141.050

I would like to get a clear and concise response from CASA, after almost five years. Is the CASA position that I did, or I did not break those regulations.

Consider a person that is charged with an offence by the police, and he has to wait five years to have his guilt or innocence determined in a court of law. If over the next five years, the Police become aware that in fact no offence had occurred then they should be prepared to admit that, rather than attempt to pursue the matter, and possibly in a corrupt manner.

The point is that after 5 years of continuing investigation by the police, the reasonable expectation of the Police is that they are as confident, or more confident, of their position after 5 years.

If they are confident, they should be able to confidently restate their position, at all times throughout that five-year investigation, and right up until they walk into the Courtroom.

At our meeting, I would be seeking that same commitment from CASA i.e., a yes or no response to each of those four allegations made in October 2018.

It is an entirely reasonable request as I am sure you will agree.

Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to meet with yourself, the CASA Chair, and Industry Complaints Commissioner in October 2018, I look forward to your considered response. Hopefully with clear expectations and good intent, we can resolve this matter in its entirety before the end of October 2023.

I must however make it very clear that if you inform me that CASA will oppose my request for an Act of Grace Payment, I give you my solemn word that I will pursue legal action, as I will have pursued every other option that is available to me.

You are aware of the aviation forums of “Aunty Pru” and “Pprune”. There is strong industry pressure for me to pursue legal action and has been for a protracted period.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

glenb

1st Jul 2023, 22:48

28/06/23

Dear Keeley, (CASA FOI Office)

On 14/06/23 I submitted an FOI request to CASA regarding "contracts". (My reference Pprune #2675)
On 14/06/23 You responded seeking further clarification. (My reference Pprune #2676, CASA reference F23/21245)
On 20/06/23, I provided additional information. (My reference Pprune #2690)
On 23/06/23, You responded seeking further clarification. (My reference Pprune # 2702)

My response to that request for additional information follows. (My reference Pprune # 2720)

Thank you for the further follow up regarding my FOI request for "contracts."

Ironically, the issue that you are experiencing is exactly the very same issue that I experienced. for 8 months in my dealings with CASA, iI is indeed very "broad", to use your words. Where does one begin with such a "broad" requirement?

To be upfront with you.

I am fully satisfied that CASA personnel with significant power within CASA,chose to use that power inappropriately to bring harm to me personally, and that they were successful in achieving that objective. I do not believe that their actions and decisions were motivated by the safety of aviation.

In October 2018, , after I had been operating my flying school, in that same structure for over a decade, with no prior warning,CASA advised me that I was now suddenly operating unlawfully, and placed crippling trading restrictions on my business that cost well in excess of $10,000 per week, throughout the 8 months.

The crux of the matter in its entirety, was that a CASA employee had made a determination that ALL personnel operating under my AOC must also be my Employees, they could not be an Employee of another Entity. It was a preposterous assertion. That restriction has never been placed on any other Flight Training Organisation in this Country ever., That ludicrous position put forward by CASA has absolutely no legislative basis whatsoever, and it applied to my Organisation only.

Had all personnel operating under my AOC, also been my own Employees, the fact is that CASA would never have taken any action against me, and my business, and that is why this matter in its entirety is so preposterous.

However, CASA advised that if I could change the wording in my existing commercial contracts with the customers, to the satisfaction of a CASA Employee then the trading restrictions could potentially be lifted, I would have the trading restrictions lifted, and potentially return to Business as Usual, as it would become lawful again.

I believe that the entire "wording in the contract" issue was a complete farce. It was used by CASA to maintain the trading restrictions for a staggering 8 months. It is inexplicable that such a simple task could not be resolved.

The entire matter should have been totally and fully resolved in a matter of a few hours. It is outrageous that it was still unresolved after 8 months., with crippling trading restrictions in place throughout that time..The CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, simply could not be satisfied, and until he was satisfied, the crippling trading restrictions were to remain in place.

In your correspondence you stated "I have been informed CASA retains a number of commercial contracts on file, operators will identify to CASA agreements and contracts for various flight operational matters, ie aircraft hire , aircraft lease, training and checking, conduct of flight training which I believe would all currently fall within scope of your current request."

I fully understand that, as I also had such agreements all CASA approved ,on those matters. Those documents are undoubtedly operational documents, and would be contained within the organisation's Exposition, as mine were. These are completely standard industry practice, and those are not the documents that I am seeking. There was never any suggestion from CASA that there were any deficiencies in this area.. Those contracts form part of the Exposition as they did in my own organisation.

This was an entirely different requirement. It was truly bizarre. The document that CASA were insisting on involvement in is the commercial agreement between APTA and its Members.

CASA was insisting on involvement in the wording of our existing "commercial" contracts, not the CASA Exposition/Operations Manual. Commercial contracts that would not normally attend to matters of operational control., and traditionally have no CASA involvement at all.

The matter was increasingly bizarre, because CASA insisted on wording in the commercial contracts, although CASA refused to be a signatory to those commercial contracts, despite insisting on wording that satisfied CASA. All other Parties were fully satisfied with the wording, and it had been checked by lawyers on multiple occasions.

The point being that the CASA Approved Exposition is where matters of operational control are outlined as that is the document between CASA and my organisation, not a commercial contract that CASA is not, and refuses to be a signatory to. Such matters are usually of a commercially sensitive nature, and not required to be disclosed to CASA.

CASA was never able to identify to me whose responsibilities I was to be attending to, or what those responsibilities were. It was as difficult a challenge for me as it is for you,so I do appreciate your difficult position.

The purpose of the request is to demonstrate that the requirements and associated trading restrictions placed on my business were unique and targeted at me personally

I need to be very clear on this. I am fully satisfied that CASA has never stipulated the requirements that were placed on me, on any other Operator. I do not believe that CASA will have these contracts on file, with the exception of the post July 2019 contract that they accepted between APTA and Latrobe Valley days after I exited the Business.

I have put substantial thought into how to frame this request, in order to bring clarity to the request, I am hopeful that this attends to it. It's a long sentence, but i just can't work out how to shorten it sorry.

Request One.

I am requesting that CASA provide me with contracts or the relevant content of contracts from within the flight training industry prior to October 2018, and since 1938 that demonstrates in those contracts'

the clauses which CASA had previously required, so as to demonstrate to the satisfaction of CASA,, that flying training certificate / approval holders, have the level of operational control required by the regulations, over personnel who are not employees of the certificate approval holder, which the level of control would not exist without those contracts

I do not believe that CASA will hold any such contracts.. This may be a futile search, but please advise me of the result.

