Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA

[havick]

Much of this has been about the effect on me, but perhaps its worth recapping on the effect on some of the other businesses. Obviously, I would have to take legal advice, but my intention will be to involve all parties effected by the action undertaken by Mr Crawford, Mr Martin, and Mr Mc Heyzer.

APTA had a number of members and these included MFT, AVIA, LTF, ARC, BLT Aero Club, LTV aero club, Sim jet, Chartair, White star, and had another two members about to join.

By joining APTA these organisations came under the one authorisation. Systems were standardised and centralised. The systems were robust.

As these members have been forced into breaking away from APTA, they have lost significant capability. Lets look at the BLT and LTV aero clubs.

As a member of APTA they had access to

A robust and well funded safety department, able to gather and act on group statistics.
Registered Training Organisation approval to deliver a Diploma in Aviation.
The ability to enrol international students
Ability to deliver the integrated 150 hour CPL as opposed to the 200 course with GST.
Ability to deliver contracted check and training to charter operators
High levels of redundancy through 3 X CASA approved HOOs, 2 X CASA approved Safety Managers, and 2 x CASA approved CEOs.

By Brad Lacey initiating a complete reversal of the previous CASA approval, the aero clubs are substantially effected,

The aero clubs will be "cut loose" and have to find their own way as Part 141 only, with the loss of capability that comes along with that.

All so totally unnecessary, and avoidable had my FOI, Mr Lacey acted with a modicum of good intent. Could be done. Far more satisfying obviously for him to act in a more clandestine manner, and bring harm.

Seriously, Mr Carmody, where do you find these people, seriously. Horrible people, how can they hold their head high as they skulk around the industry wreaking havoc. Hang your heads in shame

and the sad thing is, this is just the tip of the iceberg with CASA and their introduction of part 61.

best of luck glen, keep at it.

[glenb]

No, I wasn't. That's why I am absolutely flawed that Brad Lacey elected to pursue the initial action on me without any warning whatsoever. I had heard from Industry about his reputation, and in fact he had made an inappropriate comment about me to Industry. I was sure there was going to be an issue, and that's why I formally registered my concern, prior to him transferring to take over APTA.

However, I had never worked with him, and to the best of my knowledge, I never even had a conversation with him. Maybe he thought I was a soft target. That's how bullies normally operate.

Unfortunately he let his own fears and insecurities influence his decision making, but I certainly never worked with him, and in fact wasn't even aware that he had crashed an aeroplane. Was it a "gear up"?

[glenb]

My main matter will continue on, and that is the main issue.

I do however have another case bubbling away, and that is the unfair dismissal claim, due to my employment being terminated on Mr Mc Heyzers instruction to my Employer. I have visited an employment lawyer, and received initial advice. I have given CASA 14 days to sit down and meet with me in a well intentioned manner. CASA history suggests that isn't going to happen, but I will sit out the 14 days. In another 10 days as that counter ticks over, and assuming that Mr Carmody hasn't taken action, against Mr Mc Heyzer, which well know he would never do, I will just have to do it myself.

The point of the email. I get the feeling that some people viewing this may be lawyers, or at least have knowledge on the subject. I want to keep the unfair dismissal separate from the larger case.

So if anybody knows a lawyer, or is a lawyer, and would be able to run with the unfair dismissal case, could you please contact me on [email protected]

Cheers. Glen.

Quite keen to send a strong message to people such as Mr Mc Heyzer, that insist on using bullying and intimidation as one of their "tools"

[Sunfish]

It is held that correspondence between a citizen and Parliament cannot be suppressed by anyone for any reason. If a CASA person threatened retribution against someone for communicating with a parliamentary member, it. is up to the privilege committee to investigate and decide if it is interference. If it is they can call it contempt and in theory, get locked up until you purge the contempt.

Courts have much the same rules. I was once asked by a Board to inflict a ‘Clutz” (clayton Utz) employment contract on our staff. The idiots included a clause saying employees agreed not to approach a court to enforce the contract. It was pointed out that any and all judges would go apoplectic if they ever saw such a contract because you can’t prevent someone accessing Government.

[The Wawa Zone]

Glen, I do not know you and you do not know me. I have had a bit to do with CASA re AOC approvals, waivers, Aviation Med for eyesight problems, etc, during my flying career and a lot more dealings with Government contractual matters outside of aviation.

I understand the emotional aspect of this situation in which you find yourself, however, having read most of the saga here and elsewhere, I suggest that it is a lost cause. CASA is just a box ticking machine staffed by people with limited time, and the way to feed the machine is with dull mundane compliance, plentiful cheap coffee and even cheaper biscuits, and a play to their egos which are significant and based on their not inconsiderable level of education and experience, eg. Aleck, in many thing excluding (fortunately) actually being able to fly. I did this on numerous occasions by picking the brains of both FOIs and OLC at every opportunity, and knowing backwards the legislation and regulations (and the rest of the rulings and other made-up crap). I was fortunate in having prior legal training outside of aviation.
You have been doing the opposite and word would have come down from above for the lower level CASA minions to get you out of their hair and timesheets.

You seem to have spent a lot of money so far and want to get some return for that by spending more. I'd suggest that unless your legal advice states the cost of obtaining some probability of financial compensation and by when, or you will get and be satisfied with a simple (without prejudice) apology, that you pack it up and start from scratch with a new flying business. It's always hard to de-emotionalise stuff like this and stop the action-response loop running in your head, but I suggest that starting something new will work out better in the long run despite the current bitterness.

[havick]

Glen, I do not know you and you do not know me. I have had a bit to do with CASA re AOC approvals, waivers, Aviation Med for eyesight problems, etc, during my flying career and a lot more dealings with Government contractual matters outside of aviation.

I understand the emotional aspect of this situation in which you find yourself, however, having read most of the saga here and elsewhere, I suggest that it is a lost cause. CASA is just a box ticking machine staffed by people with limited time, and the way to feed the machine is with dull mundane compliance, plentiful cheap coffee and even cheaper biscuits, and a play to their egos which are significant and based on their not inconsiderable level of education and experience, eg. Aleck, in many thing excluding (fortunately) actually being able to fly. I did this on numerous occasions by picking the brains of both FOIs and OLC at every opportunity, and knowing backwards the legislation and regulations (and the rest of the rulings and other made-up crap). I was fortunate in having prior legal training outside of aviation.
You have been doing the opposite and word would have come down from above for the lower level CASA minions to get you out of their hair and timesheets.

You seem to have spent a lot of money so far and want to get some return for that by spending more. I'd suggest that unless your legal advice states the cost of obtaining some probability of financial compensation and by when, or you will get and be satisfied with a simple (without prejudice) apology, that you pack it up and start from scratch with a new flying business. It's always hard to de-emotionalise stuff like this and stop the action-response loop running in your head, but I suggest that starting something new will work out better in the long run despite the current bitterness.

I disagree, you shouldn’t have to jump to someone’s tune and now at their feet just to gain an approval that you meet requirements for.

Just because you, and admittedly most of us have bent over to some FOI’s demands (that are totally out of their scope etc) doesn’t mean it should be right.

[Paragraph377]

Aleck’s background is 26 years at CASA, a legal background before that, time spent in PNG writing books filled with legal scattered baloney and stories about witchcraft, and a long stint at Loyola University. The nutty Professor was also Australia’s ICAO rep for a few years (they hated him and found him to be a waffling old pain in the ass). But he is intelligent in regards to having a legal mind. He has also had a quarter of a century to learn the art of political bull****, obsfucation and bullying. He is the core of the iron ring and has outwitted numerous CASA DAS/CEO’s, Boards and Ministers. That said, he has been gifted much power and he has used it extensively and with great joy to himself over the decades. The Doc has the capacity to crush Glen into a pile of powder, and he will. That said, Glen will go down in the aviation annals as one of the few brave and gutsy combatants of Fort Fumble, someone who didn’t die on his knees fighting.

Glen you have my utmost respect. And you never know, the more the spotlight shines on the Minister the more chances of you scoring a scalp or two. It won’t be Crawford, Carmody or Aleck, but you might get someone.

[The Wawa Zone]

You're hardly bending over or jumping to tunes unless you've really stuffed things up with them, but merely playing to their ego's as part of a suite of tactics to get what you want - if they are happy they'll give it to you.
CASA is ruled by fear just like the rest of aviation. CASA people have a fear of being blamed for adverse events within the section of industry that is under their purview, plus they are subject to internal politics as always, and want to cull out the 20% of operators found in the 80/20 rule (Pareto Principle) that will make their lives worse off. Keep out of the 20 and jam yourself well into the 80 and they'll go someplace else to spread their misery.

[Sunfish]

You're hardly bending over or jumping to tunes unless you've really stuffed things up with them, but merely playing to their ego's as part of a suite of tactics to get what you want - if they are happy they'll give it to you.
CASA is ruled by fear just like the rest of aviation. CASA people have a fear of being blamed for adverse events within the section of industry that is under their purview, plus they are subject to internal politics as always, and want to cull out the 20% of operators found in the 80/20 rule (Pareto Principle) that will make their lives worse off. Keep out of the 20 and jam yourself well into the 80 and they'll go someplace else to spread their misery.

In other words; go along to get along. Spineless. Why should anyone have to live like that?

Furthermore, investors won’t because of the sovereign risk.

[The Wawa Zone]

You are talking about black and white viewpoints, not the spectrum between them on which transactions actually happen.
Living like what ? Regulatory compliance is as much a fact of life as are human relationships other than friendship.
Big investors have very little sovereign risk because they initially reach for their lawyers and political contacts, and if the political benefits are there then CASA will be called in to sit down with the Minister's staff to sort out the details prior to any applications for approvals. The biggest current sovereign risk will come from surprise attacks on politicians by Greta Thunberg and her mass hysteria-generating friends.
Small investors are within the (GA) AOC's management structure and have a sensible chief pilot or CFI to protect them and their wildest ideas from the CASA Man (isn't that an interesting observation ?), within the mechanism of the 80/20 rule that I mentioned above.

[Sunfish]

Wawa zone, you might invest your money, but no investor I know (starting with the entire venture capital crowd and high net worth squad) is going to touch an investment where some person from CASA can decide to do a Glen Buckley on you.

Big investors have very little sovereign risk because they initially reach for their lawyers and political contacts, and if the political benefits are there then CASA will be called in to sit down with the Minister's staff to sort out the details prior to any applications for approvals.

Investing because you “have political contacts” or “know someone in CASA’ or “know how to keep in good with CASA’ or “know how to get CASA to fix things” has a name; it’s called official corruption and it’s a felony.

If you have any examples, we’d like to know.

[glenb]

I have my first lengthy consultation with the legal firm tomorrow. I had previously provided an information package and had an initial consultation. We now enter the process for the Crowd Funding to do its work. As I have said previously, it will now get pulled apart in detail, and a thorough assessment on the merits of the case, will be produced. At the end of that process, my understanding is that several "points" will be identified, and the case would be built around those. At the end of that process I will get

A. They gotcha
B. Permanently strike those individuals off your Christmas card list, they were unpleasant individuals to say the least, but as hard as it is to take, your case isn't strong.
C. On our professional assessment we believe that you have a valid basis for a claim for compensation of $X amount of dollars, which we believe to be fair and reasonable.
D. Wow, you've well and truly got them.

As with most things in aviation "c or the longest answer", often works. If I get that back, then obviously I will move to the next step. As I said before, once that train pulls out from the platform. It will go all the way to the final stop.

I suggest that my posts will be somewhat restricted from tomorrow. I will be explaining to the legal firm, that this opportunity has been funded primarily by people via pprune, and my intention would be to update on here, where it wouldn't compromise anything.

Almost in closing off, but feeling like a further opportunity on the soap box.

CASA mandated Part 61/141/142 and advised my school along with 350 others that we all had until September 1st 2017 to Transition. After that date, if we hadn't done it, we could not continue trading.

My Business was one of the small percentage that met the deadline. APTA was designed side by side with CASA personnel, as they ticked off on the 600 procedures that they assessed.

We were approved. We were audited. CASA commended and recommended us.

I was advised of a change from CASA CMT 2 oversighting team, to CASA CMT 3 oversighting team.

I formally raised concerns about the competence, reputation, and intent of Person X on that new team.

My concerns were overlooked.

The person that I raised concerns about initiated a process of restrictions on my ability to trade. Importantly there were no safety risks identified. Statistics will be revealed at the right time but indicate that Mr Crawfords, Mr Mc Heyzers, Mr Laceys, and Mr Martins decisions and actions have lead to a reduction in safety. That is a fact. It is, exactly as I advised them early in this process. Their conduct has reduced safety. Those individuals know exactly what I am talking about. It is not for publishing here. It is coming however. Be assured. By the time this gets to Court, I will unfortunately be in a position to say. "I told you so". Remember that, gentleman. I have identified your conduct as a safety risk. Mr Carmody has chosen to support those individuals, and keep them operational. He is making unsafe decisions.


Anyway, back on topic.

Person X, initiated a process that placed a limited date of operations on my business, lead to a loss of confidence in my product, prevented me taking on new customers and looking after existing customers. I was also prevented from advertising or marketing.

In October 2018, I identified their action would cost me $10,000 per week. More than one year has passed, and CASA confusion remains.

I have been left penniless, standing by the APTA Members, the product, and the staff.

Those named personnel were instrumental in it. I have made the most substantive allegations that can be levelled, against them.

I sat quiet on this trying to resolve it with CASA for 6 months, prior to going public on here in April 2018.

During the last 12 months i have been bullied and intimidated by CASA. I have witnessed negligent conduct, and mapractice. Please let me provide an example.

We had a meeting with the entire new CMT sitting across the table, berating me (in front of APTA witnesses) that our signage wasn't the "regulation size". At the end of the rant i sincerely and respectfully advised that i didnt think such regulations existed.

The entire CMT 3 was adamant that those regulations existed. I asked politely and genuinely if i could see them. ( i suspected they were getting confused with aircraft call sign markings). They sternly advised that they would "send" them to me. I point out that the whole CMT looked like they were loving watch me squirm. Obviously they never sent them. They dont exist. This is one of only many many examples. They will provide a "laugh" if nothing else, when this all comes out.

Is this a rant, and am i a bit "loose" tonight. Absolutely. This stress has continued on for 12 months now and effected many, far too many, it really has. When Mr Crawford and Mr Lacey initiated this action, i thought it would be resolved in a matter of weeks. I tried to wear the losses. CASA confusion became obvious, and resolution was impossible. There was so much negligence as per the single example above, that they couldn't back anything up, and it could never be resolved.

When this all comes out, you will see how hard i tried to resolve this. I will be proud to publish it when the opportunity presents.

Each week the $10,000 compounded, i couldn't walk away because members operations would grind to a halt. The battle has continued on for over 12 months.

Until about May 2019, I hoped these personnel would resolve their confusion. They didn't. In fact they each displayed UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT. Substantial allegation. There it is. In the public gentleman.

What have you done to me, considering that I never did anthything wrong.

My car is broken down, and its rego expired, my wifes car shortly to be returned to the bank, which will deprive my family of her income. I simply cannot pay my utilities, my son wont complete Year 12 next year at his current school, and my daughter is potentially withdrawing from a rural university, because we simply cant afford it.

I have accrued debts. I intend to go very public, I have nothing to hide. If you are a student that io owe money to, please put it up here. To MFT student JK, I urge you to do so. Everyone please. This is in fact the burden I bear, I want everyone to be OK as result of my decisions. That's Express, that's JK, Dave Desouza, everyone please, even the water bottle company etc. Moorabbin Airport etc. My situation is dire. It really is. Quite simply if you put it out here and publish it, it will help me to resolve it.

I want this 100 % fairly resolved for everyone I have impacted. That is a fair and reasonable expectation. Everyone, please put it out there, I urge you.

Getting myself worked up, taking a breather, will be back....

[Paragraph377]

Glen, perhaps your actions against CASA, and your revelations, are why CMT’s are going to be scrapped? The much promoted and highly promulgated beloved CMT structure will soon be no more.

[glenb]

I know that many believe I am banging my head against the wall, but I do not believe that is the case.

Recall that three CASA personnel directly involved have already resigned, there will be more.

The CMT structure is being abolished. I was informed from very high upm in CASA months ago that my case had "expedited" processes with regard to the overview.

I have at least exposed unconscionable conduct, poor intent, technical incompetence, a flagrant disregard for clearly stipulated processes, within CASA, and that exposure will increase substantially from today onwards. I have also highlighted another case of poor Board governance, and that will be further highlighted from today onwards, in a very credible forum i.e. a court room.

I think that CASA would have no credibility, if Graeme Crawford was to take over CASA. There would be an industry revolt, and he knows it. Therefore his lack of good intent and bullying and intimidating nature is coming back to effect him and his involvement in aviation safety.

Mr Mc Heyzer, is a disgrace in his conduct by directing my Employer to terminate my employment. Of every person in CASA he was acutely aware of the trauma my family was enduring, and to place that direction on my Employer indicates a person that is petty, poorly trained, vindictive etc Mr Mc Heyzer, I will accept nothing less than your resignation. I don't work in CASA, but if no -one in their has the balls to tell you. Let it be me. You need to resign, and very quickly, because you will be exposed. I will shortly demonstrate how many of your decisions have done, and continue to degrade aviation safety. You now know it. It is exacylt as I told you a long time ago. I have strong supporting evidence. You know what I am talking about. I will soon publish it all, in a court room. As I stated before. Your actions and decisions degrade aviation safety. You know I have the proof.

Mr Martin has bullied and intimidated and sent Mr Rhoades to his grave, making the same claims that I make aginst you. This time you cant even pretend to hide behind the :"safety card"
You destroyed Bruce all the way to his grave. You exhoibited those same behaviors in your engagement with me. BY me fully publishing this, Mr Martin. YOU WILL NOT DARE DO IT AGAIN.

Mr Lacey, your lucky. You've got months to study the rules and regulations, and get yourself technically competent, that you may just scrape over the line. Your technical nincomptetence will be exposed. I have many in industry looking forward to provide evidence.

If I get the media attention, and the courtroom, and potentially the Royal Commission that this and other matters deserve.

Aviation Safety in Australia will be increased.
Lives will be saved.
Livelihoods will be saved

Much of what needed to be done, has been done.

Am I sitting on the cusp of a complete and total mental breakdown?. Probably way way too close. Would some small business owners in my situation have taken their own life at some stage during the last year. Absolutely.

Consider this. Consider an immigrant to Australia trying to fight the fight I have. They would fail every time. They would be crushed by CASA. Every one of them. How can that situation be fair. What message does that send to Small Business.

We are only here, because they left me with nothing to lose. I had to fight. This matter can only escalate from here, and it will become more significant. I afforded CASA and the Minister so many repeated opportunities to diffuse this. It is all well prepared and documented.



Once the public sees the story in its entirety, I truly believe criminal prosecutions will come into play. You will see how the conduct of these individuals cost the Australian economy hundreds of millions of dollars of pilot training, lost to another country, and I mean hundreds of millions of dollars. It will all come out.

You will clearly see the failure to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards, and the negative effect on business and safety. The Government may begin to realise why it is that over 50% of pilot training is now delivered by foreign owned businesses. With appropriate media involvement, the story is enormous. What you have read is nothing. Trust me.

What else may happen. Well the Minister might actually realise that so much damage has been done to so many people, that in fact it might actually be fair to sit down and listen. It might actually work out far cheaper and save time and resources. I realise its unlikely. I will go to Court, and I will be seeking compensation so that I can walk up to each and every one of you and pay you back, but that is the work that remains to be done.

[Sunfish]

I will go out of my way to personally try and dissuade anyone from investing in Australian Aviation as a result of Glens experience and the final report of the Forsyth review. That process starts now and every time I get one of those “Xxxx, your a pilot, what about me buying a xxxxxxx” enquiries. I have already started raising the issue at every Liberal fundraiser I attend, every time I see an MP or a party official which is quite often. Probably won’t do much good but you never know.

[The Bullwinkle]

I will be seeking compensation so that I can walk up to each and every one of you and pay you back
If you win this Glen, it will be us that owes you a debt! :ok:​​​​​​​

[glenb]

I was sitting here waiting to catch up with a friend and stumbled across an old APTA memo, which CASA would hold on file. It made me proud, it really did. Mr Carmody, if you could infect your organisation with the culture that infected mine, I feel CASA would be a far better organisation.

As I say repeatedly, Mr Crawford, will be left standing alone, he really would.

I know its a cliché that good triumphs over evil. But when that evil is so immoral, so unfair, and so unjustified, it will topple, it must. I will stay the course, ethics, will prevail. CASA can hide behind terminiology, twist things, and fabricate, but ultimately they will fail.

Review the APTA Company philosophy, CASA could learn so much!

"I thought it might be timely to review our workplace values and how we treat each other. This has been initiated because I have highlighted some areas of deficiency through my own personal observations over recent months.

As the CEO of APTA, I have significant responsibilities and obligations placed on me to ensure a safe workplace. I take them seriously, but more importantly, I truly believe in them. I look at the people that make up APTA amongst all the bases, and there is no doubt we have a lot of diversity, simply look around at the different genders, ethnicities, ages, experiences, abilities, orientations, religions, languages, family structures, education, work and life experiences, prejudices etc.

As exciting as it is to see that diversity, it doesn’t necessarily make an organisation strong or successful. What will make an organisation strong and successful is how we deal with that diversity. If we deal with diversity in a healthy, productive and proactive manner, we will obviously create a better workplace.

The most basic value that each of us needs to practice in the workplace is respect. Without that, nothing else works. We don’t have to like each other, but we do have to respect each other. Hopefully however, we also like each other!

Irrespective of what base you are at, and where you draw your salary, you are operating under the APTA approval, and as I am the CEO of APTA, I get to set out the workplace values that must flow right throughout the organisation, if you are to operate within APTA, and in no particular order, those values are;

· Confront prejudices and stereotypes that demean, exclude, or belittle people, or their achievements.
· Be a learner.
· Believe in yourself and your values.
· Be an advocate for others.
· Be sensitive to the impact you have on others.
· Respect others dignity, values, beliefs and feelings.
· Communicate honestly.
· Never harass or accept harassment of others.
· Recognise that as humans, we all make mistakes.

Predominantly, we are all pilots. Our job is to make good decisions, so I encourage you to make those same good decisions on the ground as you do in the air.

As a Group, we do have official complaint procedures, but anyone is free to bypass all those procedures and approach me directly. I can assure you that I will approach every matter with an open mind, but I will be prepared to act.

For clarity, there is no “three warnings” for inappropriate behaviour in the workplace. If somebody is a racist, bigot, or a chauvinist on Monday, they will be on Tuesday and Wednesday, so there is little point in wasting three warnings over three days. Its much better to sort it out on the Monday.

If you read this, and take something away from it, thank you.

If you read this and make some smart-arse comment, that only suggests that you are not the type of person we want, need, or will accept.

One last consideration, a “test” I use on my kids, “If you walk away from any conversation and the other person has any increased anxiety, then something has gone wrong with the conversation. When you walk away, everyone’s blood pressure should be the same, or a bit lower”

[Paragraph377]

The CASA website has its own philosophy, a published Regulatory Philosophy. In that statement it certainly doesn’t include all the BS that they have put Glen through. No surprise really. There is also a Ministers statement of expectations. That too is a complete joke and something CASA does not comply with. One set of rules for the Regulator, one for everybody else.

[glenb]

Hey CASA, you wrote it, it was you that said you would stick by it. You didn't. Clearly. I think it was September 2015.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) director of aviation safety Mark Skidmore says a set of new key principles will make a “real, positive and lasting difference” to the regulator’s dealings with the aviation community.As part of its response to the (ASRR), Australia’s aviation safety watchdog has published a list of 10 key principles that will guide and direct its approach to regulation.

These included a commitment to maintaining the trust and respect of the aviation community, as well as taking a consultative and collaborative approach to developing policies, having safety as the most important consideration, and a risk-based approach to regulatory action and decision-making, among others.

Skidmore said the new regulatory philosophy was “clear and concise set or principles that would guide all our actions” and sharpen the focus on how and how well CASA did its job.The director of aviation safety said CASA would, where necessary, develop new policies and procedures to give “meaningful effect to our regulatory philosophy”.“I am committed to ensuring these principles make a real, positive and lasting difference to the way CASA operates and way we interact with the aviation community,” Skidmore said in a statement on Wednesday.

“I understand some people may be sceptical at first about how or whether these principles will make a practical change to the way we carry out our regulatory responsibilities.“To regain trust, we must earn that trust. We look forward to the opportunity to do just that, and I invite the aviation community to use CASA’s regulatory philosophy as a benchmark against which our performance is measured.


https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/our-regulatory-philosophy

[E&H]

Good on you Glenb...this must be horrible to go through. It shows what a mess CASA is and how we as a country have roundly tied ourselves in knots over our own stupidity and pigheadedness. CASA should be disbanded, shut down and started again with a clean sheet of paper. Our politicians are paralysed by political correctness and bullies abound. What happened to us?

[glenb]

Thanks to the support, offered primarily through Pprune and the Go Fund Me page, we had our first substantive meeting with the legal firm. I am re-energised, focussed, and ready to go.

I will be laying fairly low, but not completely absent.

I cannot keep up with all of the required thankyous, I really cant. I will get there, but be assured every gesture is noted and appreciated by my entire family.

Cheers. Glen.

[AerialPerspective]

Hey CASA, you wrote it, it was you that said you would stick by it. You didn't. Clearly. I think it was September 2015.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) director of aviation safety Mark Skidmore says a set of new key principles will make a “real, positive and lasting difference” to the regulator’s dealings with the aviation community.As part of its response to the (ASRR), Australia’s aviation safety watchdog has published a list of 10 key principles that will guide and direct its approach to regulation.

These included a commitment to maintaining the trust and respect of the aviation community, as well as taking a consultative and collaborative approach to developing policies, having safety as the most important consideration, and a risk-based approach to regulatory action and decision-making, among others.

Skidmore said the new regulatory philosophy was “clear and concise set or principles that would guide all our actions” and sharpen the focus on how and how well CASA did its job.The director of aviation safety said CASA would, where necessary, develop new policies and procedures to give “meaningful effect to our regulatory philosophy”.“I am committed to ensuring these principles make a real, positive and lasting difference to the way CASA operates and way we interact with the aviation community,” Skidmore said in a statement on Wednesday.

“I understand some people may be sceptical at first about how or whether these principles will make a practical change to the way we carry out our regulatory responsibilities.“To regain trust, we must earn that trust. We look forward to the opportunity to do just that, and I invite the aviation community to use CASA’s regulatory philosophy as a benchmark against which our performance is measured.


https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/our-regulatory-philosophy

Just an observation, but every time I hear a politician or see a government bit of spin where they say something like the above "real, positive and lasting difference" I can't escape thinking "weasel words"... what is the alternative... "fake, positive and lasting difference"... notice how all government has this "REAL" in the front of everything. Is it perhaps because they are so completely full of excrement that they HAVE to put "real" on the front of everything because they are trying to emphasise that it's not... um... 'not real'??? The word shouldn't be there, but politicians never say they are creating change, they always say 'real change'... so anything as I said that comes from the government that starts with 'real' makes me think it's not real at all (and that's before they even get to the other annoying favorites such as 'the existing cohort' (most overused word lately) or 'working in the industry space'...

[glenb]

Valid post, and I concur with your sentiments.

I had run MFT/APTA for 15 years. It had an exceptional record and reputation. I would love to dig out all the correspondence I received.

Regarding the 80/20 principle, you mention i.e. that 80% survive, and 20% don't. Lets aim for something far better for the GA sector.

ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF WELL INTENTIONED AUSTRALIAN OWNED BUSINESSESS's FLOURISH!

A bit more glass half full, Regarding keeping my business in the top 80%.

