Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA [Archive] - Page 12

Lead Balloon

24th Jul 2023, 03:27

Ok LB, can you say that you were stalked and assaulted by someone without any charges having been laid against the perpetrator? I feel like the answer to that may actually be a yes.

Can a police officer say that you’re a speed limit breaker and a dangerous driver even though he/she didn’t fine you for it and you didn’t front a magistrate? That feels like a yes.

If it’s not written down in any correspondence, does that mean it didn’t happen?

A pedophile is a bad example, because you can be a pedophile and have not acted upon it and you would not have committed any offence. Once acted upon, you become a pederast. A pedophile allegation is a baseless allegation, despite it sounding nasty.

From the limited information available on this matter, my gut feeling is that someone at CASA felt that they had been treated in a way that constituted assault and or stalking, a discussion with Police followed and advice was given that suggested that either the points of proof for a charge were not satisfied or it was suggested that the chances of a conviction were unlikely… a common occurrence, at which time it was decided not to proceed.

Does that mean that the accused assaulted or stalked? Maybe… maybe not. You can’t even say in the eyes of the law it did or didn’t constitute assault because it never went before a magistrate to make that judgement.

Part 2: can someone go around saying that you assaulted someone and get away with it? Well that depends on how deep their pockets are, or how much evidence that they possess once it hits the civil court. Interesting arguments.

Ok LB, can you say that you were stalked and assaulted by someone without any charges having been laid against the perpetrator? I feel like the answer to that may actually be a yes.What you “feel” is correct. Of course you “can” say anything you like.

But whether what you say is true is an entirely different question. Just because someone says and earnestly believes they were “assaulted” does not make it so. I can swear on a stack of bibles that I “feel” I was “assaulted” and that does make it so. Not all physical contact constitutes an assault in law - you know that.

And your ‘Part 2’ picked up the point that - although anyone “can” say anything they like - doing so comes with some risk:Part 2: can someone go around saying that you assaulted someone and get away with it? Well that depends on how deep their pockets are, or how much evidence that they possess once it hits the civil court.It also depends on whether it was said under Parliamentary privilege. It’s called “Cowards’ Castle” for a reason.

Can a police officer say that you’re a speed limit breaker and a dangerous driver even though he/she didn’t fine you for it and you didn’t front a magistrate? That feels like a yes.Once again, your ‘feeling’ is correct. The police officer “can” say anything he/she likes, just as I “can” say that the police officer is a speed limit breaker and dangerous driver, even though he/she hasn’t been fined for it and didn’t front a magistrate. We know what the police officer would say in response to that allegation: It’s not true and, therefore, you can’t ‘put up’ so best to ‘shut up’. Believe it or not, the reverse applies (except for the power imbalance…).

If it’s not written down in any correspondence, does that mean it didn’t happen?I like your kind of sophistry, Squawk!

If a tree falls in a forest and no one’s around to hear it, does it make a sound?

In this case, there were people around to hear and see any trees falling. You know what they’re called: Witnesses. And stuff was written down. And - astonishingly - it appears the word “assault” and the word “stalking” does not appear anywhere in what was written down by CASA, even though the crimes were allegedly committed against CASA staff.

From the limited information available on this matter, my gut feeling is that someone at CASA felt that they had been treated in a way that constituted assault and or stalking, a discussion with Police followed and advice was given that suggested that either the points of proof for a charge were not satisfied or it was suggested that the chances of a conviction were unlikely… a common occurrence, at which time it was decided not to proceed.And if that’s the truth, it makes Carmody’s cowardice even more craven. If that’s the truth, he should have told the Senate Committee that the police became involved but “it was decided not to proceed” (although I note you did choose passive voice - for a reason).

Maybe Carmody’s opinion is that the police were incompetent or lazy for not pressing for prosecution. If that’s part of the truth, that’s what he should have told the Senate Committee.

Maybe part of the truth is that the police were concerned that the circumstances could have constituted an assault on Glen. Maybe Glen thought he was about to be manhandled by someone and Glen’s response was a reasonable way of reducing the likelihood of that happening. If that’s part of the truth, that’s what Carmody should have told the Senate Committee. (Coincidentally, the only time I’ve ever gone to police on the basis I’ve been assaulted was when a couple of idiot football spectators got in my face - nose-to-nose - and ‘ordered’ me to move from the place I was standing perfectly lawfully. Nobody had to touch Glen in order for him to reasonably apprehend the application of physical force from someone else.)

But instead, Carmody - who isn’t a judge or magistrate and wasn’t there - simply made the bald assertion that specific crimes had been committed by Glen and just skipped over the bit about who decided charges wouldn’t be laid against Glen and why that decision was made.
Does that mean that the accused assaulted or stalked? Maybe… maybe not. You can’t even say in the eyes of the law it did or didn’t constitute assault because it never went before a magistrate to make that judgement.Errrrmmmm. The “eyes of the law” are - or used to be - important in representative democracies subject to the rule of law. The prosecution process performs a number of functions, one of which is to give someone who’s been publicly accused of crimes the opportunity to vindicate him or herself.

What you seem blithely to be accepting is a situation in which a public official states that specific crimes have been committed by a named member of the public, and that’s fine even though “it was decided not to proceed” with any prosecution for those crimes and no explanation is given by that public official as to who decided not to proceed and why.

Don’t you think it would put an ever-so-slightly different slant on things if the truth is that the police reckoned there was a reasonable chance that Glen could show that he was assaulted and reasonably responded to the assault?

Just hypothetically.

You might ‘feel’ that I’m merely speculating. But so are you, at least as to the reasons for no prosecutions proceeding.

We do know, for sure, that there was an ‘interaction’ that ended up with police ‘involvement’ as a consequence of ‘some set of circumstances’, yet no prosecution of Glen followed. The word “assault” and the word “stalking” appear nowhere in any CASA record relating to Glen (according to the results of the FOI process). I interpret that as tending to show that no assault or stalking happened.

If CASA considered one or the other or both happened, it is open to CASA to pursue a private prosecution without the involvement of VICPOL. And if the circumstances involved public officials being assaulted or stalked in the course of their duties, offences would probably arise under the Commonwealth Criminal Code and the CDPP would be interested. Yet - nothing.

A pedophile is a bad example, because you can be a pedophile and have not acted upon it and you would not have committed any offence. Once acted upon, you become a pederast. A pedophile allegation is a baseless allegation, despite it sounding nasty.It makes my point with greater force than the allegation of a crime.

When some public official in front of a Parliamentary committee states that Squawk is a pedophile, you’ll just shrug that off, comfortable in the knowledge that being a pedophile is not an offence and unperturbed by the fact you have no practical way of refuting the statement? Seriously?

Squawk7700

24th Jul 2023, 05:01

I said that Pedo was a bad example. It’s very different. They are many levels of “assault.”

To be honest, when I first read the word assault here, I straight up assumed it was a verbal assault and the “stalking” was a few too many phone calls… many would be guilty of that if we were in a predicament. If it was a full physical assault, there would be charges and or a conviction and this whole thread probably wouldn’t exist.

Thirsty

24th Jul 2023, 10:08

Certainly, reading the information CASA has released to you under FOI on the incident a few years ago, where reports of staff being threatened, buildings locked down, staff having to work from home, avoid wearing identifying uniforms, security beefed up in Canberra, Melbourne and Moorabbin, it would appear that taking the law into your own hands is not the most effective way to resolve this issue. Reading this from a non-biased view (embarrassed and having no axe to grind for anybody involved), it would appear that CASA had valid concerns (in their own eyes - which is what matters), that you were stalking and threatening. I am astonished this was not brought up on these forums in discussion before - it certainly helps explain why CASA has been avoiding you (and the direction to staff to not engage you in public, or specifically in these forums that have been mentioned by name). Your future discussions should be in a courtroom, in front of a judge, and possibly a jury, and let the lawyers present your case in a factual, effective, emotionless way.

Looking back, if you had attended with a lawyer (or preferably sent them instead to speak with a level headed legal approach) to serve notice of intended legal proceedings, and had actually followed through with it, these matters may have come to a favourable conclusion many years ago.

All is not lost. I can understand the reticence of CASA to have any further face-to-face meeting with you, and your heightened emotions taking a leading role in your approach to dealings with CASA at the time, you will probably find a couple of beefy Federal Police in attendance at your appointment in a few months in Canberra to make sure matters do not become heated. Carefully consider your current frame of mind - is there even a slight possibility it might become emotional - if so do not go alone. Wouldn't a well briefed lawyer that was engaged all those years ago have been a more favourable approach? You certainly will do a lot to relieve their anxiety if you would attend with a well briefed lawyer from now on if you insist on making this personal in the future. Are you still hell-bent on taking down the individual public servants, or has your attitude changed to now understand that the organisation is ultimately responsible for the delegated actions of their officers, and responsibility goes up the line right to the top? Who will you sue - the individual or the organisation? Who will pay you the millions you deserve to right this matter on just terms? Would a begrudging forced written apology from the offending individuals right the situation and reverse your fortunes?

An apology for the threatening and inappropriate way you carried on all those years ago may help calm things down. Whether you should do this before, during, or after your court case is something your legal counsel will advise you on.

Airing your grievances in these public forums and trying to do everything in an amateurish way has possibly cost you the most favourable outcome. Yes, it would appear you have quite a valid case, and the threats you made are just but a small diversion, but can I continue to strongly suggest you place this matter in the hands of a competent lawyer and let them run with it instead of playing amateur lawyer? You have been trying to justify your approach in these public forums. It has obviously not worked, as it is the wrong approach. Talk to your wife and family and friends and ask their opinion and then listen to it. Go get a lawyer and take it from there.

Lead Balloon

24th Jul 2023, 10:52

Squawk7700

24th Jul 2023, 12:30

Yet you’re not astonished that Glen hasn’t been charged for the crimes he must have committed in bringing about this reign of terror on CASA and its frightened personnel?

You seem to think that someone would have to be formally charged in order to cause an organisation to completely re-think it’s security posture. That seems a little too black and white, glad you aren’t a cop. We had a trespasser where I worked once, came in, claimed that he worked there and was starting the next day, made a big scene and left before the police arrived. No charge of trespass as they were gone before Police arrived, but as a result, the company changed its security posture, added lift security and advised employees to put away their ID tags when coming and going.

Lead Balloon

25th Jul 2023, 00:42

I see your point: The trespasser at the organisation where you worked actually did the organisation a favour by trespassing and making a big scene. Glen did CASA a favour in bringing about a change in 'security posture' through his stalking and assault.

It's no wonder "it was decided not to proceed" with any prosecution action. These people weren't committing crimes: they we were doing a public service.

It looks like ex-High Court judge Geoffrey Nettle was being too 'black and white' when he issued the ultimatum to the Victorian government to disband his office or he would resign, citing frustration with the Victorian director of public prosecutions refusing to approve criminal charges against those involved in 'Lawyer X' scandal. (Victoria is regularly on the medal podium in the (very strong) competition for the Australian jurisdiction whose police and prosecutors most frequently pervert the course of justice see all that grey in between the black and the white.)

Still doesn't explain why the CASA FOI officer can't find any CASA documents with the word "assault" or the word "stalking" to describe Glen's behaviour, nor why Carmody was "sick of it". Maybe "it" was not only Glen's behaviour but also the failure of police and prosecutors to get off their arses and do their jobs?

Or maybe there was no assault or stalking and Glen's behaviour was lawful and the perfectly reasonable response to CASA's industrial-strength, corporate incompetence?

I reckon it would be great to get to the truth.

MalcolmReynolds

25th Jul 2023, 12:00

Glen, go to Court bloody right now! This has gone on way too long. FINISH IT! One way or the other! The Nuclear Option is way past due!

Slippery_Pete

27th Jul 2023, 04:41

That attachment was a sobering read. Kudos I guess for having the balls to post it. Those text messages you sent to CASA staff paint a very different picture to the one of innocent victim I had previously formed.

I’m not going to give you a lecture here because I’m sure others have.

What I will do, is encourage you that you’re incredibly lucky Pip has even agreed to meet with you. I don’t doubt that you’ve been treated unfairly, but the fact they’re not completely stonewalling your requests to meet at this point is surprising.

Read the PPrune room Glen - and the countless people that have told you to get professional representation.

If you walk into that meeting without counsel present, well then I’d suggest no-one here can help you.

Valdiviano

27th Jul 2023, 08:15

Would a show of intended financial support for Glen, be appropriate at this stage?

Lead Balloon

27th Jul 2023, 10:09

Not unless it will be spent on independent legal advice that Glen will - and this is the most important bit - heed.

Hoosten

27th Jul 2023, 12:57

Those text messages you sent to CASA staff paint a very different picture to the one of innocent victim I had previously formed.

So, in any consideration, what you would call a coward hiding behind public servant protection, defames Glen and destroys his 30 year career. And you don't think Glen is a victim? Based on what I would call under the circumstances, understandable texts. Remember, this coward wanted CASA support for the threatened civil action. CASA support which means your tax money to defend a coward, money out of CASA's budget that should be supporting aviation.

I bet your social conscience supports men dressing up as women pissing in women's toilets?

Slippery_Pete

27th Jul 2023, 13:39

So, in any consideration, what you would call a coward hiding behind public servant protection, defames Glen and destroys his 30 year career. And you don't think Glen is a victim? Based on what I would call under the circumstances, understandable texts. Remember, this coward wanted CASA support for the threatened civil action. CASA support which means your tax money to defend a coward, money out of CASA's budget that should be supporting aviation.

I bet your social conscience supports men dressing up as women pissing in women's toilets?

Pipe down, Helen Lovejoy.

Once you take your foot out of your mouth, read my post again.

My “innocent victim” comment was about the opinion I had formed reading posts where that information hadn’t previously been offered up. MY opinion, nothing more nothing less.

Your definition of “understandable” in the context of those SMS messages may be very different to mine, or most people, or a federal circuit court judge.

I also gave him respect for sharing it, because that would have been hard to do.

Furthermore, I made it clear I still had no doubt in my mind that Glen had been treated unfairly. Read it again if you like.

What I did say, was that:
- now I’ve read those texts, I was surprised he managed to get a meeting with CASA CEO, and
- that if he enters that forum without legal representation at this point that’s a poor decision.

And then lastly, you throw your toys out of the pram in a final “your political views on such and such must be this” type rant. Really mature stuff 🤨

Deep breaths mate. Think, then post 👍

And just to make it crystal clear for you, I (like you) hope Glen can find a way forward.

Hoosten

27th Jul 2023, 21:21

What CASA does with those texts is up to them, they can assess threats along with the law.

Manipulate the meaning of your post any way you like. I don't need to read it again, its intent is pretty clear.

Do you want me to copy, paste and re-post mine? Or do you just want to re-read it? I'm happy not to reconsider it or manipulate the meaning of it.

glenb

27th Jul 2023, 21:29

Another tight deadline> i have to head off to work but wanted to get this out before the day kicks off. Apologies for any substandard editing. Cheers. Glen.Back at the 24-hour Pancake Parlor enjoying a less than optimal coffee. Definitely a pancake venue, and not a coffee venue.

Regarding the incident in the Melbourne Office where a CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) was allegedly “assaulted,” when he was “shoved” by me.

Please be assured that no CASA Employee was ever shoved by me. This did not happen.

This document has been downloaded over 100 times, so obviously this has generated some interest, and I feel I need to attend to it again.

If I had been yelling, screaming, and shoved the CASA Employee, I appreciate that would be irrational behaviour.

Between October 2018 until June 2019, CASA had crippled the business, and I knew about by now that I had lost everything, including $300,000 of my parents money which was used to sustain salaries and avoid redundancies.

I had secured ongoing employment with APTA until CASA advised that my Employer that my continuing employment was no longer tenable, based on comments that I made on Pprune, and based on a letter I wrote to the PMs Office.

I was in a bad way, as it was obvious that with that direction by CASA, I was about to totally exit the industry, as I did. CASA had approached my Employer directly, and not advised me of their decision. I had made multiple attempts to have that Employee speak with me on the phone and he avoided that, and I advised that I would come into the CASA Office seeking that explanation that I felt I was entitled to.

Some points to consider.

· By now this matter had been continuing for 8 months, and it would “suit’ CASA to have possibly overreacted to assist their “agenda”. It is likely that CASA realised that I had presented them with an opportunity, and they made the most of it.

· This entire incident happened in a large corporate building foyer with a number of high-profile tenants. There is very tight security, and several security guards were less than 15 metres away at their security desk, well within earshot and clear line of sight. Had I have been “screaming” and “yelling “in what is a very quiet foyer area, then the security personnel would have intervened, looked across, approached us, or at least taken some action. They were obviously completely unaware until CASA approached them after the incident. There was most likely emotion involved, but there was no “screaming” or “yelling”.

· This entire incident happened directly under a security camera that was approximately 3 metres above us. Had I have stalked or assaulted anybody, with all of the other security protocols that were being enacted by CASA , one would have thought that obtaining video footage would have been high on the list of priorities to bolster CASAs case, or an independent witness statement from security, at the very least. The correspondence suggests that the video footage was considered, and I suggest that it indicated that in fact no CASA Employee was “shoved”, and that’s why it never went any further, and no footage was obtained.

· I myself tried to obtain that footage and spoke to the Building security Manager. While he would not address that specific occurrence, he assured me that are was exceptionally well recorded, but understandably not available to me without extensive processes

· Regarding the incident in the foyer.

If you refer to the email dated 6th February titled, “below is a summary of events today”

There were two FOIs present, one of whom I had known for 20 years, and the other one who I did not immediately recognise.

The lesser-known FOI states “I advised that I would not be leaving, Mr Buckley then approached me and shoved me in the chest.”

This part of the statement is completely false.

What truthfully happened. I had “asked”, not “directed”, that he let me, and the other FOI talk alone, which I would have been very comfortable with, and that would have deescalated the situation immediately. Nevertheless, the lesser-known FOI chose not to step back, and that is where he claims that I “shoved” him.

Importantly, if you go to the “file note 6th February” it states “and went to push with an open hand- I immediately warned Mr Buckley that he could not physically touch a Government Official in such a way. He backed off….”

So the question is which of those CASA Officers statement is truthful. Did I “shove” the Flight Operations Inspector, as the other FOI indicates that in fact I did not “shove” anyone.

The difference is significant. As stated, my best recollection of the events is that I used a technique that I have used throughout my life and regularly in the violent environment of Youth Justice. I believe in such a situation I would have adopted that same tactic if someone was too close or encroaching on my personal space. I would use three fingers placed very gently against the chest, to indicate that is the limit. If the person makes a decision to stay in spot or reposition rearwards that is the preferred option, but if you make the decision to step forward, then the nature of the situation is changing.

The conversation withy the police was withy regards to the matter of “trespass”, and it appears that the CASA staff at this stage have not raised either stalking or assault with the police.

On page 13 of the document, they discuss the assault, and encourage the victim to make a police complaint. If he had been assaulted, and his Employer CASA was encouraging him to make that complaint, and he chose not to. Why would that be? If you had been assaulted in the workplace, and your Employer was encouraging you to have it documented with the police, why would you not proceed. Could it be that he knew he had provided false and misleading information, and that by escalating the process, he knew that the other CASA Employee may not be prepared to be complicit in the matter. I only speculate, but it is highly suspicious that no complaint was ever made to the police, and the entire matter ground to a complete halt at the stage of making a statement to police.

Page 18. If you see Mr Buckley, immediately call 000. Honestly. This is ludicrous, and so far out of proportion.

Wow, I just re read my text messages from all those years ago. Bought back memories. There was no doubt that I was in a bad place, and very much on the edge. Nevertheless, please be absolutely certain that I never assaulted anybody. The statement by that CASA Employee is a completely false and misleading statement, as CASA are by now fully aware

Lead Balloon

27th Jul 2023, 22:46

And then there’s the small point that you haven’t been prosecuted for anything…

Actual offences against public officials usually result in actual action: https://media.amsa.gov.au/media-release/violent-threats-land-unseaworthy-tug-boat-owner-hot-water

VH-MLE

28th Jul 2023, 04:40

From my own perspective & one who considers himself reasonably calm & rational, I doubt whether I could have handled myself as well as you have Glen. Us human's can only take so much stress before lashing out in one form or another - that is normal behaviour, particularly as you say, when you've lost everything, including family money etc.

glenb

28th Jul 2023, 20:48

29/07/23

My reference Pprune# 2776

Dear Ms Spence,

Thank you again for the opportunity to meet with you and the Board Chair on October 3rd, 2023, and I look forward to that opportunity.

In my correspondence to you on 02/07/23 (my reference Pprune #2719), I outlined some topics that I hope to address at that meeting.

In that correspondence I addressed the possibility of an Act of Grace Payment as an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

You are aware that this matter has attracted widespread industry interest on two industry forums being Aunty Pru and Pprune, the former being a more technical platform, and the latter an industry discussion forum, that has attracted well over one million views and thousands of substantive industry comments. The topic in its entirety can be accessed here, and I particularly draw your attention to the more recent posts that attend to this specific topic, i.e. pursuing litigation. 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)

Whilst I appreciate that it is easy to be dismissive of such forums, they do represent the industry.

Increasingly on those forums, the industry is becoming frustrated at my reluctance to pursue litigation, and particularly so considering the statute of limitations that could apply to this matter.

Over the last four and a half years, I believe that I have been more than reasonable in trying to avoid litigation. I perceive litigation as the very last resort as it indicates a complete breakdown of all good intent.

The ball is very much in CASAs court.

I have two options before me, and they are litigation, or an Act of Grace Payment. There are no other options available to me, and it is CASA that must determine which approach I adopt.

I do need CASA to clearly identify to me with the information that is available to CASA at the present time, will CASA oppose an application for an Act of Grace Payment?

If the intention of CASA at this stage is that they would oppose an Act of Grace payment as an ADR to bring this entire matter to a close, then I have no other option available to me, other than to pursue litigation.

You will be aware that the industry has established a crowdfunding site to support any potential litigation, and that I have asked that any contributions be put on hold until CASA can clearly identify their position with regards to an Act of Grace Payment.

May I respectfully request that you discuss this with my local MP, Ms Carina Garland, the Minister, the Board and anybody else that you need to incorporate into your decision making.

For clarity, my specific question that I respectfully request that you address is,

With the information available to you in your role as the CEO of CASA at the present time, is CASAs intention to oppose any request for an Act of Grace payment that I submit, leaving me with no other option than to pursue litigation.

Thank you for your consideration of my fair and reasonable request.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

glenb

28th Jul 2023, 21:56

Complaint of a CASA Employee making a false and misleading Statement that he was assaulted by Glen Buckley- My reference Pprune #2777

Background to the Complaint

On 20/11/2020, Mr Shane Carmody PSM, the CASA CEO at the time, made an allegation before the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee that I, Glen Buckley had “stalked and assaulted” CASA Employees. The link to Mr Carmody PSMs false and misleading allegations can be accessed via the following link. GA Inquiry - 20/11/20: Carmody Capers CASA - Part I - YouTube

I resolutely maintain that I have never stalked or assaulted any CASA Employee.

There are two CASA Employees involved in this matter, and their names were not released to me under Freedom of Information, so I will refer to them as Flight operations Inspector One (FOI 1) and Flight Operations Inspector Two (FOI 2).

In this complaint, I will refer to documentation that I have obtained under freedom of Information, and that document can be accessed here. Mr. Glen Buckley - Documents for release - 07.02.21.pdf (file:///C:/Users/61418/Dropbox/My%20PC%20(LAPTOP-O536QJTE)/Downloads/Mr.%20Glen%20Buckley%20-%20Documents%20for%20release%20%20-%2007.02.21.pdf)

On page 21 of 55 of the attached official commonwealth document FOI 1 states that Mr Buckley “went to push FOI 2 with an open hand” however was warned by FOI 1, and “backed off. This statement by CASA FOI 1 clearly indicates that no contact was made, and therefore FOI 2 was not “shoved” as FOI 1 claims.

On page 4 of 55, FOI 2 claims that Mr Buckley in fact “approached me, and shoved me in the chest”

It is this statement on official documentation by FOI 2, that I am claiming is false and misleading.

In support of my allegation that FOI Two has made a false and misleading statement on official commonwealth documentation.

· FOI Ones observations are different than FOI Twos observations, with FOI 2 claiming that I advanced toward him and shoved him, although FOI 1s statement contradicts that.

· No statement was ever made regarding stalking or assault to Police that attended in response to a compliant of possible “trespassing” by me being in the foyer of the CASA building. That was the complaint made to the police, no allegations of stalking or assault were ever made.

· The alleged incident happened directly under a security camera, and my understanding is that CASA accessed that footage, and no evidence of physical assault was on that recording.

· CASA FOI Two was encouraged to document the assault with police by his Employer, and he did not follow that guidance. I believe he may have chosen not to pursue that path as he was aware that he had made a false and misleading statement and was not prepared to proceed for his own reasons.

· I am fully satisfied that FOI Two made that false and misleading statement to cause me reputational harm, as it has, and to hinder my attempts at a fair and reasonable resolution to other matters that were ongoing at the time with CASA.

My expected outcome

I am requesting that the ICC establish contact with both FOI One and Two and clarify those two contradicting statements and advise whether CASAs official position as presented to the Senators is that I had stalked and assaulted CASA Employees, or has the ICC identified that in fact FOI 2 has made a false and misleading statement that I moved towards him and “shoved” him, as he falsely claims.

Could you clearly identify to me why there would be two statements that conflict on such substantial matters?

If CASA identifies that a CASA Employee has made a false and misleading statement that I advanced towards him and shoved him, i.e. assaulted him, could you advise what options are available to me to have CASA correct that false and misleading statement.

Thankyou in anticipation of your assistance in this matter.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

Lead Balloon

30th Jul 2023, 01:37

Squawk7700

30th Jul 2023, 07:33

I must have missed the bit of the CASA FOI Duty Statement that includes bodyguarding and bouncing duties in the foyer of a multi-tenant office building.

Two people on one, and the two people came to the one in the foyer of a multi-tenant office building during business hours. Until the two arrived, the one was a threat to nobody, so far as I can tell. And there were multiple witnesses and a security camera.

The simplest and most obvious reason why the one was not prosecuted for assault is: The one assaulted nobody. A self-appointed bodyguard/bouncer tried to intimate the one, but the tactic failed.

And I very much doubt whether CASA has the authority to decide who is allowed and not allowed in the foyer of a multi-tenant office building during business hours. That would probably the decision of the building owner, not individual tenants.

Once the security guard asks for the “visitor” to leave, if the refuse to leave, they are officially trespassing, especially if one did not have an appointment to be there. It wouldn’t quite stand up with the constabulary if you then said I’m here to visit Medibank or whoever else is the tenant.

The security personnel belong to the building, so they have the legal right to ask you to leave.

Lead Balloon

30th Jul 2023, 07:55

Should I add “security guard” to the list of CASA FOI duties of which I wasn’t aware in their Duty Statement?

SIUYA

30th Jul 2023, 09:00

Should I add “security guard” to the list of CASA FOI duties of which I wasn’t aware in their Duty Statement?

Probably a good idea LB.

And maybe at the same time you could add a note on the Duty Statement that any expectation to behave honestly and with integrity can be disregarded as/if/when convenient.

Squawk7700

30th Jul 2023, 09:36

Should I add “security guard” to the list of CASA FOI duties of which I wasn’t aware in their Duty Statement?

Same result, they ask the visitor to leave as they don’t have an appointment… if they don’t, they can then ask the security guard to do it for them.

Lead Balloon

30th Jul 2023, 12:21

And yet - as with stalking and assault - Glen wasn’t charged with trespass. So, if he was asked by someone with authority over the foyer to leave, I’m guessing he left.

glenb

30th Jul 2023, 20:09

There was no assault.

There was no “yelling” and “screaming”

I was never asked by anyone to leave the foyer, and i left completely of my own accord, once it was obvious that a meeting was not going to occur

Hoosten

31st Jul 2023, 13:19

Yeah, I wouldn't be listening to legal advice from VicPol, or for that matter, trusting them in any way. Track history and all.

43Inches

1st Aug 2023, 00:42

Police don't generally give legal advice, they enforce the law, not make judgement on it, it's more likely they will arrest somebody causing a nuisance or danger and let the courts decide whether it was warranted. They will know the basics of trespass laws and such though, so if they are asking you to leave its probably a good idea to comply. Even in many public spaces the police have the power to ask you to move on.

You go to a lawyer for legal advice, still best to listen to the police if they direct you to do something reasonable, like move on or leave the area. Even if you think you are right, there are some whacky and weird local bylaws out there that can be enforced.

Checkboard

1st Aug 2023, 12:45

Even if you think you are right, there are some whacky and weird local bylaws out there that can be enforced.

Even if you ARE right, is the issue one you want to make your stand on? Is it worth being arrested by some brainless police officer, only to prove them wrong in court months and thousands of dollars later?

Tell them they're wrong - but move on anyway.

glenb

2nd Aug 2023, 21:34

03/08/23

Dear Keeley,

I apologise for the additional workload that I am bringing to your Office, hopefully you might get a Personal Assistant from all of this.

First, could you clarify if you are awaiting anything from me regarding the progression of my request for "contracts".

The purpose of this request is to make an FOI request for any footage of the alleged assault of a CASA Employee in the foyer of the CASA Building in Melbourne. My assumption is that had a CASA Employee been assaulted directly underneath a security camera in the foyer of the building, then CASA would be reasonably expected to have obtained footage of that incident from the Building security, and that footage would clearly confirm whether the CASA Employees claims that he was assaulted by me are factual, or has he in fact provided a false and misleading statement to CASAs investigation of the matter.

If CASA holds this footage then it would indicate to me that "CASA" has always been aware that the claim by the CASA employee was false and misleading and chose not to disclose that information.

Therefore, I am requesting that if CASA hold any footage of the alleged "assault" of the CASA footage that the footage be released to me under FOI.

If CASA does not retain the footage, am I able to request an answer to the following question, although I appreciate that it is not a request for a document as such.

If CASA does not retain footage of the alleged assault, can CASA advise if any CASA employee has ever viewed footage of the alleged event.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

MalcolmReynolds

3rd Aug 2023, 06:27

Glen I’m sorry but constant private letters to CASA are pointless. Get a good legal team who can apply pressure and scare them into a settlement or better beat them in court and get the buggars jailed!

I refer to the Brittany Higgins / Bruce Lehrmann’s / Lisa Wilkinson sh@t show where Bruce Lehrmann’s legal team caught the DPP lying his ass off. He will likely lose the DPP job and be wide open for being sued.

https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/act-director-of-public-prosecutions-shane-drumgold-left-in-the-dark-over-damning-report/news-story/03e8a637f041489971e07cba399b5490

Global Aviator

3rd Aug 2023, 22:31

Glen,

I know you have a plan, you have mentioned legal.

It is becoming even more obvious that it’s time, certainly legal rep with you at the October meeting.

After that it is time for full legal team. How much is in the gofundme? I’m sure if you were to fire up the legal option the donations would continue to roll in.

CASA know what you want and deserve but no offers to this point?

It’s time to say ok I’ve tried my best to be nice now it’s GLOVES OFF and handball all to the legal team and set an extremely high settlement bar.

Good luck!

Hoosten

4th Aug 2023, 10:47

Police don't generally give legal advice, they enforce the law, not make judgement on it,

We're talking VicPol. There's no thug like a VicPol thug. Plenty of evidence on the interweb.

sunnySA

4th Aug 2023, 12:38

Glen, as much as enjoy your posts and appreciate the devastating affect that this has had (continues to have) on you and your family. I really think you need to listen to Thirsty and Malcolm Reynolds. Factor in the number of "likes" their posts have received. For each "like" there is probably x5 the number of people who agree.

Squawk7700

4th Aug 2023, 12:47

We're talking VicPol. There's no thug like a VicPol thug. Plenty of evidence on the interweb.

Not at all relevant as the police played no part in this.

glenb

4th Aug 2023, 22:47

· 26/05/23, Ms. Spence, CASA CEO, wrote to me offering the meeting she had committed to once the Ombudsman investigation was completed. (My reference Pprune post #2608 p.131)

· 04/06/23, I responded to Ms. Spences offer of a meeting., accepting it and clarifying some misconceptions in that previous correspondence from Ms. Spence. (My reference Pprune post #2620 p.131)

· 27/06/23, Ms. Spence responds and advises that a meeting will not be available until October if my requirement is to have the CASA Chair in attendance. (My reference Pprune post 2703 p.136)

· 29/06/23, I wrote to Ms. Spences P.A. accepting a delayed meeting in order to facilitate the CASA Chair to attend. (My reference Pprune#2711 p.136)

· 02/07/23, I wrote follow up correspondence to Ms. Spence very clearly outlining my expectations of that meeting. (My reference Pprune #2719 p.136)

· 3/07/23, I received an email from Ms. Spences PA, advising the details of the scheduled meeting with the Chair and CEO. (My reference Pprune #2747 p.138)

· 29/07/23, I sent correspondence, asking for very clear direction on whether or not CASA would oppose a request for an Act of Grace payment. (My reference Pprune # 2776 p.139)

On 04/08/23, I received this correspondence from Ms. Spence advising that CASA will not oppose a request for an Act of Grace Payment. I believe that this is significant but may be overly optimistic. Please be assured that I am listening to you, and I do understand that there is a strong push for me to engage legal assistance, and I hear it, I really do.

To everyone that has commented or has been sitting on the sidelines. My timelines are tight. I’m keen on feedback, I need your input. Cheers. Glen, and below is the correspondence I received from Ms. Spence yesterday.

This correspondence specifically addresses the expected outcomes of my correspondence in Pprune Post #2719 where I listed 5 “Expected Outcomes” of the meeting.

04/08/23

Dear Mr Buckley

Thank you for your email about our meeting scheduled for October. I do appreciate you taking the time to set out your main expectations for that meeting, and have set out below my comments in response to those expected outcomes.

Expected outcome 1:

In the spirit of the apology I conveyed in my 26 May letter to you, where I acknowledged that CASA could have done things better, I can advise that we would not oppose your claim for an Act of Grace payment should the Department of Finance seek the views of CASA.

Such an application from you would result in an independent, third-party assessment which we would welcome, and we would provide any information requested to enable that assessment including the findings of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

This also addresses the question in your most recent email to me of 30 July.

Expected outcome 2:

As I explained in my most recent email to you on 21 June, I don’t intend to revisit issues that you have previously raised, noting that CASA stands by the Ombudsman’s findings, as set out at expected outcome 5 below.

Expected outcome 3:

As in my comments about revisiting matters in response to your second expected outcome, CASA stands by the findings of the Commonwealth Ombudsman dated 21 February 2023:

We accept CASA’s explanation that it became concerned about the APTA operational model in 2018 as it became uncertain whether APTA’s model met legislative requirements to show sufficient control between the authorisation holder and the affiliates conducting training…. It was therefore open to CASA to take steps to be satisfied the legislative requirements were being met. We accept that CASA can and should act when it identifies an operator is working in a way that may not comply with legislative and regulatory requirements… (E)ven if CASA had previously authorised the APTA model in the knowledge that it was providing oversight of its affiliates, rather than conducting flight training in its own right, we cannot be critical that it reassessed its position when concerns arose about whether this model was in line with civil aviation legislation… (W)e remain satisfied that CASA’s concerns about the APTA operational model at the time of the Notice were not without basis and no further investigation is warranted in relation to its decision to issue the Notice.

Expected outcome 4:

I would have anticipated that any information relevant to your complaint would have been provided to the Commonwealth Ombudsman during the course of its review of your concerns. If it was not, your allegations and any material to support those allocations should be directed to the Commonwealth Ombudsman for consideration.

Expected outcome 5:

For the reasons set out above, CASA stands by the findings of the Commonwealth Ombudsman dated 21 February 2023:

We are satisfied that CASA adopted a collaborate approach to resolving the issues raised in (the Notice of 23 October 2018)… Records that CASA provided to us show that its officers met with Mr Buckley and his father on behalf of APTA multiple times and there was frequent email communication between the parties. CASA provided guidance on the reasons it required contracts, obtained legal advice to support its position, and provided model clauses to Mr Buckley for his use in May 2019. We acknowledge Mr Buckley’s concern about the length of time matters extended without a resolution but are satisfied that, despite the delay, CASA provided advice to Mr Buckley that the existing approvals for APTA remained in place, and he could continue operating as he had prior to the Notice. In hindsight, there may have been ways to improve the communication to ensure Mr Buckley was given a consistent message by all parties within CASA, but we note this was difficult because Mr Buckley was contacting multiple people within CASA. We further note that CASA ultimately implemented a strategy to have one contact point for him, to reduce the risk of mixed messages.

Regards

Pip

Global Aviator

5th Aug 2023, 03:20

Looks to me like you are going to be stonewalled.

It will be interesting to read what others think.

I reckon a pittance will be offered if an act of grace is made, no apology or no admission of any wrong doing.

Hoosten

5th Aug 2023, 09:34

Not at all relevant as the police played no part in this.

Not referring to this incident, referring to the Big 43'ers post regarding Police and legal advice :ok:

Lead Balloon

6th Aug 2023, 03:32

Glen’s request is not for a payment from the Commonwealth. Glen’s request is for a payment from CASA. CASA isn’t the Commonwealth.

Unfortunately, he chose to use the term “act of grace” and that has enabled CASA to use the Commonwealth scheme as a distraction from the substance. (Every time you send out one of your emails, Glen, you complicate rather than simplify the path to any potential solution. As each day passes, you’re one day closer to the expiration of the limitation period on potential causes of action, even assuming they haven’t already expired.) There’s nothing stopping CASA from making a payment in like circumstances for like reasons as those in and for which the Commonwealth makes payments it calls “act of grace” payments. CASA is a body corporate and spends its own money.

All that said, it remains bleedingly obvious that no big cheques (well, not even a little one) will be handed over to Glen at the meeting. That’s never going to happen unless and until CASA faces the real prospect of being found liable to Glen by a court. (And to emphasise my earlier point: When CASA settles a legal claim and writes a cheque, it doesn’t get the Finance Minister’s approval or spend the Commonwealth’s money. CASA makes the decision itself and spends its own money.) I hope that the passage of time and the mountains of correspondence have not effectively buried whatever prospects Glen might have had.

Squawk7700

6th Aug 2023, 05:44

Was it you that told him LB, that CASA could make a grace payment?

Lead Balloon

6th Aug 2023, 06:00

I wasn’t asked before he sent that email. Does not make a schmick of difference to what CASA can and cannot do, anyway.

Flaming galah

6th Aug 2023, 07:40

…. until CASA faces the real prospect of being found liable to Glen by a court.

What Glen’s standing to bring an action on behalf of the CASA regulated corporate entity that’s the victim here has me perplexed. APTA was sold, and with it went its assets and liabilities. Live by the corporate veil….

Lead Balloon

6th Aug 2023, 07:58

Indeed. Standing is among many formidable hurdles in Glen's way.

glenb

6th Aug 2023, 21:26

A summary of the Posts leading up to this.

20/11/20 CASA CEO makes a statement to the Senators that I have stalked and assaulted his staff.

21/11/20 ( My reference Pprune #1349 p.68) the day after the CASA CEO made those false and misleading comments, I wrote to the CEO requesting that he retract them.

01/12/20 ( My reference Pprune #1373 p.69) I wrote to the CASA Board, requesting that the statement be retracted.

10/12/20 ( My reference Pprune #1392 p.70 ) I wrote to the Secretary of the Senate committee

11/12/20 (My reference Pprune # 1396 p.70), I made the first of two FOI requests on this matter.

21/04/21 ( My reference Pprune #1599 p.80), I wrote to both the CASA Acting CEO, and LNP Deputy PM at the time, requesting the allegations be withdrawn.

28/06/23 (My reference Pprune #2743 p. 138) CASA asks for clarification regarding the FOI request.

13/07/23 (My reference Pprune #2748 p.138). I provide clarification as requested.

Correspondence from CASA ICC received 31/07/23.Hi Glen

Thanks for your email, I acknowledge receipt.

I will be back in contact (most likely late this week or early next week) to discuss next steps.

As a quick preliminary point, in your complaint you’ve said you are relying on documents released to you on 7 February 2021 under the Freedom of Information Act. It’s worth noting that the ICC Governance Arrangements (https://www.aviationcomplaints.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-04/ICC%20GA%205%20March%20v2%202022.pdf) prevent us (unless directed by the Board) from considering complaints about anything a complainant was aware of more than 12 months before the complaint was raised with the ICC. This jurisdictional hurdle is something I will have to consider when deciding the next steps. Happy to chat if that is easier – 02 6217 XXXX

Thanks

Jonathan

glenb

6th Aug 2023, 21:28

Summary of my correspondence.

20/11/20 CASA CEO makes a statement to the Senators that I have stalked and assaulted his staff.

21/11/20 ( My reference Pprune #1349 p.68) the day after the CASA CEO made those false and misleading comments, I wrote to the CEO requesting that he retract them.

01/12/20 ( My reference Pprune #1373 p.69) I wrote to the CASA Board, requesting that the statement be retracted.

10/12/20 ( My reference Pprune #1392 p.70 ) I wrote to the Secretary of the Senate committee

11/12/20 (My reference Pprune # 1396 p.70), I made the first of two FOI requests on this matter.

21/04/21 ( My reference Pprune #1599 p.80), I wrote to both the CASA Acting CEO, and LNP Deputy PM at the time, requesting the allegations be withdrawn.

28/06/23 (My reference Pprune #2743 p. 138) CASA asks for clarification regarding the FOI request.

13/07/23 ( My reference Pprune #2748 p.138). I provide clarification as requested.

27/07/23 (My reference Pprune #2773 p.139). Some personal thoughts on the matter that I posted.

29/07/23 (My reference Pprune #2777 p.139)., I submitted my complaint to you regarding the false and mis;leading information provided by the CASA Flight Operations Inspector

03/08/23 (my reference Pprune #2788 p. 140) . I made an FOI request for any footage of the incident,

Dear Jonathan Hanton

Thankyou for establishing contact, and I look forward to meeting you again personally in October when I meet with the CEO, Chair, and yourself.

Regarding this complaint, of the CASA Employee making a false statement that I assaulted him, I feel that I should add more clarity.

There were two FOI requests, the first in February 2021, and a more recent request in June of 2023. It is the latter response from CASA that I received only a few months ago that has prompted the current complaint, and the fact that the CASA CEO has only recently identified the date of the alleged assault of the CASA Employee to me. No date had been identified to me until the recent correspondence from Ms Spence., and I was able to ascertain the date and location of the alleged assault.

Upon becoming aware of the date and reviewing the witness statements, admittedly provided to me in the first release, I noted that one CASA Employee claimed that I had moved towards him and shoved him, whereas the other CASA Employees statement mentioned specifically that in fact I did not shove him. The former being a false statement and the latter being the truthful statement.

This matter is significant, and has I believe impacted on my relationship with CASA generally, and understandably so, if CASA had formed the view that I had assaulted one of their Employees during the conduct of his employment.

I do understand that Mr Carmody was protected by Parliamentary Privilege, and the purpose of this correspondence is not to seek any other redress than to have CASA make a Statement to somewhat restore my reputation.

The harm continues many years after the false and misleading statement was made to the Senators

As recently as a couple of weeks ago, it has been suggested to me that I apologise to CASA for the assault. Whilst I appreciate the well intentioned nature of the advice, it actually saddens me, because if that person believes that it has happened, I know there will be others.

The complaint is effectively a continuing or rolling complaint because the harm caused continues. If CASA is aware that one of their senior Employees has made a false allegation that I had assaulted him, then it is incumbent upon CASA to correct the record, and most especially because of the very formal setting in which the allegation was made.

I respect that you may need to consult with the Board as to whether you can investigate this matter.

If CASA determines that there will be no internal investigation into this matter, it would be concerning if that determination was based on the expiration of a twelve month timeline
.
Irrespective of the nature of the organisation, be it a Government department, or Private enterprise, it would be expected that any organisation would robustly and diligently investigate such substantial allegations against one of their Employees, irrespective of when it happened,

This is also a matter of aviation safety. If there is a CASA Employee that is prepared to make false allegations of stalking and assault against industry participants, it is possible that such behavior could occur in other aspects of that person's employment. It simply is not a matter that can be covered up.or not addressed.

Thankyou for your consideration, and please feel free to call me on 0418772013. I work as a delivery driver now, so cannot always answer the phone immediately, however I will call you back promptly i.e. within 15 minutes.

Respectfully Glen Buckley

Clinton McKenzie

7th Aug 2023, 01:04

On the subject of payments by CASA, a while ago – but post the implementation of the PGPA legislation - Avmed unlawfully place a purported restriction on my medical certificate. I applied to the AAT for review of Avmed’s decision. I had to pay a large application fee to the AAT.

The matter didn’t proceed to a hearing because Avmed’s decision was plainly unlawful – admitted as such by CASA before any more of my and the AAT’s resources were wasted – and the review was decided in my favour. (Appallingly, Avmed persisted with that unlawful behaviour because Avmed is insouciantly indifferent to its own compliance with the law and knows that most individuals cannot bear the stress and cost of seeking external review of the lawfulness and merits of what they do.)