Request Two

My operation was determined to be unlawful by CASA and CASA placed trading restrictions on my business that were to remain in place until I could satisfy CASA as to the wording of the commercial contracts. The trigger for this action by CASA was my application to add the Latrobe Valley Aero Club. as a Member.

The very day prior to my application, CASA by its own admission, had facilitated a long term and ongoing prior "arrangement" between another AOC Holder , and Latrobe Valley Aero Club, presumably with a "contract" as was required of me by CASA.

Then, after Latrobe Valley requests to transfer from the previous AOC holder to APTA in an identical arrangement, it is my business that gets determined to be illegal and has trading restrictions placed on it, until I can come up with wording in those commercial contracts to satisfy the CASA Employee.

My expectation is that CASA would have stipulated the same requirement on the previous AOC Holder delivering flight training through Latrobe Valley as they did on me. I was unable to resolve this issue in 8 months, therefore I would like to see what an Agreement looks like that did satisfy CASA, and that would be the Agreement that CASA required of the AOC Holder delivering flight training for Latrobe Valley the day prior to them transferring to me.

As with the requirement placed on me, I expect that they would demonstrate to the satisfaction of CASA,, that flying training certificate / approval holders, have the level of operational control required by the regulations, over personnel who are not employees of the certificate approval holder, which the level of control would not exist without those contracts

Please understand that I believe CASA has been deceptive in its dealing with the Ombudsman, and this document in fact was never required of the other Operator by CASA, and was in fact never required of ANY flight training operator ever. This may well be a futile search, as with request one.

Request Three

As in Request Two, I am requesting the contract that Ballarat Aero Club had in place with the AOC Holder until the day prior to them joining APTA. As in request Two, I do not believe that this document exists. As with the Latrobe Valley Aero Club, I am advised that no such contract was in place, and that CASA never placed any requirements on either Party.This was a new and unique requirement placed on me.

Request Four

With my 25 years experience in the flight training industry, I was unable to resolve the wording in the contracts to CASAs satisfaction for 8 months, and the trading restrictions remained in place.

After I exited the Business and two new individuals took over the business, with no flight training experience, they were able to immediately resolve the entire matter to CASAs full satisfaction for the operations of Latrobe Valley Aero Club.

The only thing that changed was the wording in that contract, and no doubt that attended to the shortcomings that I allegedly could not come up with over the previous 8 months and would have demonstrated to the satisfaction of CASA,, that flying training certificate / approval holders, have the level of operational control required by the regulations, over personnel who are not employees of the certificate approval holder, which the level of control would not exist without those contracts

This agreement was perhaps the first such agreement that CASA ever required or approved. In Australia to attend to This document does most certainly exist,and I am requiring a copy of that, as it will clearly identify what it was that I was unable to achieve in 8 months.

This document will clearly identify how the new CEO was able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of CASA,, that APTA now suddenly had the level of operational control required by the regulations, over personnel who are not employees of APTA, which the level of control would not exist without those contracts

Other contracts that were provided to the Ombudsman

The Commonwealth Ombudsman arrived 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.”.

I am fully satisfied that CASA has misled the Ombudsman on this matter. This was not about aircraft leasing or hiring agreements, this was a specific requirement placed on my business regarding the personnel who were not also my employees.

I am requesting I be provided with the same contracts that were provided to the Ombudsman as "evidence" of CASAs assertion that they had required contracts.

If the Ombudsman took CASA at their word," and did not request, and CASA did not provide any evidence , by way of contracts could you please advise me of such. If the ombudsman did request evidence of CASAs assertion could you please provide me with the same conatrcats that CASA provided to the Ombudsman.

Other contracts- CASA nominated

I would invite CASA to provide any other contracts that they feel may refute my allegation that CASA has never required contracts of any other operator in the flight training industry to stipulate requirements similar to those placed on me.

Those being the specific requirements that demonstrated to the satisfaction of CASA,, that flying training certificate / approval holders, have the level of operational control required by the regulations, over personnel who are not employees of the certificate approval holder, which the level of control would not exist without those contracts

Other considerations

I note that you had referred this matter to a CASA ``Business Unit", and they came back with this additional request, and I can see that there appears to be some confusion, as I had previously suggested. May I respectfully request that Mr Aleck, the decision maker in my matter, be involved in that "Business Unit "as he is the subject matter expert within CASA.. It was Mr Aleck that I was communicating with throughout the eight months. I did also have the opportunity to meet with him., and it was Mr Aleck that was not satisfied. It seems that the most efficient and effective process would be to establish contact directly with Mr Aleck, although I will leave that to your determination.

Please come back to me if I have not provided sufficient clarity to the request

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

Flaming galah

2nd Jul 2023, 06:12

If you have had any dealings with Jonathan Hanson you'd know how inaccurate your acronym is of his role and decisions.

I haven't had dealings with him personally, but the reviews of him here, in Estimates, and from Ben Morgan make it clear he's a CASA stooge.

Thirsty

2nd Jul 2023, 08:27

Glen,
To re-iterate my last post, get some legal help, fast.

What do you hope to achieve by meeting with Pip Spence? She is not in a legal position as a public servant to be able to personally offer you an apology, to offer you any money, or anything except awkwardly listen to you repeat what you have written in the past. You are not currently in a position to demand anything, especially to arrange a meeting with specific attendance of other people. This you do in a court of law, calling witnesses. You are attempting to run your own court case without the underlying court structure. She certainly will not be in a position to rearrange her department, to shuffle job positions around, hire and fire at whim. She is not authorised to personally help you in your voyage of discovery. You are setting deadlines for her co-operation with no sting behind them if they are not met. You are wasting their time, and most certainly yours with this approach. Same with the Minister responsible for the Department - they have politely told you that your submissions will be noted and filed, not even actioned. You are being ignored - a vexatious litigant category.

Your recent letter seems to imitate the court process of discovery, usually done during the court case process by the legal teams of both parties, with the weight of the law behind it. In your case, the other parties are not obliged to provide you with very much at all, except the bare necessities to comply with FOI, which by now you have probably discovered is not going to get you results in a fishing process unless you can specifically nominate a document which you already know exists. Here the legal process, with the weight of law behind it is far more powerful, and far more efficient. You appear to be trying to establish precedent by absence of documentation, something that is going to come back and possibly sting you in the face when it magically appears, but not in the manner you wish.

All this needs to be done in a legal context, with Pip in the background, advised by her legal team, to determine what is legal, permitted under public service regulations, and what is lawful. She cannot gung-ho shake your hand and give you a fistful of money, an apology on behalf of people she is responsible for, etc.