I can assure you, every day my business traded, it was well and truly in the top 80%, and I would be horrified if it was otherwise.

Reading that again, it does look a bit "harsh", its certainly not intended that way, respect all feedback, Cheers. Glen

[glenb]

To; Mr Shane Carmody- CEO- Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
To; Mr Anthony Mathews- Chair of the CASA Board.
To; Mr Jonathan Hanton- CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner.

My name is Glen Buckley, of 6 Susan Court, Mount Waverley, 3149. I consider myself a Subject Matter Expert (SME) on matters of aviation safety in the flight training environment.

In making that statement, I draw on 25 years’ experience. I have operated in the roles of CASA approved Flying Instructor, CASA approved Chief Flying Instructor (CFI), CASA approved Head of Operations (HOO), a CASA approved CEO, and business owner of 15 years.

I am fully aware that my allegations are perhaps the most substantive that have ever been levelled against CASA employees.My allegations are not vindictive or vexatious, and I am acting solely on matters of aviation safety. If my claims are found to be unsubstantiated, I understand I can be fully held to account in law.For clarity I will re-state my allegations against the following four CASA personnel. The personnel are;

Mr Graeme Crawford
Mr Craig Martin
Mr Jason Mc Heyzer
Mr Brad Lacey.
Regarding their conduct, and their decisions, and in plain English, I allege;
Decision making that compromises aviation safety, and in fact creates a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety
Improper, wrongful, and unlawful conduct.
Those personnel have made decisions that a well-intentioned person would not make, if they were making their decisions on considerations of safety and/or compliance.
Breaches of Administrative Law, and Procedural Fairness.
Breaches of CASAs Enforcement Manual.
Breaches of the Ministers Statement of Expectations
Breaches of CASAs Regulatory Philosophy
Those personnel have not acted with honesty, consistency, and integrity.
Those personnel have not acted with care and diligence.
Those personnel have not acted with impartiality, respect and courtesy.
Those personnel have acted in a bullying and intimidating manner.
They have mismanaged public resources in breach of their obligations under the PGPA Act and have consciously and deliberately used public resources in a manner that is not fiscally responsible.
I allege those four personnel have made calculated decisions that have caused detriment to me and my family, my business, and other businesses and, that they have deliberately avoided attempts to work collaboratively and resolve those issues.
I allege that their considered decisions and actions potentially bring harm to the integrity and good reputation of their fellow Employees and CASA in general, which can only degrade safety.
I allege that one of those four personnel, has improperly used inside information.
Those personnel have provided misleading information.
Breached obligations under their respective Position Descriptions.
Abused their authority associated with their respective positions as CASA employees.
Are making decisions and choosing courses of action to avoid public scrutiny.
Are placing their respective personal interest above the public interest.
They are deliberately frustrating democratic principles.
They are deliberately not upholding the values, of the Australian Coat of arms, and in fact, their conduct is unbecoming to the Australian Coat of Arms, and brings it into disrepute.
The purpose of this letter.

As you are aware, I am trying to bring my allegations to a legal determination, but timelines are unacceptably long. I have identified a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety, and I am confident that I can substantiate that.

In the interests of aviation safety, I must insist that these four personnel are stood aside from all safety sensitive activities until my substantive allegations can be “tested”. Such action would not be perceived by me, as any admission of guilt, and I will not claim that to be the case. It is the only responsible decision that can be made in such circumstances.

I will be pursuing a legal determination in as prompt timelines, as I can manage.

In order to expedite processes, I would encourage CASA to take any action that they deem appropriate, including legal action. My assumption is that you will have access to greater resources than I do alone, and if that expedites processes, I sincerely encourage that approach. My sincere hope is that lawyers are not required and good intention will prevail.

The allegations are important, there is a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety, you are aware of it, and are compelled to act.Drawing on my personal experience over the last 12 months, I believe there is a “managed” system operating within CASA to supress my concerns. I have not observed any “well intentioned “ actions by the CASA personnel that I am dealing with.

For that reason, and to ensure CASA act promptly on this matter, I am now going public.I await acknowledgement of this correspondence, from Mr Carmody’s office.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Dear Mr Buckley

I acknowledge your email received at 10:24am today outlining your claims of “…grave and imminent risk to aviation safety” against the four named CASA staff members.

You did not provide information to substantiate your claims of a “grave and imminent risk to aviation safety”. I note your advice in today’s email “…am confident that I can substantiate that.” Should you have such evidence, I ask that you provide it to me urgently.

I have previously advised you that you should raise these matters with the Commonwealth Ombudsman, which you have elected not to do, or through the appropriate legal channels. I reiterate my advice to you of 23 August 2019 that I will not enter into ongoing dialogue with you on the issues you have raised previously, as they have been dealt with and considered closed from CASA’s perspective. I also remind you that making false and disparaging public allegations against individual CASA officers leaves it open to them to pursue individual action for defamation.

Regards

Shane

Shane CarmodyCEO and Director of Aviation SafetyCivil Aviation Safety Authority

[Sunfish]

Translation: eff off.

[glenb]

I intend to provide a substantial and final response on this matter to Mr Carmody, later tonight. Everything I write will be truthful, in the public interest, and written to maintain or improve aviation safety. It will be well considered, and I will stand behind what I write. It will be simultaneously published shortly afterwards.

It will be noteworthy. If by chance, anyone from the media is "hovering" may I call on you to monitor this thread for the next 12 hours. I am seeking the opportunity to publicise and raise my concerns about a number of matters. The correct forum would be a media outlet that is prepared to conduct an investigative piece, of some substance, and giving all parties the opportunity to present their views.

The underlying issues are compromising aviation safety in this Country. I will have very wide industry support.

Wow! that's all a bit heavy. I hope I haven't promised too much, and don't disappoint.

Cheers. Glen

[Global Aviator]

Carmodys responses sounds like game on.

Bud have you got your legal advice on continuing to post on Prune?

This is CLEARLY going into the legal system, you are NOT going to get your apology or anyone to admit the were malicious and WRONG. It’s bull****e, unfair and wrong, however to beat the empire as you know you are now in for the epic battle.

Good luck! If it takes more go fund me to continue it, use it.

I just wish I had had the balls and smarts when the empire was bullying me!!!

[glenb]

Cheers. I am in a fortunate position, that we now have access to social media.

Those that know me, will know how much I detest it. Imagine if I didn't have access to it. I would never have been able to defend myself as I have. There would be no Pprune, crowd funding etc. My case would be hopeless.

Fortunately we now live in a world where malfeasance, misconduct, unlawful actions, and bullying and intimidation can be held to account.

I can assure you that tonight's correspondence, will be Glen Buckley standing up, and acting in the interests of aviation safety, and I will be able to demonstrate that.

I have met with lawyers, and am attending to different matters only on here. I am confident in my position.

The legal case will be protracted but unrelenting. There will be a smaller but parallel case with a different firm regarding the lawfulness or not of the Regional Managers direction to my Employer to terminate my employment.

I can only call on all well intentioned CASA personnel to ensure they distance themselves from my matter.

Going forward, I will need widespread industry support. If I receive it, we will be effective. If I get left running alone and naked in the street ( I forget the movie), my cause may fail.

I will be depending on Industry to oversee my matters and continue providing well intentioned advice.

Cheers. Glen

For complete clarity, tonight's correspondence will be unrelated to my case. My correspondence on here tonight will be about aviation safety in this Country.

[Office Update]

Re: link 778, CASA have said the matter is closed.
The PM will always support his Lieutenants and the there ends the saga.
If you want to change something, rally support in all minor held Liberal seats; you have to grab the bastards by the balls! That's the only language they understand!

[Stickshift3000]

The matter is only ‘closed’ from the correspondent’s point of view.

Charges from a court of law against the accused will very quickly ‘open’ matters. That’s where it counts...

[SIUYA]

I reiterate my advice to you of 23 August 2019 that I will not enter into ongoing dialogue with you on the issues you have raised previously, as they have been dealt with and considered closed from CASA’s perspective.

Pompous prick. :mad:

That seems to amount to a statement by Carmody that communication between CASA and Glen has now irretrievably broken down. And by doing so, Carmody therefore seems to have firmly slammed the door shut on Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Under those circumstances, I think that Carmody's just shot himself in the foot (and I don't think it will be the last time, either), and that it will be really very interesting to see how his arrogant and intransigent stance will be taken into account by the Court when it finally gets around to addressing the matter of costs.

[havick]

Re: link 778, CASA have said the matter is closed.
The PM will always support his Lieutenants and the there ends the saga.
If you want to change something, rally support in all minor held Liberal seats; you have to grab the bastards by the balls! That's the only language they understand!

The matter is far from closed once it goes to court.

[Sunfish]

Glen, - not this week, it’ll get lost in spring racing coverage- seriously.

[Lead Balloon]

In order for "it" to go to court, "it" has to be a cause of action recognised in law.

A regulator changing its mind is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.

A regulator being incompetent is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.

A regulator being stupid is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.

A regulator being an arsehole is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.

A regulator being a pompous prick is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.

What you have to do, for example, is apply for a certificate and have it refused by the regulator, then seek judicial or merits review of that refusal. The refusal by a regulator to grant you something you've applied for and the regulator can grant you is a cause of action recognised by law. It may well be that in the course of the review some relevant matter about the lawfullness and the merits of the regulator's decision arises as a consequence of the regulator being incompetent, stupid, an arsehole or a pompous prick.

As another example, someone may have reasonably relied, to their detriment, on representations made on behalf of a regulator. Someone may make very important and expensive business decisions on the basis of representations by a regulator - which representations may include silence when the regulator should have said something - to the effect that the person's arrangements were in compliance with the law and would be certified. If it turns out the regulator led the person down an expensive 'garden path', the person may have an action in negligent misstatement. It is here that the prevaricators, the incompetents, the stupid, the arseholes and the pompous pricks occasionally get regulators into trouble.

Purely hypothetically of course.

[havick]

In order for "it" to go to court, "it" has to be a cause of action recognised in law.

A regulator changing its mind is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.

A regulator being incompetent is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.

A regulator being stupid is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.

A regulator being an arsehole is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.

A regulator being a pompous prick is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.

What you have to do, for example, is apply for a certificate and have it refused by the regulator, then seek judicial or merits review of that refusal. The refusal by a regulator to grant you something you've applied for and the regulator can grant you is a cause of action recognised by law. It may well be that in the course of the review some relevant matter about the lawfullness and the merits of the regulator's decision arises as a consequence of the regulator being incompetent, stupid, an arsehole or a pompous prick.

As another example, someone may have reasonably relied, to their detriment, on representations made on behalf of a regulator. Someone may make very important and expensive business decisions on the basis of representations by a regulator - which representations may include silence when the regulator should have said something - to the effect that the person's arrangements were in compliance with the law and would be certified. If it turns out the regulator led the person down an expensive 'garden path', the person may have an action in negligent misstatement. It is here that the prevaricators, the incompetents, the stupid, the arseholes and the pompous pricks occasionally get regulators into trouble.

Purely hypothetically of course.

Glen has multiple legitimate legal angles based on the information he has posted if true.

[glenb]

03/11/19.

Dear Mr Carmody. I am making a direct appeal to you in your role as the CEO and Director of Aviation Safety (DAS), of Australia’s national aviation safety regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

I have a reasonable expectation that you will make decisions in a well-intentioned manner, and primarily in the interests of aviation safety.

My name is Glen Buckley, 6 Susan Court, Mount Waverley, 3149.

During my career of 25 years in pilot training, I have operated in the following roles, each requiring a CASA initial assessment, and CASA renewals.
· Grade One Instructor,
· Chief Flying Instructor (CFI),
· Chief Pilot (CP)
· Head of Operations (HOO)
· CEO


CASA records will demonstrate that throughout the last 15 years of operations, as a business owner, I have consistently demonstrated, industry leading standards of safety and compliance. Those operations were well intentioned.

I have also operated for 10 years as the Principle Executive Officer of a Registered Training Organisation. ASQA records will indicate an industry leading level of compliance. Those operations were well intentioned.

For 15 years I have been delivering training to international students under a CRICOS approval. There have been no complaints ever, by any of the hundreds of international students that I have had the pleasure to work with, and those operations were most certainly well intentioned.

I have employed over 50 pilots, and administrative staff, during the last 15 years of operation. I have treated them with fairness, and respect, and in a well-intentioned manner.

In my opinion, and by making those statements above. I believe that I have run a safe, compliant, well intentioned business for 15 years. That business was a flight training organisation.

Taking the above into account, I am qualified to make the statements that I am about to make. They are substantive:

I sincerely believe that there is a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety. I have written to you repeatedly on this matter, providing the basis for that assertion. You are also aware that I have made substantive allegations against four CASA personnel, and it is in fact, their conduct that has created this unsafe situation. They are;
1. Mr Graeme Crawford in his role as CASA Aviation Group Executive Manager.
2. Mr Craig Martin in his role as CASA Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance.
3. Mr Jason Mc Heyzer in his role as CASA Region Manager Southern Region.
4. Mr Brad Lacey in his role as a CASA Flight Operations Inspector.

In naming them, I do it to protect the reputation of the personnel within CASA that are not involved.

Regarding their conduct, and their decisions, and in plain English, I allege;

1. Decision making that compromises aviation safety, and in fact creates a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety
2. Improper, wrongful, and unlawful conduct.
3. Those personnel have made decisions that a well-intentioned person would not make, if they were making their decisions on considerations of safety and/or compliance.
4. Breaches of Administrative Law, and Procedural Fairness.
5. Breaches of CASAs Enforcement Manual. https://www.casa.gov.au/publications-and-resources/publication/enforcement-manual.
6 (https://www.casa.gov.au/publications-and-resources/publication/enforcement-manual.6). Breaches of the Ministers Statement of Expectations. ( https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00977 )
7. Breaches of CASAs Regulatory Philosophy ( https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/our-regulatory-philosophy )
8. Those personnel have not acted with honesty, consistency, and integrity.
9. Those personnel have not acted with care and diligence.
10. Those personnel have not acted with impartiality, respect and courtesy.
11. Those personnel have acted in a bullying and intimidating manner.
12. They have mismanaged public resources in breach of their obligations under the PGPA Act and have consciously and deliberately used public resources in a manner that is not fiscally responsible ( https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013A00123 )
13. I allege those four personnel have made calculated decisions that have caused detriment to me and my family, my business, and other businesses and, that they have deliberately avoided attempts to work collaboratively and resolve those issues.
14. I allege that their considered decisions and actions potentially bring harm to the integrity and good reputation of their fellow Employees and CASA in general, which can only degrade safety.
15. I allege that one of those four personnel, has improperly used inside information.
16. Those personnel have provided misleading information.
17. Breached obligations under their respective Position Descriptions.
18. Abused their authority associated with their respective positions as CASA employees.
19. Are making decisions and choosing courses of action to avoid public scrutiny.
20. Are placing their respective personal interest above the public interest.
21. They are deliberately frustrating democratic principles.
22. They are deliberately not upholding the values, of the Australian Coat of arms, and in fact, their conduct is unbecoming to the Australian Coat of Arms and brings it into disrepute.
23. In contrast to the Prime Ministers Speech to the Institute of Public Administration 19/08/19 where he outlined his “guideposts.” https://www.pm.gov.au/media/speech-institute-public-administration
24. In contrast to CASAs “values”. https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/our-vision-mission-and-values

Those are substantial allegations, I stand behind them, and understand I am fully accountable for them. They are truthful, and in the public interest.

Decisions have been made, and continue to be made, by those four “named” personnel in CASA, that cannot be justified on a safety, or regulatory basis. Their decisions have been, and continue to be, made on personal interest considerations ahead of aviation safety considerations, those decisions measurably, and unacceptably compromise aviation safety.

You personally, as the CEO hold “information” that would be “concerning”, and clearly supports my assertions. That information is;

1. From within your own organisation by way of “workplace feedback” and possibly suggests a culture “highly inappropriate”.
2. Statistical information your personnel have gathered.
3. Assertions made repeatedly by me, in writing over a 12-month period, alerting these staff to the safety ramifications of their decisions.
4. Feedback from industry.

You are compelled to make a decision. Those four personnel cannot remain operational, and certainly not in any safety sensitive activities. I have called for it repeatedly, it is reasonable. It makes no suggestion of innocence or guilt, it takes those personnel out of an operational role, in what may be a stressful situation for them, and shows appropriate respect to processes, and most importantly, maintains or improves safety.

At least one those named personnel has had substantial claims against his conduct previously. That is public knowledge, and was bought to light as result of a recent ABC TV investigative news piece. https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/dying-pilot-tries-to-clear-his-name-after-fatal/10444124 of which he was integral to. I raise the same allegations against his conduct, that were previously bought against him. There is potentially a “pattern”, it cannot be reasonably ignored

.One other, of the four has been found by CASA ICC processes to have acted, at least “unreasonably and inappropriately”, If you choose not to stand these personnel aside, you will need to justify your decision making, as the CEO of CASA. It is negatively impacting on safety and clearly increases the likelihood of an aviation incident or accident.

If you choose an alternative course of action, and cannot reasonably justify it, I will bring a formal allegation of gross misconduct, unconscionable conduct, or malfeasance, as appropriate against you. I will be compelled to do so.

You would be choosing to compromise safety, ahead of personal interest.I will call on widespread industry support if I you require it of me.I am simultaneously including the CASA Board in on this correspondence, as they may be called upon to support your decision making and are responsible for the good governance of CASA.

I have insufficient trust or confidence that CASA will attend to my safety concerns in a well-intentioned manner, and in the required timelines, so I am publishing this letter to ensure public scrutiny over the decisions you as the CEO make, going forward. This will also expedite timelines in attending to important safety matters.

Quite simply, I will not accept those four personnel making operational decisions for other operators whilst my allegations have not been discredited. It potentially poses an unacceptable risk to aviation safety.

I respect that in your correspondence you clearly stated the matter is closed, however it is an aviation safety matter, so I steadfastly refuse to let it be closed, until it is resolved.

Can I offer one final alternative at a dispute resolutionI am a 54-year resident of Chisholm, and my representative is Ms Gladys Liu, from the Liberal Party. I have previously provided Ms Liu with information on my concerns. She understands the basics of them, and has demonstrated herself to be professional, and diligent.Could I meet with Mr Carmody and his nominated attendees at Ms Lius Canberra Office, at the soonest practical opportunity.

Both CASA, and I could present our respective safety cases, with Ms Liu as an independent observer.At the end of that meeting, she could confidentially provide feedback to the PM or Deputy PMs office for a final determination of the Governments position, going forward.

As I have stated repeatedly, these are significant matters of aviation safety, and must be addressed. An independent assessment by someone external to CASA, and acting with good intention, such as Ms Liu, could be invaluable.

I do not mean to come across as combative, but you must understand my determination, and resolve. My interests should be well and truly “in tune” with every CASA employee, as they are primarily about safety, and the integrity of CASA. My hope is you share those values. Glen Buckley.

[Lead Balloon]

Glen has multiple legitimate legal angles based on the information he has posted if true.
And which of those ‘angles’ would result in Glen being paid substantial damages?

[Bend alot]

Lead Ballon - I would use the angle (letter) that forced him to stop "trading".

CASA regs do not overrule a persons rights to run legitimate businesses in Australia - pending legal outcomes.

You can not just take a Taxi Drivers licience away from them because you change your mind/interpretation of a rule/regulation.

[Lead Balloon]

Working backwards:

1. Yes they can.

2. Yes they do.

Hopefully Glen’s legal advisors will have read the Federal Court’s decisions in the Polar Aviation/Clarke Butson matter.

[Bend alot]

Working backwards:

1. Yes they can.

2. Yes they do.

Hopefully Glen’s legal advisors will have read the Federal Court’s decisions in the Polar Aviation/Clarke Butson matter.
Yes they do

NO they SHOULD not - but they do illegally.

Glen had all the legal valid requirements to operate (it appears), yet an official letter with no reason is produced to stop operations.

So a restriction of trade was placed on Glen for no valid reason - an abuse of power has been made.

You may think that CASA is above the law and played within their rights, I do not see it that way. However CASA will not admit they are wrong until the court informs them they are.

But the rot will still be in place and nothing will change - except a path will have been formed for action to be taken.

[Rated De]

In order for "it" to go to court, "it" has to be a cause of action recognised in law.

A regulator changing its mind is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.

A regulator being incompetent is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.

A regulator being stupid is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.

A regulator being an arsehole is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.

A regulator being a pompous prick is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.

What you have to do, for example, is apply for a certificate and have it refused by the regulator, then seek judicial or merits review of that refusal. The refusal by a regulator to grant you something you've applied for and the regulator can grant you is a cause of action recognised by law. It may well be that in the course of the review some relevant matter about the lawfullness and the merits of the regulator's decision arises as a consequence of the regulator being incompetent, stupid, an arsehole or a pompous prick.

As another example, someone may have reasonably relied, to their detriment, on representations made on behalf of a regulator. Someone may make very important and expensive business decisions on the basis of representations by a regulator - which representations may include silence when the regulator should have said something - to the effect that the person's arrangements were in compliance with the law and would be certified. If it turns out the regulator led the person down an expensive 'garden path', the person may have an action in negligent misstatement. It is here that the prevaricators, the incompetents, the stupid, the arseholes and the pompous pricks occasionally get regulators into trouble.

Purely hypothetically of course.

Very eloquently put.
Interested observers to this point..

The trick for the clever beak is to assess the behaviours of the said pompous arrogant prick and note where there is divergence between the regulator's accepted/expected conduct and the current matter.
Having achieved a little beach head, the beak can peel the individual away from their cover; the cover provided by the said regulatory body.

[havick]

And let’s not forget the catalyst for the whole sage was part 61 introduction.

[glenb]

Dear Mr Buckley,

Your email of Friday 1 November states that you have “identified a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety, and I am confident that I can substantiate that.” However, your email fails to state what that grave and imminent risk is that you have identified.

A serious risk is one where conduct has caused, or is reasonably likely to cause an aviation accident. Chapter 7 of the CASA Enforcement manual outlines a number of examples of such serious risks;

Conduct indicating the use of, or an intention to use, an aircraft that was unairworthy on passenger carrying operations
The carrying out, or failure to carry out maintenance, in a manner that would result in that aircraft becoming unairworthy
A pilot in command flying or indicating an intention to fly, when not authorised to do so due to lack of licence, rating, endorsement, medical certificate, or other necessary authorisation
The occurrence of an accident or serious incident has occurred where evidence exists that a significant breach of CASA legislation, or a lack of competence, was a causal factor
The carriage of passengers for hire or reward, or conduct indicating an intention to carry passengers for hire or reward, without the operator holding an AOC authorising such carriage
A pilot in command engaging in conduct, or showing an intention to engage in conduct, that constitutes dangerous flying.
It should also be noted that the risk must not only be serious: it must also be imminent. Imminent is defined as likely to occur at any moment. If you are able to identify and substantiate such a serious and imminent risk, I have requested that you provide that evidence to me urgently.

Nevertheless, if your concerns do not meet the threshold of a serious and imminent risk as outlined above, you are able to take those concerns to the Commonwealth Ombudsman or have them considered via the appropriate legal avenues as you have been advised on a number of previous occasions.

Your issues have also been considered by the ICC and I note that you have also have met with the Chairman of the CASA Board on a number of occasions to discuss them without resolution. As such I see no utility in a meeting with myself and I reiterate that the appropriate avenue for further consideration is via either the Commonwealth Ombudsman or determination via the legal system. Regards

ShaneShane CarmodyCEO and Director of Aviation Safety
Civil Aviation Safety Authority

[BigPapi]

That's a pretty straight bat.

[Lead Balloon]

If you’re engaging in the ‘ping pong’ match on the basis of legal advice that it has some point beneficial to you, my suggestion is that you sack your lawyers.

If you’ve yet to engage lawyers, please do so, soon, and heed their advice. $30K plus should be enough for competent lawyers to get fairly quickly to the point where they can advise you to save your energy rather than engage in pointless shadow boxing.

You’re not currently engaged in a ping pong match. You’re shadow boxing and wearing yourself out.

[Paragraph377]

Carmody’s response (I mean Aleck’s) is a response to the bear being poked. I don’t want to be the glass half empty guy but Lead Balloon is correct, all you are doing Glen is awakening a sleeping giant. Poke it enough and it will really hurt you. My concern is that they’ve already taken so much from you and if you keep going down this path, even with a small win and financial settlement, they will pursue you for harassment, defamation and whatever else they can throw at you. They will make sure that any ‘legal win and settlement you receive’ will be instantly eroded by them hitting you legally from a different angle.

You’ve been wronged Glen, I have no doubt that what you say is true. But there are others out there who have been where you are mate and lost absolutely everything. It’s a game where you are checkmated with every move. I’m worried for you mate and don’t want to see them crush your soul as well.

[Joker89]

Glen, I support you 100%

Not many Australians can fully understand the deep corruption that exists in all aspects of the Australian public service.

There are people who will prefer to live with the blinkers on and these issues will never touch their lives. Others will know the truth and accept it as part of life.
Very few will take a stand and try and beat them.

I once took a stand and refused to accept it. With a large amount of naivety I believed I could win. I didn’t and paid a huge price.

I hope you will win your fight. There are very few people in this world who are willing to stand up. But there is a risk to your long term wellbeing that Others have highlighted.

I don’t regret my fight as I prefer to have stood up for my belief in what’s right and wrong and still
suffer the consequences but I’m still fighting my way out of the hole they threw me in.

take care

[glenb]

Woke up after a rather restless night and read the posts. Cheers folks, the encouragement, the reality checks, and the highly valued advice on these pages is very encouraging. I realise how many pages this now goes over, how many comments have been made and how many have visited the pages. It makes it an absolute pleasure to wake up, it really does. Good on each and every one of you for hanging in there.

Its important to understand that there are separate arguments. There is the legal fight for fair and reasonable compensation for those affected. Mr Carmody has clearly shown his hand on that. I fully expected it, and now with your support, we will find out. From my meeting with the legal firm, I have an appreciation of the strength of some of the posts. At this stage, and for probably another 6 weeks, I will not truly know, but I will certainly be finding out. That argument, understandably cannot continue by me addressing it on here. That is the legal argument. Trust me, I am the brokest person you know, I really am. I am a business owner with much of his life totally destroyed by malfeasance in public office. No-one from outside of the CASAs payroll has even looked at it, and that is what I am trying to achieve. Does it make me sad, probably sadder than you can imagine.

Completely separate, and of wider significance, is the aviation safety argument, which i will be compelled to outline publicly, as all of the information is already with Mr Carmody, and available to him as part of his decision making. I will certainly be publishing that on here. I am convinced that he also now making decisions placing his own interest ahead of aviation safety. The safety argument will not be stopped by anyone. Full stop.

Similarly, there is an ethics in Government, human decency, respect, bullying, intimidating, mental health etc argument. Admittedly that also is a safety argument, but im talking specifically about people acting reasonably with each other. Its just about being professional, well intentioned etc. That stems right from the top of an organisation, i know. Just like Mr Carmody, i was the CEO of an Organisation that was all about aviation safety. I diligently applied myself to my task, and acted with ethics. That argument will also continue on here. But it is the truth, it is in the public interest, and it does need people to really stand up and make a statement. Im no martyr, and i dont want to be "the one". I have an advantage over the rest of you. I have absolutely NOTHING left to lose. So that argument will continue, and i invite any media to contact me,

Have a lovely day Mr Carmody, i feel industry will lose confidence in you. I am on the cusp of formally writing to the PM, and accusing you of malfeasance in public office. Obviiously, you can initiate legal action on me, but that will only accelerate these matters being bought out in public

Im off to the coffee shop to sit with the Fat Daddy breakfast club, and surround myself by good people, of which there are many.

[Global Aviator]

We all feel your passion and pain.

