Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA

[glenb]

There can be no doubt that there is a dangerous trio in substantial roles within CASA.

Aleck, Crawford and Martin. Having met them all, there is no doubt in my mind. This is the same trio whose conduct lead to a 4 Corners investigative story on CASA. It was a story about a gentleman called Bruce Rhoades who had the same experience with this trio that I have had. Tragically he died before he could hold them to account.

It involves acting with bad intention, breaches of administrative law, fabrication of facts and evidence. They decide the outcome that they want and then reverse engineer the outcome that they desire. They impact on business, compromise safety, and show a flagrant disregard for Administrative law, natural justice, procedural fairness, ethics, the Ministers Statement of Expectations, the PGPA act and CASAs regulatory philosophy. They have no hesitation in utilising a million dollars of CASA funding to achieve their outcome.

None of their actions are justified on aviation safety, and in fact they have never tried to justify their conduct on aviation safety. Unfortunately, they act with I impunity because they have a Chairperson of the Board who is way out of his depth, and has no moral compass himself. He gets away with it because we have a Deputy Prime Minister responsible for CASA who is impotent and ineffective, and has no spine.

There is no doubt that CASA action is based on comments I have made publicly, and in fact those are the very words that McHeyzer used when he directed my employer to terminate my employment, and the goose did it in writing. Unfortunately he’s a bit of an amateur, but under the mentoring of Crawford, Aleck and Martin, I’m sure he has a lot of potential.

My mistake was to put my name to my comments, I predicted that the new legislative program was hopelessly mismanaged and would destroy rural aviation as it has, I predicted it would waste half a billion dollars of taxpayers money with no safety benefit, as it has, I predicted that the regulatory program would decimate the Australian owned sector of the industry and facilitate massive foreign owned penetration, as it has, and I told them they had failed to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards as is required of them by the Act, which cannot be denied.

I underestimated their lack of ethics, and that was my mistake. I thought I could depend on my local member Gladys Liu, but her foot is firmly in the camp of Chinese interests, as has been shown. She ignores repeated requests for a meeting.

As I have stated before I have lost everything over this and at 3pm today I meet with Uniting Care to arrange crisis accommodation for my family. There is absolutely no proportionality in the actions of these people. It cannot be justified. At 55 years of age they have destroyed any chance of me and my wife being independent in retirement.

I have little hope of ethics prevailing, will continue to pursue a legal option, but I will definitely work tirelessly to exposing their conduct. Good personnel continue to leave the organisation because of the corporate culture that current leadership in the organisation facilitates. A fish rots from the head first. Hopefully a change of government or a change of National Party leadership may turn CASA around, but I fear by then our GA industry will be destroyed.

[Sunfish]

I’m speechless. All I can do is offer my sympathy.

[michigan j]

Glen, please stay safe and strong mate.

[Bend alot]

Glen love to you and your family, have a great day!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0xMELV48Ec

[Rojam]

Lead Balloon and Para 377 - I agree the AD(JR) Act requires the decision in question to be made under a relevant enactment or regulations but a decision is broadly defined and includes various types of conduct and actions involving unfairness or errors of law with which a person is aggrieved. Clearly, Glen had some authorisation or approval from CASA in running his business or was seeking a continuation of same.This or these were stopped by the action of an authorised officer or delegate. Such approvals would stem directly or indirectly from legislation.

It is often useful to have the information contained in a statement of reasons if considering an application later to the Federal Court under any of the grounds contained in sections 5 and 6. Let CASA decide whether it can refuse to respond to a s 13 request.

[glenb]

Thankyou. I am developing something now, should have ready to post tomorrow morning, that should fit in perfectly. Very grateful. Thankyou.

Basically, CASA made me attend to over 600 points that i attended to. Each of those was assessed by CASA personnel, and approved and audited. Then after 18 months and without warning they completely reversed their "opinion", and placed restrictions on the business. There was no documentation issued that i could appeal. Much more, but please standby and i will get on to it ASAP. Your feedback is appreciated. Keen to drop this right in the lap of Aleck and Crawford and watch them squirm and lie as they try to cover their arses. I will be copying Minister Mc Cormack in and awaiting his response.

Still awaiting the Ombudsmans investigation (expected shortly) about Mc Heyzers direction that my position was untenable with my employer based on the comments i was making publicly, and preparing a submission for the Senate inquiry, and finishing touches almost done on my website to run as an independent against Gladys Liu in Australias most marginal seat.

Pumped! Pissed off and ready to go down swinging. Also got media following now.

Hopefully this leads to Martin, Crawford, Aleck and Mc Heyzer being fully exposed, so no-one in industry ever has to endure these criminals again. Their families must be very proud of their good work contributing to aviation safety and encouraging Australian owned businesses. They must have each been bullied at school i suggest

[Paragraph377]

Glenn, the issue regarding people in CASA approving things and then reversing their decisions at any given stage is nothing new. The idiots often have one ‘team’ who have oversight of an AOC/COA operator. They work with them so to speak, do approvals, sign off (so to speak) on company manuals and processes, and then - a different CASA ‘team’ will do the annual audit on that operator and pick their manuals/processes to pieces, issue non-conformances etc. if you say ‘hey, those dickheads in Brisbane signed off on this and gave approval’ the Sydney audit team will say; ‘oh well, stiff ****, our opinion is that you are non-conforming, so here is a NCN, or worse!!

Had it happen many many times. No consistency, no standards, just some assholes personal opinion and ‘interpretation’ of the rules. You can’t win.

[Petropavlovsk]

Para 377,
Oh! music to my ears!
Years ago I was CP for an operator. Moved the main base Interstate. After Qld got involved there was nothing but issue after issue with no explanation. Check flight with unqualified CASA FOI's with no knowledge of FMS operation.
One day said examiner approached me on the tarmac and said I can solve all your problems (we had none other than CASA) just give me a job, and I will sort everything out. By the time the already approved Ops manual was reviewed by Queensland the page numbering had almost doubled. The manual became unworkable, complex,
I would love to name the six idiots from CASA involved; I just don't know where I stand legally.

[Sunfish]

What you have just described, if true, is a textbook case of official corruption. If we had a Federal anti corruption authority with teeth, you could have gone to them.

[Checklist Charlie]

Petropavlovsk (https://www.pprune.org/members/162906-petropavlovsk) I have seen similar, senior regulatory wallah in the late 80's early 90's wrote the "preferred acceptable person" job description for senior flying/administrative position at a then planned large flying college.
You wont be surprised that he was the only person that 'fitted' that description and surprise, surprise, he got the job!

CC

[Sunfish]

Is there any record of the CASA. staff who have moved to the industry?

[havick]

Is there any record of the CASA. staff who have moved to the industry?

They go back and forward all the time.

The general rule of thumb is an FOI will move to a company after they have just approved adding a bunch of functions and types to an AOC, and then move back to CASA right before the company shuts down or the base they were at goes defunct and they don’t want to commute.

[glenb]

Please, please tell me this is true. I heard that Mr Carmody may be departing CASA. No doubt his friends in the liberal party will drop him in some other department to wreak havoc and destruction. Could this be an opportunity for the Government to initiate change, and clean CASA up. Its probably too late, but if Carmody (the protector of poor governance) leaves, hopefully that leaves the likes of Aleck, Martin and Crawford somewhat exposed. Fingers crossed that what i hear on the grapevine is true. I pity the stakeholders in his next position,but at least his gone from aviation. Unfortunately too late for the GA industry, but good riddance i say.

[Paragraph377]

Surely not? 31 years in the public service and only 3 years into a 5 year contract at CASA, he has decided to walk away from his $500,000 per annum Government gravy train? It will be interesting to see if this happens. His mate Mike MrDak, another career bureaucrat became expendable last month after a similar amount of time at the taxpayer trough. What is interesting is that ‘Scotty from marketing’ has not been too shy about boning senior bureaucrats that bring him grief or bring the spotlight onto the Party. Mr Buckley has certainly assisted in spotlighting Mr Carmody’s Department and it’s woeful and unethical performance. Hopefully Glenn’s lawyers have really got the goods on CASA. However, if Carmody leaves that will not resolve the deeper systemic issues. The CASA require a top to bottom overhaul, a compete gutting, restructure and renaming. The starting point would not be Mr Crawford (who will eventually fall on his sword), but it needs to start with Aleck and Anastasi. Take out the pillars that hold the walls up and the rest will come crashing down.

Glen, you could, after all, be the fuse that finally lit the CASA explosion. Time will tell. To that you will be owed many a robust beer. An AOM could even be considered. Yes if it proves to be true, you will be the man who brings about the necessary changes to CASA after 32 years of misery and mismanagement.

[glenb]

Cheers Parargraph,

Im feeling pretty energised i must say. A 4PM meeting with the lawyer today again, and spent a couple of hours there yesterday. Feeling quite comfortable that CASA will end up with a bit of a bloody nose, i really am.

Also got my website up now glenwithten.com.au Ive got my hands pretty full with the legal stuff today, and after 6 months unemployment just got a job as a water meter reader. Not real glamorous but the start of rebuilding my life.

Regarding the website, its only a rough draft at the moment, and i do plan on spending every available moment of the next two years making sure i get a look in. Its probably Australias most marginal seat, with Gladys Liu as the current incumbent. Repeated calls to her over 6 months were completely ignored. She only holds it by 1000 votes, and has showed very little "good intent".

Over the weekend, i will put some work into it, and beef up the aviation component.

Once agin thanks to all. I truly got pushed into a very dark place at one stage, and really cant convey how important pprune and auntypru have been in dragging me out.

Cheers all.

[Bend alot]

Glad you have had a few wins and good days Mate.

[Stickshift3000]

Glad you’re having a few early wins Glen, keep playing the long game mate.

[Lead Balloon]

Lead Balloon and Para 377 - I agree the AD(JR) Act requires the decision in question to be made under a relevant enactment or regulations but a decision is broadly defined and includes various types of conduct and actions involving unfairness or errors of law with which a person is aggrieved. Clearly, Glen had some authorisation or approval from CASA in running his business or was seeking a continuation of same.This or these were stopped by the action of an authorised officer or delegate. Such approvals would stem directly or indirectly from legislation.

It is often useful to have the information contained in a statement of reasons if considering an application later to the Federal Court under any of the grounds contained in sections 5 and 6. Let CASA decide whether it can refuse to respond to a s 13 request.Great! What I suggest you do is send a PM to Glen with the text of the request for reasons, to which you say he is entitled, that he can ‘top and tail’ and send to CASA.

(The last time I asked for AD(JR) s 13 reasons from CASA, I received a very long letter stating why, in CASA’s view, I was not entitled to reasons. I could have spent a couple of hundreds of thousands and years proving CASA wrong, but I had better things to do with a couple of hundreds of thousands and years. Perhaps you are better placed to pursue these matters for Glen in the event he ‘draws a blank’ Rojam?)

[greenslopes]

What a slog Glen! I'm hoping and praying you receive a fair hearing.

[Rojam]

Lead Balloon - glad you share my view about the applicability of the AD(JR) Act. It's a simple matter for Glen to frame his requests under s 13 - all he has to do is identify each of the decisions/actions/conduct with which he was aggrieved and which were made under enactment or regulation. His lawyer could assist if necessary (noting his gripe about the approach by a CASA staffer to a potential employer about his unsuitability.for a position does not fall within this category).

[Lead Balloon]

And what, in your expert opinion, is the time limit for making applications for reasons under s 13? I'll bet you folding money that any application by Glen for reasons under s 13 will receive a response to this effect:

Dear Mr Buckley, CASA reckons either that s 13 does not apply to the various decisions, actions and conduct to which your application relates and, even if s 13 did apply, your application is too late. Have a nice life.

Then Glen can try to crowd fund a couple of hundred thousand to take CASA to the Federal Court to prove s 13 applies and it was not too late to apply for reasons, and therefore CASA is obliged to provide reasons. Then CASA will provide reasons. Which will help, how, precisely?

[glenb]

I have decided to make a video.

I am absolutely convinced that the senior executive within CASA have absolutely no good intent, and will not try and resolve this matter. It is a complicated matter and requires wading through a lot of documentation. The best way forward is to make a 15 minute video.

If anyone has a friend or relative in Melbourne that would be able to assist me with the production, could you please get them to establish contact with me via email [email protected]

I anticipate it will go for 15 minutes. It will predominantly be making a presentation, but i want to embed documents, pictures of Aleck, Martin, Crawford, Carmody etcin the video.

I am prepared to pay $1000 for the filming and required editing. Rather than approach a commercial organisation, i would like to benefit someone via pprune. I have the script and documents ready, and would like to put it together in approximately two weeks. As i am about to start work this week as a water meter reader, it would have to happen on a Saturday or Sunday.

Once finalised i will use it to submit to the Deputy PM, submit to the Senate inquiry, media outlets and post via youtube, where i will promote it. I will call on AOPA to make it available via their website to also make it available.

Quite simply, i am not going away, and will ensure that i gain greater attention to the toxic culture that exists within CASA and brings so much harm to businesses in the GA sector.

So, if you have a friend or relative with the appropriate skills (possibly a Uni student after a bit of an earn), please get them to establish contact.

It will provide an easier to understand overview of the issues facing me and in fact the entire GA industry.

I do want to have a fairly polished presentation, so ideally someone with some expertise in the area.

Cheers all, regards. Glen

[Sunfish]

You will also need a website that contains supporting documentation and amplifies in more detail what you say in the video. The video directs viewers to the website.

Get someone with skills to vet your script. 15 minutes is too long unless the video contains big breasts. ;)

[glenb]

Sunfish, 4 months ago i weighed 102 kg, and now down to 92kg. My breasts have gone, im afraid

[Bend alot]

Glen, keep your timing of anything in check.

Toilet paper is far more important at the moment, you do not want it to get lost in the current hysteria.

[glenb]

well stocked up mate. i’ve got CASRs, CAA, CARs, AIPs, Aviation Rulings, ERSA, DAPS and lots of correspondence from Aleck, Martin and Crawford

[The Bullwinkle]

well stocked up mate. i’ve got CASRs, CAA, CARs, AIPs, Aviation Rulings, ERSA, DAPS and lots of correspondence from Aleck, Martin and Crawford
Brilliant! So glad to see that you've still retained a sense of humour throughout all of this! :)

[Bend alot]

well stocked up mate. i’ve got CASRs, CAA, CARs, AIPs, Aviation Rulings, ERSA, DAPS and lots of correspondence from Aleck, Martin and Crawford
Thanks for the big belly laugh - you owe me a new keyboard.

[glenb]

16th March 2020

Dear Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Michael Mc Cormack,

By now you will be fully aware of my allegations of misconduct by some personnel within CASA. As you will also be aware my intention is to obtain your direct involvement, or a nominee from your Department. I have submitted previous correspondence to your office on these matters, which has not yet been acknowledged or responded to, and I eagerly await your response.

With regards to this correspondence, may I request an acknowledgement from your office that this correspondence has been received. I understand that in order to receive a response from your office, I am required to provide my contact details, please find them below.

Glen Buckley

6 Susan Court Mount Waverley 3149

E. [email protected] P. 0418772013

This matter has wide industry involvement, and I have attached a link that has had in excess of 500,000 visits. https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa.html

My assertions are well substantiated, and the impact on aviation safety and small businesses operating in the aviation sector is unacceptable, and even more so at this current time when the viability of many small businesses is impacted by the health challenges that Australia is now facing.

You will be aware that several Australian owned businesses have been forced into closure, peoples livelihoods have been impacted, and several business owners have lost their significant investment in the industry as a result of actions and deliberate decisions made by a small group of personnel within CASA. CASA actions have not been based on safety concerns and you will be aware of that.

Below is correspondence that I am simultaneously submitting to Mr Hanton, the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner. I have included you to ensure that you are fully aware of the situation.

There are three components.

The first is my original complaint submitted to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner on 24/02/20.

The second is the Industry Complaints Commissioners preliminary report, and

the third correspondence is my response that I am providing prior to him finalising his report. Please note that this is only one issue amongst many.


Dear Mr Hanton,

I have included my initial complaint, your preliminary report, and the third piece of correspondence, I am submitting to you today (16/03/20) to assist you in arriving at your final report.

Thankyou for your assistance, respectfully, Glen Buckley



MY ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 24/02/20

24/02/20

Dear Mr Hanton,
Please accept my Complaint against Flight Operations Inspector, Mr XXXX XXXXX.

There can be no doubt that "Temporary Locations" have been a procedure in existence throughout my 25 years’ experience in the Industry. If CASA claim to refute that statement i draw your attention that;

1. CASA actually wrote the procedures on all AOCs for flying schools until 2017.

2. CASA mentioned Temporary locations in their own guidance material.

3. APTAs manuals had a Temporary locations procedure that was put into our manuals on the suggestion of CASA.

4. Those procedures were put into our manuals, approved by CASA, and in fact CASA approved those procedures for a number of our bases.

5. CASA actually audited us on those procedures and raised no concerns.

Please also refer to attached correspondence to Mr Craig Martin. I felt that my questions put to Mr Martin were fair and reasonable. I feel that by Mr Martin, choosing not to respond, he has clearly demonstrated a lack of integrity, and ethics. As he has consistently chosen not to respond, i have no option but to submit a complaint in the hope that it will force CASA to act with ethics and integrity by ensuring i am provided with a response.

I have attached previous correspondence that should provide all the information that you require. As this is a relatively minor request, my hope is that it could be attended to promptly.

The Complaint

In the meeting in CASA Offices (November 2018), Mr XXXX XXXXX clearly stated in front of me and two of my staff that;

"I’ve had legal advice that Temporary Locations were not intended for flying schools"

That is not a truthful statement, and coming from a background in the flight training industry, i feel he would have been aware of it at the time he made the statement. I feel he made the false statement to support his intended outcome of bringing harm to me and my business.

Expected Outcome

Therefore, can you please advise if;

CASA did provide legal advice to him that Temporary Locations were not intended for flying schools, or if the statement he made is not truthful.

If Mr XXXXX stands by his assertion, could you identify who it was within CASA that provided him the "legal advice".

If Mr XXXXX asserts that he did not make that statement, please advise if 3 Statutory Declarations by me and my staff would be of any assistance.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Please be aware that i have included Mr Anthony Mathews (CASA Board Chairman) in on this correspondence, and also the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. In doing so, my hope is that i can ensure transparency and accountability going forward.

Thank you, Glen Buckley



PRELIMINARY REPORT FROM CASA INDUSTRY COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER 11/03/20

Dear Glen
Complaint One: Untruthful statement complaint

I refer to your complaint about the conduct of CASA Flight Operations Inspector XXXX XXXXX in a meeting in November 2018.

You allege Mr XXXXX misrepresented that he’d received legal advice that the ‘temporary locations (procedure) was not intended for flying schools.’ You submit Mr XXXXX made this ‘false statement to support his intended outcome of bringing harm to you and your business.’

I can confirm legal advice on the applicability of ‘temporary locations’ to Part 141 and 142 operations was provided by CASA’s Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs branch to Southern Region Certificate Management Team 3 (‘CMT 3’) on 25 September 2018.

The summary of that advice noted:

The concept of a temporary location is not derived from Parts 141 or 142 of the CASR. It is only used in the guidance material and the sample operations manual/exposition for the use of a location rather than a training base for short term (or temporary) use.

The CASR does not permit Part 141 or 142 operators to describe a training base as a temporary location if they are using facilities at the base – if this involves the lack of approval of a significant change.

At this stage, I therefore propose to conclude your allegation against Mr Lacy is unsubstantiated and to take no further action. CMT 3 was in receipt of legal advice that the ‘temporary locations (procedure) was not intended for flying schools’ and therefore at this stage I am satisfied Mr Lacy made no misrepresentations.

Next steps

Please provide any additional submissions you’d like me to consider before I finalise my review of your complaint by 24 March 2020.

If at any stage in the complaints process you’re unhappy with the ICC investigation you’re able to ask the Commonwealth Ombudsman to review CASA’s actions or the ICC's consideration of your concerns. Information about how to make a complaint can be found at www.ombudsman.gov.au. Alternatively, the Ombudsman can be contacted on 1300 362 072.

Yours sincerely

Jonathan Hanton

Industry Complaints Commissioner


MY RESPONSE SUBMITTED TODAY 16/03/20


Dear Mr Hanton,

I recognise that this is your preliminary outcome, therefore can I respectfully request that you consider my response prior to you finalising your report.

I make no allegations that your conduct is less than professional, however I feel that you are being misled by personnel within CASA who may be attempting to achieve a desired outcome and cover up their misconduct. As Mr Jonathan Aleck is in fact one of the CASA personnel that I am making allegations against, and you are drawing on information from him in his role as the Executive Manager Legal and Regulatory Affairs, it could be reasonably assumed that he may be trying to protect his position, and in fact that has been my experience.

I appreciate these are strong statements, but as you will appreciate many millions of dollars of investment in a number of businesses have been lost as a result of decisions made by Mr Aleck and Mr Crawford. There is no proportionality in the decisions made by these gentlemen, as the affected business owners will concur.

Point One.

There are two distinct types of locations that training is delivered from. One being a CASA approved base, being a permanent location, and the other being a Temporary location, where operations are intended for a finite period. The procedure to activate and deactivate the temporary locations is done by the flying school using a procedure that has been previously approved by CASA but does not require specific CASA approval for each activation and deactivation.

Mr XXXX XXXXX specifically made the comment about a Temporary location, not the CASA approved permanent base. Approximately 12 months prior, it was CASA personnel that suggested we utilise a temporary location procedure, and provided the procedure, which we incorporated into our manuals, which were then approved by CASA and subsequently audited by CASA. We had used this procedure on a number of occasions.

In the preliminary finding, on advice, you state:

The CASR does not permit Part 141 or 142 operators to describe a training base as a temporary location if they are using facilities at the base – if this involves the lack of approval of a significant change.

I concur that an operator cannot describe a training base (permanent) as a temporary location, as the temporary location is temporary in nature and has a finite period of operations. Therefore, im not sure if I have missed your point, if so could you please clarify. The fact is that we activated and deactivated bases on finite timelines and issued notices (and included CASA ) to confirm that was our intention. My issues and concerns about CASA conduct relate to Temporary locations.


Point Two

In your response you state that “The concept of a temporary location is not derived from Parts 141 or 142 of the CASR”.

Similarly, im not sure of the pertinence of that statement. It is a procedure that most flying schools have used for decades. It was actually printed by CASA on AOCs. There can be no doubt that it is in fact a procedure. This is further evidenced by the fact that CASA provide the procedure in their own guidance material and the sample Exposition that CASA provide to the flight training industry. Could you clarify that Mr Alecks stance on this matter is that flying schools are not permitted to have a temporary location.


Point Three

We agree that a training base and a temporary location are different bases with different procedures. It appears you are suggesting that a temporary location must have MAXIMUM standards of safety attached to it. i.e. it must be an unprepared strip or similar, with no phone lines available, and has to be remote from assistance etc. If that is the CASA assertion which would be highly unusual, can you please provide further guidance on this matter. For clarity, are there maximum levels of safety attached to Temporary locations, and if so can you direct me to that information?


Point Four

My request is specifically about Temporary locations not training bases. Mr Brad Lacey made the comment that he had legal advice that Temporary locations are not intended for flying schools. As our bases were temporary in nature with nominated start and finish dates, the procedure was recommended by CASA personnel, the procedure had been in existence for decades, the procedure was in CASAs own guidance material, CASA was fully aware we were using Temporary locations, and senior CASA personnel at Executive Manager level had in fact previously been to those locations and commended us on them, my allegation stands.

How can Mr XXXX XXXXX truthfully state that he has had legal advice that Temporary locations are not intended for flying schools. Quite simply, that is a ludicrous statement to make.

Summary

My allegation fully stands that Mr XXXX XXXXX stated that temporary locations are not intended for flying schools. That statement is not truthful. Your preliminary report does not address my allegation. It only clarifies the distinction between permanent training bases and temporary locations.

He claimed he had legal advice, if that was the case, your response has not addressed that particular statement that he made.

You insinuate that temporary locations are not permitted in Part 141/142 and in fact that is not the case.