You must go via legal channels, and get your legal team to throw wigs at twenty paces, and get them to be put in a corner where the only way out is to settle with lots of money, from the public purse, via Finance Department funds, which Pip Spence has absolutely no jurisdiction over. As part of the settlement you may wish to begrudgingly extract a apology on top of the money you receive. I suspect this is very important to you, and agree it will be necessary for you, to obtain full satisfaction of your claims.

You are aiming at the wrong target. Tilting at windmills. Hoping to receive sympathy where none is permitted to be given. You must go about this the correct way to get any satisfactory result.

My considered consistent advice to you is get a lawyer. FAST, before you reach the point of no return, and expiry of deadlines to be able to do anything legally. Already the statute of limitations may apply and you have dithered and possibly lost any legal recourse.

You know they are laughing at you behind your back, don't you? Look at the terminology used to describe you in the Parliamentary submission. The only way they will sit up and take notice is in a court of law, or a Royal Commission, or an anti-corruption inquiry. In this context, they will quake and tremble, roll over and do your bidding.

Bite the bullet - get yourself some legal advice, and stop wasting your time.

Global Aviator

2nd Jul 2023, 10:53

Don’t you get the feeling that Glen does have legal help with his replies.

I certainly hope he goes the full on legal blow as the next step.

Thats why I keep pushing GoFundMe.

And Glen… in a polite way slap yaself, you are entitled to a large personal settlement sum of money! Write down on the back of a coaster what they have caused you to loose and quadruple it at a minimum. I am sure there are legal ways to work it out but if only half of why you type is true you have been well and truly screwed and deserve appropriate compensation.

I don’t think anyone on here would disagree!

Lead Balloon

2nd Jul 2023, 11:05

Glen,
To re-iterate my last post, get some legal help, fast.

What do you hope to achieve by meeting with Pip Spence? She is not in a legal position as a public servant to be able to personally offer you an apology, to offer you any money, or anything except awkwardly listen to you repeat what you have written in the past. She certainly will not be in a position to rearrange her department, to shuffle job positions around. She is not authorised to personally help you in your voyage of discovery. You are setting deadlines for her co-operation with no sting behind them if they are not met. You are wasting their time, and most certainly yours with this approach. Same with the Minister responsible for the Department.

All this needs to be done in a legal context, with Pip in the background, advised by her legal team, to determine what is legal, permitted under public service regulations, and what is lawful. She cannot gung-ho shake your hand and give you a fistful of money, an apology on behalf of people she is responsible for, etc.

You must go via legal channels, and get your legal team to throw wigs at twenty paces, and get them to be put in a corner where the only way out is to settle with lots of money, from the public purse, via Finance Department funds, which Pip Spence has absolutely no jurisdiction over.

You are aiming at the wrong target. Tilting at windmills. Hoping to receive sympathy where none is permitted to be given. You must go about this the correct way to get any satisfactory result.

My considered consistent advice to you is get a lawyer. FAST, before you reach the point of no return, and expiry of deadlines to be able to do anything legally.

You know they are laughing at you behind your back, dont you? Look at the terminology used to describe you in the Parliamentary position. The only way they will sit up and take notice is in a court of law, or a Royal Commission, or an anti-corruption inquiry. In this context, they will quake and tremble, roll over and do your bidding.

Bite the bullet - get yourself some legal advice, and stop wasting your time.Whilst agreeing with your 'bottom line', there are some wonky assertions in there. Ms Spence can write a cheque, tomorrow in her capacity as DAS, and that cheque would be legally binding on and payable by CASA (see section 73(2) of the Civil Aviation Act). CASA spends CASA's money (some of which is appropriated to it out of the consolidated revenue fund, but is nonetheless CASA's once it is appropriated to CASA, and the rest - like fees for regulatory 'services' are paid into CASA's bank account). But, as I say, your bottom line is correct: Glen should not keep wasting his time thinking that CASA will, out of 'good intention', compensate him or anyone else.

Thirsty

2nd Jul 2023, 12:48

Example: Your request for an Act of Grace payment is directed at CASA. The Minister of Finance (not CASA, Pip Spence, or Catherine King) has the jurisdiction for this. Read about the process to claim this on the Dept of Finance website at https://www.finance.gov.au/individuals/act-grace-payments-waiver-debts-commonwealth-compensation-detriment-caused-defective-administration-cdda/act-grace-payments
Have you read up about the CDDA scheme?
You have been poorly advised. Get good legal advice now!

Thirsty

2nd Jul 2023, 13:06

Whilst agreeing with your 'bottom line', there are some wonky assertions in there. Ms Spence can write a cheque, tomorrow in her capacity as DAS, and that cheque would be legally binding on and payable by CASA (see section 73(2) of the Civil Aviation Act). CASA spends CASA's money (some of which is appropriated to it out of the consolidated revenue fund, but is nonetheless CASA's once it is appropriated to CASA, and the rest - like fees for regulatory 'services' are paid into CASA's bank account). But, as I say, your bottom line is correct: Glen should not keep wasting his time thinking that CASA will, out of 'good intention', compensate him or anyone else.True, if Pip has a certain spending allocation in her budget allocation to allow for such things, raises an payment request that is approved by the Dept of Finance, and has some very good justification to do so. You cannot go out and just spend money without scrutiny and justification, as Christine Holgate was so rudely reminded of in parliament by Scott Morrison, and you know how that worked out! While CASA might be a law unto themselves in respect to aviation, they will be carefully scrutinised in matters of finance and spending, as this is another department.

Based on the terminology used in the submission by CASA to Parliament, and the response from the Ombudsman, I suspect that it will be shelved in the too hard basket and brushed off. The concept of 'goodwill' has certainly long gone - plain as day to see that. Commencement of a court case with strong legal representation and a well prepared case would be the motivator to change things about abruptly, and swift settlement before it comes to court and sharp, pointed, and awkward questions are asked and the underlying truth is finally discovered when potential witnesses are listed, would seem to be the mechanism that will resolved the injustice done.

Glen, make sure to ask your lawyers add a substantive amount for pain and suffering, legal costs, your time spent as an amateur lawyer, and future loss of income too. I think the way it was described in the movie "The Castle" by Lawrence Hammill is 'on just terms'. Think about it!