Because of the circumstances, the AAT refunded some – but not all – of my application fee, in accordance with the AAT regs. However, CASA also wrote me a cheque for the ‘delta’ between the fee I paid and the refund I was given by the AAT.

There is no provision in the AAT Act or any other legislation that I can find which, in its terms, compelled CASA to write me that cheque. Costs are not awarded in AAT matters. I didn’t even ask for payment of the ‘delta’.

Doesn’t matter whether it was $1 or $1,000 or $1,000,000. The expenditure of each and every one of CASA’s dollars is the subject of PGPA and other stringent obligations.

Either the payment was lawful or it wasn’t. Either there was a policy basis for the payment or there wasn’t.

I’d be interested in Thirsty’s views as to the source of the legal authority and policy basis for CASA having made that payment to me, and what generic description would Thirsty apply to the payment.
So far as I am concerned and unless someone can point me to a legislative provision compelling the payment – in which case I will stand corrected - it was what I call an act of grace payment by CASA because I should not have had to spend any of my time and money teaching Administrative Law ‘101’ to public officials in CASA Avmed (Administrative Law ‘101’ being a subject which CASA Avmed continues to fail, abjectly).

Thirsty

7th Aug 2023, 12:35

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, CASA employee, or involved in this case in any manner other than an interested bystander interested in truth and justice, a PPRuner not wishing to painfully read about this case forever and ever in these forums. Yes, I have tread the hallowed halls of Parliament, been involved in AAT cases as a plaintiff, and had a few legal wins myself (with the assistance of well briefed lawyers), to great satisfaction. I have also watched the movie "The Castle" more than once. I have watched people wrought a great injustice, so outraged they were unable to properly voice their indignity in such a way that other people can understand, ultimately get a less than satisfactory outcome to right a wrong as they have dilly-dallied in how to approach remedial action. Sadly, this case seems to fall into this category, and I am so frustrated to the point I have stopped being a silent onlooker and want to shove Glen into doing what I see is best for him. I also want to see the Public Service redirected back to their basic function, to provide a service, forthright, fearless and fair, to the public, parliament and the country.

If there is any situation where examining both sides of an argument is a valid approach, this thread discussion is proof of that. In my post of last month, I expressed astonishment at the manner in which CASA had presented Glen to Parliament as being a perceived threat to them, and (behind the scenes and not previously disclosed to Glen) what changes they had made in their organisation as a direct result of those. I made my comments based on just that side of the argument. The following posts that Glen has made have clarified the situation, and the overall effect on any financial settlement will probably be insignificant when added to all the other sins that CASA and their public servants have committed against Glen.

Of course, in the grand scope of things, this will be just a minor distraction from the bigger issue of who did what, when, and how, in shutting down a thriving enterprise, causing Glenn to lose a livelihood from the inappropriate, untimely, and possibly highly illegal actions of a few employees of CASA. This should be the issue that is to be addressed, and resolution should not be an apology, but a massive financial settlement. My considered suggestion is that will not arise from a polite discussion behind closed doors in the head office of CASA in Canberra, but in a court of law where both sides have robust legal representation, and the truth is examined and decisions arrived at, and the matter be finalised. Alternatively, close scrutiny by the new National Anti-Corruption Commission may result in some progress and a speedy offer of settlement before the matter is aired publicly.

The court of public opinion here in these forums, as well as our non-professional suggestions is not going to get you a win Glen. As you can see in the hint you have been given about your FOI request, time is of the essence, there are statutes of limitation, and dragging it on for ever will not get you anywhere. Go get a lawyer, fast!

Thirsty

7th Aug 2023, 12:45

On the subject of payments by CASA...

I’d be interested in Thirsty’s views as to the source of the legal authority and policy basis for CASA having made that payment to me, and what generic description would Thirsty apply to the payment.I think you will find it bundled in the 'legal costs' section under the title "other payments" where the auditors and Federal Senate Finance Committee will not query it. The legal advice the DPP gave CASA probably would have been to 'settle on just terms' so there would not be any follow-on activity and it would die a quiet death. The payment details and how they were arrived at will have to be pried out of their clustered fists by the new National Anti-Corruption Commission, or Glen's lawyers during the discovery process. FOI requests will most likely not do that.

The Christine Holgate affair comes to mind. Scotty ranted and raved on live TV in Parliament (the drooling SHE MUST GO speech), but where were the headlines when the paltry $1million hush money was surreptitiously passed to her? All over $10,000 of Cartier watches that she was legally allowed to spend to reward her hard working senior staff. This case is far worse, and settlement should be in the millions.

My take on the final outcome:
Revenge (on the Australia Post board) is a dish served cold, very cold, (delivered by Toll Global Industries of course)!
Look at where Scotty, Christine, and the profits of Australia Post and Toll have ended up.
Karma, pure karma, in large dollops.

Glen, you need some karma. Lawyers is how you will get it.

Seabreeze

7th Aug 2023, 12:50

Glen
I had a boundary dispute with my neighbour who overstepped my fenceline. A year of emails and discussions went nowhere. I contracted a lawyer and sued my neighbour. Only then did I get a meaningful discussion and settlement before the court convened.

You can not be in any meaninful negotiation until you sue legally for losses.

Thirsty

7th Aug 2023, 13:20

Sadly, I suspect the chances are receding with passage of time. The delaying tactics of CASA are not helping.
Time to bite the bullet, get the professionals involved and get some good results. The other side will have to pay the legal expenses if you win.
Admirably, some PPRuners have offered to GoFundMe for Glen's legal costs, and I am sure more will step up to the mark once they see he is proceeding, regardless of the outcome. It is not a matter of glee to see CASA put under a blowtorch, but a sense of indignity as the unfairness of it all.

Seabreeze

7th Aug 2023, 13:21

Checkboard

7th Aug 2023, 18:42

Glen
Apparently Seabreaaze had a boundary dispute with their neighbour who overstepped their fenceline. A year of emails and discussions went nowhere. They contracted a lawyer and sued their neighbour. Only then did They get a meaningful discussion and settlement before the court convened.

You can not be in any meaninful negotiation until you sue legally for losses.

glenb

9th Aug 2023, 21:15

I can see you all roll your eyes, push against your desk as you roll your office chair back, kick your legs up slightly, and whisper an obscenity slotted in between the two words, 'about" and "time". An example would be "about @#$&ing time"

After careful consideration of the entire matter, I had a brilliant and imaginative idea. I have decided to instruct lawyers in preparation for that meeting with Ms. Spence.

I have started working on the letter and hope to publish a draft on here.tomorrow night, or Saturday morning at the latest. I have had some behind the scenes support'. My intention is to have a three-page draft. No longer than that, as an introduction. Once published i would be appreciative of any feedback. Cheers. Glen

Lead Balloon

10th Aug 2023, 00:56

Instructing lawyers: Good idea.

Publishing any correspondence about what you propose to tell them: Terrible idea.

If you’re going to instruct lawyers, you first need to find lawyers with the requisite expertise who are prepared to take instructions from you. You then give them instructions, confidentially, so that those communications attract and retain legal privilege.

And then they will ask you about things they need to know and, having considered what they need to know, they’ll advise you on next steps. Those communications will also attract legal privilege.

Though it will be a matter entirely for your lawyers and you, I anticipate that their first piece of advice will be: Now is the time to STFU be very reticent in publishing yet more material potentially containing admissions and inconsistencies that could be deleterious to your legal interests, even assuming that what’s been published so far hasn’t trashed them.

vne165

10th Aug 2023, 01:03

Glen, listen to LB - it's sound advice. Mum's the word from here on in.
Do not broadcast your strategy to anyone.
Seek your counsel with your lawyers and perhaps a trusted friend for general advice and support.
Time to play the ball to your advantage, not theirs.

havick

10th Aug 2023, 03:15

Don’t post anymore on here Glen!

keep us updated once it’s finally over from here on out now you are having a legal team support you.

Global Aviator

10th Aug 2023, 10:59

The only post I’d like to see from you Glen is…….

Fireup the gofundme donations……..

We are on like Donkey Kong!

sunnySA

10th Aug 2023, 13:52

Don’t post anymore on here Glen!

keep us updated once it’s finally over from here on out now you are having a legal team support you.
I'm sure a confidentially clause with be included (to benefit #%^&;).

Slippery_Pete

12th Aug 2023, 06:12

Wow, there’s a plot twist I didn’t see coming!

Finally, common sense has prevailed.

I wish you all the best in being compensated handsomely for the millions you’ve lost.

And zip it on Pprune from here on 🤐🤐🤐

havick

13th Aug 2023, 18:52

Glen, can you repost the link to the gofundme page?

I’m sure the account will fill up a lot quicker with the news of you seeking legal representation.

pcx

14th Aug 2023, 06:25

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

sagesau

14th Aug 2023, 12:00

Even if your legal process prevents updates please post an 'ops normal' every now and then so we know you are still with us

Celtic2912

15th Aug 2023, 08:57

Lead Balloon

16th Aug 2023, 12:44

If Glen is to win his legal battle with CASA, there will need to be a lot more in his "GoFundMe" pot than is there currently.

It is in the best interests of all who subscribe and post here, including those considering Aviation as a future career, that CASA cannot be allowed to run roughshod over a legally operated aviation small business. Many/most who post here will have started their careers at a flying school such as Glen owned.

May I humbly suggest that everyone puts their money where their mouth is, and donates as generously as their circumstances allow.I agree entirely with the sentiment of your post because Glen needs our continued support, more than ever.

I'd suggest just one tweak: That we all contribute (some of us again) to the 'GoFundMe' effort as soon as Glen has confirmed that he has engaged lawyers to fight his legal battle and that that's where the donated funds will be spent. That's where many of us thought the original donations were going to be spent and I reckon that if those donations had been spent on legal assistance, years ago, there'd have been a resolution - for better or for worse - by now.

(I'm not suggesting the originally donated funds have been misspent, but rather that they were not spent when and where they would have done most good.)

glenb

16th Aug 2023, 20:31

Folks, please be assured that my family and I are very appreciative of all the support that has been offered to us throughout the last almost five years, and the continued interest keeps me going.

Regarding the Go fund Me, I believe that the time will come.

Regarding the funds that have been available to me. I have met with lawyers on three occasions to obtain advice and guidance, and ample funds currently remain in the "kitty" for an initial assessment by a reputable legal firm, hence I have not put out the further call to industry.

Please be assured that if I feel I need further funds into the Go Fund Me, I will call for them, but it will be a very significant campaign that I will mount if I do need to revisit the funding. To date i have been very discrete and maintained a profile on Pprune and Aunty Pru only, because I have wanted to remain as discrete as practical.

If the call goes out, please be assured that it will be a very active campaign., utilizing Facebook, possibly an advertisement in Australian Flying, and I will be seeking assistance of my local MP, Ms Carina Garland.

I have heard your suggestions that i maintain a low profile on Ppprune, until that legal advice has been obtained, and i do appreciate that may appear to be the best option, and most probably is.

That underestimates the power of these forums. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Aunty pru and prune have a very significant role to play.

I am convinced that i had not utilized, and continued to utilise these forums, i would have been totally crushed many years ago, and the matter kicks along only because of these two forums. Similarly, these forums and the accompanying support have been a pillar of support for me mentally, and without it, i think that i would be in a far far worse place, I really do.

I feel the most effective approach to crowd funding is a kitty that grows quickly to demonstrate industry support. A shorter more intense campaign may send a stronger signal that a lengthier more drawn-out approach.

I feel the call will come, but it could be a few weeks away. Thankyou so much.

Regarding crowd funding, in order to run a case, it will cost a significant amount of money, and ideally i would like to have a proposition to put towards industry, and something more formal. If it were to go to court, and i were to obtain the outcome that i feel my family is entitled to, I assume that i would get my legal costs back, and that they should be returned to the contributors with potentially a return on the investment to those contributors.

Litigation funders usually take approximately 1/3 of the payout. Nothing would give me more satisfaction than making sure that any additional funds were repaid with interest to those contributors that have supported me.

Great to see some new poster's popping up, and to Celtic as a new member, who appears to have joined the pprune community to become involved in this topic, your input is appreciated.

back to a pancake parlor coffee, while i work on some other matters.

Cheers folk, have a good day and safe trip home to you all at the end of it. Cheers. Glen

glenb

20th Aug 2023, 19:46

21/08/23

Dear Mr Hanton,

I am writing to follow up on the complaint that I made to the Office of the Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) regarding the completely false allegation made by Mr David Edwards a CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) based in the Melbourne Office that I had assaulted him in the foyer of the CASA Building on 6 February 2020.

As you are aware, the witness statements by the other CASA Officer in attendance, indicate that in fact Mr David Edwards was not assaulted by me, and that clearly supports my version of events, being the truthful one, and Mr Edwards claims, being malicious, false and misleading, a pattern that I have come to expect in my dealings with CASA.

I have requested that CASA confirm that they are aware that I did not assault any CASA Employees ever, and I have made the very reasonable request that the false statement be corrected by CASA on multiple occasions.

CASA has had access to that same information that I obtained under Freedom of Information, and CASA would have been aware for over three years that it was a false statement and that no CASA Employee was ever assaulted by me.

The first time that I became aware that I had allegedly stalked and assaulted CASA Employees was when the CASA CEO at the time, Mr Shane Carmody PSM, raised those most serious of allegations before the Senators on 20/11/2020, before the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee.

As CASA has now been aware for a period of over three years, I think the time has well and truly passed for CASA to correct this falsehood. As you are aware, I have made multiple requests to CASA over the ensuing years,The impact of this false allegation continues, and I feel that I am within my rights to have this matter promptly attended to.

Could you please advise if the Board has directed that this matter be investigated, and if you have been directed by the Board not to investigate this matter, can you advise what options are available to me to have Mr Edwards conduct investigated, and a determination made as to whether in fact any CASA Employee was ever stalked or assaulted by me.This is a matter that I am not prepared to "let go" as it has had a significant impact on me and continues to do so.

Thankyou Jonathan, and please understand that my frustration is not intended to be directed at you.

Cheers. Glen Buckley

Sandy Reith

21st Aug 2023, 02:06

Glen thank you for your update, your fight is extremely important to all of Australia’s General Aviation community, and your courage sets a great example. The fact that CASA has not answered for its false claims and continues to drag its feet is perpetuating an untenable state of injustice.

Personally I respect whatever strategy you feel is best but I wonder what is gained by maintaining a low profile?

I can’t help thinking that wide publicity would cause Minister King, CASA and its Board to realise that the issue is not going away, and maybe the general public should know about the waste, mismanagement and dysfunctional state of Australia’s aviation administration.

I note that yet another flying school has closed up in QLD and it’s aircraft are being auctioned of this week, testament to the CASA juggernaut that’s still on its destructive pathway.

glenb

22nd Aug 2023, 19:55

As always, I appreciate your input Sandy, and i agree with your sentiments.

In my mind there are two completely separate narratives.

One being the legal approach of litigation that will come down to a word or an interpretation. It is costly, distracting, burdensome and should be entirely unnecessary.

The public case, on forums such as pprune and Aunty Pru is the ethical and integrity angle. My rather naive hope is that eventually ethics and integrity will prevail, although i do understand that is highly unlikely, nevertheless these forums do publicly expose CASA to scrutiny.

Saying that, I am most definitely seeking legal advice as well.

glenb

22nd Aug 2023, 20:02

21/08

Hi Glen

Thanks for your email, I acknowledge receipt.

I have not yet had the opportunity to discuss the specifics of your complaint about the differing accounts of what occurred at CASA’s Melbourne office with the Board. What this means is that I have not been directed to review the issues you have raised in spite of the jurisdictional issues it raises. I’ll be back in contact when I have more information, in the meantime happy to discuss – 02 6217 1249.

Thanks

Jonathan

glenb

22nd Aug 2023, 20:05

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/AAcHTtfFogj-jsWC6W6oTWdMfiwWriqM1Krzq1tLhSGLFvV9=s40-p-moGlen Buckley <[email protected]> to Jonathan
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
Tue, 22 Aug, 07:37 (22 hours ago)
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
Dear Jonathan,

Over the last five years I have tried to sit emails prior to sending them, as I appreciate the risk of responding impulsively. Nevertheless, I have woken early this morning, and I am unable to refrain. This will be blunt, and on reflection later today, I hope that I do not regret the contents of this correspondence..

I do not have the trust and confidence in your Office to engage in anything, other than written correspondence.

Perhaps more than any person within CASA, you are fully aware of the truth on this matter, you have the required mandate, and you are the decision maker.

You know that I never stalked or assaulted CASA Employees.
You know that the exact model adopted by me was widely used throughout the industry, always was, and continues to be.
You know that there is no safety case to justify the actions taken.
You know that the matter could have been resolved within 4 hours without any action being taken.by (http://taken.by/) CASA.
You know that I was the victim of targeted malice.
You are fully aware that CASA has provided false and misleading information to the Ombudsman Office

You choose not to act.

I went for a very long walk this morning. You and I have had telephone conversations that I have enjoyed and I am aware how much your parents meant to you.Well my parents are equally important to me. They are both alive, and sadly, as would be expected, at their age, their health is deteriorating at a rate that concerns me. I reflected on my own life, and my only wish is when my wife and I pass away that each of our children are safe and happy. I can't give that same gift to my parents, I know the impact this matter has had on them.

If I do not get the opportunity to fully clear my name, and get my life back on track, before I lose that opportunity, that will be my tipping point.

On that walk I analysed what I would do, if yours and my roles were reversed. If I were the ICC, and you were the flying school owner. I came to the very sad conclusion that this would have been resolved many years ago.

Quite simply, I would have "done my job". I would have stepped forward to the Ombudsman's office, and my opening phrase would have gone something like this.

Dear Ombudsman, I feel compelled to step forward and be honest and transparent, and let integrity drive this discussion. The ramifications will be significant, but that cannot form part of my considerations...........

You get the general idea. Ms. Spence's recent correspondence has heightened my concerns about you, and the true independence of your Office.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

glenb

22nd Aug 2023, 20:07

Good morning Glen

I acknowledge receipt of your email. Thank you for your candour.

In the past when you have raised concerns about my integrity, I have consistently suggested you refer these to the Commonwealth Ombudsman. While I’m aware you have escalated complaints about CASA to the Ombudsman, these are distinct from your allegations about my conduct. If you have not already done so, I suggest this would be appropriate. I cannot investigate myself.

In the alternative, given the nature of your allegations you are able to report my conduct to the National Anti-Corruption Commission here (https://www.nacc.gov.au/reporting-and-investigating-corruption/report-corrupt-conduct). The ICC Governance Arrangements also provide that complaints about the ICC should be referred to the Chair of the Board. You are able to make a complaint through CASA’s [email protected].

Regards

glenb

22nd Aug 2023, 20:08

Dear Mr Hanton,

It was not a request for a complaint mechanism against you, rather something for you to consider and reflect upon.

(unsurprisingly, i haven't heard back)

glenb

22nd Aug 2023, 20:35

23/08/23

Dear Mr David Edwards CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI).

As you are aware you have made an internal complaint within CASA that I assaulted you in the foyer of the CASA Building on February 6th of 2020. You alleged that I stepped towards you and shoved you.

As you will be fully aware, that is a completely false statement and that did not occur. I have currently submitted a complaint to the CASA Industry Complaints commissioner for consideration, and there is a delay while the CASA ICC establishes contact with the Board.to ascertain whether CASA can investigate this matter.

I am reaching out to you with good intent, and respectfully request that you withdraw that false allegation. May I respectfully request that you establish contact with the CASA CEO to confirm your position on this matter and either confirm that you are maintaining your position that I assaulted you or identify to the CASA CEO that you may have been mistaken, and in fact you were never shoved or assaulted by me.

Whilst I do appreciate that this will place you in a somewhat difficult situation within CASA, I can only encourage you to act truthfully, and with integrity. The substantive nature of these complaints is not something that I am prepared to ignore. If you continue to perpetuate this complete falsehood, I will be compelled to pursue the matter with the Police, or a legal firm, and the matter can only become more complicated.

Thankyou for your consideration,

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

Global Aviator

22nd Aug 2023, 21:25

Glen,

Maaaaatttteeeee, you are going to lose the support of your colleagues if you don’t start heeding advice.

These pages have done the job for you.

It’s lawyer time and take their advice, if they say continue on Pruning go for it.

Use the money in the fund.

I would love to hear that you have solid legal direction and are pursuing that avenue!

Flaming galah

22nd Aug 2023, 21:54

I do not have the trust and confidence in your Office to engage in anything, other than written correspondence.

You get the general idea. Ms. Spence's recent correspondence has heightened my concerns about you, and the true independence of your Office.

So you have finally realised the ICC is corrupt but you STILL want him to investigate? That doesn’t make any sense.

Squawk7700

22nd Aug 2023, 23:34

I worry when I read the words “tipping point” and I can only hope you were receiving the personal assistance that you need through this evidently tough time for you. It could also be interpreted as a threat, which seems incredibly counterintuitive considering what you are trying to achieve here.

Seabreeze

23rd Aug 2023, 03:32

Check ABC news. The Senator is unhappy with CASA... a possible ally?

aroa

23rd Aug 2023, 07:06

A Senator unhappy with CAsA. The whole aviation industry is unhappy with CAsA…!!

For Glen. I can attest from experience that the office of the ICC is not independent.
So concerned was Mr Hanson about what had occurred to me he came to FNQ to discuss the issue. It was obvious to me and my witness that he was on my side I could explain in simple logic and facts that the AWI in question was the perpetrator to a criminal event. It could be none other.

Back in Cantberra in Protection House the investigation was removed from ICC Hanson and via a muddle of names/ job titles the job was finally handed over to a woman from HR/ Culture and Resources.?.She was without investigation experience nor was she signed in as a temporary Part 3 Investigator.
It was blinding obvious this was to be a cover up with a few brownie points for the job taker probably.
Certain persons weren’t a interviewed and obvious questions were never asked. I never heard from her.
Her high school essay report, heavily redacted stated …”that on the basis of probabilities it wasn’t him”
Utter tosh. Look at the details fair and square and it can be no other person.

Not the first time the CAsA system goes about protecting itself from the bad PR criminality of it staff.
Its a dung pile rotten to the core.
What else can one expect when the head (case) legal person advises me that outrageous lies used as false sworn testimony are nothing but a minor error by the inadvertent use of discrepant words or wording. !!

That is the nature of the beast that Glenn B is up against.
A vile pustule in Australian “governance”

Makiko

23rd Aug 2023, 08:00

Glen oh Glen what are you doing ?

You need to listen to people & get expert legal advice

Selecting the right Solicitor (& legal firm) is the key. Do you know about Doyle's guide ? (certain you do)

Obviously (& understandably) you are upset about assault allegation, that's all it is "an allegation", no charges laid , no finding of guilt, just let it go. In Australia people are wrongly charged all the time - that didn't happen to you. As you know it just wasn't a good idea to attend CASA building -learn from it. If similar in future take a witness, covertly record/video (you are allowed to).

Today calling yet more CASA people more names, its just going to harden further their resolve to not settle

You keep saying formal legals indicate lack of good will , integrity , ethics etc & "not necessary". I think a lot of people would disagree you & say that legal procedure is how we resolve a difference of opinion in Australia. CASA don't have to resolve this , how you want this resolved - "by discussion / meetings "

That is sort of "Queens Rules" & it just isn't how people get awarded just compensation , sort of "oh well Old Chap, its seems we made a bit of a mess of it, & as Gentleman we cannot have that, so let's fix that & then have G& T hoorah". People who are maimed via negligence often only get a settlement well into a legal process - they get put through the ringer & many are destroyed by it. & the large entities who do it - absolutely do not give a flying

Most ombudsman (industry review person) in Australia are toothless tigers everyone knows that

Why oh why are also going ""reinvent" the wheel by some kind of legal funding re-imbursement mechanism etc , I think you are overcomplicating it. And talking about re-imbursing, suppliers/staff from debts owed years ago by an entity that has now been liquidated . Its Joan of Arc stuff , if your company couldn't pay outgoings as a result of a wrong - you are not responsible for that

Aren't people saying they will contribute to you so you can hopefully get a win & some money because of what CASA did to you & your business & family

Nobody likes to be named & shamed in public, people take that very personally & that's why CASA will never settle this by chin wag

You mentioned a cause of action Misfeasance in Public Office. I would guess the challenge is to prove "acted malicously". You say that you know that , but can you prove it on the balance of probabilities (what might "turn up" in discovery emails/messages). You mentioned former(or current) CASA employee was willing to assist - will this person swear an affidavit

You need to think about where things are at. Do you have a case & do you have the strength to prosecute it . Legals are a blood sport, & people will lie , mislead , perjure themselves , destroy or hide evidence, feign memory loss to win - it's just how it is

You got to stop telling CASA how to do their job(you may well be right , but it is just irrelevant) & stay away from your local MPs - they are not your friends

It doesn't matter what you think or what you know, the only thing that matters is what you can prove

Would any staff at CASA have been foolish enough to say anything stupid on an email or text or document or file note outlining their "intent" ? or happiness at your plight ?

Remember staff at large organisations are routinely given advice on what is & what isn't "discoverable"

Everyone wishes you well Glen , I just fear that CASA might have outplayed you (but I know sfa really)

glenb

28th Aug 2023, 20:40

glenb

28th Aug 2023, 21:16

Hanton, Jonathanto me
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
Mon, 28 Aug, 14:01 (17 hours ago)
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gifOFFICIAL

Good afternoon Glen

Apologies for the delay.

At the meeting of CASA’s Board last week, my recommendation that your complaint be investigated despite you being aware of the subject matter for more than 12 months before you raised the issue with the ICC was accepted. The Board also agreed that given you have raised concerns about my conduct that any review be undertaken by an external investigator.

In terms of the information that will be provided to that external investigator, I will be providing the two written accounts of the CASA staff referenced in your email of 29 July 2023 and this description of your complaint:

FOI 1 states that Mr Buckley “went to push FOI 2 with an open hand” however was warned by FOI 1, and “backed off. This statement by CASA FOI 1 clearly indicates that no contact was made, and therefore FOI 2 was not “shoved” as FOI 1 claims.

FOI 2 claims that Mr Buckley in fact “approached me, and shoved me in the chest”

It is this statement by FOI 2 that I am claiming is false and misleading.

In support of my allegation that FOI Two has made a false and misleading statement (because):.

· FOI One's observations are different from FOI Two's observations, with FOI 2 claiming that I advanced toward him and shoved him, although FOI 1s statement contradicts that.

· No statement was ever made regarding stalking or assault to Police that attended in response to a complaint of possible “trespassing” by me being in the foyer of the CASA building. That was the complaint made to the police, no allegations of stalking or assault were ever made.

· The alleged incident happened directly under a security camera, and my understanding is that CASA accessed that footage, and no evidence of physical assault was on that recording.

· CASA FOI Two was encouraged to document the assault with police by his Employer, and he did not follow that guidance.

The external investigator will be engaged to establish whether on the balance of probabilities the account provided was false and misleading as you have alleged. To ensure any review is undertaken at arm’s length from the ICC, I do not propose providing the engaged investigator any further information or comment than that set out above and I will not be involved in any further enquiries they may elect to make.
https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif

Thanks

Jonathan

glenb

28th Aug 2023, 21:33

I wasn't aware of Doyles, I'm somewhat embarrassed to say. I have approached the Law institute of Victoria on two occasions and found them to be of very little value. That Doyles resource is sensational, Cheers Glen. be assured that will be utilized almost at the soonest opportunity..

Makiko

29th Aug 2023, 07:41

Vict Law Institute is an industry body & can just give you "three names" etc

Doyle's guide has a fair bit of horsepower & cred

The problem with Solicitors , is that they can be highly manipulative & they are extremely good at that. Maybe that is a bit to strong , what I mean is a Solicitor who is "quite good & experienced " at a particular area of law , telling you he is an expert. That's one reason why you need the best - they will be busy enough anyway

So if you google "leading administrative & public law lawyers" & that should put you somewhere in neighbourhood. I would be thinking left leaning firms such as Holding Redlich - who had a guy in the "eminent" category. But if one of the more corporate firms has someone who is better & is willing

I am totally ignorant & also unqualified but it seems as though you are in a complex area of law & a rare one - that is why most law firms don't push their skills in Govt/Administrative law

Doesn't the dispute hinge on really one matter - was CASA reasonable in the October 2018 email imposing restrictions & if they were not - do you have a cause of action ?

Isn't the "play" of CASA obvious as their boss emailed to you recently that their actions were reasonable & that in any case you were free to continue running your business

glenb

31st Aug 2023, 20:44

Dear Mr Hanton,

Thankyou for the advice that an independent investigator will be allocated to this matter regarding the allegation by CASA that I have stalked and assaulted CASA emplyees.I am appreciative of your offer to remove yourself from the matter, and I do derive some comfort from that. decision.

1.Can you advise me on the qualifications of the proposed independent investigator, and the criteria that was used to select that individual, before I consent to that process, as other options could also be considered by me.

2. Could you also advise a suggested timeline for that investigation. I anticipate that it would be a fairly short investigation. My hope is that it could be finalised before my meeting with senior CASA personnel including yourself, in early October.

3. Whilst I don't want to come across as disingenuous, surely the starting point of this process would be for you in your role, to establish contact with Mr Edwards and simply "ask him". again if he still maintains his original position, that I assaulted him. I have approached him directly but he has not responded to me.

4. If Mr Edwards has changed his position to a factual one, and now claims that I did not step towards him and shove him, i.e. "assault" him, then the concept of an investigation seems somewhat a waste of resources, because it would be entirely unnecessary. The important point being that the investigation should only proceed if Mr Edwards still maintains that I assaulted him, and CASA generally supports Mr Edwards contention. Before handing over to an independent investigator, I feel you are compelled to confirm that as of today's date, Mr Edwards still maintains that I assaulted him.

To be frank, the "investigator" that should be investigating this matter is the Australian Federal Police (AFP), and that would be my preferred option if CASA would consent to that.

Quite simply. If I have stalked and assaulted CASA employees then that matter must surely be referred to the AFP, and all CASA employees should be protected in the course of their duties by such an approach. If CASA truly believes that Mr Edwards was assaulted by me then surely CASA would be compelled to refer that matter to the AFP.

Similarly, if a CASA Employee has made a false statement that he was assaulted, and propagated that falsehood within CASA for no other reason than to cause harm, then that should also be a matter for an AFP investigation.Can you explain why a referral to the AFP is not an option that CASA has, or is considering.?

As the person that Mr Edwards made the allegation against, surely I am entitled to Mr Edwards current stance on this matter. The allegations that I had stalked and assaulted CASA employees was raised in the most formal of settings i.e. by the CASA CEO before a Senate Committee. These are substantive allegations, with significant custodial sentences attached to them. that have and continue to impact me.

I am requesting that you provide clarity around Mr Edwards allegation, and I want to ensure that before proceeding he is provided with the opportunity to retract it.

I want to also emphasise that the complaint extends beyond Mr Edwards false allegation. Mr Edwards submitted that complaint to his managers. Surely it would have been a matter that was pursued with determination, and a commitment to a fair process, yet it all seemed to fade away, until the allegation was raised before the Senate over 6 months later on 20/11/20 when I first became aware of it.

It extends to the existing knowledge that CASA Employees in the direct reporting line above Mr Edwards and potentially to the most senior Executive within CASA were aware that Mr David Edwards made a false allegation, and chose to either do nothing, or be complicit and propagate that falsehood. The inquiry is more than the initial false allegation, it's really about the CASA processes after that allegation was made.

For clarity, I am fully satisfied that the most senior executives of CASA were fully aware that it was a false allegation, and that CASA was most likely aware that it was false within a short time frame of Mr Edwards' false allegation, yet raised it over 6 months later, in the Senate.

The complaint is much more than Mr Edward's false allegation. The complaint extends to the knowledge that CASA had that a false allegation was made on February 6th of 2020, and was raised by the CASA CEO over 6 months later.

I do understand that the starting point must be to ascertain if Mr David Edwards was assaulted by me, but also the processes as to who was involved stopping the matter being followed through, and the reasons behind that.

Interestingly the matter faded away immediately after Mr Edwards raised the matter within CASA. It is obvious that CASA was aware at a level above Mr Edwards that a false allegation had been made. There must have been more senior personnel involved in the decision making that were aware that Mr Edwards had made that false allegation.

Please understand that I am not trying to complicate matters, merely ensure that there are clear expectations around the investigation.

The final point that I would like to clarify is whether I will be able to interact with the investigator, or would that individual only be engaging with CASA personnel..

Thankyou for your consideration, and I look forward to hearing back from you.

Glen Buckley

aroa

1st Sep 2023, 01:27

In all fairness the contracted independent investigator must interview yourself. He/she needs your statement and answers to questions asked.
If that does not occur that wii confirm it’s a sham “investigation”, a seen to be doing something exercise and arse covering for CAsA.
See #2836 for the CAsA M.O.

AerialPerspective

1st Sep 2023, 07:30

Cheers for the heads up on the possible ally. I didn't recognize the name and did a quick: "search". While waiting for the results I was thinking "please be an Independent." Sadly, a Liberal. This matter started under a Liberal Government, with no support at all from Ms Gladys Liu my Liberal local member at the time.

I thought the change of government, to a Labor Government would bring a possible solution, after all ethics and accountability was their theme, and the establishment of an anti-corruption commission. Ms. Carina Garland, my new Labor MP for Chisholm has been of no support, and to be honest, perhaps worse than the previous incumbent.

Having ridden this journey through both a Liberal and now Labor local MP, I have absolutely no faith in any of them anymore. The ONLY politician that i truly feel would be of any assistance is an Independent.

Once again thanks for taking the time to provide input. Cheers. Glen.

You need someone like Andrew Wilkie who would not let go as was the case when he endlessly railed against the disgusting 'secret' trial and persecution of Witness K and his Lawyer. Wilkie doesn't seem to care whether you're in Tasmania or not and appears to take on or champion any cause that needs it, Senator Rex Patrick was similar. Maybe it's worth a call or a letter to Andrew.

What I really like about Wilkie is that he blew the whistle on the vile children overboard lie and the Liberal Party and (sorry, my opinion only) Howard, and his minions, set out to destroy Wilkie. What poetic justice it was when Wilkie ended up holding the deciding vote on whether to support the ALP or the LNP after the hung parliament election. Much gyrating and accusations of backstabbing, they really don't appear to understand the concept of what goes around comes around.

Notwithstanding all of that, I'd be contacting Wilkie if it were me.

glenb

3rd Sep 2023, 21:18

04/09/23

Dear Air Chief Marshal (Retd) Mark Binskin AC- Chair of the CASA Board

Firstly, on behalf of my family, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to meet with you on Tuesday 3rd October between 1400 to 1600 at Aviation House in Canberra.

As you are aware, I have been reluctant to engage in litigation with CASA as it indicates the failure of any remaining "good intention".

My current intention was that only my wife and i would attend that meeting. You will be aware that this matter in its entirety is being covered on two discrete pilot forums referred to as Aunty Pru and Pprune. The overwhelming feedback I receive is that I would be foolish and naïve if I were to attend that meeting without legal representation, and that is the purpose of this request.

Can you advise if that meeting would proceed if I were to be accompanied by Legal representation. I need to emphasize that is not my intention at this stage.to (http://stage.to/) initiate any legal action because my hope is that we can act with good intent at that meeting, and consider an Alternative Dispute Resolution at that meeting, although i understand that CASA have not led me to believe that is an option.

The purpose of bringing along that legal representation would be to ensure that I have a trained professional that can explain the situation to me at the conclusion of that meeting, and effectively act as my support person.

As you are aware I have maintained that this entire matter could have been avoided with a well-intentioned 4-hour discussion, on any day prior to CASA imposing the crippling trading restrictions in October of 2018. It may be that I am missing something, and a lawyer attending that meeting may assist me to understand why CASA chose the path that they chose when other options were clearly available.

Thank you for your consideration,

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

glenb

4th Sep 2023, 19:31

Hi Glen

Great to touch base with you again. I have forwarded the email on to Mark but please be aware he is currently overseas and only accessing emails intermittently. I will provide you with a response as soon as I hear from him.

Cheers

Colin

Colin McLachlan | Board Secretary

glenb

4th Sep 2023, 19:34

Hi Glen

Please find responses to your queries set out below:

The reviewer appointed by the organisation CASA has engaged is a former Assistant Commissioner of the Conduct, Health and Underperformance Branch at the Australian Taxation Office and has also worked in the Criminal Law Division of the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department.

I am not privy to the length of time the review may take as I have not been involved in the procurement, or any discussions with the provider. My understanding is that the review has commenced.

Thank you for setting out what you believe my starting point in considering your complaint should have been. The Board has agreed that given your allegations about my conduct and integrity, I should not be involved in this review.

I am not involved in the review.

It is open to you at any time to report your allegations to the Australian Federal Police: [email protected].

The complaint was referred to the external investigator in the same terms as it was made.

I have had no involvement in the procurement or conduct of the external review save for providing the information set out in my email of 28 August 2023. It will be for the external reviewer to assess whether they wish to speak to you — I have been advised CASA has given no instructions either way.

https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif

Thanks

Jonathan

Lead Balloon

4th Sep 2023, 22:09

It will be interesting to see what definition of “assault” the investigator uses.

Global Aviator

5th Sep 2023, 22:08

That reply if obviously constructed by a legal team.

Glen I hope every bit of correspondence you are sending is being at least reviewed by a legal team.

Shots fired.

glenb

7th Sep 2023, 11:01

Thanks to some diligent background work done by the crew at Aunty Pru, i think it is safe to assume that this is the individual that CASA has appointed to investigate Mr Edwards false allegation that I moved toward him and shoved him

The appointed individual is likely from this Organisation CPM Reviews (https://www.cpmreviews.com.au/)

Dom Sheil – Senior Reviewer – Canberra

Dom has had a highly successful and diverse public service career of 35 years.

Most recently, Dom was the Assistant Commissioner of the Conduct, Health and Underperformance Branch (known as “Working Well”) in the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). The Branch was located in HR and was responsible for managing (amongst other things) all misconduct matters in a diverse organization of 18,000 employees and several thousand contractors.

Dom commenced in the APS as a part-time law student working in the ATO in Sydney in varying roles. Moving to Canberra in the early 1990s enabled him to develop sharp policy formulation skills in some complex tax areas.

Once legally qualified, Dom pursued his interests in criminal law and moved to the Criminal Law Division ofbthe Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department. Dom initially worked on cases involving the
confiscation of criminal assets before moving into international criminal extradition. He worked on the high profile and heavily litigated cases of Peter Foster and Christopher Skase.

In order to broaden his legal skills and knowledge base, Dom moved back to the ATO to the newly developed general counsel area. He covered a broad base of complex legal issues from defamation, contract and intellectual property disputes to (civil) monetary claims against the ATO.

He later specialized in employment and industrial relations disputes before moving into ATO HR, where he reshaped the management of misconduct, worker’s compensation and underperformance.

Dom can undertake complex investigations, including those that involve senior executives and those that require the collection of sensitive evidence. He has extensive experience reviewing and analyzing systemic, process and organization-wide issues and has successfully managed a number of Public Interest Disclosures to finality.

Dom brings a wealth of investigative, legal, policy and practical management experience to any assignment. Dom has a BLegS from Macquarie university and a LLM from the university of Canberra. He is as a legal practitioner of the Supreme court (ACT and NSW) and a barrister of the high court of Australia. He is also a nationally accredited mediator.

glenb

7th Sep 2023, 21:01

McLachlan, Colinto me
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
Thu, 7 Sept, 15:51 (15 hours ago)
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gifOFFICIAL

Hi Glen

The Chair has asked me to check with you if I may please, whether by legal representation, you are proposing this person speak on your behalf? Also, would you intend for the legal representative to participate in place of your wife as your support person, or in addition to your wife?

Mark asked me to remind you that the purpose of the meeting is not to seek a legal solution to anything, but to discuss the outcomes of the Ombudsman’s report and the way forward.

Cheers

Colin

glenb

7th Sep 2023, 21:03

len Buckley <[email protected]>to Colin
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif06:50 (11 minutes ago)
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
Hi Colin,

Thanks for getting back to me.

My wife is attending as she was also the owner of the business that was impacted by the CASA actions. My wife is attending as someone significantly and unnecessarily impacted. The request would be for an additional attendee, and I am currently considering options.

If I were to bring a legal person, my intention is that I would have them accompany me to acquaint themself with the situation and advise me of my options. My approach is to do everything that I can to avoid litigation, but understandably it must remain as my last option. My expectation is that that individual would primarily be a listener.

It may be that at the conclusion of that meeting, that expert advises me that I have no basis to make a claim, then that would obviously suit CASA's agenda.

Thank You to the Chair for his consideration, and I hope you're travelling well. Cheers. Glen
https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif

glenb

12th Sep 2023, 19:40

to me
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
Tue, 12 Sept, 16:01 (13 hours ago)
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gifOFFICIAL

Hi Glen

Trust this email finds you well. In relation to the meeting scheduled on 3 October 2023 to discuss the outcomes of the Ombudsman’s independent investigation (Ms Spence’s email to you dated 27 June 2023 refers), the CASA Board Chair has confirmed he is happy for the meeting proceed with your legal support person in attendance, on the basis that he and Ms Spence may also choose to have a legal support person in attendance. We can exchange specifics closer to the date of the meeting.

Cheers

Colin

Colin | Board Secretary

Flaming galah

13th Sep 2023, 01:44

the CASA Board Chair has confirmed he is happy for the meeting proceed with your legal support person in attendance, on the basis that he and Ms Spence may also choose to have a legal support person in attendance. We can exchange specifics closer to the date of the meeting.Glen this looks like process. They were saying the corrupt and spineless ICC was going to attend, now suddenly he is not. The drums are beating louder and louder that he's next to be made to walk the plank.

glenb

14th Sep 2023, 20:23

There are effectively two different topics running here, which can make following this matter somewhat confusing. The APTA matter, and the false and misleading statement that I stalked and assaulted CASA Employees, one of which was identified as Mr. Edwards, a CASA Flight Operations Inspector in the Melbourne Office of CASA.

As time progresses i believe that these topics will be more closely intertwined.

This relates to the false allegation that I stalked and assaulted CASA Employees made by the CASA CEO to the Senators. A quick recap. I lodged a complaint with the ICC who communicated with the Board and an independent external investigator was appointed to the matter, and that investigation has apparently commenced based on the correspondence from the CASA ICC posted below. Cheers. Glen
14/09/23

Hi Glen

I have been contacted by the external reviewer and asked to provide the documents you refer to in your complaint below (Mr. Glen Buckley - Documents for release - 07.02.21.pdf). I have arranged for these to be provided as requested.
https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gifThanks

Jonathan

glenb

14th Sep 2023, 20:48

down3gr33ns

15th Sep 2023, 06:52

Reconsider that offer - don't ditch your legal rep.

The investigator as well as the respective legal teams, possibly.

SRFred

15th Sep 2023, 09:10

Reconsider that offer - don't ditch your legal rep.

The investigator as well as the respective legal teams, possibly.
Glen, step back and take a deep breath.

You need your legal representative present as the investigator is not impartial rather part of the system that has screwed you over time. Neither the department nor the investigator are your friend rather they are ticking boxes to cover public servant arses without giving you justice.

Stop being nice and let your legal representative handle all dealings with them. After all if they were "model litigants" they'd actuallly offer to pay your legal representation but given they have no intention of anything except covering their arses you are pushing sh_t up hill.

You need your legal representative present.

Best wishes dealing with the federal pubic service!

vne165

15th Sep 2023, 11:07

Glen,
You are getting good advice. Take your lawyer.
Goodwill counts for nothing in this situation, sad as it seems.

Lead Balloon

15th Sep 2023, 23:37

<>. After all if they were "model litigants" they'd actuallly offer to pay your legal representation <>Yeah nah. I don't think you'll find much - if anything - in the model litigant obligations (or elsewhere in the Legal Services Directions of which they are a part) that requires or supports a government agency paying for lawyers to represent the other side in a dispute. Happy to stand corrected, though, if you can quote a provision to the contrary.

Slippery_Pete

18th Sep 2023, 08:55

15/09/23

Dear Jonathan,

Thankyou for advising me that those documents have been requested, and that the investigation is underway.

As you are aware I am alleging that a small group of Senior CASA Employees worked collaboratively to bring harm to me personally, noting that most of those individuals have now left the employ of CASA, although a small number do remain., and most notable of those being Mr Aleck, and Mr Brad Lacey. I also believe that other CASA employees chose to collude through their "inaction".

These are the most serious of allegations as you will appreciate, and most particularly because of their respective roles of the particular Government Department that they work in. i.e. the Civil Aviation Safety authority (CASA)

As with any investigation an important first step is to ascertain motivation.

Can you advise me if the investigator is aware that I believe that Mr Edwaeds actions were part of a more collaborative and collusional approach by the most senior CASA Executive to abuse their significant power and bring harm to me personally?

Could I also respectfully request that you advise the Investigator that I will be in Canberra for a meeting with CASA on Tuesday 3rd October, and could make myself available on either the Monday 2nd October in the afternoon or Wednesday 4th October in the morning if a face to face meeting could be facilitated.