It is important that this report is finalised on factually correct information and in a truly independent manner. Hopefully my responses have made that task achievable. Please feel free to contact me in writing if you require any further information.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

For those of you that have been following this rather complicated story, you will be aware that after CASA placed restrictions on my businesses ability to trade, that were not based on any safety concerns, or on any regulatory breaches but for "other" reasons. Most likely in my opinion they allowed their prejudices to interfere with sound and professional decision making, but that is not the point of this particular post.

After selling the business at a fraction of its value to ensure i could meet the staff salaries, i also secured employment with the new owners of the business. That lasted until the CASA Region Manger directed my employer that my position was untenable based on comments that i was making publicly. In my opinion the Region manager way overstepped his authority, and that will be "tested".

Unfortunately when CASA choose to take such action it has significant damage on ones reputation and potentially makes it difficult to secure employment in the industry. I was talking to a "friend" about this, and i thought i might be interested in seeing if my situation is unique.

From my own experience i know of people who have had their reputation tarnished by CASA actions. I would be very "interested" to hear on here,
or by Private Message if this is widespread. I know when i have put names forward to CASA, i get a roll of the eyes or feedback that person isn't a CASA favorite. In fact on one occasion CASA made it quite obvious that someone i had selected shouldn't be considered. One of my senior personnel intervened and advised me that i should give that person a chance despite CASA reservations. I took his wise and well intentioned advice, because as he pointed out. If i didn't give him the opportunity he would never get the opportunity. Im pleased to say it was a good decision, and that person remains someone i trust and respect many years later.

So if you have had your career or reputation impacted by personnel making inappropriate comments to a third party that have damaged your reputation or employability i would very much value your input. I am exposing CASA here on this rumor network, but appreciate this may be best dealt with via a PM and will leave that to your discretion. Thankyou.

I would like to demonstrate to my friend that this is in fact very much part of the way CASA operate. Cheers. Glen

[thorn bird]

Glen, within the reg's is the old "Fit and Proper Person" clause, it's a sort of Catch 22 trap.

Who decides who is fit and proper?

From an industry perspective who in CAsA is fit and proper?

You may not know you have been branded "Not fit and proper" until suddenly you find approvals you have applied for suddenly take an inordinate amount of time to resolve or people in industry suddenly stop talking to you, as has been your experience. You may get hints that nefarious individuals within the regulator have been making clandestine phone calls, your lucky actually, you actually found written proof of such goings on. I know of people who have actually been pursued overseas by certain individuals within CAsA. Its very hard to prove, its a brave person who would give evidence of that lest they to get branded as not fit and proper.

[glenb]

22/03/20



Dear Mr Hanton, CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner,

I have received your final findings regarding my compliant that CASA Flight Operations Inspector, Mr XXXX XXXX advised my Company that “He had legal advice that temporary locations are not intended for flying schools”.

You supported your findings with the following statement (my bolding)

“It is clear that CASR requires any facility from which the operator conducts flying training to be treated as a training base….., any place where there is a building or structure that the operator uses, no matter how briefly, in the provision of training must be treated as a training base.”

Mr Hanton, quite simply that statement is not factual/truthful. For clarity the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations do not state that, and I must insist that you direct me to that legislation if you maintain the position that the regulations do state that.

I have a fair and reasonable expectation that your office will arrive at decisions, based on fact. As an Industry stakeholder I am entitled to that level of integrity in the process. If your office claims that to be fact, it is more than reasonable that I require you to direct me to that legislation.

I further draw your attention to the following information. There can be no doubt that the procedure of a Temporary location is actually intended for flying schools, and clear evidence of that can be found in the Technical Assessors handbook at C 2.5b which can be found via the following link www.casa.gov.au/files/casr-part-141-teachnical-assess-guidpdf (http://www.casa.gov.au/files/casr-part-141-teachnical-assess-guidpdf) This is a publication written and intended for flying schools

Similarly the CASA provided Part 141 Sample Operations Manual addresses Temporary locations at A 1.6.4 https://www.casa.gov.au/files/casr-part-141-sample-operations-manual-v30. This is a publication written by CASA and intended for flying schools

I also add that our manuals that were designed in conjunction with CASA, approved by CASA and subsequently audited by CASA had comprehensive procedures on Temporary locations, and our procedures were comprehensive and far exceeded the CASA minimum requirements.

Finally I add that most of Australia’s flying schools had approved procedures for Temporary locations, and in fact CASA printed the procedures on AOCs, prior to formalising the procedures in the above documents. I can provide a copy of my expired AOC if you dispute that fact.

For clarity, it is absurd that a CASA Flight Operations Inspector would advise that he has had “legal advice that Temporary locations are not intended for flying schools.”

For clarity, I stand by my assertion that the FOI was not being truthful and was not acting with good intent or integrity. If he did receive that advice, which is highly unlikely, you should be able to nominate the person within CASA that provided him with that advice. Mr Jonathan Aleck as the Executive Manager of Legal and Regulatory Affairs would be the person that most likely provided that advice or would be able to identify the individual within his Department that did.

You are aware that the CASA action has personally left me destitute, resulted in the loss of my own business, and the closure of several other businesses.

I am very much of the opinion that there is a “cover up” within CASA. I make no suggestion that you are complicit in that misconduct, but I do have a reasonable expectation that your office will act with integrity to achieve a fair outcome.

Please note, that I have included the Chairperson of the CASA Board in on this correspondence. I have also included the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael Mc Cormack in on this correspondence and as is his Departments requirements, I have included my name, address and contact details.

I look forward to advice on your intended course of action.

For clarity.

Did the CASA Flight Operations Inspector receive legal advice that Temporary locations were not intended for flying schools, and if he did, please nominate the person who provided that advice, and is prepared to “stand” behind that advice and be accountable for it.

I hope you appreciate my frustration, but CASA does operate under the Australian Coat of Arms, and that suggests to me that the highest standards will be upheld.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

6 Susan Court, Mount Waverley

Phone 0418772013

[Sunfish]

Glen, you are wasting your time. The whole coronavirus pandemic is going to drown out your complaints. GA as we know it and aviation in general is going to be very different in a few years, if it exists at all. The reason is that in what is going to be a depressed economy, no one will have the money to start up a new aviation business if it involves the current financial burden of compliance. In other words,

[Paragraph377]

Glen, you are wasting your time. The whole coronavirus pandemic is going to drown out your complaints. GA as we know it and aviation in general is going to be very different in a few years, if it exists at all. The reason is that in what is going to be a depressed economy, no one will have the money to start up a new aviation business if it involves the current financial burden of compliance. In other words,
I agree totally. I wonder if CASA will also cut back on staff numbers in line with what is happening to the aviation industry, and what is still yet to come? Or will there be a surplus of CASA staff all focusing their efforts on the last one or two aviation participants that exist in history. Oh my, won’t those companies have fun?

[Sunfish]

I’ve been through an ISO quality system approval as a general manager of a small OEM automotive manufacturing company. That was a huge task back in 1990. When I look at the CASA MOS of what is required to get an AOC or become an approved maintenance organisation in the way of paperwork and systems,
I assess that the task these days is ten times harder and more expensive today than I experienced.

From that, I don’t see how a greenfield organisation could set up without a huge amount of capital investment and manhours in paperwork.

Then add on the business risk associated with dealing with CASA, as evidenced by what allegedly happened to Glen Buckley and probably others, and it is not a very attractive new investment at all.

That suggests that as organizations go under, they won’t be replaced by new entrants.

[SOPS]

With the present state of the world, Sunfish, we may not require any new companies. In fact., we may not have any old ones. CASA may have no reason to be shortly. They may have got their wish.. safe skies are empty skies.

[Bend alot]

Hi Mate, just checking in on how you are doing

[glenb]

There are a number of issues, but initially the Commonwealth Ombudsman was investigating Mr Jason Mc Heyzers (CASA Region Manager- Southern Region) direction that my continuing employment was unteanable based on comments that I was making publicly. My assumption is that those comments were made here on Pprune because that is the only place I was making any comments. As you are aware that lead to my employment being terminated. I had a significant issue with this because the impact on me and my family was obviously significant, and I now work as a water meter reader on a significantly less than Australian average income. Had his direction been made on safety grounds or regulatory breaches I may not have taken such exception. I felt that he had significantly overstepped his authority and abused his power. I submitted my complaint to the Ombudsman who appears to have uncovered other matters of concern. I wrote to him for an update and recently received this response. I will write further over the weekend, but for the time being I have to hit the road and get reading water meters. I would hate for any of you not to get your water bills on time.

"Dear Mr Buckley



Thank you for your email of this morning.



I have drafted a preliminary view on a number of issues and require higher-level sign-off before sending to CASA. It is a series of issues that do not address the alleged role in the termination of your employment but go to the matters leading up to it. Once sent to CASA, it will have 30 days to respond, although the COVID-19 issue may affect that.



Your case is at our “Category 4” which indicates a degree of complexity beyond what is normal.



In the circumstances I cannot give you an approximation as to when my inquiry will be finalised.



Yours sincerely

[havick]

There are a number of issues, but initially the Commonwealth Ombudsman was investigating Mr Jason Mc Heyzers (CASA Region Manager- Southern Region) direction that my continuing employment was unteanable based on comments that I was making publicly. My assumption is that those comments were made here on Pprune because that is the only place I was making any comments. As you are aware that lead to my employment being terminated. I had a significant issue with this because the impact on me and my family was obviously significant, and I now work as a water meter reader on a significantly less than Australian average income. Had his direction been made on safety grounds or regulatory breaches I may not have taken such exception. I felt that he had significantly overstepped his authority and abused his power. I submitted my complaint to the Ombudsman who appears to have uncovered other matters of concern. I wrote to him for an update and recently received this response. I will write further over the weekend, but for the time being I have to hit the road and get reading water meters. I would hate for any of you not to get your water bills on time.

"Dear Mr Buckley



Thank you for your email of this morning.



I have drafted a preliminary view on a number of issues and require higher-level sign-off before sending to CASA. It is a series of issues that do not address the alleged role in the termination of your employment but go to the matters leading up to it. Once sent to CASA, it will have 30 days to respond, although the COVID-19 issue may affect that.



Your case is at our “Category 4” which indicates a degree of complexity beyond what is normal.



In the circumstances I cannot give you an approximation as to when my inquiry will be finalised.



Yours sincerely

hi glen, glad to see you finally have got some sort of response.

stuck with it.

[Paragraph377]

Glen;

”I would hate for any of you not to get your water bills on time”.

I must admit, that put a huge smile on my face. You’ve got a great sense of humour Glen. Hang in there. You never know mate, with the Government under the pump and also giving away money hand over fist, they might slip you a few mil to see the back of you! It wouldn’t be Justice in the sense that you are seeking, but it may be a way for them to discard some excess bagggage that keeps sticking to them. Who knows, you could get an apology too and perhaps McShisen will resign! Oh the joy says Glen.

Anyway, even though I don’t live in your region I will have a silent giggle and sit on the deck with a beer and think of you when my next water bill arrives in the mail. Cheers

[Petropavlovsk]

Let us for ever rename the water bill:--

'The Buckley Bill'

[thorn bird]

"Once sent to CASA, it will have 30 days to respond, although the COVID-19 issue may affect that."

errr, what??

There is bugger all aviation happening at the moment, they must have considerable numbers sitting on their tod doing bugger all, on full salary plus perks.

We are all in this together.......except the bureaucrats.

[megan]

Just read through the sample operations manual, in particular the buildings required. It makes me wonder how in the world we ever learnt to fly in the early 60's, all we had was a hangar for the aircraft. Our country town club had two aircraft and one instructor provided by a capital city organisation, built time as a PPL ferrying one of the two aircraft as the instructor did his rounds to other towns, he would instruct in one and the solo's would fly the other, at one airstrip the only building was that housing the 44 gal drums.

[glenb]

To the Australian Taxation Office.

My accountant Rohan, has been an exceptional support, and for that I am extremely appreciative. He has worked hard to take as much stress off me as practical, and protect my health. I am now facing significant financial challenges, I am uncomfortable drawing on his support any further as my funds are exhausted. I know that support is there if required however.

Rohan, could i ask that you provide any information that the ATO requires. Thankyou.

I owe people money and it is critical to my health and wellbeing that all of those debts are attended to, and they are intended to in full. Every single one of them". From the lawn mower guy to the ATO.

By default, many of those obligations, could be legally handed over to the new owners of my business, and I could walk away. Quite simply, the new owners have had that business "knocked for six by Coronavirus", and despite my philosophical differences with them, I truly want them to succeed. With their success, many staff and students that depend on that businesses will also succeed. This will depend on the ethics and intention that are displayed by CASA. It is as simple as that!

I am now in a substantial disagreement with CASA that will likely end up going through the Courts, as I believe is CASAs tactic. They are attempting to drain me mentally, physically, and financially, and I will resolutely follow the path that they choose. I have no intention of not seeing this through to an outcome. I am seeking compensation to get my life back and pay everybody 100%. The goal is fair and reasonable.

I am also aware that I may potentially have obligations to the ATO, and they are similarly of a high priority to me.

My situation is unavoidable.

Without any warning at all. None!, and not on any basis of aviation safety, CASA placed restrictions on my businesses ability to trade.

Eventually that business could continue no longer, and was sold for 5% of its value. I had no option as I was not going to be able to pay the salaries to the exceptional team of staff that i had surrounded myself with.

The price was nominal, due to the uncertainty that remained after 8 months. Significant debt was incurred via supportive suppliers, as the business limped along for 8 months trying to have the restrictions on its ability to trade lifted.

After the sale of my business, I did retain my flying school, but was directed by CASA that I must transfer the staff and students to the new owners of my recently sold business. Unfortunately this derived me of all my revenue streams but left me the ongoing financial obligations to a number of suppliers and staff. Obviously with no revenue it was impossible to attend to the accruing debt. Some of which still accumulates since this matter started in October 2018.

After the loss of my two businesses, I did manage to gain employment within the Industry, providing me with an average income. At least I was in the position to work on paying my debts. Unfortunately, the CASA region Manager directed my Employer that my continuing employment was "untenable", and my employment has ceased. My assumption is that this direction came about because of my comments on a pilots forum called Pprune. Interestingly, it has had over half a million visits, and is where I chose to tell my story.

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

Whilst I appreciate it is lengthy, I would direct the ATO to the "thread" quoted above, as it contains much pertinent information, and valuable input from industry peers.

Personally, I am destitute. My credit card is maxxed out, my wife works 7 days a week, and I have secured casual employment that pays me the same as if I chose to go on unemployment benefit. I have no savings or assets, and have lost my house, my business, and my savings. It is extremely traumatic, My family lives week to week.. The additional burden of owing people money makes that stress compound significantly. It is essential that I resolve this.

The direction by CASA to terminate my employment is now with the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and I have had discussions with a legal firm. They will continue this week

If CASA choose not to act with ethics, and in a lawful manner, I will have no option but to pursue them through the Courts.

The puropse of this letter.

To all the Suppliers and to the ATO, you have my personal assurance that i am working diligently to have this matter attended to so that i can meet my obligations to my suppliers, the ATO, and my family.

For any further clarification I would recommend that you contact the Deputy Prime Ministers Office.

I am assured by the Chairman of the Board of CASA, Mr Anthony Mathews that he has kept the Deputy Prime Minister thoroughly briefed.

I have also received written notification from the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael Mc Cormack that he has been kept thorougjhly briefed by the Chairman of the Board of CASA.

Whilst I am not suggesting that you contact the Deputy PM directly, I am confident that his office will be able to provide you the CASA perspective of this situation. It may be that the Deputy PM can explain the "safety concerns" that have initiated the CASA action that leads to my current situation.

There are also a number of personnel within CASA that would be able to validate my story, or provide any missing details.

The best point of contacts would be:

Mr Shane Carmody- CASA CEO
Graeme Crawford- CASA Executive Manager- Aviation
Jonathan Aleck CASA Executive Manager- Legal
Craig Martin- CASA Executive Manager- Regulatory Sevices and Surveillance
Jason McHeyzer -CASA Region Manager
Brad Lacey- CASA Flight Operations Inspector

In summary, I can assure you, I am pursuing the opportunity to meet all my debts. Unfortunately this will only be resolved in the time line that the Deputy Prime Minister and CASA determine.

When I had the business, amongst the exceptional staff were 3 staff members in the finace and accounting department. They all left the business when CASA finally ensured its demise. I have very limited access to any administrative or accounting support. I am not trying to avoid the ATO, but I am facing an insurmountable workload. Can I respectfully call on your patience, and direct you to the Deputy PM or applicable CASA personnel for any additional information that they may be able to provide.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[Petropavlovsk]

Glenn,
I wish you well, you deserve your day in Court and compensation.
I am guessing that taking CASA or its Operatives to Court will take time. I think you are looking at 5 to 10 years minimum after the CV-19 is over.
Whilst the recent Supreme Court case in Cairns of a belligerent aviation company taking 13 years to appear in Court to answer charges leveled against them by a former employee, has no bearing on your case it would serve as a clear indication of the track CASA will pursue.
In the meantime all the key players will have resigned, retired, fallen off the tree.
Standing for your local seat is going to be your be chance, Glady's is there only just. In a recent weekend edition of the Australian Newspaper there was more than a passing mention of Glady's multi million property investment portfolio in Queensland. She no reason to stay in Victoria.
This is your chance. Your maiden speech in Parliament will memorable.

[Stickshift3000]

The coronavirus fallout just might get an outsider over the line in Chisholm in the future... best chance ever, I've lived there before.

[glenb]

I have made multiple attempts to resolve my dispute with CASA. I am fully satisfied that CASA have no intention to resolve this matter in a cost-effective or well intentioned manner. They have access to an unlimited pool of taxpayer funds. Already I suggest they have allocated many hundreds of man hours and many hundreds of thousands of dollars to this "project". Therefore I have commenced the first of three legal actions against CASA to hold them accountable. The first matter deals only with the direction by Mr Jason McHeyzer that my continuing employment was untenable based on comments that I was making publicly. The correspondence is attached. I am advised that i have a strong case on each of my matters. Without prejudice save as to costs



Mr Jason McHeyzer

Region Manager, Southern Region

Civil Aviation Safety Authority

GPO Box 2005

CANBERRA ACT 2601



Mr Jonathan Hanton

Industry Complaints Commissioner

Civil Aviation Safety Authority

GPO Box 2005

CANBERRA ACT 2601





By email: [email protected]

[email protected]



20 May 2020



Dear Mr McHeyzer and Mr Hanton,



Mr Glen Buckley



We act on behalf of Mr Glen Buckley.



This is a Concerns Notice within the meaning of Division 1 of Part 3 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic) and corresponding provisions in the other States and Territories of Australia.



We are instructed that on or about 27 August 2019, you sent an email to Mr Naser Qushair, Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance. The email contained the following words:



“I understand that Mr Buckley remains as APTA deputy HOO. This is no longer tenable with the comments that Mr Buckley is making publicly. Please confirm APTA’s intentions in relation to Mr Buckley as deputy HOO and whether Mr Buckley is authorised to speak on behalf of APTA.”



A copy of the email is annexed to this Concerns Notice.



The email is grossly defamatory of our client. It contains imputations that Mr Buckley:



1. Is not a fit and proper person to remain as Deputy Head of Operations of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance;



2. Should be dismissed as the Deputy Head of Operations of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance by reason of public comments that he has made.



Each of those imputations is false and grossly defamatory of our client. Mr Buckley was dismissed from his position with APTA as a result of this email. He has not been able to find employment in the aviation industry since his dismissal.



As a consequence of the publication of the email, our client has suffered hurt and distress, damage to his reputation and special damages by reason of the termination of his employment.



Our client requires you within 28 days to:



1. Provide a written apology and retraction to the Mr Buckley for the imputations conveyed by the email.



2. Agree for an independent person agreed by you and Mr Buckley to determine the damages suffered by Mr Buckley to his reputation and special damages for the loss of his employment;



3. Agree to pay to Mr Buckley the amounts determined by the independent person within 7 days of the determination;



4. Pay Mr Buckley’s reasonable legal costs to be agreed or if not agreed to be taxed.



Our client reserves all his rights.



If you wish to discuss the contents of this letter, please contact Mr Alan J. McDonald on (03) 9650 4555.



Yours sincerely,

McDonald Murholme



Per: Alan J McDonald

[LexAir]

Good luck Glen.

[zanthrus]

Yes, wishing you the best of luck Glen!

[Sunfish]

Good luck. Let justice prevail.

[Rashid Bacon]

All of the above good wishes Glen

[A30_737_AEWC]

I thought I had heard of the name of Jason McHeyzer somewhere before. Then the light bulb illuminated.

It was on the DMO/CASG/RAAF E-7A Wedgetail AEW&C development & acquisition program. Along with the 'gravy train' of other senior RAAF officers on overseas postings, I recall he was posted to the US-based DMO Project Office overseeing Boeing and it's principal subcontractors. That the acquisition program was delivered some 5 years late can't simply be shrugged off to being the contractors' fault. Competent oversight and control by key individuals in the Project Office ? I doubt it. I think he had some kind of engineering responsibility for the software development oversight, despite not being a professional engineer. He claims to have been accountable for airworthiness certification at the level of design approval under the former ADF TAMM system of technical airworthiness regulation. Again, as a non-tertiary qualified professional engineer. The RAAF are like that. It's a tick-in-the-box for the CV, and you move on to the next opportunity.

Former WGCDR McHeyzer, if as well schooled in the officer ways of his former RAAF brethren, probably applies the old military communication principle of never initiating comms with people more than 2 ranks up the ladder from you, lest your chain of command be blindsided by one's comms. I discovered this to be a 'thing' when as a civilian with only 3 years experience working among RAAF personnel, I was spoken to by my WGCDR supervisor and GPCAPT next-level supervisor after taking the initiative to contact an AIRCDRE in the chain of command who I formerly knew as the GPCAPT OC in the organisation I previously worked in. We knew each other.

I daresay Mr McHeyzer is simply applying his former RAAF protocols in industry. Having worked in industry myself for many years, that might not always be either (i) appropriate or (ii) appreciated by others.

Not that any of this offers you any possible consolation, Glen. In that respect I feel somewhat helpless, but I support your call for integrity in conduct and process.

I've been quietly following your situation from the sidelines, considering my own circumstances at the hands of a RAAF CENGR supervisor who was my age but had literally no professional engineering experience during his career before we crossed paths and who essentially destroyed my career and me personally through his own ignorance, incompetence and nepotism to this RAAF colleagues.

Glen - Don't overlook your health and wellbeing as this matter proceeds in the hands and carriage of your team. That's of significant importance. I may not have personally experienced 'my justice' in my workplace matter, but I am still here to speak about it and support others who want to reach out for support.

Best regards,

A30_737_AEWC (https://www.pprune.org/members/373851-a30_737_aewc)

[oldm8ey]

I thought I had heard of the name of Jason McHeyzer somewhere before. Then the light bulb illuminated.

It was on the DMO/CASG/RAAF E-7A Wedgetail AEW&C development & acquisition program. Along with the 'gravy train' of other senior RAAF officers on overseas postings, I recall he was posted to the US-based DMO Project Office overseeing Boeing and it's principal subcontractors. That the acquisition program was delivered some 5 years late can't simply be shrugged off to being the contractors' fault. Competent oversight and control by key individuals in the Project Office ? I doubt. I think he had some kind of engineering responsibility for the software development oversight, despite not being a professional engineer. He claims to have been accountable for airworthiness certification at the level of design approval under the former ADF TAMM system of technical airworthiness regulation. Again, as a non-tertiary qualified professional engineer. The RAAF are like that. It's a tick-in-the-box for the CV, and you move on to the next opportunity.

Former WGCDR McHeyzer, if as well schooled in the officer ways of his former RAAF brethren, probably applies the old military communication principle of never initiate comms with people more than 2 ranks up the ladder from you, lest your chain of command be blindsided by one's comms. I discovered this to be a 'thing' when as a civilian with only 3 years experience working among RAAF personnel, I was spoken to by my WGCDR supervisor and GPCAPT next-level supervisor after taking the initiative to contact an AIRCDRE in the chain of command who I formerly knew as a the GPCAPT OC in the organisation I previously worked in. We knew each other.

I daresay Mr McHeyzer is simply applying his former RAAF protocols in industry. Having worked in industry myself for many years, that might not always be either (i) appropriate or (ii) appreciated by others.