Thirsty

2nd Jul 2023, 13:21

28/06/23
Dear Keeley, (CASA FOI Office)
.......
May I respectfully request that Mr Aleck, the decision maker in my matter, be involved in that "Business Unit "as he is the subject matter expert within CASA.. It was Mr Aleck that I was communicating with throughout the eight months. I did also have the opportunity to meet with him., and it was Mr Aleck that was not satisfied. It seems that the most efficient and effective process would be to establish contact directly with Mr Aleck, although I will leave that to your determination.
I can guarantee that Mr Aleck has been advised by CASA's legal team to never communicate with you ever again, and the only opportunity you will have to see him again is as a hostile witness under cross examination, or in a dark laneway (the way Darryl Kerrigan in the move 'The Castle', drove off with the Toorak mansion gates attached to his tow truck) which I suspect he is profoundly aware may be the case for both. CASA have already hinted that they fear your harassment. Do not give them the opportunity to be proven right. Do it the legal way, not across a boardroom table on CASA premises where you will be at a distinct disadvantage on their home ground, but in a courtroom or commission of inquiry, with a legal team behind you all the way supporting your case and making sure you have all aspects covered, covered well, and foolproof.

Thirsty

2nd Jul 2023, 13:31

Thirsty

2nd Jul 2023, 13:56

My bolding and removal of content in the quote for brevity
08/02/23 Ombudsman advising that my matter is closed
Our ref: 2019-713834

Dear Mr Buckley
Finalisation of Complaint – Civil Aviation Safety Authority

I am writing to confirm the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman (the Office) has finalised our investigation into your complaint about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
.......
I received additional information from CASA in December 2022 and am now satisfied that further investigation by the Office is not required in relation to the matters you raised. I am satisfied that the matters of administration raised by your complaint have now been adequately responded to by CASA, and further investigation would not obtain a different or better outcome for you. We will notify CASA of the outcome of our investigation and may provide feedback to CASA for its consideration as part of that notice.
...

Ombudsman’s Office satisfied that CASA has not mislead the Office
....
In advising that your complaint has been finalised, I would like to reiterate my earlier advice that I do not believe CASA has mislead the Office in responding to our investigation. The Office will advise CASA of this as well.
...
Act of Grace
We have previously discussed the availability of the Act of Grace Scheme with you. If you wish to pursue this, further information can be obtained from the Department of Finance, including at their website - Act of Grace Payments | Department of Finance (https://www.finance.gov.au/individuals/act-grace-payments-waiver-debts-commonwealth-compensation-detriment-caused-defective-administration-cdda/act-grace-payments). This is a discretionary scheme, and there is no automatic entitlement to payment.
...
Legal Advice
If you wish to pursue legal action against CASA, you should obtain independent legal advice in relation to whether there is a possible cause of action and relevant time limits that may apply to your circumstances.
...
Closure of your file
Thank you for your patience as we have considered your matter. I hope you can see that we have taken your concerns seriously, engaged with yourself and CASA to obtain relevant information, and reached the conclusion that no further investigation is warranted after carefully considering the concerns you raised.

We review complaints only once. This means that as I have looked at the matter afresh, the Office will not consider the same complaint again, unless you can present us with new evidence that would cause us to change our decision. We will consider, but may not respond to, further correspondence received once this review and complaint file is closed.
Yours sincerelyI've removed some of the bits, but even the Ombudsman has given you a few very big hints. Get independent legal advice, FAST. Given five months ago. Did you do that?

glenb

2nd Jul 2023, 20:59

Cheers, and i appreciate the input.

Regarding the CDDA (Defective Decisions), that was something that I considered some time ago, but the way CASAs is established. Sorry don't remember the exact terminology the Commonwealth uses, but CASA is not party to that system, therefore leaving the only other non-litigious approach being the Act of Grace Payment. You are correct in that it goes through the Department of Finance; however they then liaise with the Agency (CASA), and you can well imagine what CASAs response would be. For those reasons, I have put out that final offering to CASA. A well intentioned and sincere discussion about an Act of Grace payment would have to be the preferred option.

As previously pointed out, there are sufficient funds available thanks to the supporters for me to move forward with this.

I have sought legal advice previously on this matter, and I have some exceptional support on here and in the background. Sufficient funds already exist for me to at least get a good start. I was chatting to my father about this yesterday. One of my challenges has been really getting to the crux of the matter, and i may have been somewhat confused by CASAs alternating narrative.

It's a bit like a pyramid, and I am now at the pointy end, with lots of the "sifting" having been done. I believe that the FOI requests will be important, and perhaps give a legal firm a good head start.

I would add that I could never have anticipated that the Ombudsman investigation would drag on for more than four years, and it has been hard to move forward until that is finalized, and that has been the legal recommendation that I have previously received. Admittedly that advice was based on a turnaround of the investigation of about 4 months, not four years.

And admittedly, I truly believed naively in the fact that there would be more "good intent": in the process., and particularly at CASA CEO and Board Level. I did not b believe that they would work so actively to effectively "crush me".

Finally, i just didn't think CASA would be blatantly prepared to mislead the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.as much as they have been prepared to. It concerns me going down a legal path against a Party that is prepared to act dishonestly, and to such a substantial extent.

I found your posts very "contemplative", and i concur. I have little doubt that on receipt of Ms. spences response to my most recent correspondence, I will act fast, and this matter will be put before a legal team.

Appreciate the input each and every one of you. Cheers. Glen

Lead Balloon

2nd Jul 2023, 21:43

Again, while agreeing with your 'bottom line', Thirsty, I'd suggest you spend 10 minutes researching the Dept of Finance information on Act of Grace (https://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-09/Application-for-an-Act-of-Grace-Payment.pdf) and CDDA systems (https://www.finance.gov.au/individuals/act-grace-payments-waiver-debts-commonwealth-compensation-detriment-caused-defective-administration-cdda/scheme-compensation-detriment-caused-defective-administration-cdda-scheme).

Note, in particular, the acronym 'NCE', which stands for Non-Corporate Commonwealth Entity. CASA is not a 'Non-Corporate Commonwealth Entity'. CASA is a corporate Commonwealth entity. CASA has its own equivalent policies (and spends its own money) on Act of Grace and CDDA-like payments (though CASA is subject to the PGPA). All roads lead to CASA.

We already know CASA's position and I very much doubt a meeting in 3 months will change it. Hence I agree with your bottom line. CASA won't start writing big cheques to Glen unless and until forced to.

Makiko

3rd Jul 2023, 03:22

Glen businesses fail all the time , ten of 1000s of pty ltd companies likely every year in Australia

They are dealt with by administrators / liquidators , creditors meetings etc

It just isn't appropriate for a former Director of failed company to go back "compensating" former creditors/employees years after the event

Come on look after your family if any money flows from this

Agree with others you need lawyers who have expertise in this type of V Govt stuff

You have mentioned on this thread you have been personally bankrupted , or at least discussed it (not trying to embarrass you) , if this is
the case it is highly likely you would not have the right to initiate legals (whilst undischarged at least) ?