As an afterthought that has just occurred to me, that perhaps you could put to the Board.

As an alternative to the potentially unnecessary approach of involving lawyers, could a consideration be that the independent investigator attend that meeting as an alternative to any lawyers? Could that option be put to the CASA Board.

Regards, Glen Buckley

Please understand this is written with the greatest empathy for what you’ve been through. My comments come with good intentions, with a genuine desire to see you find your desired ending.

Having said that, I have to be completely honest:

Glen, what the hell are you doing?

You’ve been told for 3+ years to lawyer up and stop pissing in the wind. And now you’ve finally got there - you offer them a get out of jail free card with this BS nice-guy offer??

What exactly is driving this sort of behaviour? Is it a desperate need to be seen as a victim to garner support? Is there someone in your personal life you’re desperately trying to prove your incorruptibility to?

Make no mistake about it, they’re going to snatch these sorts of opportunities to continue avoiding facing the music.

I just cant understand why someone would keep on willingly doing what you’re doing.

Genuine question - how many more times will they need to screw you over before you realise they aren’t going to play by your rules. YOU CANT NICE THEM TO A SOLUTION.

They say the definition of stupidity is trying the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result.

You’ve indicated in several posts how this saga has taken years and years away from your life/happiness. Isn’t it time you drew a line under this for yourself and your family?

Retract the offer.
Take your lawyer.
Drop the nice-guy act.

Good luck.

glenb

18th Sep 2023, 20:02

Sitting here in pancake parlor about to have my first pre work coffee and attend to some correspondence when I came across your post.

First, let me very sincerely thank you. I appreciate the insights, and i take them board with the good intent that they were sent. Cheers.

I don't really know how to explain this, but many people don't 'get me". Thats not to say that they don't like me, but they think that my way of thinking is a bit different.

I spent three years in Youth Justice working in an extremely explosive and dangerous environment, armed only with my mouth and a good pair of running shoes. The running shoes never got used for their intended purpose.

I am naïve, but every conflict can be avoided through two criteria. "Clear expectations" and "good intent." Every single one of them. It's been a fundamental principle of mine, and I've drilled it into my kids from a young age. Well intentioned communication solves everything.

Legal action is seriously a complete failure of everything that i believe in, and it will just truly break my heart if there is no other way but effectively get into a fist fight. This entire matter will then drag on far longer i believe, that will be the CASA tactic. It is after all their greatest weapon. We have seen how CASA has prolonged the Ombudsman investigation to become perhaps the longest in the history of that office i suggest.

Saying that, I have established contact with perhaps the most appropriate lawyer in Australia for this matter and expect to hear back today or tomorrow.

I have taken legal advice on this before and be assured that a claim that I am making has challenges attached to it. It is not easy, and CASA Employees are very well protected. Compounding this is the argument that CASA will promote, and that is that there was no harm caused to me, as the business was effectively given away in June 0f 2019, when CASA determined that all personnel must also be employees, which effectively meant that all but one base were forced to discontinue operations. The argument being that the "business" was the victim, not Glen Buckley.

Legal action is not in anyone's best interest, and best avoided.

Saying that I am pursuing it with determination and will let you know whether this particular firm is able to assist me. I will find out today or tomorrow.

I will continue to pursue the path of "good intent" in the interim, until it is exhausted, as it almost is.

Just to recap on my opening, i genuinely appreciate the feedback whether it be positive or negative, as long as it is well intentioned as i know yours was, cheers. Glen

glenb

18th Sep 2023, 20:19

Hi Glen

The complaint was referred to the investigator in the terms it was originally made. As you are aware, I am not involved in ongoing dialogue with the external investigator but I will arrange for details of your availability to be passed on.

The external review is focussed on the events of 6 February 2020, while your meeting with the Chair and the DAS is to discuss the outcome of the Ombudsman’s review of other concerns. That being the case, I understand CASA does not consider there would be any benefit to the Investigator attending the meeting and does not propose making any arrangements of the type you suggest.

Jonathan Hanton

glenb

28th Sep 2023, 22:08

29/09/23

To the CASA CEO and CASA Board,

I am writing to confirm that my wife and I will be attending the scheduled meeting with the CASA Chair, Mark Binskin, and the CASA CEO, Pip Spence on
Tuesday 3rd October between 1400 and 1600 at Aviation House,16 Furzer Street in Philip, ACT.

My understanding is that the CASA ICC, Mr Hanton will also be attending,

I had previously advised that I was considering bringing along a person with legal training as a "support person" in order to help me to understand CASAs actions and decisions. I have tried. The truth is that I have left myself insufficient time frames to arrange that, so the attendees from my side will be my wife and I only.

I assume that CASA would have access to recording facilities for meetings of this nature, and I would request that CASA make a recording of the meeting with a copy of that recording being made available to me as soon as practicable after our meeting.

I would also welcome any other attendees at the meeting including Mr Aleck, if you deem it appropriate.

You have my assurance that I will be respectful and professional with every Employee, as I always have done, on every occasion that I have engaged with CASA Employees.

I will forewarn you that my 45kg wife, while not physically intimidating, will most likely be more "emotional". Please understand that of everybody affected by this totally unnecessary matter, my wife has been the most affected, and continues to be. She will not be aggressive, but saddened, impacted. and there may possibly be some tears. This meeting will be a significant day for her, as you will appreciate. She intends to participate primarily as an observer to try and comprehend this matter.

From my perspective. Quite simply, I operated a business for over a decade, and then one day, a single CASA Employee from his Canberra Office, with no legislative basis and no industry precedent, and no forewarning decided that my business only, and not others, had become unlawful, and I was to potentially subject to prosecution, CASA placed crippling restrictions on the business for 8 months, and then CASA determined that all personnel operating under an AOC must also be Employees of the same Company that owns the AOC, effectively closing the business.

As you are aware, I am fully satisfied that it was an "unlawful" determination. It should have been accompanied by a "decision letter" in accordance with CASAs own stipulated procedures, but it was not, and this breach of following CASA own procedures is what denied me procedural fairness, as the trading restrictions remained in place for 8 months while CASA ``rethought" about the structure. I had no right of review or appeal.

It was a complete change in regulatory approach that applied to my business only. As you are aware I am fully satisfied that a small but senior group of CASA personnel commenced an engineered process to bring harm to me personally.

CASA advised that I could possibly return to lawfulness and have the trading restrictions lifted,if I could satisfy that same CASA Employee as to some additional wording in our commercial contracts. If he was satisfied, I may be permitted to have the CASA imposed trading restrictions lifted, and potentially return to Business as Usual.

After 8 months despite every best endeavour by me to satisfy the CASA Employee, for reasons that I cannot explain,he could not be satisfied, and CASA met with all customers and directed that they leave the business, and this included my own flying school, Melbourne Flight Training, on the basis that all personnel operating under an AOC must also be employed direct;ly by the same Company that holds the AOC.

To quote Craig Martin's correspondence as late as 20th June 2019, Mr Martin in his very senior role within CASA as the Acting Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance, and the person representing Mr Aleck, wrote advising "for the avoidance of doubt...... flight training can be conducted by APTA employees only- not employees of affiliates.

That unalwful determination was effectively the "death knell" as CASA imposed new terminology referred to as "Direct Operational Control" where the one Company that held the AOC must also employ all personnel directly, maintain all bank accounts, social networking, admin etc.

CASA has never placed that requirement on any Operator in Australia. Ever.

I need to ensure that I make these points clearly, and that you can correct me at the meeting if my understanding is incorrect.

The changes that CASA required of me could have been attended to instantly. I had been operating in that structure for a decade with full CASA approval, as many of Australia's flight training organisations were, and my CASA approved Exposition and oversight tool Flight School Manager (FSM) met and exceeded every regulatory requirement. There were never any identified deficiencies at all.

It was never a quality control issue, and it was never a legislative issue,it was an issue that CASA effectively created. A new and unique requirement that is not remotely aligned with any legislation at all.

A requirement that personnel operating under an AOC must also be employees of that same Company in order to maintain operational control. If those personnel were emplyed by another entity different procedures of operational control were required.

Until this new determination, all personnel operating under an AOC, irrespective of who emplys them are subjexct to the same high levels of operational contriol

The only limitation on preventing me returning to Business as Usual was that I needed to place new wording in contracts that reflected exactly what I was already doing. There was no requirement by CASA to change any system, policy, or procedure. All legislated responsibilities accountabilities were already attended to in the CASA approved Exposition, where they should be. I had been operating this structure for a decade, so it would be reasonable to assume that I am experienced with that business structure, and that if it has satisfied CASA for the previous decade, should have some surety of operations with that structure, provided I do not alter it, which I did not.

The important point being that if any deficiencies were ever identified, CASA would have brought them to my attention. Absolutely no deficiencies of any kind have ever been put forward by CASA.

The stumbling block for 8 months is that I could not satisfy Mr Aleck. At any stage throughout the 8 months, he could have instantly resolved the matter in its entirety by giving me sufficient guidance, as to whose responsibilities and what responsibilities he needed in the contracts.

In the "contract" CASA were requiring me to incorporate responsibilities that are not legislated and CASA was unable to identify, for personnel who CASA were never able to specify to me, and who are not legislated.

I can only reiterate, that every legislative procedure had been attended to, as it had always been through the decade that I operated in this structure, within the Exposition where such matters are attended to.

CASA were required of me, and me only that matters of Operational Control were now to be identified in "commercial contracts", a document that CASA is not a signatory to, and does not hold on file for any operators because these are commercial agreements of a sensitive business nature.

Despite the bizarre nature of this requirement I made my best endeavours to satisfy the CASA employee, but after 8 months of trying i was completely unable to satisfy the employee.

I was highly dependent on CASA for guidance as they had never placed these requirements on any other Operator, including those that had also adopted the structure that I adopted. These were new and unique requirements for people and responsibilities that were not required by legislation.CASA were asking me to effectively take responsibilities away from legislated Key Personnel, and transfer or specify those responsibilities to persons that were not specified in legislation or qualified. i.e. an aero Club committee who may or may not even hold a pilot licence, and have no experience at all in flight training.

The Ombudsman was mislead and failed to comprehend just how "unique" the requirement placed on me that CASA would require matters of operational control and safety that are not specified in any legislation that CASA cannot identify, amd responsibilities that CASA cannot identify into a commercial agreement, and NOT in the CASA Exposition

Such complicated changes to responsibilities and accountabilities required very clear direction from CASA. As soon as CASA provided that guidance, I remained ready to embed those new requirements immediately into the "commercial contracts" and return to business as usual.,within a matter of hours. To have it unresolved for 8 months can only be as a result of bad intent. There can be no other plausible explanation.

If I may refer to previous correspondence between the CASA CEO and myself. I outlined my expectations iofb that meeting which I have cut and pasted be;low. I have also cut and pasted your responses. I have made some brief italicized notes for your consideration prior to our meeting

My 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.

My understanding is that CASA would not dispute that position, and that is what makes the entire situation so bizarre.

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 dependent 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?

CASA response to Expected outcome 1:

In the spirit of the apology I conveyed in my 26 May letter to you, where I acknowledged that CASA could have done things better, I can advise that we would not oppose your claim for an Act of Grace payment should the Department of Finance seek the views of CASA.

Such an application from you would result in an independent, third-party assessment which we would welcome, and we would provide any information requested to enable that assessment including the findings of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

My note. It is the Commonwealth Ombudsman report that has been perverted by false and misleading information that CASA has provided, and I do not have trust or confidence in those findings. At our meeting I will clearly identify the false and misleading information that has been provided by CASA to the Ombudsman investigation. With that information, you will be able to make your own determinations, and determine if any corrective action needs to be initiated by either of your respective offices.

My 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 (http://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.

CASA response to Expected outcome 2:

As I explained in my most recent email to you on 21 June, I don’t intend to revisit issues that you have previously raised, noting that CASA stands by the Ombudsman’s findings, as set out at expected outcome 5 below.

My note. I have sought an explanation to this for almost five years and CASA refuses to respond. The Ombudsman Office also conveniently avoided addressing this key issue, despite my frequent requests. Surely anybody can appreciate that I am entitled to a response, in fact the CASA Regulatory Philosophy compels you to respond to my reasonable request. A response to this single request would bring finality to this entire matter. There must be a reason that this matter could not be fully resolved in its entirety in a matter of hours by way of a well intentioned discussion. For it to be no closer to resolution after 8 months is inexplicable, and most especially considering the commercial and reputational harm being caused throughout that eight months.

Expected Outcome Three- The single issue was all personnel 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.

CASA response to my Expected outcome 3:

As in my comments about revisiting matters in response to your second expected outcome, CASA stands by the findings of the Commonwealth Ombudsman dated 21 February 2023:

We accept CASA’s explanation that it became concerned about the APTA operational model in 2018 as it became uncertain whether APTA’s model met legislative requirements to show sufficient control between the authorisation holder and the affiliates conducting training…. It was therefore open to CASA to take steps to be satisfied the legislative requirements were being met. We accept that CASA can and should act when it identifies an operator is working in a way that may not comply with legislative and regulatory requirements… (E)ven if CASA had previously authorised the APTA model in the knowledge that it was providing oversight of its affiliates, rather than conducting flight training in its own right, we cannot be critical that it reassessed its position when concerns arose about whether this model was in line with civil aviation legislation… (W)e remain satisfied that CASA’s concerns about the APTA operational model at the time of the Notice were not without basis and no further investigation is warranted in relation to its decision to issue the Notice.

My note. I appreciate that either of you in your role cannot be expected to be Subject Matter Experts on the legislation specifically related to the Flight training industry, and you may need to seek guidance from the decision maker Mr Aleck on this subject. This is very much related to the provision of false and misleading information. It confirms the high levels of confusion that CASA has created within the Ombudsman's Office. Consider that statement, and how ridiculous it truly is.

CASA has mislead the Ombudsman to arrive at a finding that, CASA had previously approved me to operate my business on the basis that I was just providing oversight of those facilities ( a situation that would clearly be unlawful and unsafe), and then CASA "discovered" that i was operating lawfully because I was delivering training "in its own right"'

This is akin to a police officer thinking that a motorist was speeding over a sustained period, pulling him over, and discovering that in fact he was not speeding, and fining him. As I have repeatedly stated, bizarre.

Expected Outcome Four- Allegation of misfeasance 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 chooses 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.

CASA response to my Expected outcome 4:

I would have anticipated that any information relevant to your complaint would have been provided to the Commonwealth Ombudsman during the course of its review of your concerns. If it was not, your allegations and any material to support those allocations should be directed to the Commonwealth Ombudsman for consideration.

My note. Despite me raising allegations of misfeasance in public office against Mr Aleck before the Senate, no internal investigation was ever initiated by CASA. It is incomprehensible, and not in line with any sense of expected organisational governance. I approached the Commonwealth Ombudsman but they advised that such matters of misfeasance in public office should be directed to the CASA ICC, and CASA has directed me to the Ombudsman Office.

I do wish to proceed with the formal lodgement of that allegation at our meeting, unless you are able to clarify the correct procedure, prior to our meeting.

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 did I 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.

CASA response to my Expected outcome 5:

For the reasons set out above, CASA stands by the findings of the Commonwealth Ombudsman dated 21 February 2023:

We are satisfied that CASA adopted a collaborate approach to resolving the issues raised in (the Notice of 23 October 2018)… Records that CASA provided to us show that its officers met with Mr Buckley and his father on behalf of APTA multiple times and there was frequent email communication between the parties. CASA provided guidance on the reasons it required contracts, obtained legal advice to support its position, and provided model clauses to Mr Buckley for his use in May 2019. We acknowledge Mr Buckley’s concern about the length of time matters extended without a resolution but are satisfied that, despite the delay, CASA provided advice to Mr Buckley that the existing approvals for APTA remained in place, and he could continue operating as he had prior to the Notice. In hindsight, there may have been ways to improve the communication to ensure Mr Buckley was given a consistent message by all parties within CASA, but we note this was difficult because Mr Buckley was contacting multiple people within CASA. We further note that CASA ultimately implemented a strategy to have one contact point for him, to reduce the risk of mixed messages.

My note. The point of my expectation has been completely missed. This has nothing to do with the contract issue. The "contracts" was a way of making a structure that CASA had deemed unlawful, and returning it to a state of lawfulness. After 8 months of trying to achieve that with CASA I was unable to satisfy CASA as to the wording.

Conclusion

With the short time frames ahead of us, I don't necessarily expect a lengthy response other than an acknowledgement that this correspondence has been received and I do not expect you to address any of the issues I have raised here in writing , prior to our meeting.

I reiterate that I welcome any CASA attendees at that meeting that can ensure the meeting is as productive as is possible in the circumstances.

I hope that my approach to this meeting is not being interpreted as naivety but rather an approach that is well intentioned, professional, and task focussed towards resolution.

If all attendees act in a well intentioned manner this matter can be fully resolved.

Looking forward to the opportunity, respectfully, Glen Buckley

glenb

30th Sep 2023, 10:01

Dear Mr Buckley

Thank you for your update on attendance at the meeting. From CASA’s perspective it will just be myself, the Chair and Jonathan Hanton.

On completion of the meeting, we will circulate to participants a document setting out the agreed outcomes but we will not be recording the meeting.

Finally, as I indicated in my emails to you of 4 August and 27 June, 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, it is not our intention to revisit the matters you have raised, given these have now been reviewed by the Ombudsman.

We look forward to meeting with you and your wife on Tuesday.

Pip

Sandy Reith

30th Sep 2023, 10:57

I’m sure that I and many others would willingly back you and be prepared to standby and help in any way if it were possible.

For my part I would testify that CASA’s unnecessarily complex rules around flying training have destroyed hundreds of flying schools for no good reason.

My opinion, having followed the way in which you have been treated, is that you should be compensated to the fullest degree.

That the rationale of CASA that you didn’t have sufficient control is a nonsense, particularly when one considers the plethora of criminal sanction laws that control in minute detail every aspect of flying.

That whatever CASA decided after it changed its mind about your umbrella system it should have stated clearly its reasons and published same for all to see.

That CASA should take heed of the successful USA training model which obviates and gives lie to CASA’s expensive, obsessive and prescriptive flying training regime.

Wishing you well, but not hopeful of a just outcome.

Valdiviano

1st Oct 2023, 03:36

Sincerely wish you well Glen

glenb

2nd Oct 2023, 20:47

Sitting here in Melbourne about to board the flight to Canberra. Hope to be able to update you all tomorrow. Thanks for the good wishes here and via text cheers

Sandy Reith

2nd Oct 2023, 21:32

It should not be forgotten that following the loss of his flying school Glen was prevented by CASA from working as an instructor.

The means used was to threaten the prospective employer. This displays the outrageous arrogance and vindictiveness of a regulator that has had no direct Ministerial control for more than 30 years.

The problem with attempts to deal with CASA is that it believes that it’s the only bastion between aviation chaos and an irresponsible GA community who will run amuck if given the slightest leeway. Big superior boss with the big stick is ingrained, and part of the Canberra psyche. Commonsense, fairness and objectivity are not the predominant drivers. The cushy jobs and huge salaries, way above those politicians who should be in charge, have by human nature subverted the purpose of governing in the public interest. Exactly as forecast in 1988 when aviation was taken out of Departmental control and Ministerial responsibility and oversight.

The whole sorry saga is a reminder that to discard a principle, in this instance the Westminster principle of Ministerial responsibility, and substituting the arms of government with statutory (monopoly) authorities, might have long term deleterious consequences.

Global Aviator

2nd Oct 2023, 22:55

It should not be forgotten that following the loss of his flying school Glen was prevented by CASA from working as an instructor.

The means used was to threaten the prospective employer. This displays the outrageous arrogance and vindictiveness of a regulator that has had no direct Ministerial control for more than 30 years.

One of the reasons that Glens case sparked my support is this happened to me in a very similar way over a decade ago. A veiled threat of if he stays then the action will proceed, if he goes then the action goes. Personal vendettas SHOULD NOT BE tolerated in a regulatory body (by the way I left and so did the companies CASA problem).

Go get ‘em Glen! Like the current pilot shortage is real I don’t think anyone has built such a strong case against CASA.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority still the best oxymoron!

(note many times I have stated that it was the extreme small minority that are the cancer of this place, I have nothing but huge praise and thanks for the majority of the good guys and gals).

glenb

3rd Oct 2023, 20:24

The Meeting 03/10/23

For those that have been following this ongoing saga for almost five years now, I was finally able to have the opportunity to meet with the CASA Chair and CEO yesterday at Aviation House in Canberra.

I was advised in the morning that the Board Chair was unwell, and he would participate via a teleconference, which he did.

Many on here had strongly encouraged me to take a lawyer to that meeting. It was sound advice, and I did heed it. I also acknowledge that I heeded it too late. I established contact with one of Australia’s leading lawyers on the relevant topics. It was a matter that he expressed enthusiasm to be involved in. He met with Partners of the firm, and as the firm does work for CASA, the decision was made that he was unable to assist me in this matter. It was too late for me to obtain another lawyer with the relevant expertise at such short notice, so my wife and I attended alone.

We were met by Ms Spences PA who took us upstairs where we met Ms Spence (CASA CEO) and Mr Hanton, the Industry Complaints Commissioner. The Chair, Air Chief Marshall (Retd) Mark Binskin AC via teleconferencing.

With the pleasantries out of the way the Chair opened the meeting.

What my wife and I received was a very sincere acknowledgement. There was an acceptance by CASA, and an apology. I was advised that my matter had been bought to the attention of both the CEO and Board Chair prior to their appointments. I was advised that there had been CASA learning outcomes as a result of my matter, and that it was a significant factor in the restructuring within CASA to ensure more consistent messaging. To me that demonstrated a commitment to “continuous improvement”, and I felt that was a positive.

Both the Chair and CEO were acting with “good intent” and I truly believe that. That is the critical factor that has been absent from the process throughout the last five years, and that was another positive.

I was about to respond when my dear, usually fairly quiet wife interjected, and asked if she could read from a prepared speech. Prior to the meeting she queried if she could say something, and of course I said yes. I thought no more of it, until she came forward at the meeting.

I got a copy of that speech last night, and here it is. My wife is not a native English Speaker, and nor is she a public speaker. She was in a situation that was well outside of her comfort zone.

“There was a man who worked hard to start his business. When he started he looked after Employees and students really well, he was very caring and generous to them, always trying to help. Everyone loved him. He didn’t want to buy luxurious house and car because he didn’t want to use the money the Company made for him and his family, so he could pay employees more money. He is the person always happy to help people.

One day he was told to close his business, he had to tell his wife and family they had to sell the house to keep paying staff. He couldn’t understand why.

He was trying to find the answers, talked to people, sending emails.

He started not to be able to sleep. It affected family badly. One day his wife asked him how we can pay the piles of bills, he started to throw them, screaming, “cant pay this, cant pay this, cant pay this” His daughter was there, she had to walk away late at night and didn’t come back for many hours. She was very upset to see her own Dad struggling. His wife had to ask the oldest son who was 18 years old at that time to pay the bills.

His wife cried that night. His wife knew that the youngest son had old school shoes with holes but didn’t want to tell his Mum because he knew that his parents didn’t have any money at all.

Family was suffering so much. The man started working again outside of flying, and he changed a few jobs.

He was still fighting over his problems, he gets up at 2AM or 3AM in the morning, takes the laptop with him to the park and started typing ( my note. Its not that bad, I actually go to a 24-hour pancake Parlor and sip lattes)

He hasn’t slept more than 4 hours a night for 5 years, and his wife ha\s been working 55 hours a week during the day and doing two overnight shifts a week for years.

The man was exhausted with this issue. He was on the way home from work, he saw lots of nice houses that people own, doing their gardening, and walking dogs. It became too much the enormous loss. He stopped the car and started taking all his sleeping pills. He had enough.

Please imagine if that man was your husband, son, brother, father or friend.

All I want from this meeting is you to talk to my husband with respect and treat him like a human being.

My wife delivered that with tears rolling down her cheeks, and trembling. It was a very powerful message, and I do think it set the tone for a productive meeting.

Unfortunately, I’m running out of time, as there are cleaning products to be delivered.

I am currently awaiting correspondence from CASA. I will come back with significantly more detail tomorrow morning hopefully.

To summarise. Very frank admissions on matters of “manner” but not “lawfulness”

Importantly it was made very clear that there would be no opposition to an application for an Act of Grace payment and in fact there would be tacit support of that process.

There is much more that I would like to write, and I will tomorrow.

As a note. Despite the technology so readily available, I did not make any recording of the meeting, and I did not take any notes, so the meeting contents are very much hearsay, and therefore based on my recollection,

Back tomorrow withy more. Cheers.

Sandy Reith

3rd Oct 2023, 22:08

Glen, thank you for your update, and your wife has shown a lot of courage, an admirable expression of your joint predicament.

Sounds like there’s at least some recognition of the injustice perpetrated against you, albeit years after the event. In my book a full offer of compensation by CASA should be offered, an Act of Grace payment smacks of a condescending attitude, but this is what to expect from the Canberra cohort that might as well be living on the dark side of the moon.

As always, best regards, your tenacity is remarkable and all of GA gains from your efforts.

glenb

7th Oct 2023, 21:00

As you are aware, I had my meeting with CASA and provided some initial comment on Pprune in Post # 2871.

I had intended to provide a further update the next day. For the first time in many years, I have slept in past the early hours and not had time to get down to the pancake parlor before work.

In the interim, I have received the following correspondence from CASA summarizing the meeting.

In the meeting I made it clear that i was of the opinion that the only reason that this matter had been kept afloat was because of Prune and Aunty Pru, and that i would continue to publish on those forums, and that i would publish my summary of the meeting. There was no inference that I should not do so.

Understandably, the Chair had an awareness of pprune and AP, but did not follow the forums actively, and I would not expect him to do so.

The response from the CEO suggested that she had a higher level of awareness. Whilst I do not expect that she would be an active follower, I must give credit where credit is due. Considering that she comes from a completely different Govt Dept, it does suggest at least some intent to "have her finger on the pulse" of GA.

The point being that when this letter was sent to me, I believe that the writers would have had an expectation that it would be published on these forums so here it is.

Dear Glen

Mark and I would like to thank you and Sonoko for coming to Canberra to discuss the outcome of the Ombudsman’s review.

In Mark’s opening remarks he noted that the CASA Board had supported the Ombudsman’s Investigation and accepted the findings that (i) there were no recommendations that would lead to a change of CASA’s legal decisions; however, (ii) like the 2019 ICC review, it had concluded that the manner in which CASA had gone about communicating and engaging with APTA around a significant regulatory change was unfair and not in accordance with our Regulatory Philosophy. On behalf of the Board and CASA’s Executive, Mark passed on our sincere apologies and explained that CASA has since made organisational changes to ensure better engagement with industry, and consistency and timeliness of decisions within CASA.

I said I would circulate to you a draft of the action items that came out of our discussion for your consideration. Please provide any comments you have in response by 11 October 2023.

I undertook to contact ( a CASA FOI heavily involved in APTA) about his observations of the prevalence of APTA-like arrangements in the flight training sector of the industry.
I said I would follow up with CASA’s Freedom of Information team on the status of your request for APTA’s June 2019 contract with Latrobe Valley.
Both Mark and I stressed that if you have any direct evidence that specifically contradicts the Ombudsman’s findings, then this should be provided to it. I offered to contact the Ombudsman to request it review any such material.
Mark agreed CASA would explore whether APTA’s exposition alone sufficiently set out the type of arrangements that would have allowed it to demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements.
You set out that it was your intention to (i) seek an Act of Grace payment from the Department of Finance; and (ii) make a referral to the National Anti-Corruption Commission in relation to Jonathan Hanton’s conduct.
We reiterated CASA’s support for any Act of Grace payment application you make, and I agreed to ask my Executive Officer (Aidan Bruford) to contact you to provide whatever guidance we can in navigating the Department of Finance’s process.

We will endeavour to get back to you within three weeks on the points above that relate to CASA.

At the meeting you also explained the impact that Jason McHeyzer’s email to APTA describing your ongoing employment as being untenable caused you. I understand that, through its lawyers, CASA made an offer to you in 2020 in response to a Concerns Notice it had received. While that offer has lapsed, on a without prejudice and ex gratia basis CASA is open to reconsidering compensation for damages that may have been caused by the contents of Mr McHeyzer’s email of 27 August 2019. Please let me know if that is something you would like to pursue. Any compensation would relate only to Mr McHeyzer’s 27 August 2019 email and would be wholly separate from any the Act of Grace process.

Finally, we are conscious that you incurred costs coming to meet with us in Canberra. Please provide receipts of those costs (airport transfers or parking; flights; rental car) and CASA will arrange that these be reimbursed.

Regards

Pip

Bend alot

7th Oct 2023, 22:21

Pip,

CAsA thuggery is/has not been limited to McHeyzer, it runs deep.

Regards
GA.

aroa

7th Oct 2023, 22:43

Bendy,
I concur. Poop and co can sweet talk in the office, but actions speak louder than words.

Global Aviator

7th Oct 2023, 23:57

Glen,

In my humble non legalese opinion you have CASA on the ropes, if not a KO you have them lined up for a TKO.

No doubt you are seeking legal advice on how to calculate your request for an act of grace payment.

DO NOT SELL YOURSELF SHORT. Do not feel good about it only to then a week later have regrets. Yes a court battle would be a huge toll on you and your family but I’m pretty sure after reading Pips response that the gofundme will light up brighter than Vegas if you elected to go this way.

Yes I’m living vicariously through you as a few individuals treated me like ****e but I didn’t have the experience back then to realise. What they got away with was just wrong.

You Glen are commendable!

Mr Mossberg

8th Oct 2023, 00:31

Finally, we are conscious that you incurred costs coming to meet with us in Canberra. Please provide receipts of those costs (airport transfers or parking; flights; rental car) and CASA will arrange that these be reimbursed.

Did you fly business (via Perth) and get a limo to the airport??

Can you buy passes into the Chairman's Lounge??

Lead Balloon

8th Oct 2023, 01:15

Hmmm, it seems to me that CASA has Glen lined up for a TKO, not the other way around. Of course CASA is prepared to "support" someone else writing a cheque to Glen. Trouble is, the Finance Minister generally doesn't write act of grace payment cheques to people for things done to them by corporate entities separate from the Commonwealth, like CASA.

CASA should be writing the cheque and has the capacity to do so. Reimbursing Glen's costs incurred in attending the meeting is 'the right thing to do' rather than a legal obligation in the circumstances. That smells to me very, very much like an 'act of grace' payment by CASA. Either CASA is allowed to make those kinds of voluntary payments or it isn't. The qantum is irrelevant to the principle.

That said, I would be ecstatic to be proved wrong by the Finance Minister writing a cheque for a few million to Glen.

LAME2

8th Oct 2023, 07:48

Additionally, an act of grace payment is unlikely to be appropriate if your request relates to the actions or policies of a corporate Commonwealth entity

https://www.finance.gov.au/individuals/act-grace-payments-waiver-debts-commonwealth-compensation-detriment-caused-defective-administration-cdda/act-grace-payments

CASA is Australia's aviation safety regulator and is a Corporate Commonwealth Entity

https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2022-23_infra_pbs_10_casa.pdf

I googled “is casa a corporate Commonwealth entity” and “Commonwealth Act of Grace Payment”

QFF

8th Oct 2023, 09:56

Quoted from the link to the Dept of Finance Act of Grace payments page LAME 2 posted:

“If a request relates to the actions of a state or territory government department, or a private organisation (i.e. does not relate to the acts or policies of a non-corporate Commonwealth entity), an act of grace payment is unlikely to be appropriate. You should contact the relevant organisation to discuss the options available to you.

Additionally, an act of grace payment is unlikely to be appropriate if your request relates to the actions or policies of a corporate Commonwealth entity or Commonwealth company. You should ensure you have discussed your concerns with the relevant Commonwealth agency before making a request.”

So really the payment is unlikely to be appropriate if it DOESN’T relate to the acts or policies of a non-corporate Commonwealth entity, nor is unlikely to be appropriate if it DOES relate to the acts or policies of a non-corporate Commonwealth entity. Is it just me or does the legalese say - in short, it is unlikely to be appropriate at all?

Sandy Reith

8th Oct 2023, 11:33

QFF asks the obvious question after reading the Finance Department advice about Act of Grace payments. You would have to wonder if either Ms. Spence or Mr. Binskin have read the same. Charitably we’d have to assume that they have already spoken to the Minister’s delegate who is in charge of recommendations and gained an ‘in principle’ approval.

Well that’s just a maybe, consider Ms. Spence’s statement about a CASA proposed self declared medical as a “world first.” This statement is found in Ms. Spence’s latest ‘Briefing.’ Astonishingly, is Ms. Spence is ignorant of some 70 years of the gliding fraternity and 40 years of RAAUS self declaring to car driver standard?
Let alone the USA BasicMed that could, but won’t, be a good example to follow.

She talks about a move to trusting pilots, is this a joke? Our whole democratic society is based on trust, every time we are on the road we trust our fellow citizens, for just one of thousands of examples of ‘trust.’

Sorry to be blunt but on a salary of $650,000 you might think that the CASA CEO would be across obvious and critical details. And in particular be able to discern the sham arguments put up by CASA’s legal department against Glen Buckley because she has, as yet, been unable to reach the obvious conclusion that CASA itself should recompense Glen Buckley in exactly the same way she has acknowledged the wrong in preventing Glen’s employment in a flying job, and subsequent obligation to recompense for that disgusting injustice.

It is high time that CASA is disbanded and put back into a Department with Minister where it should be in the Westminster system of responsible government.

The problem with the CASA corporate model of governance is that there’s insufficient incentive to change course and make the reforms that have been obvious for years, even as expressed in the Forsyth Report of 2014 where the government agreed to almost all of the recommendations, practically all of which had some lip service only as CASA ‘progressed’ its ever more restrictive, costly and complex rules.

Could Ms. Spence find the courage to actually take charge and make decisions for reform and quickly force her underlings to comply? The USA rules work and we’ve incorporated parts of their practical system to real advantage in the 90s and could do so again.

Otherwise to Glen and his wife, well done and congratulations for persevering and gaining in principle recognition of the wrongful action of CASA against you, you have done all of GA a great service by calling out CASA.

aroa

8th Oct 2023, 23:09

CAsA and trust. They don’t trust us. We have to “driven” to act in their control freaking ways by gormless regulation and criminalisation by strict liability. Dictatorial bureaucratic buggery. So much for democracy when CAsA is a free ranging and failed corporate state that our elected reps can do nothing about.
What a sick joke, and Spence proves it by claiming that a self declared medical is a worlds first. That attempt to polish the CAsA badge just proves their ignorance.

Mr Mossberg

9th Oct 2023, 02:35

Sandy Reith

9th Oct 2023, 06:38

I've seen small and incremental change in what Pip Spence has announced over time. I think it's a little early to judge her yet.

Sandy, on your observations reference the 'self declared medical' she would be relying heavily on those reporting to her reference the facts. There is no way she could be across the detail on every piece of legislation. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that there are people undermining her within CASA, trying to make her look incompetent?

Agreed Ms. Spence could not be across every piece of legislation but the AVMAD reform has been a hot topic for years and when someone puts out a statement for her to sign about “world’s first” she should be across that detail. If she has been deliberately fooled, or led astray by sheer incompetence then she must start sacking people or moving them down to their level of incompetence.

If memory serves Ms. Spence acknowledged some 600 submissions about proposed medical certification some time ago. Anyone who had contacts or wished to get to the truth about aviation medicals (farce) could seek advice from sources both inside and outside of CASA. A few phone calls and a days research would be plenty.

CASA is a dysfunctional body that’s become delusional and hasn’t had a leader prepared to discover the realities of day to day GA operations, quite apart from making a number of easy reforms to give some heart to the GA community.

Having been in the GA scene since the 60s I think I can conservatively say that our GA industry is something considerably less than 50% of its potential, i.e., many $billions of lost opportunity due entirely to the extremes of CASA and its control freakishness and fee gouging ways.

And I’ve seen many others suffer in a personal way, Glen Buckley is only one of a very long list because for CASA it’s wrongful behaviour has become normalised across decades of habit.

Hard to believe but it is that bad, a very sorry state of affairs and negative to our economy, personal freedom and National security.

Thirsty

10th Oct 2023, 12:55

Glen, at the point of becoming tiresome, right now is the most pressing time to get legal advice. Yes, your attempts have proved valiant, but guidance on how and where to tread are now imperative, and time is of the essence.

glenb

10th Oct 2023, 20:27

Dear Ms Pip Spence PSM and Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin AC (Retd)

My family and I would like to thank you for the opportunity to meet with you last week in Canberra.

I felt the meeting was well intentioned, with "good intent" being essential for any resolution.

I understand that the line between lawfulness and appropriateness was addressed in the meeting and that CASA stands by its position that it did nothing "unlawful" but did acknowledge inappropriateness with regards to the "manner" in which this matter unfolded.

I respect your position but please understand that I have a different perspective, as you would appreciate. I am firmly of the opinion that I was treated unlawfully.

That acknowledgement by CASA regarding the sub-optimal manner that I was treated, was significant, and to have that occur in front of my wife was important for me, and I thank you for the well intentioned manner, the frankness and tone from the opening of the meeting.

Please be assured that I made no recording, and I took no notes at the meeting. My recollection is as best as I recall, and I was somewhat caught off-guard and affected by Sonoko's regarding the impact of this matter on our family.

I acknowledge that it is my recollection only, and open to interpretation. My intention is not to misquote or misrepresent the contents of the meeting or anything said by anyone at that meeting.

It was also significant that my matter had led to a process of "continuous improvement", and was a feature of the determination to restructure the way CASA engages with industry. Something that has been most traumatic about this matter in its entirety, is that it could have been completely avoided with a well intentioned meeting of less than 4 hours at the very beginning. To at least see some positive organizational change within CASA as a result of all the associated harm, is somewhat encouraging, and noted.

I understand that the date of 11th October for me to respond was not a deadline as such, but rather an expression of your intent to move forward in a timely manner. May I respectfully request an extension of 7 days. The truth is that post our meeting, for the first time in 5 years, I have allowed myself to get "distracted" from this matter, and it has been somewhat therapeutic and good for the family, as well as for me.

I am "back on board" now and typing away from my local 24 Pancake Parlor. I am going away solo camping on the weekend with the intention to have finalized my response by the end of the weekend. I don't necessarily intend for it to be lengthy, but I do hope to provide you with sufficient guidance to operate efficiently and effectively, as I appreciate that you will both be somewhat "time poor."

If you have no objection, it would assist me to "compartmentalize" my responses. I would like to provide separate responses to each of the action items, and in this correspondence I will address action item one from your correspondence where you stated,

"I undertook to contact ( current CASA FOI) about his observations of the prevalence of APTA-like arrangements in the flight training sector of the industry."

I believe that this is fundamental to the matter in its entirety. After 5 years the Ombudsman Office was unable to make a determination as to this very simple matter. For such a simple black and white issue, that can be so easily resolved, I am stunned that the Ombudsman Office was unable to make a determination as to whether the structure had never previously been accepted by CASA, as CASA led the Ombudsman to believe, or was it commonplace throughout the industry and authorized by CASA on multiple occasions throughout the industry.

It really should be that simple. Either CASA always permitted it, or CASA never permitted it. There can only be one truthful answer.

It is the complete failure of the Ombudsman's Office to be able to make a determination on something so fundamental, that has led me to form the opinion that up until this present time, CASA has provided false and misleading information on this aspect, as well as others.

I have asserted throughout the matter that the identical structure was always approved by formal processes by CASA on multiple occasions over my 25 years in the industry, and all industry participants within Australia would have no doubt that is the truth.

I had 25 years in the industry as a flight instructor. I was a CASA approved Head of Operations (HOO) and CASA approved CEO. I was the owner of a large and successful flight training organization that by CASAs own admission, had delivered industry leading standards of safety and compliance. I could be considered a Subject Matter Expert on the flight training industry.

For clarity, I will provide a background on the flight training sector, drawing on my 25 years of experience within that sector.

Increasingly over the years, many Flight Training Operators usually in a regional area would be unable to continue operations. Invariably this was for one of two reasons.

The operator was unable to attract the suitable legislated Key Personnel to move to that regional area, or
The economies of scale could no longer sustain that regional Flight Training Organisation.

From my own experience the best demonstration of this would be my experience operating a flight training organisation for over a decade.

In 2006 when I commenced operations, it required approximately 4000 hours of delivered flight training per annum, for the business to break even, and for me to draw an Award salary from that business.

By 2016, my business doing exactly the same thing as it had been for the previous decade, needed to deliver 7500 hours of flight training to break even, and to draw an Award salary.

The figures are staggering. I needed to almost double sales to maintain my same position. I acknowledge that there are other cost impacts on a business, but it was predominantly costs related to CASAs burdensome regulatory structure.

Quite simply, no regional flight training organisation could achieve 7500 delivered flight training hours per annum. The increased costs associated with this new regulatory structure saw an overnight increase in salaries of over 30%. There was no doubt that the regional sector of the industry was facing insurmountable challenges.

As those rural schools faced closure they would let their CASA Authorization lapse and approach a larger established flying school and request that they take over operations.

This required a formal CASA approval process on every occasion, and required changes to the CASA approved Exposition/ Operations Manual, and for a fee to be paid to CASA for that approval process, and for CASA to satisfy themselves that operational control could be maintained.

This was commonplace throughout my 25 years in the industry, and formally approved by CASA on each and every occasion. From my personal experience I will draw on some such arrangements that comes to mind.

Ballarat Aero Club had previously had an arrangement with another operator, as had Bendigo Aero Club. Perhaps of most note is that Latrobe Valley Aero Club had an arrangement with another operator which CASA was aware of and approved. The day that they transferred from their existing provider to APTA, it was my business that was deemed unlawful, yet the day prior the operations with another Provider was perfectly acceptable to CASA. I believe that the Point Cook flying club operated under an arrangement with a Moorabbin based operator. In my own case, CASA had approved my AV8 base in Darwin 8 years prior. I have been contacted by an ex CASA FOI from the QLD region, and he is aware of these arrangements being in place throughout that region, and prepared to provide you with a Stat Dec, to that effect, I am also advised that CASA FOI Brad Lacey utilized such arrangements at Coldstream when he was CFI of Lilydale, and may be a good further source of information. The list goes on and on, it really does.

The requirement that all personnel operating under an AOC must also be employed by the same Company that holds the AOC was never a condition placed on any of these Operators. This CASA imposed requirement was unique to my Organisation.

I am confident that provided the right environment can be established there are many CASA employees that would come forward and tell the truth on this matter.

In our meeting however, I specifically nominated FOI Nishizawa. I have nominated FOI XXXXXXX is for the following reasons.

I have trust and confidence in this particular FOI. Whilst I have never had any engagement with him outside of the work environment, I have operated under him, in his role as the Chief Flying Instructor/Head of Operations prior to his employment with CASA. Whilst we might not gravitate towards each other at a BBQ, I have the utmost respect for his consistency, integrity and importantly "professionalism', and I draw on my personal experience with him, when I make those statements.

This FOI was also the FOI that was allocated to my business by CASA for almost a decade as the "flight school subject matter expert" on flight training within my allocated CASA team referred to as a "Certificate Management Team' (CMT2). He had constant communication with our Organization on at least a weekly base throughout the decade. Of all current CASA employees, this employee would hold the most knowledge of this matter, and have access to the truth.

This FOI, was instrumental in the design and revalidation of APTA to the new regulatory structure. This approval occurred in April of 2017, and was the culmination of a three year project redesigning APTA to continue doing exactly what it had been doing for the previous decade, but in the new regulatory structure of Part 141 and 142. I have attached the checklist that was used by CASA personnel including this particular FOI, to approve APTA to that new regulatory structure. The business had adopted that same structure for the previous decade, but now I had invested several hundred thousand dollars in facilities, personnel, and systems to meet the new requirements. As stated, I was fully revalidated to the new regulatory structure in April of 2017. The new regulatory structure was introduced in September 2018. The very next month in October 2018, I was advised by CASA that I was unauthorized and subject to prosecution by CASA, and I was given 7 days certainty of operations.

This FOI was integral in the design of induction checklist that we used to bring new members on board., and the associated Temporary locations procedure which was in fact his recommendation, and for comment on this, if I could refer you to Page 3, post #46 where that post attends to it in more detail to our Temporary Locations procedure. It was in fact this CASA FOI who suggested that we adopt the procedure, and assisted us with the design of it.
https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-3.html

Perhaps more value could be obtained in finding out what the differences were. If you are able to ascertain that in fact the identical or at least very similar structure was always accepted and approved by CASA, it would assist me if it could be identified what was it that was different about my structure, and what specifically was the deficiency, if any.

May I close by thanking you again for the opportunity to meet with you. I appreciate that i have not attended to a number of other matters in this correspondence but will provide due attention to responding as soon as is practical.

I look forward to an update as to whether CASA maintains that the structure was either never approved by CASA or in fact was always and regularly approved by CASA, and hopefully for CASA to clearly identify what the shortcomings were. Something i have not been able to have answered for five years.