What advice have the lawyers given you on any form of public posting? Have they advised they should check anything before you post (this will get expensive)?

You just don’t want to do something that will set you backwards even though it shouldn’t. The legal game is tough.

[Lead Balloon]

Completely separate, and of wider significance, is the aviation safety argument, which i will be compelled to outline publicly, as all of the information is already with Mr Carmody, and available to him as part of his decision making. I will certainly be publishing that on here. I am convinced that he also now making decisions placing his own interest ahead of aviation safety. The safety argument will not be stopped by anyone. Full stop.

Similarly, there is an ethics in Government, human decency, respect, bullying, intimidating, mental health etc argument. Admittedly that also is a safety argument, but im talking specifically about people acting reasonably with each other. Its just about being professional, well intentioned etc. That stems right from the top of an organisation, i know. Just like Mr Carmody, i was the CEO of an Organisation that was all about aviation safety. I diligently applied myself to my task, and acted with ethics. That argument will also continue on here. But it is the truth, it is in the public interest, and it does need people to really stand up and make a statement. Im no martyr, and i dont want to be "the one". I have an advantage over the rest of you. I have absolutely NOTHING left to lose. So that argument will continue, and i invite any media to contact me,But Glen, they are going to argue that what they did to you was in the interests of the safety of air navigation. Some of them probably earnestly believe that’s true. That’s one of the reasons they are so dangerous to the industry.


They are just going to put a bunch of high sounding poppycock in a sentence that includes the phrase “safety of air navigation”, and every layperson will be on their side and not yours. CASA regulates on the basis of public perception and fear. CASA can make the public scared of you and grateful for CASA.

They asked you for evidence of the risk you assert, because they know you can’t produce it. The risks we are talking about are just at the margins of very low probabilities. CASA’s counter-productive activities merely move remote probabilities to less remote possibilities. The only way to prove that is to wait 10 years and a few hundred thousand flying hours.

This is why the flying public is so lucky that much of what CASA does has so little causal connection with safety outcomes. It is sickening that the businesses and careers and aspirations of so many are unnecessarily destroyed by CASA incompetence and zealotry, but the public doesn’t care. Their perception is that CASA is keeping them safe.
Have a lovely day Mr Carmody, i feel industry will lose confidence in you. I am on the cusp of formally writing to the PM, and accusing you of malfeasance in public office. Obviiously, you can initiate legal action on me, but that will only accelerate these matters being bought out in publicThat’s a legal argument.

If you’d read the Polar Aviation / Clarke Butson Federal Court decisions that I spoon fed you at post #389 over 2 months ago, you’d know that your allegation will almost certainly crash and burn, as will most of the matters listed in your post #791 yesterday.

And what fool with any experience in industry would have had confidence in Mr Carmody in the first place? Confidence that he’d do what, precisely? (Though, when I come to think of it, Mr Carmody has done precisely what I was confident he would do. But I don’t think we’re talking about the same expectations.)

Please do less transmitting and more receiving. Start at the links in my post #389.

We’re on your side. We’re trying as best we can to focus your finite energy where it may be most productive for you and your supporters.

[glenb]

For perfect clarity, and said on more than one occasion and in front of witnesses, by the previous incumbent to Mr Craig Martin. a gentleman by the name of Peter White. A man of enormous integrity and ethics, and probably "too big a thinker " for CASA. He was the previously the Executive Manager for Regulatory Services and surveillance. He looked after this matter initially and worked professionally towards a resolution. He "seemed to disappear" and left CASA. Mr Martin, then took over in an "acting" role.

The words of the Executive manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance, 12 months ago said...….

"There are two types of risk. Safety Risk and Regulatory Risk. This is certainly not a safety risk, I understand that. We are talking only about regulatory risk".

For complete clarity, CASA has never put forward any safety argument, ever. This is about "other" things. They will never even dare to try and put forward a safety argument.

Let me simply use Ballarat Aero Club as an example, They will appreciate that I am actually presenting their interests.

Ballarat had effectively ceased operating, after almost reaching 100 years of operation.
They joined APTA. Very quickly they became vibrant again.
They conducted their first ever instrument rating.
They invested significantly in a sim.
They will testify, it was a vibrant GA rural aero club again, in fact no club in Australia would have achieved the percentage growth that they did.
The APTA and CASA approved model worked.

Now take all that out of it, and lets look at safety only.

In the APTA model (that CASA designed over many years with me 600 required items, issued the Part 141/142 Approval, audited etc),

The Ballarat Aero Club had access to an annual safety department budget of $250,000 ( industry leading, I suggest).

I will write to the Ballarat Aero Club, and ask what their projected safety budget is for next year. I suggest, it will be about 1/50th of that, and in fact as a Part 141 only school, they don't even need to have a safety manager or safety management system.

Surely that's a reasonable safety argument.




They have identified a "regulatory risk" but cannot clearly or concisely cant pin point it (because there isn't one).


CASA cannot, and will be completely unable to provide a supporting safety case, in fact quite the opposite, and Mr Carmody has some "very concerning statistics".

I will only say that prior to the Regional Manager, Mr Mc Heyzer forcing a new model that he refers to as "direct operational control" the pilots had a more robust safety department, a Safety Manager, a safety management system, high levels of oversight, mentoring, regular meetings, strong admin support etc.

Mr Mc Heyzers new model, effectively introduced on July 1st 2019 or thereabouts, takes those resources away. Mr Carmody now has statistics for the new CASA direct operational control model, and its effect on safety.

He has figures for July, August, September and October.

Or perhaps Mr Carmody could ask the pilots, or the aero clubs, or the committees of those aero clubs, or the maintenance people, or the admin staff, or the Key Personnel, or the management. Simply ask them to tell the truth. I don't know the answer, but the truth would sort it out.

"Which did you feel was safer, the new CASA imposed "direct operational control" as the Region Manager, calls it, or the APTA model that CASA designed, approved, audited and recommended previously?

I wonder if there are any trends. Im not sure, I don't have access to them any more. Im not talking about "blips", im talking about "smack you in the face statistics" that you cant accept, because you have "other interests".

As pilots and engineers, with a lifetime of experience in this industry, and in fact the vast majority of CASA personnel know, extremely stubborn pilots who refuse to admit they are wrong, get people killed Mr Carmody. Its a dangerous trait in this industry.


I am being somewhat cautious what I write on here, but this is also my "central dumping point", and somewhere I direct "observers" to, after an initial briefing.


Please understand my perspective. There is now a very heavy burden on me, there really is. I simply cannot walk away from this now, I really cant. As well intentioned as this is, can you imagine how much damage I will have caused.

If CASA personnel can act so inappropriately and wreak so much havoc and destruction, and have it vindicated then I will have put the final nail I the coffin for GA in Australia. I am compelled now, I really am.

[zanthrus]

Glen,

Please stop posting on PPRUNE.

Go see your lawyers and begin definitive action against CASA. Keep all evidence you have confidential until presented at court or required by discovery. DO NOT give the bastards any MORE ammo to fire back at you.

I repeat. Stop posting on PPRUNE anywhere at all.

We are all on your side and many have tried to advise you as I have. Please Listen.

[glenb]

Dam!,
My wife reads Pprune now. Shes going to come home and say "Hey, I told you that you shouldn't be posting, and everyone else says the same.

Gulp!

Darling, there were heaps of socks this morning, and I folded them all up, and ummmmm. I love you.

Gulp!


I get it folks I really do. As they say, "until you've walked in those shoes.....". PPrune really has been important to me. In fact I've kept off the other forums, and only vented here. It has helped me enormously, so it is a bit of a "crutch", in fact, a very important crutch.

I am now at the stage where I sit in the car at the kids sports and avoid the other Dads. The conversation generally drifts to "How's work....?", how do I respond to that,

I wince, and say "great". Later they find out through the neighbourhood network. Glen lost his business, his home everything.

Alternatively I say, "well I lost my business, my home, savings, and basically everything this year. As you know I had the flying school, and CASA took action that lead to its closure". We all know what people outside of aviation will think. "Whats he really done".

Easier to sit in the car, sadly

So it also gives me a forum, to try and publicly protect my reputation and my rather tattered self esteem.

I really do get the "risk" of letting CASA prepare their "defence" etc by me dumping on here, but it serves many purposes. It also allows me to direct people to a place where all information is available, rather than retelling a traumatic story that I have had to recount to people verbally far too many times. Now I can say "Its a long story, just go to Pprune if your really interested." It helps.

[The name is Porter]

It's a pity some handles can't post on here due to their 'identities' being known. Regardless, any legal action you take that would see a subpoena issued would be more than interesting.

I would love to get on here and give you the stats that Ballarat Aero Club achieved (through a friend who works there of course!!), not only ME-IR's but their first ever Instructor Rating. A local bloke, now employed by the club, he didn't have to leave Ballarat to look for work.

Ready for some more advice Glen??

Post on here as much as you like, subject to legal advice of course.

I know only too well the need for a good rant and the support of people who've gone through similar life events. Despite what you may think, when this is all resolved you'll be a valuable commodity in the aviation business, I speak from experience, not only my own but others who've been able to recover from massive kicks in the balls!

[The Bullwinkle]

If you hadn’t put all of this on PPRUNE, I certainly wouldn’t have even known about your saga and therefore would not have been able to contribute to your fighting fund.
Because you have shared this very disturbing story, I have been able to support you and to spread your story to others in the industry.
You have done nothing wrong so why the hell should you just go quietly into the night?
I can’t even begin to comprehend how much your life has been turned upside down by this corrupt organisation.
Keep doing what you’re doing Glen.
As you’ve said before, you’ve got absolutely nothing left to lose!

[Lead Balloon]

It’s not about Glen not telling any of his story, at all (and I hope that my posts haven’t been interpreted as suggesting that Glen should not have told any of his story).

It’s about where Glen is now in the story, and what Glen should be saying now. At this point in the story, CASA has effectively said they don’t care anymore (although I’m guessing there’ll be a few of them diverting their time to considering writing threatening letters about defamation). The government doesn’t care either.

At this point in the story, it’s effectively put up or shut up on the litigation threat. If any litigation is going to be commenced, Glen should be listening to his lawyer’s advice about what to say and not to say publicly about it. If the advice he is given is to the effect: keep up the public commentary, then go for it.

[Sunfish]

I am concerned not to be a cheerleader for litigation. I suggest all should think likewise. Its not us who bear the emotional and physical cost of such a battle nor do we wear the consequences. We are nothing more than cheap talk on the internet.

Glen, nobody will think the worse of you if you walk away from this situation. We don't count. Do what's best for you and your family.

[glenb]

To each and every Member of the Board:

My suggestion of making an allegation of malfeasance against Mr Carmody is sincere, well considered, properly intentioned, truthful, supported, and primarily intended in the interests of aviation safety.

I am calling on the Board for good governance to prevail, and to intervene if required.

On that “governance” consideration alone, the four personnel cannot continue to operate, in an operational role where they are making decisions that affect safety and businesses. They must be stood aside until my allegations can be refuted, with no suggestion of innocence or guilt attached, and obviously on full pay and conditions. Obviously not my decisions to make, but that would be the fair and reasonable thing to do. That is what I would have done when I was CEO of my own “safety” organisation.

I am formally calling on the Board to intervene, and demonstrate the qualities that the industry, and the Australian public expect of any Board, and most certainly a Board with the Australian Coat of Arms hanging above it, and also as Australia’s safety regulator, CASA. Seriously. It is reasonable.

Those four personnel must have the allegations made against them seriously considered, and especially if they are to continue in an operational role. If you will not act on good governance, I will clearly place the supporting safety case here.

The APTA 142 model provided all 10 members with a safety department with group funding of $250,000 per annum. In the new CASA enforced system, being applied to APTA uniquely, and not other flight training organisations. The Ballarat Aero Club will become a 141 school, and lose any regulatory obligation to run a safety management system, or have a safety manager. I suggest the aero clubs safety budget will reduce to $5000, as it is forced out of APTA.

The new “direct operational” control model that is being forced on member schools against their clear preference is a system that provides significantly lower levels of auditing, mentoring, professional development courses, testing, feedback, safety resourcing etc. The new CASA ‘model” is clearly failing, as I advised.

Accidents and incidents are increasing at a concerning rate CASA have the statistics. This is exactly, as I repeatedly, and in writing advised, it is not the individual operators fault, it is the CASA system being forced on flying school against their clear preference. Any system with less auditing, mentoring, professional development, testing, feedback, safety resourcing, funding etc will most likely result in degraded safety outcomes.

If you have any doubt, simply ask the Ballarat Aero Club, any of the instructors, any of the aircraft owners, committee members, the students, and their families. “Was the previously approved APTA system safer, or do you think the “direct operational control” model is safer.” You will be alarmed, I can assure you. I think you will find an overwhelming response.

This matter can only grow, and gain more attention. It will simultaneously become more “embarrassing’. If it wasn’t such a hazardous behaviour, I could only describe it as child like. It must be stopped at Board level.

At this stage, I have no intention to publish this letter, but will do so on Friday at 5PM, if important safety matters are not addressed. For clarity. In my professional opinion, I believe that CASA actions and decisions being made by those four personnel, unacceptably increase the chance of an aviation incident or accident. There are Board Members of CASA who are, or have been, pilots. On that alone, and with that knowledge, those particular board members will be compelled to act. This is not a matter to be engaging in bullying or intimidation. I simply ask the same questions of you, that you should be asking of Mr Carmody:
What is the “safety case” supporting the initial action over 12 months ago, against APTA?
If there is no supporting safety case, please open the regulations and show me clearly and concisely the regulation/s that were broken if any.
If there is no supporting safety case, and there have been no regulatory breaches identified, we are dealing with opinion. Whose “opinion” is it? We need a name.
Are we (Mr Carmody and the Board), prepared to fully stand behind those four personnel that Glen Buckley has named?
Are we all (Mr Carmody and the Board) aware of CASAs regulatory philosophy, and other obligations and expectations placed on us.
Is it true that a number of businesses have closed down, and people have lost their livelihoods?
Please outline what we are now intending to achieve, and any positive safety outcomes achieved.
As I have repeatedly advised. I am fully available to travel anywhere in Australia, to meet with any two members of the Board, at short notice.

The purpose of this correspondence is to provide the Board with time to consider their actions and decisions. In the interests of safety, and to encourage good decision making. I require only an acknowledgement that this correspondence has been received by all members of the Board. If CASA are compelled to provide a written response, I understand. I believe that there will be less pressure, and better decisions will be made if the obligation is a simple acknowledgement of distribution and receipt to all Board Members.

Respectfully, Glen.

[Paragraph377]

Glen, the Board are too busy at the moment to deal with your allegations. As Board members and business people, they are much to busy serving on other Boards and managing personal business than to attend to your accusations. There are luncheons to attend, investments to oversee and bank accounts and superannuation funds to keep topped up. There are deals to be made, mates to look after and high level connections to maintain if future plum positions are to be assured. There are taxpayer troughs to indulge in, a Ministers back passage to lick and corporate credit cards to rack up!

And I don’t want to forget that the Board is also busy trying to avoid personal accountability, any form of commitment, answering ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on any matter, holding the DAS or the departments public servants to account, ensuring obsfucation is at their forefront, writing reports containing no teal purpose other than to fill up pages and pages of bureaucratic spin and departmental wank words.

But I’m sure they will get back to you Glen when they find time.

[fl610]

Glen, the Board are too busy at the moment to deal with your allegations. As Board members and business people, they are much to busy serving on other Boards and managing personal business than to attend to your accusations. There are luncheons to attend, investments to oversee and bank accounts and superannuation funds to keep topped up. There are deals to be made, mates to look after and high level connections to maintain if future plum positions are to be assured. There are taxpayer troughs to indulge in, a Ministers back passage to lick and corporate credit cards to rack up!

And I don’t want to forget that the Board is also busy trying to avoid personal accountability, any form of commitment, answering ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on any matter, holding the DAS or the departments public servants to account, ensuring obsfucation is at their forefront, writing reports containing no teal purpose other than to fill up pages and pages of bureaucratic spin and departmental wank words.

But I’m sure they will get back to you Glen when they find time.







Nailed it.

👏👏👏👏👏

[Lead Balloon]

I'm surprised nobody's posted the specifics of the annual remuneration packages published in CASA's Annual Report 2018-19: https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/annual-report-2018-2019.pdf

Shane Carmody: $668,640

Graham Crawford: $503,785

Jonathan Aleck: $366,395

(See Part 7 Appendix B Table B.5. Lots of other 'interesting' information about remuneration there.)

Safety costs!

[bloated goat]

199 pages of Malakia !

[Bend alot]

$48,500.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/glen-buckley-v-casa?fbclid=IwAR3cC9majXCkYlrq8VVBRxYaRN9a0GcKjWKTWnS3b-3lVXpz3Mt3w1v5h0A

[Global Aviator]

Carmody, Crawford and Aleck could certainly all afford to contribute to the go fund me on those salaries!!!

:) :O :)

[Sunfish]

Glen, CASA is going to wait you out. Give it away and go smell the flowers. They aren’t worth it.

[Stickshift3000]

Glen, CASA is going to wait you out. Give it away and go smell the flowers. They aren’t worth it.

Why would you not fight for what you believe in?

Oh, you have something to lose? Some people don’t...

[Sunfish]

Your talking about someone else fighting. You have no right to encourage them when you aren’t going to pay the price of failure.

[glenb]

Im heading off for a coffee (their shout) with some friends, and when I get an hour or so today (more likely tonight) I will attend very comprehensively as to why I simply cannot give up.

But let me state very clearly that only two things will stop me,

One. A stress induced heart attack OR
Two. My wife asking me to stop for her own welfare, or that of the children.

Full stop!

Or, this not getting the industry support that it should.

The "crushing" that CASA will bring to bear on me, has already been done.

[glenb]

First, and foremost my lovely wife of 25 years.

She works in aged care, she does it with the most amazing respect, humility, consideration, and ethics. It truly blows me away. Of late, she has worked 7 days a week. She does in home care, and is highly in demand by her clients. She has as much work as she wants, and I suggest she is averaging a 50 to 60 hour week at the moment. Unfortunately, it is poorly paid, and requires a significant amount of driving.

On occasions, she has been presented with the opportunity to bypass the agency, and deal direct with the clients. We are under significant financial pressure, we discussed it. Her response “No, it would feel like, I am having an affair.”

I am truly a blessed man, but I am not as healthy as my wife, and in all likelihood she will live for many more years than me. I know what substandard aged care looks like. My wife is not going to spend her final years, relying on the Government to look after her. I will ensure that until her very last breath on this planet, she will be warm, she wont smell like piss, and someone will stroke her every waking moment that she breathes, if that is what is required. If I cannot be by her side, I will have funds to ensure it happens.

The actions of some personnel within CASA were so inappropriate, and took that away from her,that they need to fully understand my determination to have their conduct independently assessed. If Mr Carmody will not do it, I will shortly call on the Board. Eventually, it will be assessed.

[glenb]

Reason Two I will not give up- Affected members.



Simjet- business ceased proposed operations.

Whitestar – operating business closed

MFT-oprerating business closed after 15 years.

Newcastle aero club- proposed member, ceased operations.

ARC- downgraded to Part 141, loss of Part 142, RTO capability, International Student training approval.

LTF- Placed under pressure as it accelerates its own Part 141/142 approval because of doubts about APTAs CASA approval.

Ballarat Aero Club- now struggling to continue due to a lack of qualified Key Personnel

Latrobe Valley Aero Club- struggling to continue due to a lack of qualified Key Personnel.

AVIA- plans for significant growth curtailed.

And that’s without the many hundreds of millions of dollars of pilot training contracts that have now been lost to overseas.

And that’s without the many people whose livelihoods have been affected.

[glenb]

As CASA always says; "Just do what you will say you do in your manuals and procedures"

I respect that, but also expect CASA to do the same, and that extends to

Their own Regulatory Philiosphy
The Ministers own Statement of Expectations
CASAS own Enforcement Manual
Acting in accordance with the PMs own stated expectations of the public service.
Administrative law
Proceduyral Fairness etc

[glenb]

I wont be the first school to go bankrupt in this industry, I know it because ive been flying since the early 80s.

I may be the first to fully step up to the plate, say here I am. I want to pay each and every one of you 100%, and I am not going anywhere until those people know I did absolutely everything in my power to pay them 100%. CASA have left me no capacity to pay, and that I what I am working towards.

As I put in writing to CASA on many occasions, their action would cost my business at least $10,000 a week to operate. After 1 year that figure totalled approximately $500,000, as I repeatedly told CASA. With the restrictions on my trade, I could not solve the problem. I battled on expecting an outcome, and an ability to return to trade. CASA never resolved this, and I am left holding the debt.

That includes, aircraft owners, Andy Mac, Gerard Lappin, Malcom Yates, Jeff Kissubi, Express, Tony Kidd, my parents, etc etc etc.

Before I get 1 cent of anything, or even think about clawing back my life, these debts will be resolved!!!!!

[havick]

I wont be the first school to go bankrupt in this industry, I know it because ive been flying since the early 80s.

I may be the first to fully step up to the plate, say here I am. I want to pay each and every one of you 100%, and I am not going anywhere until those people know I did absolutely everything in my power to pay them 100%. CASA have left me no capacity to pay, and that I what I am working towards.

As I put in writing to CASA on many occasions, their action would cost my business at least $10,000 a week to operate. After 1 year that figure totalled approximately $500,000, as I repeatedly told CASA. With the restrictions on my trade, I could not solve the problem. I battled on expecting an outcome, and an ability to return to trade. CASA never resolved this, and I am left holding the debt.

That includes, aircraft owners, Andy Mac, Gerard Lappin, Malcom Yates, Jeff Kissubi, Express, Tony Kidd, my parents, etc etc etc.

Before I get 1 cent of anything, or even think about clawing back my life, these debts will be resolved!!!!!

You sound like the owner of Vans shoes. He had the option to file CH11 and pay back pennies on the dollar but instead opted to pay back 100% of monies owed eventually. True testament to character whether you can pull it off or not Glen.

[The Wawa Zone]

Wawa zone, you might invest your money, but no investor I know (starting with the entire venture capital crowd and high net worth squad) is going to touch an investment where some person from CASA can decide to do a Glen Buckley on you.



Investing because you “have political contacts” or “know someone in CASA’ or “know how to keep in good with CASA’ or “know how to get CASA to fix things” has a name; it’s called official corruption and it’s a felony.

If you have any examples, we’d like to know.

You lot have been busy.
Sunfish, the venture capital and high net worth crowd are going to look at a coinciding business and political opportunity and then pay a visit to the Minister for political approval, which translates to the politician's ethos of maximisation of political benefit and minimisation of political risk. CASA will then be briefed from the political end, as opposed to first getting an application for an AOC from someone. No serious investor I know is going to touch an investment without this protection.
Also no serious investor is going to touch a piston GA operation per se unless they are a proprietor of same, with industry experience. Walk around any GA airfield and see a dozen of them beavering away. I have already alluded above to the care and feeding of the CASA Man by operators at this level. Do you think Joyce at QF bends over and jumps through hoops ?

Re your four phrases bound by inverted commas; none are a criminal offence unless they lead to criminal conduct after the golf afternoon is over. I have just described the necessity for political contacts if you intend hauling lots of passengers.

Speaking of golf days, lets go back in time. Lets imagine that Bloggs, an established out-of-area RPT Metro operator wants to displace three established PA31 RPT AOC holders within a potential new market. He reasons that the local Member(s) would like to take credit for a new flash shiny airline and that CASA would like to reduce the number of AOC's it has to administer; ie., benefits for all. After he establishes that the three existing battlers have little contact or pull with the local MP, a few feelers go out. Within a year the march of history has rolled on, the Banks have recovered the fully secured loans for the ratty PA31's, a couple of the ex-RPT route holders have gone bust, and everyone is cruising around in Metros.
Good idea ? Not for some, but is there not a nett benefit for everyone else ?

[Bend alot]

Lets imagine that Bloggs, an established out-of-area RPT Metro operator wants to displace three established PA31 RPT AOC holders within a potential new market.

Being the NT Administrator came with no political protections, how high up do we need to go?

How did Bloggs get established enough to run a fleet of Metro's?

[The Wawa Zone]

Bend, how high ? Well, as high as the political equation goes. I bet (in the current era) Scotty Morrison would refrain from dealing with anything below Mining and Technology. In the era of my example ... Bloggs and his Metros (and the financiers) are purely hypothetical, old boy !

This does allow some interesting wargaming, however.
Scenario - it is not an aggressive operator who initiates the Metro hypothetical, but the CASA Man himself who acquires some elementary golfing skills and sends out the feelers, motivated by a need to simplify his control of the industry and get rid of flying wrecks and their numerous operators. I have mentioned 'benefits' in my post above; are these benefits in any way devalued by the fact that regulatory rather than commercial maneuverings would eventually lead to a more generally beneficial end-state ?
Lead Balloon will possibly be asking if such action is ultra vires - 'beyond the power' wrt the CASA Man as an individual person and/or as a statutory entity.

[Bend alot]

Bend, how high ? Well, as high as the political equation goes. I bet (in the current era) Scotty Morrison would refrain from dealing with anything below Mining and Technology. In the era of my example ... Bloggs and his Metros (and the financiers) are purely hypothetical, old boy !

This does allow some interesting wargaming, however.
Scenario - it is not an aggressive operator who initiates the Metro hypothetical, but the CASA Man himself who acquires some elementary golfing skills and sends out the feelers, motivated by a need to simplify his control of the industry and get rid of flying wrecks and their numerous operators. I have mentioned 'benefits' in my post above; are these benefits in any way devalued by the fact that regulatory rather than commercial maneuverings would eventually lead to a more generally beneficial end-state ?
Lead Balloon will possibly be asking if such action is ultra vires - 'beyond the power' wrt the CASA Man as an individual person and/or as a statutory entity.
But my comment was not hypothetical and the Metros and others were grounded by the 16.21 email.
When the media got hold of it over the weekend, CAsA reply was that the operator read the letter wrong! and that company was not grounded (only a sister company was) and that they had given the company till Monday to reply!! (a little odd letter COB Friday and required to reply Monday).

I had a chance to read the Friday letter, but did not - it would be very hard (impossible) to interpret that all aircraft were not grounded, I was told.

CAsA following the wishes of our elected governments would be a good thing, even just one of our governments. But CAsA has long been off the chain.

[Bend alot]

P.S. the Gofundme is sitting at $49,010.

[Flaming galah]

This is drifting off Glen, natural I suppose while we’re all waiting with bated breath to hear anything about the potential litigation we’ve funded. Glen appears in the last few days to have followed LB’s (and others) good advice to stop engaging with the brick wall that is CASA.

[glenb]

Laying low except to advise that a formal allegation of malfeasance against an individual in CASA has been lodged with the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

[Sunfish]

ombudsman is toothless.

[Sunfish]

You’ve been sucked into the system and now will get nothing. You have walked into the Ombudsman’s zone where the lawyers have the upper hand. Before you did that, you were operating in the court of public opinion which is what your tormentors really feared.

Now you are operating in an environment where the watchwords are “procedural fairness and natural justice”......but not for YOU but for THEM. You are now the accuser and the delicate little flowers you’ve accused must have their rights protected. The onus of proof is now on you and the Ombudsman, all your defendants have to show is that they. were operating according to what they believed was the law. But what would I know, I’m not a lawyer.

[Stickshift3000]

On the other hand -

It could also be that the complainant can be seen to have used the appropriate channels to remediate the issues prior to the time & effort associated with court hearings.

If you were the presiding magistrate, do you think you would like to hear that all relevant remedial options have been exhausted prior to court proceedings? I would.

[Bend alot]

Over $50K - cheers Glen.