Glen there is never "good intent" or "gentlemans rules" in these type of things - it is a blood sport. Just like the claims dept at an insurer will all have
a night out at strippers when a claimant (destroyed house or something) that they did over tops himself & his family - they will laugh mightily hard . Think these guys are any different ?

Come off it Glen , you think they will settle your grievance by round table "chattys" whilst singing for he's a jolly good fellow

glenb

3rd Jul 2023, 06:14

Removed after final editing and posted at Pprune #2741

Valdiviano

3rd Jul 2023, 23:38

Glen,
I sincerely hope things turn around for you this year, best wishes.
In any case, standing by, if you need financial help.
Valdiviano

Thirsty

4th Jul 2023, 14:42

I havent finalised this yet, because I dont know if I am conveying the significance of it. Keen on feedback. Dear Keeley (CASA FOI Office)

In correspondence I received from the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office on February 8th 2023, the Ombudsman made a statement, which demonstrates confusion exists within the Ombudsman Office with regard to this entire matter.

I am not suggesting bad intent from within the Ombudsman's office ,but believe it is a result of false and misleading information provided to the Ombudsman by CASA.

In this FOI request, I am attempting to clarify a critical matter.

The Ombudsman stated in correspondence to me;

"I understand that CASA had accepted that APTA was itself conducting flight training in the various locations, under its own Authorisations.”.

That Statement suggests there were "someone else's ", Authorisations, involved in this matter, someone other than APTAs, and that CASA only discovered this in October 2018.

That is to say, from 2006 through until October 2018, CASA believed APTAs Authorisations and Approvals were being used, as they were, then around October 2018 CASA became concerned that in fact, someone else's Authorisations were being used., and that led to CASA taking action against me.

There were no other Authorisations. There were only my Authorisations, so how could there seriously be any confusion at all on this topic, as to which Authorisations are being used.

For clarity there were no Authorisations other than mine and that was the case up from 2006 when I commenced Operations, until, October 2018, when CASA advised me I was now operating unlawfully, when CASA had formed the opinion that other Authorisations were now being used, when the truth is that there were no other Authorisations as CASA is fully aware, so CASA could not possibly have had any confusion on this matter.

CASA could not possibly have thought that someone elses Approvals and authorisations were being used because no other Approvals or authorisations existed.

In order for the following APTA Members

Latrobe Valley Aero Club
Ballarat Aero Club,
ARC Aviation
AVIA Aviation
Melbourne Flight Training
Sim jet
White Star Aviation
Learn to Fly

to be conducting flight training under Approvals and authorisations other than APTAs, then those Approvals need to exist. If those approvals do not exist, and were not issued by CASA, then how could CASA possibly think that anyone other than APTAs Approvals and authorisations were being used, because there are no other Approvals. For CASA to suggest that after more than a decade they suddenly thought in October 2018,that someone elses Authorisations and approvals were suddenly being used is beyond preposterous, as those within Industry would be fully aware.

In order for those listed Members to be able to have a CASA issued Approval or Authorisation they would have had to have gone through an extensive CASA process, and would in fact be "a flying school" in their own right, and therefore not a Member of APTA, because it would be pointless, as they are their own flying school, with their own CASA issued Approvals and Authorisations..

CASA has to be fully aware that those listed APTA Members do not have their own Authorisations because it would have required those Entities to have gone through an extensive and expensive process with CASA. it would have been a process that would have cost many thousands of dollars, and taken many months to accomplish. It would have required those Entities to produce an Exposition of many thousands of pages, and submit that to CASA for consideration and peer review. CASA would then interview the CASA mandated Key personnel ,being the CEO, Head of Operations and Safety Manager . If CASA was satisfied with those three nominated Key Personnel,. then CASA would formally have Approved them. CASA would then inspect the facility and then permit that entity to operate as a flying school, subject to ongoing auditing and compliance. If each of the Members had their own Authorisation each of those 8 Members would have had to have their own three Key personnel, i.e. there would be 24 CASA Approved key Personnel. None of those entities had any Key Personnel.

Once all this had been achieved, only then would CASA issue the Approval or Authorisation. to each of those members.

The point being that CASA could not seriously have thought that each of those Entities had their own Approvals or Authorisation, and to lead the Ombudsman to form that view, leaves me in no doubt that CASA has continually provided false and misleading information to the Ombudsman

To demonstrate that,. I would like to make a Freedom of Information request.

I am requesting all Part 141/142 Approvals, for any of the 8 Members that existed or was Operational in the 2 years prior to October 2018 and the dates and duration that they were Approved.

In order for those 8 Members to have their own CASA issued Authorisation, they would each require three CASA approved Key Personnel in total. Under FOI, can you advise if any of those Organisations had any of the three mandated Key Personnel positions Approved by CASA, as would be required in order to have Approvals or Authorisations.

Can I request a list of all CASA issued Authorisations and CASA issued Approvals issued by CASA to each of those Organisations in the two years prior to October 2018.,

On release of these documents, I believe it will become highly apparent that there could have been no confusion within CASA. CASA was fully aware from 2006 through until October 2018, and up until now, that there were only my Approvals and Authorisations, so there could not possibly be any confusion.
Glen,
A case in point. You are misusing the FOI process to prepare your case, something your lawyer team could do with legal force of the court as part of the discovery process as part of a court case, or the The National Anti-Corruption Commission investigators would do. The information you request will possibly be deemed commercial-in-confidence by the CASA FOI team, and not be released to you. You are also showing your hand, giving them opportunity to 'lose' important information that may help your case. Another few months wasted, and your window of opportunity and success drifting away.

You have been deprived of your livelihood. The other party has already said they will not make good the damage on just terms (or any other terms either). You are not on polite gentleman terms with them any more - the bastards are trying to cheat you at every turn. Do not think you will ever be re-starting another training school with them politely helping you along. You cannot bring back the past and make it different. Time to get serious, deadly serious. The only recourse you have is legal action. Get the lawyers involved. Don't worry about costs - the judge will make the other party pay if you succeed. Your dithering may probably have cost you the case. You must act now. Stop being your own lawyer. Get a good legal team to advise you, now.