I respect the challenging situation that this matter places you in, i really am. My hope is that good intent and integrity will prevail, as I believe it it will.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

Lead Balloon

10th Oct 2023, 23:46

I anticipate that CASA’s ‘C-Suite’ position on the lawfulness of the APTA structure will in effect be: Two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because other personnel arrangements similar to those of APTA were approved, doesn't may the approvals right. I say ‘C-Suite’ because this mess was caused by differences of opinion between C-Suite and other CASA staff.

My prediction is that the C-Suite will eventually have to concede that similar personnel arrangements were approved for other flying training organisations but were also, in the C-Suite’s opinion, unlawful. That’s why those arrangements are being undone, very, very quietly.

I’ll give Ms Spence and Mr Binskin the benefit of the doubt for the time being and assume they have been advised that no other similar arrangements were ever approved, but in that case they’ve been deliberately misled. Or maybe it will be on the basis of weasel words: “Well boss, I am not aware of any evidence of any other approvals”, leaving out: “By the way, I have not tried to find any evidence.”

Of course, the C-Suite’s position on the implications of the definition of ‘personnel’ in Parts 141 and 142 and CASA’s requirements as to the level of evidence demanded to demonstrate ‘operational control’ have never been tested. However, the risks and potential costs of getting an authoritative interpretation exclude that as a practical option for most if not all ‘little’ industry players.

Let’s assume the C-Suite’s position is the correct one. It follows that the requirements eventually imposed on APTA were not unlawful. But it also follows that APTA was led up the garden path into unlawfulness by CASA staff – those friendly FOIs – who encouraged APTA to believe its original structure was lawful. CASA approved it all.

That’s why the C-Suite eventually went to all the trouble it did to try to get APTA to fit into the rules as the C-Suite interpreted them: they knew – and they still know – that CASA stuffed up by leading APTA up the garden path, even if the personnel arrangements in the APTA structure were unique.

Sadly – as we know – Glen was broken at least financially by the process. And CASA is never going voluntarily to admit any liability for its stuff up in leading APTA up the garden path by approving a structure which CASA subsequently decided was unlawful. CASA will continue to admit that the ‘manner’ in which the mess was made and the attempts to tidy it up were implemented was unfortunate or whatever other euphemisms they choose, but that’s not an admission of liability for the mess.

glenb

14th Oct 2023, 23:11

15/10/23

Link to the APTA APTA Agreement.docx (https://1drv.ms/w/s!AknkB-oX9Icilzv69BetGriETlwD?e=2FZ88T)

To the CASA Board and CASA CEO

In this correspondence I would appreciate the opportunity to specifically address Action Item 2 that arose from our meeting, where it was stated.

“I said I would follow up with CASA’s Freedom of Information team on the status of your request for APTA’s June 2019 contract with Latrobe Valley.’

The Latrobe Valley contract is essential to this entire matter. In fact, I believe it to be one of the most significant matters that has been completely overlooked by the Ombudsman investigation, and one of many systemic failures of the Ombudsman investigation.

I am not necessarily suggesting any bad intent within the Ombudsman’s office, but a lack of technical knowledge combined with disinformation emanating from senior levels within CASA has been responsible for what can only be described as gross technical misunderstandings, which I will attend to directly with the Ombudsman later.

Having read the Robodebt investigation, and the role of the Ombudsman Office it highlighted some failures of that Office, and from my own personal experience I have experienced those same failures of that Office in regard to this investigation.

I am of the understanding that despite the significance of this to the entire matter, the Ombudsman never required any contracts to be supplied during the investigation and relied on the ‘advice” of CASA only. A staggeringly low threshold of evidence to rely on ‘advice” from CASA, which provides opportunity for false and misleading advice, in fact it almost facilitates it. Matters addressed in the Robodebt inquiry.

The final contract that I was unable to achieve for 8 months but was achieved by someone else in a matter of hours is integral to this matter, because it speaks directly to “intent”.

Had I have been able to replicate that same document at any time within the 8 months of my best endeavours, and with all my industry experience and resources available to me, I would have had the trading restrictions lifted, and been able to return to business as usual.

Returning to business as usual became more challenging as this matter dragged on as my reputation, technical ability and credibility was understandably increasingly questioned by industry and those around me, including my family.

Why was Glen so totally unable to resolve this matter of wording in a commercial contract? was the reasonable question being asked by those around me.

The “contracts” issue was a central theme of this entire matter.

I appreciate that in your respective positions that up until now, it is reasonable to assume that you may not be across all the “specifics” of my matter.

I feel it essential to address the “contracts Issue” and specifically the importance of the “Latrobe Valley” contract to clarify this matter so that there can be no misunderstanding.

I believe I clarified it in our meeting, but to be honest I don’t recall if I made my point clearly enough, so please allow me the opportunity to clarify the significance of the “Latrobe Valley Contract” that I am seeking under Freedom of Information.

In regard to that request, I am not seeking the commercial contract in its entirety, in fact my preference is that the document is heavily “redacted” by CASA before it is provided to me.

The financial components or anything that is not related to matters of operational control is not being sought by me, and of absolutely no interest or relevance whatsoever.

My hope is that the document will be so heavily redacted that ONLY matters of Operational control are released to me, because they are the only pertinent matters in this case.

It will identify what it is that I could not achieve.

It is important to identify the significance of two traditionally unrelated documents. That being the CASA approved Exposition and a Commercial Contract

Previously, in the industry, matters of operational control were contained within the CASA approved “Exposition”, as legislation specifies. This is effectively the “contract” between CASA and the Operator.

“Commercial contracts” being the financial details between Operators and their customers are not contracts that CASA has traditionally had any involvement in, and CASA do not retain those contracts. Matters of operational control would never be exclusively contained within a commercial contract. I do not need to verify this because I know it to be true, although if CASA has evidence to refute that claim, then please provide me with that evidence.

For clarity. No Flight Training Operator has ever been required to specify matters of operational control exclusively within commercial contracts, and CASA will have no such documents on file to refute that claim. These matters are detailed in the Exposition.

This entire requirement was unique to me and my organisation only, and was highly unusual.

To recap

On 23rd October 2018 notified me that I was operating unlawfully, had as little as 7 days to continue operations, and I was likely subject to prosecution by CASA.

There had been no change to the way I operated over the last decade. All my Exposition manuals and procedures were fully approved by CASA. There had been no legislative change, and no deficiencies identified by CASA against any quality outcomes.

The business up until now was doing exactly what it had been doing throughout the last decade with full CASA approval.

If CASA is to be believed, despite a decade of operations, a three-year revalidation process, constant meetings with CASA, audits etc, it was only over a decade later in October 2018 that CASA “first became aware” that I was utilising personnel that were not always my direct employees, and advised me that I was operating unlawfully, and placed crippling trading restrictions on the business that caused commercial harm, but had absolutely no “safety” case to support that action, and did nothing to maintain or improve the safety of aviation. In fact it could reasonably be argued that when CASA places trading restrictions on a business the impact on that business it is more likely to have a negative safety impact, and particularly when those restrictions have remained in place for 8 months.

The root cause of the alleged regulatory breaches was that I utilised personnel under my AOC that were not always employees of the same Company that held the CASA Authorisation, being the AOC.

CASA presented me with three options.

Option One- Cease operations in 7 days.

Option Two: Completely change the business model of the last decade so that all personnel that operated under my AOC also became direct employees of the same Company that held the AOC. They could no longer be employed by another Entity, contractors etc. If I did that all trading restrictions would be lifted.

The third and only other option available to me was that I satisfied a single CASA employees’ opinion up in Canberra, as to additional wording in our commercial contracts regarding matters of operational control. No changes were required of our Exposition,

I could continue to operate, for the 7 days, I just couldn’t accept any new customers, and I had a “freeze placed on all CASA administrative tasks such as the addition of new simulators, Key Personnel, additional courses etc. The restrictions were placed on the business in its entirety including bases that CASA had previously approved throughout that decade.

It was explained to me that those trading restrictions would be lifted, and I would be permitted to return to Business as Usual if I could place additional wording into the “commercial contracts”, and specifically NOT into the Exposition. A most bizarre requirement but one that I was fully willing to comply with, and why wouldn’t I?

I had crippling trading restrictions that were costing me well in excess of $10,00 every week, and causing irreparable reputational harm, and unimaginable levels of stress, as I had to watch my business that I had built decade building be systematically destroyed as this matter remained completely unresolved for eight months.

There is no reason that this matter could not have been fully resolved within 4 hours. The fact that it wasn’t indicates that in fact there was no intent from the decision maker within CASA to resolve it.

The matter was not complicated and could have been immediately resolved. The reason I say that is twofold.

1. Everything was already specified over in the CASA approved Exposition, had been for over a decade. We were rigidly adhering to every CASA approved procedure in our Exposition. If CASA was requiring that I specify matters of operational control for persons and responsibilities that were not specified in legislation or by any industry precedent, and those requirements were an industry first that were applicable to my organisation only, then I required clear and concise guidance on those requirements. There was absolutely no resistance from me at all, and the email conversations between myself and CASA certainly indicate that to be the case.

2. The second reason that I believe that it was so easy to resolve is because it was finally resolved, just not by me. Once CASA had made the determination that all personnel had to also be employees, that effectively meant that only one base would be permitted to continue operating, and one of the bases took over control of the Company and AOC, the matter that I had been unable to resolve in 8 months was almost immediately resolved. The new owner of the business with no flying instructing experience at all, and almost no knowledge of the flight training regulations, was able to produce a contract in a matter of hours that fully satisfied CASA. That was the contract between APTA and Latrobe Valley Aero Club, and Latrobe Valley alone was permitted to continue under APTA. All other members including my own flying school of a decade had to leave APTA.

That Latrobe Valley contract is essential to this matter. It was the solution that solved everything.

I have been very clear throughout and continue to be fully satisfied that the ONLY reason that I could not fully resolve this matter with my 25 years industry experience was because someone had decided within CASA that it would not be resolved.

Acknowledging the different positions.

· CASA maintain that they did not and had not ever approved the identical structure to mine.

· I maintained that CASA had always and on multiple occasions permitted the identical structure to mine throughout my 25 years involvement in the industry, and I have provided multiple examples.

Irrespective of whose position is the truthful and accurate one, this Latrobe Valley contract is the first time in the flight training industry that a successful commercial contract has been established that outlines matter of operational control that are not specified in any other document i.e. the Exposition to the satisfaction of CASA that permitted operations to continue at the Latrobe Valley base only.

You will appreciate the significance of this contract. Once I obtain a copy of that redacted contract, I will be able to clearly identify specifically what it was that I could not achieve.

It was my failure to achiever that wording, that caused so much harm and trauma.

In closing I feel I need to address some pertinent points.

CASA held a copy of the contracts prior to sending me the notification in October 2018, and the truth is that they had been provided to CASA as a courtesy on multiple occasions as early as 2016.

Once CASA issued me the notification in October 2018, I immediately advised CASA that CASA already had the contracts, and CASA initially denied this, until I provided irrefutable evidence that the contracts had been supplied on multiple occasions as far back as 2016, and CASA was forced to change its position. These contracts had been provided to the most senior executives within CASA and a copy of that document is attached. I would encourage you to review it.

Understand that I had built a structure that was designed to have 10 members in order to meet all operating costs. Less than 10 members and I had to meet the shortfall. These trading restrictions remained in place for 8 months because a single CASA employee could not be satisfied. They caused irreparable commercial and reputational harm.

To finalise.

On receipt of that Latrobe Valley contract, I will be able to fully satisfy myself as to the intent of the sole CASA employee that was the decision maker on behalf of CASA that caused so much harm to me and my family, and the business, customers, students, and suppliers.

If the final document that was accepted by CASA is highly detailed and technical document, outlining matters of operational control that are not replicated within the Exposition then I will understand what my deficiencies were, and what it is that my Management team and I were unable to achieve in 8 months.

If however the document produced by CASA is a basic and very simple document, as I suspect, I would seriously have to question why I could not achieve that, and why were far more onerous requirements placed on me., and pursue my allegation that CASA was acting to bring harm to me personally, as I am fully satisfied is the case.

You will appreciate my interest in obtaining that document, and I will appreciate you facilitating the provision of that document as that was ‘The Solution” that I could not achieve.

At this stage I want to reiterate that I am firmly of the opinion that you are both acting with good intent. This correspondence is not intended to be disrespectful or to change the tone of our communications to date. It is an attempt by me to bring clarity and integrity to this matter, in as short a timeline as possible.

I will attend to the further action items as soon as practical.

Yours respectfully, and with appreciation.

Glen Buckley
P.S I should note that the provision of those documents may be as result of an error on my behalf. I am in no way suggesting CASA is frustrating processes.

glenb

17th Oct 2023, 12:40

17/10/23

To the CASA CEO and Board,

Please accept my third piece of correspondence arising from the action items of our meeting. I will attend to items 3 and 4 being;

Item 3; Both Mark and I stressed that if you have any direct evidence that specifically contradicts the Ombudsman’s findings, then this should be provided to it. I offered to contact the Ombudsman to request it review any such material. and,
Item 4. Mark agreed CASA would explore whether APTA’s exposition alone sufficiently set out the type of arrangements that would have allowed it to demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements.

Regarding this correspondence on Item 3, I will be brief, other than to say there has been substantial disinformation that has emanated from CASA, and at the most senior levels within CASA and specifically at the Executive Management level, being levels that are directly below, but report directly to the CEO. On these matters I need to correspond initially with the Ombudsman's Office, and request that they clarify some matters that I do not understand. Once the Ombudsman has explained those matters that I do not understand then I will be able to proceed. That may require FOI requests etc., and will most likely be a protracted process, perhaps extending over many months.

In this correspondence, may I respectfully request that you do establish contact with the Ombudsman to advise that I do intend to provide evidence that contradicts the Ombudsman findings. This will be by way of statements and ex CASA employees who have offered to come forward and tell the truth on this matter. I completely understand that the Ombudsman's Office has advised me that they do not believe that they have been misled. My experience with the Ombudsman's Office replicates the deficiencies highlighted in the Robodebt inquiry of the Ombudsman Office., and relate very much to the inability to determine when that office is being mislead, lack of supporting evidence requirements in support of Agency claims, a reliance on advice from Agencies, assumption that Agency representatives are acting in good faith, etc etc.

I obviously do not expect CASA to present my opinions but I do feel that CASA should now re-establish contact with the Ombudsman's Office to let them know that the Board and CEO have been advised by me that I intend to pursue the matter, and that Mr. Buckley is firmly of the opinion that the Ombudsman Office has been deliberately mislead by CASA which has lead to gross technical errors, and that can easily be demonstrated.

By that process of CASA establishing contact with the Ombudsman, it effectively reaffirms that CASA is maintaining its position, so I would ask that you do establish contact with the Ombudsman, if the contents of our meeting have not changed CASAs position especially regard to how common my structure was, and always had been, and importantly, approved by CASA.

Your gesture is not "lost on me", and I appreciate it. The Ombudsman is obviously resistant to consider that their Office has been misled. An approach by you, from your office would carry significant "weight" and I thank you for that gesture.

Regarding action item 4.

"CASA would explore whether APTA’s exposition alone sufficiently set out the type of arrangements that would have allowed it to demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements.

I understand that CASA has presented to the Ombudsman Office that there was not an awareness of my structure within CASA and that CASA had never permitted the structure throughout the industry.

You are fully aware that I maintain that CASA had always formally approved, and in fact supported that identical structure, not only with my Organization but countless other flight training organizations around Australia and continues to do so.

For this argument let me give "CASA" the benefit of the doubt and assume that CASA was not aware of the structure.

There can be no doubt that I knew of the structure. I was the individual investing everything I had into this venture, and it was the very purpose of the Business. I was very clear on the structure in my mind and was since I commenced operations in 2006.

My management team of Key Personnel must have been fully aware of the structure, as they were the personnel with legislated responsibility and accountability for the operation in its entirety, and they were overseeing it on a daily basis and had done so for the decade that we operated with this structure. They were interviewed, tested and approved for each of their respective roles by CASA against the very structure that they were operating under.

In turn it follows that all Personnel would have been fully aware of the structure, in fact it would be impossible to operate if they were not, As all Personnel were inducted into the one system, they would have been aware.

In turn it follows that all of the students and customers knew because they had also been inducted into the structure that I had utilized for the decade prior.

It is likely that the CASA team being CMT 2 that had provided oversight of my organization for a decade, including hundreds of face to face meetings at our premises and in CASAs, audits, manual amendments, attending our group safety meetings and group management meetings was fully aware of the structure. If not that would be somewhat remiss of those personnel, after all that is their very job. It must be noted that I believe they were fully aware, practically they had to be, and I'm sure if you ask them they would be truthful with you. Consider also that it was CMT 2 that worked with me over several years, assessing every single page of many thousands of pages that formed our CASA approved Exposition.

I had a reasonable expectation that my CMT had communicated the structure through to the relevant departments within CASA on multiple occasions. I had completely done my job and followed all CASA procedures. There was nothing else that I could possibly have done throughout the decade to make CASA become more fully aware.

During 2015,2016, and 2017 I invested hundreds of thousands of dollars revalidating my existing structure to the new Part 141 and 142 legislation. This three year project involved me working side by side with 10 CASA personnel as I attended to over 600 CASA stipulated requirements. CASA then conducted an internal peer review and fully revalidated to the new legislation in April of 2017.

The very purpose of that process during that 3 year revalidation was to assess me against all legislated requirements as CASA did.

The media were writing about it etc. The point being that it was "widely known" the structure that I utilised.

As I stated at the meeting it's like bumping into Ronald McDonald at a Party and acting surprised when he tells you he makes Hamburgers.

Nevertheless, let's still assume CASA was not aware of the structure. It's almost irrelevant because everyone else knew what was going on, including the CASA personnel that I was dealing with on a daily basis. While obviously it's not my responsibility to personally notify every CASA employee, I have a reasonable assumption that during the decade, CASA has its own internal procedures to achieve these tasks.

The point of this is that there were never any deficiencies of any sort ever identified to me. This was purely a matter of wording in the contract. The cost to me to implement any change was zero dollars. There was no requirement to change anything at all about how we operated, and that is why it is so inexplicable that the entire matter could not be resolved by me, in a matter of hours. I simply needed to pursue one of the options put forward to me by CASA, and that was that if I made everyone my direct employee, the matter would be fully resolved.

There were no deficiencies against any quality outcomes at all, and all legislation was attended to..

Your offer to explore if , "APTA’s exposition alone sufficiently set out the type of arrangements that would have allowed it to demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements, " is very significant because APTA did attend to all regulatory requirements, every single one of them.

I know that because under Freedom of Information I obtained the checklist that CASA personnel used to assess me against those very criteria leading to revalidation for the new legislation. Behind that 15 page assessment checklist leading to my revalidation in April of 2017, being 18 months before "CASA first became fully aware" was a very major project, and those pages alone do not give the project the recognition as to its true scope. It was an enormous project and everything was attended to.

That checklist that I obtained under FOI, contains the CASA requirements of me. In your short investigation, it would be of enormous benefit if somebody could identify against that checklist which procedure was found to be deficient if any. I suggest that a checklist would be an ideal starting point., to assess all criteria.

Please note that we also had a single team of Key Personnel and their legislated responsibilities can be found in the CASRs. I draw your attention to all specified responsibilities of the Key Personnel, and recall that there was only ever one AOC, and one set of Key personnel, and one set of APTA procedures. The responsibilities and accountabilities of the Key personnel who were required to undergo a CASA assessment, based on the very structure that we operated under.

CASR 142.180 CEO responsibilities and accountabilities\
CASR 142. 190 CEO responsibilities
CASR 142.200 Safety Manager Responsibilities.

The Ombudsman report constantly refers to the Other entities authorisations, when in fact none of the entities held any CASA Authorisations. A gross misunderstanding within the Ombudsman's office. CASA would be fully aware that there were no other CASA approved authorizations held by any of the other Entities, yet chooses not to correct this gross misunderstanding. There was only one set of Approvals as CASA would be fully aware, after all it is CASA that issues them.

You will notice that at no stage has CASA ever identified any deficiencies. If any deficiencies had been identified surely CASA would have been calling for changes to my Exposition, as they should have.

The final determination by CASA was that we could not continue delivering Part 142 Operations, which removed access to over 90% of the businesses revenue, and that all personnel operating under the AOC were to become Employees.

In closing, I thank you for investigating whether or not APTA’s exposition alone sufficiently set out the type of arrangements that would have allowed it to demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements.

Until this point in time, CASA has never identified to me any deficiencies, any regulations that were not attended to in our Exposition. This was not a quality control issue. It was a requirement that all personnel operating under the AOC, because that was supposedly a requirement in order to be able to maintain Operational Control.

I might use this opportunity to address a significant matter that, incredulously, the Ombudsman didn't even attend to, and that was the requirements that CASA follow its own procedures when it cancels, varies or suspends an AOC as specified in CASAs own manuals, and had CASA adhered to those procedures, this matter would not have become so confusing. Not only would it have afforded me procedural fairness, and potentially made the entire process lawful, it would have given me a document that clearly identifies what it is that I did wrong.

My best understanding is that CASA never identified any deficiencies at all aganist any legislation, this has been an "assumption" on behalf of the Ombudsman that has been "created" in the office of the Ombudsman. I effectively feel that you are going on a "goose chase", because there are no deficiencies. Irrespective of that, a response to your short investigation may highlight a deficiency that I had not previously been advised of.

I am fully aware that CASA has created an impression of a deficiency against the legislation although none has ever been identified to me. If there are any deficiencies I would be very appreciative of CASA highlighting those deficiencies, as it is something that i have been consistently calling upon CASA to provide for 5 years.

To clarify, I do not believe that there were ever any deficiencies identified and if they were those deficiencies were never identified to me.

Thankyou for your efforts, respectfully

Glen Buckley

glenb

19th Oct 2023, 20:34

20/10/23

Good morning Mr Hanton, (CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner

I understand that you are in no way involved with the investigation into my allegation that a number of CASA employees were involved in making, and propagating a false allegation that I had assaulted a CASA employee. An allegation that I claim was completely fabricated for no other purpose than to cause harm to me.

My understanding is that CASA appointed an independent external investigator from the Company CPM reviews, and that that Company had commenced the investigation in late August, which is now approaching two months.

I am keen to obtain an anticipated timeline to completion, and no doubt Mr Edwards has some restrictions on his current flight safety role, pending the outcome of the investigation.

I haven't been contacted by the investigator, so I can only assume that the investigation is ongoing. I am keen to be advised of the findings of that investigation, assuming that I would be privy to the findings.

I understand that you have no involvement in this investigation, but can you advise me, if to the best of your knowledge, that investigation has been finalised.

If CASA has not been advised or is not aware of an anticipated completion date, am I able to approach CPM Reviews directly for an update.

If you are not the person that I should be liaising with, can you direct me to the appropriate person within CASA that would be the primary contact on this matter.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

glenb

22nd Oct 2023, 18:46

I received this update on Fridaty re. the totally scurrilous allegation that I had assaulted a CASA Flight Operations Inspector. An investigation was appointed by CASA and in the previous post I sought an update from the investigator. The results will be interesting. Although I made offers to make myself available. I have not been contacted.

Good morning Glen

I understand that the external investigator has indicated to CASA that it is anticipated the review will be completed by the end of this month.

Thanks

Jonathan

glenb

31st Oct 2023, 20:25

01/11/23

To: CASA Board Chair: Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin AC (Retd)
CASA CEO: Ms. Pip Spence PSM

Please accept this somewhat delayed final piece of correspondence related to our meeting on October 3rd at Aviation house in Canberra. I apologize for the significant delay in finalizing my response and acknowledge that I am responding after our pre agreed extended date. As you will appreciate, I have been dealing with this for five years, and on occasion I have periods where I am totally unable to attend to it, for reasons of my own health.

With regard to any responses from CASA, I appreciate that my delayed correspondence will in turn, impact on your response times.

Before I proceed I feel that I should draw attention to a comment from your recent correspondence, and something that the Ombudsman Office frequently refers to. I am compelled to address it again to ensure that there is no confusion, and I intend to ask the Ombudsman Office to clarify this matter to ensure there is no misunderstanding. I do appreciate that it may be just a choice of wording, however I feel that it is significant, and these anomalies need to be "checked" and addressed on every occasion that I am confronted with them.

You referred to the Ombudsman's findings regarding the "regulatory change". This is factually not correct, and I feel it is significant. It suggests that my business was impacted by a "regulatory" change, when there was none.

There was absolutely no "regulatory change," and if there was, CASA would be able to clearly identify the "regulation" that "changed", and when it changed.

The regulations were not changed.
The way I operated remained unchanged.
There were never any allegations that I did not maintain full operational control.
No deficiencies were ever brought to my attention.
CASA never requested that I make any changes to any of my procedures.

This was ONLY a change of interpretation of existing regulations, and that change of "interpretation" applied to my Organisation only.

Thankyou for the opportunity to clarify that. I must insist that if there is a regulatory breach, then CASA should clearly identify that.

With regards to Action Item One

In my first piece of correspondence on 11/10/23 , ( my reference; pprune #2886) I attended to "Action Item One" regarding your commitment to investigate and clarify the, "prevalence of APTA like arrangements throughout the industry".

Throughout the five year Ombudsman investigation, the Ombudsman's office has been unable to ascertain which of these two very different narratives is the truthful one.

CASA has until maintained a position that CASA did not, and had not, ever permitted APTA like structures.
I have maintained that CASA has always, and continues to, formally approve APTA like structures regularly, and has always done so.

Two significantly diverse representations of the "truth."

My expectation is that at the end of your investigation, which will include communication with at least one current CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI), and potentially one ex CASA FOI that I nominated to you at our meeting, you will be able to clearly identify whether,

A. CASA had never permitted APTA like structures, or
B. CASA had always, and continues to, permit APTA like structures.

There can be only one clear and concise, well intentioned, unambiguous response, and in your respective senior positions within CASA, I would expect that information is promptly and accurately available to you.

I thank you for your commitment to arrive at the clear truth, and I look forward to the outcome of that official and final CASA determination to be clearly and concisely provided to me by CASA. My expectation is that I should be provided with the same "narrative" that CASA has provided to the Ombudsman's office, as to the prevalence or not, of APTA like structures.

These structures were, and continue to be commonplace throughout the industry, and on every occasion, only after a formal CASA approval process.
For CASA to purport to the Ombudsman, to the Minister's Office, or to anyone that CASA did not and does not continue to approve other Companies to adopt APTA like structures is quite simply, false and misleading. It really is a "black" and "white" matter.

For your information, and my assumption is that you would have been advised.

A Freedom Of Information request has been made on this matter, and a request for effectively all correspondence between CASA and the Ombudsman's Office has been made. That request has been approved through the office of the Australian Information Commissioner. A one month extension to the provision of that information has been granted, and I am expecting that information no later than 23rd November 2023. I believe that information totaling 145 documents will give me a clear indication of CASAs representation to the Ombudsman on the prevalence of APTA like structures, and as to whether it is an accurate representation or whether it is false and misleading, as I assert. I believe that this request, once fulfilled, will bring significant clarity to this matter, and clearly and specifically identify any further documents that I require, in what I expect would be my final request, if required.

I simply cannot understand how the Ombudsman Office has been totally unable to resolve this very simple issue, as to whether or not CASA always approved APTA like structures. The lack of clarity of information provided to the Ombudsman by CASA can be the only explanation for such a simple fact to remain totally unresolved after 5 years. CASA is the safety regulator for the flight training industry, and would be reasonably expected to have a fairly comprehensive understanding of how Organisations operate, as that is the very purpose of CASA. The difficulty in clarifying this issue over 5 years is simply trying to create the "fog of war."

The fact that the Ombudsman after 5 years has been unable to determine who is being truthful on this matter, leaves me in no doubt that CASA has misled the Ombudsman's Office. If CASA and I were both being truthful, then the narrative would be the same, and the Ombudsman would not still be confused after 5 years. Somebody has misled the Ombudsman's investigation, and the Ombudsman Office has demonstrated little appetite or ability to arrive at the truth. There is no doubt that the Ombudsman has relied heavily on CASA being truthful and acting with good intent. Deficiencies of the Ombudsman Office highlighted in the Robodebt findings and replicated in my matter. Deficiencies that CASA has clearly, to date, taken advantage of.

I advised you that drawing on my 25 years industry experience I personally observed, as did the entire flight training industry, these identical structures being fully approved by CASA on multiple occasions, and significantly, they continue to be approved by CASA, as CASA would be fully aware. I can nominate two operations at Moorabbin Airport that currently adopt this structure, with full CASA approval, and the Southern Region Office of CASA would be able to provide further details. For CASA to continue trying to confuse this matter is truly absurd, and it is unreasonable that I am putting so much effort into trying to prove something to be true, when CASA already knows it to be true, but continues to attempt to confuse the issue.

Several past CASA employees have established contact with me, and offered to tell the truth on this matter. I continue to be reluctant to involve anyone else in this matter unless absolutely essential, however those resources remain available to me, and the same resources are available to you. In the meeting I put forward a name of an ex CASA employee to the Chair, and that individual would welcome contact from the Board Chair. I hope that the Board and CEO will avail themself of that resource, as that will bring truth and clarity to this matter, yet again. That CASA ex employee is known to the Board Chair. That ex CASA Employee was heavily designed in the development and subsequent revalidation of APTA up until its Part 141/142 revalidation in April of 2017. He could be considered a Subject Matter Expert (SME) on this matter.

If at the end of those discussions with both the current CASA FOI and ex CASA FOI, CASA maintains its position that CASA did not, and has not, ever routinely permitted and formally approved APTA like structures, I will have to accept that as CASAs final position on this significant issue.

If CASAs position is that they had permitted "similar" structures, then it should be reasonable that CASA can identify specifically what it was about my Organisation that was "different" to other operators with "similar" structures. A very reasonable question as you will appreciate, as it is the central theme of the entire matter. It is also the question that I have been seeking answers to since October of 2018, when this matter commenced.It is reasonable that CASA specifically identify what the discernible differences are, that permitted other Operators to operate in that structure, and to continue to operate yet CASA used that as the basis to cause so much harm to me and my business.

The expected outcome of Action Item one being that CASA clearly identifies whether CASA had always and routinely approved organizations to operate with this structure, or whether CASA had never approved organizations to operate with this structure?

If CASA is of the position that in fact they had always permitted such structures, then there should be a valid reason that mine was not permitted, and it is entirely reasonable that CASA provide me with a written notification of that "decision": as should have been provided to me, when CASA ``suspend, cancel or vary an AOC." in accordance with their own stipulated procedures.

I look forward to CASA clearly and concisely confirming CASAs position or not as to the prevalence of CASA approved APTA like structures throughout the industry.

In my second piece of correspondence dated 15/10 23 (my reference; pprune #2888) I addressed "Action Item Two, being the matter of the "contract." that I had requested under Freedom of Information. This came from your offer to follow up on my FOI request for the "Latrobe Valley Contract".

Why is the "Latrobe Valley (LTV) contract" so significant in this matter?

The LTV contract was the solution that I could not come up with. Had I been able to replicate that contract, then APTA would still be operating and benefitting the industry, of that I have no doubt, and none of the associated harm would have been caused.

You will recall that after operating the business with that identical structure for a decade I was advised by CASA in October 2018 that I was now operating illegally and I was presented with three options.

A. Cease trading in as little as 7 days OR

B. Transfer all personnel operating under the Authorization (AOC) that were not currently employees of the Company that held that AOC to become employees of the same Company that held the AOC. That is to say that personnel operating under the AOC could not be employed by another entity, contractors etc. They must be "employees" of the Company that holds the AOC. If all personnel were to also become my employees, the problem would be immediately resolved and I could return to business as usual immediately.

As the very purpose of the business was to utilise personnel that were not always employees, this required such a large organizational redesign that it was not practical, and not what the business was designed for. I felt that the direction by CASA was unlawful, and I still maintain that position. I am fully satisfied that no legislation at all, nor any industry precedent supports the contention that all personnel operating under an AOC must also be employees of the same Company that holds the CASA issued AOC. The central theme of the matter in its entirety was not even addressed in the Ombudsman report. A quite significant "oversight". I suggest.

C. If I could not transfer all personnel to become direct employees as in Option B, I would have to place additional wording into our commercial contracts with customers to the satisfaction of a single CASA employee. If I could come up with wording in the commercial contract, the crippling trading restrictions that had been applied would be lifted and allow me to return to "business as usual" as CASA put it.

As I had been operating to industry leading levels of safety and compliance throughout the decade, and was perhaps one of Australia's most experienced operators utilizing this structure, and because I had recently invested several hundred thousand dollars working side by side with CASA to have all systems and procedures designed to do what the business was designed to do, but now for the new regulatory structure, and because for the previous decade CASA had previously approved multiple bases under the structure that I adopted and because I was already doing everything that I needed to, and had been for the previous decade, this should have been a relatively straightforward task. There were never any deficiencies or changes. I just had to describe what it was that I was already doing, option C should have been the obvious and easy answer.

I simply needed to have the "deficiency" in the existing legislation, if any, identified. It was a matter of wording only. Our existing systems and procedures were all determined to be operating well, and in accordance with our Exposition. Absolutely no change to how we operated was ever requested by CASA, it was a simple wording issue in our commercial contracts that CASA traditionally had no involvement with, and refused to be a signatory to. Despite the fact that CASA was effectively "interfering" in a commercial agreement, at no stage did I offer any resistance. The business was being negatively impacted by the trading restrictions that were costing me in excess of $10,000 per week, and this was to continue for eight months. It was critical that I have this matter resolved.

But somehow, after 8 months I was absolutely no closer to having this matter resolved and the crippling trading restrictions lifted, I was forced to hand over the business to another Entity. That new owner of the entity, with effectively a non-existent understanding of the Australian flight training regulations, and without an instructor rating, and therefore no instructional experience was able to fully resolve the matter in hours by way of the" Latrobe Valley Contract". Something I had been completely unable to achieve.

If I am alleging that I was the victim of targeted malice by a CASA employee, and that there was no intent to resolve the contract matter as long as it was me, Glen Buckley trying to resolve, then the obvious question is why was someone else able to resolve it so easily. The answer to that is the Latrobe valley contract.

If CASA is to be believed, and they had never previously permitted APTA like structures, then the Latrobe Valley Contract is the first time in Australia that a Flight School owner has been able to satisfy CASA with a contract that stipulates matter of operational control and safety that are not contained within existing documents such as the Exposition.

That final contract that was deemed satisfactory by CASA is the "Latrobe Valley Contract". You will understand why that contract is so significant. It is the document that was the solution. The solution that I could not come up with after 8 months. It was the solution that I was totally unable to achieve.

To be perfectly frank, once I am in receipt of that contract with all items other than matters of operational control and safety redacted, those matters of safety and operational control that I could not resolve, will be clearly highlighted.

If CASA has been acting with good intent, my expectation is that the contract would be quite comprehensive and somewhat complicated, or at least so comprehensive and complicated that I was totally unable to achieve it.

If on the other hand, as I suspect, that document is "wafer thin" and contains very few words, then one must wonder why Glen Buckley could not achieve it.

This will go to the very centre of the issue, and that being intent. Was CASA acting with good intent or was CASA targeting me personally, as is my belief.

Thankyou for following up my request, and I look forward to obtaining a copy of the suitably redacted contract that CASA deemed acceptable. I am expecting a highly redacted copy, as I am not after any sensitive contents of the contract, as I am only seeking matters of operational control and safety contained somewhat unusually within a commercial contract as CASA required in this instance.

I was surprised that despite the "Contract" being such a central theme in this matter that the Ombudsman took CASA at its "word" on this topic. A deficiency of that Office identified in the Robodebt inquiry, and very much replicated in my matter.

The Ombudsman sought no "evidence" from CASA by way of seeking contract's from CASA, despite CASA advising that they had previously required them., and me refuting that statement.The Ombudsman wrote to me stating that "CASA had advised them" that CASA had previously required contracts of other Operators. A staggering low level threshold of evidence that the Ombudsman was merely "advised" by CASA, and no supporting evidence or fact checking was required by the Ombudsman on such a substantive issue. My experience with the Ombudsman Office throughout the investigation was that they "leaned" very heavily on CASA for "advice", as evidenced by the Ombudsman not even requesting CASA substantiate its claim by providing a copy of a contract.

Thankyou for your assistance in helping me to obtain such a critical document. Hopefully the formalities of a FOI request can be bypassed and it can simply be provided to me.

continued.......

glenb

31st Oct 2023, 20:27

In my third piece of correspondence dated 17/10/23 (my reference pprune #2889) I addressed Action items 3 and 4;

Action Item Three, being your offer to contact the Ombudsman and ask them to review any further information that I provide. I asked you to establish contact and advise them of such.

On this subject, one of the matters that I will be clarifying will be the Authorisations that the Ombudsman believes that the other Entities held.

The Ombudsman makes numerous statements that leave me in no doubt that the Ombudsman believes that there are multiple flying schools involved in this matter, when in fact there is only one flying school, that being APTA. The Ombudsman refers to the other Entities conducting flying training, and the Authorisations that they hold.

It's quite a bizarre position. No other Entities held any Authorisations or Approvals,as CASA is fully aware, and if they did, then they would be a flying school in their own right, and most likely a competitor to APTA, and therefore not part of APTA. It would be somewhat like a Woolworths Store asking Coles to run their store, when they already have their own approvals and business model.

CASA is fully aware that there were no other Authorisations or Part 141/142 Approvals because it is CASA that issues them. If there were any other authorizations or approvals then there would be an associated comprehensive Exposition/Operations Manual, there would be Key personnel, there would be courses and syllabi etc. I will be asking the Ombudsman to state what other Authorisations they identified when making those statements. I had advised the Ombudsmann on numerous occasions that there were no other authorisations or flying schools. This was another topic that could have been fully resolved with a single question but was not even attended to by the Ombudsman. A fairly significant misunderstanding on the part of the Ombudsman, and a misunderstanding that CASA seems reluctant to clarify.

There are other matters that I will attend to with the Ombudsman but the existence, or not of any other Authorisations/ flying schools is a fairly high priority.

Action Item 4 being that the Board Chair would explore whether APTAs Exposition alone sufficiently set out the type of arrangements that would have allowed it to demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements. My response remains that EVERY regulatory requirement was met or exceeded. every one of them . For reasons that defy any logical explanation, the misconception is that there was some deficiency, and I believe that "misconception" exists within the Ombudsman's office.

I have previously provided the CASA checklist that I obtained under FOI. This document confirms that during the three year revalidation process, every regulation was considered and attended to, and assessed as satisfactory by CASA.

In order to make that assessment, it would require a review of our suite of manuals that formed the Exposition. This would include the Primary suite of manuals as well as the "differences" manuals for each of the bases, referred to as the Base Procedures Manuals (BPM) which contained only limited information, but contained the different procedures between bases. An example would be different Emergency Response Plans (ERP) for different bases, different local contacts for Drug and Alcohol testing etc.

The Ombudsman had previously made a comment that they had reviewed the Base Procedures Manual and raised concerns that they did not specify matters of operational control. That demonstrated one of many misunderstandings that exist within the Ombudsman investigation. The Base Procedures manuals are Base specific, they do not, should not, and would not contain matters of operational control. That is the very purpose of them, as they deal with base differences only. They do not, and are not intended to contain matters of operational control. Those procedures are contained within the Exposition. Another concerning misunderstanding that exists within the Ombudsman Office

A thorough consideration may also require you to consider the "Flight School Manager (FSM)'' system that we utilised to maintain the high levels of operational control that are required. After reviewing a number of systems available, we selected the FSM because it was Australian made and designed to our regulations. We were also able to have the system tailored to our requirements. This system was an industry leading system, that shared all information across all bases with regards to all legislative, and safety requirements. It is the system used to maintain operational control. I am advised that the Ombudsman did not review this system at all during the investigation. That appears to be a stunning oversight, but further demonstrates the reliance of the Ombudsman on CASA providing truthful information, rather than the Ombudsman having any appetite to independently ascertain or make an independent assessment.

I must add that for the very first time in Australia an Operator made this entire system available to CASA. Unlike every other school that required on site visits by CASA personnel to conduct audits, all information was fully available to CASA to provide additional oversight from the comfort of an office in Canberra if required.
For the first time ever CASA could now check every aspect of a flying school in real time. This included all aircraft tracking, flight and duty times, pilot qualifications and recency, all training records, safety meetings, aircraft maintenance scheduled and unscheduled etc etc.

This was an industry leading" first" providing previously unseen levels of CASA oversight.

My expectation is that at the end of that exploration, if there were any deficiencies against any legislation then CASA would clearly be able to identify the specific deficiency and the legislation. None has ever been brought to my attention to date.

If CASA is unable to specify any breaches or and deficiencies against any legislation, then even if they could provide a "scenario" that demonstrates what any legitimate concerns were. i.e. highlight some deficiency in our comprehensive systems and fully CASA approved systems.

My understanding is that CASA has reversed its position and now concedes that there was in fact no regulatory breach, although I look forward to the further investigation that you will conduct.

If there were any deficiencies against any legislation then they would have been identified to me. Considering that the act of making all personnel also my employees would have instantly resolved the issue, one can only assume that any deficiencies would be related to that matter, although I welcome any other information that CASA can provide me with.

This is after all, literally the very information that I have been imploring CASA tio provide to me for five years. i.e. what is the deficiency?

Recall that CASA was not asking for any changes to the CASA approved Exposition. These were changes to a "commercial contract between APTA and its members. It was not a document to specify matters of operational control, in fact CASA refused to be a signatory to it, despite it being CASA that was requiring the wording change in the commercial contract

Regarding the other outstanding matters, being "Action Items 5 and 6".

You reiterated CASA’s support for any Act of Grace payment application that I pursued, and agreed to ask your Executive Officer to contact me to provide whatever guidance CASA can in navigating the Department of Finance’s process. I am very appreciative of that gesture. Could I respectfully request that he first establish contact with the Department of Finance to assess accessibility to this scheme, as I have been advised by industry peers following this matter, that in fact I may not be eligible for the scheme. Once he has been able to access that information I would be appreciative of him reaching out to me, as that determination may force a change of approach to one of litigation which as you know is my least preferred option, but may become my only option, although that will be determined by CASA.

I also advised you at our meeting that I am fully satisfied that a CASA employee has been responsible for deliberately providing false and misleading information to that inquiry for the purpose of covering up misconduct and affecting the outcome of that inquiry. This would be a central theme in any complaint made to the National Anti Corruption Commission. In order for me to proceed with my complaint, it is reasonable that I am aware of the Employee or at least the Department that has been responsible for providing information, and at what stage of the investigation.

My understanding was that Mr Aleck the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs was the Agency Representative for CASA in all dealings with the Ombudsman Office, and almost all communication was directed between his Office and the Ombudsman office. Mr Aleck was also the sole decision maker in my matter on behalf of CASA whio determined that my business was now unlawful and unauthorised.

Throughout the five year Ombudsman investigation, I made multiple appeals to CASA. It did not seem fair or reasonable that the person that the complaint is against, is the same person responsible for the provision of information to the Ombudsman investigation. It seenmedv to fly in the face of what any Organisation would deem acceptable practice.

At the conclusion of the Ombudsman investigation I was advised that the CEO had taken over responsibility, and later correspondence from CASA led me to believe that it was the Office of the ICC, and Mr Hanton.

I appreciate that at our meeting you did clarify these timelines, but as I did not take notes, can I respectfully request that you clarify them for me again. If I am notifying CASA that I wish to approach the Anti Corruption Commission on this matter, and specifically the provision of false and misleading information it seems reasonable that the Department or person responsible is clearly identified to me.

On other matters

Regarding the impact of Mr McHeyzers email, this is something that I would like to pursue, in a well intentioned manner with CASA. Are you able to direct me to an initial point of contact in order to commence that process. Ideally but perhaps naively I would like to progress on this matter without a lawyer if practical, but obviously would be somewhat compelled to engage a lawyer if CASA were to do so. From my perspective it should be entirely unnecessary as long as good intent from both parties prevails. I also respect that CASA protocols may require the involvement of lawyers, may I request who the "point of contact" would be within CASA, on this matter.

Thankyou for the offer of reimbursement for costs incurred. I feel somewhat compelled to accept that offer. As you are aware the industry established a GofundMe page, and I utilized those funds for the trip. As I was effectively using someone else's money I would appreciate the opportunity to reimburse those funds, and I will send through to your Personal Assistant the receipts for two airfares and the car rental for the day. Thanks again for the offer.

I acknowledge that at our meeting, we did not attend to the matter of the alleged assault by me on a CASA Employee, although I think it is pertinent to deal with it in this correspondence.

My understanding is that the independent investigation into whether or not I assaulted a CASA employee, as the employee has alleged, will be finalised by now. I do feel the matters are somewhat related, as I feel Iwas the victim of an "engineered" process, by CASA, of which the false allegation of assault, formed a part. Could I be advised of what happens now, regarding that report being finalised, and its conclusions as to whether or not I assaulted a CASA employee.

Thankyou for your consideration of my correspondence. I apologise for my delayed response and acknowledge again that I expect it to impact on your response times. I am prepared to wait as long as is required in order to receive well intentioned, and well considered responses. I apologise if my correspondence comes across as somewhat terse, that is not my intention. I am merely trying to ensure that all parties have clear expectations.