[Lead Balloon]

Laying low except to advise that a formal allegation of malfeasance against an individual in CASA has been lodged with the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
You may mean “misfeasance” rather than “malfeasance”. The latter is generally understood to mean criminal behaviour. Allegations of criminal behaviour against Commonwealth public officials would generally be referred to the AFP, not the Ombudsman.

In any event, neither the Ombudsman nor the AFP has any power to give you or make anyone else give you compensation.

Now that you’ve reached the ostensibly arbitrary but presumably-to-you magic $50K, you should spend some of it on getting expert advice.

[aroa]

mis or mal..does CAsA give a rats?
CAsA has a gold pass in describing criminality of their staff..its called a Code of Conduct. Theircode is a sick joke if ever there was one.
Carmody, aided and abetted by the Smart Aleck, McComick and Co...called serious allegations 'just possible breaches of the code.and spent a bucket load of taxpayers dollars to confirm what they already knew...breached the code.
Not only that , the AFP advised Smart Aleck in 2009 that those employees had breached the Criminal Code 1914 , Secs for perjury and conspiracy, and obviously collaborated in the making of those statements.
I was never advised of those findings by either the AFP or CAsA , to whom I had made the allegations of serious criminality and submitted proving material.
CAsA perverted the course of justice, thus protecting the 3 Amigos / employees from criminal sanctions.

And the Legal Pervert proved his worth, and seriously warped mind-set in 2014 by stating in the public domain...that no CAsA person had falsified evidence.!!
And CAsA continually claim ..due process and natural justice. BULSH*T !!
We need that Judicial Inquiry.

[glenb]

And another from my CMT resigns. Not many left now.

[Sunfish]

That is the way CASA protects itself Glen. The pawns are removed from the Chessboard. Then, when you seek justice, you are just punching air - there is no one left who knows anything about the actions that were taken. All that is left is a file - which has been carefully manicured (possibly in defiance of the public records Act). Was injustice done? Who knows? It's all ancient history. Time to move on.

My opinion, for what its worth, which is not much, is that you were seen as a threat to "the Iron Ring" because APTA had the potential to reach "critical mass".

By "critical mass", I mean attaining a deeper knowledge and experience of the part 141(?) training school regulations and operation than CASA itself possessed, along with the financial resources and weight of numbers to make your voice heard and thus start driving the future directions of training school development.

I have seen this situation develop in other industries - where a company becomes more knowledgeable about industry issues then their regulators and starts driving the debate. In my case, like a good public servant, I welcomed their contributions and invited them on board. It appears CASA hates the idea of not being in complete control, so their response was to destroy you.

BTW, poster "Swells" paid you a compliment in the thread about SOAR aviation, after remarking on the abject failure of the regulators to reign in that school:
....but one honest intensions flying school wants to start up a remote base with the right intentions ..., and all hell breaks loose.

[thorn bird]

"By "critical mass", I mean attaining a deeper knowledge and experience of the part 141(?) training school regulations and operation than CASA itself possessed,"

What makes you think CAsA has the slightest understanding of their own Reg's?

I recall mention of the pilot who ditched at Norfolk. Did he or didn't he breach any regulations? Ten CAsA incompetents canvassed, I believe it was fifty fifty for and against.
Unfortunately the guy with the anger management issues in CAsA deemed the pilot guilty, even before any formal examination by the ATSB had begun.

I imagine the legal guy with the missing marbles and expertise in Voo Doo magic deemed prosecution problematic for a guilty verdict so an administrative Purgatory was ordered.

I agree with you Sunny, poor old Glen became a threat and once the hierarchy finally twigged he was buggered.

Aint it grand that in Australia the bureaucrats work feverishly to stifle innovation and enterprise, anything that they perceive may be a threat to their rice bowl.

[jakessalvage]

There is no real threat from Glen or APTA in my view, sure it's uncomfortable for a CMT and a Regional Manager to admit they got something wrong but I doubt that's central to the issues. CASA has fundamentally failed to understand outcome based legislation, look at the prescription that doesn't exist in the first CASR's published, and look at the prescription that is in the more modern CASR's, Parts 141 and 142 are more prescriptive than the regulations they replaced. Assessments under the new regulations are achieved by inspectors reviewing documents against checklists with obscure and often irrelevant criteria, in the name of compliance, oh wait, did they mean safety?

There is no threat to CASA, not individuals, not organisations, not other government agencies or departments.

If you want change you need essentially two things, it will come down to someone/ an entity with the will to make the changes who has the authority to see it through. You don't have a wholesale change in aviation legislation and oversight if government thinks your ICAO ranking in the top 10 is real.

[A30_737_AEWC]

Just browsing ANAO Audit Reports for unrelated matters and discover the following potential audit in the ANAO's program of work for 2019-2020:Administration of regulation by the Civil Aviation Safety Authorityhttps://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/administration-regulation-the-civil-aviation-safety-authority

[glenb]

Thankyou, and I just registered. That will be an interesting one!

[muddergoose]

So they complete their investigation and publish their report, then what?

[havick]

So they complete their investigation and publish their report, then what?

gathers dust just like every other report.

[Sunfish]

You could use CASA as a demonstration project of “worlds best practice” in regulation. It’s small enough to be doable.

.....That is of course only if the audit found any “gaps” between actual and desired performance levels, which may not be the case..

[Paragraph377]

The ANAO is just another Government Department. Government auditing Government. Gee, what a surprise! The ANAO carefully scopes its audits so as to avoid sensitive, bad publicity causing areas of the government organisation it is auditing. It already knows what areas to steer clear of and which areas to look at that won’t be too bad. It’s yet another game of snakes and ladders, smoke and mirrors and a tool in the federal governments magic bag of deception and distraction. The CASA board will have some lengthy documents sitting there ready to go that will show the auditors how the Regulator is meeting their legislative requirements, meeting key targets, addressing previous findings, spending monies from the public purse compliantly and within the public service guidelines, and so the wheel spins. The previous ICAO audit gave CASA a clean bill of health (what a surprise) and the previous ANAO audit report also found CASA to be mostly a good corporate citizen, spending taxpayer monies wisely, etc etc.

So don’t get to excited peeps.The end result will be a wet lettuce leaf audit report containing a couple of minor findings, but more importantly there will be lots of mealy mouth words, charts and percentages, colourful pages and praise for our Regulator. Both auditor and Regulator will end up backslapping one another with a possible reacharound or two while they sip their herbal tea and munch on dry cruskets with avocado and alfalfa sprouts, sitting at a mahogany table with leather chairs while lauding their robust rice bowls.

[Mr Approach]

I seem to recall an ANAO audit of Airservices' Civil/Military Air Traffic System, other wise known in the industry as the One-Sky/Half-Sky/No-Sky Project, which came to light at Senate Estimates and where Airservices were critisised for paying a consultant ridiculous amounts of money in contempt of their own internal contracting procedures.
The Airservices' CEO apologised and said it would not happen again. Since then nothing and the CEO is still in the chair.
By the way he works for the Minister through the DIRD so clearly the Minister and the Department were quite happy with Airservices' performance!

[Sunfish]

Senate has announced a review of CASA. I hope Glen makes a submission.

[Office Update]

Good to see the announcement from the Senate.

Before we dance and rejoice; Caution the small print … It's called "Terms of Reference" anything to do with Glen will be supressed due to on-going pending Court issues.

[Stickshift3000]

Good to see the announcement from the Senate.

Before we dance and rejoice; Caution the small print … It's called "Terms of Reference" anything to do with Glen will be supressed due to on-going pending Court issues.

Anyone is able to make a submission that addresses the terms of reference. This is not the relevant avenue to make a specific complaint about the regulator. In my experience inside the public sector, any submissions addressing issues outside of the terms of reference of the inquiry will not be (and should not be) taken into account.

With Glen’s vast experience of the GA training sector, I would absolutely encourage him (and others) to make a submission that relate to the terms of reference.

I will be making a submission to the inquiry, that is my right. There are far more qualified people out there than me, but ourr concerns cannot be heard if we keep quiet.

[glenb]

For those of you that have not had the pleasure of dealing with Mr Craig Martin from CASA,

You may recall Bruce Rhoades, a pilot who died recently of cancer while trying to clear his name. He raised substantial allegations against Mr Craig Martin. Tragically he went to his grave unable to clear his name. He made a short video that is publicly available via the following link, it makes harrowing viewing. I am dealing with the same individual and make the same claims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zel_giSQCO0&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zel_giSQCO0&feature=youtu.be)

As the stress of this unlawful conduct by CASA personnel mounts, I had a bad night the other night. Its never vented towards my family because they are also victims. I returned home to my wife and daughter in tears. My daughter left the house and penned this email to Craig Martin unbeknown to me.

My wife urged me not to get a copy of it, but I am with my daughter Emmy now, and she has provided me a copy of that correspondence, which I have attached. It is very personal, but clearly demonstrates the results when CASA personnel choose to act unlawfully, and in a bullying and intimidating manner. This correspondence only furthers my resolve to hold the perpetrators to account

Dear Craig Martin,

I have been given your email from my mother, so thought I would write to you.

I am Emmy Buckley, daughter of Glen. Please take the time to read this. I am currently sitting in my car, away from the house as my dad has had a breakdown, and have come to the realisation of how sickening this whole situation is.

The pain and permanent damage you have caused to my family is completely unacceptable. I’ve seen my dad suffer mental breakdowns almost every night, to a point where we can’t even ask him what’s going on and how he is, because it’ll cause him too much anxiety and stress to a point where he has to leave the house, or go to bed.

As the daughter of Glen, this causes me so much pain to see him this upset and stressed about something which YOU have caused. I wish I could translate the amount of pain you have caused us, but words can’t begin to describe the level of hurt. You’ve pushed us into selling our house, now in a position where the only way we can get by with a roof over our heads is to rent.

Our source of income is now coming from my mother who works 60 hour weeks to keep us alive, and my 19 year old brother who helps pay the rent. I’ve considered dropping out of university myself to work full time and help keep my family in a more comfortable position. Sometimes I’m scared to come home, not knowing what to expect, whether it’ll be a stressful environment, or whether we can get a few laughs in together as a family. Coming up to Christmas, seeing everyone around me talk about what they’re going to ask for, for Christmas makes me feel slightly envious, as I don’t have the balls to ask my parents for a single thing this year, as it would be far too selfish.

Although we won’t let you ruin our time together at Christmas, as a 21 year old girl, I can’t help but to think about some of the things which I would have liked to have received over this holiday. I feel physically sick at the thought of you getting to enjoy your time with your family this Christmas, all whilst probably getting to travel and live life as if nothings going on here.

The reality is that you have caused irreversible damage in the form of financial problems, mental health stresses, and not being able to live life with our dad with him being completely present in our lives. Whilst he lives with us, sometimes he looks so drained and empty that it feels like we’ve lost a part of him. I’m honestly surprised he is still with us today, as the average person would have probably killed them selves by now, due to the stress and pressure.

I am writing this because I’ve come to a point where I’m so over crying about this, I’m over seeing my family suffer, and I’m over thinking about how selfish and sick you are for not being able to think about the pain you cause to others. I hope this email acts as a reminder that your actions affect other people’s lives, and that it’s damaging. Emmy

[Paragraph377]

I wouldn’t have aired that email publicly and I wouldn’t have encouraged it to be sent to CASA. Why? Well CASA don’t care. Well they do, but they care about CASA. An organisation that has within its management ranks psychopaths, sociopaths and psychophants. They enjoy what they do. They enjoy inflicting pain. They have no moral compass. They get off on crushing the resistance. For example, take Ivan Milat; He went to the grave keeping secrets about others he has killed. Why? I mean he could have fessed up, brought some closure to innocent families who have been tortured emotionally and mentally for decades. But he didn’t care because it’s all about him. He needed and craved control, and he had it right up until his last vile breath. It made him happy. Same methodology as to what Glen is being put through. These people genuinely have no moral conscience, empathy, sense of fairness, justice or kindness. Selfish, self loving, self absorbed heartless souls. Every time Glen or his family squirms in pain, they jack themselves out of excitement. For right or wrong, Glen poked the bear and the bear has launched an attack. Glen switched on the spotlight and they don’t like it. Never have, never will. They have the money, the time and highest levels of support to deliver payback to Glen forever more.

[industry insider]

Well Glen, while CASA has undoubtedly caused you stress and suffering, you have one very special, eloquent and brave daughter there. What a lovely young lady and a credit to your family.

[Okihara]

Very good. I for one think that this very well written letter goes in the right direction.
In fact, I would send copies of it by post to all their offices.
Freedom of speech is a good thing and should be used by all, young and old.

I wish you and your family well, Glen.

[glenb]

Last night I sent correspondence to each CASA Board Member and alerted them to this thread.

Each Member of the Board has an obligation to ensure good governance, within CASA.

I have advised them that in order to arrive at the most correct decision, they should avail themselves of the opportunity to review this thread, and my expectation is that they will visit it over coming days.

This will provide each Board Member with the opportunity to fill in any "gaps" in their knowledge, and ensure that they have all the required information, to arrive at the correct decisions.

Each Board Member is fully aware that I have extended an offer to travel anywhere in Australia to meet with any member.

Board Governance is an increasingly important matter in Australia. My expectations are fair and reasonable.

[Chris2303]

Each Member of the Board has an obligation to ensure good governance, within CASA.

Your definition of "good governance" probably differs markedly from CASA's definition

[Sunfish]

My suggestion to all is to copy this thread in its entirety and send it as a submission to the Senate review together with a short covering letter voicing your concerns over CASA’s demonstrable effect on jobs, growth and investment in the aviation sector.

Copy and save it now because I suspect that CASA might try legal operations to suppress it.

[glenb]

Sunfish, you make a valid point, and it does fit in with the terms of reference.

For clarity. APTA was established as a "cooperative" if you like. Its Mission Statement was very clearly to increase safety, increase regulatory compliance, increase jobs with an emphasis on rural areas, and to provide subsidised support to regional based aero clubs that were operating primarily for altruistic reasons, rather than the commercial return. It was a very significant investment to get the suitable systems, procedures, and personnel in place, and was designed with CASA, formally approved by CASA, audited by CASA, and even recommended by CASA.

The Terms of Reference mention;
"whether the current legislation is fit for purpose"
"the safety and economic impacts"
"long term social and economic impacts of CASA decisions on small business, agricultural operations, and individuals.....'
"CASAs maintenance of an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry ...including training..."
"the efficacy of its engagement with the aviation sector" etc etc

Whoever wrote those terms of reference has certainly come off of a good base line. They "get it"

This thread most certainly will be my submission. I will submit it at the appropriate time.

Considered, well intentioned comments by Pprune contributors are always highly valued, but perhaps more so now.

[glenb]

In light of this thread being the basis of my submission to the Senate. I do not feel that CASA would take steps to shut this thread down. That would be somewhat unreasonable and especially in the light of the fact that these matters primarily relate to aviation safety.

This thread was started in order to protect my reputation, enhance aviation safety, ensure good governance, and to hold CASA to account against their own Regulatory Philosophy.

This thread only commenced 6 months after I had been dealing with CASA privately.

Anyway, if I were on the CASA Board (for clarity that will never happen), I would...…..

The very first thing that I would do is have a "corporate psychological assessment" done. Im not sure if these things exist, but I seriously would. Its a well intentioned suggestion but I can see the shackles going up already within CASA.

Have an external Subject Matter Expert (SME) on Corporate cultures conduct an assessment of the organisation and design strategies to ensure the appropriate culture flows throughout that Organisation. There can be no doubt, that there are many good officers and troops in that organisation. It can never operate as it should without the appropriate values flowing through every vein of that organisation.

The CASA Regulatory Philosophy borne of the Review obviously didn't work, so its time for a fresh start that is well intentioned. That alone will improve aviation safety more than Part 61/141/142 did at a cost of $100 to every Australian family.

[glenb]

I would initiate immediate changing of the wording in the current Civil Aviation Act from (note bolded text),

8 Establishment of CASA

(1) An authority called the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is established by this subsection.

(2) CASA: (a) is a body corporate with perpetual succession; (b) shall have a seal; and (c) may sue and be sued in its corporate name.Note: The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 applies to the CASA. That Act deals with matters relating to corporate Commonwealth entities, including reporting and the use and management of public resources.

(3) All courts, judges and persons acting judicially shall take judicial notice of the imprint of the seal of CASA appearing on a document and shall presume that the document was duly sealed.


9 CASA’s functions

(1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:
(a) civil air operations in Australian territory; (
b) the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory;
(ba) ANZA activities in New Zealand authorised by Australian AOCs with ANZA privileges;by means that include the following:

(c) developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;

(d) developing effective enforcement strategies to secure compliance with aviation safety standards;
(da) administering Part IV (about drug and alcohol management plans and testing); (e) issuing certificates, licences, registrations and permits;
(f) conducting comprehensive aviation industry surveillance, including assessment of safety‑related decisions taken by industry management at all levels for their impact on aviation safety;
(g) conducting regular reviews of the system of civil aviation safety in order to monitor the safety performance of the aviation industry, to identify safety‑related trends and risk factors and to promote the development and improvement of the system;
(h) conducting regular and timely assessment of international safety developments.

(2) CASA also has the following safety‑related functions:
(a) encouraging a greater acceptance by the aviation industry of its obligation to maintain high standards of aviation safety, through:
(i) comprehensive safety education and training programs; and
(ii) accurate and timely aviation safety advice; and
(iii) fostering an awareness in industry management, and within the community generally, of the importance of aviation safety and compliance with relevant legislation;
(b) promoting full and effective consultation and communication with all interested parties on aviation safety issues.


TO;

aviation safety standards must meet three criteria. They must be. Simple. Accountable. Effective

CASA failed with Clear and Concise. Those three words if executed will improve safety, stimulate small business and craete jobs. It must be executed though.

[glenb]

I appreciate that this is a very public and open display, perhaps too much so, but with my wifes permission I am going to publish her letter. Please understand that I have truly lost absolutely everything over this, I really have. My last opportunity to salvage my life was the job I secured, but the Regional Manager directed that my position was "untenable" in light of my public comments. Recognising that I will not be able to continue in the aviation industry, I am actively taking steps to get myself employed. My age, and the time of year are not conducive to a career change, but it will happen.

I had come back from job hunting to a pile of bills that included, fees for my taxi licence, and bills from State Revenue Office, Infiniti financial, my sons school, Optus, Red Energy, Yarra Valley Water, Allianz, Alinta energy, Print Management facilities, Avdata, Australian Super, an MFT phone system lease, ASIC, Telstra, Thrifty, Esanda, and the ANZ. When APTA was operating I had 3 admin support staff. Im trying to battle through all the ongoing business obligations single handed and with a very low level of computer literacy. It became a bit overwhelming, and I exited for a lengthy stroll.

My wife penned this letter which she sent unbeknown to me.

Dear Jason, hi my name is Sonoko Buckley, I am Glens wife. I am not a native English Speaker. I just cant understand how you can be so cruel and unfair to someone who doesn't deserve to be treated like nothing. Glen is the person who thinks of others first before himself, always trying to help, always making people happy, being fair to people, was very generous and kind to employees. I wish you could see what you did to Glen. He just doesn't deserve it.

I always knew Glen was helpful and caring to his students and employees but I have lots more respect for him after reading Go Fund Me and PPrune. Please read through agin what people say about Glen and Im sure you realise that its absolutely not fair. I don t think you have any children because your cruelty and arrogance but if you do have children, how can they proud of you for doing the right thing.

I work as a support worker visiting elderly people at home. I work because I love helping people and love making people happy but now im working for moneyt every day to support Glen and children. We don't even have money to buy any Christmas presents for our children. It is just not fair. You people are so cruel. Im hoping you can stand up and act like a real man.

I am hoping you don't celebrate Christmas with your family or you aren't going for a holiday. I know its a bad thing to say but im so angry because its just not fair.

I can tell you if something happens to Glen as he is miserable and not healthy, im not going to forgive you and your parents who created you, like you are now, for the rest of my life.

Kind Regards, Sonoko Buckley


Disclaimer; She sounds like a real hardarse there. My wife works with hundreds of other carers in a large organisation. She recently got voted in the top 5 staff. I promise you all. She really is a sweetie

[buckshot1777]

My wife penned this letter which she sent unbeknown to me.

Dear Jason,
Who is "Jason"?

Edit: OK - his name didn't come up on the board or org chart, till I drilled down to Regulation Development and Implementation Branch Manager.

[glenb]

Jason Mc Heyzer, Regional Manager CASA. The gentleman that directed my employer that my position was untenable based on the comments I was making publicly!

[Bend alot]

$51,382 on the GoFundMe.

Target exceeded.

Merry Christmas to the Buckley family.

[Stickshift3000]

This is Jason McHeyzer: (public photo courtesy of LinkedIn).

I must admit that reading his LinkedIn profile gave me a big laugh - every cliche in the book. Very difficult to tell whether he’s working at CASA or for the ADF...

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/147x147/4f4e52c3_8abe_440a_8b6f_7118a77f34d9_f447f3077c401be4db7dfa6 1191bb90b2bad3f99.jpeg

[Lead Balloon]

My wild guess - which may be inaccurate - is that Jason was lined up to be the patsy to deliver the melancholy news about CASA’s interpretation of the word “employee”. CASA’s always looking to find a pasty to do its ‘dirty work’.

[Lead Balloon]

Glen:

Please, please (please) spend some of the crowd-funding on some legal advice.

[Paragraph377]

Part of Jason McShiser’s LinkedIn profile says;

Negotiate ‘win-win’ solutions
Do ‘the right thing’

Is that crap for real? ‘Do the right thing’ - isn’t that something a kid would put on his first resume so he can get a job at Maccas?

[Sunfish]

This thread needs to be saved and copied and archived and a new one started. The reason is that this could potentially end in a referral to the AFP. Enough of the personalities.

[Global Aviator]

Glen:

Please, please (please) spend some of the crowd-funding on some legal advice.

This has been repeated multiple times, what’s going on with the legal side?

[glenb]

Good morning folks.

I will get back on during the day or evening, and I must be somewhat careful.

Firms have been met with.
Some people of "note" who have been able to facilitate introductions to firms and personnel that I could not have achieved alone.
A substantive team has been decided.
Two meetings have been conducted.
An ENORMOUS body of well documented files by person and topic have been prepared submitted and reviewed two weeks ago to the legal firm
An initial review has been completed.
At this stage it is worth proceeding.
The firm contacted me yesterday, and generated the first invoice of $9990 was been given to me yesterday.
I attempted to transfer funds for that payment, last night but was limited by a $1000 limit.
The invoice will be paid in full today for Stage One.

For CASAs clarity. At this stage, I am reviewing my options. No legal action has formally commenced, therefore CASA should continue as normal at this stage. This is simply the process funded to see whether or not I have a valid basis for a claim.

Until that action is commenced, CASA are fully aware that my preference is a resolution through well intentioned face to face dialogue. Multiple formal requests have been made, and they have not been accepted by CASA.

If CASA force me to initiate a large law case, it will happen if CASA choose this as their most preferred option.

On receipt of the first transfer,which will be made today, the process will commence.

Regarding the Go Fund Me. This is for legal expenses only. It is not a case of "use some of the money for lawyers".

My living expenses are my responsibility, and as a family we will attend to those matters.

The generous donations made by supporters will be used for legal matters only.

Should I get this to the Courtroom as is my desire, it will clearly be seen, how may times I tried to avoid this path. It will be clearly evident that CASA forced me down this path.

Tragically, if CASA cannot apply the standards of governance and ethics that are expected of them, the irony is not lost on me that i have to actually initiate a large legal action to ensure that CASA does apply those standards that are imposed on them.

I might be the first person to take a safety regulator to court to make sure they actually do their job.

This entire process could have been avoided, had CASA followed their own Regulatory Philosophy and Administrative law.

There can be no doubt that CASA have already invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars into bringing me down.

Funds and peoples time that should have been directed to aviation safety has been redirected to crushing me.

Irrespective of the legal determination, a very public display of the culture of CASA is now clearly on record.

[dreamagicz]

Good to see that GoFundMe campaign reach its goal!

[Flaming galah]

I’m a bit confused about why Glen is continuing to try and engage with CASA? Cut to the chase!

[Paragraph377]

Scomo, the Pentecostal speaker of tongues, recently announced his boning of some of the APS head piggies, rolling 18 departments into 14, sadly it would appear that once again CASA escapes the Grim Reapers sickle, an opportunity well missed. What is interesting is that Mike MrDak spent around 20 years as the head Secretary of Infrastructure, which had CASA in its portfolio. Smart bureaucrat, a survivor, but one that had no control over CASA in reality. He went across to Communications as Secretary and has fallen on his sword over the Robodebt disaster, amongst other things. So with the biggest changes to the APS since the 1980’s, maybe Glen’s timing is the gift we’ve all been hoping for?

Glen’s case at this point in time might be fortunate in some respect. This Government is certainly not very embracing of bad publicity or high level incompetence, so perhaps Glen’s actions are enough of a blowtorch application to force the CASA rocks in Canberra to be moved. The organisation needs a complete overhaul in its executive level, a change of direction, a change of department name, and the removal of the last Iron Ring members and their fledglings waiting in the wings.

All good viewing from the armchair....

[glenb]

I comprehend that there are individuals on these posts that have "industry leading knowledge" of the legal aspects of my case. The weighting of those contributions is acknowledged, appreciated, noted, and accepted. This thread is a very public record, and would be essential reading for anyone involved in my matter with similar levels of expertise. A valuable network has also been established. I also appreciate that such learned persons would look at thiks from a more prcatical and emotional standpoint than i.

The legal argument is only one aspect, and that will be played out i assume in a Court of Law. Recall that this matter commenced 6 months before i went public on pprune, when i became convinced that i had no other option. What you have seen on here, is the mere tip of the iceberg, i can assure you. All will be revealed.

I have never blindsided CASA. I have forewarned them of my next course of action, confidentially on all occasions. They have made decisions, and effectively chosen the path of this journey. Multiple, well intentioned and fair options have been presented. The Board has had every opportunity to determine if ,in their opinion, the principles of good governance have been applied.

But this entire situation by its very nature has a bigger purpose. I will transfer those funds to the lawyer 15 minutes before the bank closes today, but that will officially be the end of any opportunity for well intentioned engagement. I will be seen to do everything i reasonably can to avoid that path, right up until the last minute. That opportunity finishers at Bankers hours today.

It will be disappointing. I have been in courts before and had some pretty big "issues" with Companies such as BDO (multinational), Toyota, Fairwork, and never had to use a lawyer.

The process is simple. You turn up. You turn up well intentioned. You tell the truth. A learned person makes a decision. You shouldn't need a lawyer.

You need a lawyer when you have concerns the other party will turn up, but may not be well intentioned, or may not tell the truth. I recognise I definitely need a lawyer!!!!!!

This argument must be played out in public because it is much bigger than Glen Buckley and affected parties getting fairly compensated.

CASA has chosen to make it a bigger argument, not me.

The truth is ( I hope this doesn't come out the wrong way, gulp)

If I was a Chinese Australian, an Indian Australian, a Philippine Australian, or any other newer Australian. If I was a female. I would have failed, and I still may. Unfortunately for CASA I was born here and from day one every Australian value has flowed through my blood. A small team of bullying men, isn't going to stop me.

Unlike any other Country in the world. I know that if I firmly dig my heals in for what is right, and stand by my ethics, act only in the truth, am well prepared, and steadfastly refuse to be bullied or intimidated by CASA, I will actually prevail, and I know it.

Its just unfortunate for CASA that they picked on me. There is no safety case. There was no accident, no plane slid off a runway or even dinged a wingtip. No rules were breached and still CASA remain unable to make a decision.

If this matter does not effect the required change in CASA the industry really is doomed, and sadly I will agree with Dick Smith on this matter.

It will effect change.