Not that any of this offers you any possible consolation, Glen. In that respect I feel somewhat helpless, but I support your call for integrity in conduct and process.

I've been quietly following your situation from the sidelines, considering my own circumstances at the hands of a RAAF CENGR supervisor who was my age but had literally no professional engineering experience during his career before we crossed paths and who essentially destroyed my career and me personally through his own ignorance, incompetence and nepotism to this RAAF colleagues.

Glen - Don't overlook your health and wellbeing as this matter proceeds in the hands and carriage of your team. That's of significant importance. I may not have personally experienced 'my justice' in my workplace matter, but I am still here to speak about it and support others who want to reach out for support.

Best regards,

A30_737_AEWC (https://www.pprune.org/members/373851-a30_737_aewc)
Wow. Good read!

[Sunfish]

A30, you mirror my experience of RAAF ‘Officers”, with of course notable exceptions.

Your post also explains one of the sources of Glen’s and the industry’s problems.

[Global Aviator]

Ex Airforce to civil aviation can certainly bring some interesting characters, I think I’ll leave it at that.

[A30_737_AEWC]

A30, you mirror my experience of RAAF ‘Officers”, with of course notable exceptions.

Your post also explains one of the sources of Glen’s and the industry’s problems.

Yes, of course there are some notable exceptions, Sunfish. I've encountered a few, but in the minority, who are exemplary as engineering practitioners. They are also of the kind that aren't awarded Australian honours for simply taking a paypacket every fortnight and turning up to work.

[glenb]

I have attached Stage One of the Ombudsman Report, for those that are following this story. This is only the tip of the iceberg but it appears to be a good start. Keen on any thoughts, feedback etc

[Lead Balloon]

The contents of Commonwealth Ombudsman’s reports are of no legal consequence.

[A30_737_AEWC]

The contents of Commonwealth Ombudsman’s reports are of no legal consequence.

That may well be so, however, we've had in the public forum this past week, the case of a former High Court judge and the matter of a number of his associates whose complaints regarding their former boss' behaviour towards them was found to be credible subject to the review of an individual independent of the Court, but instigated by the High Court itself.

The former High Court judge's legal counsel effectively made the same point as you have Lead Balloon, but that of itself doesn't mean that the complainants' complaints are not necessarily invalid, just that they have not been tested by the usual processes of evidence and cross-examination and judgement afford by a court of law.

[Lead Balloon]

True.

But the general public doesn’t give a tinker’s cuss about Glen’s circumstances. Glen’s circumstances have not and will never get the media coverage that allegations of tawdry behaviour against a retired High Court judge will get.

Glen gets the joy of slogging in completely the opposite direction to that in which the retired High Court judge is now slogging. Glen is slogging to show that the circumstances entitle him to legal redress. The retired High Court judge is slogging to show that the circumstances are ‘move on, nothing to see here’.

The Ombudsman’s views are interesting but ultimately unhelpful to Glen’s effort.

[A30_737_AEWC]

Yes LB,

That's the unfortunate truth.

[glenb]

I am advised by my Lawyer, that CASA has made a financial offer to settle this matter. I will meet with my Lawyer at the soonest opportunity. You have my assurance that I will post that offer up on this forum. I would then be very keen to solicit feedback.

Cheers. Glen

[Jetman346]

I am advised by my Lawyer, that CASA has made a financial offer to settle this matter. I will meet with my Lawyer at the soonest opportunity. You have my assurance that I will post that offer up on this forum. I would then be very keen to solicit feedback.

Cheers. Glen
Good luck glen hopefully over for you soon

Wayne

[The Bullwinkle]

I am advised by my Lawyer, that CASA has made a financial offer to settle this matter. I will meet with my Lawyer at the soonest opportunity. You have my assurance that I will post that offer up on this forum. I would then be very keen to solicit feedback.

Cheers. Glen
Hi Glen,
I certainly hope that any offer they make compensates you fully for the turmoil that they have put you and your family through.
You are an absolute inspiration and I admire the way that you've taken on this fight and the way that you have handled yourself throughout, a true professional.
I only know you by reputation but from what I do know, Australian aviation absolutely needs people like you!
All the best for a good outcome.

[Bend alot]

I am advised by my Lawyer, that CASA has made a financial offer to settle this matter. I will meet with my Lawyer at the soonest opportunity. You have my assurance that I will post that offer up on this forum. I would then be very keen to solicit feedback.

Cheers. Glen
I expect they will wish to shut your voice with the offer via non-disclosure settlement.

I bribe in any other term to prevent the truth ever getting told, paid for by the Tax Payer.

[Bodie1]

Glen, got my fingers crossed for you mate.

[Petropavlovsk]

There WILL be very strict Non disclosure clauses in any settlement.

Not withstanding;

Glen.. is this a settlement for liable in comments made? or is this a settlement in TOTAL for Loss of income, potential income etc, loss of business and future opertunities?

Best wishes!

[vne165]

Yay! Best news for ages, good luck Glen.
Call their bluff perhaps?

[Sunfish]

Glen, shut up. Just tell us if the result is satisfactory.

[Asturias56]

Glen, shut up. Just tell us if the result is satisfactory.
Well until you've spent the money! Good luck Glen - we're all with you........................ :ok:

[Mr Approach]

Glen -I signed one when I had a payout from another federal government agency. The non-disclosure was very strict and I tried to abide by it.

This did not stop employees of the agency trying to stop my appointment when I found another job, fortunately my new manager trusted them as much as I did so their "advice" was rejected.

Reason - they have the money to take you to court if you disclose - they also have the money to fight you to death in court if you try to sue them for disclosure.

[Andy_G]

Well I'm suprised somewhat, but good to hear there is somekind of forward movement at present.
Still wont replace where this fellow had wanted to take his business(or the local flight training industry), but hey, better than a kick in the pants.
Not sure about posting that offer here though.

[Stickshift3000]

The NDA will most likely not permit you to share the terms of the offer with anyone, especially on a public forum.

Hoping the offer is acceptable to you Glen.

[LexAir]

The first offer will be insulting. Hold your ground for a decent offer Glen and all the best!

[Mumbai Merlin]

I think there may be TWO issues at stake here...

(1) Is the settlement relating only to those comments referred to by Glen's lawyer writing to CASA (post #1047) ?

(2) Is the settlement a TOTAL payout for the damage to Glen's reputation, loss of business, future earnings, growth of business ?

[Sunfish]

If it was me, I’d be asking for a written apology as well. That would be public.

[A30_737_AEWC]

The fact that the defendant to an action seeks to make an offer of a financial settlement without the matter going before an arbitrator or magistrate is reason enough to know that the defendant doesn't wish to have their actions examined by such and potentially finding evidence of its actions on the public record.

[zanthrus]

They are ****scared. The know that they will lose. Take em to court for all you can. Get your compensation for everything and shame them in public. Bastards!

[machtuk]

Whilst a sizeable figure should be paid it's the addmition that they where corrupt in their dealings that is priceless! Not only for Glen but the whole of the aviation community! You would think this disgraceful situation was happening in Columbia instead of corruot Australia!

[glenb]

I have been advised of the suggested payment to finalize this matter.

On this matter, it only relates to the reputational damage caused to me and includes the direction by CASA that my continuing employment was untenable in light of the comments I was making publiclyi.e. on PPRune as that is the ONLY place I post about this.

CASA has offered significantly less than $10,000 I am advised. (significantly less!). Being the somewhat thick-skinned fella that I am, I shrug it off. It only completely confirms my belief that CASA is not demonstrating any "good intent" whatsoever.

I have the Ombudsmans investigation continuing, and am confident that will demonstrate the unsafe culture that exists within CASA. in the interim. I will publish a letter that i have sent to the Deputy Prime Minister some time ago and anxiously await his response
18/05/2020

To: The Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Mr Michael McCormack.

In this correspondence, I am writing to you in your role as the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, and Regional Development. In that portfolio, you have responsibility for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the safety of aviation in Australia,

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

Drawing on 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry, I am well qualified to make the statements that follow:

I fully stand behind everything I say. I am fully accountable for these comments in law. They are not intended to be vindictive or vexatious.

I am drawing your attention to a small group of CASA personnel, whose deliberate and considered actions and decisions negatively impact aviation safety.

I intend to name the personnel, but prior to that I will outline my considerations in doing so.

· I am naming them, as this is primarily a matter of aviation safety in Australia.

· I make no assertions about them outside of their conduct within the workplace, and they may well be good citizens of the wider community. I am only addressing their conduct in the workplace while exercising their power as CASA employees.

· I am naming them to protect the reputation of the vast majority of CASA employees who act professionally, and the reputation of CASA. The allegations are against a small number of the CASA Executive, and not the wider organisation.

· I have written to the Board of CASA on multiple occasions over a period of 6 months raising concerns of good governance. That correspondence was completely ignored. I have reasonable concerns that elements of the Board may be trying to “cover up” this matter, and from my personal experience that is my firm belief. I have been assured by Mr Mathews, the Chair of the CASA Board that you are aware of these allegations, nevertheless I feel it best to have it documented.

· I am endeavouring to minimise any further harm to my reputation and welfare, and that of other affected individual's and businesses.

Every statement I make can be well supported with documentary evidence, and that is the purpose of this correspondence. I am seeking a meeting with yourself or your nominee to submit my supporting evidence. I anticipate that would take approximately 90 minutes. I feel this would be the most efficient and effective use of resources for your Department. I would welcome any CASA representatives at any meeting you are able to facilitate. I am able to attend that meeting alone or with other industry participants that share these views, and have been impacted by unlawful, unfair and unjust conduct by these individuals.

It is important to point out that the first three named individuals have had similar allegations bought against them previously by Mr. Bruce Rhoades. Unfortunately, Mr. Rhoades passed away from aggressive cancer prior to being able to fully prosecute his case. It was however the subject of an ABC program. I had the opportunity to speak to Mr. Bruce Rhoades prior to his death, and his allegations were concerningly similar to my own.

I am alleging that the following four CASA Personnel:

1. Mr. Graeme Crawford- CASA Executive Manager- Aviation Group

2. Mr. Jonathan Aleck- CASA Executive Manager- Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.

3. Mr. Craig Martin- CASA Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance

4. Mr Jason McHeyzer- CASA Region Manager Southern Region.

have.

· Made deliberate decisions, and have taken actions that do less than, maintain or improve aviation safety. In fact those actions and decisions degrade the safety of aviation.

· Have not acted in accordance with the Ministers Statement of Expectations to CASA.

· Breached obligations placed on them by the APS Code of conduct including specifically that they;

1. Have not behaved with honesty and integrity in connection with their employment.

2. Have not acted with care and diligence in connection with their employment.

3. Have acted to bully and intimidate.

4. They have not complied with legal obligations placed upon them.

5. They have not used Commonwealth resources in a proper manner or for a proper purpose.

6. They have provided false and misleading information.

7. They have caused detriment to several businesses, the loss of many millions of dollars investment in the aviation sector, and deprived a number of persons of their ability to derive a livelihood.

· Breached the requirements of Administrative law, Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice.

· Have breached CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy.

· Have breached obligations placed on them by the PGPA Act.

· Have knowingly and deliberately breached, clearly stipulated procedures in CASAs procedural manuals.

· Have breached obligations placed on them in Administrative Law.

· Have not behaved with honesty and integrity.

The affected Parties are aware that there is an option to pursue legal action, but that is not our preferred option. That would involve costly and protracted processes. That places an unfair burden on the parties bringing your attention to these serious allegations and should be entirely unnecessary, provided you are willing to facilitate the requested meeting.

Saying that, I must draw your attention to the fact that three legal firms have been extensively consulted, with each of them specialising in their respective fields. Legal advice suggests that there is a valid basis for a claim should the decision be made to proceed. The first of those three legal cases will commence shortly. One of the three cases will be a class action.

I have requested that the issuing of legal processes be held off until week commencing 25/05/20, in the hope that you feel you are compelled to act.

I give you my personal assurance, that should you choose not to assist in a resolution, that legal action will commence, as my options will be exhausted. I am fully satisfied that there is a deliberate attempt by CASA to “cover up” this matter,

You are aware that the action CASA took was not based on any safety concerns.

The Australian people deserve a Government that will act with integrity and in the best interests of the people that they serve. The opportunity to perform in the role of a Minister in the Australian Government is an honour, and it comes with an expectation that you will act at all times, to the highest standards of probity. By conforming to those obligations, you will maintain the trust of the Australian public.

In your role as the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, you have been entrusted with considerable privilege and wide discretionary power. There is an expectation that when acting in that role, you will act with due regard for integrity, fairness, accountability and responsibility, and in the public interest. As the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development you are accountable and responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)

You have obligations placed on you to ensure that public servants are deployed only for appropriate public purposes.

You have obligations to ensure that reasonable measures are put in place within your area of responsibility to discourage and prevent corrupt conduct by officials.

I respectfully request that you give this correspondence the attention that it deserves, and provide me with the opportunity to present the evidence to you, or your trusted nominee at the earliest opportunity.

Respectfully,

Glen Buckley.

[Petropavlovsk]

Something wrong in Canberra!

I would have thought nothing less than $10,000,000 would have been a satisfactory figure.

[vne165]

Stay the course Glen, good luck.

[Vref+5]

Glen, clear your inbox

[glenb]

Dear Vref,

I have deleted some messages from my "inbox" so please feel free to re-launch your message, cheers. Glen

[The Bullwinkle]

Looks like you’ve taken another scalp!
Apparently Shane Carmody has fallen on his sword!

https://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/carmody-to-leave-casa-at-year-end

[Lead Balloon]

Mr Carmody’s six figure pension, followed by the occasional short-term inquiry appointment, will probably take the sting out of being scalped and falling on a sword. (Well done with the metaphors, The Bullwinkle.)

Only one question is important: Who’s his replacement?

[Global Aviator]

Well done mate, despite what they will have you believe a clear admission of guilt.

Oh one day I’ll share my story, nowhere near as bad as yours but if I knew what I did now........

I know you need money and these people know that, I am sure you will not be low balled.

[glenb]

Dear Mr. Jonathan Hanton, CASA industry Complaints Commissioner and Mr. Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs.

Please note that I have included the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. McCormack in this correspondence in the hope that he will establish contact with CASA and require CASA that they act with integrity in their dealings with all parties, and most especially the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

I have also included the CASA Board in this correspondence as they are responsible for the good governance of CASA, and most especially, Mr Anthony Mathews in his role as the Chairperson of the Board of CASA.

Under Australian administrative law, persons affected or aggrieved by a decision may be able to apply to the decision-maker, being CASA, for a formal Statement of Reasons. A Statement of Reasons is available if the decision in question could be appealed to either the AAT155 or the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act)156 and can be obtained by requesting the Statement of Reasons in writing. While not an avenue of appeal as such, obtaining a Statement of Reasons can assist a person aggrieved by a decision to assess whether they have a case worth appealing, by fully explaining the reasons for a decision and the findings of fact and evidence considered by the decision-maker. The Administrative Review Council has identified a number of benefits flowing from formal use of Statements of Reasons, namely they: – provide fairness by enabling decisions to be properly explained and defended – assist the person affected to decide whether to exercise rights of appeal or review – improve the quality of decision making – promote public confidence in the administrative process – assist tribunals and courts to better perform an administrative or judicial review.

With that knowledge, I would like to make a formal request for a Statement of Reasons regarding CASAs' use of the Aviation Ruling and the concept of franchised AOCs.

As you are aware many flying schools throughout Australia operated under a "franchised AOC system", and this was done with CASAs' full knowledge and consent. If CASA refutes that they permitted flying schools to operate under a franchised AOC, could I request that you specifically state that in your response, and include the Ombudsmans office in that response. To support my claim, I would point out that the XXXXXXXXX was one such example, and that had been operating under the AOC of XXXXXXXXXXX. Similarly, and again with CASAs full knowledge and consent a flying school called XXXXX had been operating under the AOC of my own business, Melbourne Flight Training.

There are many more examples of this throughout Australia and I can provide further details if required. In the context of this correspondence, I will use only those two examples only, as they are pertinent to my case. For CASA to advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office that the Aviation Ruling applied to flying schools is both dishonest and misleading, and I implore you in your dealings with the Commonwealth Ombudsman to act with integrity and not to mislead him. This will assist in him arriving at a correct and fair determination. As you will appreciate he is dealing with a highly complicated matter. Honesty, good intention, and truthfulness will make his task significantly easier, and provide fairness to all parties.

Regarding this particular request can I have an explanation as to why CASA permitted XXXXXXXXX to operate under a franchised AOC with XXXXXXX, but when XXXXXXXXXX was concerned about their existing arrangement with XXXXXXXX and elected to operate under an arrangement with my business APTA, that was not permitted by CASA.

For clarity

CASA did permit many flying schools to operate under a franchised AOC system and continued to do so, even after they rejected my application. This practice had been in place throughout my 25 years of involvement in the industry.

If CASA has advised the Ombudsman's Office that in fact, the Aviation Ruling prohibited that arrangement then that is quite simply, not the truth and CASA has deliberately misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office. I request that CASA establish contact with the Ombudsman's Office and clarify that in fact, CASA has permitted flying schools to operate under a franchised AOC for more than a decade after the Aviation Ruling was issued. As you will be aware the Aviation Ruling was intended for a completely different industry sector and was written for the Charter sector, and not for the Flying Training sector.

On the introduction of the Aviation, Ruling CASA established contact with flying schools and notified them that the Aviation Ruling applied to the Charter sector only. I have verified this with a number of flying schools, and that is their recollection also. They have offered to provide a Statutory Declaration to that effect if required, or if CASA refutes that statement.

I am extremely concerned that CASA is deliberately misleading the Ombudsman's office to achieve their desired outcome.

I look forward to receiving a statement of reason that clearly and concisely outlines why CASA permitted other Flight Training Organisations to operate under a franchised AOC but not APTA.

Thanking you in anticipation of a well intentioned and truthful response.

Sincerely, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

19/07/20

Dear Mr. Jason McHeyzer,

I have included the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Michael McCormack in on this correspondence, and am requesting that his Office advise me of receipt of that correspondence.

I have also forwarded this to Colin McLachlan the CASA Board Secretariat and ask that he distribute it to each individual that serves on the Board of CASA, as they are responsible for the good governance of CASA.

As you are aware you sent a direction to my Employer that my position was "untenable based on comments that I was making publicly". I have had a phone conversation with the Commonwealth Ombudsman today, and as you are aware his investigation is continuing into this matter. I am advised by the Ombudsman that his investigation into the matter does not prevent me from pursuing this matter with CASA.

In this correspondence, I am referring to your direction to my Employer that my position as a CASA approved Head of Operations was untenable based on comments that I was making publicly. As you are aware I do not feel your direction was lawful. Furthermore, it has bought significant reputational, financial, and emotional damage to me. After 25 years in the aviation industry, I have now been forced to leave the industry that meant so much to me.

I had served as a CASA approved Head of Operations for a period of 15 years, and during that entire period had demonstrated industry-leading standards of safety and regulatory compliance. My understanding is that your direction was not based on matters of safety or regulatory compliance. If my understanding is not correct could I ask that you specifically identify that in your response? You effectively directed that my employment as a CASA approved Head of Operations be terminated. I am considering pursuing legal action against you in your role as a CASA Region Manager- Southern Region, as compensation for harm caused to me and my family.

Under Australian administrative law, persons affected or aggrieved by a decision may be able to apply to the decision-maker, being CASA, for a formal Statement of Reasons. A Statement of Reasons is available if the decision in question could be appealed to either the AAT155 or the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act)156 and can be obtained by requesting the Statement of Reasons in writing. While not an avenue of appeal as such, obtaining a Statement of Reasons can assist a person aggrieved by a decision to assess whether they have a case worth appealing, by fully explaining the reasons for a decision and the findings of fact and evidence considered by the decision-maker. The Administrative Review Council has identified a number of benefits flowing from formal use of Statements of Reasons, namely they: – provide fairness by enabling decisions to be properly explained and defended – assist the person affected to decide whether to exercise rights of appeal or review – improve the quality of decision making – promote public confidence in the administrative process – assist tribunals and courts to better perform an administrative or judicial review.


CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy can be accessed via the attached link https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/our-regulatory-philosophy
CASA makes commitments to Industry in this Regulatory Philosophy, and your conduct has breached multiple commitments given to industry in that Regulatory Philosophy.

As you were aware the ramifications of your direction have caused enormous financial and emotional distress to me and my family. I am looking at options available to me to initiate legal action against you based on that direction you made to my Employer, as I do not believe that you have the authority to make such directions to an Employer. An explanation from you will assist me in determining options available to me.

The purpose of this correspondence is to seek an explanation from you by requesting this "Statement of Reasons".

When you sent that direction to my Employer can you specifically identify if that direction was made on the basis of any matters that relate to Aviation Safety.

Can I also ask you to clarify if that direction was sent on the basis of any regulatory breaches?

My understanding is that your direction was not made on the basis of safety concerns or regulatory breaches. Therefore can I ask you to identify the specific comments that I made that compelled you to decide that my continuing employment was untenable? To the best of my knowledge, the only public comments that I made were on the pilot's forum PPRune. Could you identify the specific post that offended you, or caused you to send that direction? If it was not the Pprune forum comments then could you identify which comments and where they were posted. I have attached the link to the Pilots Forum to provide you the ease of access. https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa.html


I am also asking you to explain the reasons that you felt the appropriate course of action was to contact my Employer rather than contact me directly.

Could I also ask you to identify if you considered any other course of action, or did you feel that direction was appropriate and proportionate?

Thanking you in anticipation of your prompt response.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley.

[Bend alot]

In the hope CAsA follow your link Glen.

Jason McHeyzer is NOT the only CAsA employee that abuses their positions in CAsA.

There is a concerning number of them!

[Lead Balloon]

Hi Glen

I’ve been a bit busy, so sorry I haven’t responded sooner.

In order for you to be entitled to reasons for decision under s 13 of the ADJR Act (or s 28 of the AAT Act), there has to be a decision to which one of those sections applies. For example, if you have applied for but have been refused a certificate or licence or approval etc that CASA can grant you, you generally have a statutory entitlement to reasons for that decision.

As I’ve tried to explain before, a decision by someone in CASA to interpret the rules differently from someone else in CASA does not seem to me to be that kind of decision. It is, of course, a decision that can have disastrous practical consequences for people who’ve relied on one interpretation over the other, but that does not make the decision, of itself, an administrative decision to which the statutory reasons obligation applies. There are other potential causes of action in those circumstances.

So far as I can tell from your posts, you’ve just been ‘driven into the ground’ by CASA by a change in regulatory approach. You haven’t applied to CASA for something that CASA has refused to give you. If I were in your shoes, I’d be focussing my energy on matters other than reasons for decision. (That is unless you now want to apply for what you need to continue your flying training activities in the way you did before, or a lawyer with professional indemnity insurance has advised you that you are entitled to reasons in the circumstances, or a potentially futile request for reasons is an avenue that is therapeutic for you.)

As always: More power to your arm and I hope you get adequate compensation for what you have been and are being put through.

[glenb]

Dear Lead Balloon,
Great to have you back. Thank you!

On advice from here, I have familiarised myself with the ADJR Act. An interesting document, and it has made me change tact somewhat. In a previous post, I attached Stage One of the Ombudsman's report and had the opportunity for a follow-up telephone call. Clearly, Mr. Jonathan Aleck, CASAs Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory services will have a different perspective but i am assured by the Ombudsman that his determination is the significantly more substantive one. That indicates that CASA had no basis on which to reverse the approval. I would appreciate any valued feedback on that if you interpret it differently.

I do have legal firms looking at different aspects. I am awaiting the Ombudsman's determination from the latter stages of the investigation before finalizing my next course of action on this particular matter.

On the defamation case, I have advised the legal firm that the paltry and somewhat insulting offer is so far off the mark, that I cannot accept it. I will await the Ombudsman's report into Jason McHeyzers direction before proceeding, in the hope that further "ammunition" is provided.

I am now reviewing the "Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA Scheme) and also an Act of Grace payment. I hope to have correspondence on that matter finalized today, and will post that on here for feedback prior to submission.