Far too many resources on both sides have been diverted to this matter. When i consider not only the harm caused to me and my family, but the other businesses forced into closure as result, the loss of jobs, the lost opportunities to the industry, the people and entities left unpaid, the International Students that lost funds, the students with their training impacted, and all this because I couldn't come up with wording in a commercial contract to satisfy a sole CASA employee. At any time, he could have instantly resolved it by clearly and concisely advising me of the required wording. It's the complete lack of good intent and integrity that has this matter still unresolved.

In closing let me apologise for the somewhat lengthy nature of this correspondence. Much of my correspondence has an intended recipient, as in this case, but also has a wider audience, and on that subject I specifically mention my local MP, Ms Carina Garland. Despite my local Member advising me that Minister King has directed her not to assist me, Ms Garland remains my local Member of Parliament and I feel it essential that she remains fully aware of this topic, and is able to keep the Minister briefed on this matter, as it is substantive and related to alleged corruption.

I look forward to hearing back from you at the appropriate time.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

aroa

1st Nov 2023, 01:01

‘Minister King has directed her (Local Member Garland) not to assist.’
There you go. A classic example of what the power crazies really think of “democracy”

glenb

2nd Nov 2023, 20:00

Yes AROA, like all politicians, when she was running for the Seat of Chisholm she was keen to help me out.

Then when she gets elected, and only after I make multiple requests for a meeting that she promised go unanswered, she finally grants me a meeting with her, and then on 28th March 2023, I receive this correspondence from her Office. 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

Im convinced that Minister King is as corrupt as they come, and weak local Members have absolutely no ability to truly assist their constituents

glenb

22nd Nov 2023, 19:32

REPORT TO:

Ms Philippa Crome, Executive Manager Corporate Services Division, Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)

CONCERNING:

Complaint by Mr Glenn Buckley

PREPARED BY:

Dom Sheil -Senior Reviewer, CPM Reviews Pty Ltd

Quality Assurance by

Trevor Van Dam-Executive Director and Principal Reviewer CPM Reviews Pty Ltd

Submitted 6 November 2023

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ............................................................ ............................................................ ... 3

Documents Considered in this Investigation ............................................................ ...............3

2. Recommendations............................................. ............................................................ ...... 4

The Investigation Process..................................................... .....................................................4

The Standard of Proof....................................................... ........................................................4

Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice..................................................... ...............................5

3. The Complaint and Allegations................................................. ............................................. 5

The Meeting of 6 February 2020 ............................................................ ...................................5

Allegation of Physical Contact..................................................... ................................................6

The Two Records of the Meeting ............................................................ ....................................7

Are the Two Records of the Meeting Contradictory? ............................................................ ......9

The Matters Advanced by the Complainant in Support of His Complaint ....................................10

4. Conclusion.................................................. ............................................................ ....................11

List of Attachments to this Report ............................................................ .....................................11

INTRODUCTION

1. CPM Reviews was engaged by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) on 1 September 2023 to

investigate a complaint by Mr Glen Buckley (the Complainant).

2. The Scope of the investigation is as follows:

“CASA requires the undertaking of an external enquiry relating to allegations of a complaint from a member of the public regarding two written accounts of an interaction with the individual and two CASA officers in the foyer of the Authority's Melbourne office and to establish whether on the balance of probabilities the account provided was false and misleading as the member of the public has alleged.”

3. In simple terms, the issue under investigation is whether a CASA officer falsely claimed the Complainant made physical contact with him in an impromptu meeting on 6 February 2020.

4. The two written accounts referred to above are those of Messrs Owen Richards and David Edwards, who are both currently employed by CASA. The accounts in question are their individual file records of the meeting with the Complainant on 6 February 2020. These records are in the form of separate individual emails.

5. Specifically, the allegation is that the record by Mr Edwards is the one that is “false and misleading”, to the extent that it states that the Complainant made physical contact with him. The Complainant states that his record is ‘contradicted’ by Mr Richards’ record. He states that Mr Richards ‘account represents an accurate record of their meeting in terms of whether he made physical contact with Mr Edwards. His position is that he made no physical contact and that this is confirmed by Mr Richards. The consequence of this, in his view, is that Mr Edwards’ account is in the Complainant’s words, “false and misleading.” Relevantly, he claims that the misrepresentation by Mr Edwards was actuated by malice “to cause [him] reputational harm”.

6. The Complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act to CASA for documents relating to the meeting on 6 February 2020. As noted above, he considers that the written account by Mr Richards supports his assertion that Mr Edward's account is false and misleading. The purpose of this investigation is to inquire into and advise whether there are any inconsistencies between those two written accounts.

Documents Considered in this Investigation.

7. For the purposes of this investigation the following documents were considered:

• copies of a number of written complaints by the Complainant relevant to this investigation, which have been consolidated into a single document and referred to in this report as “the Complaint” (Attachment A);

• Mr Richards’ record of the meeting with the Complainant on 6 February 2020 (Attachment B);

• Email Questions and Answers with Mr Richards, 9 October 2023 (Attachment C);

• Mr Edwards’ record of the meeting with the Complainant on 6 February 2020 (Attachment D);

and

• Email Questions and Answers with Mr Edwards, 6 October 2023 (Attachment E).

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

8. I recommend that based on the material considered in this investigation, you could conclude that the evidence supports a finding that, on the balance of probabilities:

• the written accounts of Messrs Edwards and Richards are consistent with each other and are not contradictory; and

• Mr Edwards’ meeting record was not false or misleading.

The Investigation Process

9. As investigator, I am required to consider what evidence and other information is relevant to the making of findings of fact and the formulation of recommendations. Evidence relevant to this investigation is material, which if it were accepted, could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue.

10. The investigation proceeded on the basis of the written complaint(s) only. The investigator consulted CASA as to whether fresh contact with the Complainant should be made. CASA queried whether contact was necessary, given the Complainant’s view of the issues under consideration (the inconsistency of the two records) were clearly expressed by him. In light of this, the investigation did not engage with the Complainant.

11. The questioning of the two CASA employees was by email. Formal (oral) interviews were not conducted. In the circumstances, given the nature and scope of the allegations, and the evidence under review, this was considered to be the most efficient way to proceed.

The Standard of Proof

12. The standard of proof applicable to findings in these matters, including the findings of fact that might support a determination, is the civil standard. That is, findings are based on the conclusion that itis more likely than not that the person suspected of a behaviour or action has done what they were alleged to have done. This is referred to as ‘the balance of probabilities.

13. Before reaching a finding, the decision-maker needs to have regard to the seriousness of what is alleged and the consequences which might flow to the person suspected of misconduct if the allegations are proven. The level of satisfaction required on the civil standard of proof increases in accordance with the seriousness of the matter under consideration. In Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 the High Court of Australia indicated the need to act with proper care before finding that a serious allegation is

13. Before reaching a finding, the decision-maker needs to have regard to the seriousness of what is alleged and the consequences which might flow to the person suspected of misconduct if the allegations are proven. The level of satisfaction required on the civil standard of proof increases in accordance with the seriousness of the matter under consideration. In Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 the High Court of Australia indicated the need to act with proper care before finding that a serious allegation is established.

14. It should be noted, however, that the ‘Briginshaw principle’, as it has become known, does not alter the civil standard of proof, which remains the balance of probabilities. It is the degree of satisfaction that is required in determining whether the standard has been met from cased to case in terms of the seriousness of the allegations. In other words, it is precedent for the idea that the strength of evidence necessary to establish facts on the balance of probabilities may depend on the nature of what is sought to be established.

Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice

15. This investigation was conducted with as little formality as possible and in accordance with the requirements of procedural fairness and natural justice.

16. I declare that as investigator I have had no prior dealings with the Complainant, or the two CASA employees named in the Complaint.

3. THE COMPLAINT AND ALLEGATIONS

The Meeting of 6 February 2020

17. The documents provided for the purpose of this investigation indicate that the Complainant has a long-standing grievance with CASA. The precise content and nature of that grievance is outside the scope of this investigation. Nothing in this report should be read as expressing a view either way on the merits of those grievances.

18. It is apparent that in the furtherance of those grievances, the Complainant attended the CASA offices at 720 Bourke St Melbourne, at approximately 11:30 am on 6 February 2020. There are a number of different entrances to the Bourke St building. There is an entrance at street level in Bourke St itself. There are also entrances from the concourse area at the rear of the building at the southern end of the Bourke St footbridge.

19. The entry point for the levels of the building that CASA tenants is on level 2. Access to those floors is by elevator which is in turn restricted by security gates that require a “swipe” card for entry.

20. There is a reception area on level 2 which has a front desk located adjacent to the security gates. The records available indicate that the Complainant went to the reception desk and asked to speak with a particular CASA officer. It appears that he had not pre-arranged a meeting with that, or any other CASA employee. In response, the receptionist telephoned another CASA employee, discussions ensued between a number of other CASA employees, and it was resolved that Messrs Edwards and Richards would meet with the Complainant in the reception area with a view to assisting him with his enquiries.

21. According to the CASA meeting records, when Messrs Edwards and Richards met the Complainant, he began to ventilate his grievances about CASA to them. These grievances related to his aviation business. His allegations concerned the alleged actions of CASA in the performance of its regulatory role and how the impact of those actions had allegedly, negatively, impacted him and his family. There is nothing in any of the records considered in the course of this investigation that suggest that the Complainant had individual grievances with either Mr Edwards or Mr Richards.

22. The reports of the two officers suggest that the Complainant was in a deeply distressed emotional state. According to the records, he became angry and aggressive. The discussion with him is reported to have deteriorated to the point where the Complainant physically struck a nearby hand railing with his fist.

23. What relevantly occurred next, is in dispute. It is recorded by both CASA officers that the Complainant made physical contact with one of them (Mr Edwards). The fact and nature of this contact is the focus of this investigation and the discussion that follows.

Allegation of Physical Contact

glenb

22nd Nov 2023, 19:34

24. The Complainant alleges that Mr Edwards made a false allegation that he “assaulted” him.

25. He describes it in this way in an email complaint of 21 August 2023 to Mr Jonathan Hampton, the Industry Complaints Commissioner:

Dear Mr Hanton,

I am writing to follow up on the complaint that I made to the Office of the Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) regarding the completely false allegation made by Mr David Edwards a CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) based in the Melbourne Office that I had assaulted him in the foyer of the CASA Building on 6 February 2020.

As you are aware, the witness statements by the other CASA Officer in attendance, indicate that in fact Mr David Edwards was not assaulted by me, and that clearly supports my version of events, being the truthful one, and Mr Edwards claims, being malicious, false and misleading, a pattern that I have come to expect in my dealings with CASA.

I have requested that CASA confirm that they are aware that I did not assault any CASA Employees ever, and I have made the very reasonable request that the false statement be corrected by CASA on multiple occasions.

26. In simple terms the statement that he claims is false is that he (Mr Buckley) “approached me [Edwards], and shoved me [Edwards] in the chest”.1

27. He submits the following matters in support of his complaint2:

“FOI3 One's observations are different from FOI4 Two's observations, with FOI 2 claiming that I advanced toward him and shoved him, although FOI 1s statement contradicts that. • No statement was ever made regarding stalking or assault to Police that attended in response to a complaint of possible “trespassing” by me being in the foyer of the CASA building. That was the complaint made to the police, no allegations of stalking or assault were ever made.

· The alleged incident happened directly under a security camera, and my understanding is that CASA accessed that footage, and no evidence of physical assault was on that recording.

· CASA FOI Two was encouraged to document the assault with police by his Employer, and he did not follow that guidance. I believe he may have chosen not to pursue that path as he was aware that he had made a false and misleading statement and was not prepared to proceed for his own reasons.”

28. The following discussion examines these allegations in more detail, prefaced by a discussion of the central disputed question of fact ie whether there is a material discrepancy between the meeting accounts of the two officers.

The Two Records of the Meeting

29. Messrs Edwards and Richards separately completed and submitted a record of the meeting with the Complainant. The Complainant has not provided his own record of the meeting. It is not clear whether he contests other aspects of the meeting records of either of the two CASA officers. For the purposes of this investigation, the only aspects of the two written records that are under scrutiny are those that relate to the alleged physical contact by the Complainant on Mr Edwards.

Mr Richards’ Meeting Record

30. Mr Richards’ record is a brief but concise 639 words. Its brevity appears to reflect the brevity of the meeting itself, which was about 15-20 minutes.

31. The record took the form of an email which was submitted at 4.42pm on the same day of the meeting, that is, approx. 4 ½ hours after the events recorded (refer Attachment B). The timing of its submission indicates it is a contemporaneous record of the events it describes.

32. From the outset it must be noted that the Complaint proceeds on the footing that the written accounts of the two CASA officers are inconsistent and contradictory in terms of whether alleged physical contact with Mr Edwards occurred. In particular, the Complainant alleges that the account by Mr Richards states that he did not make any physical contact with Mr Edwards.

33. The record itself does not support this. It is simply not an accurate reflection of the plain wording of the entirety of the record. A plain reading of Mr Richards’ record shows the Complainant has not accurately represented the official record.

34. The relevant part of the record are paragraphs 2-3. Mr Richard states:

In listening to Mr Buckley’s outrage, he became physically angry, demanding action and slammed his fists down on the ramp balstrad (sic) and screaming. I asked him if he wanted to go for a walk, as he was causing concern to the general public in the concourse, - he aggressively then verbally attacked CTM Edwards and went to push CTM Edwards with a open hand – I immediately warned Mr Buckley that he could not physically touch a government official in such a away. He backed off but was still verbally aggressive (emphasis added)

35. In the next paragraph of his record, he states: As Mr Buckley was screaming and ranting, I stepped back and advised that I would be speaking with building security. I approached building security and advised them that Mr Buckley was making threats to CASA staff and had pushed a CASA staff member, I advised he was not welcome on these premises. (emphasis added)

36. When these two sequential paragraphs of Mr Richards’ record are read conjunctively, as forming a single continuing narrative, it is readily apparent that he is stating that the Complainant made physical contact with Mr Edwards. He describes the physical contact as a “push”. There is no other way to comprehend the text as it is written. There is no internal inconsistency in the record itself. Nor is there any apparent ambiguity.

37. As part of this investigation, Mr Richards was specifically asked to review his meeting record and asked a series of questions about his account of the physical contact he states the Complainant made with Mr Edwards. The questions asked and his corresponding responses are recorded at Attachment C. His responses are consistent with his contemporaneous record made on 6 February 2020.

38. In terms of the issue about the physical contact on Mr Edwards, this is what he said in his response:

As described in my record I intervened as Mr Buckley pushed CTM Edwards. My recollection from the record is I intervened as I saw him push CTM Edwards with a open hand – refer record ‘I immediately warned Mr Buckley that he could not physically touch a government official in such a way. (emphasis added)

39. This response indicates that Mr Richards affirms what he said in his record of the meeting with the Complainant on 6 February 2020. He states that he witnessed the Complainant make physical contact (a push) with Mr Edwards.

40. Mr Richards’ current testimony is consistent with his contemporaneous meeting record. He has not withdrawn or qualified the original record. He has, in fact, affirmed that he witnessed the Complainant push Mr Edwards. There is no reason on the evidence as presented, to doubt or challenge the veracity of his testimony.

Mr Edwards’ Meeting Record

41. Mr Edwards’ record is a brief but concise 831 words. Its brevity also reflects the apparent brevity of the meeting itself, in the order of 15-20 minutes.

42. The record took the form of an email which was submitted at 5.14pm on the same day of the meeting, that is, approx. 5 ½ hours after the events recorded, and about 30 minutes after Mr Richards submitted his. The timing of its submission indicates that it is a contemporaneous record of the events it describes.

43. The record speaks for itself and is reproduced at Attachment D. The relevant aspect is at paragraphs 10-11 which state:

During this outburst he slammed his hand onto the concourse railing multiple times. At this time he stated ‘If get my hands on Jason McHeyzer or Brad Lacy I’ll ……’ (tapering off and not completing the sentence).

His anger then shifted towards me, and he directed me to leave, and he would talk to Owen alone. I advised I would not be leaving Owen. He then approached me and shoved me in the chest. I then elected to step back and let Owen lead the conversation. (emphasis added)

44. As part of this investigation, Mr Edwards was asked to review his meeting record and asked a series of questions about his account of the physical contact he states the Complainant made on him. The questions asked and his corresponding responses are recorded at Attachment E. His responses are consistent with his contemporaneous record made on 6 February 2020.

45. As to the issue about the physical contact, when asked to describe it in more detail he stated in reply:

Shove with an open hand. Sufficient to require half a step back to check5 (emphasis added)

46. From this response, Mr Edwards has affirmed his record of the meeting with the Complainant on 6 February 2020 where he states the Complainant pushed him. He says that the push was of sufficient force that it caused him to move “half a step back”6. He has not withdrawn or qualified the original record. There is no reason on the evidence as presented, to doubt or challenge the veracity of his testimony.

47. The Complainant has made a number of gratuitous, ad hominem remarks about Mr Edwards in the Complaint. These include that he is mendacious, and his accounts of events are dishonest and actuated by malice. These are very serious allegations to make against a public official. The Complainant doesn’t provide any evidence in support of these allegations. Because they are bare assertions only, they have not been given any weight for the purposes of this investigation.

Are the Two Records of the Meeting Contradictory?

48. No. Messrs Edwards’ and Richards’ accounts both state that the Complainant made physical contact with Mr Edwards. Mr Richards states his colleague was “pushed” whilst Mr Edwards states he was “shoved”.

49. The words “push” is a synonym for “shove”. These two words have the same meaning. Neither of the two CASA officers use the word “assault” in describing the alleged physical contact. Both state that the contact was with an open hand. Mr Edwards has added that the contact was of sufficient force that it caused him to take (or be pushed) half a step backwards. Both clearly and unambiguously state that physical contact was made and do so in the same terms.

50. In summary, the meeting records do not contradict each other. Nor do the officers’ current recollections and testimony. In fact, they are entirely consistent with each other. Their present-day recollections do not vary from their contemporaneous meeting records. There is no evidence or allegations of fabrication of evidence or collusion between the two officers.

51. It is the recommendation of this investigation that there is no reason on the evidence as presented, to doubt or challenge the veracity of their testimony.

The Matters Advanced by the Complainant in Support of His Complaint

52. For completeness, there are four matters submitted by the Complainant in support of the Complaint (refer para 27 above). These are considered each in turn below.

(i) FOI One's observations are different from FOI Two's observations, with FOI 2 claiming that I advanced toward him and shoved him, although FOI 1s statement contradicts that.

53. As discussed above in some detail, this statement is not considered to be an accurate reflection of the two meeting records.

(ii) No statement was ever made regarding stalking or assault to Police that attended in response to a complaint of possible “trespassing” by me being in the foyer of the CASA building. That was the complaint made to the police, no allegations of stalking or assault were ever made.

54. The purport of this allegation is unclear. According to the meeting records, the CASA officers reported the conduct of the Complainant to the Police as it presented on the day. There was no allegation of assault or stalking by the CASA officers, which is conceivably why they made no such complaint to the police.

(iii) The alleged incident happened directly under a security camera, and my understanding is that CASA accessed that footage, and no evidence of physical assault was on that recording.

55. The two CASA officers have advised that they did not view any CCTV record of their meeting and do not know whether any recording existed. Mr Richards advised the investigator that he asked for a copy of the CCTV footage at the time of the incident but says that none was provided7. CASA has advised that there is no video record presently in existence.8 On this basis there is no available video record to assist in determining what occurred on the day in question. The Complainant states that it was his “understanding” that there was CCTV footage that had been viewed by CASA and that it did not show that any “assault” took place. There is no evidence of this. He has not provided the basis of this understanding/belief, nor has he provided any evidence to support it.

(iv) CASA FOI Two was encouraged to document the assault with police by his Employer, and he did not follow that guidance. I believe he may have chosen not to pursue that path as he was aware that he had made a false and misleading statement and was not prepared to proceed for his own reasons.

7 Response to Question 7, refer Attachment E

8 Email from Executive Manager Corporate Services Division Ms Crome to the Investigator Mr Sheil, 12 September 2023 which states “just wanted to share with you the advice I have received regarding potential video footage in relation to the matter you are looking into – unfortunately there is none available.”

56. The Complainant does not identify the basis of, or source for, this assertion/belief. Mr Edwards states that he was not encouraged or requested to make a formal complaint to the police. He was asked to complete a WHS form (presumably an incident report)9.

57. The Complainant’s assertion that Mr Edwards “was encouraged to document the assault with police by his Employer” is rejected by Mr Edwards.10 The Complainant’s speculation in the second part of this allegation is not supported by any evidence.

4. CONCLUSION

58. Based on the material considered in this investigation, and after considering additional statements provided by the officers involved, I recommend that you could conclude that the evidence supports a finding that, on the balance of probabilities:

• the written accounts of Messrs Edwards and Richards are consistent with each other and are not contradictory; and

• Mr Edwards’ meeting record was not false or misleading.

59. Submitted for your consideration.

Dom Sheil

Senior Reviewer

CPM Reviews

6 November 2023

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REPORT

Attachment A

Reproduction of the written complaints by the Complainant relevant to this investigation, consolidated into a single document and referred to in this report as “the Complaint”

Attachment B

Mr Richards’ record of the meeting with the Complainant on 6 February 2020

Attachment C

Email Questions and Answers with Mr Richards, 9 October 2023

Attachment D

Mr Edwards’ record of the meeting with the Complainant on 6 February 2020

Attachment E

Email Questions and Answers with Mr Edwards, 6 October 2023

Squawk7700

22nd Nov 2023, 23:03

As I said many posts back, it sounds like they did you a favour by not reporting the allegations to the Police / or the Police choosing not to go ahead with it. It’s not always the best outcome for both parties to have charges laid, especially when you were in such an upset state. It feels like they took your behaviour into consideration and took a mutually beneficial path.

Lead Balloon

22nd Nov 2023, 23:27

Yes, a great outcome: Someone's guilty of assault without being found guilty of assault by a court.

Squawk7700

23rd Nov 2023, 03:14

Yes, a great outcome: Someone's guilty of assault without being found guilty of assault by a court.

Is that not what they call in the court “guilty with no conviction” ?

Lead Balloon

23rd Nov 2023, 06:00

Is that not what they call in the court “guilty with no conviction” ?
Before a court discharges someone without conviction, the court first finds that the elements of the offence were proved to the requisite standard.

No court has found Glen committed any offence to the requisite standard. The only people who consider him guilty are those who have an opinion that's interesting but not authoritatively conclusive.

LAME2

17th Dec 2023, 01:34

Wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas Glen. My hope is that 2024 brings this saga to an acceptable end for you and your family. Enjoy your family time and a cold beer.

glenb

19th Dec 2023, 18:38

Cheers, very much appreciate the gesture (and the timely bump). A 5 year saga that will obviously continue well into next year i suggest. Refer following post. all the best to everyome on here that has, and continues to support me. Cheers to Sandy, i received your message and will get back to you over the next couple of days. Cheers all, safe trip home at the end of day and throughout the festive season, cheers.

glenb

19th Dec 2023, 18:40

Dear Glen

Thank you for your emails of 11, 15 and 17 October and 1 November 2023. I appreciate you taking the time to set out in detail your response to the action points arising from our meeting on 3 October 2023 to discuss the outcome of the Ombudsman’s review.

As we discussed at the outset of our meeting, we stand by our commitment to accept and support the Ombudsman’s findings. While the Ombudsman made no recommendations that would lead to any change of our legal decisions, it found the manner in which we went about communicating and engaging with APTA around a significant change application to add additional temporary bases to its approvals was unfair and not in accordance with our Regulatory Philosophy. We remain committed to accepting the Ombudsman’s conclusions, and that is the context that informs my advice below.

I can confirm that consistent with the undertaking I gave you, I have discussed Flight Operations Inspector XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX, his observations from his time in the Melbourne office as part of the Certificate Management Team that had responsibility for oversight of your operations, as well as his view on the prevalence of APTA-like arrangements in the flight training sector of the industry. There is nothing that Nishi said that would change what we discussed with you in October. In particular, it appears that the scale and complexity of the APTA model created significant implementation issues. Bearing in mind that complexity and scale, I am comfortable that the advice CASA provided the Ombudsman prior was accurate. In summary, that advice was that ‘CASA may have been aware of other operators using the types of arrangements being proposed and had taken a more permissive attitude than the relevant law allowed’ and that ‘it appears in hindsight that the relationship between Bairnsdale and LVAC bore similarities to the arrangement proposed between Bairnsdale and APTA.’

I have been advised by CASA’s Freedom of Information team that two agreements between APTA and LVAC (one undated, and the other dated 26 November 2019) were released to you on 24 August 2023.

You have indicated that you intend to approach the Ombudsman’s office with new evidence. On confirmation from you that this has been submitted, I remain willing to contact the Ombudsman and request it review the new information you have provided.

CASA’s position remains that APTA’s exposition alone was insufficient for it to demonstrate operational control over its affiliates. As CASA advised the Ombudsman: CASA may be satisfied that the fundamental operational requirements specified in CASR 141.060 are met by (a) ensuring that relevant arrangements are clearly set out in the contract or agreement; and (b) ensuring that relevant provisions in the contract are not operationally inconsistent with those arrangements. While the arrangements proposed by APTA for its Part 141 operations were unconventional, they are common in AOC operations. APTA held an AOC given it conducted flying training operations under CASR Part 142. There is no legislation that expressly requires AOC holders to provide CASA with copies of contracts where it arranges for some operational functions to be undertaken by a third party. However, the contracts provide the best evidence for CASA to consider whether it can be satisfied that key operational requirements being carried out by the third party are in place and comply with the relevant regulations. In the case of an AOC, CASA may require an applicant for an AOC to provide CASA with documents—including contracts— that are reasonably required by CASA to properly consider an application. Where an AOC is not involved (for instance, CASR Part 141 certificates), a corresponding requirement is contained in Civil Aviation Safety Regulation 11.040.

While CASA remains committed to supporting any Act of Grace payment application you elect to pursue, it is a process that you must initiate with the Department of Finance (rather than CASA). Only after an application has been made can your ability to access the Act of Grace mechanism be conclusively determined by the Department of Finance. As I indicated in my email to you, if it would assist, we can follow up with the Department of Finance and get back to you with any guidance they can provide around submitting an application.

With respect to our without prejudice and ex gratia basis offer to revisit the offer we made in 2020 in response to a Concerns Notice received following Mr McHeyzer’s email to APTA’s new owner, it is a matter for you whether you wish to obtain legal representation. CASA does not require you to do so. Based on the advice we have received, the maximum offer we are able to make you is $20,000. We have no basis by which we could offer more than this amount, meaning it is CASA’s best and final offer. If you wish to accept $20,000 please let me know and I will have the necessary documents prepared for your review.

Thanks

Pip

mcoates

19th Dec 2023, 21:13

If you wish to accept $20,000 please let me know and I will have the necessary documents prepared for your review.

they are kidding - right ?

OZBUSDRIVER

19th Dec 2023, 22:02

Add another three zeros to that and this will be closer to the truth and pain and suffering caused.

Chronic Snoozer

19th Dec 2023, 22:12

Must be a typo. CASA known for it.

Flaming galah

19th Dec 2023, 22:23

Add another three zeros to that and this will be closer to the truth and pain and suffering caused.

CASA undoubtedly sucks. But in post 2873 there is context to this ‘offer’:

“Any compensation would relate only to Mr McHeyzer’s 27 August 2019 email and would be wholly separate from any the Act of Grace process.”

So this is only about one small part of Glen’s plight with CASA.

Global Aviator

19th Dec 2023, 23:57

GOFUNDME and lawyers now!

10JQKA

20th Dec 2023, 08:53

Reading the Bonza thread on the other forum with CASA approving them using Flair Canadian acft/crew/maintenance and perplexed that that is ok but Glen's things weren't.

Bend alot

7th Jan 2024, 11:00

I hope this is your year Glen - I had a beer for you (and a few of your ancestors) over this festive season.

We are still with you Mate.

glenb

14th Jan 2024, 19:32

Draft removed, finlaised and sent copy in Post # 2915

Global Aviator

14th Jan 2024, 21:38

Glen, honestly mate why not just get the best lawyers in the country, get the GoFundMe fired up. I’ll defo throw more $$$ into it.

The more I read the more I understand you, it’s personal, you want to beat them on your own terms and get what is rightly yours. I get it I’m the same tenacious prick.

However there also comes a time when ya gotta let dogs out.

I’m sure everyone on these pages would love to see your full legal assault on the institution. Individuals in an organisation destroyed you (yes I’m living vicariously through you as 20 years ago I had my own issues but was not wise enough to know what to do, now it would be different).

I have no doubt through your tenacity and detail that you will eventually win, but at what cost? Plus prob another 5+ years.

The pathetic action of grace offer even fired me up!

LAME2

14th Jan 2024, 21:56

I’m with Global Aviator. Hunt down, someone will have a recommendation they can PM you, a decent law firm that understands your plight. Get the ball rolling, it’s been too long.

glenb

15th Jan 2024, 19:24

Post #2912 was a draft, which i have now removed, and finalised and the sent copy is below. Only the most minor of changes to the drafty that was in # 291216/01/24

· Commonwealth Ombudsman Reference- 2019-713834

· My Reference- PPRUNE # 2915

To the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman Office conducted a 5-year investigation into matter 2019-713834 involving action by CASA that led to the closure of my business with associated significant harm caused

Presumably, at 5 years duration it is one of the lengthiest and most comprehensive investigations ever undertaken by the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.

As the person whose family has been significantly impacted by this matter, it is concerning that after five years, the Ombudsman Office remains unable to resolve the simplest of issues, and the misunderstandings within the Ombudsman’s Office are highly evident.

Those misunderstandings impact substantially on me and my family.

In the latter part of the investigation, once I became aware that significant misunderstandings had developed within the Ombudsman Office, I made multiple requests/pleas to completely withdraw my complaint. You will have those requests on record.

The Ombudsman Office made its own decision to continue with the investigation despite those formal requests by me to fully withdraw my complaint.

Those misunderstandings within the Ombudsman Office that initially raised my concerns, have compounded, and as I had anticipated, they impact my ability to pursue justice and finalise this matter.

Having reviewed the Robodebt Report and most particularly regarding the comments and recommendations that apply to the Ombudsman Office, I have no doubt that there are systemic issues within the Ombudsman Office, and those very same issues have impacted on my matter.

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

If the Ombudsman Office will not withdraw the findings, it is essential that where there are gross technical misunderstandings within the Ombudsman Office, that they are acknowledged and publicly corrected, and most especially, because they are so easily corrected, and the impact of those misunderstandings is significant.

Brief summation of the investigation.

The investigation was based around the CASA action that led to the closure of my business of more than a decade, the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA) and my flying school, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT)

The closure was forced by a new and unique requirement that was imposed on me and my business only, by a single CASA Employee. That requirement was not and has never been placed on any other Organisations that operated in an identical structure to me and my business.

I was in effect “targeted” by that single CASA Employee. I am fully satisfied that his decision making was intended to bring harm to me personally, based on existing acrimony between him within CASA, and myself.

That new and unique requirement imposed on my business only, being the requirement that all Personnel operating under my CASA issued Part 141 and part 142 Flying Training Approval must now also be directly employed by the same Company that holds that Approval. I was not permitted to utilise personnel that were employed by another Entity, even in cases where I owned the ‘other’ Entity.

I cannot overemphasize how bizarre and damaging both commercially and reputationally this new and targeted interpretation was.

This application of this new and unique requirement was applied only to my Organisation. It is not a legislative requirement, in fact quite the opposite. The legislation clearly and for obvious reasons does permit a Flying School to utilise personnel that are not Employees of the same Company that holds the CASA issued approval. It always has, and it always will, and that is exactly how the Part 141 and part 142 legislation is written. In fact, the Part 142 legislation is referred to as the “contracted training legislation”.

Not only was this new and unique requirement that was placed on me, not supported in any way, by any legislation, it completely contravenes precedent set by CASA during the previous 25 years of my involvement in the industry in its dealings with all other Operators, with the notable sole exception of mine.

CASA applied that interpretation to my business only and continues to permit all other operators to operate in the same structure that I was not permitted to operate with.

The matter in its entirety is truly outrageous. Unfortunately, during the five-year investigation the Ombudsman Office was also completely unable to clarify whether the structure that I adopted was “new and unusual” or if in fact it was commonplace throughout the industry, and continues to be, only after a CASA approval process.

A truly staggering inability to arrive at clear determinations on the most basic and fundamental facts, and particularly where there is readily available irrefutable evidence to make a determination.

I note that in correspondence from the Ombudsman the use of the terminology, “CASA advised….”, indicating that supporting evidence was not required, and CASA assertions were accepted at face value, even in situations they were clearly controversial.

At this stage, I am not seeking any comment against the “background” information provided above, as that is not the purpose of this correspondence. It is provided merely as background information.

I have included my Local MP, Carina Garland in this correspondence, and the information above will ensure that she remains fully briefed on this matter, as she has been throughout.

Minister King has specifically directed my Local MP, Carina Garland not to assist me with this matter, and that direction by a Government Minister further heightens my concerns.

As a constituent of the Electorate of Chisholm, and with concerns as to why the Minister responsible for CASA would direct an MP not to assist a Constituent in such a significant matter, I have included other recipients in this correspondence.

I seek to clarify a simple single issue that is critical to this matter. A matter that the Ombudsman office has been unable to clarify throughout the five years. A matter that I have made multiple requests of the Ombudsman Office to address, yet the Office seems resistant to address this simple to resolve, but critical matter.

My reasonable assumption is that the Ombudsman office is affording the Agency a level of “protection” that is more than the public should reasonably expect of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office.

Many of the findings from the Robodebt investigation are relevant to my matter and particularly the recommendation that a statutory obligation be placed on Government employees to use their best endeavours in assisting an Ombudsman investigation.

In my own matter that has been the subject of a five-year investigation, I am fully satisfied that a senior executive within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has repeatedly and deliberately provided false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.

The Robodebt investigation also identified that despite the Ombudsman Office having significant power to look behind the assertions being made by the Government Department, there was a tendency to not use those powers, and to accept assertions made by the Agency at face value, without the requirement to call on evidence in support of those assertions.

This was very much my experience with the Ombudsman office and to be perfectly frank, I felt that at times there was very little appetite to arrive at the truth, and an aversion to seeking evidence where it was readily available, and that leads me to the purpose of this correspondence.

I feel that the significance of this request may be somewhat lost on the Ombudsman office, nevertheless this request is critical to this matter in its entirety, and I believe that I am fully entitled to have this significant misunderstanding fully and clearly resolved, to allow me to progress this matter.

Throughout the five-year investigation my position was that there was only ever one flying school. That being APTA, the flying school that I owned and operated. That flying school was a Registered Training Organisation and a CASA approved flying school holding both categories of flight training i.e. both a Part 141 Approval and a Part 142 Approval.

There were no other ‘flying schools” involved in this matter.

The Ombudsman Office in correspondence has obviously formed the opinion that there are multiple flying schools, when in fact there is only one flying school and that being APTA. In correspondence received from the Ombudsman office it mentions the other Entities approvals and authorisations, as though they held a flying school approval, when in fact there were none.

This is a significant misunderstanding within the Ombudsman’s office. Whether it is based on false and misleading information, or whether it is based on significant but wildly inaccurate assumptions within the Ombudsman Office, I do not know, and that determination is best left to the Ombudsman office.

The purpose of this correspondence is not to find out how the inaccuracy developed but the purpose of this correspondence is to have it clearly, concisely and finally fully resolved, so that there can be no misunderstanding.

The Ombudsman office accepted that there were multiple flying schools each with their own Authorisations, and the Ombudsman refers to those other Entities training ability and the other Entities CASA issued Authorisations and Approvals.

A gross technical error on behalf of the Ombudsman, because quite simply. There are none.

Of the Entities involved in this matter only APTA was a flying school. Only APTA held Approvals or flying school Authorisations to deliver Flight Training. There were no others. There was only one flying school, only one CASA issued Part 141/142 Approval. There was only APTAs legislative required Key Personnel, only APTAs Approval, only APTAs Authorisation, only APTA courses and syllabi, only APTAs Registered Training Organisation, only APTAs Safety department, only APTA had the qualified personnel, only APTA had all aircraft inducted into its system there were only APTa policies, procedures and safety systems etc etc etc

Those other “Entities” were no more a flying school, than you as the reader of this correspondence, are a flying school. It is a “black and white matter”, and there should be no confusion. With all due respect to them, they literally would be unwilling and totally unable to operate a flying school, as CASA well knows.

If the Ombudsman Office is of the opinion that there were other Approvals and Authorisations in order for any of the other entities to operate as a flying school, and I maintain that in fact there were no other approvals or Authorisations, I call on the Ombudsman Office to nominate those Approvals held.

An entirely reasonable request, as I am sure you will concur.

The only holder of any approvals or Authorisations was APTA alone with CASA ARN 759217 and a CASA issued Part 141 and 142 .

It is not and should not be a matter that causes any confusion whatsoever within the Ombudsman Office.

The Entities that were not flying schools and who approached me to deliver flight training under my CASA issued Part 141/142 flying training approval at their respective airports, were not ‘flying schools. The Entities that approached me to deliver flying training on their behalf were”

· Melbourne Flight Training

· Learn to Fly

· AVIA

· AV8

· Latrobe Valley aeroclub

· Whitestar aviation

· Simjet

· Ballarat Aero Club

· ARC Aviation

I should point out at this stage that I have already made an FOI request of CASA, and received the required information. I know the clear and correct answer and cannot comprehend how so many of these “misunderstandings” developed in this investigation. If the Ombudsman remains unable to address this issue, please advise me and I will provide you with my FOI response that brings clarity to this matter, although my hope is that the Ombudsman can initiate their own well-intentioned process rather than rely on me.

From my own experience the Ombudsman office demonstrated a resistance to seeking evidence where evidence was readily available. This occurred frequently on matters where a request for evidence would bring clarity to a matter which in turn could potentially cause harm to the Government Agency.

There were no active Part 141 or Part 142 Authorisations, for any of those Organisations. I have put far too much time in trying to correct information that CASA feeds to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman accepts at face value.

For complete clarity. These Entities approached me to deliver flight training because they couldn’t deliver flying training. If they could deliver flying training, they would be a flying school in their own right,, and therefore a business competitor to APTA

None of these Entities were a Flying School. None could deliver flight training because they did not have a CASA Part 141 or 142 Approval. Each of those Entities was no more a flying school than you, as the reader, and as CASA well knows.

As CASA only issues those Part 141/142 Approvals after a lengthy and complex process, CASA would be fully aware that there is only one flying school involved in this matter. Please be assured that the confusion exists only within the Ombudsman Office on this fundamental matter.

For an entity to become a Flying School it’s a complicated, costly, and burdensome process. The school would have to make an application to CASA in order to be approved.

There are a number of ways that the Ombudsman office could almost immediately fully resolve this matter, as it requires any one of these very simple questions.

If CASA, or the Ombudsman asserts that there were any other Flight Training Organisations with any active approvals then , CASA would be able to immediately provide:

· The Aviation Reference Number (ARN) for the Organisation, and the associated active Part 141 or 142 Approvals

· The flying school would have a CASA issued certificate to verify those active Authorisations and Approvals.

· The flying school would have the CASA mandated Key Personnel for the Flying School i.e. Chief Flying instructor/ Head of Operations. Safety Manager, CASA approved CEO, and CASA would be able to name those Key personnel.

· They would be required to have a CASA Approved Operations Manual/ Exposition that CASA would hold on file, containing procedures, syllabi, safety management etc.

· They would have aircraft inducted into that flying school, and CASA would hold that information on record.

· CASA would hold on file, emails indicating some level of communications, oversight, and engagement with those Entities, as would be expected if they were a flying school.

For CASA to lead the Ombudsman to believe, and for the Ombudsman Office to believe and accept that each of these Entities was a flying school that could deliver flight training is incredulous, it really is.

If The Ombudsman has accepted that these Entities were a flying school, at any time with their own Approvals and Authorisations, it seems entirely reasonable that I call on the Ombudsman to identify which of those Entities held either a Part 141 or 142 Approval.

If I am grossly mistaken and any of those Entities were a “flying school” with an active 141 or 142 CASA approved active Flying School, and able to deliver flight training then I have been grossly mistaken.

I would have a gross misunderstanding of this entire matter, I would be mistaken, and I would have inadvertently but substantially provided the Ombudsman Office with grossly inaccurate information throughout this matter, although not with bad intent. The information that I have provided would clearly be false and misleading.

You will appreciate that it is very important going forward to have this clearly and concisely clarified.

Thankyou in anticipation of clearly confirming the position of the Ombudsman’s office as to how many Entities were approved to deliver Part 141/142 training.

Was there only one, that being APTA, or were there multiple Flying Schools.

I welcome any contact by any means including telephone, if you wish to clarify any aspects of this request.

Respectfully
Glen Buckley

Sandy Reith

15th Jan 2024, 19:53

Waiting for the independent bodies of CASA or an Ombudsman to admit error and correct same is expecting the whole of the Public Sector to renounce its power, pre-eminence and the great salaries that are part and parcel of the Canberra bureaucratic juggernaut.

The unjustified and forlorn hopefulness that all of governments ills can be solved by the creation of independent (monopoly) Commonwealth corporations or commissions is very evident after years of this experimenting away from Ministerial and Departmental responsibility. The latter is about democratic accountability and the link between government and citizens.

Former Victorian Premier Henry Bolte was correct about the Ombudsman concept, “it will take away from the duties of Members of Parliament.”

Glen has piled on the pressure but without very strong political backing the courts are surely the only viable option. And that political change can be caused by court action because of the publicity it can engender.

Slippery_Pete

15th Jan 2024, 20:47

Waiting for the independent bodies of CASA or an Ombudsman to admit error and correct same is expecting the whole of the Public Sector to renounce its power, pre-eminence and the great salaries that are part and parcel of the Canberra bureaucratic juggernaut.

Correct.

They say the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.

The more I read the more I understand you, it’s personal, you want to beat them on your own terms

That’s what this whole saga boils down to. There’s gofundme plus legal action available here, but the problem is Glen wants to be seen to have been right.

Until pride gets shelved, this train wreck of long letters demanding justice followed by government departments ducking and weaving and hiding behind each other will inevitably continue.

Sandy Reith

15th Jan 2024, 23:46

Quote Slippery Pete:- “..but the problem is Glen wants to be seen to have been right.

Until pride gets shelved, this train wreck of long letters demanding justice…”

With respect I think this has elements that we might agree but I think an over simplification. The whole saga is not a problem of Glen’s making and all his efforts are fighting for the rights of us all. He is absolutely right to pursue CASA in his own manner and our support should be unwavering. And it’s easy to say take them to court but that is a daunting task for anyone and brings with it a lot of stress due to the uncertainties, hard work and great expenses.
.

Global Aviator

16th Jan 2024, 00:52

Sandy,

I agree but you can remove the ‘expense’ from that statement. From the support I see here and how quickly the first crowdfunding went, I don’t think it would take long to build up the coffers.

Completely unrelated but Aussie Pilots finally seem to have had enough, I’m referring to the fantastic work the Network Aviation guys are doing.

Until CASA have to answer in court Glen will constantly be on the back foot. Glen I think what you have done is fantastic, meticulous and on point. However you go to the doc when ya sick, ya go to a lawyer when well ya need lawerying!

We are behind you.

glenb

22nd Feb 2024, 19:29

Draft removed and posted #2925 and #2926

glenb

22nd Feb 2024, 19:31

Draft Correspondence removed and reposted #2925 and #2926

Sandy Reith

22nd Feb 2024, 20:59

Glen, I’m sure there’s loads of us glad to see you on the march again and this time talking about legal action.

I also think that waiting again for MPs to help will not achieve the goal of justice for you and your family. You have given all of them ample opportunity over and over again. We all see that a fair deal for you is sorely lacking and that glaring blot on the operations of CASA needs to be expunged.

Those of us that have contributed to your legal fighting fund will certainly be very gratified if and when you decide that this is your only recourse that has a likelihood of success. Unfortunately as the years roll on inflation is taking its toll, but still if you start a legal action I believe your fund will be turbo charged.

glenb

25th Feb 2024, 18:44

26/02/24

Ombudsman reference 2019-713834

My reference Pprune #2923

To the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.

On 16/01/24 I wrote to the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office regarding gross technical errors that had developed within the Ombudsman investigation, and impact on my family’s ability to pursue this matter.

It seems entirely reasonable that where gross misunderstandings have developed within the Ombudsman Office, that the Ombudsman Office would be compelled to address those issues and publicly correct those errors where they have developed.

I am firmly of the belief that these misunderstandings may have developed based on false and misleading information provided to the Ombudsman investigation.

I understand that the Ombudsman Office is firmly of the view that they have not been misled, although surprisingly in correspondence I received under FOI, it is immediately obvious that in fact the Ombudsman Office has previously identified that CASA had been somewhat obstructing the process and providing information that may have hindered any investigation rather than assist the investigation with CASAs best endeavours and truthfulness.