It may be that the law firm comes back and says. Glen. Your right. Those men ( and they are only men) aren't very pleasant, and they certainly pushed the boundaries but they gotcha.

In that case it will be over for me, but a very public record will be left. Eventually change must come. Lets just hope that it comes quick enough that all the well intentioned personnel within CASA can stick it out, and operate in the environment that they would prefer to operate in.

Assuming that i have to go to the bank late today, i suggest that Mr Graeme Crawford the Aviation Group Executive Manager who would be the accountable person i assume, would walk across to Dr Alecks office (Executive Manager of Legal and Regulatory Affairs) and say "Here, have your baby back".

Irrespective PPrune provides my one and only forum. I chose it, because it is appropriately discrete, as opposed to other social media options, i can get support via these pages and until you've walked in my shoes you wont appreciate how important that has been, and continues to be.

The legal argument is one argument, my challenge is to continue on here and not compromise that process. If anybody believes that any comment on here may compromise that process, i would appreciate them reaching out, and establishing contact.

Cheers. Glen.

Everyones involvement on these pages is important and appreciated.

[zanthrus]

Go get the bastards Glen!

[bloated goat]

Go get the bastards Glen!

Mr Glen Buckley should be the next CEO and DAS of CASA.

[Sunfish]

My thinking is that the Senate review, plus the restructuring of Ministries announced last week is a perfect opportunity for CASA to delay any and all action on anything at all as well as muddy the waters of regulatory reform.

[glenb]

Thankyou everyone for the support and comments on the Go Fund Me page. Im pleased to say that we reached the target, and i have just completed one of my first ever internet banking transactions. The first payment of $9900 has been transferred to a legal firm, and the formal assessment will begin.

An extremely nervous wait for the result, but it will be shared. Thanks, Glen

[Bend alot]

Glen, I rounded it out at the $51,500 as an estimate the leaves a net of the $50K for the legal review that you expected.

If those expectations are incorrect, just update your goal. I did say the 50 would be meet and many forget operating costs even on a free platform.

Mate I have heard you say you have lost everything and nothing left to loose and talks of breakdowns and loss of house and stuff.

That's material ****. I have seen your family's love for you - and they say you have nothing, but clearly love you.

Strangers like myself offer support in many ways, mine now is to relax until the new year. Spend this with your loved ones in a positive way, it is clear they are concerned about you.

So take a break and enjoy as best possible Christmas, your war chest is there even it took a break - but got it's target.

[flyingmac49]

Well said "Bend a lot"!!!

[AerialPerspective]

Well said "Bend a lot"!!!

+1 from me

[Paragraph377]

Craig Martin just been promoted to Executive Manager.

[glenb]

https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/aviation-safety-inspectors-claim-staff-shortage-amid-casa-restructure-20191203-p53gg0.html

[Blueyonda]

https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/aviation-safety-inspectors-claim-staff-shortage-amid-casa-restructure-20191203-p53gg0.html

BlrjHLnNzAo

[Torres]

"A CASA spokeswoman said the agency was in the process of "transforming the way we operate to provide more consistent and standardised safety oversight", and was developing a new "oversight model" that would identify staff roles and capabilities."

Another meaningless, pointless, ludicrous statement from CASA.

Surely CASA don't think the Australian aviation industry believes that rubbish? :confused:

[Paragraph377]

"A CASA spokeswoman said the agency was in the process of "transforming the way we operate to provide more consistent and standardised safety oversight", and was developing a new "oversight model" that would identify staff roles and capabilities."

So CASA are admitting;
1. They don’t provide very good consistent and standardised safety oversight? That should scare the Australian public and the Minister.
2. They are developing a new oversight model? The current one isn’t effective? The current one is out of step or touch with oversight expectations?
3. The new oversight model will identify staff roles and capabilities? So they don’t know what there staff are doing, or whether they are even capable of performing the roles that they currently do?

Wow. What an admission. A dysfunctional steaming heap. All time low morale, Inspectors speaking to the media about safety concerns, and an organisation that can’t even balance it’s budget let alone provide safety oversight. If the Minister isn’t listening, well he ought to be now. Mr Carmody is presiding over an epic failure.

C’mon Scomo, while you are on a roll and boning public servants, surely this mob could do with a giant enema? I’ve got the hose ready!!

[Okihara]

I don't think so. Superlative statements are somewhat ubiquitous in the Aussie scene to the point where they create an inflation of their own and define the new normal. The standard statement that you would expect from a government agency would here be perceived as not trying hard enough. The ATO probably hired the same ad agency with their "new tax system that works better for ALL Australians" :ugh:

[Sunfish]

reorganization is the standard bureaucratic response to perceived failure. It’s a great excuse. “just wait until we are reorganized/transformed, then everything will be fixed” not......

[The Bullwinkle]

The government earlier this year amended the Civil Aviation Act so that CASA must now "consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community" of its safety regulation. This followed an outcry from smaller aviation operations who claimed they were being strangled by red tape.

That says it all Glen!

[Checklist Charlie]

We trained hard ... but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.

Charlton Ogburn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlton_Ogburn,_Jr.) in 1957 on reorganization is often spuriously attributed to a Gaius Petronius Arbiter c. 27 – 66 AD.

CC

[Bend alot]

Dear Glen,

The year is pretty much over and well you have had a big one, and been very public.

From where I sit you got early presents a few listed in reverse order.

3) Industry support from many.
2) Financial support from strangers and friends.
1) Love from family publicly shown.

My advice is just love your time with your family over these last days of the year - I wish you and your family all the best.

[Mr Approach]

Glenn = I recently left CASA because it had totally lost it's way. The body (it is not an organisation) that I originally joined was transformed after Mr Carmody joined into a true branch of the public service. Layer upon layer of new management, confusion about roles, lots of "Plans" but no coordination of change, zero documentation, inability to keep regulations up to date, and as far as I could determine absolutely no safety assessment process. An SMS, as required by all authorisation holders, is completely missing from CASA. No-one in my branch could even detail the required content of a Safety Case or how such a submission would be assessed by CASA!
! tried to raise your plight internally to get the corporate response but all I ever got was "he's a nutter', "difficult to deal with" and as for Pprune - who reads that rubbish anyway! In other words corporate denial that there was even a problem and if the messenger dared to suggest CASA may be wrong - there are a thousand egos willing to toe the company line.
I wish you luck but they have got so much money set aside to protect the Minister from criticism that they will simply use the legal system to bankrupt you over an over until you are forced to give up.
My advice is to forget tribunals and courts and go political. If you can get a politician onside money becomes meaningless. Your issues can be raised in parliament under privilege and reported on verbatim by the media. That will really put the pressure right back where the Minister does not like it - in plain view.

[glenb]

Back from a ripper Xmas with the family. A Kris Kringle where you had to make something for under $10, and then we voted on best and worst gift. Truckloads of fun, and just what the doctor ordered.

Mr Approach, i have no doubt you hit the nail on the head with that post, and admittedly it was somewhat reassuring to read. Nice timing, cheers.

I cannot attend to anything legal here, and have to avoid those topics, needless to say at this stage it will take slightly longer than i had anticipated. It is a significant task.

On the political side Mr Approach, i have made a number of requests to my local member for Chisholm, Ms Gladys Liu requesting a meeting. I believe there have been 5 requests over 3 months, with no response other than the automatic acknowledgement. I will write one further request and post it on here in order to elicit a response.

Cheers, Glen.

[Sunfish]

Gladys will have been advised by the Liberal secretariat not to touch you with a ten foot pole. Furthermore, she is no longer facing a bye election so she doesn’t need aviation industry support. You need to target marginal seats or you are wasting your time.

You will get nothing from Gladys, forget about her, you are wasting your time. All you will get is “I am advised that CASA is addressing your issues, consequently I have nothing to say”.

You should have gone political much earlier while Gladys was before the high court.

To put it another way, te only thing CASA fears is the Ministers office.

[Checklist Charlie]

CASA fears is the Ministers office

I doubt that, the various iterations of the regulator have managed to bluff and bullsh1t to the incumbent 'minister' for as long as I can remember.
Mind you, many of those previous ministers didn't want to know anything anyway.

CC

[Paragraph377]

I’m hearing that the place is a dishevelled
mess. Good people left, and others in the process of bailing. Structure isn’t working, budgets aren’t workable and bullying and incompetence running rife. Supposedly worse than when the The Screaming Skull and then Skidmark we’re running the place.

I’ve said it for decades, it will take a large smoking hole for anyone to pay attention to the place.

[ramble on]

Australia used to be a smart, first world country and now its shine is turning to ****e.

I just did my CASA Medical renewal and the DAME (who does medicals for at least 5 other authourities) tells me that Australia's CASA Medical paperwork is a FARCE and takes exponentially longer than any other medical.

If you are reading this CASA - its a FARCE you Fxcks...

[Duck Pilot]

MR Approach has certainly hit the nail on the head. I can say that from experience having worked for CASA.

Mark Skidmore in my opinion was an excellent DAS and a great man, however he was handed a really big **** sandwich when he took on the roll. I don’t blame him for pulling out when he did, which was a sign of true professionalism in my opinion given the state of play within the organisation and government at the time.

[AerialPerspective]

MR Approach has certainly hit the nail on the head. I can say that from experience having worked for CASA.

Mark Skidmore in my opinion was an excellent DAS and a great man, however he was handed a really big **** sandwich when he took on the roll. I don’t blame him for pulling out when he did, which was a sign of true professionalism in my opinion given the state of play within the organisation and government at the time.



Did he eat the "roll"... was that what the sh-t was in..?

[Duck Pilot]

And I thought I had a sense of humour, good pickup on words. Noted the typo🎄

None the less I thought he done an excellent job in the position, particularly given the challenges at the time. Good luck to him.

[The name is Porter]

Australia used to be a smart, first world country and now its shine is turning to ****e.

Australia has NEVER been a smart country. There was a period of time (a decade and a half or so) when the reform agenda looked promising. But there it stalled. Australians think that a law, rule or regulation will fix a problem. It's gone from that to a nanny state where people are unable to think for themselves without a rulebook telling them what to do.

There are quite a few smart, accomplished individuals here, invariably they move o/s, their product or IP gets recognised and snapped up.

Australia, a dumb as dog****, 3rd rate nation, masquerading as a '1st world country'

[Stickshift3000]

.Australia, a dumb as dog****, 3rd rate nation, masquerading as a '1st world country'

Well all we really do is dig holes, find sh!t and sell it for more to the rest of the world, all the while the government hopes we plebs look the other way. We really are ‘the lucky country’, in every sense of the term first coined by Horne (google it).

I agree with Kerry Packer when he questioned whether the introduction of a new regulation should require the repeal of a current one...

[Climb150]

Porter,

Have you ever lived outside Australia? You may pick on Australias faults but until you live somewhere else you will get the feel for how advanced we are in many ways.

I agree we are drowning in regulation and Nanny Statism but its nowhere near as bad as some places I have lived.

[Torres]

Climb150. It would be a fallacious argument to compare Australian aviation regulation to "some places you may have lived". I too have lived in countries where the civil aviation legislation is outdated, draconian and corrupt.

Australia is a first world democracy. I feel justified in expecting better than third world legislation. Thirty one years and well in excess of half a Billion Dollars for the atrocious half finished mess that is Australia's Civil Aviation Regulations is appalling. I've watched DCA/CAA/CASA destroy our Australian aviation manufacturing industry and our General Aviation industry. The systematic destruction of our aviation training industry has resulted in millions of dollars in lost export income for Australia.

And the latest example - the media are asking why Australia does not buy it's own large firefighting aircraft? I know why - can you imagine the cost and frustration for an Australian operator to convert and operate ex airline fire fighting aircraft in Australia, on Australian aircraft registration? Only an extreme masochist would even think of trying.

Australia deserves and expects a far more professional aviation regulator than what we have.

[lucille]

Porter,

Have you ever lived outside Australia? You may pick on Australias faults but until you live somewhere else you will get the feel for how advanced we are in many ways.

I agree we are drowning in regulation and Nanny Statism but its nowhere near as bad as some places I have lived.

Well, I have.. for 30+ years. Everywhere I’ve worked has been easier and more sensible than here.

But saying we are nowhere near as bad as some places sets a low bar. We should be focussing on the fact that we are nowhere near as good as some places and striving to improve ourselves.

[Climb150]

Oh so we are talking about world standards in aviation regulations? That wasnt what porter said. He was just running of about us not being a smart country.

Now that everyone has finished running me down continue with CASA bashing. That I totally agree with.

[The name is Porter]

Porter,

Have you ever lived outside Australia? You may pick on Australias faults but until you live somewhere else you will get the feel for how advanced we are in many ways.

G'day Climb, yes I have. And I'm about to leave again for a 3 year stint. (I'm not running you down by the way!) Australia exists on luck, lucky that the ground is full of ore, gold, bauxite etc. If you compare Australia to any country that has natural resources you will mostly find sovereign wealth funds, what does Australia do? Pisses it up against the wall on useless, out of date infrastructure. Like a rich kid with a trust fund.

I have broadband internet at my hangar, a couple of nights ago I was getting 1.5 megabits per second.

I drive to Point Cook to do a bit of work, I reckon the population out that way would have to be what? 70, 80k? The road I take in is 2 lane to the roundabout, then narrows to one lane in and out. FFS, people living there working in the city spend 40 mins getting out of the suburb, then 20 to the city.

I've been doing some work at a large regional airport, well, a lot of work actually, but that organisation is about to shut down due to a few factors, too many to go into here, but due mainly to the Australian way of doing things. If you work in aviation in this country, GA in particular, you'll see death by a thousand cuts. The other sectors I'm not in a position to comment. RAAus is thriving, mainly due to the ease of 'doing things.' Any pilot who works in both sectors knows exactly why. But an RPC won't get a job at any airline. Great pathway in but then.........

The country I'm moving to verified my licence in days, at a cost of $0. CASA charged me $25 for a licence re-print and $50 for the verification letter. Ring 131 757 any day of the week and ask to speak to an FOI, good luck with that! It is virtually impossible to speak, even briefly, to one. Good luck in your Part 61 interpretations, but get one of those interpretations wrong........Then read the FAA Part 61.

An Australian Prime Minister boasted about her first term, 1200 new pieces of legislation in her first 12 months, personally I find that a disgrace. An absolute disgrace. I would be looking at a PM repealing legislation in this country as a success. (The number quoted is not exact but whereabouts).

It goes on mate, on and on. I'm not stupid enough to think any country is utopia, but for the resources this country has, both human and natural wealth, it's an embarrassment. $120k on FEE-HELP to get a CPL & IR, spare me please. Why any kid is paying $30k upwards for a degree?? Why anyone is walking around with a mouthful of rotten teeth because dental is 'cosmetic'??

Pretty average I reckon.

[Paragraph377]

Porters last post was pretty damn good. Australian aviation regulations are absolutely a joke. For most of the past 31 years of the unfinished ‘regulatory reform program’, at a cost of $500m, J.Aleck has been the legal head and indeed the neck that turns the head at CASA. CASA has collapsed under the weight of excessive and unworkable laws. Due to their fear of repealing outdated and unworkable rules, they simply add to them. The result of all this nonsense is a bureaucracy that has strangled the aviation industry, and itself, to death. It no longer works. It’s time to put a bullet in the Frankenstein and start afresh. Time to do things Kiwi style - 4 years and $40m will get the job done. A new system that will make it possible to actually be an aviator!!! Imagine the economic benefits to manufacturing, industry, leisure and a host of other flow-on effects? The current mess in its current form can not be saved and is not salvageable. Only a clean slate starting from scratch will work. But I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

[Sunfish]

Preaching the choir. I’ve worked in industry development for a State Government and also commercialization of research. We are just not even in the race. Our energy cost is crazy high. Our infrastructure is badly planned. The regulatory landscape, including aviation, is a disaster. Our employment costs are unsustainable and our financial and taxation structures do not create an investment climate for anything other than domestic property development. If you have a good business idea in Australia, take it overseas.

To put that another way, our local council wants a $1200 application fee to consider allowing a business to put up an advertising sign on its own premises. The biggest owners of water rights in the Murray - Darling river system are city and overseas speculators including politicians.

[Gear in transit]

our local council wants a $1200 application fee to consider allowing a business to put up an advertising sign on its own premises.

Sunfish, you also forgot the asset protection permit @$1000 to protect the dying tree in front of said sign should it potentially blow over and damage the tree!

[AerialPerspective]

Australia has NEVER been a smart country. There was a period of time (a decade and a half or so) when the reform agenda looked promising. But there it stalled. Australians think that a law, rule or regulation will fix a problem. It's gone from that to a nanny state where people are unable to think for themselves without a rulebook telling them what to do.

There are quite a few smart, accomplished individuals here, invariably they move o/s, their product or IP gets recognised and snapped up.

Australia, a dumb as dog****, 3rd rate nation, masquerading as a '1st world country'

The fact it can't even get around without the flag of another country on ours or can't bring itself to display the confidence to have it's own head of state also is an indicator of how insular and self-congratulatory we are...

[Mr Approach]

To respond to Duck Pilot, Mark Skidmore told me that he was leaving CASA because he was sick of "banging his head against a brick wall".
In his case that would have be the Department, acting on behalf of the Minister, because he otherwise controlled the CASA agenda.
Regardless of press releases, the Department is mortified about change, they need the status quo so that the Minister can never be blamed if something goes wrong.
When something does go wrong, as with Angel Flight, then the response must be more regulation, regardless of whether it actually addresses the problem. the Minister is then seen to have acted and all is now well again.
Well done Minister!

[Mr Approach]

It is satisfying to have Aunty Pru re-quote me in her blog however she claims that I failed to mention the "Standard response – but our correspondent fails to mention the vehemence with which a ‘complainant’ will be dealt with. CASA have and still do pursue ‘personal grudges’ and the CASA line to a point which can, seriously damage reputation, earning ability and even a career."
I did that because it would have moved the focus from Glenn to myself, my issues are not the problem and never will be in my posts. Having said that I agree with Aunties summation of the CASA view about "messengers" - "will be shot on sight" - to quote an old table of corporate culture. Personalities, cliques, favourites, in-crowds, old boys clubs, they are allowed to operate unchecked, to become part of one is the average employees dream. Therein lies a long career, plenty of overseas junkets, lots of time to contemplate life and eventually a rich retirement. The Aviation Industry - outside of Defence, the major airlines, and essential vote winners such as the RFDS, is just a nuisance.
To quote my executive manager when I first joined CASA - "I want to know about something if it affects a politician, will get in the media, or concerns Sydney Airport" deal with everything else yourselves!

[thorn bird]

On Page 5 of todays Australian perhaps an illustration of a possible solution to the turbidness of our political process and a lesson for our industry on how to give the political class and via them the bureaucrats that torment us a very bloody nose.

The headline:

"Irrigator taps into torrent of anger on water theft"

The story centres around a Guy called Chris Brooks, a farmer a tad pissed off with the way the bureaucrats screwed up water management. Just a simple irrigation farmer who tapped into the powerful emotions around water, or lack of it, gripping rural communities in the region and in less than twelve months went from simple farmer to the most influential political activist outside the capital cities. With less than 1800 followers he has managed to put the fear of god into the political class and the bureaucrats by Organised rallies, simple messages, and the threat, that mess with us and direct action will follow, which has been very successful in recent NSW elections, along with class actions in the courts if necessary.

General aviation is small, and growing smaller everyday, thanks to the corrupt self serving bureaucrats, the irrigation farmers are equally small but together are showing the way.

Chris Brooks is a beacon of light into our dark world and shows us what can be achieved, if we can put our ego's away and unite with one voice. If we don't we are condemned to never ending purgatory of CAsA's regulatory miasma.

[Jeffory]

Some interesting thoughts, I don't believe the priorities in Australia are not conducive for the betterment or sustained growth of any industry unfortunately. Most Australian's seem to still be drinking the Kool-aid and hold the property market as the pinnacle of smart investing above all else. I mean it is fair enough, it's made some pretty average people multi millionaires for doing nothing more than just being right place right time. There is no real incentive to push the boundaries in other areas when you can sit back and watch the investment grow whilst also claiming tax incentives.

Would a pro-longed recession and the collapse of the status quo be what is needed for a fresh take on the countries future?

[Asturias56]

"Chris Brooks is a beacon of light into our dark world and shows us what can be achieved" - does that include finding some more water from somewhere/anywhere?

IIRC he is complaining because the agreement he gets his water under isn't delivering - and that's what was likely as he was paying less than those who get a guaranteed supply...........

[thorn bird]

I think you missed my point Asturias, I know very little about the politics of water
except to add a little to a single malt.

What I was hoping to highlight was how successful Chris has been at galvanising a
relatively small group into a cohesive force that has impacted on the bureaucrats and
the pollies.

This thread is about Glen and the unconscionable behaviour of CASA towards him. Glens dilemma
is a David and Goliath confrontation, but if the industry stopped focusing on their own
narrow self interests and truely organised into political activism then the branding by CASA
of anyone who objects to their self interest as "nutters" not worthy of paying lip service to
might just go away.

[glenb]

Dear Mr Mathews,



I am writing to you in your role as the Chairperson of the CASA Board.



I have included other recipients in this email, including a number not disclosed by way of bcc.



The purpose of this correspondence is to initiate a process of measurable and demonstrable improvements to aviation safety throughout the General Aviation (GA) sector in Australia. The GA sector includes all operations in Australia with the exception of airline flying.



As these are matters of aviation safety, it is essential that change is effected promptly, and I will commence this important process within 72 hours.



I will do this initially by way of an industry wide petition, with myself as the lead signatory. That will be submitted to Parliament, and I will call on the support of the Office of Ms Catherine King, the Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, and Regional Development. The petition will only be submitted on the attainment of 50,000 signatures. My objective will be to achieve that in 50 days from activation. I anticipate on being able to draw on significant industry support.



Drawing on 25 years in the General Aviation sector, as a small business owner, and as a CASA approved Head of Operations and CEO, I consider myself a subject matter expert (SME) on aviation safety matters within the General Aviation Sector.



I am fully satisfied that the organisational culture within CASA is not “fit for purpose”, and in fact:



Compromises aviation safety

Costs jobs, and particularly in rural areas.

Acts as a disincentive for Australian owned businesses.



In initiating this process, it is important that I do not damage the reputation of the majority of well intentioned and professional personnel within CASA, and I will address this comprehensively in my wider release.



In order to initiate significant safety improvements within that organisation it does not require an expensive program of change. It requires the replacement of a small number of CASA personnel. Due to the wider circulation of this email, I will not name them here, although they are referred to as the “iron ring” by the wider GA Industry. The change required is a cultural change only.



Whilst I have no doubt that you are a person of exceptional qualities, I must be very clear.



As the Chair of the Board of CASA, you are the accountable person for “ensuring that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient, and effective manner”.



From my own personal experience, and on behalf of the wider GA industry. CASA clearly does not perform its functions in a Proper, or Efficient, or Effective manner.



The Australian public has an increasing expectation of Board governance, and rightfully so.



It is also a reasonable expectation that the Board of a Government department operating under the Australian Coat of Arms, should demonstrate exceptional qualities, above what could be expected in the corporate sector. There has been a significant failure, and I make that statement drawing on my own personal experience.



Respectfully, Glen Buckley 0418772013.



.

[Sunfish]

All you are doing Glen, is demonstrating that the Board is a fig leaf - one more layer of deliberate fire insulation between the Minister and responsibility in case of a major accident. The Department and the Minister run the show. The Board has no power.

[Flaming galah]

What’s happening with the legal review?

[Dangly Bits]

Imagine if the CASA FOI responsible for the downfall of APTA was the same person who oversees SOAR? :cool:

[glenb]

Interesting question Dangly Bits. I believe CASA FOI, MR Brad Lacey was the Flight Operations Inspector for my organisation APTA and also for SOAR.

Brad Lacey had previously called my operation "The Glen Buckley circus show" to somebody in industry and that feedback got back to me.

A passive aggressive little man he is!.

[Arctaurus]

CASA management has been sleepwalking while SOAR has been operating. The Stawell accident should have been the end of SOAR, but no, CASA prevaricates and allows the organisation to continue operating.

And surprise, surprise, yet another recent accident with serious injuries at Moorabbin, but CASA chose an easier target and ruined an operator who made every attempt at compliance.

It seems that this organisation has the capacity to defend the indefensible. Public accountability and responsibility indeed has fallen by the wayside.

[Sunfish]

Glen, did you “wine and dine” the CASA person? Did any other operator? Given the financial behavior of SOAR, is there anything they wouldn’t stoop,to?

Could someone have been PAID to take you down?

How was a shyte organization like SOAR allowed to prosper yet you were taken down?

[Mr Approach]

Glenn,
References to the "iron ring" are in my opinion no longer warranted.
I recall when the term was first used and I believe it was meant to indicate that the CASA CEO and Board were kept in the dark by the secretive group of bureaucrats who controlled the agenda(s). While the senior bureaucrats are very powerful and operate virtually unchecked, they all work towards one aim; to protect the minister. This also protects the public service and their own jobs because they are all contracted staff and serve at the whim of the minister and his departmental advisors. Also do not forget that the present head of CASA is himself a bureaucrat.
The iron ring the, if it could be said to exist I believe is at the very top of the organisation, not CASA, but the executive branch of government; the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities <https://www.infrastructure.gov.au>. Aviation is not mentioned however, I quote: "The Australian Government, through the department, contributes to the prosperity of the economy and the wellbeing of all Australians by fostering a viable, competitive and safe aviation industry.The department advises the Government on the policy and regulatory framework for Australian airports and the aviation industry, manages the administration of the Government's interests in privatised airports under the Airports Act 1996, and provides policy advice to the Minister on the efficient management of Australian airspace and on aircraft noise and emissions."
This is where policy is set, plans are made, and orders issued.

[thorn bird]

"The Australian Government, through the department, contributes to the prosperity of the economy and the wellbeing of all Australians by fostering a viable, competitive and safe aviation industry.The department advises the Government on the policy and regulatory framework for Australian airports and the aviation industry, manages the administration of the Government's interests in privatised airports under the Airports Act 1996, and provides policy advice to the Minister on the efficient management of Australian airspace and on aircraft noise and emissions."
This is where policy is set, plans are made, and orders issued."

That whole statement is an outright lie and fraudulent

[glenb]

To Mr Anthony Mathews, the Chairman of the Board of CASA
To Mr Shane Carmody the Chief Executive Officer of CASA
To Mr Graeme Crawford the CASA Group Executive Manager Aviation
Mr Jonathan Aleck the CASA Executive Manager Legal and Regulatory Affairs
Mr Craig Martin the CASA Executive Manager Regulatory Service and Surveillance
Mr Jason Mc Heyzer CASA Region Manager- Southern Region,

I am writing this to publicly expose each of you for your gross misconduct, Your misrepresentation, your lack of integrity, and,your breaches of administrative law, and for the enormous harm that you have bought to me and my family, the destruction of my business, and others, the clear breaches of CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy, and the negative impact that you have on aviation safety in this Country. You have bought me to the cusp of a mental breakdown, and you are acting dishonestly.

There it is!!!!!!

One of you, grow some balls and take me to Court for defamation. After more than 18 months of your bullying and intimidation, i will take it no more. Give me the opportunity to expose you publicly

I will continue to expose you, and i will bring about change. The damage you have caused to me mentally, emotionally, and financially is irrepairable and your conduct is reprehensible. In my opinion you should each be facing criminal charges. I call on each of you to step down from your positions, because your positions are untenable, they compromise aviation safety, and they damage the reputation of the many good people within CASA that act professionally, and act to improve aviation safety. The culture that you create in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is unacceptable.