For everybody following this sorry saga, can they PM Glen with suggestions of a good lawyer that is a specialist in aviation, and can be trusted to cross-examine all the relevant parties in a clear and concise manner so that a judge and jury can clearly understand what Glen appears to think the Ombudsman and Parliament cannot understand? I suspect the case may not even come to court as the shenanigans will not withstand scrutiny, the witnesses that will be called will be too scared to stand up and lie under oath, and it will be too politically sensitive for the Federal Government (not just CASA) to lose - they will settle quickly. You lawyer will advise a reasonable sum and it will all be settled with an obligatory non-disclosure agreement which means you will not win in the court of public opinion, just in monetary terms. You will not be able to come back to these forums and gloat you won, and by how much. This thread in PPRuNe will suddenly stop, or be deleted as part of the legal settlement. Your first step is to get good legal advice, and the rest will swiftly fall into place without you continuing to tilt at windmills forever without making any progress, getting frustrated at every turn.

Asturias56

4th Jul 2023, 15:46

"The only recourse you have is legal action. Get the lawyers involved. Don't worry about costs - the judge will make the other party pay if you succeed. Your dithering may probably have cost you the case. You must act now. Stop being your own lawyer. Get a good legal team to advise you, now."

these are not nice people Glen - you will have to drag them screaming every inch of the way

get a lawyer!!

MagnumPI

5th Jul 2023, 00:12

It has been reported somewhere that 40+ cases have already been referred to the NACC. If we presume that these are ones that have been referred by an organisation or MP, there may be many more that have been submitted by Joe Public for review...at any rate - they've got a lot of sifting to get through before deciding on which cases they'll investigate.

I very much doubt that the NACC would resolve Glen's issue in a timely fashion, if at all. It's likely to pale in comparison to alleged corruption in other parts of the government. I wanted to point this out because as I and others have said, you're long past the point of DIY lawyering and need a bulldog-esque legal team experienced in the opacity of aviation regulations to go hard, now!

Makiko

5th Jul 2023, 05:57

Well FOI can be used as low cost mechanism to fish out information to determine if you do have a case

A bunny at CASA might allow something to "slip throughYes discovery is powerful, but it doesn't mean you get automatic access to everything , other side can oppose subpoenas & you
can only do this after you have initiated action

As previously mentioned Glen made some comment about being declared bankrupt (school fees or something) if that is the case there
might be significant restrictions on ability to litigate

Just don't really understand , why recover monies so you can give them away to other folk. The fact is that your employees were more than
happy to take full wages , thinking for doing a modest amount of work as students dropped off

Free country & all

SIUYA

5th Jul 2023, 08:53

Glen,

LB said at #2731:

We already know CASA's position and I very much doubt a meeting in 3 months will change it. Hence I agree with your bottom line. CASA won't start writing big cheques to Glen unless and until forced to.

You are getting nowhere fast with CASA Glen. Stop wasting your time writing to them, lawyer up NOW, and hit CASA with a very big claim for a very big sum of money.

Unless you do this, things aren't going to change.

glenb

9th Jul 2023, 21:22

Thanks folk, I just wanted to thank you for the well intentioned and much appreciated advice.

I agree there is little point in continuing to engage with CASA expecting good intent to prevail.

In Pprune# 2608,2620,2703,2711. I have clearly left the decision to Ms. Spence i.e., litigation V Aviation Ruling, and cannot make my next move until she advises me of CASA preferred course of action. Soon it will become clear. I do see benefit in communication via FOI requests, as they will be of assistance if I am forced to take on litigation by CASA. If I can get much of the "ping pong" out of the way, it will expedite processes.

Regarding "declaring my hand". I know it will be perceived as foolish and naïve, but I'm comfortable with CASA having that information. The more transparent, the more open, and the more honest I am, will only better serve me, and besides you cant justify the unjustifiable.

I have been working on an FOI request, which I am about to put on here, but I will be back to address the recent comments.

Cheers. Glen

glenb

9th Jul 2023, 21:23

Dear Keeley (CASA FOI Office) -My reference Pprune 32741

In correspondence I received from the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office on February 8th, 2023, the Ombudsman made a statement, which leads me to believe that confusion may exist within the Ombudsman Office with regard to this entire matter, and that concern has prompted this FOI request.

I am not suggesting bad intent from within the Ombudsman's Office; however, I believe it’s a result of false and misleading information provided to the Ombudsman by CASA.

In this FOI request, I am attempting to clarify a critical matter, and I will provide you with some background information to assist you with your search.

In correspondence from the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office on February 8th, 2023, the Ombudsman stated.

"I understand that CASA had accepted that APTA was itself conducting flight training in the various locations, under its own Authorisations.”.

That statement makes it very clear that the arrangement whereby, “APTA itself was conducting the flight training at the various locations”, was not only CASAs understanding, but it was acceptable to CASA, and approved by CASA, as it had been since I commenced operations in 2006.

· Understandably, if someone else’s Authorisations were being used, that would not be acceptable without CASA approval because that was not CASAs understanding of the structure that they had approved continuously since 2006.

· Similarly, if a different flight training organisation was delivering the training, that would not be acceptable without CASA approval. because that was not CASAs understanding of the structure that they had approved continuously since 2006

However, if APTA was delivering the training with APTAs own Authorisations, as was CASAs understanding, then that would be acceptable, and that was the structure that had been approved by CASA for APTA throughout the previous decade. That structure remained unchanged since 2006 when the Business commenced.

That statement by the Ombudsman, suggests that based on information received from CASA, there may have been some change away from CASAs understanding of that pre-existing structure and CASA approved structure. A change away from APTA itself conducting the training using its own Authorisations to “some other” structure or some other arrangement, where some other Authorisation was being used, or some other flying school, other than APTA was using its own Authorisation. It suggests that some “confusion” may have arisen as to who was delivering the flight training. i.e., that CASA was uncertain who was conducting the training, and whose Authorisation was being used.

CASA has misled the Ombudsman if the Ombudsman has formed the view that there was any change at all away from that CASA approved structure of the previous decade, or that there were any other “Authorisations” involved, or that there were any changes to the way I was operating.

There was no change throughout the previous decade and there is no reason that CASA could reasonably perceived there was any change. The truth is there was no change. None at all. The only thing that really changed was Mr Alecks personal opinion, and I assume by now you will have received some briefing on this matter.

I went into APTA at 7.30 AM on October 23rd, 2018, as I did on every day for the previous decade, it really was just another day at work, which, as always, I enjoyed.

In the mid-afternoon I received an email from CASA, completely out of nowhere, with absolutely no concerns having ever been raised with me. I was totally blind sided.

That email notified me that, that my business of more than a decade, was now suddenly determined to be unlawful, and my business only, I confirmed this with other Operators.

Other flight training organisations operating in exactly the same structure across Australia were unaffected, it was only Glen Buckleys business, no other. In fact, on the day of writing this letter almost five years later, CASA still permit other businesses to operate in the identical structure that I adopted. You will appreciate why I am fully satisfied I was the victim of targeted malice by Member/s of the CASA Executive.