That correspondence was sent to you on 16/01/24, and almost 6 weeks later remains unacknowledged.

To be frank, I am of the view that the Ombudsman is fully aware of these gross technical errors, but has chosen to afford the Agency, being CASA, a higher level of “protection” than the public would expect of the Ombudsman’s Office.

The purpose of the correspondence was to correct a fundamental error, of which there are many.

The Ombudsman correspondence received by me indicates that there was more than one flying school, when that is incorrect. This is not a matter of contention, and CASA will be able to promptly clarify that for your Office.

If the Ombudsman maintains that there was more than one flying school which there most clearly was not, and I bought the error to the attention of the Office, it is concerning that the Ombudsman Office would be reluctant to address this fact.

I have very clearly expressed my preference that the Ombudsman withdraw the report in its entirety.

As you are aware, I made multiple requests of your Office to have the matter completely withdrawn, once I became aware that these errors had developed, based on false and misleading information.

Despite my request, the Ombudsman Office elected to proceed with the examination.

If the Ombudsman refuses to withdraw the report, then it seems entirely reasonable that the Ombudsman address those errors, rather than afford the Agency the level of protection that it has to date.

For clarity, there were no other flying schools. There was only ever one CASA approved flying school, and that error by the Ombudsman is easily corrected.

An Approval for an Entity to deliver flying training is referred to as a Part 141 or Part 142 School.

The purpose of the correspondence 6 weeks ago was to correct this gross misunderstanding and ask that the Ombudsman identify which Entities held a Part 141 or Part 142 Approval.

CASA issues these Approvals after a very complex, lengthy, and expensive process, and there can be no doubt that it is very clear to CASA which Entities hold a Part 141 or Part 142 Approval.

I am concerned because this matter could be completely clarified with a single telephone call, and it concerns me that after 6 weeks, I have not heard back from the Ombudsman Office.

The purpose of this correspondence is to follow up on that correspondence that I sent to your Office over 6 weeks ago. I know my Father has also been pursuing information from the Ombudsman Office and after 6 months he is still pursuing that matter.

The Ombudsman Office has obviously struggled with this matter in its entirety, and some statements made by that Office leave me in no doubt that there is a significant level of confusion within the Office, which has led to gross technical errors.

My request was quite simple and straight forward, I asked the Ombudsman Office to identify if there were any other flying schools or any other Entity apart from mine, holding the required CASA Approvals.

The Ombudsman Office has demonstrated that it accepts CASA Statements at face value and does not pursue evidence when it is clearly and readily available.

In order to operate as a Part 141 or 142 Flight Training Organisation, that Entity would require.

· A CASA approved Exposition.

· It would have Key personnel, such as a CASA approved Head of operations, safety Manager, and a CASA approved CEO.

· A CASA issued certificate.

· Correspondence between that Organisation and CASA on operational matters etc

The point being that these are black and white matters. The only CASA approved school was APTA, there were no others. When the ombudsman refers to the other Organisations approvals and Authorisations that is quite astounding, as there are none.

This entire investigation has limped along for over 5 years, and the entire process has been mentally exhausting, and pushed me to the very limit.

I am therefore calling on the Ombudsman to respond in a timely manner, and with good intent rather than frustrate processes.

Can the Ombudsman Office please clarify and correct its error and confirm to me that they are fully aware that there was only one Authorisation, that being APTAs, and that no other Entity was a flying school and therefore obviously could not operate a flying school.

Thankyou for your prompt attention to this matter. Could I request that the Ombudsman Office outline the procedure for me to have technical errors addressed.

Respectfully.
Glen Buckley

Global Aviator

25th Feb 2024, 23:06

Glen,

You are building great background for the litigator that will take this through and help you.

You need to find that person now, work out who you are chasing and go hard.

You are noble in your attempts to see common sense, however you are fighting a government. Go hard and go now mate.

glenb

26th Feb 2024, 19:19

27/02/24

Dear Dr. Carina Garland MP for the Electorate of Chisholm,

My name is Glen Buckley, a lifelong resident of the Electorate of Chisholm.

You will be fully conversant with my matter.

· CASA Senior Executives being involved in the deliberately providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation with the intention to affect the outcome of an investigation.

· An allegation of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Affairs.

I attended your Office at 4PM on 26/02/24 to submit correspondence to your Office on this matter.

A Member of your staff attended to me. I introduced myself and requested that I receive a signed acknowledgement of that submission.

Your staff member was initially willing to oblige and requested the nature of the submission.

I explained that it was of a sensitive nature, and I provided the briefest of overviews.

The staff member appreciated that it was of a substantive nature and consulted with a colleague.

I was advised that your Office would not accept the document.

I explained that I was not expecting them to ‘accept” the document as necessarily true and correct, but I am requesting that they retain the copy from an affected lifelong resident of the Electorate.

They steadfastly refused.

Up until this stage I had made no recording but advised that I would film myself leaving the document, as I did.

At this stage the staff moved to the rear of the office to be out of my view.

I made repeated requests simply to submit the document to my Local MP.

As I was not being attended to, I left the office, On my exit, I left a copy of that document at your front door, and my quite reasonable expectation is that your staff retrieved that document.

I am sending an original copy of the document to you below.

I look forward to your considered response.

For the record. At all times I remained respectful towards your staff, and I am sure that they will concur that at no stage did they feel threatened or unsafe. The only occasion that I was compelled to raise my voice, was when your staff moved out of my eyesight, but at no stage was I agitated. I did not dwell unnecessarily within your lobby for any longer than required, and I left the area once I realised that you would not accept that document. I did try to re-enter the Office to leave that copy, but the door was locked. I tried to call the office to advise them, but they hung up the phone on me.

Overall, a very concerning experience from a constituent who has been impacted, and is simply seeking the assistance of their Local MP.

If your staff believe that they felt unsafe at any time, or if my conduct was not professional and respectful, I ask that you bring that to my immediate attention.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

The correspondence submitted yesterday follows, and as you refuse to meet with me or accept any documentation from me, you have compelled me to reach out to Independent MPs of other Electorates, although I will ensure you remain fully up to date and will include your Office in such correspondence.

· Original Copy presented to the Office of Carina Garland, MP Chisholm on 26/02/24.

· Email sent to Carina Garland MP Chisholm, and other listed recipients 27/02/24.

26/02/2023

Dear Dr. Carina Garland MP for the Electorate of Chisholm.

Other pertinent recipients:

Member MP

· Mr Adam Bandt MP

· Mr Stephen Bates MP

· Mr Max Chandler-Mather MP

· Mr Russell Broadbent MP

· Ms. Kate Chaney MP

· Ms. Zoe Daniel MP

· Hon Andrew Gee

· Dr Helen Haines MP

· Ms. Dai Le MP

· Dr. Monique Ryan MP

· Dr Sophie Scamps MP

· Ms. Allegra Spender MP

· Ms. Zali Steggall OAM MP

· Ms. Kylea Tink MP

· Mr. Andrew Wilkie MP

· Senator David Pocock

· Senator Lidia Thorpe

· Senator David Van

· Senator Pauline Hanson

· Senator Jacqui Lambie

· Senator Nick McKim

· Senator David Willmer

· Senator Janet Rice

· Senator Malcolm Roberts

· Senator Tammy Tyrell

· Senator David van

· Senator Larissa Waters

· Senator Peter Whish-Wilson

My name is Glen Buckley, a 59-year resident of the Electorate of Chisholm. An Electorate that four generations of my family have lived in.

As my Local MP, Ms Garland you have an expert knowledge of my matter, as I have kept you fully updated since you won the Seat of Chisholm at the last election. I have also met with you, as has my wife, and on more than one occasion. I have kept you constantly updated by email since those meetings.

I have previously extended multiple invitations to continue to make myself fully available to meet with you at your local Electorate Office in Chisholm, or in your Canberra Office, as best suits you, at any time you feel you require an update. It is crucial that you remain fully informed, as you have been to date, and that you can in turn, ensure Minister King remains fully informed, as presumably Minister King has been to date.

I acknowledge that the CASA Board is also required to keep Minister King informed and I make that assumption based on CASAs own Statement of Intent, where it states:

“CASA will promptly alert Minister King and the Secretary of the Department of any event or issue that may materially impact CASAs operations. CASA will also advise Minister King of any submissions, major media releases or speeches and other information which the Government is accountable to the Parliament.”

My allegations are substantive. If I was found to be making these statements in a vindictive or vexatious manner, I fully understand that I would potentially be subject to criminal, and/or civil action.

As you are fully aware my allegations of

· Providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation, by senior members of the CASA Executive and

· Misfeasance in public office against CASAs second most senior, and the longest serving member of the CASA Executive Management, Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Manager for Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs,

are allegations that are substantial and no doubt the CASA Board would be compelled to ensure the Minister is fully briefed.

My intention is to attract media attention to this matter and that should further compel you to ensure that you remain fully conversant with the matter as you are and ensure that relevant persons are kept fully up to date. I have included some media outlets in this email. I have taken this action because the actions of your Office leave me with concerns that there is an attempt to cover up this matter.

These allegations of misconduct cannot continue to be “swept under the carpet”, and I have a reasonable expectation that Minister King is aware that those two allegations exist and has been kept fully informed by the CASA Board, and by your Office. This is a matter that I will continue to pursue, with widespread support of the General Aviation Industry.

You will be aware of two Pilot forums being Aunty Pru and Pprune. The latter has had over 1.000.000 views and thousands of comments. I understand that the Aunty Pru site also regularly updates your office on mine and other aviation matters.

For that reason, and as a lifelong resident of your Electorate, may I request of you as a Constituent, that your Office ensure that Minister King is aware of, and has been provided a copy of this correspondence by your Office.

My previous correspondence to Minister King on these allegations has not been responded to by her Office, therefore I am seeking a confirmation specifically from your Office, that Minister King is personally aware and has considered this correspondence. I do not require any response from Minister King at this stage, other than confirmation from your Office that it has been provided to her and bought personally to her attention, as the Minister responsible for CASA.

If for any reason your Office is unwilling and/or unable to facilitate that request, could you please clearly advise me of such.

I recently received further documents obtained under Freedom of Information (FOI), and those documents leave me in no doubt at all that CASA has provided false and misleading information to that Commonwealth Ombudsman Investigation.

The provision of false and misleading information has been provided by Dr Jonathan Aleck the CASA Executive Manager of Legal International and Regulatory Affairs and I have increasing concerns that false and misleading information may have also been provided by the Office of the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC), although the heavily redacted nature of the documents makes that difficult to confirm at this stage.

If the Office of the CASA ICC has not provided false and misleading information, that Office has as a minimum, facilitated the provision of false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation, and had an awareness that false and misleading information was being provided.

Recent documentation obtained by me under FOI, has raised concerns that the CEO of CASA has also been complicit in the provision of false and misleading information. specifically with regards to how long I had been operating in the CASA approved structure that I was operating with.

On this specific point regarding the involvement of the CASA CEO, and her knowledge of the provision of false and misleading information, I will address that topic after receiving further documentation under FOI. A specific allegation against the CEO of CASA is not the purpose of this correspondence but will be addressed at the appropriate time, and as always, you will be provided with a copy of that correspondence.

I acknowledge that the Ombudsman Office will maintain the position that CASA has not provided false and misleading information.

The point of false and misleading information is, that it is not recognised as false and misleading information. The task of the provider of false and misleading information is made easier if the recipient requires a low threshold of evidence or chooses not to seek evidence when it is readily available.

This low threshold of evidence also highlights again deficiencies within the Ombudsman Office that reaffirm the same findings as the Robodebt Inquiry, and these are significant matters, that cannot continue to be ignored i.e. accepting information at “face value” rather than seeking supporting evidence when it is clearly available.

Of perhaps more concern is the Ombudsman’s Office considered avoidance to seek evidence that may bring harm to the Government Agency, even when that evidence is abundant and readily available.

Under FOI in have obtained heavily redacted documents although if I may quote from correspondence between the Ombudsman and the CEO of CASA where the Ombudsman Office has scratched the surface at least of identifying that CASA is not being as forthcoming as they are obligated to be, and I quote from that correspondence where the Ombudsman Office states.

“while CASA has not denied its knowledge of Mr Buckleys arrangements for APTA, we feel it has been reluctant to acknowledge the extent of its knowledge of the model to the Office, including that other Operators may have been using a similar model……had CASA been more forthcoming in acknowledging to the Office the more permissive stance it seemed to have taken in allowing Operators to share their Authorisations prior to October 2018, it would have allowed the Office a better understanding of the situation.”

Whilst the Ombudsman Office appears to have almost let that slip by with a rather “wet lettuce” approach which is concerning, it does further indicate that Mr Jonathan Aleck, his direct senior being the CASA CEO, and the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner have let things “slip” through to the Ombudsman that perhaps were not truthful.

In fact, this presents one of my major challenges and another reason that I am reaching out to make a final request for your assistance.

If the Ombudsman has identified that CASA Employees have apparently misled or as the Ombudsman politely puts it, been ‘reluctant”, and “not forthcoming” in providing information to the Ombudsman Office, it is likely that behaviour would be replicated in a Court of Law, therefore preventing me from seeking justice.

CASA would be obligated, as it is, to conduct itself as a model litigant. I should not need to prove things to be true that the CASA CEO, The CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner and the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs know to be true.

As you are aware, I have past CASA Employees from senior positions within CASA that have approached me, and offered to come forward and expose this matter, simply by “telling the truth”. It is significant. The matter attends to serious misconduct at the highest levels within CASA, and potentially to the Office of the CEO.

It also potentially involves your Office and the Office of Minister King, although the purpose of this correspondence is not to formally make those allegations at this stage, and I await your response, and an upcoming FOI request before I proceed.

For the record I must state that I made two ex CASA employees available to meet with you. “Witnesses’ who would both be Australia’s most qualified ex CASA Employees to address this matter and bring almost immediate truth and clarity to this matter. Both your Office and the Ombudsman are unwilling to accept that offer. You will appreciate my concern that “other forces are at play” here.

I am now seeking the appropriate forum, to initially introduce at least those two past CASA Employee’s to assist in exposing this matter. Please be assured that I have access to a significant number of past CASA employees, that have offered to make themselves available. Not for the purposes of causing mischief, but to try and bring about improvement and good governance to CASA. These are significant matters, that cannot continue to be covered up.

I will use this opportunity to provide a brief chronology regarding your involvement as my Local MP and the Member for Chisholm to date.

· Prior to the last Election, I met you, and you gave me your personal assurance, if you were to win the Seat of Chisholm from the Liberal incumbent that you would assist me and my family in my allegation of “misfeasance in public office” against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory affairs, and the allegation that CASA was “providing false and misleading information” to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation

· Based on your assurances, in the lead up to the election, I was very active with the assistance of members of the Electorate of Chisholm. I distributed many thousands of leaflets in the Electorate calling for a change of representation to yourself. It was not a Liberal/Labor argument, but rather I was calling for a move towards integrity in Government, and at the time, I felt the Labor Party, and you personally, best represented that. A decision that I obviously regret now,

· You went on to win the Seat of Chisholm on 21/05/22.

· Over the next 6 months I made multiple requests of your Office asking you to meet the commitment that you gave me prior to the Election and meet with my family. Those multiple requests went unanswered by your Office.

· On 16/11/22, after multiple requests and visits to your Office over the 6 months trying to secure an appointment with you, I finally obtained a meeting with you, and at that meeting occurred on 16/11/22, you led my wife and I to believe that you would actively investigate this matter and help us as residents of your Electorate.

· I waited 4 months, without hearing anything at all from you. It became apparent that my matter was not high on your agenda, and presumably you had more important matters to attend to. I sent a follow up email to ascertain if there had been any developments with regards to your offer to assist me in my most serious of allegations of misfeasance in public office and providing false and misleading information to an Ombudsman investigation.

· On 28/03/.23, I received correspondence from your Office which simply and dismissively read.

“Hi Glen, Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. As agreed, we have raised your case directly with Minister Kings Office and they have advised that we are unable to assist further with this matter. I’m sorry we don’t have better news.”

That dismissive response from you as my MP was heart breaking. You were well aware of the impact that this matter had on three generations of my family, all residents of your Electorate, as well as businesses and employees that were dependent on me. You were aware that my wife and I had lost absolutely everything including our family home

Eventually after the enormous toll that Mr Alecks actions and decisions had on me and my family, I fell into a deep depression, made an attempt on my own life, very shortly after receiving your dismissive correspondence and ended up in a psychiatric hospital.

The impact of Mr Alecks actions and decisions was targeted, it was personal, and it was entirely unnecessary. Entirely.

You were aware that I was firmly of the view that Mr Jonathan Aleck had acted with targeted malice towards me, and caused significant harm, you were aware of the substantive nature of my allegations,

Whilst I don’t believe that my 6 decades in the Electorate entitles me to any higher level of assistance than any other Constituent. My family believes we were entitled to at least your best endeavours, which we clearly feel have not been met, and I am forced to question your willingness and ability to assist your Constituents, in matters that they are entitled to your assistance with.

As a Constituent of your Electorate, you have completely failed me, and my family, and to be frank, I question your genuine commitment to your constituents, and your reversal of position leads me to question your integrity.

I am compelled to move forward on this matter because it involves misconduct at the highest levels within the Executive Management of CASA. A most significant and important Government Department. I am not the only one raising allegations against Mr Jonathan Aleck, but as with mine, all attempts are generally covered up by CASA.

I continue to make myself available to meet with you face to face and update you on any aspects to ensure you can remain fully abreast of this matter.

I know that a person with some exposure to the world of politics, Mr Sandy Reith wrote to you encouraging you to personally make yourself aware of the “salient features of this case”, and a copy of that correspondence that was sent to you follows.

“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”

The point of mentioning that correspondence is that it reinforces the fact that you that you have received correspondence on this matter from a third Party, and my hope is that you heeded that advice rather than facilitate a cover up of the matter, and that you have ensured you are fully aware of the “salient features” of this case.

Whilst I do not wish to be unnecessarily combative it is essential that I remain upfront, avoid blindsiding anyone, and ensure that there are clear expectations going forward.

Whilst I do appreciate that as a new MP, your capabilities will be somewhat limited, and I think your Offices response to me, is indicative of that, but I do have a reasonable expectation that you will act with integrity and work with your best endeavours to support Constituents of the Electorate of Chisholm, and most especially because of the very marginal nature of that Seat, and the significant harm caused to one of your Constituents,

My specific requests of your Office, and you personally as my Labor MP for the Chisholm Electorate, and as a Member of the Labor Party, therefore purportedly highly motivated to achieve the highest standards of ethics and integrity, are as follows.

glenb

26th Feb 2024, 19:19

Request One for a response from my MP, Dr. Carina Garland-

Why was the matter not fully resolved in a matter of hours, for what reason was it still unresolved after 8 months.

I maintain that this entire issue with CASA could have been fully resolved in less than 4 hours, if CASA employee, Mr Jonathan Aleck had intended for that to be so.

I am simply seeking an explanation as to why that did not occur.

There is no doubt that Mr Aleck deliberately frustrated resolution of the issue unnecessarily and there is an overwhelming body of evidence to support that. That evidence was obtained by me under FOI.

This matter in its entirety is about “intent’”, and very specifically about the “intent” of Mr Aleck.

The CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs deliberately placed crippling trading restrictions on my business that caused enormous commercial and reputational harm. He was not compelled to make those decisions.

Less harmful, safer, and more effective actions and decisions were available to him. He clearly did not follow CASAs own stipulated procedures when taking that action, and at no stage did I have any appeal process available to me.

His actions and decisions were based on existing acrimony between us.

Why couldn’t it be resolved on the spot in one meeting that would last less than 4 hours? A truthful answer to that will promptly bring this entire matter to a head,

As you are aware, with no prior notification CASA placed crippling trading restrictions on my business that cost me and my family more than $10,000 per week initially, and as the months increased that figure rose to approximately $20,000 per week. These remained in place for 8 months until CASA determined that the Business would not be permitted to continue operating in the structure it had adopted for the previous decade. Importantly, Mr Aleck targeted my business specifically, and not others.

All personnel operating under the CASA issued Authorisation now had to Employees of the same Company that held the CASA Authorisation. A most bizarre and unique requirement that has never been placed on any other person’s business, in the aviation industry ever. There is absolutely no legislation that suggests this requirement.

The CASA CEO, the Executive Manager of Legal, international and Regulatory services is fully aware of that, as is the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner.

The result of having these trading restrictions being imposed for a staggering 8 months with no resolution caused significant commercial and reputational harm, not only to me and my family, but also to other Businesses, Employees, Suppliers, Customers and Students.

I am fully satisfied that a Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Services deliberately prolonged resolution of a solution, to bring harm to me and my business, based on existing acrimony between us.

The only “issue” was that CASA wanted to change a paragraph or two in my commercial agreements with my customers. A most bizarre requirement, as CASA never previously had involvement in the commercial aspects of business and focussed on safety and compliance. Nevertheless, I was willing to comply. It was simply a process of retyping some new terminology based on clear and concise guidance on Mr alecks personal requirements.

This entire matter could have been fully resolved within 4 hours at any time before CASA took the action that it did. I believe that Mr Jonathan Aleck placed targeted requirements on me, and me only, and deliberately prolonged resolution of what was a matter that could have been easily resolved and that is in effect the crux of the matter. It is really a matter of “intent: and a powerful employee of CASA using his power to cause commercial and reputational harm to me personally, which in turn, significantly impacted on my health and welfare. It was targeted and it was directed specifically at me. There must be an explanation as to why this simple matter could not be resolved in a matter of a few hours. Considering all the totally unnecessary harm caused, surely my family and I are entitled to that explanation. If CASA is unwilling or unable to address that matter, it is a reasonable request of my MP that they seek that for me.

An explanation provided to you by Ms Spence, the CASA CEO, and understood by you, will help me to understand Mr Alecks actions and decisions. It is imperative that the explanation is signed off by the CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence because it is CASAs explanation that I am seeking.

I am however asking that you also satisfy yourself with that explanation if it is forthcoming.

I believe it is highly unlikely that Ms Spence will be able to provide a plausible explanation, as to why a well-intentioned meeting of less than 4 hours could not have had this entire matter finalised to CASAs full satisfaction.

If a plausible explanation could be offered, then that may provide a defence/explanation for Mr Alecks actions and decisions, and it would provide him the opportunity to explain his position and why he felt compelled to make those actions and decisions.

If CASA could provide a plausible explanation, then that would compel me to stop making these public allegations about Mr Aleck, and even potentially provide him some recourse.

Assuming that Mr Aleck has nothing to hide, he would welcome an investigation into his conduct.

My very strong preference is that this is a matter for the Australian Federal Police, or a similar investigative agent or appointee who is not in the employ of CASA. They are the most serious of allegations. Mr aleck is entitled to that process, as, and I have no doubt that he would encourage it.

The Ombudsman office is not the Body to deal with the matter. Issues addressed in the Robodebt Inquiry continue to plague that Body, and its investigative ability is ineffective.

If you feel for some reason that you are not presently equipped to respond to my correspondence, which would concern me, can I actively encourage you to formulate your Offices response, and draw on CASA or the Ombudsman as you require, but ultimately what I am seeking from my Local MP is an explanation as to why so much harm was caused to him and his family, when it was so completely and easily avoidable, and I am asking that my MP obtain that for me, because CASA refuse to address this key issue.

I assume that you would be able to address that issue, as that has been the central theme of my position. i.e., that Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs took actions and made decisions that he was not compelled to make, and that he chose the more harmful option when a significantly less harmful option, more effective and safer option was available to him was fully available to him by way of a single well intentioned meeting.

I feel that I need to be perfectly frank here. I believe that you as my Local MP have acted against the interests of one of your Constituents, and therefore your explanation is crucial in determining how I proceed.

On this matter, and because of the harm caused, and so completely unnecessarily, and that there is no reason that this entire matter could have been fully resolved in a matter of a few hours, and it is an allegation of misconduct at the very highest levels of CASA, I must continue to pursue this matter.

Before doing so, I need to fully satisfy myself that I have exhausted all other options available to me, including seeking the assistance of my Local MP, Dr Carina Garland. It is essential that if this matter gets to Court, I can clearly demonstrate that I have made all reasonable attempts including attempting to have my parliamentary representative take up my case.

If you as my Local MP could provide a plain English explanation in writing as to why this matter could not be resolved in a matter of hours then it would confirm to me that you have considered this matter and that the stance you have adopted i.e. refusing to assist a Constituent in his allegations of misconduct against emplyees of CASA,is a considered one.

My question to you is this.

Ms Garland, as my Local MP for the Electorate of Chisholm, and as somebody who has had his and his family’s life completely decimated by the actions and decisions of Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive manager of legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.

As the impacted individual who is fully satisfied that this entire matter could have been completely avoided, and so easily.

Could you please provide me an explanation to why this entire matter could not be fully resolved in a matter of hours, what was so complicated?

Request Two of my MP Dr. Carina Garland of Minister Kings “involvement”

I came to you personally with a substantive allegation of misconduct by at least one senior CASA Employee being Mr Jonathan Aleck, and potentially two other CASA employees.

Once I became aware that false and misleading information was being provided to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation by CASA, I approached your office, seeking your assistance, which you initially offered and then later reneged on.

Your change of position from one of offering to assist me, to a position of not being able to assist me, was because of a direction by Minister King, being the Minister responsible for CASA, the Organisation that is being investigated, as per the email above from your Office.

You will understand why I would be concerned that Minister Kings Office may be involved in a “cover up” of misconduct, or at least frustrating processes.

A constituent who has obviously had his life impacted by the matter approaches their MP for assistance, alleging that false and misleading information is being provided to an Ombudsman investigation.

The MP initiates the matter and contacts the Minister responsible for the Agency being investigated.

The Minister responsible for the Agency under investigation then directs that Local MP that the MP is unable to assist the Constituent and provides no further explanation.

I hope you can appreciate that I would perceive that there is potentially a cover up of this matter and it extends to both your office and the Ministers Office.

At our meeting I believe that I provided you with sufficient evidence of misconduct. On the balance of probabilities, with the information that you held, any reasonable person would have been suspicious that there may potentially be an element of misconduct, and you would have had an awareness that on the balance of probabilities, CASA had possibly provided false and misleading information.

If you were unable to determine who was telling the truth you would most certainly have been aware that there are two completely different narratives, and only one of those narratives can be the truthful one.

The point being that if you are aware that there are two completely different narratives being provided on matters that are black and white with a significant body of evidence readily available indicating that one is truthful and one is not, then by choosing not to pursue that matter it indicates a concerning level of apathy, if I was to use the most polite and respectful word that applies in such a situation.

A Constituent of your Electorate of Chisholm has had he and his family’s livelihood, business, mental health and life’s savings devastated by the actions and decisions of a single CASA employee, it is a simple request, that if ethics have prevailed in this matter, should be able to be clearly and concisely responded to.

I am seeking an explanation as to why you would be directed by the Minister, not to assist me with my allegations.

The very purpose of our system of Government is that our local Representative uses their best endeavours to assist and represent their Constituents.

I am concerned that Minister King would send you a direction that you cannot assist a constituent of your Electorate, and that causes me significant concern. Whilst I am not making an allegation specifically of an attempted “cover up’ of this matter, at this stage, I am fully satisfied that I am entitled to a “statement of reasons” as the person impacted as to why a Minister would send that direction to a Local MP seeking to pursue justice in a matter that has so obviously caused so much harm and trauma to a constituent of the Electorate of Chisholm.

To clarify this matter and ensure clear expectations regarding my second request

Part A, of this request. Could I respectfully request you confirm that Minister Kings position is unchanged, and that is, that her Office has directed you not to assist me in this matter, and therefore I need to approach other appropriate MPs and/or Senators that I have listed above and included in this correspondence.

Part B, If Minister King maintains the position that you are not able to render assistance to a family that lives within the electorate, could your Office please provide me with an explanation as to why you are unable to render that assistance. I would provide Minister Kings response to those other MPs and Senators to form part of their consideration as to whether they can render assistance to me and my family, and I feel that my family are entitled to that explanation.

Request Three- The identical structure was and continues to be permitted by CASA

CASA maintains that they never permitted the structure that I adopted in my business. I truthfully maintained that multiple organisations adopted that identical structure and that they continue to do so. There can only be one truthful answer. Either CASA always permitted it, and continues to do so 5 years later, or CASA never permitted it.

For clarity, I maintain that CASA always permitted and formally approved the exact same structure that I also utilised after a comprehensive CASA process, and I had been doing so for a decade. It was, and is common-place throughout the industry only after a CASA approval

For complete clarity on this matter. CASA always, and most significantly, continues to, permit Operators to adopt the structure that I adopted.

CASA has led the Ombudsman to form the view that the structure that I adopted was “new and unusual”.

I truthfully maintain that I had been operating in that same structure for a decade, with the only changes being those of “continuous improvement” programs or keeping fully up to date with all legislative changes.

Importantly many flight training operators in Australia adopted that same structure.

To you as my MP, I put this third request to you.

If I claim that I operated in the same structure for a decade, and that I adopted a structure that was completely normal throughout the flight training industry and continues to be.

And if CASAs position is that is not the case, CASA never permitted it

CASA steadfastly refuses to respond to my requests. I’m simply asking that you consult with CASA, and obtain a response to these questions.

Fourth request

I am making a formal request to you as my MP that you arrange a meeting between CASA and myself, and I would like you to attend that meeting.

I only ask that a Board Member of CASA also participate in that meeting, in an Observer status.

I would like Ms. Spence or her nominee to attend that meeting.

If you are unwilling or unable to facilitate that meeting, I will make that same request of the other listed MPs and Senators.

I invite you to bring any person you feel may add value to the meeting, and ideally that could be a Member of the AFP or some other nominee, independent of CASA and with some expertise in investigative matters and misconduct.

I would like you to attend that meeting to provide you the opportunity to bring yourself completely up to speed on this matter and ensure full transparency. A meeting of that nature will reduce timelines by many months and avoid the “ping pong” that is so often associated with these matters, as I have experienced to date.

In that Forum, I would raise my allegations, provide evidence, and provide phone access to two past CASA Employees from the most senior of positions, and high levels of expertise in this area.

At the conclusion of that meeting, I would seek your advice on the best path forward.

If no other options are available, I would seek a robust legal assessment of this matter utilising the funds from the Crowd Funding that the industry organised for me.

For that reason, I have also provided a copy of this correspondence to the Law institute of Victoria, asking them to provide me with some guidance on this matter. I am fully satrisfied that Senior Members of the CASA Executive have acted unlawfully and demonstrated misconduct. That misconduct is considered and deliberate.

The reasonable expectation of the Community, and particularly considering the Department that they are employed by, and the Senior positions that they hold is that an investigation would be conducted in short time frames, so as to minimise the impact on CASA and

Going forward.

As the Labor Party is the Party of “ethics”, my hope is that Minister King will change her position and permit you to assist me as a lifelong constituent of your Electorate, and with your best endeavours.

If, however, the Minister continues to direct you not to assist me in this matter, I will be compelled to continue pursuing this matter. I am not the first person to raise these allegations against Mr Jonathan Aleck, and many have offered to come forward and support my allegations.

Three generations of my family have been residents of the electorate. My intention is to commence a petition within the Electorate of Chisholm.

I will seek the signatures of 2000 constituents of your Electorate being the Seat of Chisholm. I have been an active member of the Community and believe that I can have significant “reach” within the Electorate. I am satisfied that I can promptly obtain 2000 signatures from within the Electorate of Chisholm.

A copy of that petition will be provided to you and distributed to those above listed Independent MPs and Senators and the constituents of their respective Electorates calling on that Representative to temporarily divert some of their resources from a matter that initially may not seem to affect that Electorate.

This is however significant matter of national interest, and aviation safety. My allegation is one of corruption within CASA.

That petition will be addressed to the listed Recipients, calling on them for assistance in this matter.

My preference being very clearly that my local MP pursue this matter with their best endeavours, but if they refuse to do so, you will appreciate that I am compelled to pursue other avenues.

Thank you for consideration of this matter. I apologise for the lengthy nature of the correspondence, but these are substantial matters, and they need to be comprehensively considered.

I look forward to a response earliest opportunity.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley and his family

(four generations of Chisholm constituents)

glenb

26th Feb 2024, 19:44

Sitting here in Pancake Parlor, shortly heading off to work.

Thanks again to all for your support.

Please be assured that I am now completely and fully satisfied that there is no "good intent" at all within CASA on this matter.

I have not been naive, but i did need to fully satisfy myself and provide every reasonable opportunity for ethics, good governance, leadership and most importantly "good intent" to prevail.

This matter now has ceased in all interactions with CASA.

When I left the meeting with the Chair of the Board and the CASA CEO, and was on the flight back to Melbourne, my wife what my thoughts were on the individuals that we met with.

My response to my wife was "Ms Spence is a political animal." (note: it was not intended literally, but figuratively). The solution does not lie with Ms Spence. She knows how to operate in the political environment. The solution completely lies withe the Board Chair"

Like most, I consider myself a good judge of character. On that assessment of Ms. Spence, i stand by it.

I am extremely disappointed in the Board Chair. I need to depart for work but I will return to this topic tonight hopefully.

This matter has no direct CASA involvement. It is now purely a political matter, and for a brief period of time that will be my direction. That direction will be relatively short term, but that hand will be forced.

If required litigation will be my only option, although in the lead up to the election, i will remain active within the electorate. Very active.

PiperCameron

26th Feb 2024, 22:47

Glen, I'm sure your intentions are pure but maybe you underestimate the extent of the rot in current Australian politics? It would appear Ms Spence is hardly the only "political animal" in this saga.

I happen to also be a resident of Chisholm and once worked in an office next door to Anna Burke - which was an eye-opening experience. In my experience Ms Garland, her entourage, associates and most of the pollies on your list are, unfortunately, only interested in feathering their nests for their own gain and representation of their constituents is the furtherest thing from their power-addled minds. If they aren't right now, they haven't been in parliament long enough!

If, as you suspect, your saga has turned political, you'll need to find someone willing to take on your cause - for their own political gain if necessary. Not an easy road, but hang in there!! :ok:

Sandy Reith

27th Feb 2024, 01:30

A legal challenge would concentrate minds and gain the publicity that might feed into political attention. This would then be a two pronged campaign.
And in case the discussions fall back to ‘its all the greedy politicians fault,’ just remember that most people are disconnected with their MPs, probably most wouldn’t even know their names. In a democracy the people are just as much part of government as the various elected reps and officialdom.

missy

27th Feb 2024, 04:01

You went to the electoral office without a witness. Odd.

Why don't you sent the document via registered mail?

Did you sent it to all the Victorian Senators?

glenb

27th Feb 2024, 04:32

Regarding attending the office without a witness, I wasn't really too concerned. My assumption was that such an office would have high quality recording devices operating or at least activated as required. I had absolutely nothing to hide, so wasn't too concerned.

I have emailed a copy to the Office of ms garland and received an acknowledgement of receipt

Tomorrow mornings task is distributing it. Cheers. Glen

glenb

28th Feb 2024, 22:57

28/02/24

Dear Carina Garland, MP for the Chisholm Electorate.

My name is Glen Buckley, a lifelong resident of the Electorate of Chisholm. I appreciate that you are fully aware of my matter.

I do acknowledge that Minister King has directed you not to assist me in this matter, and from my personal experience as one of your Constituents in Chisholm, your adherence to the Ministers direction has been resolute. You have been a “loyal soldier”, I will say that. I am confident the Minister is aware of it and acknowledge it

Unfortunately, that comes at the expense of ethics and obligations, but “loyal: nevertheless.

A quality that no doubt will serve you well in your career.

This correspondence is directed to the Attorney General's Department, and I am seeking your assistance.

· I am requesting that your Office ensure that this correspondence is promptly forwarded through to the appropriate and responsible person within the Attorney General's Department for consideration, and advice on the action I should now take.

· I am requesting that your Office ensure that this correspondence is provided to Minister King and that she is fully aware of the contents of this correspondence.

· I am also requesting that you provide a copy of this correspondence to the Department of the Prime Minister. While I am not asking that the PM be made aware of this matter. I do expect that the correspondence has been received by his Office and a decision maker has assessed whether there needs to be an awareness of this matter with the PM.

If because of that direction by Minister King, not to assist me, or you are unwilling or unable to facilitate that distribution request could you please advise me, and I will seek alternative means to establish contact on this significant matter with those relevant persons. At this stage I am solely dependent on your assistance, I have not made any other attempts to reach those recipients by other means.

I believe that my request as a resident is a fair and reasonable request of you as my Member of Parliament for the Electorate of Chisholm, despite that direction from Minister King not to assist me.

I require no other assistance from your Office at this stage, apart from the confirmation that you distributed the correspondence to

· Attorney general

· Minister King

· Department of the PM

Respectfully Glen Buckley

____________________________________________________________ _____________________________

28/02/2024

To Office of the Attorney General-

I have asked my Local MP for the Electorate of Chisholm, Dr Carina Garland to ensure that this correspondence is received by the appropriate person within the Office of the AG, of these substantive allegations.

My name is Glen Buckley, I operated a flight training organisation for over a decade with bases at various locations across Australia. I operated a business model that was completely standard industry practice, although in October 2018 CASA reversed its Approval, advised I was subject to prosecution, and placed crippling trading restrictions on my business only, and not others.

A more detailed explanation is not required now as it is not crucial to the purpose of this correspondence.

The matter was the subject of a five-year investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.

I need to ensure that I achieve absolute clarity on the allegation that I am making in this correspondence. The following CASA Employees,

· Ms Pip Spence the CEO of CASA

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

· Mr Jonathan Hanton- CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner. (ICC)

Have each been directly responsible for, or been complicit in, the provision of false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation. The provision of that false and misleading information was deliberate and was intended to influence the outcome of that investigation and cover up an allegation of misfeasance in public office by Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International Regulatory Affairs

I am a resident of the Electorate of Chisholm, and my MP is Carina Garland.

Dr. Carina Garland has written to my family advising that the Minister responsible for CASA, Minister King has advised that my MP, Dr Carina Garland is not permitted to assist me in this matter, and she has advised me of such. To say that the conduct of my Local MP, Dr, Carina Garland has been suboptimal would be an understatement.

I am fully satisfied that there is an attempted cover up of this matter, and I feel it essential to bring it promptly to the office of the Attorney General’s Office being the office responsible for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, being the Department that is relevant to these allegations.

I encourage the office of the AG to reach out directly to Ms Spence, the CASA CEO, to seek assurances from her that she is confident that she can refute these substantive allegations, and that CASA has not provided false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation. Obviously, that must be the AGs first step. i.e. to confirm the CASA CEOs resoluteness as to the truthfulness of information provided by herself and her Executive team.

I wish to proceed with this matter. These allegations are substantive. I have substantial supporting evidence, and I have sought professional involvement in the formulation of documentation that attends directly to my allegations of Misfeasance in Public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of legal, International and Regulatory Affairs That will be provided in due course.

In this correspondence, I am going to provide you with two sets of “Descriptors”.

One set of ‘descriptors”, is the clear truth and can be supported with an overwhelming body of evidence, including very senior ex CASA Employees. the other is false and misleading.

I am calling on you to present these two sets of descriptors to the investigating officer from within the Ombudsman’s Office

If the Ombudsman has formed the view that the “Group A descriptors” are the more accurate set of descriptors for the structure that I adopted in my Business, then I am fully satisfied that the Ombudsman has been misled by those individuals and must insist that this matter be pursued.

Group A Descriptors.

· A “new” organisational structure was adopted by Glen Buckley

· An “unusual” organisational structure was adopted by Glen Buckley

· A “structure” that CASA had not dealt with before was adopted by Glen Buckley

Or,

Group B Descriptors

· Glen Buckley adopted a well “established” structure that had been completely standard industry practice for most medium to larger flying schools and approved by CASA on hundreds of occasions over many decades, as it was with his Organisation until October 2018.

· For over a decade Glen Buckley had adopted “completely normal” organisational structure that was commonplace throughout the industry but only after a formal CASA process. It fully complied with all legislation.

· Glen Buckley adopted an organisational structure that was, and importantly continues to be, a completely standard and CASA approved structure. This structure had been accepted and approved by CASA on literally hundreds of occasions over previous decades and continues to be.

This approach facilitates a prompt and efficient means by which an initial assessment can be made. It could effectively be determined of a single phone call between the two Agencies.

If the Ombudsman Office has formed the view that the Descriptors in “A” are more of an accurate representation of the situation, then I am fully satisfied that the named senior CASA Executives have deliberately provided misleading information to the Ombudsman Office, and they have successfully perverted or influenced that investigation.

This rather simplified initial approach will promptly verify the two diverse representations and leave no doubt at all that one Party is providing false and misleading information. This approach requires no technical background or understanding and is intended to very clearly and concisely identify that there are two very opposite “versions”. Somebody is being deceptive and should be held to account for that deceptiveness. In information obtained by me under FOI, the Ombudsman has clearly identified a tendency within CASA to be somewhat less than forthcoming, as would be expected when trying to cover up misconduct.

This really is a black and white matter that would be immediately resolved with a single phone call to someone with expertise on this matter within CASA. That person would have to be someone other than the three named individuals who have clearly and undeniably demonstrated a propensity to provide false and misleading information. Alternatively, I can make half a dozen ex CASA employees almost immediately available to you.

It is not a matter that should be unresolved after 5 years. The only way that this could remain unresolved is that the Ombudsman office is either unable to resolve this basic fact or is unwilling to resolve this basic fact.

I point out that throughout the five-year investigation the two narratives provided by myself, and CASA were so opposed to each other. It would have been immediately obvious at the onset of the investigation that one party was providing false and misleading information.

Turning a blind eye only encourages the continuation of such conduct. The Robodebt Inquiry identified these deficiencies within the Ombudsman Office, they continue, and must be addressed. i.e. accepting the Agencies “word” rather than seeking “evidence’

That is at least the starting point of an initial consideration. My intention is to follow up with shorter correspondence on several topics. In that correspondence you will simply need to ask the Ombudsman which of the descriptors more accurately represent the view that the Ombudsman has formed.

It is staggering that after 5 years the Ombudsman wrote to me advising that they were still unable to make a determination on this issue. A staggering inability. On one hand you have Glen Buckley advising that the structure I used was commonplace throughout the industry, and CASA advising that was not the case and they had never permitted it.

My allegation of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs would depend very much on me being able to demonstrate that I was targeted by Mr Aleck.

An indicator of being targeted would be if Mr Aleck specifically targeted me. I appreciate the “convenience” that comes with the Ombudsman being unable to decide as to whether the structure I adopted was new and unusual, or if was completely standard CASA approved practice for over 30 years. With most medium to larger schools adopting the same structure.

It is however such a staggering inability, that one is compelled to consider that by avoiding a determination on this matter, a level of “protection” is being afforded to Mr Aleck that the public would not reasonably expect from the Ombudsman’s Office.

I also make the point that I have made Australia’s two leading Subject matter experts available to bring almost immediate clarity to this matter. Those two individuals are both ex-CASA Employees from the most senior of positions, who have offered to come forward and tell the truth on this matter.

The refusal by the Ombudsman to accept that offer only reinforces my view that Mr Aleck is being “protected”, and that the Ombudsman is pursuing the more “convenient” path.

I must make note at this stage that the Ombudsman Office has not sought evidence in situations where evidence is available and could potentially have brought harm to the agency and I will attend specifically to those allegations in similar manner in separate correspondence at a later stage. I have put signific work into this document and intend to have it finalised within 30 days.

For your further consideration, and considering that I had operated that Business with the same structure for over decade and Ms Spence claims that the structure was “new” or “unusual” which it most certainly was not, then Ms Spence should be able to clearly identify.

Specifically

1. What was it specifically that was “new” about the structure I adopted for over a decade?

2. What was it specifically that was “unusual” about the structure that I adopted for over a decade?

3. What date was it specifically that something changed in the structure after 2006,that made it become either “new” or unusual”?

These are three questions that CASA resolutely attends to, despite my best efforts.

The purpose of this correspondence is to request that the AG has established contact with the Ombudsman Office to identify if the named individuals have led the Ombudsman Office to form the view that the Group A descriptors are a more accurate representation from their investigation than the Group B descriptors.

“New” and “unusual” are both “descriptors” used by Ms Spence in correspondence with the Ombudsman Office, that I obtained under FOI, and those descriptors are false and have been used to mislead.

My business model was not new or unusual. It had existed for over a decade with the identical structure. That was a structure that was completely standard industry practice and continues to be to this day. I was targeted by Mr Aleck based on existing acrimony between us.

I appreciate the substantive native of that allegation i.e. misfeasance in public office but I absolutely stand by it, and I am fully prepared to be held fully accountable if it was found that my allegations were vindictive or vexatious.

Ms Spence, the CASA CEO should be able to clearly identify specifically what it is that was “new” about my business structure. I am totally unaware of what it was that was “new”. A failure to specifically identify what was new with reference to legislation or supporting evidence, must surely raise doubts ads to the integrity of Ms. Spence. CASA steadfastly refuses to identify this to me, despite my requests. I am using the word “new” because under FOI I have identified that Ms Spence uses and accepts that terminology in correspondence with the Ombudsman office The terminology “new” is clearly false and misleading.