I have an upcoming meeting with a legal firm that has expertise in such matters. I continue to do much of the legwork myself in an attempt to make my shots count and ensure that my funds from Gofundme go as far as possible.

I have had meetings regarding litigation funding, and am confident I will have a number of options available to me.

It's great to have you back, I was concerned that my posts may have become somewhat tedious and you were no longer following. Thanks for reaching out again. My battle will continue not only for me and my family but for the many other people also affected by this matter. Cheers. Glen

As a post note, i must say I am quite surprised by the CASA Boards' reluctance, and most particularly Mr. Anthony Mathews as the Chair of the CASA Board, to demonstrate any intent whatsoever to ensure the good governance of CASA. Aviation safety cannot possibly be enhanced by such poor stewardship. I can only hope that the departure of Mr Carmody coincides with a CASA Board changeover to enhance both aviation safety, good intent, ethics, and a commitment to a robust GA sector in what will be challenging times ahead for all.

Safe travels to you all, cheers. Glen and again, thankyou to you all.

[glenb]

I have attached a copy of the CASAs letter of offer for those that are interested. Cheers. Glen

[glenb]

24/07/2020

Dear Mr Craig Martin,

Under Australian administrative law, persons affected or aggrieved by a decision may be able to apply to the decision-maker, being CASA, for a formal Statement of Reasons.

A Statement of Reasons is available if the decision in question could be appealed to either the AAT155 or the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act)156 and can be obtained by requesting the Statement of Reasons in writing.

While not an avenue of appeal as such, obtaining a Statement of Reasons can assist a person aggrieved by a decision to assess whether they have a case worth appealing, by fully explaining the reasons for a decision and the findings of fact and evidence considered by the decision-maker.

The Administrative Review Council has identified a number of benefits flowing from formal use of Statements of Reasons, namely they: – provide fairness by enabling decisions to be properly explained and defended – assist the person affected to decide whether to exercise rights of appeal or review – improve the quality of decision making – promote public confidence in the administrative process – assist tribunals and courts to better perform an administrative or judicial review.

In your role as CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance you made a decision/directive that I am seeking a Statement of Reasons to help me understand the lawfulness of that decision/directive.

As you are fully aware i operated a business operating in the flight training sector. You advised me that all employees had to draw their salary from the one Entity. For clarity, I operated a business called APTA which was the Authorisation Holder with the CASA Part 141 and Part 142 approvals that authorised me to deliver flight training, and under that authorisation i operated a flying school called Melbourne Flight Training (MFT).

CASA placed restrictions on APTAs ability to trade over a period of 8 months. As I advised CASA in writing on 10 occasions those restrictions on the businesses ability to trade would cost me in excess of $10,000 per week, as they did throughout the 8 months. Finally after 8 months the position of that business became untenable and APTA was sold for a fraction of its value to another Party.

You then directed that my flying school, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT), which I had retained, had to transfer its staff to the new owners of APTA.

I am not aware of any legislation that supports your contention. I complied with your direction, and reluctantly transferred my staff to the new owners of APTA. That obviously resulted in the failure of my second business, Melbourne Flight Training, as it no longer had any staff. With the transfer of the staff, obviously the students undertaking training were also transferred, and MFT was denied any revenue. This caused enormous harm to me as my second business had been decimated, as it was denied its revenue streams.

Unfortunately that business, MFT, had continuing obligations to Suppliers which were not transferred, as understandably the new owners of APTA elected to take the revenue, but not the expenses. It also left me with obligations to staff by way of annual leave, redundancy payments etc that i was unable to meet.

The ramifications of your decision has impacted me, and my family but of equal importance it has impacted on many of my past valued and professional employees.

I do not believe that CASA has made this direction to any other aviation business, and that I was specifically targeted. There can be no doubt that many businesses utilise staff that do not draw their salary directly from the Authorisation Holder.

So can you please direct me to any legislation that supports your determination. I am trying to ascertain if i am dealing with legislative requirements or if i am dealing with opinion masquerading as policy, which is what i believe.

Could you please provide a statement of reasons supporting your directive that my staff had to be transferred to another entity.

I hope you will act with good intention and fulfill my request at your soonest opportunity.

Please note that I have included Mr Buss from the Ombudsman's office in this correspondence, the Deputy Prime Minister's Office, and the CASA Board.

Yours respectfully, Glen Buckley

[Bodie1]

Glen, I've been through some battles in life, no doubt any of us with a few years under our belt have. But my battles pale to insignificance compared to yours. I don't know how you get through the day! Your strength of character is immense!

[glenb]

Very simple Bodie1

Trust me, I have been pushed into a very dark place over this, and lost absolutely everything. I have lost my home, my well-intentioned business of 15 years, my life savings, and my job. I have had to restart at 55 years of age with no chance of ever recovering. I can assure you that if I was a single bloke, quite simply I would have "checked out of life" about a year ago, but i have the worlds best wife and three ripper kids 100% behind me.

I mean this quite sincerely,

Empathy from people such as yourself carries far more weight and significance than you can possibly imagine. PPrune and the support and well intentioned criticism has been extremely valuable.

and i am quite convinced that if i stay the course, crooked, dishonest men of no integrity such as Mr Aleck, Mr Martin and Mr. Crawford at CASA will be held to account. I WILL get my day.

Cheers, and safe travels. All the best to you. Thankyou

[Sunfish]

The offer from CASA is derisory. I am not a lawyer but I would have thought the mitigation steps CASA allegedly took are meaningless. However I stand to be corrected. Once the defamatory statement is “out there” it can go anywhere. The five grand is also derisory.

I suspect this offer is designed to be rejected as part of a broader strategy to portray CASA activity as fair and reasonable.

I wish you all the best.

On a general note, what sane individual would invest in Australian Aviation with this example fresh in their minds? How are jobs going to be created in this industry sector? THAT is the question backbenchers should be asking the Minister.

[Bend alot]

I have attached a copy of the CASAs letter of offer for those that are interested. Cheers. Glen
Hi Glen,

That offer needs a reply.

I will match it in my total donations ($7,500) to the Gofundme page if required.

The offer to you clearly shows how CAsA is SO OUT OF TOUCH with reality.

P.S hope you and family doing well - take care mate.

[glenb]

Cheers Bendalot, and thankyou for your strong and unwaivering support. I appreciate the gesture but with the support to date from many on here, and via the GoFundMe page, i am resourced to follow this through. Sit back, relax and enjoy the ride from here on in. Cheers. Glen.

[glenb]

Dear Colin, could you please ensure this correspondence is distributed to each member of the CASA Board, hope you are traveling well, cheers. Glen

29/07/20

Dear CASA Board Members.

My name is Glen Buckley, you will be aware of who I am, and the nature of my concerns regarding the conduct of several employees of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and specifically

Mr. Jonathan Aleck in his role as CASA Executive Manager, Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs,
Mr. Graeme Crawford in his role as CASA Executive Manager, Aviation Group,
Mr. Craig Martin in his role as CASA Executive Manager, Regulatory Service, and Surveillance, and
Jason McHeyzer in his role as CASA Region Manager of the Southern Region.

You will also be aware that the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office has now completed Stage One of the investigation, and that the findings of Stage One of the investigation have clearly supported my case and indicated that CASA has acted unlawfully, unfairly and unjustly.

The impact of those actions by those CASA personnel has resulted in significant financial damage to me and significant emotional distress.

I am now in a situation where I intend to work towards a fair and reasonable resolution of this matter.

I have made repeated attempts to resolve this matter in the most cost-effective manner for CASA, but previously those personnel named above, have elected a more combative approach, that can only result in a degraded outcome.

I am now writing to the CASA Board and have included the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Michael McCormack in on this correspondence, as the CASA Board is accountable to him as the Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

The purpose of this correspondence is to seek a clear and concise determination from the CASA Board, their insurer, and the Deputy Prime Minister as to the direction that this matter will take from here on.

For clarity. Please advise if CASA is prepared to meet with me, without the need for me to engage a law firm to fairly resolve this matter.

If the CASA Board in conjunction with the Deputy Prime Ministers Department and CASAs insurer determines that they are not prepared to meet with me, then I will have no option but to engage a law firm to represent me going forward. A law firm has been briefed and is ready to take over this matter.

My hope is that CASA will act with good intent to seek the most effective resolution practical and avoid a far more costly and combative approach.

I have attached Stage One of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's findings to assist you to arrive at your determination and I look forward to a formal response representing the views of the CASA Board, the insurer, and the Deputy Prime Minister's office.

Thank you for your consideration of my request.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[Stickshift3000]

Well done Glen for your determination and persistence thus far.

[glenb]

Over 1000 posts and almost 600,000 views, its certainly a body of work. One good thing about COVID, i have plenty of free time. Im thinking about setting up the Christmas tree tomorrow in my quest for things to do!!! Did a big load of washing today, all Pyjamas. I certainly have enough clean clothes for the week now.

[Alpha Whiskey Bravo]

Glen, have your lawyer ask for 10 X their combined wages! :}

[abfabaus]

A mammoth underrtaking Glen. You're an inspiration to all. Makes me more determined to proceed with Mildura's fight

[glenb]

1st August 2018.

Dear Ms. Donna Hardman,

I am writing to you, in your position on the Board of CASA with the important, and shared responsibility for the good governance of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority

My name is Glen Buckley.

I am writing to you as your bio on the CASA website states the following attributes that I believe are highly pertinent to the allegations that I am raising against Mr. Jonathan Aleck in his role as CASA Executive Manager.

You are a graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors.
You are a Fellow of the Governance Institute of Australia.
Your bio states that you have a "deep governance experience."
You have expertise in the area of "organizational change and business transformation and organizational performance
You are a "passionate advocate for customer-centric innovation."



The purpose of this correspondence is to request either a face to face, or video conference meeting of approximately one-hour duration at some stage convenient to you, but ideally no later than the end of August.

That meeting could be either a meeting with myself only or alternatively a conference-style meeting with a number of affected Parties and a representative from an Industry group such as AOPA. I will leave that decision to you to determine the most appropriate format.

The purpose of the meeting would be to ensure that you are presented with my allegations and there supporting evidence, and not only information provided to you via Mr. Aleck who has demonstrated that he is willing to pervert an independent outcome in order to cover up his misconduct

My allegations against Mr. Aleck are substantial.

I am fully satisfied that he is misleading the Commonwealth Ombudsman in his ongoing investigation and providing information that is not truthful, and Mr. Aleck is aware that he is providing misleading information.
Mr. Aleck is responsible for clear and deliberate disregard for CASAs' own regulatory philosophy.
Mr. Aleck is making decisions that have no basis in law, and applying his opinion only, which has no justification on the basis of aviation safety.
Mr. Alecks' conduct has negatively impacted on several businesses and resulted in the loss of many millions of dollars of investment and associated loss of employment to numerous individuals whose livelihood has been impacted.
Mr. Aleck has clearly breached obligations placed on him by CASAs' own Enforcement manual.
Mr, Aleck has clearly breached obligations placed on him by the rules of Administrative law, Natural Justice, and Procedural Fairness.
Mr. Aleck's conduct has breached the Minister's own Statement of Expectations.



I am writing to you in the first instance because of your credentials, but my intention is to correspond with each Member of the CASA Board.

I am fully satisfied that in light of Mr. Aleck's conduct, his position with CASA has clearly become untenable, and that conduct requires a full and well-intentioned investigation by the Board of CASA.

Please note that I have included the Deputy Prime Minister in this correspondence as I believe that he should be aware of the allegations that I am raising against Mr. Aleck.

Whilst I can make no allegations against his character outside of the workplace, I believe that his misconduct negatively impacts aviation safety and job growth in the aviation sector which will be crucial going forward.

The allegations against Mr. Aleck are substantial and he is fully entitled to an investigation to refute my allegations.

I trust that you will facilitate my request for a meeting to ensure the good governance of CASA, in accordance with the obligations placed on you in your role.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[Sunfish]

Thems fighting words Glen!

[VH-MLE]

WTF is “customer centric innovation”??? What a load of bull****...

[Shipwreck00]

I see your battle rolls on Glenn. Hope it pays dividends. I still think back to CASA thinking it is ok to contact any of our employers suggesting that they should sack us, you in your episode with that Melbourne manager, that loke gets away with that, what sort of board or senior management group tolerates that rubbish, only CASA I guess. I see Carmody is leaving so hopefully he's replaced by someone who knows something about aviation. Can you imagine working in that place with the mentality that exists. Never had an issue with the troops, those running the place have no idea though. Changed about three years ago and has spiralled downwards since can only go up from here. Best of luck with the continued pursuit, they will never admit they could be even partly wrong.

[glenb]

Dear Mr Buckley



I refer to your email message of 2 August 2020 addressed to Ms Donna Hardman, as a member of the CASA Board.



You have made very serious allegations about the conduct of a CASA Executive Manager, without particularising your claims, and without providing any factual basis on which those claims rest other than your own convictions. You have asked for a meeting with Ms Hardman, with a view to an investigation you suggest the Board should conduct into your claims against Dr Aleck.



It is not intended that a meeting of the kind you have proposed with Ms Hardman should occur. Nor, in the absence of any evidence to warrant such action, is it the Board’s intention to mount or recommend an investigation of the kind you suggest.



If you have objective evidence to substantiate any of your allegations against Dr Aleck, beyond the information you have previously provided and the opinions you have previously expressed, you are invited to provide that evidence, in writing, to CASA.



In the absence of new, factually substantiated evidence supporting your claims, the Board has no intention of considering this matter further.



Yours sincerely



Colin McLachlan

[glenb]

Dear Colin,

Thank you for your response from the Board of CASA.

I will attend to this matter within the next 48 hours. I will do so in writing, and will clearly demonstrate that CASA is deliberately misleading the Commonwealth Ombudsman by providing information that is untruthful and would be known to be untruthful at the time of providing that information.

I will provide clear and concise evidence of my allegations and will await a response from the Board. I would ask that the Board clearly communicate the substantive nature of the allegations to the Deputy PM in accordance with the obligations placed on the Board.

For clarity, i was providing the Board the opportunity to meet with them and for the Board to act with good intention. It is extremely concerning that the Board would elect not to take advantage of the opportunity presented to them in the interests of safety, ethics, and good governance.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[Blueyonda]

Would that be the quickest response you have has so far, Glen?

[havick]

Glen, they’re being predictable and stalling.

[Sunfish]

see pm............

[glenb]

FORMAL SUBMISSION OF ALLEGATIONS THAT CASA EXECUTIVE MANAGER- LEGAL INTERNATIONAL AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, Mr. JONATAHAN ALECK IS DELIBERATELY MISLEADING THE COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN OFFICE TO MANIPULATE THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION AND PERVERT THE OUTCOME OF THAT INVESTIGATION

Submitted 06/08/20

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

Thank you for your continuing work into my complaint regarding CASAs' conduct and decisions.

My interpretation of Phase One of your investigation indicates that your concluded view is that there was an administrative deficiency. Obviously, I concur with that finding and respect the diligence with which you have attended to a difficult and complicated matter.

I note that Phase Two of your investigation continues and that it will extend over a protracted period, and I appreciate the resources that are being allocated to this project.

As part of that continuing investigation, I do request that you consider this correspondence.

Mr. Jonathan Aleck acts in the role of the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International Regulatory Affairs, and is the accountable person in CASA and the person that drove the CASA actions and decisions against me and my business. He chose to target me specifically.

It is my assertion that Mr. Aleck is deliberately misleading your office in its continuing investigation. I have attempted to resolve this matter with the CASA Board by requesting the opportunity to meet with them and put my allegations to them. The CASA Board has flatly refused to meet with me, either in person or by a video conference. I have also written to the Deputy PM, Mr. Michael McCormack but my correspondence continues to be completely ignored despite my requests for an acknowledgment of receipt.

My intent was to provide the CASA Board with the opportunity to meet their obligations to ensure good governance, improve aviation safety, and to promote the Australian owned sector of the industry. For that reason, I would like to raise those allegations with you, provide supporting information on those substantive claims, and make myself available to provide further information should you deem it appropriate.

Important background information

At no stage did I submit an application for a new AOC application. I had an existing business that had been operating with an industry-leading level of safety and compliance since its inception in 2006. For clarity, it was not a new application, it was a well-established business with an impeccable reputation, and CASA records will support that contention.

The CASA action came without any prior warning at all, and no CASA actions were based on any safety issues at all, and there were no regulatory breaches. I am fully satisfied that the CASA actions were motivated by my public criticism of CASAs failed Regulatory program referred to as Part 61/141 and 142. My criticism was based on the fact that CASA spent hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds, and the result was the enormous negative impact on many Australian owned businesses, with no safety benefit. CASA themselves have made that admission. I made a number of predictions about the regulatory impact. The passage of time vindicated my public comments in the media and that was most likely the motivation for the CASA actions i.e. they were vindictive and vexatious.

The Aviation Ruling regarding Franchised AOCs did not apply to the flight training industry and was never intended to be applied to the flight training industry. It was written for the Charter Industry and specifically the carriage of freight. This was clearly articulated to the flight training industry by CASA, by way of a series of face to face briefings by CASA personnel on its release in 2006. My organization received that briefing from CASA personnel in early 2006, and that is the clear recollection of many flight training organizations who have contacted me and validated that comment.

The truth is that the Aviation Ruling was introduced when a Melbourne based charter company was closed down by CASA and they resumed operations the next day under another AOC. As previously stated, the Aviation Ruling was never intended for the flight training industry.

The truth is that after the introduction of the Aviation Ruling, CASA continued facilitating many flight training organizations to operate under a franchised AOC system. There is ample evidence of that assertion. A company called XXXX operated under my AOC for an extended period of time.

The truth is that the XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXX had been operating under a franchised AOC system with XXXXXXX until the day before they joined APTA. It was the application to add XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXX to APTA that resulted in the complete reversal of CASA "opinion"

CASA executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance, Mr. Craig Martin was previously the CASA Regional Manager of the Eastern Region encompassing Queensland, and this practice was particularly prevalent in his own region. i.e. flying schools operating under a franchised AOC system. Mr. Craig Martin could be contacted by your office and will be unable to truthfully refute that claim.

My business at the time, APTA was in fact the first time in Australia that an organization had acted with good intent to improve safety and compliance of the franchised AOC system that had deficiencies and weaknesses that had been accepted by CASA. The truth is that CASA worked side by side with me for two years and was assessed by CASA on over 600 individual requirements, to build this safer and more robust system. i.e. APTA was designed for no other reason than to attend to the existing deficiencies in the accepted practice of franchised AOCs.

Specific Allegations against Mr. Jonathan Aleck

Mr. Aleck was fully aware that the use of franchised AOCs was accepted practice in the flight training industry, and CASA had fully sanctioned those arrangements.

Mr. Aleck applied his opinion to my business only, and chose not to apply it to other operators that were operating under a "franchised AOC."

Mr. Aleck was fully aware that I had worked with CASA for two years and invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars in achieving a safe, compliant, and well-intentioned system that was designed to attend to deficiencies in franchised AOCs.

Mr. Aleck is fully aware that in fact, APTA had the largest and most highly resourced safety department of any flying school in Australia.

Mr. Aleck is fully aware that his decisions and actions were not based on concerns regarding aviation safety.

Mr. Aleck is fully aware that there were no regulatory breaches.

Mr. Aleck is fully aware that audit results were fabricated and written up many months after an audit was conducted, and that those audit results differed entirely to the audit findings provided at the CASA mandated on-site audit exit meeting.

Mr. Aleck is fully aware that when I challenged those fabricated audit findings, CASA was unable to provide any supporting evidence of those false allegations, because they were not truthful.

Mr. Aleck has been responsible for actions and decisions that are not in accordance with obligations placed on him my

The Minister's Statement of Expectations
The CASA Enforcement Manual
Administrative Law, Natural Justice, and Procedural Fairness.
CASAs Regulatory Philosophy



Mr. Aleck is responsible for providing information to your office that is clearly not truthful and is done for the purpose of protecting his position and supporting his decisions that are unlawful, unfair, and unjust.

Mr. Aleck has led your office to believe that my business/ concept was unique and failed to identify that I was specifically targeted whilst others were permitted to operate.

Summary

Mr. Aleck has initiated similar action against many individuals and businesses resulting in many people losing their businesses, their reputations, and their livelihoods. Many of those people have contacted me in the background and offered to submit their allegations if you deem that it would assist your ongoing investigation.

I reassert that I will provide any further information that you require to support my claims.

Can I also draw your attention to an opportunity that has been provided to me by the Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), which is Australia's peak aviation body representing the aviation industry.

On Tuesday 11th August that Organisation will conduct a Facebook video conference on my matter at 7 PM. These attract a wide audience from Industry and are highly interactive. I will ensure that you are provided with a copy of that conference as it will highlight many of the challenges for the industry as a result of the way CASA chooses to conduct themselves, despite the obligations placed on them.

Respectfully and thankfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to make a Freedom of Information Request in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

Could those documents if released be sent to via my return email address.

On Wednesday 5th August, I received the correspondence below from Mr. Colin McLachlan who is the Board Secretariat for the Board of CASA.

This was in response to an email that I had sent to Ms. Donna Hardman who is a new member of the Board of CASA.

I have previously raised substantial allegations against the conduct of Mr. Jonathan Aleck who acts in the role of CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs. I am of the opinion that the Chairperson of the Board of CASA is deliberately frustrating my attempts to resolve this matter and may be complicit in thwarting my attempts to obtain a fair and transparent process.

My correspondence was specifically addressed to Ms. Hardman and my reasonable expectation was that I would receive a response from her.

I am concerned that either Mr. Anthony Mathews as the Chair of the CASA board or perhaps Mr. Aleck who the allegations were against, may have prepared that response on her behalf, and potentailly without her consent or knowledge.

I say that because it is unlikely that someone of Ms Hardmans credentials would make a decision that limits her ability to ensure the good governace of CASA.

To satisfy myself that Mr. Mathews or Mr. Aleck are not acting inappropriately, I am making an FOI request.

That request specifically relates to any correspondence between Ms. Donna Hardman, Mr. Anthony Mathews, Mr. Jonathan Aleck and Mr. Colin McLachlan that relate to that prepared response.

It would not be the role of the Board Secretariat to prepare that response without guidance from those named parties. By obtaining those related emails it will clarify the intent of the CASA actions. It will also clarify whether Mr. Jonathan Aleck had any input which I feel would be entirely unreasonable and unethical.

Furthermore, I am trying to ascertain if it was indeed a combined Board response that was arrived at collaboratively or whether it was engineered by an individual who may gain from perverting the process.

Should you deem that those documents cannot be released, may i request an automatic review of the decision. If that review will forfeit my rights to a review by the Australian Information Commissioner then do not proceed with the review, and i will approach the Australian Information Commissioner

Thank you for your consideration of my request, yours respectfully, Glen Buckley



The email from Mr Colin McLachlan is copied below."Dear Mr Buckley



I refer to your email message of 2 August 2020 addressed to Ms Donna Hardman, as a member of the CASA Board.



You have made very serious allegations about the conduct of a CASA Executive Manager, without particularising your claims, and without providing any factual basis on which those claims rest other than your own convictions. You have asked for a meeting with Ms Hardman, with a view to an investigation you suggest the Board should conduct into your claims against Dr Aleck.



It is not intended that a meeting of the kind you have proposed with Ms Hardman should occur. Nor, in the absence of any evidence to warrant such action, is it the Board’s intention to mount or recommend an investigation of the kind you suggest.



If you have objective evidence to substantiate any of your allegations against Dr Aleck, beyond the information you have previously provided and the opinions you have previously expressed, you are invited to provide that evidence, in writing, to CASA.



In the absence of new, factually substantiated evidence supporting your claims, the Board has no intention of considering this matter further.



Yours sincerely



Colin McLachlan"

[glenb]

Here is CASA Executive Manager Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs talking about his "outcome-based legislation". He actually produced this and manages to keep a straight face throughout, and his nose didn't even get longer. Amazing!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QPjoBXDuUk

[glenb]

To the relevant person, My name is Glen Buckley. I wish to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act. The Ombudsman's office is now conducting an inquiry into my allegations of misconduct by several CASA personnel. In this request, I am seeking access to all information and correspondence that has been provided to the Ombudsman. I am of the opinion that some personnel in CASA have provided deliberately misleading information that may impact on the integrity of his investigation. Thank you for your consideration in this matter Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

I would like to thank AOPA for providing me the opportunity to present my case by way of a Facebook live conference at 7PM on Tuesday 11th August.