The notification from CASA advised me that the structure that I had adopted for the previous decade was now unlawful because I utilised personnel that were not always my direct employees.

I had been operating for the previous decade with this apparently unlawful and unauthorised structure, and CASA gave the business 7 days’ notice of continuing operations, at which stage it was most likely that all operations across all bases including bases that CASA had approved over a decade earlier would have to cease operations, including my own flying school MFT.

CASA also advised that an “administrative freeze” had been placed on all regulatory tasks, and that we could not upgrade personnel, add new courses, flight simulators, etc. nor would any more Members be permitted to join APTA until further notice. The correspondence advised that I had breached the Aviation Ruling, CASR 141.050, Section 27 (8) of the Civil Aviation Act, and s29 of the Civil Aviation Act. I was subject to CASA regulatory prosecution. My members may also be subjected to that regulatory action.

This came out of nowhere. I truly was completely blindsided. My business of 10 years was clearly about to be decimated by CASA.

It was particularly inexplicable because I had just invested significantly in a 3-year program working side by side with 10 CASA personnel, to have the entire structure ready for the completely new regulatory suite being introduced by CASA in September 2018. The very purpose of that three-year investment was to be able to continue my Single Authorisation, Multi Base Structure that I had adopted for the previous decade forward into the new Part 61/141/142 regulatory structure and was fully approved by CASA to do exactly that. That was the very purpose of the business and had been for over 10 years.

That three-year program where I worked side by side with those 10 CASA personnel, developing all APTAs systems led to me becoming one of Australia’s first flying schools to be revalidated to that new regulatory structure, and I obtained that in April of 2017, being 18 months prior to the introduction of the new legislation, recently postponed by CASA to September 2018.

The new legislation was introduced by CASA in September of 2018 as scheduled, and in October 2018, being the very next month after the new legislation, was introduced, I was advised that I was operating unlawfully, and those trading restrictions were put in place. This is despite that three-year investment that I had just made to have the entire structure approved by CASA for the new regulations that were introduced the previous month prior to CASAs complete backflip.

I’m sorry Keeley for the extensive background, but there may be further FOI requests at a later date, and I feel it important that you have an understanding, and I acknowledge that the CASA Executive may have an alternate narrative, and that you may need to consult with them, and particularly Mr Aleck as he would be the Subject Matter Expert within CASA.

I will return to the purpose of the FOI request.

The Ombudsman stated.

"I understand that CASA had accepted that APTA was itself conducting flight training in the various locations, under its own Authorisations.”.

If APTA was conducting the training at the various locations, using APTAs own Authorisations, as was CASAs understanding in that statement above, then that is perfectly acceptable to CASA, and had in fact been acceptable to CASA since I commenced operations in 2006. That statement identifies that fact.

That is to say, the structure I had adopted for more than a decade, was known to CASA, it was accepted by CASA, and it was approved by CASA.

The statement suggests however that there has been some change with the CASA approved structure that I adopted, or, or the perception of change, when clearly there was not. It suggests that there may have been some confusion as to who was now delivering training or whose Authorisations were being used, or that other Authorisations existed.

It leaves me to question why did the complete reversal by CASA happen on 23rd October 2018, and why was the CASA approach so harmful, when less harmful options were available. i.e., a well-intentioned four-hour discussion would have fully resolved the matter in its entirety.

Nothing has changed. I had adopted that same structure for over a decade, been through countless CASA audits, fully validated the entire structure with CASA eighteen months earlier, had a full Level One audit only 12 months earlier, had literally had daily discussions and meeting with CASA on literally hundreds of occasions.

Over the years I had added bases at various locations, and CASA had formally approved those base additions on every occasion, using these very same CASA approved procedures that I used when I made application for the addition of two further aero clubs being Latrobe Valley and Ballarat Aero Club. On submission of those applications, I had no idea that they would trigger a situation where CASA determined that the business in its entirety was now operating unlawfully.

If I had changed the way I operated, or if there had been a legislative change I would understand, but this was different.

CASA had decided that all personnel operating under the Authorisation must now specifically be employed directly by the Authorisation Holder, i.e., they could not be employed by another Entity, they could not be a volunteer, they could not be a contractor. They had to be directly employed by the Authorisation Holder. CASA advised that if I made all personnel operating under my AOC, all my “direct employees” the restrictions could be lifted, and I could return to business as usual.

A most absurd situation that has absolutely no basis in the legislation, or in precedent, and was being applied to my business only, and no others.

The point being that there was no change. The only change throughout the decade was a change of awareness by a CASA employee or employees. With that awareness came a reversal of opinion of that CASA employee/s/

For CASA to lead the Ombudsman to believe that someone else’s Authorisation were being used or that someone else was now delivering the training is preposterous, and there is no reason for CASA to believe that was the case because quite simply there are no other Authorisations.

There was only ever one Authorisation, and that Authorisation being APTAs. How can there be confusion if there is only one option.

The truth is that CASA was always “aware” that the one and only APTA Authorisation was being used, because CASA issue those Authorisations after a very comprehensive and expensive process.

In order for those 8 Members to have their own CASA issued Authorisation, they would each have required three CASA approved Key Personnel for a total of 24 Key Personnel that would have had to have gone through a formal CASA process, and formal approval. Obviously, that was not the case, so CASA could not have credibly believed that to be the case.

1. I would request all CASA issued Approvals, Authorisations, and CASA approved Key Personnel that were issued to APTA ARN 759217 on October 23rd, 2018, and throughout the twelve months prior.

2. I request is for a list of all active CASA issued Authorisations that any of the listed APTA Members that they held in their own right for the period 12 months prior October 23rd, 2018.

Latrobe Valley Aero Club
Ballarat Aero Club,
ARC Aviation
AVIA Aviation
Melbourne Flight Training
Sim jet
White Star Aviation
Learn to Fly

The point being is that it is not reasonable that CASA could have had any confusion, and in fact I don’t believe that there was any confusion, there was only bad intent, and the argument of “confusion” by the CASA Executive, is in fact completely manufactured. Nothing changed. I was just doing exactly what I had been doing for the previous decade, as CASA is aware. They had no valid reason to believe that anything had changed, I simply submitted requests for two further bases, as I had done on numerous occasions and had approved by CASA.

It was APTA itself conducting flying training in the various locations using only APTAs Authorisations, because there were no other Authorisations other than APTAs. That is to say, there could be no other alternative other than using APTAs Authorisations because no other authorisations existed with any other Entity, as far as I am aware.