Ms Spence should be able to identify the specific change to my business structure and the date of that change. What was the change that suddenly made my business become “unusual” and leave me subject to prosecution? I am concerned that CASA refuses to identify this to me. In correspondence obtained by me under FOI, Ms Spence uses and accepts the terminology “unusual” for something that is not at all “unusual” and is in fact completely normal standard industry practice with CASA approval on every occasion. Ms Spence should clearly be able to identify the specific feature that made my Organisation “unusual”.

Any inability or reluctance to directly respond to those questions will clearly demonstrate the lack of “good intent”. They are the very basis that CASA used to force the closure of my business.

Thank you for your consideration of what is a most substantive allegation. If three CASA Executives were found to have provided false and misleading information to an Ombudsman investigation, it is a substantive matter, potentially with impacts on the safety of aviation.

Thankyou in anticipation of your careful consideration of these allegations. I hope that they will be considered with an approach of a better and safer aviation industry and that the AG Office has the willingness and ability to confront this matter.

If I can leave one final thought, should this matter proceed to litigation which appears to be CASAs preferred course of action. CASA will be compelled to act as a model litigant. One of those obligations upon CASA as a model litigant is that I should not be required to prove something that CASA already know to be true.

You will understand the difficulty that I have in proceeding with this matter if CASA chooses to mislead an Ombudsman investigation and is successful in that, it prevents me from seeking justice as it is likely that pattern would continue.

I am providing the link to a presentation I made on this matter to the Senate on 20/11/20 where I directly raised allegations of misfeasance in public office against Mr Aleck. The other named individuals departed CASA shortly after.

Senate Rural Regional Affairs & Transport Committee GA Inquiry - Mr Glen Buckley - YouTube

I also attach a link to Pprune being a discrete pilots forum. The link will take you to the front page, my topic Glen Buckley and small business V CASA can be promptly identified. You will note that there are well over 1,000,000 views and thousands of comments almost entirely supportive. A staggering level of support from industry on such a discrete forum.

https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/

I have also attached a link to the GoFund Me page that was established to support me. I have placed a pause on this pending the outcome of my current attempts to bring ethics and integrity to this matter. The “comments” attached to donations are revealing.

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

I eagerly anticipate advise from the AG on how to proceed with this matter.

If I may leave the AG with one final consideration in support of my allegation of misfeasance in public office. Ms Spence should be able to provide a plausible answer as to why this matter could not have been fully resolved by a single meeting of less thah 4 hours. Why did it drag out for over 8 months with no resolution, and crippling trading restrictions in place for 8 months with the matter no further to resolution.

I have attached two articles from the Australian flying magazine that provide a good initial read. These are titled APTA before CASA action and APTA after CASA action

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

glenb

28th Feb 2024, 23:48

A copy of the previous post has been sent to all Federal Greens MPs this morning, with this brief covering letter.

To Members of Parliament for the Greens,

":My name is Glen Buckley a Constituent of the Electorate of Chisholm.

I have approached my MP for Chishiolm being Dr. Carina Garland, and her Office has advised that Minister King has directed her not to assist me in this matter. Her conduct leaves me in no doubt that there is an attempt to suppress my allegations, and that extends through to the Office of Minister King.

At this stage, I am not seeking any specific support or action from the Greens, but I do want to ensure that there is at least an awareness of this matter amongst Green and independent representatives.

Thankyou for accepting my correspondence. Respectfully Glen Buckley

glenb

29th Feb 2024, 19:16

I have distributed the correspondence to all Independent MPs with this brief covering letter.

My name is Glen buckley, and I am a Constituent of Chisholm. My Local MP is Dr.Carina Garland of the ALP.

I am writing to each Independent Parliamentary Representative raising awareness of my substantive allegations of misconduct within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Those allegations are raised specifically against the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs. Mr Jonathan Aleck.

This has been a subject of a 5 year investigation by the Ombudsman Office. Recently I have obtained information under FOI that leaves me in no doubt that the Minister King and my Local MP Dr. Carina Garland have some level of involvement in this matter. My Local MP, Dr Carina Garland has been instructed by Minister King not to assist me on this matter. The Office of Dr Carina Garland refuses to accept any submissions from me on this matter, as a result of that direction from Minister King.

As a 4 generation family of Chisholm residents and as a 6 decade constituent myself, I am concerned that my Local MP would not assist a constituent.

While I am not seeking any specific involvement of your Office, I am wanting to ensure that there is at least an awareness amongst our Independent Representatives.

I will also be working diligently within the electorate to ensure fellow constituents are aware that my local MP has been directed by the Minister not to assist me, and those efforts will increase measurably in the lead up to the next election.

I will also be seeking media involvement.

The allegations extend into the Office of Minister King. Minister King's integrity has been recently questioned on Aviation related matters , and I too am questioning the Minister's integrity.

I have an abundance of evidence available to me,including senior ex CASA employees, and fully intend to see this matter through to a determination.

Below you will find my most recent correspondence on this matter.

Thankyou for your consideration.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

glenb

1st Mar 2024, 06:00

The Office of Hon. Bob Katter

I appreciate that this correspondence is landing far from home, nevertheless my allegations are significant.

My name is Glen Buckley, a lifelong resident of the Electorate of Chisholm.

I have made an allegation of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive ,Manager of Legal, international and Regulatory Affairs.

I am also making allegations that the CASA CEO Ms. Pip Spence and the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner have been complicit in provision of information that was intended to mislead an Ombudsman investigation.

I have approached my Local MP Dr Carina Garland on this matter, however Minister King has sent a directive to the Office of Dr Carina Garland advising that my local MP is unable to assist me. I have concerns as to why a Minister would direct an MP not to assist a Constituent, nevertheless that action has been taken. As my MP will not meet with me, or assist me, the purpose of this correspondence is to ensure that there is at least an awareness within Parliament that these allegations have been made, and I have sent correspondence to the Attorney General on this matter.

If my allegations were found to be made in a vindictive or vexatious manner, I would expect to be held fully liable both Criminally and in Civil Action.

I am not calling on any involvement from your office, other than to be aware that I have raised these allegations, and brought them to the attention of my Local MP, Dr Carina Garland. Her office was directed by Minister King, not to assist me in this matter. I believe that there is an attempt to suppress my matter, potentially because of the seniority of the Personnel involved, and the nature of the Government Agency, being CASA.

I have attached some relevant correspondence that I hope you, or someone in your Office may have time to review.

Thankyou for your consideration,

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

glenb

1st Mar 2024, 06:20

The Office of Rebekha Sharkie MP,

I appreciate that this correspondence is landing far from home, nevertheless my allegations are significant.

My name is Glen Buckley, a lifelong resident of the Electorate of Chisholm.

I have made an allegation of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive ,Manager of Legal, international and Regulatory Affairs.

I am also making allegations that the CASA CEO Ms. Pip Spence and the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner have been complicit in provision of information that was intended to mislead an Ombudsman investigation.

I have approached my Local MP Dr Carinan Garland on this matter, however Minister King has sent a directive to the Office of Dr Carina Garland advising that my local MP is unable to assist me. I have concerns as to why a Minister would direct an MP not to assist a Constituent, nevertheless that action has been taken. As my MP will not meet with me, or assist me, the purpose of this correspondence is to ensure that there is at least an awareness within Parliament that these allegations have been made, and I have sent correspondence to the Attorney General on this matter.

If my allegations were found to be made in a vindictive or vexatious manner, I would expect to be held fully liable both Criminally and in Civil Action.

I am not calling on any involvement from your office, other than to be aware that I have raised these allegations, and brought them to the attention of my Local MP, Dr Carina Garland. Her office was directed by Minister King, not to assist me in this matter. I believe that there is an attempt to suppress my matter, potentially because of the seniority of the Personnel involved, and the nature of the Government Agency, being CASA.

I have attached some relevant correspondence that I hope you, or someone in your Office may have time to review.

Thankyou for your consideration,

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

aroa

1st Mar 2024, 08:43

Good luck with responses from Katter and Sharkie.
Some years ago when dealing with a serious issue with the Fort, the evil Dr and perjuring AWIs I met with Bob and handed over a packet of material re.
outcome…zip zilch. All he had done was hand it on to the perps to deal with.!!
File 13 no doubt.

MalcolmReynolds

1st Mar 2024, 10:13

Glen GO TO COURT! Stop this endless letter writing. It is a total waste of your time and mental energy.

Global Aviator

1st Mar 2024, 13:00

Glen,

Read the room mate.

It’s time to go the nuclear option.

No offence meant but on here when I open this post I roll my eyes when I see the more letters and the more attempts.

The silence has spoken.

While you still have the support from many here giddyup!

Asturias56

1st Mar 2024, 15:52

Glen GO TO COURT! Stop this endless letter writing. It is a total waste of your time and mental energy.
Glen

THEY'RE NOT LISTENING.

These people only react to donors, the press and the courts.

Get a lawyer

glenb

1st Mar 2024, 20:47

I hear your frustration folks I really do. its essential that I exhaust every avenue available to me, so that I can demonstrate my absolute and total commitment to have provided EVERY opportunity for CASA to avoid litigation, as they are compelled to do.

As I stated the Stage One being the attempt to resolve with CASA is fully exhausted. I am fully satisfied that I have gone far further than could resaonably have been expected.

I await the Ombudsman response but i suggest the deficiencies within that office suggest that is exhausted, although i believe those deficiencies are easily proven.

Within a matter of days, my expectation is that Minister King and Dr.Carinan Garland MPs stance will have been clearly demonstrated.

In anticipation of going to the next stage being litigation, I have commenced drafting correspondence on this matter, and i have attached it below. It is a rough draft. I am open to feedback. I am yet to embed previously provided suggestions from a learned Pruner into that document.

You have my assurance folks that by the 2nd April 2024, the final copy of this correspondence will be sent.To the Law Institute of Victoria.

My name is Glen Buckley.

I was previously employed in the aviation industry for 30 years and operated my own Flight Training Organisation for a decade, until CASA action led to the closure of that business, and significant associated harm to Employees, Students, Staff, Customers, and Suppliers.

It is a matter that caused significant and totally unnecessary harm to me and my family. Apart from the financial devastation caused, it caused significant mental trauma, which resulted in my breakdown and a period in a psychiatric hospital. The ramifications of Mr Alecks conduct are ongoing, and cumulative. My wife and I have been left without a home and destitute.

This matter in its absolute entirety was a matter that could have been fully resolved at any time in a single meeting provided good intent prevailed.

It did not. The matter dragged on totally unresolved for 8 months, and there is no other plausible explanation, other than Mr Jonathan Aleck deliberately prolonging resolution of a matter that could have been immediately resolved.

I am seeking the assistance of your Office with regards to resourcing the appropriate Law Firm or Lawyer.

I appreciate the very specific nature of this request, and that is why I am seeking your assistance.

It is an allegation of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Executive Manager of legal, International and Regulatory Affairs

The aviation Industry established a crowd funding website fund for me many years ago, and having exhausted all other options for resolution, I now intend to utilise those funds, as I am requiring substantive legal assistance. My intention is to use the funds made available to me by industry to fund a robust initial assessment of my matter.

My allegations are that the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, Mr Jonathan Aleck used his significant power within CASA to specifically target me, with the intent to cause harm. His actions were targeted, harmful, totally unnecessary, and importantly , unlawful. On every opportunity that Mr Aleck was presented with two options, he would consistently choose the option that caused more harm.

This has been the subject of a 5-year investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.

Under FOI, I have obtained documents that leave me with no doubt that the CEO of CASA, Ms. Pip Spence, and the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC), Mr Jonathan Hanton have been complicit in the provision of false and misleading information to that Ombudsman investigation.

I realise that these are substantive allegations, and I appreciate the challenges associated with such allegations, as “intent” is a critical factor, in any allegation of misfeasance in public office. I am fully satisfied that I can clearly attend to these allegations with a significant body of evidence, including statements by qualified ex CASA personnel, that will clearly indicate that I was the victim of targeted malice.

In distributing this correspondence, could I ask that in addition to any Law Firms that you select, could I request that one of those firms be the firm that assisted the “I Cook Foods” founder, Mr Ian Cook, for no other reason than they will have experience in similar matters.

In order to assist in a prompt initial assessment, may I put forward some further dot points for consideration, and to expedite processes.

It is

· I would have a very strong preference that this matter is taken all the way through to a determination in a Court of Law, even if this were to potentially result in a lesser financial outcome. The point being that any “out of court” settlement “walking up the steps” into the Courtroom, would in fact be a lost opportunity to potentially improve CASA and potentially improve the safety of aviation. A key factor in me pursuing this matter with such determination over a sustained period is the improvement of CASA for the benefit of the industry. My reasons are not all altruistic, nevertheless, this must be a Key consideration. The matter is too significant, that it be “swept under the carpet”, by way of an out of Court settlement.

· Industry has crowed funded me to date, and I am confident of continuing support subject to a “comprehensive initial assessment” by an appropriate Lawyer, that I could present to industry.

· I do not believe that I will require litigation funding, and the selection of an appropriate firm would not be based on a requirement for a litigation funder, although I do not dismiss that approach if the firms advice is that be the preferred option.

· If I am alleging that a CASA Employee acted with misconduct by way of misfeasance in public office, and I am alleging that the matter was covered up at the most senior levels within CASA.

· I am alleging that three CASA personnel, have provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth ombudsman investigation.

· This matter needs to go through to a determination. It is essential to the potential t

· Over the last 5 years there has been substantial correspondence and pertinent and revealing FOI requests completed. The point being that much of the “heavy lifting” has already been done.

· At one stage CASA sent a direction to my employer that my continuing employment was no longer tenable based on comments that I made publicly. CASA have acknowledged that and made a financial offer. That Offer is quite frankly insulting in the amount offered, but there is some acknowledgement by CASA of fault.

· I will shortly have completed a substantive document that attends a specifically to Government specified criteria regarding misfeasance in public office. I have drawn addressed criteria comprehensively.

· What should have been a simple “tooth clean” early on has evolved into “maxillofacial surgery’ , by CASAs own choosing. It can be clearly demonstrated that I have attempted all attempts to avid litigation, including making appeals to my Local MP, ms Carina Garland, I’m a 60-year resident of her Electorate.

· Minister King, being the Minister responsible for CASA, has directed my local MP, being Dr. Carina. Garland, not to assist me with this matter. That direction concerns me that my matter may be the subject of some political interference, potentially from as high as Minister Kings office.

· The propensity for senior CASA executives to provide false and misleading information to the ombudsman office is concerning. CASA places me in a position where I am proving things to be true that CASA already know to be true, and that has very much been my experience to date. Whilst not currently in litigation, I sincerely question CASas commitment to acting as a model litigant based on past conduct, and that I must be realistic in assuming that CASa will be robust in their defence, to the extent that they are prepared to provide false and misleading to a Court, as I allege they have to the Ombudsman investigation.

· I have raised these allegations before a Senate inquiry, and that link can be accessed here.

I appreciate that this initial inquiry is brief, and that substantially more information is required.

May I respectfully request that you distribute this request for assistance to some selected firms. My strong preference would be to have a face to face discussion with the applicable law firm as an initial meeting. I will be frank, my mental capacity for excessive typing and document preparation is close to exhausted, and a face to face initial meeting will assist me to direct my somewhat limited mental capacity effectively.
Respectfully Glen Buckley

Asturias56

2nd Mar 2024, 16:29

Use Google - find a lawyer who has suceesfully fought CASA

Go directly to them

glenb

2nd Mar 2024, 20:56

Freedom of Information Request- Complaints by other Operators about APTA.

To the FOI Department of CASA.

In October of 2018, CASA initiated action with no prior warning to close down my business of 10 years, as it had apparently been operating unlawfully throughout those 10 years, and CASA had not realised until over a decade later.

The entire matter was absurd, and I am fully satisfied that CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs had specifically targeted me and my Organisation, based on existing acrimony.

I was able to secure a meeting with the CASA CEO, Ms. Pip Spence and the Chair of the CASA Board after 5 years of constant and requests. That meeting proceeded on Tuesday 3rd October.

At that meeting it was clearly indicated to me that this CASA action was in part based on “complaints by other Operators that were made to CASA” about my Organisation.

Honestly, I was stunned by that comment. This was the first time that anybody from CASA had mentioned any concerns that were potentially directed towards any quality outcomes or any safety aspects.

My understanding of this entire matter was that CASA had determined that my structure was unlawful because I utilised personnel that were not always employed by the same organisation that held the CASA Approval. A most unusual and unique requirement that Mr Aleck applied to me and my organisation only.

This was most concerning for me, as I had taken particular pride in the high levels of safety and compliance, and to use CASAs own words they had been “industry leading”.

In fact, I am fully confident that we did maintain industry leading standards in everything that we did.

To be frank, I feel that if any complaints were made to CASA regarding any aspect of safety and compliance about my organisation by another Operator to CASA, they may have been malicious, not factually correct, and submitted to cause harm to me and my business.

I am quite astounded that it took over 5 years for CASA to bring this information to my attention and that has prompted this FOI request.

I am concerned that CASA may have provided those “complaints” to the Ombudsman Office as part of their investigation, and I had no awareness of those allegations.

My specific FOI request

Can I request documents that CASA hold on to file for the period October 23rd 2013 to October 23rd 2018.

Those documents would be complaints or information made to CASA about my Organisation on any aspect of safety or compliance, or anything of any nature that would rightfully raise concerns within CASA.

Those complaints would have been submitted by a person or Entity external to CASA.

I consent to the removal of names and any information that may identify any person or Entity.

I completely understand that there is a formalised system for confidential reporting of matters or safety concerns. It appears that the Complainant about my operation has bypassed those procedures and approached CASA with alternative methods.

My expectation is that this document will be highly redacted. I understand that even in cases where a person makes a complaint to CASA about a competitor, they may for their own reasons choose to divert from standardised procedures and approach CASA in a less formal way using alternative methods, particularly so if they were satisfied that there was a “grave and imminent risk” to the safety of aviation.

To maintain the integrity of reporting, even when CASA procedures are bypassed, that confidentiality is integral to a robust safety culture, although it does leave the system open to malicious allegations, as potentially occurred here.

I am requesting that the document be heavily redacted and only the key information remain that would provide me the opportunity to know what it is that I am alleged to have done, or not done.

When CASA provide those documents to me, could I also request that CASA clearly identify which of those documents have been also provided to the Commonwealth Ombudsman as part of that Offices investigation.

You will understand my concern perhaps. I have made an allegation separately to this of misconduct at the most senior level within CASA. I have concerns that CASA may have provided information that I had no knowledge of to the Ombudsman, and potentially to “mislead”.

If those allegations were provided to any third Party, I have been denied procedural fairness, as I was never given the opportunity to reply, despite that forming part of CASAs decision making.
Thankyou for your consideration, Glen Buckley

glenb

8th Mar 2024, 20:39

Complaint- “False and misleading’ allegations by CASA against Glen Buckley.

Dear Mr Hanton, CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner.

Please note that I have included the Office of Minister King in this correspondence to ensure that the Minister responsible for CASA maintains an awareness of this matter. To date I have been corresponding via my Local MP, Dr Carina Garland, and requesting that she, in turn, keep Minister King fully informed.

I sought my Local MP, Dr. Carina Garlands assistance on this matter, but she advised me that she has been directed at Ministerial level, not to assist me with my allegations of misconduct within CASA.

Presumably based on that Directive from Minister King, my Local MP Dr. Carina Garland refuses to accept my submission of allegations of corruption, will not permit me entry to her Office, will not respond to correspondence, nor take phone calls from me. I am therefore compelled to bypass my Local MP, Dr Carina Garland and approach the responsible Minister directly to ensure that she maintains a high level of awareness of this topic, as she has to date.

Mr Hanton, CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner.

Please accept my complaint regarding the allegation that I “stalked and assaulted”, CASA Employees.

An allegation that I fully refute as you are aware.

This allegation was made by Mr Shane Carmody PSM, the CASA CEO, under the protection of Parliamentary privilege before the Senate RRAT committee on 20/11/20.

That presentation by Mr Shane Carmody PSM was the first time that I was made aware that CASA had made these substantive criminal allegations about me. I had no prior knowledge whatsoever that I had apparently stalked and assaulted CASA employees.

I was with my family at the time, and to say we were shocked is an understatement, and most especially so because of the very formal setting that these allegations were first raised, and the fact that I had no prior knowledge whatsoever that I had allegedly either stalked or assaulted CASA Employees. None!

The complaint being submitted by me relates to the fact that is not true and no CASA Employee has alleged to the police or any internal CASA reporting procedures that I Glen Buckley ever stalked or assaulted any CASA Employees.

I am fully satisfied that Mr Shane Carmody PSM made this false and misleading allegation before the Senate Committee for no other reason than to cause reputational harm to me, based on existing acrimony between Mr Shane Carmody PSM and myself.

Not only was Mr Carmody PSMs approach cowardly, but it was also false and misleading, as he was fully aware when he made those false allegations about me to the Senators.

The very starting point of such an allegation is that a CASA Employee must have made a complaint to the police, or at least via CASA internal OHS procedures that I had stalked them, and they would have had to make some complaint that I assaulted them.

A complaint of “stalking” or “assault” must exist.

A review of the definition of these two most serious crimes indicates that they both have potential criminal sentences attached to them, as they absolutely must, and most especially if a government employee is stalked and or assaulted by a member of the public in the coursed of their employment.

Stalking and Assault are two of the most serious allegations that could be made against an individual, and particularly the connotations of “creepiness” with regards to “stalking” and the propensity for violence suggested by “assault”.

The point being that to have stalked and/or assaulted CASA employees as Mr Carmody PSM alleges, there would be some formal documentation in support of those very specific allegations, yet there is nothing.

CASA would no doubt be compelled to formally document such substantive allegations as part of their OHS procedures. It is just not feasible that CASA employees were either stalked or assaulted by me, and a substantive “paper trail” does not exist.

I have made a Freedom of Information request on this topic, and those results indicate that there is no documentation at all, held by CASA that indicates any report of either “stalking” or “assault’, that I have been provided access to by that FOI request.

For clarity the descriptors “stalking” and “assault’ yielded absolutely no results from within CASA from a Freedom of Information request on this topic.

The only reference at all, that Glen Buckley has “stalked” or ‘assaulted” any CASA employee is that scurrilous and cowardly allegation that Mr Shane Carmody PSM made in that most formal of settings, being before the Senators at the RRAT Committee

Unfortunately, the harm is not caused so much by the initial allegation by Mr Carmody, but rather by CASAs steadfast refusal to correct that false allegation, with the knowledge it is highly probable that it is a false allegation.

You will be familiar with the background to, and the use of the word. ‘Gaslighting’. From my personal experience, that is a tactic that CASA has consistently utilised in its engagement with me on this matter.

No CASA employee was “stalked” by me, and no CASA Employee was “assaulted” by me.

I am addressing this “gaslighting” very directly in this correspondence.

I am currently in dispute with CASA in an ongoing and substantive unrelated matter. It would suit CASAs agenda to present me as a person who would stalk and assault CASA Employees.

CASA made and has maintained this allegation for several years. Eventually, I begin to question myself. Industry peers, friends and acquaintances still refer to it. Many with good intention, some suggest that I make an apology for stalking and assaulting, others suggest I “let it go”. It breaks my heart when on occasion my wife even queries it. Its constantly around and it has created a seed of doubt in everyone.

I want prompt attention to this question/complaint. It is very simple and very direct.

There are only two options to the two questions that I will put to you. My complaint is that CASA have enough knowledge of this matter to know that on the balance of probabilities, no CASA employee was ever “stalked” or “assaulted” by me, and by continuing to propagate this falsehood they cause continuing harm.

I put this complaint directly to you as the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner.

If no CASA Employee is alleging that I stalked or assaulted them, then quite simply how can I have stalked or assaulted anybody.

To bring an end to the “gaslighting” and maintain my mental health and provide me the opportunity to somewhat restore my reputation, it is essential that only a one-word response be provided to each of these two questions.

A one worded response is all I need to know. It brings immediate clarity, and brings a high level of transparency, it avoids the opportunity to gaslight, and goes someway to immediately restoring my reputation and relieving the stress associated with that.

A resistance to providing a single word response would be concerning.

The two questions that I put to you are.

1. Has any CASA Employee ever alleged that they were “assaulted” by Glen Buckley?

2. Has any CASA Employee ever alleged that they were “stalked” by Glen Buckley?

I am not seeking any well-crafted wordy responses, or any inferences. Both crimes are clearly defined, and if you are in any doubt, please ensure you have an understanding of the definitions as of the allegations as made by Mr Carmody, and propagated by CASA on a continuing basis, prior to responding.

I am seeking only a yes or no response as that is the only credible response that needs be put forward.

If I become aware that the CASA CEO has made an allegation that I stalked or assaulted a CASA Employee, my first question would naturally be.

Why do you say that? Has a CASA Employee or Employees made an allegation that I stalked them, or that I assaulted them?”

The single word response to that question determines where the discussion continues from there or it goes no further.

If the response is,

· “Yes.” A CASA Employee or Employees do allege that you “stalked” them.

and/or

· “Yes, a CASA Employee or Employees do allege that you “assaulted” them.

Then the matter must rightfully proceed.

If however, in fact no CASA Employee has made an allegation that I “stalked” them and no CASA Employee has made an allegation that I “assaulted” them, then that discussion surely would proceed no further.

If no allegation has been made, that allegation cannot possibly proceed nor have any validity., and I question how it could arise in such a formal setting and suggest that it would not have been raised had Mr Carmody not been protected by Parliamentary Privilege. As previously stated, a most cowardly approach in my view, and most especially because CASA refuse to approach the police on a matter that most certainly should have police involvement, had it really occurred.

I can see absolutely no reason that you cannot immediately attend to this, as you already have all the information at hand, and already know the answer.

As the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner this is a matter that you already have an Expert knowledge on. The information you require is information you already have accessed. If you claim that this is not correct, I will not challenge you, other than to state that you have almost immediate access to the answer, and I hope that you can respond in timeframes that I can reasonably expect, if “good intent” is prevailing.

The purpose of this complaint is to bring immediate clarity to this matter and deny CASA the opportunity to mislead. As the allegations weren’t made against you, you may not fully appreciate the impact that they have, and particularly because of the most formal of settings that those allegations were made.

To be frank, I have felt very much on the receiving end of a determined and sustained effort to effectively “gaslight” me, and cause me trauma, as the ongoing matter does. For reasons of my own health and sanity, I must insist that this complaint is almost immediately responded to, as it so easily be attended to.

It requires only two words in response to my most reasonable questions. I am seeking only a “yes" or a "no" to those questions.

I hope that you can respect the "intent" of my question. I am trying to ascertain if these allegations even exist. That is an allegation of stalking or an allegation of assault. Two different crimes requiring a response to each of those two allegations.

Respectfully
Glen Buckley

Sandy Reith

9th Mar 2024, 00:23

I think we’d like to know if this could be a matter of libel. One for a legal opinion because help from CASA is about as likely reversing the earth’s rotation by wishing it so.

Slippery_Pete

9th Mar 2024, 04:49

I hear your frustration folks I really do. its essential that I exhaust every avenue available to me, so that I can demonstrate my absolute and total commitment

Let’s dissect this statement.

“It is essential that I exhaust…”

No, it’s not “essential”. It’s a choice you are consciously making. You are CHOOSING to continue on a path that has rendered NOTHING for many, many years. These unfruitful, repetitive and long letters are not a path you are forced to take - it’s one you’re choosing.

“so I can demonstrate my absolute and total commitment”

Look, I’m no psychologist. But you’ve made comments like this in the past. And it makes me think there’s something deeper here. Who must you “demonstrate” your incorruptibility to?

Is it yourself? Is it your wife? Is it the people you were employing at the time? There’s something much more
going on under the surface.

Please don’t take this post the wrong way. I (and everyone else here) want justice to be served. But you really need to ask yourself some of these hard questions.

IMHO (and nearly everyone else here) - you need to engage a professional.

And in the event that even a professional can’t get you any compensation, that’s still a good outcome - at least you’ll have closure and can get on with the rest of your life.

On average, we get about 80 laps around the sun. How many more are you going to waste on this, just to demonstrate you’re right?

Flaming galah

9th Mar 2024, 06:44

This matter now has ceased in all interactions with CASA.

That didn't age well.

Global Aviator

9th Mar 2024, 08:06

Well said Slippery.

Glen we are all behind you and will continue to be. Just look at the gofundme when it gets pushed. The minute you have legal counsel actively engaged and a REAL fight to CASA it will go up faster than an empty rocket ship.

You’ve said April 2, this is fantastic, a hard date.

I feel your pain and anger in the long letters, unfortunately those reading them don’t give a flying fcuk! Look at the CASA offer of compensation, what a joke.

Go hard bud, reap the rewards of an out of court settlement with a shut up notice attached, flick the money around to those you feel you must.

Above all it will give you closure one way or the other, life is to live mate. I hope these words are encouraging as they are meant.

glenb

9th Mar 2024, 20:13

Folks, Im sitting here at pancake parlor waiting for a mate to join me, so Im going to type away until he gets here.

Ill hit the post but button as he limps in, and it may be somewhat unedited.

Sincerely I feel your frustration. What started out as a simple filling by the dentist has turned into major maxillofacial surgery.

Slippery Pete. A well intentioned and much appreciated ally. To be honest it is very much about my wife, my kids, my parents, the staff. the businesses, the students, the customers, the Suppliers, others impacted, and those that will continue to be in the future. Altruistic. No. its much more than that. I have failed to convey the depth of the conviction. My wife and I have been through a lot, too much, and so totally unnecessary.

I did not expect that this could ever have happened.
I did expect that if it occurred, CASA would act in a well intentioned manner and promptly resolve it.
I expected that if they did not the CASA ICC would step up to the plate.
I did not expect that the ICC would be such a failed process.
I then expected that the Ombudsman would be the next step.
I did not expect that the deficiencies within the Ombudsman Office would be so gross.
I then expected my Local MP would engage with me.
I did not expect that the Minister would direct my MP not to engage or assist me.

Honestly, in my mind is as simple as an SOP. It's the procedure. It's the next item on a lengthy drawn-out checklist. Im just following it. If the first item doesn't achieve the result, you go the second, and through the somewhat lengthy checklist. At this stage that's it. There is a checklist for this situation. I'm following it. Im not jumping ahead because one of those items will result in a safe landing. I would be foolish to bypass one item or procedure knowing that there is no imperative to do so. I trust the checklist.

I don't know how else to express it. When we all walk away from it because the adherence to the recommended procedure was followed. When those passengers walk across the apron towards the apron and every one of them (family, staff, students, suppliers, friends) is oblivious and doesn't even know the pilots name, I would sleep easy.
If the outcome was less pleasant, because i decided to skip item 7 on the checklist for no good reason, it would be an uneasy night.

I am understanding how poorly I've communicated the importance of the process in my mind. I am beginning to think that I may have some undiagnosed issue with this, nevertheless it is the process.

I am somewhat blind in that determination, and in some weird way the failure opf each of those processes is eye opening while at the same time heart breaking, and it makes me only more determined to make sure that i thoroughly attend to that checklist.

When that lengthy checklist is exhausted, that the time for correlation, and drawing on that to apply lateral approaches such as media, politicians, whilst applying pressure from all sides.

In my mind, that's how it works. Still perhaps naively, I am running that checklist in order to the end.

Global Aviator, as with Slippery Pete, I appreciate the well-intentioned comments. No offence is ever taken. I appreciate you are the people that are pulling me aside at the BBQ for a quiet word.

A get a bigger lift from a well-intentioned not what i want to hear post rather than silence on here. So please understand that.

Regarding not engaging with CASA, i feel I need to clarify that.
I understand that CASA is not well intentioned and that there is absolutely no intent whatsoever to act with good intent. That checklist item is fully ticked off.

The allegations of stalking and assault require further CASA engagement in my mind.

The APTA issues do not. With the exception FOI requests and information gathering, by necessity I will need to make contact with CASA.

I am hoping to get another post out today that may further indicate the direction that this path is taking.

I believe that withy less CASA involvement this matter will now proceed more promptly. Please standby.

Cheers. Glen

Sandy Reith

9th Mar 2024, 21:36

Glen you have put the case for your convictions and method very well. I admire your attempt to have the government people to own up to their obligations. But as your situation evolved, and in conjunction with the whole dysfunctional administration of aviation, then comes into question whether the ‘checklist’ is fit for purpose?

Having heard the former long serving Premier of Victoria Henry Bolte declaring that the Ombudsman concept was wrong in principle, by detracting from the duties of MPs, and latterly coming to realise how right he was, so too the wrongful separation of aviation administration out of the Westminster traditional Department and away from Ministerial responsibility.

It would be daunting to take a case to the courts but our courts are the final line of appeal, and where facts matter, and assessments are made to hold corporations and individuals to account.

But whatever direction you take be assured of continuing support, wellbeing is the most important factor. Good luck with your dental work.

glenb

9th Mar 2024, 22:08

Ill submit the checklist for "continuous improvement" on a successful landing, it's definitely not fit for purpose, and I feel that at the end of the surgery I am confident I will have a smile like Jack from MAFS. What a lovely set of teeth.

Celtic2912

9th Mar 2024, 22:28

Glen, the problem with using "the checklist", in my opinion, is that it assumes that the other party is following the same process, with a view to an equitable result at the end. Unfortunately, I don't think that is the case. Their checklist goes something like- ignore, deny, ignore some more, stall, wear the complainant down (rinse, repeat).

Was it Albert Einstein who promulgated the definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over, but hoping for a different result? This is not meant to insult you, as I believe you are far from insanity, but I think you still believe in a time of gentlemen's agreements, where both parties wanted the same, equal result. I think you are an honourable man, fighting some dishonourable organisations.

Good luck in whatever way you proceed.

Slippery_Pete

10th Mar 2024, 07:43

Honestly, in my mind is as simple as an SOP. It's the procedure. It's the next item on a lengthy drawn-out checklist. Im just following it. If the first item doesn't achieve the result, you go the second, and through the somewhat lengthy checklist

I’m glad you’ve taken my post for what it was - an attempt to help, not to criticise 👍

Know that we are all behind you.

A lot of these analogies (such as the checklist analogy) can be seen very differently by different people.

My analogy of your situation as a checklist would be that you’ve done the whole checklist for “engine restart” 8 times over, and rather than just accept you are going to have to do an inevitable dead stick landing, you keep repeating the same checklist hoping the answer will suddenly appear.

Are you completing required steps on a checklist here, or are you just delaying accepting the inevitable - that a different solution is required for this problem?

Good luck mate.

Seabreeze

10th Mar 2024, 11:17

Glen,

From time to time, I read your posts and I empathise, but you are spinning your wheels on wet grass.
I gave earlier advice, and just now looked back, and note that it was about 4 1/2 years ago on 18 Oct 2019.

It said:

" I once had a major disagreement with someone. I tried to negotiate but was continually ignored. I had to get my lawyer to sue him, which then resulted in a court date. Only then did he negotiate...."

Simple advice, and given by many......but IMO the only way you will get justice in a reasonable time frame.

Good luck
Seabreeze

glenb

12th Mar 2024, 11:17

For those that are following, in Post #2944, I made some requests regarding the allegation of stalking and assault as alleged by Mr Carmody and propagated by Ms Spence.

I asked for clear clarification if any CASA staff member had ever alleged that I stalked or assaulted them. I received this response from Mr hanton the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner.

"Good morning Glen

I acknowledge receipt of your email, seeking advice as to whether any CASA officer has ever alleged they were “stalked” or “assaulted” by you. You’ve said you want an immediate response limited to the use of those two words. Based on the documents available to me at this time, as far as I am aware the answers to your questions are:

1.No
2. No

Thanks

Jonathan":

Well that was like pulling teeth finally getting there.

glenb

12th Mar 2024, 11:57

Dear Dom Sheil, Senior Reviewer, CPM Reviews Pty Ltd

My name is Glen Buckley.

I am writing to you as you were the appointed investigator from CPM Reviews. You made a determination that supported the false allegations of ‘stalking and assault” that were made against me by CASA.

I am the person that is refuting the allegation made by Mr Shane Carmody PSM before the Senate Committee that I Glen Buckley had “stalked and assaulted CASA Employees”.

A “false and misleading” allegation made for no other reason than to cause me harm.

I was involved in an ongoing dispute with CASA, on an unrelated matter, that did not relate to the safety of aviation.

It would suit CASAs agenda if in fact I had “stalked and assaulted” CASA Employees, because of the impact on my reputation, and the ability to “water down” my credibility in the other matter, as it has.

Mr Carmody PSM was aware of this other matter, and that is the reason that he chose to cause reputational harm to me. There is no other reason that he would make that initial allegation of stalking and assaulting CASA Employees against me, using such a cowardly approach i.e. protection of Parliamentary Privilege.

Mr Carmody PSM chose to initiate such substantive allegations in such a formal setting as a Senate Committee, where I have no recourse. As I have stated the conduct of a coward.

Mr Carmody PSM was fully aware that he was misleading the Senators. This subject is part of a much wider matter in the General Aviation industry, as you may or may not be aware.

There is a high level of awareness of this matter within the Office of Minister King being the Minister responsible for CASA, and specifically with the Minister herself, I have ensured that is the case through constant communication.

Since those allegations were made, I have made multiple respectful requests of CASA to correct the record and confirm that no CASA Employee alleges that I have ever either stalked or assaulted them. Quite simply, I am calling on Ms Spence simply to be honest, as the Public would expect of her in her Role as the CEO of the Nations aviation safety regulator, CASA.

The CEO of CASA, Ms Pip Spence would also be fully aware that on the balance of probabilities, I never committed either of those most serious criminal acts. In fact, I feel confident that she is “fully aware” the allegations are false. She has decided to propagate a falsehood and would be aware that she is doing so.

I had absolutely no idea that an allegation of stalking and assault had ever been alleged, until Mr Carmody PSM raised those allegations before the Senate Committee. Mr Carmody PSMs successor, Ms Spence, was later able to specify the location and date that one of the stalking and assault offences are alleged to have occurred.

It is Ms Spences continual refusal to correct the record that causes ongoing harm to me, and I am merely trying to bring clarity and truth to this matter.

I have not engaged lawyers, legal action against CASA is an option that I am considering and being encouraged to pursue with widespread industry support. I will be deciding on that matter over coming weeks. The industry has established a GoFundMe page to assist me in pursuing this matter in its entirety, and I intend to use part of those funds to pursue this matter through to a determination or a retraction and apology for the false allegations.

In the interim, I must however continue to try and clear my reputation as you will appreciate, and by the best-intentioned methods that are available to me, and preferably by methods that avoid the unnecessary combative approach of litigation.

I will be frank. I believe that the Senior Executive of CASA have adopted a tactic of gaslighting me. A term that you will be familiar with. I also allege that they have provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.

Specifically, I have named the CASA CEO Ms. Pip Spence as being the person responsible for the provision of false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.

I have also publicly named Dr. Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs as the CASA Employee that provided the false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman,

and I have named Mr Jonathan Hanton, the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner as being complicit in facilitating the provision of that false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office and covering up misconduct.

CASA engaging a private firm to “investigate” the matter, could potentially be another way to further validate the allegations, and effectively deflect responsibility away from CASA to an “arms reach’ private firm that has been engaged by CASA.

It is an effective risk mitigation strategy that affords the Agency an unusually high level of protection, as I believe has happened here. It brings “credibility” when in fact credibility may not exist.

I believe that CASA have engaged CPM reviews for that very purpose of gaslighting me, and to “validate” or effectively “cover up” that misconduct within CASA, rather than approach the Australian Federal Police as they should on such a serious matter. i.e. stalking and assault.

I firmly believe that an allegation of stalking and assault of Government employees by members of the public is a Police matter, and not a matter to be dealt with by a contracted organisation such as CPM Reviews.

My very strong preference has always been that if Ms Spence refuses to correct the false allegations, then she is compelled to refer the matter to the AFP, not to a contracted private firm such as CPM Reviews, with all due respect to your firm.

I have been calling on CASA to make these allegations to the Police and let them flow through the due processes, rather than perpetuate falsehoods whilst giving me no opportunity to defend myself. An opportunity that I still implore CASA to pursue if the CEO Ms Spence refuses to retract the false allegations. The promptest resolution of this matter is best determined by the AFP in my opinion, and the Minister will be compelled to refer the matter to the AFP. I will shortly be sending correspondence to my Local MP Dr. Carina Garland, and Minister King on this very matter, imploring them to refer the matter to the Police.

Because CASA is fully aware that the allegations are false and misleading, they steadfastly refused to report the matter to the Police, and instead chose to engage a Private Company, in this case being CPM Reviews to conduct the investigation. That is my firmly held view, and there really can be no other plausible explanation, that CASA would not have approached the police on these most serious criminal matters.

I have no doubt, CASA choose not to make this a police matter because they would be highly concerned about the outcome of that matter, as it would potentially expose the CASA Flight Operations Inspectors, David Edwards and Owen Richards to accountability, and most likely expose members of CASAs Senior Executive to misconduct.

Interestingly, my Local MP for Chisholm, Dr Carina Garland was directed by Minister King not to assist me with this matter, despite me being a resident of the Electorate of Chisholm for six decades.

My Local MP, Dr. Carina Garland

· Will not permit me access to her Office.

· Will not take telephone calls from me.

· Will not take written submissions delivered to her Office.

· Will not facilitate meetings.

· Will not respond to emails.

Effectively, my Local MP has completely shut me down, and steadfastly refuses to assist me as a resident of her Electorate based on a direction by Minister King. I do acknowledge that my task is substantial, and most particularly so if that “coverup” extends through to the Office of Minister King, as I believe it may.

I have not sent this correspondence to the Office of Minister King or anybody within CASA. I thought I best leave it to your Organisation to determine the necessity or not of communicating this correspondence to the appropriate persons within those respective Organisations. I feel it may be prudent because I believe that the CPM Reviews investigation will become increasingly significant going forward, and most especially as my intention is to gain media attention to highlight the misconduct within CASA.

I apologise for the rather lengthy preamble, but I feel it important that I set the background.

The purpose of this letter.

I have never stalked or assaulted any CASA Employee. Ever!

My strong preference is that this matter be referred to the AFP for a thorough investigation. I will shortly be calling on Minister King to refer it to the AFP for investigation.

I am fully satisfied that CASA utilised a contracted firm such as CPM Reviews, rather than the Australian Federal Police to ascertain whether I had stalked or assaulted any CASA Employees to increase the likelihood of a favourable outcome for CASA and cover up misconduct within CASA.

The CPM review is substantially flawed. When I make that Statement, please be assured that I have utilised an Australian Subject Matter Expert on this subject i.e. investigations.

Currently this individual with the very highest levels of expertise in these matters, is in a very senior position within the employ of the Government, although that will likely change over coming months, as they retire, that person would become readily available to address the gross deficiencies in investigative methods in the Report.

That person assures me that it is unlikely I would need to utilise those persons services because ‘the deficiencies in investigative techniques are so substantially flawed that the most basic of assessments will identify that, and any person with experience in investigations will promptly pull it completely apart’.

By contracting a firm, such as CPM Reviews rather than utilising the AFP, it is more likely that CASA would achieve an “engineered” outcome that would give credibility to the scurrilous allegations, and effectively reinforce the entire process of gaslighting me. I believe that CASA was seeking a “reverse engineered process.’ I believe that CASA obtained their required result by engaging CPM Reviews. Had CASA approached the AFP on the matter of stalking and assault, I am fully satisfied that an entirely different outcome would have occurred, as well as a different process.

I must acknowledge that the conditions and parameters of the investigation were set by CASA when your firm was contracted, and you did not have the parameters available to you to conduct a robust examination.

As pointed out to me by the individual assisting me. “it was also somewhat incumbent upon CPM reviews not to accept the work, if they had concerns as to its legitimacy, and concerns should have been immediately obvious to any truly independent investigator once the parameters of that investigation were set, particularly the “advice” not to make contact withy me.

It was pointed out to me by this Expert that there would most likely been several discussions in the background on this topic via means other than email such about the parameters and that we will never know what was said in those discussions, “off the record”.

I note that you were “advised” not to engage with me as part of the “investigation”. I note that you accepted CASAs advice, and you did not engage with me, a course of events that would not have transpired if the AFP or similar Body were involved in the investigation, I am assured of that by the Expert.

The reasons that I am calling on CPM Reviews to withdraw their report is because I intend to pursue this matter through to a proper investigation by the AFP. I also intend to seek media attention to this matter, and I have included other recipients in this correspondence.

I acknowledge that CPM Reviews was engaged for a very specific purpose and that the words ‘stalking’ and “assault” were not used. Your investigation centred around whether CASA Flight Operations Inspector Mr David Edwards made a false and misleading statement, when he alleges, he was shoved by me to an extent where he had to reposition himself to maintain balance, and you found that in fact Mr Edwards was being truthful, it therefore did happen, and that supports the preferred narrative of CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence.