In that broadcast I fully intend to expose the vindictive and vexatious behavior of certain personnel within CASA, the lack of governance provided by the Board of CASA, the cover-up that has extended right up to the Deputy PM of Australia, the clear breaches of the PGPA Act, the Minister's Statement of Expectations and CASAS flagrant disregard for Administrative law, Natural Justice, procedural fairness and its own Regulatory philiosophy.

Everything i say on that broadcast will be the truth and I am prepared to be held fully accountable for it in law.

I will be making those allegations to improve aviation safety, protect Australian businesses, and create jobs.

I hope you can participate. I will post further details here later as to how you can participate. Thanks all. Cheers. Glen

It will be damming, and I intend to name those CASA personnel that have acted inappropriately. It's important that I name them to protect the wider reputation of CASA and the many good people within the organization that work professionally for our industry.

[zanthrus]

Hi Glen,

Looking forward to a link so we may watch this either live or afterwards. Cheers!

[glenb]

To the following recipients.

The Honorable Mr. Michael McCormack, Deputy Prime Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority,.
Mr. Shane Carmody the CEO of CASA,
Mr. Graeme Crawford, CASA Executive Manager of the Aviation Group,
Mr. Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs,
Mr. Craig Martin, CASA Executive Manager, Regulatory Services and Surveillance,
Mr. Jason Mc Heyzer, CASA Region Manager of the Southern Region,
Mr. Brad Lacey, CASA Flight Operations Inspector, and
CASA Board Members.

As you may be aware, I have been offered the opportunity to participate in a Facebook live conference hosted by Australia's Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) at 7 PM tonight (Tuesday 11th August). I am appreciative of the offer presented to me by Ben Morgan from AOPA.

I have extended offers to you to participate in that conference, and I note that you have declined. This is a unique opportunity for me to present my case and protect my reputation. In that conference.

The nature of that conference and the information that I reveal will require me to name each of you and your involvement in this matter.

Everything I state will be truthful and will be in the public interest. I will make no aspersions of you regarding your general character outside of the workplace, and I intend to clarify that at the start of the conference.

I am extending the offer to you again to participate.

I fully appreciate that I am fully accountable in law for the comments that I make, and I will respect any decision made by a Court of law should my comments be found to be defamatory, vindictive, or vexatious.

It is my opinion and that of many in Industry that a dangerous culture exists within CASA. That dangerous culture negatively impacts on Australia's aviation safety, it causes enormous harm to many Australian owned small businesses and leads to a loss of jobs within the sector, which I intend to clearly demonstrate tonight.

The conduct of each of you also brings damage to the reputation of CASA as Australia's safety regulators and the many well-intentioned personnel that work professionally within the Organisation.

For clarity: Your conduct is unlawful, unfair, and unjust.

Stage One of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's investigation has indicated that your actions have no basis in law, and by the time the full investigation by that office is completed, further evidence of misconduct will be demonstrated.

You have not acted with good intention or integrity, and none of your actions are based on aviation safety. That cannot be refuted. I am fully satisfied that you are complicit in attempting to cover up this matter. I have tried repeatedly to resolve this matter but I am fully satisfied that there is no intent to act with ethics or resolve this matter, and you have left me no option.

I hope that you will reconsider your involvement in the conference to ensure a fair and transparent process.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[Paul O'Rourke]

Not being a big social media user, will this feed show up on the AOPA Facebook timeline at near to 7PM?

[Mumbai Merlin]

Unreliable and poor bandwidth at that time of day makes a video almost impossible in PNG.
Expats will be watching, indeed many have posted on this forum.

Would someone be good enough to record the "live chat" and post here later on, please ... thank you!

[A30_737_AEWC]

Here's the YouTube link where the live AOPA event is to be broadcast:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvf-Piw7WBs&fbclid=IwAR1UO-ejoSWXKIszeHs-15GDilWkMqTingLsbfdgOURf4WlhCf00PwznlD4

I notice that recent streamed AOPA events are available to watch.

[glenb]

Thanks to those that have posted on how to join the Facebook link tonight. Ive never done one of these before, and will be trying to get on from about 6.30. My kids will be around and should be able to assist me.

Im about to give myself a haircut so im looking sharp. Trying to get rid of the excessive silver hair (pilots hair goes silvernot grey.(, as you all know

If you have ever had to try and cut your own hair with an electric shaver, its quite a challenge. I can blame the baldheaded alcoholic that decided hairdressers cant remain open, yet bottle shops can in Melbourne for that one.

Feel free to let me know if i missed some spots. Cheers. Glen

[glenb]

Just got some interesting information from within CASA!

Craig Martin Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance is no longer in that position. Currently still at CASA but with no official title. It would be impossible to promote him based on his conduct, so lets hope he is out the door. If so that would be one big step forward for safety, jobs and Australian business, and more importantly organisational ethics.

He is one bad asss, and was the man responsible for destroying many peoples lives, including Bruce Rhoades who tragically passed away from Cancer before he could vindicate his reputation. Carmody soon to leave as well. Only Aleck and Crawford to go, and CASA may become a better work environment for the well intentioned CASA employees that work so professionally.

Still needs a board revamp which apperas to be underway as we speak, with two new members replacing some recent departures. Once Mr Mathews vacates his position as Chair of the Board, real progress will begin.

Might head down to Dan Murphys bottle shop and buy a bottle of Casa Santos to celebrate the occasion

[Stickshift3000]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/200x200/tenor_9e6d03ccf57779b590d5b613f8fe7c1b250a1d2d.gif

[vne165]

:ok: Go Glen!

[vne165]

Bravo, well spoken. Ben, good job.

[Paul O'Rourke]

A30 737 AEWC. Thanks for that. Great format from AOPA.:ok:

[Gulf6]

I can’t post the direct link, but the full interview is available for viewing on the AOPA Australia Facebook page.

Simply open Facebook and search ‘AOPA Australia’

[Rashid Bacon]

Let's not forget that while CASA may replace rotten apples, Glen deserves his day in court nevertheless and a financial judgement against the regulator would send a powerful message that the rules apply to everyone.

Every individual is entitled to procedural fairness when dealing with CASA. This has clearly not been demonstrated here and in other cases.

Those CASA managers who have been instrumental in the type of behaviour that we have seen evidenced here must be held accountable. I hope their is a venue that can dispense this justice.

[Bend alot]

Got a SMS from Glen - He seems pretty happy.

[glenb]

I just wanted to pass on a very heartfelt thank you to everybody that watched the AOPA Facebook live conference last night. Over 15,000 views I believe. I have been inundated with messages of support, and appreciate every one of them. Thank you again.

I was advised last night that i will be given the opportunity to present to the Senate inquiry to attend to the conduct of the CASA personnel involved in this situation. Specifically, I will address the conduct of Aleck, Martin, McHeyzer, and Crawford. It's an exceptional opportunity that has been presented to me.

I'm pretty drained at the moment with a few curve balls that have come out of left field so going to lay low for a few days but will be back to fight on and expose these people of no ethics or integrity.

Whether you have supported me via PPrune, AuntyPru, the gofund me or a text or message, i appreciate it all and wish every one of you the best.

Thankyou, Thankyou Thankyou. It really is a wonderful industry.

[Shipwreck00]

Just got some interesting information from within CASA!

Craig Martin Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance is no longer in that position. Currently still at CASA but with no official title. It would be impossible to promote him based on his conduct, so lets hope he is out the door. If so that would be one big step forward for safety, jobs and Australian business, and more importantly organisational ethics.

He is one bad asss, and was the man responsible for destroying many peoples lives, including Bruce Rhoades who tragically passed away from Cancer before he could vindicate his reputation. Carmody soon to leave as well. Only Aleck and Crawford to go, and CASA may become a better work environment for the well intentioned CASA employees that work so professionally.

Still needs a board revamp which apperas to be underway as we speak, with two new members replacing some recent departures. Once Mr Mathews vacates his position as Chair of the Board, real progress will begin.

Might head down to Dan Murphys bottle shop and buy a bottle of Casa Santos to celebrate the occasion
That information is incorrect, Mr Martin is still in the role, confirmed late today.

[Torres]

Glen

I have 50 years watching DCA, CAA and CASA and have suffered at the hands of power hungry, unaccountable, incompetence within CASA. An apology from the then Director did not compensate for the loss of a career I loved.

I guess there is always a good side, being forced out of aviation led me to a new very rewarding path which enabled me to help hundreds of young people access qualifications and a new rewarding career.

As fast as one recalcitrant "retires" from CASA, another rises to a position of maximum incompetence. The only obvious constant is the great survivor, Aleck.

The cycle won't end until CASA in it's entirety is replaced with an honest, competent, capable and accountable aviation regulator.

[glenb]

Regarding Craig Martins position,

I may stand corrected. Standby. I have written to Craig Martin and requested clarification regarding his position as Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance to confirm that is current information. He seems reluctant to respond. I will give him until the end of the day to respond to that email. On Monday I will post the name of who i believe to be the new incumbent . As Mr Martin seems reluctant to respond, i will submit a Freedom of Information request. Ridiculous really that one has to submit a Freedom of Information to request to access such highly secretive information such as the title of a CASA employee. Demonstrates the recalcitrance that one has to deal with I suppose!

[glenb]

Dear Mr. Craig Martin, and the Freedom of Information office within CASA.

I have been informed from a reliable source within CASA that you have had a change of role, and that you will not be continuing in the role of CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance.

If that information is not correct, could you please advise me.

If you have had a change of role, could you please advise me of your new job title, as I have correspondence that I wish to submit and would like to ensure that it is directed to the CASA Executive manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance.

If you have had a change of position, or are imminently about to change your position and are of the opinion that your new job title is confidential could you please advise the Freedom of Information Department within CASA, and forward this email.

To the Freedom of Information Department within CASA. My name is Glen Buckley, currently residing at 6 Susan Ct, Mount Waverley VIC 3149. I would like to make a formal request to obtain the title of Mr. Craig Martin and confirmation that there has been no change to his position, and there is no intended change to his position.

Could this information be forwarded to me by return email, and if there are any costs associated with this request, could you please generate an invoice for prompt payment.

Yours respectfully, Glen Buckley

[Epicurus]

Glen, Craig Martin is still at CASA and you are correct that he is no longer working in his ‘previous role’. His new role is TBA. The halls at sleepy hollow are bustling at the moment as the heat in the kitchen has been turned up a notch, well done good Sir. Keep it coming.

As for the two new Board members, I don’t want to dash your hopes but they are part of the ‘system’. You won’t get a listening ear or a modicum of sympathy from then. They may be new, but they have been well briefed on activities within CASA along with a rundown on any serial pests, of which you fit the mould! ( and I mean that respectfully mate!).

As has been mentioned by many, CASA deserves nothing short of a Royal Commission. It is the only channel from which the truth can be gleaned. But the Government knows what has been going on and they will never sanction that. While the Loyola lunatic remains at Fort Fumble our aviation industry remains doomed and anybody challenging the powers of CASA will be crushed.

[glenb]

Here is the link to the AOPA sponsored conference that provided an overview of my issues with CASA. It has had over 17000 views on Facebook, and i encourage you to take the time and view it if you have not. I am working towards a follow up conference that will demonstrate the breaches of law. Cheers. Glen


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvf-Piw7WBs&t=54s

[glenb]

17/08/20

To the Honorable Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Michael McCormack.

I am writing to you in your role as the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the National Party and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, the portfolio responsible for Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Please note that I have included the Board of CASA in this email and Senator Susan McDonald who is currently heading up the two-year inquiry into Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

My name is Glen Buckley and I reside at 6 Susan Court, Mount Waverley 3149.

I have written to you previously, and your Department has chosen not to respond. I am requesting that you initially acknowledge that you have received this correspondence, in the first instance, and that you will respond in detail after you have given this correspondence due consideration.

The purpose of this correspondence is to call on you to provide an opportunity for me to submit substantial allegations to your Department against the conduct of two personnel within CASA, and to call for an investigation into their conduct. A full and comprehensive investigation is required as I am making these allegations public, and the named CASA personnel are fully entitled to have their reputations protected by your Department if my claims are found to be vindictive or vexatious. The two CASA personnel that I am raising allegations against are:

Mr. Jonathan Aleck in his role as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs, and
Mr. Craig Martin in his role as the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance.


Please note that I cannot make allegations against them outside of their conduct in the workplace, and they may well be good citizens of the wider community. I refer only to their conduct in the workplace as employees of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and I do so primarily in the interests of aviation safety but also because of the significant damage that their actions have brought to so many.

It is also important that I specify the individuals, to protect the wider reputation of Australia's Safety Regulator and the many CASA employees that act professionally and sincerely towards improving aviation safety in Australia.

However, as employees of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, their conduct has resulted in the closure of several Australian Owned businesses and impacted employees that were dependent on those businesses to derive their livelihoods. I am a person that has been significantly impacted by the actions of these two individuals. I have incurred significant financial damage and damage to my health and well being. The actions of these two individuals has cost me many millions of dollars and resulted in the loss of my business, my home, my life savings, and impacted me and my family's future welfare and security.

I must point out that after inflicting such damage to me personally and losing my business, I obtained employment as an employee in the Industry, until CASA sent a directive to my Employer that my continuing employment was untenable based on "comments that I was making publicly". I was terminated instantly, was paid no entitlements that were rightfully mine, and spent 8 months unemployed. The action by these individuals has been highly disproportionate.

For clarity, their conduct has been unlawful, unfair, and unjust.

In considering this request, I encourage you to establish contact with the Chairperson of the Board of CASA who has detailed knowledge of this matter. Mr. Mathews the Chairperson of the Board of CASA will be able to confirm that the actions of these two individuals have no justification on the basis of aviation safety, and that the business I have now lost had maintained an Industry leading level of safety and compliance, and that there were no regulatory breaches.

The CASA action by these individuals was vindictive and vexatious.

In the process of these two individuals engineering their desired outcome, I am alleging that they have;

Deliberately provided misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, whose investigation continues in two stages. He has completed Stage One of the investigation and in his findings, he reported that there was indeed, "an administrative deficiency" and that it had "potential to cause detriment to those relying on the accuracy of the regime or, conversely prevent detriment from occurring". In my opinion, those substantive findings alone, compel you to provide me with the opportunity to submit my allegations to your office. If these two individuals are permitted to provide misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman in Stage Two of his investigation my concern is that it will pervert the course of justice. The named individuals have acted intentionally, their action has been sustained, and it involved significant planning and pre-meditation. Importantly, I allege that it was premeditated rather than simply an evolved process. These factors will significantly impact on the seriousness of the offense. Furthermore, I allege that the two named individuals have attempted to conceal evidence.

Deliberately provided misleading information to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner, and that has resulted in an erroneous outcome. This allegation specifically relates to the use of CASAs Temporary locations procedure. Against this allegation, I am fully confident that I have evidence that is clear and concise and cannot possibly be refuted if I am given the opportunity to submit my evidence.

Breached obligations placed on them by your own "Ministers Statement of Expectations for CASA. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00977

On this matter, I specifically refer to your following directives,

"CASA should perform its functions in accordance with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act)"
"The conduct and values of CASAs Board and Staff should be consistent with that of the Australian Public Service"
"I expect CASA to be a world-best-practice aviation safety regulator"
" I also expect the Board to facilitate effective interaction between CASA and Industry"
"I expect the Board 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"
"I expect CASA will continue its regulatory approach in accordance with its regulatory philosophy"
"operate with a consideration of the economic impact and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community"
"adopt a pragmatic, practical and proportionate approach to regulation as it applies to different industry sectors"
" undertake effective and ongoing engagement with the aviation industry to create a collaborative relationship based on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect"

Breached obligations placed on them by CASAs Regulatory Philosophy that was created as a result of the Australian Government Aviation Safety Regulation Review. https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/files/ASRR_Executive_Summary.pdf

For ease of access, please find the link to CASAs Regulatory philosophy attached https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/our-regulatory-philosophy
On this matter, I request to make a submission with well-documented evidence against breaches of Items 1,2,3.5,6,7,8,9 and 10 of that Regulatory Philosophy. I am not making any claim against Item 4 of that regulatory philosophy

Breached obligations placed on them by CASAs Enforcement Procedures Manual. I provide the link here to ensure that you have ease of access https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/enf/009rfull.pdf

On this matter, I draw your attention to obligations placed on them by the Enforcement Procedures Manual in its entirety but with your particular attention drawn to the following sections", all of which were not taken into account, and were clearly and demostrably breached

The Preface
2.4 CASAs Enforcement Policy-High Level Principles
2.4.1 Natural Justice and Accountability
2.4.2 Consistency and Flexibility
2.4.3 Impartiality
2.4.4 Responsible Exercise of Compliance and Enforcement Powers
2.4.5 Relevant considerations for regulatory decision-making
6.6.2.2 Variation, Suspension or Cancellation Under CAR 269
6.6.2.5 Variation, Suspension or Cancellation of Other Aviation Permissions
6.12 Variation Suspension and Cancellation of AOCs
6.12.2 Variation of Conditions of AOCs – No Breach of Condition Required
6.18 Refusal to Re-Issue a Civil Aviation Authorisation
Appendix 2. The Legal Basis of Regulatory Enforcement
Appendix 4. Guidance on the term ‘fit and proper person’



Breached obligations placed on them by Administrative Law, Natural Justice, and Procedural Fairness.
By Mr. Aleck and Mr. Martin choosing not to follow clearly stipulated CASA procedures, this has resulted in breaches of Administrative Law, Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness. I can provide clear and irrefutable evidence of fabricated audit results that are clearly not truthful. I can also provide evidence that these audit results were in fact written up many months after the audit, differed entirely to the original findings, and were engineered to ensure they achieved their desired outcome. i.e. to bring significant harm to me and my business, which it has done.

Breached obligations placed on them by the Public Service Act, and specifically the conduct and values of the Australian Public Service Act https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2019C00057.

On this allegation, I refer to the following obligations from the APS Code of Conduct. Whilst I understand that CASA is not normally bound by those obligations, I note that in your Ministers Statement of Expectations you have specifically identified that they must comply.

A CASA employee and CASA generally must:

Behave honestly and with integrity in connection with their employment.
Act with care and diligence in connection with their employment.
When acting in connection with their employment, must treat everyone with respect and courtesy, and without harassment.
Must use Commonwealth resources in a proper manner and for a proper purpose.
Must not provide false or misleading information in response to a request for information that is made for official purposes in connection with the employee’s APS employment.
Must not improperly use inside information or the employee’s duties, status, power, or authority to cause, or seek to cause, a detriment to the employee’s Agency, the Commonwealth, or any other person.
An employee must at all times behave in a way that upholds the integrity and good reputation of the employee’s Agency and the APS.
Be professional, objective, innovative, and efficient, and work collaboratively to achieve the best results for the Australian community and the Government.
Demonstrate leadership, be trustworthy, and act with integrity, in all that it does.
Respect all people, including their rights and their heritage.



Thank you for your consideration of my request. I would also like to provide links that may assist you in arriving at a fair decision and ensure your Department is fully aware of the support I have gathered.

Ben Morgan from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) provided the opportunity to present to an audience of over 17,0000 viewers and that can be accessed via the following link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvf-Piw7WBs&t=17s

Also over 600,000 views have been made on my forum which can be accessed here https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa.html

I would also draw your attention to the Gofundme page set up by supporters in Industry to ensure that i can achieve a fair outcome https://www.gofundme.com/f/glen-buckley-v-casa

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

17/08/20

To the relevant person within the Law Institute of Victoria,

My name is Glen Buckley and I am seeking some guidance on a Victorian based Legal Firm that will have experience or expertise in matters relating to "Negligent Misstatement".

I previously operated a business operating in the area of flight training for a period of 15 years. I depended on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for advice and guidance to continue operating that business.

Without any prior notice and not on the basis of safety or regulatory breaches, CASA "changed their mind" and placed limitations on the business's ability to trade.

Ultimately those restrictions lead to the failure of the business, and I along with a number of other businesses and individuals lost many millions of dollars of investment.

I am seeking the opportunity to meet with a legal firm with expertise in the area of negligent misstatement.


I have strong supporting evidence, and I am well prepared. I am wanting to move forward as quickly as practical to commence litigation against CASA.

Any guidance on identifying a suitable legal firm would be appreciated.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[Shipwreck00]

Glen, Craig Martin is still at CASA and you are correct that he is no longer working in his ‘previous role’. His new role is TBA. The halls at sleepy hollow are bustling at the moment as the heat in the kitchen has been turned up a notch, well done good Sir. Keep it coming.

As for the two new Board members, I don’t want to dash your hopes but they are part of the ‘system’. You won’t get a listening ear or a modicum of sympathy from then. They may be new, but they have been well briefed on activities within CASA along with a rundown on any serial pests, of which you fit the mould! ( and I mean that respectfully mate!).

As has been mentioned by many, CASA deserves nothing short of a Royal Commission. It is the only channel from which the truth can be gleaned. But the Government knows what has been going on and they will never sanction that. While the Loyola lunatic remains at Fort Fumble our aviation industry remains doomed and anybody challenging the powers of CASA will be crushed.

The information on Craig Martin is wrong. You don't need a FOI, it's public record. The change was, from looking at the casa page org chart, they took transformation and safety systems from him and allocated a seperate manager, looks like a new role.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1058x1031/screenshot_20200817_220104_samsung_internet_94c9c199f374aee1 acdb4c68a1bdc8fdd77213e5.jpg

[glenb]

If there is any doubt about the lack of integrity and effectiveness of CASA having an Industry Complaints Commissioner that is internal, compared to having an independent body such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigate matters. Here it clearly is.!!

I want to be very clear. At this stage, I have no doubt at all about the integrity of Mr. Hanton in the role of the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner. My allegation is that he is being misled, and deliberately so by members of CASAs Executive Management.

I initially submitted this complaint to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner in December of 2018, and much later to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

It is interesting to see the two very distinctive outcomes that resulted. I had fought with CASA on this matter, and finally CASA and after two months CASA admitted to me verbally that they had erred. Nevertheless, they maintained the restrictions on the business's ability to trade for a further 6 months, until the business was unable to continue.

The complaint was significant and in fact, the use of the Aviation Ruling was the trigger that CASA used to bring down my business. My submitted complaint to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner follows:


APTA REFERENCE- MATTER “F” FOXTROT
DATE OF SUBMISSION- 31/12/18
COMPLAINT LODGED BY Glen Buckley-CEO- Australian Pilot Training Alliance ARN 759217
Email (preferred contact) [email protected]
Mobile 0418772013
Address – Hangar 17, Northern Avenue, Moorabbin Airport, 3194


BACKGROUND INFORMATION

CASA initiated action against my Business on 23/10/18, and at the time of writing CASA seems some way off from resolving this matter. To date, this has cost my Business approximately $200,00 and has significantly impacted on my ability to continue operating.

I advised CASA very clearly and repeatedly throughout the process of the cost impact.

Such a substantive action would usually be due to a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety.
CASA has raised no concerns at all about Safety but drew on the Aviation Ruling to initiate this significant action.


COMPLAINT
Significant harm has been brought to me and my business as a result of CASA using the Aviation Ruling as the basis of their action, which I have repeatedly objected to and asked guidance on how I can have this “tested”.

I do not believe that the Aviation Ruling applies and have repeatedly highlighted that to CASA over the last 10 weeks.



EXPECTED OUTCOME

My understanding is that the Aviation Ruling does not have a “Head of Power”. Can CASA specifically confirm whether my understanding is correct?

The Aviation Ruling is for “CAR 206 operations”. My understanding is that Flying Training organizations were specifically removed from CAR 206 operations in September 2014. Can you confirm that: for the purposes of action against my business has CASA elected to slip it back in, or is it an “oversight” on CASAs behalf.

The Aviation Ruling refers to a Chief Pilot, and this position does not exist in a flying training environment. Can you confirm that the Chief Pilot (Charter Organisations) and Head of Operations (Flying Training) are interchangeable throughout the legislation, or is this a peculiarity to CASAs action against me only?