You are each involved in a cover up and malpractice that is not acceptable to me, my family and many individuals that operate in this industry. Its illegal and immoral. The manner in which you have conducted yourselves has nothing to do with aviation safety or breaches of any regulations. Its quite simply disgusting. I am mentally, emotionally, financially destroyed by your conduct. I have a wife and three children that i am responsible for, and you have come into my life and destroyed me, you really have. This has continued on for far too long, and must stop, and it must stop now. Right now. I will take it no more.

Many small business owners would have taken their own life, after 18 months of this bullying and intimidation. You should each hang your heads in shame. I intend to publicly write to the Deputy Prime Minister, who has also failed in his role, and i will write to the PM, and publish it on here today. My hope is that he will have the ethics and principles to call for an investigation into your conduct.

Is this a "meltdown' Quite possibly, but i WILL hold each of you to account.

Glen Buckley.

[Jetman346]

Best of luck glen these people have a 0 care factor including politicians, most are in it for themselves and wont rock the boat

[tail wheel]

Never underestimate an attack by a desperate man.

And CASA also have a multi million dollar law suit for incompetence in surveillance of the C172 crash aircraft at Middle Island in Queensland.

[glenb]

Dear Mr XXXXXXX XXXX,, Assistant Director of Investigations of the Commonwealth Ombudsmans Office.



Thankyou for investigating the matter whereby Mr Jason Mc Heyzer the CASA Region Manager, Southern Region directed my Employer, that my position was untenable, based on the comments that I was making publicly about CASA.



I claim that my employment was terminated as a result of his direction, and I stand by that statement.



You asked that I provide any further information on remarks I made in the press, or online about the situation with CASA.



The only public remarks I made about CASA were on a pilots forum referred to as PPRUNE, and the link is attached.



https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa.html



In order to get the best overview of that forum, it would require you to register, and that can be done anonymously. Should that option not be available to you, then you could use my log in details. Username; Glenb and my password XXXXXX. You could then view any attachments that have potentially offended Mr Jason Mc Heyzer, and lead to his direction that my position was untenable.



No other public comments were made. I avoided more public options available to me, as I felt PPRUNE was the suitable forum to defend my reputation. I appreciate that CASA will belittle the validity of the forum. I can assure you that many industry personnel of note are regularly on the forum, and this includes persons with legal experience, ex CASA personnel, Mr Dick Smith, and a number of highly regarded industry personnel. There are also persons posting on there that have had there livelihoods destroyed by CASA actions and decisions, and you will see clear support of my perspective.



My particular issue has now had over 500,000 visits, and support on that forum clearly indicates the level of industry frustration, with the culture that exists within CASA.



I appreciate that there are a number of posts on there and reviewing it will take some time, although I implore you to visit the thread, and study it in detail.



The only other place that I can direct you to is a crowd funding page that was established on my behalf, in order to initiate a legal action to bring these personnel to account, of which I am extremely appreciative. That can be found via this link. https://www.gofundme.com/f/glen-buckley-v-casa



Regarding your other requests for supporting documentation I will attend to those as my health, and time permit.



Respectfully, Glen Buckley.

[Bend alot]

Hi Glen,

Hope the Christmas & New Year time was enjoyed with family - loved the Christmas gift idea! We all need to move back to that idea (a gift is from love not a $ thing).

I hope your New Year resolution included some self health checks mate, and you keep strong communication with your family.

If you ever need to just talk to a stranger and boil over - just call - anytime.

Best regards to you and family

Bendy.

[glenb]

28/01/20



Dear Mr Anthony Mathews, Chairperson of the CASA Board,



As you are aware the Minister issues a Statement of Expectations, with the link attached here for your reference. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00977 (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00977)



I am firmly of the opinion that the conduct of CASA has not been in accordance with



1. The Ministers Statement of Expectations,

2. The PGPA Act,

3. CASAs Regulatory Philosophy

4. The values of the Australian Public Service,



Further i believe that CASA have not "considered the economic and cost impact on individuals, and business", as required by the Statement of Expectations.



I do not believe that CASA have adopted a "pragmatic, practical, and proportionate approach to regulation" as required by the Statement of Expectations



I do not believe CASA have" undertaken effective and ongoing engagement with the aviation industry (specifically my business) to create a collaborative relationship based on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect."



I say that from my own personal experience with CASA, and because of the enormous harm that conduct has bought to me, my family, my business, and other businesses impacted by the conduct of certain personnel within CASA. I have specifically identified those individuals to you on numerous occasions.



In the Ministers Statement Of Expectations, i note that you are required to "keep the Secretary of my Department and me fully informed of CASAs actions in relation to the requirements stated in this SOE, and promptly advise of any events or issues that may impact on the operations of CASA.



The purpose of this correspondence;



Can you please confirm to me that you have raised these issues with the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael Mc Cormack, in accordance with your obligations in the PGPA, and that he is conversant with the allegations and concerns that i have raised.



As this request is a fairly straightforward request, i am hoping that you can respond in a timely manner



Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Dear Dr Aleck,



I refer back to the initial notification from CASA dated 23/10/18 CASA ref f14/9540 and attached.



In that correspondence, CASA proposed to reject the addition of Latrobe Valley Aero Club to be added.



Immediately prior to Latrobe Valley Aero Clubs application to join APTA, it had been operating under the Air Operator Certificate of another organisation for a protracted period of time. This was done with the full knowledge and support of CASA.



I felt that the APTA concept, provided a number of improvements over the other system provided by the previous Authorisation Holders where there was a poor relationship between the two organisations, no dedicated safety department, and as you would be aware we had designed a system referred to as Flight School Manager. This gave us high levels of oversight, and in fact I suggest that nothing in Australia to date had provided such levels of oversight. You will recall that we also provided CASA with access to the FSM system, so for the first time ever in Australia, CASA could access all aspects of operations immediately rather than conducting an onsight inspection. This included Flight and Duty records, predictive maintenance tracking, all maintenance issues, and in fact every aspect of flying school operations. Unlike the previous arrangement with the other authorisation holder, we also had staff on site that were under the direct employment of APTA.



For clarity, can you please outline why the other Authorisation Holders oversight had been permitted, although our system was not acceptable to CASA.





Thankyou in anticipation of a response, as requested by the Commonwealth Ombudsman,



Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Dear Craig Martin,



I have a number of issues that I had submitted through to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, some being actioned, and some pending me approaching CASA to obtain a response. Therefore on the Ombudsmans advice I will be writing to you on a number of matters that require clarification. As I am after a strictly legal response rather than an “operational one”, I will be directing the inquiry to Dr Aleck in his role as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal and Regulatory Affairs. I will direct this email through you, and include Dr Aleck in on all emails as I have with this one.



I have also included Mr Anthony Mathews as the Chair of the CASA Board, and the person ultimately responsible for the governance obligations. I had previously raised these issues with him verbally at our meeting, but thought it best to put it in writing to ensure there was no confusion.



Dear Dr Aleck,



As you will be aware, the practice of sharing an AOC had been commonplace in the industry, and was done with CASAs full knowledge and consent. CASA had never required a contract between the entities previously, and CASA do not hold copies of any such contracts for any other flying training organisations in Australia. You may recall I raised this query on multiple occasions, and CASA chose not to respond.



I had advised CASA that we had contracts in place, and CASA had shown little interest, had not made it a requirement. The use of a contract was an initiative that APTA put in place. I point out that APTA even provided contracts to CASA prior to any members joining APTA, on multiple occasions.



Once the CASA action was initiated in October of 2018, CASA claimed that we did not have contracts in place, when in fact we did. I advised CASA that we had contracts, and they had been provided to CASA, but CASA refuted this, and I provided the evidence. I am of the opinion that had CASA realised they actually held the contracts they may not have initiated the action. I feel that the requirement to have contracts was a unique requirement placed on APTA, and not on other Organisations.



Are you able to clarify the regulations that require a contract, and are you able to explain why other operators continue to “share an AOC, with no requirement for a contract, yet this requirement was placed on APTA.



Thankyou in anticipation of your response



Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

A copy of the initial notification that CASA sent me, can be accessed here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/k3qn3qdgoa2uavx/App%20A%20initial%20notification.pdf?dl=0

In that initial notification used as the basis to close my business down, CASA made an interesting statement at the top of page two, in the paragraph that starts with "Paragraph 7..." That one paragraph should best be separated into two paragraphs. The first part of the paragraph deals with written words from the Aviation ruling, and the latter part is application of Mr Alecks opinion.

For clarity. The paragraph reads. "Paragraph 7 of the CASA Aviation states, "The AOC Holder at all times remains responsible for the actions of another person conducting operations under the AOC"

There is absolutely no disagreement between CASA and I on that matter,. As the AOC Holder i do remain responsible of any person operating under my AOC. Its a significant responsibility. That's "every person" irrespective of whether they are an employee or not. Irrespective of the nature of their employment whether they be fulltime, part time, casual or even if they are flying voluntarily. I am responsible for those persons. Even if the employees are employed by another Entity but operating under my AOC, I am responsible for them. Its a very wide net of responsibility. Consider the significance of that. I am responsible for EVERY person that operates under my AOC.

My concern arises where Mr Aleck takes a very clear and concise sentence in the Aviation Ruling that states The AOC Holder at all times remains responsible for the actions of another person conducting operations under the AOC"

and then applies his opinion and that sentence now means. "The Ruling does not permit an AOC Holder to authorize a third party body cooperate to operate under its AOC.

That is not what it says. In fact i interpret the Avuiation Ruling tpo say the opposite of Mr alecks assertion. The Aviation Ruling is effectively saying. You can let any person operate under your AOC if you want to, but be aware. If something goes wrong, you are not getting off the hook. You are responsible. for every single person, and will be held accountable for them. It doesnt matter if they are emplyed by you or someone else. That will not be a defence. I cannot ever try and say. "Hey, I wasnt paying him, so Im not responsible for



A copy of the Aviation Ruling and relevant information can be found here. The Aviation Ruling being the document that Mr Aleck used as the basis for his decision to close my business down.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a6rzw55yad3495c/Appendix%20B-Aviation%20Ruling.pdf?dl=0

This link provides additional relevant information on the Aviation Ruling including correspondence to Mr Aleck.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lewmcp0nas2bsrp/applicability%20of%20aviation%20ruling.pdf?dl=0



Dear Craig Martin,



I have a number of issues that I had submitted through to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, some being actioned, and some pending me approaching CASA to obtain a response. Therefore on the Ombudsman’s advice I will be writing to you on a number of matters that require clarification. As I am after a strictly legal response rather than an “operational one”, or opinion, I will be directing the inquiry to Dr Aleck in his role as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal and Regulatory Affairs. I will direct this email through you, and include Dr Aleck in on all emails as I have with this one.



I have also included Mr Anthony Mathews as the Chair of the CASA Board, and the person ultimately responsible for the governance obligations. I had previously raised these issues with him verbally at our meeting, but thought it best to put it in writing to ensure there was no confusion.



This query relates to the applicability of the Aviation Ruling. I point out that the previous Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance prior to Mr Craig Martin was Mr Peter White, and after 2 months of CASA initiating the action Mr Peter White advised that it was an error on CASAs behalf, and in fact it was the inappropriate document to be using. Noting that often policy application changes depending on the personnel involved I was seeking clarification on the use of the aviation ruling as the document used as the basis of the CASA action.



In seeking clarification on the use of the aviation ruling, I note;



On its release, Flying schools were advised that it did not apply to them, and that it applied to charter operators only. By applying it to APTA it was being applied to a flying school, in fact it was only being applied to my flying school, and not others. Are you able to explain why this would be the case.



The aviation ruling has no “head of power”. Can you confirm why that would be used.



The Aviation ruling was written for a completely different regulatory environment, i.e. CAR 5 legislation, which was replaced by the Part 61/141/142 legislation. Can you confirm that it does apply.



Refers to commercial operations, and in fact flying training is not classified as a commercial operation and has not been since 2014. I have attached the definition of “commercial purposes” although assume you would be fully aware of this in your role. Can you advise if my understanding is correct.



In 3.1 of the Aviation Ruling, at no stage did any entity advertise it could conduct commercial aviation operations, in fact we did not have any approvals for commercial operations.



In 3.2, only A, engaged the staff, looked after maintenance etc.



In 3.3, although flying schools do not have a Chief Pilot, they have a HOO. In the case of APTA we had two CASA approved HOOs, with a third in training, and the operations were more highly supervised than was the industry norm.



In 3.5, there was only one set of systems and they were the systems that CASA helped us write, approved, and audited, so I contend that they were reviewed by CASA





In 6.1, there was in fact only one set of systems and they were the CASA approved APTA systems. There were no other systems



In 6.2 all systems were clearly under the oversight of the Key Personnel of the AOC Holder, and in fact no other entities had any Key Personnel.



In 6.3, there was only one set of documentation and that was the APTA documentation that CASA helped us write, approved and audited.



In 7, as the Authorisation Holder, and AOC Holder, and with 15 years experience as a CASA approved HOO at all times I accepted full responsibility for the actions of all personnel and equipment being used under my AOC. This was never in any doubt, and I accepted that responsibility.



In 10, everything was done with far more than a reasonable degree of care and diligence, and all operations were conducted in accordance with the procedures that CASA developed with us, were approved by CASA, and had been audited by CASA.



For clarity, there was only one authorisation holder, the personnel were employed by APTA, the only systems used were the APTA systems.



To be frank, I think CASA erred, and CASA refused to admit their error.



I hope you can provide an extensive response to bring some clarity to the use of the aviation ruling.



Thanking you in anticipation of your co-operation and truthful responses, respectfully Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Dear Craig Martin,

I have a number of issues that I had submitted through to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, some being actioned, and some pending me approaching CASA to obtain a response. Therefore on the Ombudsman’s advice I will be writing to you on a number of matters that require clarification. As I am after a strictly legal response rather than an “operational one”, I will be directing the inquiry to Dr Aleck in his role as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal and Regulatory Affairs. I will direct this email through you, and include Dr Aleck in on all emails as I have with this one.

I have also included Mr Anthony Mathews as the Chair of the CASA Board, and the person ultimately responsible for the governance obligations. I had previously raised these issues with him verbally at our meeting, but thought it best to put it in writing to ensure there was no confusion.


Dear Dr Aleck,

In the initial notification to APTA (CASA reference F14/9540) attached CASA proposed to reject the addition of the XXXXX Base.

Interestingly, CASA had previously approved the existing XXXXX in Bundora Pde Moorabbin Airport. This approval process had required an onsite visit by CASA personnel and that approval had proceeded smoothly.

When we submitted the application for XXXXX to move into a significantly improved facility, CASA advised that they proposed to reject the new base. The new base was a significant investment running into many hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Can you specifically address why the initial base with lesser facilities was approved, whereas CASA proposed to reject the new and significantly improved facility. This seemed a very unusual approach, and despite repeated requests, CASA failed to respond.

For clarity, can you advise why the initial base was accepted by CASA whereas the significantly improved facility was rejected.

Thankyou in anticipation of your response, as it will assist in clearing up my confusion.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Dear Craig Martin,

I have a number of issues that I had submitted through to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, some being actioned, and some pending me approaching CASA to obtain a response. Therefore on the Ombudsman’s advice I will be writing to you on a number of matters that require clarification. As I am after a strictly legal response rather than an “operational one”, I will be directing the inquiry to Dr Aleck in his role as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal and Regulatory Affairs. I will direct this email through you, and include Dr Aleck in on all emails as I have with this one.

I have also included Mr Anthony Mathews as the Chair of the CASA Board, and the person ultimately responsible for the governance obligations. I had previously raised these issues with him verbally at our meeting, but thought it best to put it in writing to ensure there was no confusion.


Dear Dr Aleck,

I refer to the initial notification attached, CASA reference F14/9540, and specifically the section on Temporary locations.

APTAs intention had been to wait approval of any new location. We queried CASA as to how long it would take for a new base to be approved, and we were advised approximately 6 weeks. Although a less than ideal timeframe, we accepted that.

It was CASA personnel that suggested we should adopt a Temporary locations procedure, which CASA had helped us design, and approved in our manuals, and audited. We were satisfied with that suggestion as it would facilitate continuing operations and assist the new bases.

CASA then reversed that position in the “initial notification”.

My query; How is it that CASA can suggest a procedure, approve the procedure, audit the procedure, use the procedure, and then without any warning at all, change their mind overnight with no prior warning state that it is a procedure not authorised by our certificate when it was CASA personnel that suggested it. You effectively “lead me up the path” then crucify me for it.

I'm sure you will appreciate my confusion with this approach, and im hoping you can clarify the CASA thought processes.

Thank you in anticipation of your assistance.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Dear Craig Martin,

I have a number of issues that I had submitted through to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, some being actioned, and some pending me approaching CASA to obtain a response. Therefore on the Ombudsman’s advice I will be writing to you on a number of matters that require clarification. As I am after a strictly legal response rather than an “operational one”, or opinion, I will be directing the inquiry to Dr Aleck in his role as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal and Regulatory Affairs. I will direct this email through you, and include Dr Aleck in on all emails as I have with this one.

I have also included Mr Anthony Mathews as the Chair of the CASA Board, and the person ultimately responsible for the governance obligations. I had previously raised these issues with him verbally at our meeting, but thought it best to put it in writing to ensure there was no confusion.


Dear Dr Aleck, I refer to item 6 of CASAs regulatory philosophy below. In that statement CASA make a number of commitments to industry, which I have tried to have addressed previously but to no avail. In accordance with the Commonwealth Ombudsmans suggestion I will make one further approach to you, and hope that you can attend to it.

Regarding the action that CASA took against my business, which ultimately lead to me selling it under duress after trying to get these matters resolved for over 8 months. May I respectfully request that you outline your response to the commitments you made to industry, and specifically the points that I have underlined. Thankyou in anticipation of your prompt attention to my query, respectfully, Glen Buckley

6. CASA communicates fully and meaningfully with all relevant stakeholders

At every stage of the regulatory activities in which CASA engages-from contemplating the need to make a rule or impose a requirement, to the application of a rule or requirement-and to the fullest extent possible in the circumstances, CASA will ensure that everyone whose rights, interests and legitimate expectations will, or are likely to, be affected by CASA's contemplated actions has access to information and advice about:

· what it is CASA proposes to do

· why CASA is proposing to do so

· what considerations CASA has taken into account in forming its view on the matter to hand

· what alternatives (if any) had been considered and why those alternatives had been ruled out

· what the effects of the proposed actions are expected to be and

· what recourse is available to persons who are, or are likely to be, affected by the proposed action.

CASA will ensure that the information and advice it provides to the aviation community, generally and in individual cases, is:

· clear and concise, using plain language and concepts wherever possible

· correct and complete, authoritatively informed and fully informative

· responsive to the questions or issues to hand and

· timely.

[glenb]

Dear Mr Craig Martin, Dr Aleck, and Mr Anthony Mathews,

Please find below my concerns regarding potential breaches of Administrative Law and Procedural Fairness regarding the audit of the Latrobe Valley Base.

Associated documents

Appendix A- Initial notification of intention to shut APTAs operations down.
Appendix B- Undated audit results provided almost 3 months after audit.
Appendix C- Audit notes obtained under FOI. The ICC has advised that these notes do not exist, and that no audit was, or results were in CASAs records.
Appendix D- Rejection letter of my appeal to obtain audit results.
Appendix E- Link to CASA Surveillance Manual.
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/casa-surveillance-manual.pdf
Appendix F- Link to CASA Enforcement Manual
https://www.casa.gov.au/publications-and-resources/publication/enforcement-manual

CASA conducted an audit at our Latrobe Valley base, on 03/09/18 and identified no safety issues or regulatory breaches. They only identified a minor administrative issue with one of our in-house exams. We were advised that a written report would follow, as is the standard CASA procedure. No safety concerns or regulatory breaches were identified.

My understanding is that CASA procedures state that the onsite exit meeting is required to identify all raised issues i.e. no hidden surprises.

We elected to rectify the minor administrative issue immediately in anticipation of receiving the report, which never came. Our assumption was that as the matters were so minor, CASA may have elected not to issue a written report.

What did arrive however on 23/10/18, was a letter indicating that the entire operation was to be potentially shut down in 7 days, and the CASA Region Manager identified that the Latrobe Valley audit results were used as the basis of that determination.

I identified that this seemed excessive in light of such a minor matter being identified, and a meeting with CASA personnel was arranged in the CASA Regional Office at Melbourne on 18/11/18.

At that meeting the CASA Executive Manager queried the CASA Region Manager as to the nature of the audit, and the Region Manager clearly identified it as a level 2 audit (second highest level).

The Regional Manager at that meeting, expressed the CASA concern that there were incorrect and outdated Latrobe Valley forms everywhere. Interestingly that was a new topic not raised at the verbal debrief on site at LTV on the day, and that complaint did not resurface in the subsequently produced audit results. I was concerned by the everchanging narrative.

The CASA Executive Manager asked the Region Manager for a copy of the audit results. It became immediately obvious that CASA had omitted to provide us with the audit result, despite it being the basis of CASAs determination that APTA would potentially be directed to cease operations. It then became obvious that the audit results had not been completed, and the CASA Executive Manager directed the Region Manager to get his staff to prepare those results over the weekend and provide them to me early the following week.

Those “undated” audit results were subsequently provided. They were undated and were not in the standard format that audit results would normally be provided. It is important to note that these results were written up and provided almost 3 months after the original audit date. I was surprised to see that those audit results were undated.

On production of these notes written up, well after the event, a number of new allegations were raised. These included allegations of breaches of

CASR 141.310, CASR 142.390, CASR 117, CASR 141.260, and CASR 142.340.

I was perplexed as to how completely new allegations could arise, so long after the audit. I felt that was a breach of procedural fairness and administrative law. A number of requests were made by me to obtain further information to resolve these unfounded allegations. CASA repeatedly ignored all my requests. I believe the reason CASA refused to respond despite numerous requests, is because they were false allegations. I was confident that CASA would not be able to support them. The new allegations were substantive in nature, but there was no supporting evidence.

On 20/11/18, in the contents of an email, Mr David Jones, the CASA Region Manager stated that “the assessment of the Latrobe Valley Aero Club was used as the basis of seeking CASA legal advice…” I question how the audit results can be used by CASA to shut down my operation without me having had the “right of reply”. This appeared to be a breach of my rights under Administrative law and procedural fairness.

On 28/11/18,The Regional Manager now raises completely new allegations and substantial allegations that differ to the original allegations made on site at Ballarat and Latrobe , which differed to the allegations made at our meeting, which differed to the allegations made in writing. The new allegations were about flight and duty times, and in an email he stated; “These anomalies should be known by Ermin (as the APTA HOO) as there were problems identified with the FSM system and Flight and Duty (F&D) management, in particular associated to the F&D exceedances”.

On receipt of that email I immediately knew that it was a false statement and that it should be known to be untruthful at the time of writing. Despite numerous requests to have those allegations substantiated with any evidence, none will be forthcoming as it was a blatant untruth. My concerns being that once again it appeared the Regional Manager was trying to “paint a picture.” He also cast aspersions on my HOO by stating “should be known by Ermin”. CASA had not sent any audit results, so how could he possibly know. The deficiency was on CASAs behalf, not ours!

I complained to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner who initiated an investigation. On completion of the ICC investigation he wrote back to me and included the following statement “there’s no record of the documents I would expect to see if a level 2 had been commenced in CASAs Sky Sentinel surveillance database….”

This seemed absurd to me, so I made a Freedom of Information Request to obtain those documents so that I could attend to CASAs false and unsubstantiated allegations. On 21/12/19 I received the response to my FOI request and was provided with over 7 pages of completely redacted results.

You will appreciate my confusion

CASA identify that they have conducted a level 2 audit, and used those results as the basis for action taken against APTA.

CASA then identify that in fact the audit results were not written up, and they were not provided to me. CASA undertake to provide me with post written audit notes, which bore no resemblance to the initial on site verbal report.

I ask for the original results, and the ICC has informed me that nothing was initiated, although when I make a claim under FOI, I am provided with over 7 pages of redacted results. Quite simply, it appeared that elements within CASA had been untruthful in their engagement with me.

CASA have consistently and repeatedly ignored all requests for the specifics of the breech. I am strongly of the opinion that they cannot be substantiated, and therefore no matter how many requests I make, they will never be able to address the outstanding allegations.

I am seeking an explanation to this process, because it appears to me that there were significant breaches of CASA procedures, and I feel that the personnel I was dealing with were not acting with good intent.

[glenb]

Dear Mr Craig Martin ( Acting Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and surveillance), Dr Aleck ( Executive Manager Legal Services and Regulatory Affairs), and Mr Tony Mathews (Chair of the CASA Board).

As you will be aware CASA made an allegation of a breach of CASR 117 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019C00821/Html/Volume_3#_Toc23856111

CASA will hold on record at least 5 attempts by me to gain further information on this breach. These requests were as simple as asking CASA to identify the regulatory breach on the LTV website. All of these requests were ignored. Can you please identify that CASA has erred and has withdrawn that allegation.

On multiple emails I asked for you to identify the offending page on the website, but CASA failed to respond to these requests. I could not understand how CASA could raise an allegation but not be prepared to support that allegation, particularly when it simply needed you to provide a link to the offending page.

Thanking you in anticipation of your attention to this matter, respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Dear Dr Aleck, CASA Executive Manager Legal and Regulatory Affairs.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman has requested that I provide him copies of any Suspensions, Show Cause notices etc.

As you will be aware, despite my documented repeated requests, I am of the opinion that none were provided, and I feel that was the fundamental breach of my common law right to operate a business, and a breach of Administrative law. Numerous requests were made, and in fact Mr Carmody advised publicly that no administrative action was ever taken. The regulatory obligation on you, would be to provide such documentation and particularly if a variation was made to my AOC. I am required to respond to the Ombudsman and provide such documentation by 30/01/20.

In light of the significant impact on me, my family, other entities, and my business can I respectfully request that you provide copies, or an explanation as to why none were provided by that date.

Thank you in anticipation of your co-operation,

Respectfully, Glen Buckley


P.S. I have included Mr Martin the Executive Manager Regulatory services and surveillance in on this email, as per his direction that all correspondence go via him to ensure a more prompt response.

I have included Mr Graeme Crawford, the Group Executive Manager Aviation, as it was his Department that initiated the action in October 2018.

I have included Mr Anthony Matthews, the Chairman of the CASA Board, being the person ultimately accountable for “deciding the objectives, strategies and policies to be followed by CASA, and for ensuring that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner.”

I have copied Mr McHeyzer CASA Region Manager- Southern region, as I am of the opinion that he was integral to what I believe were unlawful processes, that caused significant harm to me and my family.

[glenb]

Dear Mr Craig Martin,

Apologies for bombarding you with emails, but I hope you can appreciate my position. The matters are significant in nature, and I feel it brings clarity and transparency to the process by attending to them individually. My hope is that by breaking it down into individual matters, it will facilitate a more prompt response, and provide you the opportunity to attend to them in a more efficient manner.

INITIAL NOTIFICATION

Attachments

Initial notification of CASA change of policy
Notification of change of CMT.
My emails requesting a one on meeting with CASA Region Manager- Southern Region.

My Business had been operating for 15 years out of Moorabbin Airport delivering industry leading standards of safety and compliance, CASA records will clearly support that contention, and that was the consistent feedback that my business received from CASA.

On 23/10/18, I received the attached notification CASA ref F14/9540. This notification was received without any prior warning at all and came as a complete shock. It was a complete reversal of CASAs position as immediately prior to this I had been receiving strong support and encouragement from CASA. The ramifications of that notification were significant and threated the business, the significant investment in the business, and the many people that depended on the business for their livelihoods including my own family.

I must point out that this complete change of policy application coincided with a change of CMT. The CMT being a Certificate Management Team. A number of these CMTs exist within each region. Each CMT will be responsible for oversighting an allocated group of operators, and the teams consists of CASA Subject Matter Experts on Flying School Operations, Safety and Maintenance and each will have a Manager.