Your findings are highly relevant to this matter,

I am advised by a SME on investigations that the direction not to engage with both parties in such a substantive allegation does not meet the validity of any investigation.

I am advised by the SME that a qualified individual reviewing the parameters set by CASA would be concerned and it would raise a significant red flag that what is being sought is a reverse engineered result.

I am advised by the SME that such directions would only occur in an investigation that has been engaged for reasons other than a robust investigation, and one where the relationship is of a commercial nature, rather than where an investigative agency was involved.

The SME on investigations advises that the most standout deficiency in the investigation is the complete failure to place significant weighting on statements made immediately after the incident compared to Statements made over a longer passage of time where there is more opportunity to collude. These two statements are staggering in their divergence.

One of the stalking and assaulting incidents is said to have occurred in the CASA foyer as Ms Pip Spence alleges, there were two CASA Employees present.

In documents obtained by me under FOI, one CASA Employee claims that he was stalked and assaulted by me and that I allegedly assaulted him in the foyer of the CASA building. The second CASA Employee completely makes no references at all to any stalking or assault whatsoever when he makes his report immediately after. It is just not feasible that such a situation could occur.

I note significantly, that now the second CASA employee does state that he did witness me assault the first CASA Employee, although that is after an extended passage of time.

You accepted that change of narrative where both CASA Employees had ample opportunity to collude. The newer “colluded” narrative being very different than the one made on the day.

The SME advised me that in their opinion an investigation by a qualified Government investigative authority i.e. a relevant police agency while not able to determine guilt would be satisfied that the matter needs to be pursued.

The SME suggested that the very concept of a Government Agency using public funds to pursue these matters using contracted businesses when there more cost effective (fee) Government agencies with expertise in these matters, such as a police Force, must in itself raise high levels of concern, and is not normal procedure.

Whilst I appreciate that CASA did not prohibit you from contacting me, there can be no doubt that you were “encouraged” by CASA not to engage with me, and you address that in your report.

This is where I see the “commercial imperative” overriding the procedural fairness, when CASA contract Companies such as CPM Reviews whose businesses are most likely highly dependent on ongoing work, from the Government.

Had this matter been handled by the Australian Federal Police would most certainly have contacted me. In fact, standard investigative procedures would mandate that as part of the procedure. My reasonable assumption is that any investigation would require at least some communication with me as the person that has made the complaint.

The substantive nature of the allegations requires that I be interviewed or at least contacted by some means throughout the investigation.

I refer again for emphasis to the “standout feature” that was overlooked in the contracted investigation is that the two statements by the two CASA Employees present at the alleged incident have provided such differing accounts.

One CASA employee stating that I shoved him forcefully enough that he was required to reposition his feet in order to maintain his balance.

The other CASA Employee who was present at the time states that I “went” to shove the CASA employee but stopped. He clearly indicates that I did not assault the first CASA employee.

I feel your investigation placed very little weighting or consideration on the significance of these two diverse witness statements. I acknowledge that years later the witness has changed his statement from one of “I went to shove…” To one of I did shove the CASA Employee.

Any robust investigation would have to acknowledge the credibility of those two differing statements and observe how over the passage of time that witness statement has changed substantially.

The SME expert advises that the use of emotive, childlike terminology such as “yelling” and screaming” rather than more adultlike terminology such as “elevated tone” or “agitated’ can indicate emotion and an attempt to create an image that may be somewhat exaggerated, and potentially a witness statement that cannot be fully relied upon, or at least needs to be verified if practical.

One of the alleged incidents of “stalking or assault”, and the one where I was “yelling and screaming” has been identified to me by Ms Pip Spence as having occurred directly under a security camera, and less than ten metres from a desk with three security personnel present, yet not one of them even noticed it, intervened, or even made a log of the event. Surely that must be concerning.

On the balance of probabilities, one would assume that CASA would have enthusiastically accessed that footage, or at least attempted to access that footage. No attempt was made. Had an Employee of CASA been stalked or assaulted in the Foyer of the CASA building with footage of that incident, it makes no sense that no attempt was made, unless of course it never truly occurred.

The SME confirms that had any Government employee been stalked or assaulted whilst in the course of their duties, the Agency would have a mandated and well documented process and would pursue those processes vigorously as part of their OHS obligations.

If my FOI request has yielded no reference to stalking or assault anywhere at all apart from Mr Carmody’s initial allegations, then I suggest, on the balance of probabilities it never occurred, as I already know.

Importantly I have done an FOI request on this topic, and no documents held by CASA even contain the words “stalking” or assault” as one would expect if it had of occurred. The Expert that I utilised was somewhat dumbfounded as to how an allegation could even exist if there is absolutely no record of it, as I am.

As the Expert pointed out, If I had of assaulted a CASA Employee and he felt that he or his colleague had been assaulted, then it is likely that the engagement would have ceased at that point rather than continue on. The fact that a conversation continued after the alleged stalking and assault incident and apparently continued for some time is a most unusual response to such an incident and would raise concerns according to the Expert.

Whilst I very much appreciate that firms such as yours exist and are potentially required. It is incumbent on those firms that they maintain their credibility by ensuring transparent processes. I feel that when CASA advised you that you did not need to engage with me, to any well-intentioned investigator that would be an immediate “red flag”. One that could potentially be overlooked due to the commercial imperative of the relationship between the investigator and the Agency contracting the investiagtor. Whilst I am not specifically suggesting that occurred here, you will appreciate how it appears.

For clarity.

On reading this letter I can sense that it may appear somewhat more than assertive than I intend. Please be assured that is not my intention.

Specifically, Mr Alecks misconduct has bought significant harm to me and my family. My reputation has been decimated, and the truth is I hit absolute rock bottom and ended up in a psychiatric facility on the very cusp of taking my own life.

I am merely fighting with everything left available to me to resolve this matter.

I do feel that CPM reviews was somewhat “influenced” and should have engaged with me.

CPM reviews is not my enemy. I fully acknowledge that until this point in time, CPM reviews may not have had an awareness of the significance of the real purpose of the investigation, and its role in further gaslighting me.

I believe that CASA provided CPM a very selective set of criteria to achieve CASAs preferred outcome. I feel that CPM was “played” but also that CPM allowed itself to be “played” somewhat, and it’s reasonable to assume that the “commercial imperative” was a contributing factor.

To ensure clarity, and based on the knowledge that you now have of this matter, may I make a respectful request of CPM Reviews.

My preference is that CPM Reviews advise Minister King and CASA that with the wider knowledge that they now have of this matter, they are withdrawing their Findings.

I must also add, that at the time of receiving this correspondence you are now very much aware of my allegations, and with that knowledge going forward I can only strongly recommend that you seriously consider this as the best alternative. i.e. that you do not permit your Report to be utilised by CASA.

I am asking that CPM reviews request of CASA that that the investigation done by CPM Reviews, be withdrawn and not used in any way to bring harm to Glen Buckley until this matter has been referred to and considered by the AFP.

This will achieve several benefits.

It will afford me procedural fairness and allow me to progress the matter through correct channels being the AFP.

It will avoid there being two separate investigations. One being the CPM reviews investigation and the other being the AFP investigation. In the event that those investigations being the CPM Reviews investigation and an AFP investigation were different, it has the potential to bring harm to CPM reviews and the concept of Government Agencies using public funds to pursue such matters with Private firms when Police Forces are available, arguably more qualified, and arguably more cost effective.

It provides CPM Reviews the opportunity to have no further involvement in this matter and minimise any potential negative commercial impact or reputational harm.

I am confident the CPM Reviews “investigation” would be used to effectively further CASAs false allegations that I have stalked and assaulted CASA employees, and to effectively gaslight me.

Please be assured that I am well intentioned. This matter is a matter between CASA and myself, and I have clearly given CPM Reviews the option to completely remove themselves from this matter if they choose to do so and have no further involvement in this matter.

If I may, the ongoing nature of this matter over many years has taken a significant toll. I’m not mentally up to “email ping pong”.

If this is a matter that needs further engagement between CPM reviews and myself, I make myself readily available, but by way of a face to face well intentioned meeting or alternatively a phone conversation, but please, not by email ping pong.

Respectfully Glen Buckley

glenb

17th Mar 2024, 19:28

Dear Mr Buckley

I am responding to your email to Mr Sheil of 12 March 2024.

As you are aware, CPM Reviews was contracted by CASA to examine two written accounts of an interaction between yourself and two CASA staff in the foyer of CASA's Melbourne office. The matters examined were drawn from your correspondence with Mr Jonathan Hanton, Industry Complaints Commissioner, which inter alia detailed your complaint.

We stand by the recommendations contained in our report and the basis for them.

If, despite the report, it is your view that any CASA staff have acted inappropriately then you can of course take that up with the Authority.

Yours sincerely

XXXXXXXXXXX

Executive Director

glenb

17th Mar 2024, 19:30

Dear xxxxxxx (Executive Directror)

Thankyou for your prompt response. CASA has now advised me that in fact no allegation of stalking or assault exists, therefore I can proceed despite the findings of your investigation that was contracted to CPM Reviews by CASA.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

Sandy Reith

17th Mar 2024, 19:34

“All in together, this fine weather.”

glenb

17th Mar 2024, 19:38

In post #2944 I sent a request to CASA to clearly identify if any CASA Employee alleges that I stalked or assaulted by them.
In post #2955 CASA clearly identifies that no such allegation exists.
This is my follow up to ascertain how long CASA has known that no such allegation exists.

Dear Mr Hanton,

Thankyou for finally truthfully confirming that no CASA Staff Member has ever made an allegation that I had either "stalked" them or that I had "assaulted" them, despite Mr Shane Carmody PSM, raising those specific allegations me,directly to the Senators before the Senate RRAT Committee on 20/11/20.

I am avoiding any unnecessary contact with CASA just at the moment, as I feel CASA has clearly demonstrated that there is no good intent, at all towards me.

I have made allegations that Ms. Pip Spence the CASA CEO, Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, and potentially your Office have provided false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation on a matter that is separate to this matter, and your response leaves me with no doubt that CASA has a propensity to provide false and misleading information in the most "formal" environments.

That is demonstrated by this reversal. Whilst it is many years too late, I acknowledge it. Thank you. I appreciate that it must have been difficult, but you have directly and promptly addressed my question and clarified the truth. I never "stalked" or "assaulted" any CASA employee, as I maintained throughout those years. That certainly cleared it up once and for all in my wife's mind, and brings to an end the "gaslighting" I hope.

I feel that I am entitled to one final question on this matter, to bring full closure, and permit me to move on. This question is potentially very significant, as you will appreciate.

The allegation that I stalked and assaulted CASA Employees was first raised on 20/11/20 before the Senators by CASA.

I made multiple well documented requests of CASA to withdraw those harmful and substantial false allegations, the first of those was within 24 hours of the false and misleading allegations being made.

Considering how long this matter has dragged on unnecessarily, and caused so much associated harm, and with both yourself and Ms Spence, the CASA CEO having such a thorough knowledge of this topic.

On the balance of probabilities both you and Ms Spence would have, and should have, been fully aware that in fact it was impossible for me to have stalked and assaulted any CASA Employee because most bizarrely, no allegation actually even exists

This is something that CASA has known since those allegations were first raised. As you know, I am firmly of the opinion that CASA was specifically targeting me, to bring harm to me based on existing acrimony. I believe that an attempt to prolong resolution of this matter has been engineered from the highest levels within CASA Senior Management, and potentially to your Office.

Specifically, can CASA identify the date that.

The office of the ICC, and specifically Mr Jonathan Hanton first became fully aware that in fact no allegation of either stalking or assault was ever made against Glen Buckley by any CASA Employee.
The CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence first became fully aware that in fact no allegation of either stalking or assault was ever made against Glen Buckley by any CASA Employee.

My initial thoughts are that both yourself and Ms Spence may have been fully aware for a significantly protracted period of time that truthfully, and you both were fully aware that no allegation of either stalking or allegation of assaulting CASa employees even existed, and that on the balance of probabilities you would have known that truthfully no CASA Employee was ever stalked or assaulted,by me and you each chose not to act, which in turn caused continuing harm.

To give me peace of mind, my hope is that you will advise me that this is fresh information that you have only just uncovered, and that each of you had no prior knowledge that no allegation had ever been made by any CASA employee that they were either stalked or assaulted by me, but I fear that is not the case.

I am trying to very clearly ascertain if both Ms Spence the CASA CEO, and the Office of the CASA ICC have only very recently become aware that no CASA Employee was ever stalked or assaulted by me, and no such allegation was ever made by any CASA Employee, or if that is knowledge that you already held.

I would like to confirm whether you have accessed any new information, and this is therefore a "new" discovery of information, or is it "old" information. Effectively I am asking you to clearly identify when you first "discovered '' that on the balance of probabilities I neiujerr stalked or assaulted any CASA Employee because in fact there was no evidence at all to support those serious allegations and no allegation was ever made..

Please note that I have included the Office of Mr Broadbent, and Ms Dai Le in this correspondence. I am not asking for any involvement from their respective Offices, although I feel it pertinent, as there has previously been some correspondence with their respective offices on these matters.

Thank You Mr Hanton, I am very appreciative of your prompt timelines for responses.. As with my previous request, this is information that you already hold, so my assumption is that you will address it promptly.

Please include the Office of Minister King in your response to this correspondence.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

glenb

17th Mar 2024, 20:04

18/03/24

To Dr Carina Garland MP for the Electorate of Chisholm.

On 28/02/24, I attended your Office and left a document for you. To ensure you received that correspondence I also emailed it through to your Office on the same day.

As you are aware, I have been a lifelong resident of the Electorate, and I sought your assistance on matters of misconduct within CASA. I understand that for reasons that I am waiting on an explanation for, you were directed, not to assist me with this matter, by Minister King.

Despite that direction from Minister King, I reached out to you because you are my Local MP, and that is your very purpose.

In this correspondence I am only asking that you advise me whether or not you are willing and able to attend to that relatively straightforward task regarding forwarding that correspondence to the following recipients.

To forward the correspondence on to the relevant person within the Office of the Attorney General.
to forward the correspondence for the direct attention of Minister King
To forward the correspondence to the Office of the PM for assessment as to the requirement for him to have some knowledge and awareness of this matter.

I acknowledge that the direction from Minister King may prevent you from facilitating my request, but I feel I am entitled to know whether you have been able to facilitate my reasonable request.

If Minister King's position on this matter is unchanged, and you have been prevented from distributing it, could you please advise me. As almost three weeks have passed, I hope you can respond promptly.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

glenb

17th Mar 2024, 20:22

To the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office.

I am writing to you regarding Matter Reference 2019-713834.

On January 16th I wrote to the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office requesting that they correct a gross technical error that has developed during the 5 year investigation. ( My reference Pprune 2915).

That request remains totally unacknowledged despite over 2 months passing.

On February 26th, I sent follow up correspondence that also went unacknowledged. (my reference Pprune #2923). As over 3 weeks have passed, please accept this as a follow up to the follow up.

At this stage, I am only seeking a brief acknowledgement that my previous correspondence has been received by the Ombudsman Office.

I am wanting to progress my matter and I have asked the Ombudsman's Office to withdraw its Findings that were based on false and misleading information. If the Ombudsman Office refuses to withdraw the Findings as is my preference, it is essential that the Ombudsman address gross technical errors where they have developed. Without these matters clearly resolved it prevents me from seeking justice on these matters.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

glenb

19th Mar 2024, 20:22

I have sent the following correspondence this morning. Please be assured that going forward the "gloves are fully off". 20/03/24

To the CASA Board

I am submitting a formal allegation against four CASA Employees. The Board has a detailed understanding of this matter, and my reasonable expectation is that they will respond, and take action.

The Board has remained silent for too long on these substantive matters.

I am fully satisfied that this matter has the potential to impact aviation safety.

I am fully satisfied that I have widespread industry support with regards to this matter.

I believe that this is a substantial matter and that there is a deliberate effort from within the Office of Minister King to suppress that matter. I make that statement on the basis that Minister King established contact with my Local MP for Chisholm, Dr Carina Garland and directed her that she was not to assist me in this matter. My Local MP has since refused to assist me on this matter, as directed by Minister King.

My specific allegation is that.

1. The CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence has deliberately facilitated the provision of false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation for the purpose of affecting the findings of the Ombudsman investigation, and covering up potential misconduct of a CASA Employee. That Employee being Mr Jonathan Aleck.

2. The CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, Mr Jonathan Aleck is the CASA Employee that provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation to cover up his misconduct. I also make an allegation of Misfeasance in Public Office against Mr Aleck, and have prepared substantial documentation in support of these allegations.

3. The CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner, Mr Jonathan Hanton was aware that false and misleading information was being provided, but chose not to act, and is therefore complicit in the provision of false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation with the knowledge that it would deny me justice.

4. CASA Flight operations Inspector David Edwards made a false statement to CASA that I shoved him in the foyer of the CASA Building.

I am seeking very clear direction from the Board on how to proceed with this matter. I am not satisfied that The Ombudsman’s Office can determine that it has been misled, so I am seeking an independent investigation. The Ombudsman Office has demonstrated an aversion to seeking evidence where substantive evidence is readily available, and most especially in situations where seeking that evidence could bring harm to the Agency, CASA

To ensure clarity on this matter. My very strong preference is that this matter be referred to the AFP or similar Body for investigation.

If the CASA Board and Minister King are unwilling or unable to initiate such action, I will very clearly be left with no option but to pursue litigation. As the CASA Board and Minister King are fully aware, I have gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid litigation, as it indicates that no “good intent “remains. From my perspective, it is my very last option, but one that I will vigorously pursue if necessitated by a failure of both the Board and Minister to act.

Please be assured that if I have not received a response over the next 14 days, I will go out to industry seeking their support, and initiate contact with the ACT Law Society seeking a meeting and guidance.

If I have not received a comprehensive response within 14 days, I will also write directly to the Office of the PM outlining the matter to ensure that he has both an awareness of the matter and an awareness of the involvement of Minister King in this matter. I will advise him that Dr, Carina Garland the Member for Chisholm has been fully briefed, and could be considered the Subject Matter Expert (SME) within his Government .

The allegations are substantive and considering the seniority of the personnel involved and the nature of the Government Department that employs them, these allegations cannot be swept under the carpet, they must be thoroughly investigated. Most especially considering the potential impact to the safety of aviation if these individuals were found to have provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation, as I know they have.

Whilst it shouldn’t be necessary, I feel it is. I draw your attention to

· CASAs Regulatory Philosophy https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/our-regulatory-philosophy

· and to the Functions of the Board. https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/our-board/board-governance#RoleoftheBoard

· and the Ministers Statement of Expectations https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2023L00920/latest/text

in preparing the Boards considered response, and please ensure that Minister King is included in that response.

Please understand that I do not make these allegations lightly. I am fully satisfied that I now have enough evidence and witnesses that I can proceed promptly on this matter.

I have no doubt that the four CASA Employees that I make these allegations against should welcome a comprehensive examination of this matter, as it would provide them the opportunity to prove their innocence if that was the case.

I am also fully aware that by going public with such substantive allegations, I am subject to litigation if I were found to be making these allegations in a vindictive or vexatious manner. An AFP investigation would expose such matters and provide the CASA employees with recourse against me, assuming such an investigation found that it was I that was providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.

Because I am satisfied that there is an attempt to suppress this matter, and because of the substantive role of CASA, and the Seniority of the CASA Employees involved, I have distributed this correspondence to other relevant persons and organisations.

I am hoping that this correspondence will finally force the Board to act and ensure good governance in accordance with the obligations placed on the Board, and to ensure the safety of aviation.

Finally, let me emphasise that this correspondence is me formally raising these allegations directly to the Board and for the attention of Minister King, who I expect will be involved in the CASA response or have awareness of it before it is sent to me.

For clarity, my very strong preference is that this matter have the involvement of a substantiver body such as the AFP.

With the access i have to witnesses and documents, I am confident that the AFP will be able to make a rapid assessment of this matter, and I suggest the easiest initial matter to address would be the allegation by CASA Flight Operations Inspector in the foyer of the CASA Lobby, that I shoved him with some force, and that I assaulted him which is a blatant lie.

An assessment of that matter would be quick and efficient and begin to unravel this matter in its entirety. If I am found to be not acting in the public interest, and being untruthful, then I too should be held fully accountable, and that is why I believe this is a matter for the AFP, and not a contracted investigation such as CPM Reviews who CASA have utilised previously to "engineer" desired results.

Respectfully Glen Buckley

MalcolmReynolds

20th Mar 2024, 12:59

They won't even blink on reading this letter. Not until the court date is set and they receive a summons. Best of luck Glen. Go hard!

glenb

21st Mar 2024, 19:03

Malcolm I completely agree. There is no doubt that litigation is CASAs preferred option, and I concur that they probably even have a bit of a snigger and an "inside joke" about me. Of that I have no doubt.

My hope is that it will at least force the Board to very formally clarify exactly where CASA stands, and its that response that will trigger my next step. Its important that i now ensure i have "CASAs" response. The Board has been stunningly silent on this matter, and it clearly demonstrates the impotence of the CASA Board.

That CASA response will most likely be followed by correspondence that bypasses Minister King, as I feel that she has enough knowledge of this matter, and has chosen to "cover it up". I will write to the PM direct;y with a petition calling for an investigation into the conduct of the staff I have named.

I will go out to industry seeking signatures and I will be active in the Electorate of Chisholm. Realistically a relatively small number of signatures should do the job. I will submit that to Dr Carina Garland. If she refuses to accept it, I will approach all Independent Ministers and requesting that they accept it.

I may be on the wrong path but as stated it has little to do with CASA going forward although a number of FOI requests are coming, which will be very revealing, i believe.

CASA had demonstrated a propensity to be willing to provide false and misleading information, and recent FOI requests have left me in no doubt about that.

I may be naive, but if I write to the PM raising those allegations and copy in every Member of Parliament, I feel he will be compelled to act. Seriously how could the PM ignore such substantial allegations aginst the Senior executive of CASA, and most especially if he receives a petition calling for an investigation by the AFP into the conduct of those CASA personnel.

Surely they could not tremain in their respective roles, and they would have to removed from operational duty, remaining on full pay, pending the outcome of the investigation.

I believe that litigation will be forced within the next couple of weeks. Hoping for a hungry lawyer, and I just want to make sure I can feed him or her all the information that hungry lawyer needs.

glenb

21st Mar 2024, 20:16

Removal of Mr Aleck from Decision Making on my matter

22/03/24

To the CASA Board.

May I respectfully request a specific response to this correspondence only and no other issues, to maintain clarity on this matter.

Please note I have included Minister King and my Local Mp, Dr. Carina Garland in this correspondence, to ensure they remain fully aware of this topic.

I have raised allegations with the CASA Board that three CASA Employees have been responsible for providing and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman's investigation. The most substantive of allegations.

As the most serious of allegations are against Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs, I feel this matter must be clearly addressed by the Board to ensure fair processes.

As you are aware, as a result of the way CASA handled this matter, I spent a period of time in hospital, and I had to hand over "authority" to my father who assisted me during that period, including some FOI requests.

Those documents that he received during my absence were highly redacted, although they left me in no doubt at all that CASA has provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.

Shortly I intend to reapply to CASA to obtain a "less redacted" version of those documents, as I believe that will provide the final pieces of evidence I require to fully satisfy myself that CASA has provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.

Should that application be rejected, I understand there is an appeals process.

The concern that I have is that the FOI Department is the Department of Mr Aleck, the very CASA Employee that I have raised allegations against. As he is the Executive Manager of that Department and the ultimate decision maker for that Department, it could be argued that he may use the power of his position to influence the level of redcation in order to cover up his misconduct, as I believe has happened to date.

That only makes my task more difficult, and denies me procedural fairness, as you will understand.

I have made this request of CASA before but it has been ignored, and I feel compelled to make it again.

Could you confirm for me that Mr Jonathan Aleck will not have any involvement in any FOI requests made by me to support my allegations against him of misconduct.

I specifically request again that Mr Aleck have no involvement in decision making on FOI requests that I make to substantiate my allegation of misconduct against him.

I would be satisfied if the Board were to accept responsibility for these responsibilities rather than Mr Aleck.

Alternatively, the Board has most likely identified this risk and the conflict of interest, and put in place suitable checks and balances. If so, could you advise me of those, so that I can satisfy myself that fair processes are in place.

Respectfully. Glen Buckley

MagnumPI

21st Mar 2024, 23:45

I may be naive, but if I write to the PM raising those allegations and copy in every Member of Parliament, I feel he will be compelled to act. Seriously how could the PM ignore such substantial allegations aginst the Senior executive of CASA, and most especially if he receives a petition calling for an investigation by the AFP into the conduct of those CASA personnel.

Yes, you are being naive.

MPs frequently get letters from members of the community alleging some sort of conspiracy. I'd expect the PM would receive even more.

Most of these claims are refuted outright or ignored after a simple enquiry to the Minister or Department concerned, if it even goes that far.

I said on this topic a long time ago that you've clearly been labelled by those you're writing to and those that you're alleging have wronged you as a nut, a sort of fixated person.

Whilst I (like many other of your supporters) can see the anguish of your plight, it is also so incredibly frustrating to see you persisting with writing these long and rambling letters.

They're not helping your case at all, if anything they're harming it. I'd expect that a solicitor would advise you to cease all direct communications - yet you keep going.

The GoFundMe raised a substantial amount of money that could and should have been used for proper legal advice and litigation. At least that's my view.

It's been over five years. Don't you want closure?

mcoates

22nd Mar 2024, 04:57

Hello MagnumPI, you have said exactly what myself and I am guessing the majority of the readers on this site are actually thinking.

Every time there is a new letter it just prolongs the agony of a result and further cements the way that any Minister or Department would look at this matter.

It really has to stop and be handled by legal people, there is no way you can fight this fight yourself and win, at the moment there just waiting for you to commit suicide or give up and then the problem goes away. Use the money that has been pledged and allow the fight to be taken over for you by professionals who will just get the job done.

Sorry, rant over but it is just so frustrating to know that using the correct people this would have been over years ago

VH-MLE

22nd Mar 2024, 07:11

I agree with the two previous poster’s. Unfortunately, but with great respect, I have stopped reading your incredibly long pieces of text as my attention span is not that good on something I feel has been repeated on a number of occasions. For you however Glen, it may be cathartic to do that & if that is the case, then disregard what I said.

Just the same, it seems to me the longer this drags on, the less likely you will receive justice in the way you deem appropriate. The way things are going, Jonathon Aleck, the CEO & others will be long retired by the time this gets to crunch time & by then, your case will be somewhat of a distant memory to the CASA machine in the months/years ahead.

To you & your long suffering family, this matter is rightly of the utmost importance. To our Federal politicians however, I would regretfully say your matter is of little significance to them, largely because there’s no votes in it - & that applies to Labor & the LNP alike in my view.

Many posters here Glen have suggested that the time has come (& long gone) for you to commence taking a full on legal assault on CASA. You have a lot of supporters - but I’m sensing a degree of fatigue in that support due to the slow & seemingly counterproductive approach you are taking.

Bite the bullet Glen & get that legal action happening…

Just my 2 Lire’s worth…

MJA Chaser

22nd Mar 2024, 07:33

"The Gloves are off!"

Glen, no they arent. You are persisting with an approach doomed to fail.
Everyone is yelling at you to take the legal approach using experts who can get a conclusion to this. That is your only option to a resolution. Get on with it.

Flaming galah

22nd Mar 2024, 08:00

I agree with the two previous poster’s. Unfortunately, but with great respect, I have stopped reading your incredibly long pieces of text as my attention span is not that good on something I feel has been repeated on a number of occasions.

I’m sensing a degree of fatigue in that support due to the slow & seemingly counterproductive approach you are taking.

yeah, me too. And every new letter makes it easier for what happened to be ignored. I donated to Glen’s cause like so many of us did, but nothing came of it. Just letter after letter after letter after letter. Come on Glen, get after them

Global Aviator

22nd Mar 2024, 09:45

April 2nd is not far away which is the date you said we would see the next step.

I’ve refrained from commenting until now however every poster is saying the same thing.

You have our support, use it.

deadlegdeadengine

23rd Mar 2024, 02:45

long-term lurker here. I have signed up just now to metaphorically shake you into action, Glen. the time is nigh. you still have the room but there is reader fatigue. life is short

glenb

23rd Mar 2024, 20:23

Post #2915 page 146 Request for clarification sent to Ombudsman requesting clarification of significant misunderstanding.
Post #2923 page 147 Follow up 5 weeks later requesting response.
Post 3 2962 page 149 Follow to the follow up after more than 2 months with no response.

The response from the Ombudsman received below. Dear Mr Buckley,

I am providing you an update of your complaint, reference number is 2024-102179.

Your complaint has been referred to Emma Cotterill, Senior Assistant Ombudsman – Investigations.

Emma will provide you a response by Monday, 25 March 2024.

We thank you for your patience.

Kind Regards,

Patrick

glenb

23rd Mar 2024, 20:36

In Post #2963 i formally raised allegations of misconduct with the CASA Board.

In Post #2966 I made a request, as I have done repeatedly throughout this matter to have Mr aleck removed from involvement. FOI requests leave me in no doubt that there has been a very high level of involvement in this matter. Once again in an attempt to bring integrity to processes.

Below is confirmation that the correspondence has been forwarded to the Board.

to me, [email protected], [email protected]
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif Fri, 22 Mar, 14:26 (2 days ago)
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gifOFFICIAL

Dear Mr Buckley

Thank you for your correspondence dated 20 March 2024, and the follow-up email received today dated 22 March 2024.

Both of your enquiries have progressed to the Chair of the Board and I hope to provide a response to you shortly.

Best regards

Colin

glenb

23rd Mar 2024, 21:18

In Post #2943 I made an FOI request.

At my meeting with the CASA board Chair and CEO, it was revealed to me for the first time after 5 years that CASA action was in part, based on complaints that CASA had received from other Parties.

These allegations had NEVER been raised with me and I had no awareness at all until that time. My assumption is that CASA has most likely shared that information with the Ombudsman Office to lead the Ombudsman up a particular "path".

I am interested to see the nature of the complaints. It will be interesting to note if they are genuine concerns or perhaps something malicious. I very much embrace the process of confidential reporting, although CASA must have some filtration procedure. As an absolute minimum, if someone makes allegations to CASA, i should have the knowledge that they exist and the opportunity to address those concerns, prior to CASA making a decision. Anyway. they will arrive shortly as you can see from the correspondence below. My applications had not been acknowledged for two weeks, and I was concerned that it may be a delaying tactic on the 30 day counter. The correspondence assures me that those documents should arrive imminently."CASA Ref: F24/8101

Dear Mr Buckley,

Apologies for the delay in sending you an acknowledgement on your request(s) as I have been away being unwell. Please find below the acknowledgement for your request made on 3 March 2024. Your second request made on 4 March 2024, will be acknowledged in a separate email.

I refer to your email of 3 March 2024 whereby you requested access to the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act):

Can I request documents that CASA hold on to file for the period October 23rd 2013 to October 23rd 2018.

Those documents would be complaints or information made to CASA about my Organisation on any aspect of safety or compliance, or anything of any nature that would rightfully raise concerns within CASA.

Those complaints would have been submitted by a person or Entity external to CASA…

I acknowledge receipt of your request under the FOI Act. CASA received your request on 3 March 2024 and the 30-day statutory period for processing your request commenced from the day after that date. You should therefore expect a decision by COB Wednesday 3 April 2024. However, the period of 30 days may be extended if CASA needs to consult third parties or for other reasons. Should the timeframe be extended, you will be notified by CASA with the new due date. Your above request has been assigned the reference number F24/8101, please use this reference number in future correspondence relating to your above request.

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. CASA’s practice is to release documents in pdf format transmitted via email to your nominated email address. Please advise if you wish a different communication method – additional charges may apply.

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

Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me at: [email protected]

Once again, I apologise for the delay in acknowledging your request.

Kind regards,

XXX XXXX

Freedom of Information Officer

Legal Advisory and Drafting

Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Division

glenb

23rd Mar 2024, 21:28

I realised that i had not posted this FOI request on here, or at least a quick scan did not reveal it.

Regarding the significance of this request. CASAs stance is that throughout the decade that I operated they were not awre that i was utilising employees that were employees of other Entities. CASA advised that if I transferred all employees of all Entities to become Employees of the same Entity that held the AOC the entire matter would immediately be fully resolved.

Very clearly this is not supported by any industry precedent or legislation.

I maintain that CASA was always truthfully awre throughout the decade. The significance of this request is that it will clearly confirm that CASA was fully aware of the relationship and the recollection of this documentation is that it clearly indicates such. to me, Freedom
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
Thu, 21 Mar, 11:09 (3 days ago)
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gifOFFICIAL

CASA Ref: F24/8102

Dear Mr Buckley,

Apologies for the delay in sending you an acknowledgement on your request(s) as I have been away being unwell. Please find below the acknowledgement for your request made on 4 March 2024.

I refer to your email of 3 March 2024 whereby you requested access to the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act):

On approximately 27/07/17 an application was made for the addition of our APTA- AVIA base.

On approximately 05/10/17 an application was made for the addition of our APTA- LTF Base….

What I am seeking in this FOI request is the paperwork that would have been supplied to me once those bases were approved. That "certificate" or "approval: was created by CASA, and CASA provided us with those two documents, one for each APTA base.

I acknowledge receipt of your request under the FOI Act. CASA received your request on 3 March 2024 and the 30-day statutory period for processing your request commenced from the day after that date. You should therefore expect a decision by COB Thursday 4 April 2024. However, the period of 30 days may be extended if CASA needs to consult third parties or for other reasons. Should the timeframe be extended, you will be notified by CASA with the new due date. Your above request has been assigned the reference number F24/8102, please use this reference number in future correspondence relating to your above request.

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. CASA’s practice is to release documents in pdf format transmitted via email to your nominated email address. Please advise if you wish a different communication method – additional charges may apply.

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

Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me at: [email protected]

Once again, I apologise for the delay in acknowledging your request.

Kind regards,

XXX XXXX

Freedom of Information Officer

Legal Advisory and Drafting

Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Division
Civil Aviation Safety Authority

MalcolmReynolds

23rd Mar 2024, 23:40

So the standard CASA response to an FOI request is a delay of at least 30 days and likely longer for no particular reason other than to delay and frustrate you. This is a f#cking waste of time. Go to court Glen! Your legal team will squeeze out the truth from the bastards!

VH-MLE

24th Mar 2024, 11:43

It's like posts 2967 through to 2973 do not exist!

Regretfully, I'm sorry to say I'm no longer going to actively follow this thread. Having said that, I hope you do eventually obtain the justice (& compensation) you need...

bloated goat

24th Mar 2024, 19:21

Flaming galah

25th Mar 2024, 03:37

He’s just getting all his ducks in a row before the next step. We’re behind you GB!

No doubt we are behind him. But suggesting this pattern of scattergun, repetitive, rambling, irrelevant and nonsensical letters is part of some broader plan or strategy rather than a hindrance that harms Glen’s credibility to the benefit of CASA is insane and enabling.

glenb

26th Mar 2024, 20:36

I have put this on here, directed towards MLE, but it does apply to everyone that has followed this thread. Assuming that MLE has moved on as he siuggested I have also sent it as a PM.

MLE. First. Thank you for your support to date, and I understand that you are no doubt a "supporter" still, but a frustrated one. You are not alone.

The support from this forum has been exceptional, it really has. I know this sounds dramatic, but I would be in a far far darker place if it wasn't for Pprune and Aunty Pru. I chose to stay away from Facebook, Tik Tok etc. I wasn't trying to Grandstand or cause mischief. I turned immediately to Prune, and those initial responses, the empathy, and the support landed right on target. They buoyed me significantly.

If it wasn't for Pprune, CASA would have buried me years ago, and I have no doubt at all about that. The only weapon I have at my disposal was to see if there was widespread industry support out there. There was. Its been well intentioned, staunch, knowledgeable, and there can be no doubt that it has been invaluable to me.

I will give you only one of many dozens of examples. I can't locate the Post but it is in there somewhere.

CASAs own ICC found that CASA had known about APTA for a significant period of time. With everything going on the significance of that was lost on me at the time.

'After that ICC finding, the Ombudsman found that CASA didn't know about APTA.

How could the Ombudsman arrive at a finding that CASA didn't know about APTA if CASA had already found that in fact CASA did know about APTA.

The CASA ICC had found that CASA did know, so that should be the CASA narrative from that date. However, someone else from within CASA, and I have no doubt that it is Mr. Aleck has convinced the Ombudsman otherwise.

Very clearly someone is misleading the Ombudsman. One Organization cannot possibly have two contrasting narratives.

I believe that this point will become significant at a future date.

Anyway, I had overlooked the fact that CASAs own ICC had found that CASA did know.

Someone on here made a post about exactly that. Something that I had completely missed.

A second example is the background support and learned advice that I have received from here, or just the well-intentioned comments.

I am aware that my supporters are waning and becoming increasingly frustrated, and that many also contributed to the GoFund me Page for the very purpose of seeking legal assistance.

I used a portion of those funds to seek "guidance". I want to be a bit careful with I write here.

One of those initial meetings was with a very reputable firm.

At that stage had I have proceeded; it was very clear that my outlook was bleak. Had I proceeded, it is unlikely that I would have succeeded. This is a case at that time that would have cost me over $750,000. A staggering amount.

I stepped back, and withy the information I now had I knew what was important and the direction I needed to take. I also got some exceptional learned advice on here from one poster in particular.

A portion of those funds has been used to obtain some tweaking along the way.

A lot of the legwork that has been done, with at least half of it not on PPrune, I believe that I am very well prepared. The ping pong component is done and finished. The exact tactics that CASA used on me, would have been used on my legal team at significant expense. I have certainly learnt that CASA has a lot of "capability" when it comes to delaying tactics, as the industry is completely aware.

To may on here, what appears as a long rant in correspondence is in my mind something more than that. Most correspondence has multiple recipients from within and outside the industry, so i am trying to capture a wide variety of recipients, and at the same time "involve" parties that may prefer to not be "involved" such as my MP for Chisholm, Dr. Carina Garland, and also the Minister.

I'm ensuring that there can be no defense as to a lack of awareness.

Consider this. Minister King is fully aware that CASA now admits that in fact I did not stalk or assault any CASA Employee despite Shane Carmody PSMs false statement to the Senators that I had stalked and assaulted CASA staff. The Minister is aware of that and far more, yet chooses not to act, but rather to facilities misconduct. As this matter moves to the next stage the Ministers involvement and knowledge will become increasingly apparent.

Recently, I have begun to question myself about my chosen path, due to the withdrawal of support. But I truly reflected on it, and I'm satisfied with my decisions. Not all of them perfect admittedly, nevertheless they were my decisions and I'm responsible for them.

On a slightly deeper level, I sought some "professional" advice to discuss my real motivations and here is what i discovered.

I opened up my flying school with a good friend in 2005, and we both had a vision. A very passionate one. That business boomed from day one, and exceeded our expectations, in how much satisfaction it gave us. We never advertised and it grew on word of mouth. We maintained an industry leading level of safety and compliance, and no disrespect to any other school, but we attracted the very best instructional team at Moorabbin airport.

My "legacy" was going to be a flying school that was fondly remembered in the industry.

The business grew and the 'legacy" that i wanted to leave grew. I wanted to preserve regional flying schools that were going to discontinue operations.

The question was put to me. What was the single one thing that you wanted most.

I recounted the MFT opening party in 2006, which was probably one of the biggest parties that the Airport had ever seen. I wanted a similar thing when i retired. I wanted a large farewell where I could surround myself on my last day with all my past staff, students, suppliers etc. and look around and reflect on what a fortunate life I had. Quite sadly, it was almost exclusively about that farewell. Quite sad and self-centered really, but it was something actually much deeper than that. I had envisaged a night that would be one of the most significant in my life.

Instead of resolving this matter in a matter of hours as Aleck/CASA could have he/they chose a far more engineered and destructive path that was entirely unnecessary.

MLE, and others. Please be 100% assured that I will meet my deadline to pursue litigation.

What the legal firm will have is a client, who is extremely task focused, knowledgeable, and well prepared. There will be no unnecessary delays while we wait for significant FOI requests. The firm will be able to move forwards quickly and effectively.

CASA will find an adversary that they have not come up against before, and i will fully expose this.

I got forced out of the industry and had my family's life upended as a result of this.

The direction is about to change and change substantially. I have nothing to lose, and quite frankly. If I do go down, I will go down swinging.

MLE, can i ask that you return in early April to the forum.

My legacy has been somewhat altered, and i will settle for nothing less than bringing an end to the misconduct within CASA.

Thankyou sincerely, sipping the last bits of coffee, and heading out the door.

Cheers Glen

Flaming galah

26th Mar 2024, 23:28

IAnyway, I had overlooked the fact that CASAs own ICC had found that CASA did know.

Someone on here made a post about exactly that. Something that I had completely missed.

Im not sure if those are my posts at 1863 and 2078.

If they are, I regret them as I think you’re now on the right track going after the ICC for his total lack of integrity and corrupt conduct. You can’t trust a word that comes out of that snake’s mouth, I wonder what the purpose of those findings were as they can only have been to benefit CASA.

glenb

28th Mar 2024, 18:48

Cheers for taking the next step from being a lurker to joining in order to make that post. Very much appreciated, and especially as I know I am losing many due to fatigue. Landed at a good time. Cheers

glenb

29th Mar 2024, 19:32

I know your weary folk but I do have a few more days on my own deadline. A few finishing touches.

In posts #2915,2923, and 2962 I made a request of the Ombudsman over several months. The response is below. Nothing new or exciting in it, but I am just posting it for reference. Cheers,.2019-713834 / 2024-102179

28 March 2024

Mr Glen Buckley

By email: [email protected]

Dear Mr Buckley

Your complaints about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)

I am writing in response to your emails of 16 January 2024 and 26 February 2024 regarding the Office’s handling of your complaint about CASA between 2019 and 2023.

While your emails are lengthy and cover several issues, I understand your main points

to be:

• you believe Office investigation staff understood there were flying schools other than APTA involved, which is incorrect.

• you are unhappy that, despite your requests to withdraw your complaint about CASA, the Office elected to continue with its investigation.

• you believe the Office’s conclusions regarding your complaint about CASA were based on false and misleading information.

To consider these issues, I reviewed all records associated with the investigation conducted by Mike and Mark, and the review conducted by Catherine.

Involvement of 'other' flying schools

In your emails, you asserted that correspondence provided to you by Office staff suggested those staff understood that the existence of flying schools other than APTA

was a factor in CASA's decision making. You pointed out that entities that wish to deliver flying training must hold relevant CASA approvals and asked the Office to identify

which other entities held these.

In my review of our records, I did not identify any statements by Office staff about approved flying schools other than APTA. I also did not identify any such statements in

CASA's responses to the Office's investigation.

Further, based on the records and correspondence on the investigation file, I am satisfied that Mike, Mark and Catherine understood that, across its members, APTA was

the only CASA approved flying school. The records reflect Office staff were aware that APTA's business model was premised on flying training being conducted from

members' bases under APTA's authorisation, being necessary because members did not hold their own approvals.

Failure to act on requests to withdraw

I acknowledge that on at least 2 occasions you asked Mark and Catherine to pause or cease their handling of your complaint about CASA. At those times you explained that the impacts of CASA’s decision on your business and finances were causing you significant distress and you no longer wished to engage with the Office about these or associated matters.

Under section 8(1) of the Ombudsman Act 1976, Ombudsman staff have broad discretion to investigate complaints in the way they think best. This means that while

staff may agree to cease their investigation when a complainant asks them, they are not required to do so. It is clear from the records and from their contacts with you that

Mark and Catherine believed the matters you raised with the Office were serious and complex and - given the time the Office had already invested and the serious impact

you said that CASA’s actions had on your business - warranted continued investigation.

I note that you continued to communicate with Mark and Catherine about the investigation after they declined your requests to withdraw your complaint.

I am satisfied this position was open to them in the circumstances and, as such, do not consider there is any basis for the Office to withdraw the conclusions that resulted from the investigation and subsequent review.

1 Under Part 141 or 142 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

1300 362 072 ombu
dsman.gov.au GPO Box 442, Canberra ACT 2601

Reliance on false and misleading information

In your emails, you claimed the Office's conclusions about your complaint were based on 'gross misunderstandings' that arose from CASA providing false and misleading

information. You called on the Office to ‘address and publicly correct’ its errors. Catherine was aware of your view that CASA misled the Office by providing incorrect

information and this was one of the focuses of her review. In her letters to you on 8 and 17 February 2023, Catherine advised:

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.

Your most recent emails do not contain any information that would prompt me to

revisit Catherine's assessment of the truthfulness of CASA's responses. However, if you have further information or evidence on this point, I invite you to provide this to the

Office so we may consider it.

Conclusion

In the absence of additional information or evidence (as outlined above), I do not intend to take any further action on your recent emails. While I know you may be

dissatisfied with this outcome, I hope you will see that I have carefully considered the issues you raised.

If you would like to speak with me about this letter, please contact me at [email protected] so we can arrange a suitable date and time.

Yours sincerely

XXXXXXX

Senior Assistant Ombudsman

Investigations