The Aviation Ruling was written for a completely different regulatory environment in early 2006. With the complete overhaul of legislation in September 2014, I felt that this may have become redundant. Can you confirm that it does apply?

If the Aviation Ruling does apply, why specifically has CASA turned a blind eye to it for almost 13 years and has reactivated it against my Business so aggressively?

The Aviation Ruling specifically refers to Organisations operating with an “arm's length contractual arrangement”. This is, in fact, the exact opposite of what APTA is, and highlights the confusion that exists within casa. I have highlighted this repeatedly to CASA throughout the process. Can CASA specifically state whether or not they are of the opinion that I operate with an “arms-length contractual arrangement” as opposed to a contract?

Can CASA please clearly state the link between applying the Aviation Ruling and Safety.

END OF COMPLAINT

So as a response to that complaint, how did they respond?

Here is the CASA response from the Industry Complaints Commissioner.

"Because APTA advised CASA has taken the Aviation Ruling "off the table", I continue to be of the view that there is no utility in making an assessment of issues that are no longer in contention"

In other words, CASA can make scurrilous allegations against someone over a protracted period. When the individual lodges a complaint, CASA simply takes it "off the table" and the person lodging the complaint loses their opportunity to have their complaint considered by CASAs Industry Complaints Commissioner.

Yet when the Commonwealth Ombudsman conducts an investigation he finds;

"The Ruling was not amended to reflect that legislative change from 1 September 2014, meaning that the CAR and the Ruling were no longer aligned in material ways"

"In my concluded view there was an administrative deficiency due to an absence of a direct relationship between the activity being regulated and the policy said to regulate it. That gave rise to ambiguity and uncertainty with the potential to cause detriment to those relying on the accuracy of the regime or conversely prevent detriment from occurring"

"It is my concluded view that CASA should have made a concurrent amendment to its ruling at the entry into force of the 1 September 2014 compilation of the CAR because of the practical effect of the change to those relying on the regulatory regime."

Thank goodness we have a Commonwealth Ombudsman and don't need to solely rely on CASA to act with integrity when they investigate themselves. The function and accountability of the CASA ICC process need a complete overhaul if stakeholders in this industry are to have access to a well-intentioned ICC who is determined to arrive at fair and transparent outcomes.

Later today (time permitting) i intend to post another example of the CASA internal dispute resolution process i.e. the ICC being completely flawed,

[Stickshift3000]

For there to even exist a CASA Complaints Commissioner, when the Commonwealth Ombudsman performs the exact same service (more efficiently and independantly), is a useless and wasteful resource.

There will always be a perceived, potential or actual conflict of interest while the CASA Complaints Commissioner derives their pay from CASA; I think you've proven this point Glen.

[glenb]

For added clarity

Mr Hanton consistently and repeatedly encouraged me to take my complaints to the Commonwealth Ombudsman from very early on in the process. It was me that chose not to follow his suggestion.

I felt that the CASA ICC would have more efficient access to the documents and a higher level of expertise on these matters. I felt that a more transparent finding would result. Sadly, in my opinion, it didn't.

I also thought it a fairer process if I exhausted all avenues for an internal resolution within CASA.

Mr. Hanton has been an exceptional individual to liaise with. His integrity and intention are not questioned by me at all.

My concerns are only with the CASA Executive Management who I allege have provided misleading information to him to pervert the course of justice. They are strong allegations and I do not step away from them.

Regarding Mr. Hanton, he is truly a well-intentioned gentleman and his conduct is not in any way the focus of my allegations.

Mr Hanton, i hope you read this, and i implore you to reach out and contact me if this post causes you any angst at all. You have my eternal respect, cheers. Glen

[glenb]

I still standby a change to Mr. Martins role, but what I can confirm. Jason McHeyzer the gentleman that wrote to my Employer that my "position was untenable based on comments i was making publicly" will hand in his resignation by 5PM today.

Could there finally be some accountability?

[glenb]

That is confirmed. A sound decision and I respect that.

[glenb]

There is a significant pool of talent within CASA.
Due to the Pandemic, there is also an enormous pool of aviation talent available.outside of CASA.
I hope that the Deputy PM who is responsible for CASA recognizes that fact, and takes advantage of this unique opportunity to "update" the organization with a few changes of key personnel in the CASA executive.
A very real opportunity sits before the Deputy PM. Bow to the pressure of a Royal Commission or simply instigate change and employ personnel that can deliver professionalism. The change of less than 5 staff, replaced by "new blood" may well achieve more than a Royal Commission.
Horrible time to be "resigning" though. Nota lot of aviation jobs around.

[Valdiviano]

Glenn,
I am sure that you have considered approaching 4 corners.
Please keep up the BATTLE, not for us, but for the next generation.
Best wishes

[glenb]

As this matter escalates, im sure that it will end up there or somewhere similar. I will keep dumping info on here, and eventually, there will be enough for an investigative piece. Im very confident

[glenb]

22/08/20

To the Board of CASA, comprising the following Individuals

Mr. Anthony Mathews (Chairperson), Mr. Shane Carmody (CEO of CASA), Mr. Mark Rindfleish, Mr. Michael Bridge, Ms. Donna Hardman, Ms. Elizabeth Hallet, and Ms. Marilyn Andre. In your roles, you are responsible for ensuring that CASA performs its role in a "proper, efficient, and effective manner."

You will be fully aware of the significant allegations I have bought against CASA Employees;

Mr. Jonathan Aleck CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs
Mr. Graeme Crawford, CASA Executive Manager of the Aviation Group,
Mr. Craig Martin, CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance.

The conduct of these gentlemen in my opinion has been unlawful, unfair, and unjust, and has brought enormous economic harm to me, my family, and other individuals, aeroclubs, and businesses.

I have had discussions with a number of legal firms, and I am confident that I have a valid basis for a claim against CASA on behalf of affected Parties, and it appears that case would be based around misfeasance, malfeasance and negligent misstatement

I am now at a point in this process where I need to clearly ascertain whether I proceed with my legal case or, do we arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution with a less combative approach. The latter clearly being my preferred option.

Should you choose the path of litigation, I need to be very clear that once that journey commences, the opportunity for a negotiated settlement is lost, and I will pursue my matter through to a legal determination.

The purpose of this correspondence is to seek a very clear direction from the Board of CASA, in conjunction with your insurance company being Comminsure.

The more combative approach will be the more costly, divert valuable CASA resources from primary tasks, and expose CASA to a far higher level of public scrutiny. In my opinion, it should be an unnecessary approach, but that decision now rests with the CASA Board.

As you are aware i have made repeated attempts to resolve this matter, but until this point, the Board has resolutely refused those offers. I am now calling on you to make your decision and advise me of that decision.

As the Board already has the facts in front of them, I anticipate that you should be able to arrive at a prompt and well-considered opinion.

Could you please advise me by 5 PM on Friday 4th September of the Board's decision.

In assisting you to arrive at your decision, I re-extend my offer to meet with the Board at any time prior to that date.

Yours respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Dear Alex,

Thank you for establishing contact to ascertain whether I wish to proceed with my defamation action against CASA.

Please accept this as my response; that I do wish to proceed with that litigation, noting that the person who sent that direction, CASA Region Manager Mr. XXXXX XXXXXXXX resigned from CASA last week. I'm not sure how that impacts on any case but am advising you, nevertheless. i.e. is the litigation against him as an individual, or against his employer being CASA, or possibly both.

I would also point out that this matter is also being investigated by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and I anticipate that his findings when released, will add significant weight to my case.

Regarding CASAs' previous offer, it is totally unacceptable, and I wish to proceed on the basis that any claim would have to far exceed the paltry and rather mischievous offer that CASA put forward previously. CASA has clearly demonstrated that they are not acting with good intent.

Regarding the reputational damage which also led to a period of 8 months of unemployment, it has been significant. It has extended to my reputation with peers in the industry, my past employees, work colleagues, my suppliers, neighbors, school community, and indeed my own family i.e. wife, children, parents, and siblings.

The nation's Aviation Safety Regulator, CASA, has directed that my employment was "untenable" based on comments I was making publicly. There is no safety case for that direction at all.

The reasonable assumption of many in the industry, and outside of the aviation industry is that I must have done something wrong on the basis of a safety-related matter when that is clearly not the case, and CASA will be unable to refute that statement. For clarity, CASA actions had no basis in safety, and the direction was made to my employer on "comments that I was making publicly".

I have asked CASA to identify those comments that I allegedly made, which led to the direction to terminate my employment. CASA has steadfastly refused to respond to those requests. Their action was in my opinion unlawful, unfair, and unjust.

For clarity, there is no position in the legislation for a "deputy Head of Operations". My position was the Head of Operations, and I operated as the "Alternate Head of Operations". That is to say that the position was a CASA approved position as the Head of Operations. , I was fully approved by CASA to immediately step into the role of the Head of Operations.

The CASA Enforcement Manual (link follows) outlines procedures required in Administrative Law if CASA wishes to remove me from that CASA approved position of Head of Operations. These procedures were completely ignored. https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/enf/009rfull.pdf

After having spent 25 years in the industry and earning an impeccable reputation for safety, regulatory compliance, and acting with good intention, it was destroyed in an instant with that direction from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. I was chased out of an industry that I loved and had committed my life to.

The impact has been far too disproportionate, and the ramifications substantial.

Please note that I have written to the Board of CASA and that correspondence is included at the tail end of this letter. My hope is that the Board of CASA will act with ethics to direct that this matter be resolved, although based on past experience I do not feel that they will, and for that reason, I do wish to proceed to an independent determination via the legal system.

If you think it prudent, however, and I will follow your learned advice, you may elect that one last attempt to reach out to CASA is the best way forward. I will leave it to you to determine how best to resolve this matter as efficiently and fairly as practical.

On other matters and on high-level advice, I will also be proceeding with a case of negligent misstatement/ misfeasance and malfeasance against CASA for the significant commercial damage inflicted on my business, and several other businesses and individuals as part of this process.

I have no doubt that the CASA actions were vindictive and vexatious, so I can assure you that you have an energized litigant that you will be representing.

For your information, the Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) provided an opportunity to begin telling my story, and that presentation a couple of weeks ago attracted 17,000 views and 80,000 shares. I have been presented with another opportunity on Tuesday 7th September at 7 PM, I anticipate an even larger audience for that presentation, and I will send a copy of that to you for consideration.

I look forward to guidance from you on the next step, and please find my recent correspondence to the Board of CASA, thank you for your ongoing support.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley.


"To the Board of CASA, comprising the following Individuals

Mr. Anthony Mathews (Chairperson), Mr. Shane Carmody (CEO of CASA), Mr. Mark Rindfleish, Mr. Michael Bridge, Ms. Donna Hardman, Ms. Elizabeth Hallet, and Ms. Marilyn Andre. In your roles, you are responsible for ensuring that CASA performs its role in a "proper, efficient, and effective manner."

You will be fully aware of the significant allegations I have bought against CASA Employees;

Mr. Jonathan Aleck CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs
Mr. Graeme Crawford, CASA Executive Manager of the Aviation Group,
Mr. Craig Martin, CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance.

The conduct of these gentlemen in my opinion has been unlawful, unfair, and unjust, and has brought enormous economic harm to me, my family, and other individuals, aeroclubs, and businesses.

I have had discussions with a number of legal firms, and I am confident that I have a valid basis for a claim against CASA on behalf of affected Parties, and it appears that case would be based around misfeasance, malfeasance and negligent misstatement

I am now at a point in this process where I need to clearly ascertain whether I proceed with my legal case or, do we arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution with a less combative approach. The latter clearly being my preferred option.

Should you choose the path of litigation, I need to be very clear that once that journey commences, the opportunity for a negotiated settlement is lost, and I will pursue my matter through to a legal determination.

The purpose of this correspondence is to seek a very clear direction from the Board of CASA, in conjunction with your insurance company being Comminsure.

The more combative approach will be the more costly, divert valuable CASA resources from primary tasks, and expose CASA to a far higher level of public scrutiny. In my opinion, it should be an unnecessary approach, but that decision now rests with the CASA Board.

As you are aware I have made repeated attempts to resolve this matter, but until this point, the Board has resolutely refused those offers. I am now calling on you to make your decision and advise me of that decision.

As the Board already has the facts in front of them, I anticipate that you should be able to arrive at a prompt and well-considered opinion.

Could you please advise me by 5 PM on Friday 4th September of the Board's decision.

In assisting you to arrive at your decision, I re-extend my offer to meet with the Board at any time prior to that date.

Yours respectfully, Glen Buckley









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

[glenb]

To every one of you that is involved in aviation anyway, whether that be as a pilot, a maintenance person, a business owner, student, etc.

If you are a well-intentioned CASA employee who believes the Authority is not operating to the highest standards of ethics, integrity, and professionalism.

If you are a law firm that would potentially be able to handle litigation against CASA on the basis of negligent misstatement/malfeasance/misfeasance, and on behalf of a number of affected Parties.

If you are an investigative journalist able to develop an appropriate story.

If you are a politician prepared to act with ethics.

The Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) recently provided an opportunity to present my situation via a Facebook live conference. It was viewed 17,000 times and shared 80,000 times.

AOPA has presented me with a further opportunity at 7 PM on Tuesday 8th September.

I intend to use that 90-minute presentation as my submission to the current Senate Inquiry into CASA.

In that Submission, I intend to make substantive allegations that will be well supported. Those allegations will be against three of the CASA Executive Management, and most specifically Mr. Crawford, Mr. Aleck, and Mr. Martin.

If my allegations can be substantiated, these personnel will no longer be able to remain in the employ of CASA.

If my claims are found to be false, vindictive, or vexatious, I could face a term of imprisonment. Whilst I am confident that will not be the case, my decision is a well-considered one.

The misconduct by these personnel has negatively impacted on aviation safety, it has caused the closure of several businesses, and an associated loss of jobs.

Their conduct has been unlawful, unfair, and unjust.

I am compelled to name them as this is a matter of aviation safety. Furthermore, I do not want to harm the wider reputation of CASA and the many well-intentioned and professional employees who work within CASA.

I hope that you can spread this correspondence to anyone in the aviation industry, as I record my Submission via AOPAs Facebook live conference at 7 PM Tuesday 8th September.

[flyingmac49]

Glen you are an amazing individual who has sacrificed so much to right the injustice of CASA's duplicity in its handling of your livelihood!!! I am so pleased that AOPA is providing a platform to get your story across but you need to think even bigger!!! I am absolutely amazed that not one of the major networks has latched on to your story. So why not have your Pprune following, as there are many of us supporting you, literally deluge the media with a referral of your case as represented via this platform and get it on the big screen as television is still considered the most powerful medium available. Good media people are capable of revealing genuine stories of hardworking Australians fighting bureaucracy without even a snowflake in hell's chance of winning against the system unless there is a groundswell of opinion from ordinary folk like us.

So on Monday 31 August let's all write to the following journalist / TV programs saying something succinct like this: "

One man's fight against the Government's Bureaucracy - a story of injustice just waiting to be told - see Pprune reference Buckley for details!!"

Send it to the following media:

Peta Credlin: SKyNew via Facebook
Alan Jones: SkyNews via mobile sms / Facebook
Four Corners: ABC TV
This Day Tonight: Channel 9
7:30 Report: ABC
Australian Story: ABC
60 Minutes: Channel 9

Can this help get your story to the masses.......hopefully!!!??? Cheers, M

[Sunfish]

The majors are focussed on Covid19 and the sexual antics of football players. Your story is too long and convoluted to tell. The public have a thirty second attention span. Either sex it up and shorten your pitch or forget it. Sorry to be blunt.

The only group you might get interested are the politicians and only then if you can threaten the Governments re-election chances.

Having said that, if you pitch it as “government Minister makes war on successful business” you might have a chance with the murdoch press/ credlin/ bolt/ etc.

[glenb]

I have to be fairly brief because about to sit down for dinner (and footy) with the family.

This will have to be decided in the Courts. While a media investigative piece into CASA would be ideal, it may distract me from my primary focus. Similarly contacting the Minister has proved impossible. My letters continually go unacknowledged, and my simple requests go unanswered.

This will have to be decided in the Courts. Irrespective of whether I win or lose, the conduct of a small group of CASA personnel will be exposed during the discovery of documents. This is the path that CASA has chosen. The truth is that no one will win because the diversion of CASA resources to such a task is inexcusable, but they will have no hesitation in using their arsenal. Similarly, I will have to direct a lot of my time.

This has highlighted the complete failure of the CASA Board. Whether it be by bad intention or just an ineffective structure, the Board has no control. My hope is that by getting this matter to Court, I will be able to expose it.

On my Facebook Conference on Tuesday week at 7PM.

I intend to outline

Why i think Mr Aleck and Mr Martin chose to target Glen Buckley in particular

A brief factual biography on their role, and their previous history. All factual.

Outline my specific allegations against the conduct of these two CASA personnel

Provide evidence to support my allegations.

The impact of Mr Martins and Mr Alecks conduct on safety, businesses, and jobs.

I look forward to the opportunity to present it to you. Cheers. Glen

The legal action will proceed.

[Bend alot]

I have to be fairly brief because about to sit down for dinner (and footy) with the family.

This will have to be decided in the Courts. While a media investigative piece into CASA would be ideal, it may distract me from my primary focus. Similarly contacting the Minister has proved impossible. My letters continually go unacknowledged, and my simple requests go unanswered.

This will have to be decided in the Courts. Irrespective of whether I win or lose, the conduct of a small group of CASA personnel will be exposed during the discovery of documents. This is the path that CASA has chosen. The truth is that no one will win because the diversion of CASA resources to such a task is inexcusable, but they will have no hesitation in using their arsenal. Similarly, I will have to direct a lot of my time.

This has highlighted the complete failure of the CASA Board. Whether it be by bad intention or just an ineffective structure, the Board has no control. My hope is that by getting this matter to Court, I will be able to expose it.

On my Facebook Conference on Tuesday week at 7PM.

I intend to outline

Why i think Mr Aleck and Mr Martin chose to target Glen Buckley in particular

A brief factual biography on their role, and their previous history. All factual.

Outline my specific allegations against the conduct of these two CASA personnel

Provide evidence to support my allegations.

The impact of Mr Martins and Mr Alecks conduct on safety, businesses, and jobs.

I look forward to the opportunity to present it to you. Cheers. Glen

The legal action will proceed.
If I can be of ANY assistance in any possible way - I will help you.

And if we ever meet - I will buy the beer.

[Pearly White]

Not saying the Commonwealth Ombudsman is necessarily a better approach than court, but the article might be food for thought:

https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/two-decades-of-battling-bureaucracy-bears-fruit-20040512-gdiwmr.html

[Sunfish]

Good luck Glen. I wish you all the best.

[glenb]

30/08/20

Dear Mr. Tony Mathews, Chair of the Board of CASA,

You have recently received correspondence from me that gave CASA two clear and concise options.

In that correspondence, I expressed my strongly held preference for a well-intentioned discussion about fair and reasonable compensation for affected Parties.

I also expressed my clear and concise intention to initiate litigation against CASA for commercial and reputational damage caused to me and others, should CASA deny me the opportunity presented in the first option.

You are aware that Phase One of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office has been released, and CASA clearly erred. When Phase Two is released, I am confident that further deficiencies will be highlighted in the conduct of some personnel within CASA.

You are also aware that the CASA Region Manager directed my Employer that my continuing unemployment was "untenable based on comments that I was making public".

There can be no doubt in the minds of any well-intentioned person, that CASA has erred, and quite substantially so. I am calling on CASA to act in a well-intentioned manner.

It is quite reasonable to expect that your insurance provider will ask what compensation I am seeking, and that is the purpose of this correspondence.

I am asking for a payment to be made promptly available to the value of $1.2 Million dollars.

My understanding is that this could be disbursed under an "Act of Grace" payment, or alternatively under the "Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA) .

None of that $1.2 Million dollar payment would be held by myself and it would be disbursed within 14 days to the other Parties that have been affected. That payment would repair the damage that has been done to many small businesses, individuals, customers, and staff that have been affected by this. For clarity, not one cent will be retained by me after that 14 days.

Prompt payment of this manner would somewhat "take the wind out of my sails" and make the matter somewhat less public. In fact, I would seriously consider no further public comment on this matter.

Furthermore, payment of this amount would limit my case to the one litigant only, being myself. It would assist me to restore my reputation, and undo the commercial detriment caused to so many.

The only parties affected by this action would then be, Glen Buckley and his family. On that matter, I would enter into a confidential and well-intentioned discussion with CASAs insurers. The purpose of that discussion would be to ensure that my wife and children were returned to the same position that they were in, prior to this matter commencing. Noting that I have lost my home, business, and livelihood.

On the personal and reputational impact, which has been enormous, and had me in a state of depression last Christmas, I would make no claim. I would put that to one side and make my claim against the commercial impact only. Should I be forced into litigation, and the use of a legal firm, that impact would form a component of any claim.

I anticipate the meeting for my compensation could be somewhat delayed, and we could attend to the more important matter of minimizing the impact on other Parties. That would be my clear preference.

Please be assured that if CASA chooses to adopt the more combative approach, I will make one final appeal directly to the National Party as a whole, and to the Deputy PM, Mr. Michael McCormack specifically.

In the Minister's Statement of Expectations of CASA, he clearly states that you are to keep him "fully informed". Therefore I assume you have done so, and he should be able to exercise his judgment promptly.

I do also note that either an Act of Grace Payment or payment under the CDDA scheme would have to be submitted through the Department of Finance. I do not wish to direct resources to that process if the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs would prevent that process from being undertaken. I have made significant allegations against his professional conduct, and perhaps understandably, he may oppose the process, which he can do in his role.

Thank you for your consideration and I hope that this will bring some clarity to the matter.

I hope that you can accurately convey my good intention to CASAs liability insurer being Commsure I believe that a more optimal outcome can be achieved by a well-intentioned discussion with minimal input from lawyers.

As this correspondence is addressed to the Board in its entirety, can I direct you to my Facebook Live conference that I will broadcast at 7 PM on Tuesday 8th September. By watching that 90-minute presentation the CASA Board and CASAs insurer will be able to arrive at better and potentially more informed decisions.

At any time, the Board Members or insurers can avail themself of my thread running on a pilot's chat forum, which has attracted over 600,000 views. This outlines the case in its entirety. Admittedly it would take several hours to work through, but is the primary source of information, and would be mandatory reading I suggest.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Pearly Whit your suggestion noted with thanks. An interesting article. Refer to my post above. Safe travels. Cheers. Glen

Bendy, thanks yet again, and i will call on you as required. Much appreciated. I think we are getting closer to the pointy end now. Fingers crossed.

[Stickshift3000]

A good summary of the Ombudsman's investigations to date.
___________________________________________________

Ombudsman finds Franchising Legal in APTA Case
https://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/ombudsman-finds-franchising-legal-in-apta-case

[AerialPerspective]

A good summary of the Ombudsman's investigations to date.
___________________________________________________

Ombudsman finds Franchising Legal in APTA Case
https://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/ombudsman-finds-franchising-legal-in-apta-case

Brilliant summary.

[Asturias56]

"Conceptually, I accept CASA's view that the Ruling may reflect broader policy considerations.

"Nevertheless in my concluded view there was an administrative deficiency due to an absence of a direct relationship between the activity being regulated and the policy said to regulate it.

"This gave rise to ambiguity and uncertainty with the potential to cause detriment to those relying on the accuracy of the regime or, conversely, prevent detriment from occurring."

The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman is now proceeding with Phase Two of the investigation, which will investigate the CASA action of serving a seven-day cease notice on APTA in October 2018 and CASA informing Buckley's new employer in August 2019 that his new role was "untenable" due to comments Buckley was making publicly.

[Sunfish]

I predict, sadly, that the best Glen can hope for is a draw because CASA has the legal resources to take him all the way to the high court. The legal system is not known for producing justice.

CASA has the motivation to do this because the threat of unfettered, capricious and unjust persecution as allegedly inflicted on Glen and many others (see the Forsyth review) is the key source of their power.

All the best.

[glenb]

Im very stubborn when it comes to ethics and intent!

[glenb]

31/08/20

Dear Mr. Tony Mathews, Chair of the CASA Board.

I would like to make a request directly to the Board.