On release of these documents, I believe it will become highly apparent that there could have been no confusion within CASA. CASA was fully aware from 2006 through until October 2018, and up until now, that there were only my Authorisations, so there could not possibly be any confusion, because there was no possible alternative. CASA could not possibly have any confusion as to whose Authorisation was being used as there was only the one Authorisation.

To be conducting flight training under Approvals and authorisations other than APTAs, then those Authorisations need to exist. If those approvals do not exist, and were not issued by CASA, then how could CASA possibly think that anyone other than APTAs Authorisations were being used, because there are no other Authorisations. For CASA to suggest that after more than a decade they suddenly thought in October 2018, that someone else’s Authorisations and approvals were suddenly being used is beyond preposterous, as those within Industry would be fully aware.

In order for those listed Members to be able to have a CASA issued Approval or Authorisation they would have had to have gone through an extensive CASA process and would in fact be "a flying school" in their own right, and therefore not a Member of APTA, because it would be pointless, as they are their own flying school, with their own CASA issued Authorisations.

CASA has to be fully aware that those listed APTA Members do not have their own Authorisations because it would have required those Entities to have gone through an extensive and expensive process with CASA. it would have been a process that would have cost many thousands of dollars and taken many months to accomplish. It would have required those Entities to produce an Exposition of many thousands of pages and submit that to CASA for consideration and peer review. CASA would then interview the CASA mandated Key personnel, being the CEO, Head of Operations and Safety Manager. If CASA was satisfied with those three nominated Key Personnel, then CASA would formally have Approved them. CASA would then inspect the facility and then permit that entity to operate as a flying school, subject to ongoing auditing and compliance. If each of the Members had their own Authorisation each of those 8 Members would have had to have their own three Key personnel, i.e., there would be 24 CASA Approved key Personnel. None of those entities had any Key Personnel.

Once all this had been achieved, only then would CASA issue the Approval or Authorisation. to each of those members.

The point being that CASA could not seriously have thought that each of those Entities had their own Authorisation, and to lead the Ombudsman to form that view, leaves me in no doubt that CASA has continually provided false and misleading information to the Ombudsman.

This FOI request will clearly demonstrate that there was only one CASA issued Authorisation and that was the Part 141/142 Authorisation that I held, there were no others. There was one Authorisation, one Exposition, one set of courses, one set of CASAs approved Key personnel only.

No one else conceivably could have been delivering the training, as CASA was fully aware throughout the decade that I and many others adopted the identical structure that I adopted.

Thankyou Keeley for attending to this request, and I acknowledge that you have some outstanding requests that are with me. I apologise for the delayed response on those matters and will get back to you within 24 hours.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

glenb

10th Jul 2023, 21:22

Dear "Makiko",

First, let me thankyou for your previous posts, they were appreciated.

Regarding your comment

"As previously mentioned Glen made some comment about being declared bankrupt (school fees or something) if that is the case there
might be significant restrictions on ability to litigate

Just don't really understand , why recover monies so you can give them away to other folk. The fact is that your employees were more than
happy to take full wages , thinking for doing a modest amount of work as students dropped off

Free country & all"

I will provide some more info.

Regarding bankruptcy. Unfortunately, I cannot address the terminology correctly. The process is quite complicated and costly, but parties can pursue that through the Courts as they have. A determination is made and effectively active. The Party that implemented the process can effectively immediately activate it, as they desire.

This may seem unusual but to be honest, I wasn't in the state to find out. At this stage I had lost everything, quite seriously we had a couple of weeks where the local church provided groceries, I mean I lost EVERYTHING. I was at low point and to find out that someone had enacted that, at that stage of my life would have been the tipping point, and I had asked my family not to check (if they knew how to), or to tell me. Some time ago, despite my request, and out of good intention checked it and told me that no Pary had activated it at this stage. That was some time ago. If somebody does have that information, i still do not want to know. I am proceeding as though it has not been enacted.

The fact is that declaring me bankrupt, wont achieve much because we have nothing. A successful resolution by an Act of Grace or Litigation will resolve that matter, as it will for everyone, including the majority that chose not to pursue that course of action.

For those that pursued the legal system and bankruptcy there is not any animosity at all, and I fully respect their position. The only disappointing part is that I want to pay everybody back, without that hanging over me i.e., a more gentlemanly and respectful manner. I particularly look forward to paying back the staff that were impacted by this.

Regarding the staff staying around, working less and getting wages. I appreciate that was intended somewhat tongue in cheek, but let me assure you that was not the case.

The entire structure that I designed with CASA over the three years required 10 Members on Board to maintain APTA. That is my school MFT and 9 other APTA bases. In very rough equations it cost approximately $1,000,000 per year to operate and required 10 members contributing $100,000 per annum. It was somewhat more complicated because there were significant discounts for non-commercial ventures such as an aero club as opposed to a "business" such as MFT.

As soon as CASA put a stop to my achieving 10 Members despite me having them wanting to join in October 2018, it fell upon MFT to cover the shortfall, which was obviously not possible, and that's when my parents stepped in to help me pay staff salaries. Please understand that during the 8 months we had a temporary approval to operate that was as little as minute by minute but never more than three months. Not only was my own school MFT heavily subsidizing the operation, it was impossible and unethical to enroll students into an 18-month course if the school may not be permitted to continue.

Cashflow was immediately smashed. As in any business, the staff knew it. Each of them had their own employment tied to the length of that CASA approved interim approval. The employment market was strong. At any time, any of those instructors could easily have left, and found alternative employment with the deserved level of job security that they need and are entitled to. On occasion staff would step forward and offer to get paid late, so that others could be paid. Some were casual staff, and as their work dried up they were impacted. Suppliers started getting edgy, and no one including me could understand why this entire fiasco could not be fully resolved in a matter of hours as it should have been.

The Company is obviously in the CASA firing line. Other Companies start to approach my Key Personnel offering alternative employment, and as you can appreciate these Key personnel are highly dependent on me for their livelihood., but each and every one of them stayed by my side far longer than they should have. I asked them to trust me, as i truly felt that this entire matter could be resolved.

Its hard to convey to you Makiko just how special MFT was. There are some pruners on here who have identified themselves as past staff, although i don't know which staff members they were. It was a very capable, professional and well-intentioned team in that Company, and very good people always gravitated to MFT., and that extended to our students.The secret for any small business owner. Surround yourself by people that are more capable than you at what they do, well that what we achieved. Truly it was unique and the very best years of my life.

If I had more time i would go on and on, but I'm just finishing a very substandard coffee in the local 24-hour restaurant and heading off to work. Cheers all, and thanks Makiko for your involvement. Due time constraints I haven't had a chance to edit this. Hope it reads OK, cheers. Glen.,