I had been operating under the oversight of a highly respected team referred to as CMT 2 for many years and was notified of a change of CMT from CMT 2 to CMT 3. Immediately on receipt of the notification I requested a meeting with the Region Manager at the time, as I had concerns about a member of the new team, CMT 3. That team contained a flying school SME who had a reputation in industry as being less technically competent than what would be expected and was not well regarded by industry generally.

I immediately requested a one on one meeting with the Region Manager to raise my concerns. I specifically requested a one on one meeting and I requested that meeting be “on record”, therefore CASA will have documentation regarding that meeting. I was assured by the Region Manager at the subsequent meeting that my concerns were “unfounded”. Reluctantly, I had no option but to accept the Region managers determination.

My assumption is that this meeting and its contents were bought to the attention of the person I had had concerns about, as it was that individual that initiated the action against APTA. That was also the advice that I received from the Region Manager of Southern Region.

That CASA notification (F14/9540) contained a number of issues.

Page 3 of the notification- Temporary locations.

The intention had been for new bases to remain dormant and be activated once they had received CASA approval. On querying CASA as to how long that approval would take, we were advised that it would take approximately 6 weeks, which we were satisfied with.

CASA personnel then put forward a suggestion that we should apply for the bases to operate as a “temporary location” to facilitate continuity of operations while CASA was conducting its assessment. We did not suggest this approach and had not previously considered it. This was entirely CASAs suggestion, and we adopted the procedure that CASA recommended.

I emphasise that we used the CASA suggested procedures, and CASA approved the procedures, and audited the We had used these procedures previously, and CASA had commended us on those procedures. The procedures we adopted were significantly more robust than the minimum procedures that CASA required of other operators.

This notification seemed absurd, as all we had done is follow CASA procedures.

On this matter, I am asking CASA to specifically identify why a less robust, minimum standard was acceptable for other operators, although our procedure which was acceptable to CMT 2, and approved and audited by CASA was not acceptable to CMT 3.

Thankyou for consideration of my request for clarification on these matters,

Respectfully, Glen Buckley.

[glenb]

Dear Mr Craig Martin,

I'm hoping that you may be able to clarify this inquiry. As you are aware I have submitted this request previously, although CASA chose not to respond. If you have no record of the previous requests, please advise me, and I will furnish those requests. Irrespective of my previous requests, I am hoping that you can deal with it on this occasion. I am considering lodging this matter with the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and I feel it important to give you the opportunity to clarify it, and perhaps allay my concerns.

As you are aware APTA was approved by CASA, in fact CASA helped me design APTA, approved it, and conducted a Level 1 audit, being the highest level audit that CASA conducts. I felt that the CASA action initiated in October 2018 was effectively a variation of my AOC, please correct me if I am wrong. I appreciate that this request may require the involvement of Dr Aleck the CASA Executive Manager of Legal and Regulatory Affairs.

For ease of reference, I have attached what I believe to be the associated legislative requirements below. Could you outline if CASA was deficient in this process, or denied me procedural fairness. I appreciate that you will have a different perspective to me.

Thank you in anticipation of your response, respectfully

Glen Buckley

CASR 11.067
11.067 Imposing and varying conditions after grant of authorisation

(1) After the grant of an authorisation, CASA may, in accordance with this regulation, impose a condition on the authorisation or vary a condition of the authorisation.

(1A) CASA may impose or vary a condition only if CASA considers that it is necessary:
(a) for an authorisation, other than an authorisation to which subregulation 11.055(1B) applies or an experimental certificate—in the interests of the safety of air navigation; or
(b) for an authorisation to which subregulation 11.055(1B) applies—in the interests of preserving a level of aviation safety that is at least acceptable; or
(c) for an authorisation that is an experimental certificate—in the interests of the safety of other airspace users or persons on the ground or water.

(2) If CASA proposes, under subregulation (1), to impose a condition on an authorisation or vary a condition of an authorisation, CASA must give written notice of the proposed condition or variation to the holder of the authorisation.

(3) The notice must specify a reasonable period within which the holder may make a submission in relation to the proposed condition or variation.

(4) If the holder makes a submission under subregulation (3) within the period specified in the notice, CASA must take the submission into account in determining whether it is necessary to impose or vary the condition:
(a) for an authorisation, other than an authorisation to which subregulation 11.055(1B) applies or an experimental certificate—in the interests of the safety of air navigation; or
(b) for an authorisation to which subregulation 11.055(1B) applies—in the interests of preserving a level of aviation safety that is at least acceptable; or
(c) for an authorisation that is an experimental certificate—in the interests of the safety of other airspace users or persons on the ground or water.

(5) If:
(a) after the end of the period specified under subregulation (3); and
(b) having taken account of any submission made by the holder within that period;

CASA is satisfied that it is necessary, for the reason mentioned in paragraph (4)(a), (b) or (c), CASA may impose or vary the condition.

(6) CASA must give the holder of the authorisation written notice of its decision.
(7) A condition imposed, or a variation of a condition, under this regulation takes effect on the date of the notice under subregulation (6) or at a later time specified in the notice.
(8) This regulation does not apply to the imposition of a condition on a class of authorisations under regulation 11.068.

[glenb]

Dear Mr Anthony Mathews, Chairperson of the Board of CASA,

I am writing to you in your role as the Chair of the Board of CASA, and noting that you were appointed into that role in August 2018, which was approximately 2 months prior to CASA initiating their action against CASA in October 2018.

You will be aware that I wrote to the CASA Board on numerous occasions, and on every occasion my correspondence was ignored or not responded to.

From CASAs website it states that the Board is responsible for “deciding the objectives, strategies and policies to be followed by CASA and for making sure that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner.”

I have attached correspondence that was sent to you;

02/01/19

02/04/19

22/05/19

28/05/19

05/06/19

06/06/19

11/06/19

16/06/19 Letter to Minister McCormack (Board copied in)

Finally on 19th July 2019, a meeting was facilitated, more than 6 months after my initial request.

I summarised that meeting in my correspondence to you on 29/07/19. and received your follow up correspondence to that meeting on 09/08/19.

I responded to that correspondence on 17/08/19 and 27/08/19 and 06/11/19 (included with the other attached correspondence)

I wrote a further piece of correspondence on 06/11/19. All of which are included.

The purpose of this email.
By failing to respond to me requests for a period of over 6 months, that was integral to the damage caused to me, my family and my business. My complaints were substantial, and should have been something that you and the Board attended to, in a more timely manner. I felt that the CASA Board on receiving the correspondence should have responded if there was genuine good intent from the Board. Im sure you will appreciate my concerns when a Board chooses not to respond to such significant allegations.

I am considering taking my concerns to the Commonwealth Ombudsman because I feel you failed in your role as the Chair of the CASA Board.

Are you able to confirm, that you did in fact receive all of that correspondence, and are you able to provide an explanation as to why you chose not to respond to me.

I look forward to your explanation, respectfully,

Glen Buckley.

[glenb]

Dear Mr Craig Martin,

I am providing one further request for you to clarify my query prior to accelerating my complaint to the Commonwealth Ombud

As you are aware there are three separate actions that CASA has done to bring harm to my ability to derive my livelihood in the industry.

Those three separate actions have cost me many millions of dollars and resulted in the loss of my business, and caused unacceptable harm to my parents, my wife, my children, other entities, suppliers and people depending on me for their livelihood

Those were

CASA reversal of approval for APTA and the associated restrictions on my ability to trade.
CASA introducing terminology called “direct operational control” and applying that to my business only, and not others.
The direction that my position as an employee of APTA was untenable.

In this correspondence, I wish to concentrate on “direct operational control”.

A normal practice in the aviation industry, that had occurred throughout my 25 years in the industry, and continues to this day was a practice referred to as “sharing an Air Operator Certificate (AOC)”. This was a situation where an Authorisation Holder would allow another entity to operate under the AOC using the approvals of the Authorisation Holder, with responsibility for the operation resting with the Authorisation Holder.

In fact the direction from CASA “for the avoidance of doubt, this would allow flight training to be conducted by APTA employees only- not employees of affilaites” is in my opinion unlawful, and exists nowhere else in industry i.e. it is a specific requirement placed on me only. I have never heard of this requirement, and believe it has no legislative basis.

The level of oversight provided by the Authorisation holder varies from arrangement to arrangement. In fact APTA was the first time in Australian flying training that a system had been devised, proposed to CASA, received encouragement, designed with CASA, approved by CASA, and audited by CASA. The APTA system clearly addressed weaknesses and deficiencies that existed in the industry.

This was a practice conducted with the full approval of CASA, and in fact with CASAs full knowledge and consent a Company called TVSA had been operating under my AOC, prior to the introduction of Part 141/142.

I had been operating a flying school MFT for 15 years delivering industry leading levels of safety and compliance until Jason Mc Heyzer the CASA Region Manager advised that I was required to transfer my entire flying school operations to another entity. That entity being APTA.

This was a unique requirement placed on me, and not on other Operators.

In fact Mr Jason McHeyzer, Mr Craig Martin, and Mr Graeme Crawford would each be aware of that situation and have made a conscious decision to apply their “opinion” specifically to my operation. By applying that direction, they would be fully aware of the significant impact on me.

This direction required me to transfer my business of 15 years to a a new entity, i.e. staff, aircraft etc, and hence deprived me of my revenue. Unfortunately, as they are each aware, that placed me in a difficult situation because while being denied the revenue streams, my costs remained.

These costs included car leases, photocopy machine leases, printer contracts, telephone system leases, mobile phone leases, rubbish removal contracts, utilities contracts, staff entitlements etc.

It effectively forced me into bankruptcy, as without the revenue I could not meet my obligations for omgoing expenses.

For clarity, I was directed to divert my aircraft, personnel, and students to a different entity in order to achieve what CASA calls “direct operational control”.

This direction by CASA resulted in me being placed under extreme financial pressure and mental stress. I was denied any revenue although the associated costs of running my business were not transferred.

I have attached the applicable emails, and draw your attention to the email dated 22/08/20 confirming I have complied.

For clarity:
Can you provide any supporting legislation
Can you explain why this restriction was placed on me only

Thanking you in anticipation of your co-operation in resolving my confusion.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[73qanda]

Glen, For someone not involved in this , (but sympathetic to your plight), your sustained and relentless pursuit of justice is quite exciting to watch.
I realise that for you it is everything and draining and heartbreaking. In this ‘David v Goliath’ I think David is going to come out on top, battered, bruised, never quite the same but on top. I think that it’s imperative that you don’t run out of energy before Goliath submits. That’s mental energy, physical energy, emotional energy. Monitor all three of those carefully and when one gets dangerously low, retreat and replenish briefly before continuing your impressive attack.
Well done and best wishes.

[glenb]

73qanda, cheers mate (or madam). When these people are exposed, and held to account if it ever happens, it will be worth it. Every time i see a new post and open it up, my anxiety increases somewhat, only to be relived when i read a post such as yours. These small group of personnel that bring so much damage to so may people are being protected at the highest levels, and i include the CASA Board in that allegation. I cant thankyou enough, the support that i have received is what keeps me going. Thanks for the support. In my current condition, it means much more than you will ever appreciate. THANKYOU. Really,

[Sunfish]

Glen, this needs to be turned into a political movement.

[73qanda]

I was thinking something similar.
If Joe Public could go to a website (probably from their Facebook feed) and could see a timeline which had embedded links to the letters and documents it would quickly and clearly show the injustice and corruption that’s occurred and tap into the widely held feeling that the average Australian isn’t getting a fair go from corporate Australia.
I imagine that Glen has legal reasons for not doing this but it would be worth a crack if there was a legal dead-end.
If I were you Glen I would write a list on a small piece of paper of five things that make me feel lucky and grateful. I’d put it in my pocket and pull it out and read it every time I went to the loo. When the list got too crinkled and tattered I’d write another one and keep doing this until this thing is done.
This might not be useful to you but it’d work wonders for me so just an idea.
You’re a champion mate.

[glenb]

Sunny, it will be.

I am in the process of renouncing my British Citizenship, after all what did the Brits do for us. Apart from sanitation, medicine, education. beer, public order, irrigation, roads, fresh water systems, and public health, what have the Brits ever done for us.

I am a 54 year resident of the electorate of Chisholm, and have submitted 5 requests to Gladys Liu-seless requesting a meeting, since October 2019. All of which have been completely ignored. One further attempt was made, when i bumped into her minions at Mount Waverley shopping centre last week. I have no doubt that would also be ignored. Understandable, considering that APTA was designed to protect the Australian owned sector of the industry, and we know who she represents.

I have secured a website https://www.glenwithten.com.au/ which is currently under development and a couple of weeks from launch. Last election she held the seat by less than 1000 votes and was the "darling" of the Liberal Party.

I have been actively involved in the local community for many years, and have received widespread support. I have no doubt that my challenge is significant, but with an early start, my reputation in the local community, and unrivalled energy and good intent, im confident i can shift at least 1000 votes and boot her out. I will be working towards actually gaining the seat. A big task, but lets wait and see.

I will have 10 key objectives (hence Glen with ten).

One unintended consequence of CASAs actions is that i have time on my hands.

Aviation and the conduct of Government Departments will be one of the policies, i can assure you.

I may not win, but i will go down swinging!!!!!

[Sunfish]

Now we just need to run negative campaigns in other Liberal marginal seats.......unless the candidate puts in writing that he will support our positions.

[bloated goat]

Spoken with Vietnamese accent.

[glenb]

Dear Craig,

As you are aware, the action against APTA, then the requirement to place MFT income streams, staff and resources, followed by the direction to APTA that my position was "untenable", have bought significant mental and financial trauma to me and my family, and left me with absolutely nothing. I am having difficulty meeting my living expenses, and am about to seek accommodation assistance from Centrelink. Similarly, my credit rating has been impacted, and the bank has closed my accounts. My situation really is critical, to the point where i am unable to afford medical care for me and my family.

CASA moved in, and dismantled my previously approved Company, but no explanation was ever provided to me. I have been dealing with this for almost 18 months, and the trauma of trying to explain this again and again is something i can no longer deal with. I am making an appeal to my sons school to try and ensure he can continue his final year of High School, and similarly i am trying to maintain my daughters regional University education.

In October 2018, CASA did issue a request for documents, but no explanation has been provided.

Are you able to provide an explanation, or draw on Dr Alecks expertise in this area.

For clarity, i am requesting an explanation from CASA as to what actions were taken and why. This need not be a particularly lengthy document, but an explanation to use for creditors etc.

You will appreciate that when i say "CASA took action against my business", it has connotation that i have done something wrong i.e. broken rules, compromised safety etc and it places me in a very stressful and embarrassing situation.

I am hoping that CASA could provide an explanation to assist me try and move forward and rebuild my life. I feel it a more than reasonable request in light of all the harm that has been done to so many people.

Thanking you in anticipation of your co-operation. I am under enormous pressure to solve these issues, and that information should be readily available to CASA.

[glenb]

Dear Craig,

As you are aware, the action against APTA, then the requirement to place MFT income streams, staff and resources, followed by the direction to APTA that my position was "untenable", have bought significant mental and financial trauma to me and my family, and left me with absolutely nothing. I am having difficulty meeting my living expenses, and am about to seek accommodation assistance from Centrelink. Similarly, my credit rating has been impacted, and the bank has closed my accounts. My situation really is critical, to the point where i am unable to afford medical care for me and my family.

CASA moved in, and dismantled my previously approved Company, but no explanation was ever provided to me. I have been dealing with this for almost 18 months, and the trauma of trying to explain this again and again is something i can no longer deal with. I am making an appeal to my sons school to try and ensure he can continue his final year of High School, and similarly i am trying to maintain my daughters regional University education.

In October 2018, CASA did issue a request for documents, but no explanation has been provided.

Are you able to provide an explanation, or draw on Dr Alecks expertise in this area.

For clarity, i am requesting an explanation from CASA as to what actions were taken and why. This need not be a particularly lengthy document, but an explanation to use for creditors etc.

You will appreciate that when i say "CASA took action against my business", it has connotation that i have done something wrong i.e. broken rules, compromised safety etc and it places me in a very stressful and embarrassing situation.

I am hoping that CASA could provide an explanation to assist me try and move forward and rebuild my life. I feel it a more than reasonable request in light of all the harm that has been done to so many people.

Thanking you in anticipation of your co-operation. I am under enormous pressure to solve these issues, and that information should be readily available to CASA.
7. CASA fairly balances the need for consistency with the need for flexibilityCASA will consistently employ the same processes, and have regard to the same criteria, in all cases involving the consideration of particular facts and circumstances for the purposes of determining whether, and if so how, a regulatory requirement should be interpreted or applied in any given situation. In this way, everyone may be confident that they are receiving the same advice about the general meaning and application of any regulatory requirement.

CASA will also ensure that all relevant facts and circumstances peculiar to an individual situation have been fully and fairly considered on their merits, and will provide advice about, or decide the outcome of, a particular matter governed by a regulatory requirement on that basis. In this way, everyone may be confident that, within a regulatory framework that consistently employs the same processes and assesses facts against the same criteria, their individual circumstances will be fully and fairly considered.

[glenb]

Dear Mr Craig Martin,

In the meeting at the CASA Office in November 2019, Flight Operations Inspector, Mr Brad Lacey specifically stated the following, and did so in the presence of witnesses who clearly recall the statement.

" I have had legal advice that the Temporary Locations are not intended for flying schools"

In light of the fact that is not a factual statement, as CASA specified the procedures on AOCS for over 20 years, and CASA includes guidance in the sample expositions, and it has been accepted industry practice throughout my 25 years in the industry, can i specifically ask the following of you.

If Mr Laceys statement is truthful, can you ask him to identify which person in CASA gave him that legal advice.

Thankyou, in anticipation of a response to my reasonable request.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Dear Mr Anthony Mathews, Chairperson of the CASA Board,

As you are aware the Minister issues a Statement of Expectations, with the link attached here for your reference. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00977

I am firmly of the opinion that the conduct of CASA has not been in accordance with

The Ministers Statement of Expectations,
The PGPA Act,
CASAs Regulatory Philosophy
The values of the Australian Public Service,



Further i believe that CASA have not "considered the economic and cost impact on individuals, and business", as required by the Statement of Expectations.

I do not believe that CASA have adopted a "pragmatic, practical, and proportionate approach to regulation" as required by the Statement of Expectations

I do not believe CASA have" undertaken effective and ongoing engagement with the aviation industry (specifically my business) to create a collaborative relationship based on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect."

I say that from my own personal experience with CASA, and because of the enormous harm that conduct has bought to me, my family, my business, and other businesses impacted by the conduct of certain personnel within CASA. I have specifically identified those individuals to you on numerous occasions.

In the Ministers Statement Of Expectations, i note that you are required to "keep the Secretary of my Department and me fully informed of CASAs actions in relation to the requirements stated in this SOE, and promptly advise of any events or issues that may impact on the operations of CASA.

The purpose of this correspondence;

Can you please confirm to me that you have raised these issues with the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael Mc Cormack, in accordance with your obligations in the PGPA, and that he is conversant with the allegations and concerns that i have raised.

As this request is a fairly straightforward request, i am hoping that you can respond in a timely manner

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[Bend alot]

Hi Glen, Happy new year and all, to you and your family.

Hope you are doing well and your legal guys are getting positive progress on the audit.

I wish your wife and your children the best for this year as you fight your fight. Just remember they are more important than the fight.

All the best Mate, Stay strong.

[AerialPerspective]

Hi Glen, Happy new year and all, to you and your family.

Hope you are doing well and your legal guys are getting positive progress on the audit.

I wish your wife and your children the best for this year as you fight your fight. Just remember they are more important than the fight.

All the best Mate, Stay strong.

Glen, same here mate, I hope above all you are looking after yourself and spending time with your family and also, of course, hope the battle is moving forward. Happy New Year and hope to catch up soon.

[glenb]

Dear Mr Craig Martin, CASA Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance



I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 20/02/20 where you stated,



"Dear Mr Buckley



CASA has corresponded with you at significant length regarding your various concerns about the manner in which CASA dealt with applications by APTA for regulatory permissions under the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.







As we have noted previously, given that you have now chosen to refer some of those concerns to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, CASA does not propose to engage in further correspondence with you directly in relation to any matters concerning its dealings with you or APTA. CASA will instead, liaise with the Ombudsman to provide him with any information or further evidence he reasonably considers that he needs in order to deal with your complaint.







Sincerely







Craig Martin



Executive Manager



Regulatory Services & Surveillance



Aviation Group | CASA"



I have also received today the following email from Mr Michael Buss, the Assistant Director of Investigations at the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office.



"Dear Mr Buckley



Thank you for your inquiry about further complaints to this Office.



The complaint I am now dealing with is to do with CASAs actions leading to Mr McHeyzer’s approach to your former employer. It was accepted by this Office as the Industry Complaints Commissioner appears to have been unable to resolve the matter.



It is our preference that the agency involved first attempts to resolve a disagreement. If you have received final outcomes from your approaches to CASA then we would be prepared to consider if the matters should be investigated.



Yours sincerely



Michael Buss

Assistant Director of Investigations

COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN"





I am very much of the opinion that CASA has diligently thwarted my attempts at resolving this matter. I am also of the opinion that in fact the appropriate organisation to resolve this matter is in fact the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner, as it is CASA who will have the most efficient and effective access to the required material, in order to arrive at a fair outcome.



For that reason, i intend to proceed with directing my requests to CASA directly, and specifically to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner. For clarity, there is only one complaint lodged with the Ombudsman's Office and that is the complaint regarding the direction by Mr Jason Mc Heyzer that my continuing employment was "untenable"



I will proceed with directing my other allegations directly to the ICC. If this approach is not acceptable to you, could you please identify that to both myself, and to the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office so that we can move forward in the most efficient manner.



Thankyou for your consideration, respectfully, Glen Buckley
https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/no_photo.png ReplyReply to allForward

[Sunfish]

Mate, you need to run a political campaign in a marginal seat where a few hundred votes can tip the balance. Nothing else is going to work.

[Paragraph377]

What happened to the litigation ?
& holding CASA to account through the courts , is it a goer ?

Sadly CASA will crush Glenn to a pulp before he ever sees any compensation, apology, admission of guilt, admission of incompetence, admission of a mistake, or admission to bullying. It’s not a winnable fight. That said, I hold Glenn in high esteem and genuinely wish a giant win for him, but you are dealing with CASA which for all intents and purposes is a Government front, a protective wall which is designed to block any potential reproach, guilt or judgement against the Government for anything it does wrong. Unfettered power with a non-accountable outcome. You would have a better chance at winning $10m in Poker money from Kerry Packer after starting out with $5 in your pocket.

CASA skies are empty skies

[Mr Approach]

Hi Glenn,
I am a qualified ISO 9001, ICAO and CASA auditor so I hope this helps. IMO opinion CASA does not have a safety management system and from my experience a very immature quality management system.
Once again, IMO, CASA could easily, in order to put you out of business, or whatever they did do (it is important to be very accurate about that), prove that you and/or your operation was a sufficient risk to air safety by providing a risk matrix.
As described in this simple you tube segment <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrowycTmRXo> this is a consequence versus frequency matrix, used all over the world, to assess risk.It (a risk assessment policy) was adopted by the Commonwealth in 2014 and a simple guide to implementation can be seen on the ANAO website <https://www.anao.gov.au/work/corporate/anao-risk-management-policy-and-framework-2019-21>
To put you out of business would require you to be beyond management (i.e. medium - high risk) and in the extreme risk range - in other words the consequence of your actions are catastrophic and would happen with high frequency (see video)
These matrices are derived through peer input (Hazard Identification - HAZID), and easily reverse engineered, so it is very important that there is a representative spread of people making the decisions. That would require, as well as CASA staff, independent safety auditors, pilots/staff from businesses that you might have had an effect on and other independent/ not involved pilots/businesses. This means that if a risk matix can be supplied it is important to obtain the minutes of the hazard identification meeting to identify who was there and what they decided.
Finally, even if the risk matrix indicated that you personally, or your operation, was an extreme risk, the hazards should be recorded and should be subject to a risk mitigation exercise, (Hazard Analysis- HAZAN) to ascertain whether controls could be put in place to reduce the risk to what is known as, As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). If they could, a first step would have been to impose such controls and then re-audit in six months, and so on...
With this approach, not only could CASA show yourself, and the ombudsman, that you were a risk to the flying public, but that you were also beyond redemption, so their only choice was to shut you down.
I expect that no such document will be forthcoming, so what evidence do they have to prove they followed the Commonwealth's risk assessment guidelines in coming to their decision?
Once again, I hope this helps and the best of luck!

[zanthrus]

Risk matrices are bull****. They are very subjective tools that rely solely on arbitrary “decisions” by a person or persons and are not based on empirical facts.

Who decides that a risk is low med or high? Who decides what the likelihood of an incident is? Seldom, likely, often? Who decides the severity, low high, catastrophic?

For example, define seldom? Your opinion on what is seldom may be once a year, mine might be once every three months.

They are not worth the paper that they are written on.

[michigan j]

Hi Glenn,
I am a qualified ISO 9001, ICAO and CASA auditor so I hope this helps. IMO opinion CASA does not have a safety management system and from my experience a very immature quality management system.
Once again, IMO, CASA could easily, in order to put you out of business, or whatever they did do (it is important to be very accurate about that), prove that you and/or your operation was a sufficient risk to air safety by providing a risk matrix.
As described in this simple you tube segment <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrowycTmRXo> this is a consequence versus frequency matrix, used all over the world, to assess risk.It (a risk assessment policy) was adopted by the Commonwealth in 2014 and a simple guide to implementation can be seen on the ANAO website <https://www.anao.gov.au/work/corporate/anao-risk-management-policy-and-framework-2019-21>
To put you out of business would require you to be beyond management (i.e. medium - high risk) and in the extreme risk range - in other words the consequence of your actions are catastrophic and would happen with high frequency (see video)
These matrices are derived through peer input (Hazard Identification - HAZID), and easily reverse engineered, so it is very important that there is a representative spread of people making the decisions. That would require, as well as CASA staff, independent safety auditors, pilots/staff from businesses that you might have had an effect on and other independent/ not involved pilots/businesses. This means that if a risk matix can be supplied it is important to obtain the minutes of the hazard identification meeting to identify who was there and what they decided.
Finally, even if the risk matrix indicated that you personally, or your operation, was an extreme risk, the hazards should be recorded and should be subject to a risk mitigation exercise, (Hazard Analysis- HAZAN) to ascertain whether controls could be put in place to reduce the risk to what is known as, As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). If they could, a first step would have been to impose such controls and then re-audit in six months, and so on...
With this approach, not only could CASA show yourself, and the ombudsman, that you were a risk to the flying public, but that you were also beyond redemption, so their only choice was to shut you down.
I expect that no such document will be forthcoming, so what evidence do they have to prove they followed the Commonwealth's risk assessment guidelines in coming to their decision?
Once again, I hope this helps and the best of luck!

Where does it say in the various legislation that CASA is required to have a SMS, or needs a risk matrix to take regulatory action? Where does CASA need to show a risk to the flying public (other than a breach of a reg somewhere)?

[thorn bird]

Oh come on guys,
Mr Carmody is a safety expert, he says so himself.

[Flaming galah]

What did the law firm say?

[glenb]

Flaming Galah and Telfer , PM sent. Need to maintain a level of confidentiality and keen on any thoughts, cheers. Glen

[glenb]

Very appreciative of your interest, involvement and effort.

Interestingly there was never any safety argument at all, and the previous Executive manager (since departed CASA ) made that very clear. His exact words.

"there are two types of risk, safety risk and regulatory risk, on this matter there is NO safety risk".