In my opinion, I am someone who has been adversely affected by the conduct of some members of CASA Executive Management. I am alleging that the conduct of those personnel was vindictive or vexatious, and had no basis at all in aviation safety. i.e. it was not well-intentioned.

It is reasonable to assume that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority would be well versed in risk management, safety cases, risk assessments, etc.

Prior to CASA initiating their action against my business in October 2018, there would be relevant documentation held by CASA, that would provide the "safety case" for the CASA action

This could be, the risk assessment, the safety case, or the "handover" notes associated with my transfer from CMT2 to CMT3. In fact, anything that CASA is able to provide in support of a safety case.

Therefore could I request that a copy of the associated documentation that CASA would hold. i.e. anything that supports the CASA safety case prior to initiating the action on October 23rd of 2018.

If this is not something that the Board would be prepared to provide to me, it would necessitate a Freedom of Information request, and that should not be necessary.


If it exists, it would already be held by the CASA Board.

Please note that I allege CASA has no documentation at all that justifies the safety case. Hence my reasonable conclusion that some Members of Executive management were acting vindictively or vexatiously.

The provision of such documentation would go a long way to discrediting my claim that "there was never a supporting safety case, CASA was acting vindictively and vexatiously".

I hope you will consider this fair and reasonable request. Respectfully, Glen Buckley.

[mrs nomer]

Prior to CASA initiating their action against my business in October 2018, there would be relevant documentation held by CASA, that would provide the "safety case" for the CASA action

Therefore could I request that a copy of the associated documentation that CASA would hold. i.e. anything that supports the CASA safety case prior to initiating the action on October 23rd of 2018.

In a court of law, would not discovery produce the required documents? It would be rather foolish of CASA to deliberately withhold this information.

Then again - CASA has done many foolish things in its' tortuous history.

[Sunfish]

Glen, I’ve said this many times before. The Board does not make decisions except to hire and fire the CEO. They are guardians of the assets and decision making process, not the decisions. I don’t believe it’s Mr. Matthews role to make such decisions as you are seeking nor provide you with answers himself, let alone investigate the serious matters you’ve raised himself.

What he would normally do is pass the letter to CASA and ask for their advice they will investigate and provide the Board with an answer that will be sent to you.

Your request will probably be filtered down through CASA until it lands on the desk of whoever is responsible for inflicting things on you and they will write the Boards answer. In other words, expect a hostile response to your request. It will be written by the lower ranks of CASA and the Board is forced by precedent to accept it and probably tell you to eff off, although that might not be their personal opinion.

In my opinion, the only time the Board would get directly involved is if the administration had irretrievably broken down.

Best of luck.

[glenb]

A response is warranted. i think you are quite possibly correct Sunfish. Nevertheless, the response will be public and “telling”.

[Valdiviano]

I am NO expert, but I think there is a "reason" for this letters.

[AerialPerspective]

I predict, sadly, that the best Glen can hope for is a draw because CASA has the legal resources to take him all the way to the high court. The legal system is not known for producing justice.

CASA has the motivation to do this because the threat of unfettered, capricious and unjust persecution as allegedly inflicted on Glen and many others (see the Forsyth review) is the key source of their power.

All the best.

Not always, no. But the High Court has a proud history of producing justice on many occasions... Mabo, overturning Terra Nullius, finding an implied right to freedom of political communication in the constitution, overturning legislation aimed at controlling political advertising or regulating it, overturning a number of visa cancellations by the Minister for Home Au Pairs... there is hope...

[Sunfish]

Yes, there is always hope. Cheer up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gls09kO-8DE

[The Bullwinkle]

In a court of law, would not discovery produce the required documents? It would be rather foolish of CASA to deliberately withhold this information.

Then again - CASA has done many foolish things in its' tortuous history.
I think the point here is that there's nothing to be "discovered" because there was never any actual documentation to support the action taken by CASA in the first place!

Not always, no. But the High Court has a proud history of producing justice on many occasions... Mabo, overturning Terra Nullius, finding an implied right to freedom of political communication in the constitution, overturning legislation aimed at controlling political advertising or regulating it, overturning a number of visa cancellations by the Minister for Home Au Pairs... there is hope...
And don't forget the famous "Kerrigan decision". :ok:

[The Bullwinkle]

Must have been typing that at the same time as you Sunny!

[Paragraph377]

I wonder if Hoody will be enticed to come back to CASA to pick up the baton from Carmody?

[AerialPerspective]

I think the point here is that there's nothing to be "discovered" because there was never any actual documentation to support the action taken by CASA in the first place!


And don't forget the famous "Kerrigan decision". :ok:

LOL... I was talking reality LOL

[glenb]

On some very sound advice, I am of the view that I have a potential claim of "negligent misstatement". Over the coming days, and prior to my Facebook conference, I will be making some posts that may appear somewhat obscure. Please bear with me, and it will all come together. This post is one of those and refers to the topic of negligent misstatement.

Pure Economic loss caused by negligent misstatement and the Duty of CareA negligent misstatement is information or advice which is honestly provided but is inaccurate or misleading. The action for negligent misstatement is a comparatively recent common law development. In Derry v Peak (1889) 12 App Cas 337 the English Court of Appeal decided that a negligent misstatement was insufficient to support an action in deceit because a non-fraudulent misrepresentation in the absence of a contract or a fiduciary obligation was not enough to establish a duty of care.

However, the decision in Derry v Peak was reviewed by the House of Lords in the landmark decision in Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners [1964] AC 465. The House of Lords considered that Derry v Peak did not decide anything regarding causes of action for negligent misstatement and limited the decision to actions in deceit.

In England Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners established that there might be liability in tort for negligent misstatement in circumstances in which information or advice is sought from a person possessing some special skill or judgment where that person knows or ought to know that reliance is being placed upon information or advice by the person seeking it.

Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners was considered and accepted by the Australian High Court in Mutual Life & Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt (1968) 122 CLR 556 Per Barwick CJ:
The duty will arise whenever a person gives information or advice to another, whether that information is actively sought or merely accepted by that other upon a serious matter… and the relationship… arising out of the circumstances is such that on the one hand the speaker realizes or ought to realize that he is being trusted… to give the best of his information or advice as a basis for action on the part of the other party and it is reasonable in the circumstances for the other party to seek or accept and in either case to act upon that information or advice.However, Barwick CJ deviated from the English conception of the principle by determining the ‘special relationship’ between the parties did not require the speaker to have actual possession of skill or judgment or to profess to have any such skill or judgment on the matter.

This decision was rejected by the Privy Council on appeal and the decision was reversed.

However, in subsequent cases the views of Barwick CJ in Mutual Life & Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt (1968) 122 CLR 556 have gained support.

Any uncertainty regarding this issue was subsequently resolved in the High Court’s decision in San Sebastian Pty Ltd v Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (1988) 162 CLR 340 where it was decided that the speaker need not possesses or claim to possess any special skill or experience.



Elements of the Cause of Action

There are three elements to a cause of action founded in negligence:


A legal duty must be recognized in the circumstances requiring a certain standard of conduct to protect against foreseeable risk.
There must be a breach of that duty by failing to meet the requisite standard of care owed.
And, finally, the plaintiff must have suffered a material injury as a result of the breach.

[glenb]

Apologies, a seemingly obscure post at this stage. Simply the link to CASAs enforcement manual outlining procedures to be followed when CASA determines that they will vary, suspend or cancel an AOC. CASA will argue they never suspended my AOC. They did threaten to cancel it, and they most certainly varied it. They gave me only 7 days to operate.

CASA also directed that my Employment as a CASA approved HOO was "untenable based on comments I was making publicly" For CASA to direct that my Employer remove me from my CASA approved position entitles me to the procedures outlined in this manual. They were completely bypassed.

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/enf/009rfull.pdf

[glenb]

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013A00123

[glenb]

Here is the link to the ASSR Executive Summary https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/files/ASRR_Executive_Summary.pdf

More comprehensive material on the ASSR is available here. https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/

[glenb]

The ASSR Review referred to in post 1181 came up with this as one of its recommendations

"The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes its regulatory philosophy and, together with industry, builds an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect"

CASA responded: "Agreed The Government’s new Statement of Expectations (SOE) for the CASA Board will require CASA to develop a clear statement of regulatory philosophy. As part of its quarterly reporting to the Minister on its performance against its Corporate Plan, CASA will report on its performance against the new SOE and the recommendations agreed to by the Government arising out of this Report, including implementation of its regulatory philosophy, and associated compliance and enforcement policies. The CASA Director of Aviation Safety will be expected to report regularly to the Board on compliance with the new regulatory policy."

On July 31st CASA advised on updates to this implementation of its Regulatory Philosophy

Completed – Implementation Ongoing The tasks required by the Government response, such as issuing of a new SOE, have been completed. CASA’s Regulatory Philosophy was published on 15 September 2015. The SOE issued to the CASA Board in March 2017 requires that CASA implement its regulatory philosophy with the philosophy being reflected in relevant policies, procedures, manuals and where CASA personnel are carrying out their day-to-day operations.

The link to the CASA Regulatory Philosophy follows:

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

[thisishardtochoose]

A good summary of the Ombudsman's investigations to date.
___________________________________________________

Ombudsman finds Franchising Legal in APTA Case
https://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/ombudsman-finds-franchising-legal-in-apta-caseUpdate 3 September

A CASA spokesperson today issued the following statement.

"CASA’s position on ‘franchise-like’ arrangements is that they may be acceptable, so long as those arrangements ensure that the authorisation holder maintains ‘full operational control’ over the approved activities and is able to satisfy CASA that this is so.

"CASA will continue to cooperate fully with the Ombudsman’s investigation, which is not yet completed."
A little update to the article

[Bend alot]

A little update to the article
So a bit like the muddy waters of supervision being "direct" from afar. When that suits.

[Sunfish]

I note that, again, the CASA criteria are not objective. “may”, “acceptable”, “full operational control”, “satisfy”, ‘this is so”.

These are meaningless gibberish words whose meanings can be changed at a lawyers whim. This is the actual reverse of classic Weberian bureaucracy - a system of administration developed by the Prussians precisely to stamp out the kind of corruption (including noble cause corruption) that CASAs regulations deliberately facilitate.

‘’To put that another way, the CASA spokesman really said: “if we like you, we might let you franchise stuff, however if we feel we don’t love you any more, then your franchising is not permitted. Be nice to us or we will destroy you.”

[glenb]

Bendy and Sunfish, you hit the nail on the head. That is the crux of the issue.

But it is important to recap the Civil Aviation ACT. The ACT that establishes CASA. I will quote from PART II which deals with the establishment and functions of CASA, in sections 8 and 9)

“CASA is a body corporate and may be sued in its corporate name……. The Public Governance, Performance, and Accountability Act 2013 applies to CASA. That Act deals with matters relating to corporate Commonwealth entities, including… the use and management of public resources……..CASA has the function of developing and promulgating appropriate, clear, and concise aviation safety standards.”

So if CASA, and specifically, Mr. Martin and Mr. Aleck, are unable to produce any supporting safety case after more than two years, then I have a reasonable expectation that they can direct me to a regulatory breach that is “clear and concise”. Surely they are obligated to do so. Especially when one considers the negative impact on safety and the loss of business and jobs that has resulted from their actions and decisions.

If I cannot be directed to a supporting safety case, then there must be a regulatory breach. If neither of those exists, then I reasonably have to assume that their motivation lies elsewhere.

CASA has thrown everything at me. They have tried the Aviation Ruling, bullying and intimidation, breaches of Administrative law, Procedural fairness, and natural justice. They have falsified audit results, made completely unsubstantiated allegations, placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade, etc etc. Nothing sticks.

They now move into “operational control”. It doesn’t appear in any CASA definition, so I will be dealing yet again, with the opinion of Mr. Aleck and Mr. Martin. I am sure they will have a “different opinion”.

I firmly believe my opinion to be correct, and relish the opportunity to challenge them on this one. They will be digging an even deeper hole, be assured!

[glenb]

04/09/20

Dear Senator Susan McDonald,

My name is Glen Buckley, you will have some knowledge of my current issues with members of the CASA Executive Management, whom I have made substantial allegations against. I have been impacted by the actions and decisions of those personnel.

Allegations against those two individuals have been made before, and in fact, led to the ABC conducting an investigative report into the matter https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/dying-pilot-tries-to-clear-his-name-after-fatal/10444126.

My allegations closely mirror previous allegations that have been raised, and against the same individuals.

The Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) has facilitated an opportunity for me via their Facebook Live conference at 7 PM on Tuesday 8th September. That presentation will open with a direct address to you, in your role on the current Senate Inquiry into Australia's General Aviation Industry. It will be my submission to that inquiry.

If you are unable to accept an audiovisual submission, please advise me and I will provide a written transcript. I invite you to join the conference if you deem it appropriate.

I thank you sincerely for the open and professional manner that appears evident from the feedback Ben Morgan from AOPA has provided me.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[Lead Balloon]

Glen

You might want to contact the Committee Secretary to confirm (Phone: +61 2 6277 3511 or [email protected]), but I'm pretty sure that anything published before submission to the Committee (e.g. an AOPA webcast or even a transcript of it) will not attract parliamentary privilege. Although that would not mean you can't participate in an AOPA webcast, it would mean that any e.g. potentially defamatory content of the webcast would be at your/AOPA's risk.

If you instead write down what you have to say about the CASA officers you've named and submit that to the Committee and the Committee publishes your submission before any proposed webcast, the content will attract privilege and be 'out there'. But beware: You're starting a verbal streetfight with some of the best sophists in the game.

[glenb]

As usual, sound guidance.

Unfortunately, I have been dealing with this, every woken moment in the last two years. I am time poor and need this bought to a head.

This needs to be actioned on, and promptly so. Everything I have said, I stand fully behind. In fact, such statements made without Parliamentary Privilege, carry more weight.

The person making the statements must be fully prepared to back them up with evidence and potentially face charges if they are vindictive or vexatious, not truthful, not in the public interest, unsupported with evidence, cannot be justified on the basis of aviation safety, etc. I'm fully aware of that, and accepting of it.

I know that seems naive, but quite simply the toll this has taken on me, must come to an end by whatever means.

By following CASA processes, this has already dragged on for two years. Enough is enough!

Provided both sides of the story are presented, I will be able to accept the outcome.

If I could delay a couple of weeks, type a submission (I'm a one-finger typer by the way) to the Senate, have it considered, potentially be involved in email ping pong, and accepted, would be weeks away. I simply don't have the time, mental capacity, or resources.

I will have to be fully accountable for my actions and decisions, and be truthful.

[Lead Balloon]

More power to your arm, Glen. I look forward to Tuesday evening's webcast.

[glenb]

I wrote to CASA on repeated occasions notifying them of the commercial impact of their actions. Here is the first correspondence sent on 24/10/18. This also clearly highlights my arguments regarding the Aviation Ruling. I will post further correspondence shortly.

[glenb]

This correspondence and more to follow will clearly demonstrate that CASA was fully aware of the commercial impact of their actions. I am attending only to the fact that CASA was fully awre of the impact of their actions, irrespective of whether they were right or not

[glenb]

Correspondence sent to Regional Manager

[glenb]

And yet again

[Torres]

Glen. "Borrowed" AOC's for charter operations and "interposed entities" for pseudo RPT operations were approved by CASA and are not dissimilar to franchising.

Australia's worst "airline" accident in decades, the Lockhart River Metro CFIT in May 2005 resulting in 15 deaths involved both a "borrowed" AOC and an interposed entity, both practices being CASA approved.

[glenb]

Correspondence dated 9th November 2018 identifying the commercial impact

[glenb]

This is only a sampling of the correspondence sent to CASA ensuring they were clear on the commercial impact. There are many more emails, but I think my point is proven.

CASA unable to identify safety concerns, and unable to identify any regulatory breaches, and fully aware of the commercial impact of their actions.

And sorry to the Mods for the increased workload

[Shipwreck00]

Franchising is relevant to the charter and RPT operations simply to manage commercial advantage. The issue here should be the regulator working with and supporting industry rather than the heavy handed approach to simply bullying industry into submission. I thought the point was to promote industry, promote safety to help us to be compliant and work with us to find ways of making it work. If CASA thinks their role is just to enforce rules and put all the energy into shutting organisations down like they have you Glenn then they have lost sight of how we create a safe and sustainable industry. Time to park the egos and give a damn about industry and start genuinely working with us. New maintenance regulations, part 43, classic exampl, i dont know a single operator who wants it yet CASA says we all want it, time to stop, listen, work with industry instead of constantly working against us, this is out lives, our futures a, our business and what is the point if they drive us all out of business just to ease their own ego's. Time for change, time for those in CASA who think it is all about them to go work somewhere else.

[Sunfish]

Shipwreck, I started with an unbiased opinion of CASA when I joined this website and even expressed disbelief over the aggressive attitude of much of the industry to CASA and counselled working hand in hand with them in a spirit of cooperation as this is the best way to work with the public service in my experience........

‘’However...... The more I read about their actions, the regulations and their behaviour as evidenced by the Forsyth review, Quadrio, Dominic James, the care flight matter, Jabiru and now Glen Buckley and APTA, I am convinced we need major change otherwise what little investment and jobs remaining will disappear.

The Act does not require CASA to take into account the needs of the aviation industry in any meaningful way. It is written in greasy, deceitful lawyer speak in a way that deliberately avoids accountability while maximising CASA power. The Act is not fit for purpose any more than CASA is if the purpose is for the benefit of Australia.

[Lead Balloon]

I thought the point was to promote industry...It's not.

A very deliberate policy decision was made to ensure CASA does not have a 'dual mandate': that is, being concurrently responsible for promoting the industry and policing the industry.

CASA does have a mandate to set clear and concise safety standards but has abjectly failed to do that. This allows anyone in CASA to come up with whatever differing views they want about what those rules mean from time to time. And there is no end of people with strong opinions about how to save the world from perceived and overblown risks to aviation safety. It is very stressful and expensive to challenge their interpretations, as they'll always try to invoke aviation safety to scare the AAT/court. Hence, the practical 'standard' is whatever someone in CASA's subjective opinion says it is from time to time.

Someone in CASA just woke up one day and decided that what Glen had been led by someone else in CASA to believe was OK is now no longer OK. (Actually, I suspect that the person who 'woke up one day' was just used as a patsy to do the dirty work of someone else who saw Glen's success as a competitive threat.) Is aviation any safer now, as a consequence of that change? Of course! There's less of it.

(Actually, the fatality rate has been fairly constant over the past couple of decades, demonstrating that the regulatory 'reform' program has been an abject failure and egregious waste of resources.)

[Bend alot]

Shipwreck, I started with an unbiased opinion of CASA when I joined this website and even expressed disbelief over the aggressive attitude of much of the industry to CASA and counselled working hand in hand with them in a spirit of cooperation as this is the best way to work with the public service in my experience........

‘’However...... The more I read about their actions, the regulations and their behaviour as evidenced by the Forsyth review, Quadrio, Dominic James, the care flight matter, Jabiru and now Glen Buckley and APTA, I am convinced we need major change otherwise what little investment and jobs remaining will disappear.


Sunny you joined in 2004! talk about a slow reader. And there is much more to read than the ones noted by you.

[Stickshift3000]

Someone in CASA just woke up one day and decided that what Glen had been led by someone else in CASA to believe was OK is now no longer OK. (Actually, I suspect that the person who 'woke up one day' was just used as a patsy to do the dirty work of someone else who saw Glen's success as a competitive threat.) Is aviation any safer now, as a consequence of that change? Of course! There's less of it.

I belong to a flying club (and hire their aircraft) that operated under APTA's model.

The irony is that APTA's procedures, protocols and staffing competence was operated to a higher, safer standard than any other operations that I have witnessed before or since their demise. Talk about backwards... :ugh:

[AAC905]

Best of luck Glen

[glenb]

AAC905, thanks for the message. I notice that you are new here, and took the time to register and make your first post. When people go that extra mile to show their support, it carries a lot of weight. Safe travels. Cheers. Glen.

[glenb]

Dear Mr. Anthony Mathews, Chairperson of the Board of CASA. I am following up on my correspondence sent to you on 22/08/20 and reattached below. I was hoping to have received a reply from you by Friday 4th September, noting that date has now passed.



Therefore could I respectfully request a response as to CASAs chosen path forward. i.e. Has the Board of CASA in conjunction with CASAs insurer elected to meet in a well-intentioned manner, or has CASA chosen to have this matter pursued through litigation.



It's a fairly straightforward question, and I feel that you should reasonably be able to advise me of your decision.



Thank you in anticipation of your response.



Respectfully, Glen Buckley





"22/08/20



To the Board of CASA, comprising the following Individuals



Mr. Anthony Mathews (Chairperson), Mr. Shane Carmody (CEO of CASA), Mr. Mark Rindfleish, Mr. Michael Bridge, Ms. Donna Hardman, Ms. Elizabeth Hallet, and Ms. Marilyn Andre. In your roles, you are responsible for ensuring that CASA performs its role in a "proper, efficient, and effective manner."



You will be fully aware of the significant allegations I have bought against CASA Employees;




Mr. Jonathan Aleck CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs
Mr. Graeme Crawford, CASA Executive Manager of the Aviation Group,
Mr. Craig Martin, CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance.

The conduct of these gentlemen in my opinion has been unlawful, unfair, and unjust, and has brought enormous economic harm to me, my family, and other individuals, aeroclubs, and businesses.



I have had discussions with a number of legal firms, and I am confident that I have a valid basis for a claim against CASA on behalf of affected Parties, and it appears that case would be based around misfeasance, malfeasance and negligent misstatement



I am now at a point in this process where I need to clearly ascertain whether I proceed with my legal case or, do we arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution with a less combative approach. The latter clearly being my preferred option.



Should you choose the path of litigation, I need to be very clear that once that journey commences, the opportunity for a negotiated settlement is lost, and I will pursue my matter through to a legal determination. A determination will provide me, and industry with a



The purpose of this correspondence is to seek a very clear direction from the Board of CASA, in conjunction with your insurance company being Comminsure.



The more combative approach will be the more costly, divert valuable CASA resources from primary tasks, and expose CASA to a far higher level of public scrutiny. In my opinion, it should be an unnecessary approach, but that decision now rests with the CASA Board.



As you are aware i have made repeated attempts to resolve this matter, but until this point, the Board has resolutely refused those offers. I am now calling on you to make your decision and advise me of that decision.



As the Board already has the facts in front of them, I anticipate that you should be able to arrive at a prompt and well-considered opinion.



Could you please advise me by 5 PM on Friday 4th September of the Board's decision.



In assisting you to arrive at your decision, I re-extend my offer to meet with the Board at any time prior to that date.



Yours respectfully, Glen Buckley"

[Sunfish]

Glen, the only response you are going to get is a “cease and desist” letter followed by a summons.

[Sunfish]

What ever you do Glen, keep it polite and don’t threaten people.

[glenb]

This is the Senate Committe into CASA completed 12 years ago. I particularly draw your attention to the report findings in;

2.63 Cultural change
2.83 Regulatory Reform Program
2.95 Governance Structure
2.111 Strengthening CASAS relationship with Industry.

This clearly highlights that there WERE significant issues a decade ago.

Therefore it must be a "possibility" that that unsafe culture has either become "safer" or "less safe" over the last decade.

Link: file:///C:/Users/ready/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/report_pdf%20(1).pdf

[glenb]

I have offered the CASA Board and Senior Management the opportunity to participate in the Australian Aircraftrcfraft owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) Facebook conference tonight at 7PM.

CASA has declined, because of the ongoing investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Surely that would be a reason to appear on the program. To ensure transparency and respectful discussion, that may actually assist the Commonwealth Ombudsman to arrive at the most well-considered decision.

To anyone in our industry, this is an indicator of potentially unsafe attributes. Reluctance to come forward with information, lack of transparency, lack of accountability, preparedness to be untruthful, bullying and intimidating in nature etc etc. All unsafe indicators.

It would be a challenging place to work I suggest.

[glenb]

Rest assured i will be polite and respectful.

I will also be truthful. I will be able to back up everything I say, and I welcome being held up to scrutiny. Cheers.

[glenb]

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/GeneralAviation

[vne165]

Is the Facetube thingy on?