You may recall that i had a change of CASA oversighting team from CMT 2 to CMT 3. I had been under a capable, professional and well intentioned CMT 2 for many years.

Shortly after i completed the Transition to the new Part 141/142 structure i was changed to CMT 3.

I immediately requested a ONE on ONE ON THE RECORD meeting with the Region Manager at the time and raised my concerns about an individual on CMT 3.

It was that individual that initiated the action, and that was said to me by the Region Manager (who has also left CASA).

Nevertheless, i will look at the link that you sent through. Cheers. Glen.

I think this whole issue was personality based and had nothing to do with safety or compliance, after all, i had just spent two years working side by side debveloping the APTA model with CASA. Had it approved, audited and in fact a number of members joined APTA on CASA suggestions, as they will testify.

[QFF]

"there are two types of risk, safety risk and regulatory risk, on this matter there is NO safety risk".

What the heck is "regulatory risk"?

[73qanda]

It’s the risk that the regulations will become convoluted, complex, difficult to follow and ineffective.

[QFF]

Ah, OK. So no risk of that happening then...

[Breedapart]

No wonder you are where you are Glenn the regulator has lost site of their role. Dont apply for anything with CASA no one is home, its pointless, cant get answers. Takes months just to get a simple application moving. Rumour is that there is next to no staff left after a mass exodus, something has definitely changed. I haven't read all of your thread here Glenn but enough to get the gist. I don't do the Pprune thing normally but my own dealings with our regulator of late and listening to my industry colleagues it is impossible not to say something as it is proven that the current management simply dont listen. They aren't interested, it's like we dont count, at least in the Melbourne office. From my recent dealings the local area manager is a goose and reading your experience rings true with the arrogance we have to deal with here now. The word out there is that this person is now known as the xmas clown, not sure what the story is but sounds about right. The way it is now none of us will exist in the future. I've always had a good relationship with the regulator but in recent times it's fallen in a heap and feeling the need to resort to here is frustration and desperation. Everyone is having the same problems but most fear retaliation from the regulator if they speak out. Where is the CASA board, have they got any idea what is going on. We have never had such an ineffective board, has anyone got their finger on the pulse Just rewind CASA back a year or two at least then you could get some sense now its completely useless. Someone do something before we all fold.

[Mr Approach]

Glenn
I have reviewed everything you have written on this subject and regret I do not have any simple solutions.

I do not believe you will get anywhere by challenging the "airy-fairy" language about process, it is so easily interpreted by CASA, they will also continue to defend their employees becuase they are vicariously liable for what is done in the name of CASA. The time for challenging the legal documents, such as what are now called safety findings or observations, seems also to have passed. My impression is that you were ground down because you tried to do the right thing instead of simply trading on until CASA came up with substantive action such as a safety alert or safety finding with which you could challenge or comply. They seem only to have disallowed a change to your operations manual, which, given that you had traded safely under the un-amended manual, only meant that you should trade on under the approved version. (Forgive me if I have misinterpreted).
I note that APTA is still trading and I assume that this is the entity you sold <https://www.auspta.edu.au/>. They claim to have approval to operate out of Latrobe and Ballarat, is this not what you were trying to do? Presumably this is the same AOC and they used your exposition? If this is so how can they justify the action taken against you?

Regardless, you now seem to be in a position of having lost everything because of the actions of a Government entity which is a body corporate and can therefore be sued. This entity will never agree to compensate you without being ordered to by the Federal Court, and even then they will claim that their action was at the time motivated only by their safety charter. Can I suggest that you run your case past a law firm that specialises in "no win/no-pay" cases and see if they think you have chance? If you have already done this then a believe you have run out of options short of talking to Senator Susan MacDonald (LNP - Queensland) who wants to lead a Senate investigation into CASA. This will not get you any money but might elecit some satisfaction.

[glenb]

21st February 2020



The Hon. Mr Michael Mc Cormack.

Deputy Prime Minister.

Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, and Regional Development.





Dear Deputy Prime Minister,

The purpose of this letter is to call on you, in your role, to remove Mr Anthony Mathews from his current position as the Chairperson of the Board of CASA.

I make this formal request based on misconduct, failure to meet his obligations, and misfeasance in public office.

Mr Anthony Mathews was appointed to the Board of CASA as the Chairperson in August 2018 by you, in your role as the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport.

The CASA website states that ‘The Board is responsible for deciding the objectives, strategies and policies to be followed by CASA and for ensuring CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient, and effective manner”.

Whilst I will raise specific allegations in this correspondence, there can be no doubt that the General Aviation (GA) sector across Australia, is firmly of the opinion that CASA has failed to perform its functions in a proper, efficient or effective manner.

His position is untenable. The impact on aviation safety and the future of a sustainable GA industry is being unacceptably compromised by him continuing in that role. He is facilitating a dangerous culture within CASA that is clear breach of CASAs own regulatory philiosophy and other obligations placed on him in his role.

Mr Mathews has consistently and repeatedly overseen clear breaches of:

· The Ministers Statement of Expectations

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00977

· The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013A00123

· CASAs Regulatory Philosophy

https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/our-regulatory-philosophy

· The values of the Australian Public Service.

https://www.apsc.gov.au/aps-values-1

· Commitments given to the Australian public by the Prime Minister in his address to the Institute of Public Administration at Parliament House on 19th August 2019

https://www.pm.gov.au/media/speech-institute-public-administration

· The functions of CASA stated in section 9 of the Civil Aviation Act

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C01097

· Unlawful conduct by a small group of personnel within CASA.

Whilst CASA as an organisation is predominantly made up of a highly professional team focussed on achieving optimal safety outcomes, that good work is compromised by a small group of decision makers in the organisation that choose to act unethically and unlawfully.

These matters have been bought to the attention of Mr Mathews and he has chosen not to act and has therefore failed to meet the obligations that are placed on him, in his position as the Chair of the CASA Board.

I have attached correspondence with him over the last 12 months. In January 2019 I raised significant allegations about a number of individuals working within CASA. Those allegations were completely ignored, and not responded to.

By choosing not to respond to those allegations, he failed in his role as the Chair of the CASA Board. His conduct is indicative of a cover up rather than any good intent.

Correspondence (attached) was sent to him on 02/01/19, 02/04/19, 22/05/19, 28/05/19. 05/06/19. 06/06/19, 11/06/19 and 16/06/19. Please note that I included your office on the correspondence sent on 16/06/19.

For a period of 6 months he completely ignored that correspondence and chose not to consider the substantive allegations. As a result of him choosing not to respond, a number of businesses were forced into closure, significant investment was lost, and peoples livelihoods were impacted. This situation could have been avoided had he chosen to act with ethics and in a well-intentioned and timely manner.

My allegations of unlawful conduct are not vindictive or vexatious, and I expect to be held fully accountable for anything that I state. We have seen an undesirable trend in Australia over recent years away from accountability and responsibility, and most particularly at Board level. The conduct of these personnel who I will name, has personally cost me many millions of dollars and impacted significantly on my family’s welfare, and a number of other businesses predominantly in rural areas.

I make myself fully available to meet with you or your nominee, to present my evidence, prior to me making a submission to the current Senate Inquiry into General Aviation, if you will provide me with that opportunity.

I appreciate that you will be obligated to approach Mr Mathews on these matters and ask that you ask him to identify the basis for the action that CASA took against me, and if there is any supporting safety case, or were there any regulatory breaches. If he chooses to answer truthfully, as he will be compelled to, it will become immediately evident that significant failures have occurred.

Thankyou in anticipation of your consideration, and a determination to ensure CASA achieves its stated functions.



Respectfully





Glen Buckley

[glenb]

If anyone is interested in a copy of the attachments while they are pending approval, please feel free to email me

[email protected]

[Shipwreck00]

No point Glenn, they will never admit they are wrong even when they know they are. They need to get rid of the Melbourne manager, he has no idea, what be did to you should have been enough for casa to see him as a liability The inspectors we deal with are really good but the Melbourne office has so few left so many jumped ship and its a mess trying to get anything done.
Dont fancy your chances but i hope you manage to salvage something out of this.

[GusTS]

CMT 2 seems like the team I’d like to see running CASA. McCormack should appoint them to the board with Glen as Chair.

[Stickshift3000]

I note that APTA is still trading and I assume that this is the entity you sold <https://www.auspta.edu.au/>. They claim to have approval to operate out of Latrobe and Ballarat, is this not what you were trying to do?


The irony is that Ballarat continued to operated under APTA's AOC for many months after this saga officially came to light. I don't believe CASA intervened whatsoever. Ballarat does not currently operate under APTA's AOC.

[glenb]

Dear Mr Hanton,



Please accept my Complaint against Flight Operations Inspector, Mr XXXX XXXXX.





There can be no doubt that "Temporary Locations" have been a procedure in existence throughout my 25 years experience in the Industry. If CASA claim to refute that statement i draw your attention that;




CASA actually wrote the procedures on all AOCs for flying schools until approximately 2017.
CASA mentioned Temporary locations in their own guidance material.
APTAs manuals had a Temporary locations procedure that was put into our manuals on the suggestion of CASA.
Those procedures were put into our manuals, approved by CASA, and in fact CASA approved those procedures for a number of our bases.
CASA actually audited us on those procedures.

Please also refer to attached correspondence to Mr Craig Martin. I felt that my questions put to Mr Martin were fair and reasonable. I feel that by Mr Martin, choosing not to respond, he has clearly demonstrated a lack of integrity, and ethics. As he has consistently chosen not to respond, i have no option but to submit a complaint in the hope that it will force CASA to act with ethics and integrity by ensuring i am provided with a response.



I have attached previous correspondence that should provide all the information that you require. As this is a relatively minor request, my hope is that it could be attended to promptly.



The Complaint



In the meeting in CASA Offices (November 2018), Mr XXXX XXXXX clearly stated in front of me and two of my staff that;



"ive had legal advice that Temporary Locations were not intended for flying schools"



That is not a truthful statement, and coming from a background in the flight training industry, i feel he would have been aware of it at the time he made the statement. I feel he made the false statement to support his intended outcome of bringing harm to me and my business.





Expected Outcome



Therefore can you please advise if



CASA did provide legal advice to him that Temporary Locations were not intended for flying schools, or if the statement he made is not truthful.



If Mr XXXXX stands by his assertion could you identify who it was within CASA that provided him the "legal advice".



If Mr XXXXX asserts that he did not make that statement, please advise if 3 Statutory Declarations by me and my staff would be of any assistance.



Thankyou for your prompt attention to this matter.



Please be aware that i have included Mr Anthony Mathews (CASA Board Chairman) in on this correspondence, and also the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. In doing so, my hope is that i can ensure transparency and accountability going forward.



Thankyou, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

COMPLAINT TWO - DIRECT OPERATIONAL CONTROL – Submitted-26/02/20



Dear Mr Jonathan Hanton,



Please accept the lodgement of a formal complaint. Please not that I have included Mr Anthony Mathews the Chair of the CASA Board in on this email. I have also included the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael Mc Cormack as he is the Minister responsible for CASA.





Background



As you are aware there are three separate and distinct actions that CASA has done to bring harm to my ability to derive my livelihood in the industry. For clarity, and CASA does not dispute this fact, none of these actions were taken on the basis of any safety concerns. For that reason, I cannot understand why CASA adopted such an unnecessary and heavy-handed approach.



I would also point out that there were no legislative breaches.



The CASA actions had no basis on safety concerns, or no regulatory breaches. Admittedly, I had been critical of CASAs waste of hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds, and I had put my name to that criticism. I therefore believe that CASA actions were vindictive, vexatious, bullying and intimidating in nature. There is no legislative support of CASA actions.



The CASA actions lead to the closure of a several well intentioned, safe and compliant businesses, of which mine was one of those.



Those three separate actions have cost me many millions of dollars and resulted in the loss of my business, and caused unacceptable harm to my parents, my wife, my children, other entities, suppliers and people depending on me for their livelihood.



Those were

1. CASA reversal of approval with no prior notice on APTA and the associated restrictions on my ability to trade, leading to the failure of the business. I point out that I had spent two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars designing APTA with significant involvement of CASA personnel as I attended to over 600 CASA stipulated requirements.

2. CASA introducing terminology called “direct operational control” and applied that to my business only, and not others.

3. The direction that my position as an employee of APTA was untenable from the Region Manager, Mr jason Mc Heyzer. He made that direction on the basis of “comments that I was making publicly”, which I assume to be on a pilots chat forum pprune https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa.html



In this correspondence, I wish to concentrate on item 2, “direct operational control”.



I had a flying school that had been delivering industry leading levels of safety and compliance for over 15 years. That was the regular feedback that I received from CASA.



In June 2019, CASA Region Manager, Mr Jason Mc Heyzer introduced a new terminology that is not defined anywhere in CASA legislation. He called it “direct operational control”.



He directed that I was to transfer my customers and staff to a different entity under the control of the new owners of APTA. You will recall that I was forced to sell APTA under duress at 5% of its value because of restrictions on its ability to trade.



By directing me to transfer my flying school, MFT to another entity, this obviously moved my previous revenue streams to another business.



By denying me access to the revenue streams of my business of 15 years, that caused significant financial difficulties for me. I had transferred my revenue but was left “holding the bag” for the ongoing expenses of the business, with no capacity to pay those expenses.



An example of this is telephone systems with lease payments, photocopiers, vehicles, printers etc. I have two upcoming court cases regarding my inability to meet those contractual obligations, which as you will appreciate causes me significant stress and impacts on my family’s welfare.



Mr Craig Martin in his role as the CASA Executive Manager, Regulatory Services and Surveillance was aware of this action, and in an email dated 20/06/19 stated; “for the avoidance of doubt, this would allow flight training to be conducted by APTA employees only- not employees of affilaites”.



That direction is in my opinion unlawful and exists nowhere else in industry i.e. it is a specific requirement placed on me only. I have never heard of this requirement, and believe it has no legislative basis. I am yet again dealing with someone’s opinion rather than any legislative requirement.



Once I had complied with Mr Jason Mc Heyzers requirements, I wrote to Mr Craig Martin to confirm I had done so, and I include the contents of that email dated 22/08/20 below.



“Dear Craig,



As the owner of MFT, I can now confirm that I have complied with the CASA requirements.



All staff have been transferred to APTA, as have aircraft and other resources. Bank account access has been handed over, and APTA has “direct operational control.” In all financial aspects APTA has now taken over control in addition to responsibilities previously held by APTA i.e. safety and compliance.



I appreciate that CASA is preparing a comprehensive response, and I anxiously await that.



Can I ask that response specifically addresses these questions.



Is the CASA expectation that all MFT employees are terminated from employment i.e. all leave paid, long service entitlements etc, and they all commence new employment contracts with APTA. This question is being asked of me by the staff. My assumption is that MFT must cease their employment. Please let me know as soon as practical if I have misunderstood the requirement, as I will be proceeding on this basis, as it appears there is no other option.



I appreciate that you were not satisfied with the previous arrangement between APTA and members where the members shared the costs of operating, hence I have taken the required action above. Obviously with APTA taking over financial control in addition to safety and compliance, all revenue from my own business, MFT is now redirected to APTA, which obviously leaves me as the business owner without a business i.e. no revenue.



Can you outline, the acceptable process by which I can derive an income i.e. I believe the CASA proposal is that APTA pays me per flying hour that they do on MFTs or something along those lines. Im hoping that after 9 months, CASA has had the opportunity to consider these matters.



I will comply with any requirement you stipulate. My family has been derived from any income for almost two months, and I want to get this resolved as soon as can be achieved, but I appreciate that it must be compliant with CASA legislation. For clarity, please outline in the new “direct operational control” model, my business MFT is able to derive its income.



Respectfully, Glen.



P.S. Can I call on you to respond as soon as practical so I can move forward, cheers”



Unfortunately, Mr Craig Martin chose not to respond as is often the case when dealing with him. Frequent follow up requests were also ignored, and I have attached that in support of my contentions.











My complaint





Does the direction to transfer my staff and students to a different entity have any basis in law?



If so can you state the relevant legislation?



Why does CASA apply that requirement to Glen Buckley but not to any other aviation organisation in Australia?









Expected Outcome





Clear and concise responses to the complaints I have raised.





Thanking you in anticipation of a response. The attachments clearly show I have tried repeatedly to resolve this with Mr Graeme Crawford, Mr Craig Martin, and Mr Jason Mc Heyzer. Their failure to respond raises concerns about their ethics, intentions, and the lawfulness of their directions.



Your response will assist me to identify if the decisions and administrative actions are lawful. It will also assist me to get a response to previous requests that CASA has not responded to in a meaningful or timely manner.

[glenb]

COMPLAINT THREE- Breaches of Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness/Natural Justice



To; The Honourable Mr Michael McCormack, Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, being the Minister responsible for CASA.

To Mr Anthony Mathews, the Chairperson of the Board of CASA, responsible for good governance within CASA, and a person who this matter has previously been raised with.

To Mr Jonathan Hanton, the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner, the person that I am submitting this complaint to.

Dear Mr Michael Mc Cormack, I am submitting this complaint to your Department, as well as the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner, and on this matter, I am expecting an acknowledgement that it has been received by your office. I am respectfully requesting that you make a direction to CASA that they release the attached redacted notes to me. I am of the opinion that these notes were created maliciously to bring harm to me and my business. I believe I can name the author of these notes to support my contention that a Flight Operations Inspector within CASA is acting vindictively and abusing his power. By releasing those notes to me, I will have the opportunity that I should be afforded as per the CASA Enforcement manual, and the obligations placed on CASA in the Enforcement Manual (Appendix 2), and under Administrative Law.

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/enf/009rfull.pdf

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

Dear Mr Anthony Mathews, I am expecting an acknowledgement that you have read this complaint. You will then have the opportunity to intervene if you feel personnel have not conducted themselves professionally, and in accordance with their obligations.

Dear Mr Jonathan Hanton, I am expecting a prompt investigation of this matter, and a response.

Background

Me and my family have been left destitute as result of the action CASA took against my business. It has significantly impacted on my family’s welfare. It has impacted on my wife, who has now worked for 5 straight months with only one day off. My daughter, who will be unable to continue with her double degree at a Regional University. My youngest son who will not be able to complete his final year of High School, on my older son who has used his savings for his home deposit to support his family, and on my parents who diverted over $250,000 into my business to ensure that I could avoid making any of my highly valued and professional staff redundant during the relentless attack that CASA undertook against me and my business, over a period of 8 months until I was forced to sell the business under duress to ensure that I could meet my obligations to my staff and suppliers.

This issue is wider than my own business because several other Australian owned small businesses were also forced into closure by CASA misconduct, directly related to this matter.

CASA took significant action against my business that was not based on safety concerns, and there were no regulatory breaches. You are aware that I am of the opinion CASA action was vindictive and vexatious, and that there was an associated “cover-up” that extended through to Board Level within CASA, hence I have appealed to the Deputy Prime Minister for his direct intervention.

The Complaint

CASA conducted an audit at our Latrobe Valley Base on 3rd September 2018. CASA denies an audit was conducted. It was identified to me as an audit by the Region Manager in the presence of the Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance.

I note that CASA changed its mind at a later time and re-defined it as an “assessment”

Then with no prior warning on October 3rd, I received notification that my entire operation would potentially be shut down at any time after 7 days.

On November 20th 2018, I received an email from the CASA Region Manager stating “the assessment of the Latrobe Valley Aero Club was used as the basis of seeking legal advice……..”

It cannot be disputed that the Latrobe Valley audit/assessment was the catalyst for the problems that would follow, including the restrictions on my ability to trade, leading to the loss of that business, and the closure of a number of other Australian owned small businesses.

I submitted a complaint to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner, and in his “Outcome of the ICC review he stated; “ Theres no record of the documents I would expect to see if a level 2 audit had been commenced in CASAs Sky Sentinel surveillance data base…..”

Irrespective of the ICCs findings I made a Freedom of Information request for those findings, which were provided to me and are attached. These 9 pages are completely redacted, and obviously of no value to me.

You will appreciate that if an assessment/audit is conducted on an organisation and those findings are used as the basis of a CASA legal decision to shut down my operation it would seem entirely fair that I am provided with those results, in order to provide me the opportunity to respond.

I feel that no determination should be made by CASA unless I have had the right to respond, and my response is considered by CASA in arriving at their determination.

In fact I feel that CASA have obligations placed on them under Administrative Law/ Procedural Fairness, and Natural Justice.



I have also included some extracts from CASAs Enforcement manual, below and I draw your attention to Appendix 2 of the manual (link provided above)

· “PREFACE As a Commonwealth government authority, CASA must ensure that its decision- making processes are effective, fair, timely, transparent, consistent, properly documented and otherwise in accordance with the requirements of the law. At the same time, we are committed to ensuring that all of our actions are consistent with the principles reflected in our Regulatory Philosophy.”



· “Further to the Minister’s Statement, in September 2015 CASA published its Regulatory Philosophy to guide and direct CASA’s approach to the performance of its regulatory functions and the exercise of its regulatory powers. The ten principles that comprise CASA’s Regulatory Philosophy are set out below.

CASA is committed to maintaining the trust and respect of the aviation community.

Mindful of the primacy of air safety, CASA takes account of all relevant considerations, including cost.

CASA takes risk-based approaches to regulatory action and decision-making.

CASA performs its functions consistently with Australia's international obligations.

CASA approaches its regulatory functions consultatively and collaboratively.

CASA communicates fully and meaningfully with all relevant stakeholders.

CASA fairly balances the need for consistency with the need for flexibility.

CASA embraces and employs rational 'just culture' principles in its regulatory and related actions.

CASA demonstrates proportionality and discretion in regulatory decision-making and exercises its powers in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice.

CASA has a legitimate, but limited, role in pursuing punitive action for breaches of the civil aviation legislation.”



· “2.4.1 Natural Justice and Accountability Enforcement decisions must be:  Fair and follow due process  Transparent to those involved  Subject to appropriate internal and external review”.



Expected Outcome of the ICC review.



On the day of the audit, CASA advised that they only noted minor anomalies with one of our “inhouse exams”, yet they secretly created many pages of notes that I was not provided with, or given the opportunity to respond to.

CASA took action based on those notes that resulted in the loss of a multi million dollar business, left my family destitute, and resulted in the closure of a number of Australian owned businesses.

By doing so, was I denied my rights under Administrative Law?

Did CASA comply with its own Regulatory Philosophy?

Did CASA comply with the Ministers Statement of Expectations?



Thankyou for your consideration of my complaint



Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[havick]

Interesting document, what have they got to hide?

[glenb]

Havick, there is a lot more to come, trust me. There will be 15 complaints submitted in total, one a day. Ive been dealing with these fiends for over twelve months now. It is a disgusting coverup extending all the way to the Chairman of the Board, Mr Anthony Mathews. I intend to include the Deputy Prime Minister in on every complaint. If he chooses not to intervene, he will be complicit as well. I now know that i have the media following and this will be exposed. This is an organisation with absolutely no ethics at the highest level. The organisation contains so many capable, professional and well intentioned people, but the leadership is dangerous and disgusting.

It will be interesting to see the results of the Industry Complaints Commissioner. A difficult position to be in, when you are on the CASA payroll.

Its too late for me and my family. The purpose is to encourage government intervention to ensure no other small business owner is subjected to the conduct exhibited by Dr Aleck and Graeme Crawford. To iniate a change of the CASA board, and have Mr Carmodys capability as a CEO exposed.

That just got me off a few Christmas card lists.

Next will be an appeal to the National Party as a whole and a direct appeal to the Prime Minister with well supported evidence

[Rojam]

Glen - Your loss of your business is indeed unfortunate. I understand how your pursuit of justice is all-consuming but you're wasting your time repeatedly composing letters to the personnel involved. Your bombardment of letters make it too easy for the recipients to fob you off. Your only avenue of redress is to pursue the matter legally. There is action under the AD(JR) Act that you can also take but for some reason you (and your legal counsel) seem to have ignored this avenue. Strongly suggest you change tack.

[Global Aviator]

I must say I agree, I haven’t gone back through all the messages but what did they say?

[Asturias56]

Glen - you have to get people OUTSIDE the Board to take notice - just sending more stuff to them won't do it - a legal action for example WILL get attention and will be hard for the Board to fob off.

[Sunfish]

The only court Glen can afford is the big one - the court of public opinion. That will get the politicians galvanised immediately. The law courts will get you nothing. Casa have deep pockets and will drag it out.

[The Bullwinkle]

Hi Glen,

I’m sure you’ve probably been in contact with Senator Susan McDonald as I think she would be the only politician worth talking to.

https://www.theleader.com.au/story/6532233/senator-launches-inquiry-into-civil-aviation-safety-authority/

[lucille]

Glen - Your loss of your business is indeed unfortunate. I understand how your pursuit of justice is all-consuming but you're wasting your time repeatedly composing letters to the personnel involved. Your bombardment of letters make it too easy for the recipients to fob you off. Your only avenue of redress is to pursue the matter legally. There is action under the AD(JR) Act that you can also take but for some reason you (and your legal counsel) seem to have ignored this avenue. Strongly suggest you change tack.

Surely you are not naive enough to believe that our legal system provides justice? Justice is only afforded to those with the deepest pockets. Your taxpayer funded CASA has infinitely deep pockets.

I draw your attention to a certain mining billionaire and part time politician with bottomless pockets who simply was able to outspend and outlast his less wealthy targets in the legal system.

[Rojam]

You can lead a horse to water....

[glenb]

Rojam, PM sent

[sagesau]

You can lead a horse to water....
But when you give a pig access to a trough........ (partial apology to George Orwell)

[Valdiviano]

I reckon Glenn is following legal advise.
wish you well

[Rojam]

Glen, got your PM but it appears you did not get mine in reply. In short, read the AD(JR) Act 1977 and lodge requests under s 13 with CASA for a statement of reasons in respect of each action/decision you're unhappy with. CASA must provide considered responses within 28 days.

[Lead Balloon]

What, precisely, is the administrative decision in respect of which Glen is entitled to reasons under the ADJR Act?

A decision to reallocate CMTs is not an administrative decision to which the ADJR Act is subject. Someone in CASA deciding to interpret a rule differently than someone else in CASA interprets it is not a decision to which the ADJR Act is subject. Someone in CASA deciding to tell someone they can’t employ Glen is not a decision to which the ADJR Act applies.

Glen has to apply for some certificate or licence or approval that CASA can grant him and be refused it. That’s a decision to which the ADJR Act applies.

[Paragraph377]

What, precisely, is the administrative decision in respect of which Glen is entitled to reasons under the ADJR Act?

A decision to reallocate CMTs is not an administrative decision to which the ADJR Act is subject. Someone in CASA deciding to interpret a rule differently than someone else in CASA interprets it is not a decision to which the ADJR Act is subject. Someone in CASA deciding to tell someone they can’t employ Glen is not a decision to which the ADJR Act applies.

Glen has to apply for some certificate or licence or approval that CASA can grant him and be refused it. That’s a decision to which the ADJR Act applies.

Glen, without malice or self opinion, I suggest you read Lead Balloon’s post slowly and piece by piece. This is a person who very accutely understand CASA, legal interpretation and what an ‘Act’ is and how it is applie, particularly in reference to CASA’s process of CMT’s. CMT’s are not a regulatory extension of the Act. They are just a pithy little process that CASA uses to, in part, enforce rules and regulations. Just a tool in their bag of goods, nothing more and nothing less. A process, and as it turns out, a crappy one at that, and one they are ditching after 10 years of experimenting ting with it.

It will take a smart legal team and a lot of money to outwit, outlast and outplay one Jonathan Aleck.

[Chronic Snoozer]

It will take a smart legal team and a lot of money to outwit, outlast and outplay one Jonathan Aleck.

Tell me his nickname isn't 'Smart'.

[thorn bird]

Of course snoozer, there is generally a "Smart" Alec in every organisation.