[vne165]

got it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M_WmBw6IHY

[Lead Balloon]

All CASA is going to do is argue that APTA’s activities had grown to such an extent that CASA was no longer satisfied that Glen had full operational control over those activities. Once the criterion is some bureaucrat’s subjective satisfaction, it’s ‘game over’.

Don’t forget it was Dr Aleck who came up with this logic to justify the CSF kneejerk: “If we were to wait for sufficiently robust data to support an evidence based decision for every individual decision we took in this space, we would have to wait for a dozen or more accidents to occur.”

CASA couldn’t wait for APTA to bring down an A-380 or B-747 over a playground full of innocent children, but CASA knew that’s where your business was heading, Glen. You should be grateful that CASA saved you and those children.

[Sunfish]

I’m not sure I said this before but the most frightening thing for a manager or a bureaucrat of any sort is to lose control of the agenda by having their formal position as a leader challenged, innocently, by an informal thought leader. I know exactly what this feels like from both sides of the table.

I put it to you that Glen and APTA had developed a better understanding of the regulations as they applied to their operations than CASA had. They were then in a position to tell CASA what works and what won’t work and where improvements could be made. They knew more about the game then CASA did. Once the higher management understood this deeply unsettling fact, APTAs fate was sealed because no one must know more than CASA.

The reason for that animosity? Because if the government finds out that your so called clients know more than you do, your job and position is surplus to requirements. Furthermore, it would only be a matter of time before other training organisations, seeing APTA’s supremacy, sought them out because they were the informal leader of the training sector and potentially able to marshal support so that the industry was driving the agenda, not CASA.

its sad when it happens. I’ve never felt so useless as when chairing a meeting on high level software architecture for a $60 million system and realising that I didn’t have the faintest idea about what the participants were discussing. I was tempted for a second to replace these experts with people as dumb as I was. Similarly, I’ve never been so frustrated as trying to explain to a manager that what he wanted to do for the business was counterproductive-and had been known to be a waste of time for thirty years.

These confrontations are encapsulated in the managers lament : “I don’t care if it works in practice - make it work in theory!”

[glenb]

Sunfish and Lead Balloon, you have hit the nail on the head.

Interestingly, CASA will have several written offers from me over the years prior to the introduction of the new legislation.

I made repeated offers to fund $180,000 over a 12 month period to have a CASA Flight Operations Inspector based in the Company. Together we would write the manuals to CASAs full satisfaction. They would then become the Company procedures. Importantly those templates would be made freely available to industry.

I felt this was a wise business decision, as it would overall work out the most cost-effective option for the business. CASA refused those multiple offers. Years later they did provide templates that were "impractical".

Without wanting to sound arrogant, I have no doubt that I had a better understanding of the safe applcation of the legislation than the CASA Executive did.

A quick recap.

I was called into the CASA Head Office very early on. The entire CASA team of half a dozen was sitting across the table in a confronting manner. They explained to me that I had breached the regulations regarding signage requirements. Apparently, I didn't meet the stipulated regulations in regard to signage and the size of the associated dimensions of that signage.

I explained to them that I wouldn't knowingly breach those regulations so could we have a look at them now in the Head Office. They didn't have access to the regulations apparently. I let them go on. They explained that they would send me a copy of the regulations the next day to support the allegation of the breach.

It was an awkward situation, I didn't want to publicly embarrass them and explain that I thought they were confused with the size requirements for aircraft call signs. Needless to say, CASA never got back to me with the legislation, as it obviously didn't exist. Graciously they didn't issue a Finding against me.

As I've said before. CASA has an enormous pool of talent available to them now due to the Pandemic. Let's hope the Minister takes action and implements a handful of new personnel into the Organisation.

[Lead Balloon]

I was called into the CASA Head Office very early on. The entire CASA team of half a dozen was sitting across the table in a confronting manner. They explained to me that I had breached the regulations regarding signage requirements. Apparently, I didn't meet the stipulated regulations in regard to signage and the size of the associated dimensions of that signage.

I explained to them that I wouldn't knowingly breach those regulations so could we have a look at them now in the Head Office. They didn't have access to the regulations apparently. I let them go on. They explained that they would send me a copy of the regulations the next day to support the allegation of the breach.

It was an awkward situation, I didn't want to publicly embarrass them and explain that I thought they were confused with the size requirements for aircraft call signs. Needless to say, CASA never got back to me with the legislation, as it obviously didn't exist. Graciously they didn't issue a Finding against me.It’s Keystone Cops stuff.

Unfortunately for GA, the Keystone Cops have been given real regulatory guns but no adult supervision. And most if not all of them at that table was/is on a six figure salary.

I’m occasionally forced to read some of the stuff produced by CASA in the last decade or so, and I usually shake my head in disbelief at the crap that it is.

I have to hand it to you: You have patience that I couldn’t muster. In the same situation I would simply have said: “You arseclowns have no idea. Stop wasting my time.”

[Lead Balloon]

Gosh, I stand corrected and apologise for calling the CASA officers concerned ‘arseclowns’.Subdivision 203.ZD.4.1—Safety of aviation-related signage

203.976 Interpretation for Division 203.ZD.4

For this Division

(a) aviation-related signage includes any mark, symbol, figure, words and depictions, whether represented in electronic or physical form, of any object, service, person or place connected with aviation, if the mark, symbol, figure, word or depiction, or any combination of them, is visible to any person whether through electronic means or by physical observation;

(b) Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage means the manual approved from time time by the Authority under regulation 203.979.

203.977 Prohibition on display of aviation-related signage.

A person must not cause or permit the erection or display or publication of any aviation-related signage unless the signage:

(a) complies with the Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage; and

(b) has been approved by CASA for erection or display or publication (as the case may be).

203.978. Offences relating to contravention of regulation 203.977

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and

(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.977; and

(c) the person intends the act or omission to create a risk to the safety of air navigation.

Penalty: Imprisonment for life or 15,000 penalty units, or both.

(2) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and

(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.977; and

(c) the person is reckless as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.

Penalty: 1,000 penalty units.

(3) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and

(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.977; and

(c) the person is negligent as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.

Penalty: 500 penalty units.

(4) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and

(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.977.

Penalty: 100 penalty units.

(5) An offence against subregulation (4) is an offence of strict liability.

203.979 Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage

The Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage may specify the following matters:

(a) if the signage is physical - the dimensions of the sign;

(b) if the signage is electronic - the maximum number of bytes of data that the signage may contain;

(c) the words, symbols, figures that must not be depicted in the signage;

(d) safety procedures that must be followed in the design, construction and location of the signage;

Example for paragraph (d): The Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage may specify that the corners of physical signs be rounded so as to avoid risks created by pointy corners.

(e) requirements for the display of material worshipping our dear leader (the Director of Aviation Safety - blessed be the DAS) and his regulations - blessed be his regulations.

203.980 Annual review of aviation-related signage

A person must not cause or permit the continued display or publication of any aviation-related signage for a period in excess of a cumulated period of twelve months unless, during that period, the person has:

(a) undertaken or caused the undertaking of a review to confirm the ongoing compliance of the signage with the Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage; and

(b) obtained from CASA a renewal of the approval for the continued display or publication (as the case may be); and

(c) made a written record of the review conducted in compliance with paragraph (a).

203.981. Offences relating to contravention of regulation 203.980

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and

(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.980; and

(c) the person intends the act or omission to create a risk to the safety of air navigation.

Penalty: Imprisonment for life or 15,000 penalty units, or both.

(2) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and

(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.980; and

(c) the person is reckless as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.

Penalty: 1,000 penalty units.

(3) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and

(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.980; and

(c) the person is negligent as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.

Penalty: 500 penalty units.

(4) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and

(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.980.

Penalty: 100 penalty units.

(5) An offence against subregulation (4) is an offence of strict liability.

203.982 Keeping of records of reviews of aviation-related signage

A person who undertakes or causes the undertaking of a review to comply with paragraph 203.980(a) must keep the records created to comply with paragraph 203.980(b) for a period of at least seven years from the date of creation and make those records available for inspection by the Authority on demand by the authority.

203.983. Offences relating to contravention of regulation 203.982

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and

(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.982; and

(c) the person intends the act or omission to create a risk to the safety of air navigation.

Penalty: Imprisonment for life or 15,000 penalty units, or both.

(2) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and

(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.982; and

(c) the person is reckless as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.

Penalty: 1,000 penalty units.

(3) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and

(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.982; and

(c) the person is negligent as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.

Penalty: 500 penalty units.

(4) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and

(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.982.

Penalty: 100 penalty units.

(5) An offence against subregulation (4) is an offence of strict liability.I feel safer already.

[TBM-Legend]

Can I please have a "plain English" explanation of the 'signage' referred to?

[vne165]

"Example for paragraph (d): The Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage may specify that the the corners of physical signs be rounded so as to avoid risks created by pointy corners.

(e) requirements for the display of material worshipping our dear leader (the Director of Aviation Safety - blessed be the DAS) and his regulations - blessed be his regulations."

:LOL...

[Lead Balloon]

The safety of air navigation is no laughing matter, vne165. Leave the approval of the design, construction, erection and display of aviation-related signs to the experts.

[vne165]

Is there a link?
There's someone I'd like to show that to.

[Lead Balloon]

Is there a link?
There's someone I'd like to show that to.
It’s buried in here, somewhere: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2020C00793/Html/Volume_5

[Vref+5]

Is there a MOS for that? Oh. It’s next to the ones for 141 and 142....

[Lead Balloon]

Correct. Obviously there’s ongoing risk of aviation signage-based accidents during the period in which the MOS is being finalised, but that’s been dealt with by interim Directions from CASA. I’ll post copies of those shortly.

[glenb]

i didn’t have an APTA sign up at Latrobe Valley. Casa did apply their opinion and sent me what would be acceptable to them. Needless to say i complied. Will dig out the email and post when i get a chance.

[Lead Balloon]

Instrument number CASA 102/20

I, HEINIE CONKLIN, Executive Manager, Aviation Signage Division, a delegate of CASA, make this instrument under regulation 203.983 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.

[Signed Heinie Conklin]

Heinie Conklin
Executive Manager
Aviation Signage Division

3 January 2020

Direction — to use approved signage

1 Commencement and period in force

This instrument commences on the day of registration and remains in force until the Authority first approves a Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation signage under regulation 203.979 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.

2 Definitions

approved sign means the signs referred to in the Schedule of this Direction

aviation operator means a person who does anything relating to aviation.

3 Application

This instrument applies to all aviation operators.

4 Direction

All aviation operators must use only an approved sign in the circumstances corresponding to that sign in the Schedule of this Direction.



SCHEDULE

Sign approved for use in places where the sun shines.

Sign approved for use in places where there are signs.

Sign approved for use in premises that have doors.

Sign approved for use in premises that have electrical cables.

[Lead Balloon]

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/540x720/13c2497c_e0d3_4537_8b5f_0d669a5303d9_70d00c8273029e9e32a2869 7294f5e1f37f08737.jpeg

[Lead Balloon]

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/315x304/d769993a_02ec_4955_839e_d1776ddd6f87_2acbf008170e7795a63441d 5464af20cf13a8565.jpeg

[Lead Balloon]

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/236x171/29efb468_eb0a_44b6_81fa_55d47e59142f_eb6110f2da8f0f5cd407104 6d1f63365407a30d7.jpeg

[Lead Balloon]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/600x380/6125af89_5c0b_42c6_89e3_de15e7ead96f_ea6cdf71e7f2112dbc3d78b 1547d70e19a5fc555.jpeg

[harrryw]

So the sign saying push on the door leading to the outside in aviation related premises must have rounded corners.....and be approved....

[glenb]

An attachment that may not be a particularly interesting read to many, but it is pertinent.

This is a previous AAT finding by a gentleman that had his business, position, and reputation allegedly destroyed. In this case, CASA unsuccessfully played the "safety card."

I claim the same against CASA, and importantly, they have no "safety card" to play.

Its only a question of "intent".

[Bend alot]

Any update on the owner of AMT since that hearing?

[glenb]

After the second finding attached above, my understanding is that he went on to successfully receive compensation for an undisclosed amount

[glenb]

Today's correspondence follows up on PPRuNe posts 1151,1160, and 1205. Cheers. Glen


18/09/20

Dear Mr. Matthews,

I am writing to you directly in your role as the Chairperson of the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

As you are aware I have written to CASA on several occasions seeking direction on CASAs chosen path forward. That correspondence remains unanswered, hence I am compelled to write again.

Should this matter proceed to litigation it is imperative that I can demonstrate repeated and consistent attempts to resolve this matter in a more amicable, productive, well-intentioned, and respectful manner, to avoid litigation

The determination for the process forward is entirely of your choosing.

Can you, in your role as the Chairperson of CASA, direct me as to whether we are meeting in a well-intentioned manner or are you choosing to direct significant CASA resources to the path of litigation.

I look forward to your response and hope that CASA chooses the less combative option. As I have written to you previously, I can see no reason that you should not be able to advise me of your decision by 5 PM today (18/09/20)

Respectfully, Glen Buckley.

[havick]

Glen, they’re obviously stonewalling you now. When are you going to make good on your threats to them of litigation and execute that?

[Stickshift3000]

Glen, they’re obviously stonewalling you now. When are you going to make good on your threats to them of litigation and execute that?

I imagine that there is a valid reason behind Glen's actions - perhaps evidence that all attempts at reconciling this matter have been attempted before proceeding through the Ombudsman or courts..?

[Bend alot]

Glen, they’re obviously stonewalling you now. When are you going to make good on your threats to them of litigation and execute that?
Glen clearly is no fool.

He has a bit of a legal war chest and we know he has used some of that (not very much) - Glen has not made any threats, just options available to him, both legal and procedural.

He also has several different fronts running in parallel at the same time.

There is no rush, this is a marathon. Glen has been to very dark places and back.

No need to rush!

[Paragraph377]

Well MacHayzer felt the heat in the CASA kitchen and he left, he is now the National Director at the Health Regulator. Perhaps others will leave also? Doesn’t matter really because as one leaves another one fills their spot.

[QFF]

After reading that Mr McHeyzer has apparently been promoted to a senior role in the Health Regulator (presumably AHPRA) led me to look up the Senate enquiry into said organisation in 2017. The submissions are eye-opening and bear startling similarities to Glen's case - here are just a selection:

"The fundamental doctrine of the separation of powers in the Commonwealth of Nations (the Westminster system, which includes Australia) must be operational in any real democracy. It appears that the joy of practicing as a health practitioner in Australia is now replaced by daily feelings of fear and angst amongst an increasing number of registrants. This impacts on the direct and indirect delivery of human services by both the public and private sectors.

The basic requirements of acting according to natural law are unfortunately sometimes absent or capricious within the current operational jurisprudence of the Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory Agency (AHPRA) (and many of predecessor boards and their delegates) – being the “judge, jury and executioner” by way of National Law and some repealed legislation."

"It is perceived that the current complaints mechanism is more concerned with the prosecution of practitioners than protecting patient safety through remediation of the issues that lead to the complaint."

"AHPRA is staffed by people that are implementing the National Law yet do not have legal qualifications. o There are health practitioners and lay people on the boards that are interpreting a National Law that has only just been developed, let alone tested. · The Medical Board seem to ‘make up the law as they go along’."

Sound familiar? If true, it must surely be a sad indictment of the "system" that the same fundamental complaints seem to crop up in completely different fields and professions - what is it about the Australian system of government that gives rise to such abuses of governance?

[havick]

After reading that Mr McHeyzer has apparently been promoted to a senior role in the Health Regulator (presumably AHPRA) led me to look up the Senate enquiry into said organisation in 2017. The submissions are eye-opening and bear startling similarities to Glen's case - here are just a selection:

"The fundamental doctrine of the separation of powers in the Commonwealth of Nations (the Westminster system, which includes Australia) must be operational in any real democracy. It appears that the joy of practicing as a health practitioner in Australia is now replaced by daily feelings of fear and angst amongst an increasing number of registrants. This impacts on the direct and indirect delivery of human services by both the public and private sectors.

The basic requirements of acting according to natural law are unfortunately sometimes absent or capricious within the current operational jurisprudence of the Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory Agency (AHPRA) (and many of predecessor boards and their delegates) – being the “judge, jury and executioner” by way of National Law and some repealed legislation."

"It is perceived that the current complaints mechanism is more concerned with the prosecution of practitioners than protecting patient safety through remediation of the issues that lead to the complaint."

"AHPRA is staffed by people that are implementing the National Law yet do not have legal qualifications. o There are health practitioners and lay people on the boards that are interpreting a National Law that has only just been developed, let alone tested. · The Medical Board seem to ‘make up the law as they go along’."

Sound familiar? If true, it must surely be a sad indictment of the "system" that the same fundamental complaints seem to crop up in completely different fields and professions - what is it about the Australian system of government that gives rise to such abuses of governance?

And seems to attract the same numpties into those organisations to fill positions.

[Stickshift3000]

what is it about the Australian system of government that gives rise to such abuses of governance?

It's because many individuals within regulatory agencies (those enforcing laws) are incompetent; they themselves are not sure of the laws they're employed to enforce. Combine this with many of the general public not knowing their legal rights, and you end up with zealous regulators far overstepping the mark, whether through incompetence, misunderstanding, ego or sheer enjoyment. (In CASA's case it may be argued that their legislation is too complex for many of their staff to comprehend - that is an organisational issue, not permission to get the enforcement of it incorrect.)

There are some individuals in these agencies that are highly competent, but as time goes by, sure enough these individuals reluctantly depart to find more meaningful work, further lowering the general competence level in the workplace they've just departed.

I've experienced this over and over in government agencies. It's no accident that government now spends record amounts of $$ on external consultants to get competent opinions on all manner of work.

[glenb]

12/10/20



Allegation that CASA Employees have misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office in Phase One of his Investigation.



Dear Mr. Anthony Mathews, Chairperson of the Board of CASA.



I am concerned that CASA Personnel have deliberately misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office. Most likely with the intention of affecting the outcome of the investigation currently being undertaken.



In your role as the Chairperson of the CASA Board, you are the person ultimately responsible for ensuring CASA performs its functions in a “proper, efficient and effective manner”. I am bringing this to your attention, and also the attention of the Ombudsman's Office. I am imploring you to act with integrity and truthfulness, while being mindful of your obligations whilst acting as the Chair of the CASA Board, being Australia's national safety regulator, and operating under the Australian Coat of Arms.



The misleading information that CASA has provided is substantive and fundamental to the integrity of the investigation and subsequent findings of that investigation. Should these misconceptions be carried into Phase Two of the investigation it is likely that the outcome may be perverted.

1. CASA has led the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office to be of the view that CASA did not, and had not, historically permitted Flight Training Organisations (FTOs) to partake in “Franchised Air Operator Certificates ( AOC) arrangements,” when this is clearly not truthful.

2. CASA has led the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that the “Aviation Ruling- Franchised AOC arrangements’, was intended for Flight Training Organisations. That is not truthful.

3. CASA has led the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office to believe that the legislative change introduced on 1 September 2014 was the date that the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) changed. It was on that date the issue of misalignment of the CAR and Aviation Ruling began. That is not truthful.

4. CASA has led the Commonwealth Ombudsman to believe that APTA had made an AOC application. That is not correct.



The truth is.

On Point 1.


CASA did permit FTOs to operate under Franchised AOC arrangements throughout my 25 years of involvement in the flight training industry.
This practice was permitted by CASA and continued up until the day CASA gave my organization notification that it was not permitted. and simultaneously placed restrictions on my business's ability to trade. This action was taken against my business only, and not others.
CASA had approved a number of FTOs under Franchised AOC arrangements both prior to, and after the legislative change that CASA introduced on 1 September 2014.
CASA approved FTOs to enter such arrangements well after the date of 1 September 2014. I know that from my own personal experience because CASA permitted an FTO called TVSA to operate under my AOC after the date of September 1st, 2014. Similarly, CASA permitted Latrobe Valley Aero Club to operate under the AOC of Bairnsdale Air Charter. There are many examples throughout Australia. I am informed that this practice also occurred in Mr. Craig Martins Region when he was a CASA Regional Manager. You will be able to confirm this directly with him in his current role as the current CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance.
There was no change of law, there was only a change of "opinion" by Mr. Jonathan Aleck in his role as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs. The first indication that Mr. Aleck had changed his mind was the notification made to my organization on 23/10/18. The change of opinion was applied to my business only, and not others. It came with no warning at all. It had no basis on any safety concerns. There was no legislative change, I was dealing with a change of “opinion” only, and I maintain that the change of opinion was not well-intentioned and had no basis in law or aviation safety.



On Point 2.




The Aviation Ruling was released in 2006. On its release, CASA approached FTOs and advised them specifically, that the Aviation Ruling only applied to Charter Operators, and not to FTOs. I personally received that briefing from CASA as the business owner of a flying school. I have confirmed this with other FTOs, and that is clearly their recollection also. I can provide Statutory Declarations from those individuals if required. For CASA to suggest that their intention was that the Aviation Ruling applies to FTOs they are not being truthful. The truth is that it was not intended to apply to FTOs and that is the advice that CASA provided to the FTOs at the time of its release in 2006.
The truth is that the Aviation Ruling was introduced many years ago when a Charter Operator in Melbourne was shut down by CASA and recommenced operations the next day under another Charter Operators AOC. The Aviation Ruling was written as a response to that occurrence in the Charter industry, and its intention and purpose were entirely different than the purposes CASA used it for in my case.
After the introduction of the AOC, CASA did not permit Charter Organisations to operate under franchised AOCs, but importantly they did permit FTOs to operate under such arrangements. That further supports my contention that the wrong document is being used for the wrong sector of the industry i.e. charter v flying training



On point 3,


CASA led the Ombudsman to believe that the date of September 1st, 2014, is the date that Aviation Ruling and the Civil Aviation Regulations (CARs) became misaligned. The truth is that on that day, the CAR and Aviation Ruling became more aligned. The Aviation Ruling clearly refers to Civil Aviation Regulation 206 (CAR 206) where it defines "commercial" purposes. On September 1st, 2014, CASA legally removed Flying training from CAR 206 with the intention to separate the distinct categories. The information provided to FTOs on the release of the Aviation Ruling i.e. that the ruling did not apply to them, was now finally reflected in the legislation as was CASAs intention.



On point 4.


To clarify a misunderstanding in the Phase One report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. There was no new AOC application. The business received its AOC in 2005, and it is the only AOC. CASA had fully approved several Operators to become Members of APTA, it was an application to CASA to add on additional bases to the existing AOC. CASA had previously approved almost identical applications by my Organisation. I had received positive feedback from CASA on those applications, so had no reason to doubt
The CASA trading restrictions were placed on my AOC that was operating safely and compliantly, and with no prior warning. There was only ever one AOC of which APTA had full operational control. The AOCs were not being distributed, the entities came under the APTA AOC with Aviation Reference Number (ARN) 759217, with me holding full accountability.



The purpose of this correspondence, and what I am expecting

Dear Mr. Mathews, Chairperson of the Board of CASA. Could I respectfully request that you clarify the following with the Commonwealth Ombudsman and myself, to ensure there is no misunderstanding as Phase Two commences?

Is the following statement truthful?

CASA had been aware of, approved, and on occasions encouraged franchised AOC arrangements for Flight Training Organisations, and that was the situation throughout the last 25 years in the aviation industry right up until the date that CASA reversed their approval of my business.

This request does not require an extensive response, and it could be as short as a "yes" or a "no'. I appreciate you may choose to issue a more lengthy statement, but please be assured, I will hold you to account against every word that you write.

I am advised that this matter would also be under consideration by the BARC. The BARC ensures integrity over the Boards conduct.

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/casa-board-audit-risk-committee-charter-governance-arrangements.pdf

Can you please advise me of the members of the BARC, and am I permitted to contact them directly.

Thank you in anticipation of you clarifying the misunderstandings and ensuring the integrity of the information that CASA provides to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif

[glenb]

I received some advice that i should make a request under Freedom of Information to obtain the Australian Public Service CASA Employee Census. It was distributed to 838 CASA Employees with 737 responding (88% response rate).

I have attached a couple of pages that raised questions about CASA Senior Leadership. The responses are quite informative, but to be honest, don't really surprise me.


Only 58% of respondents thought their direct Senior Leadership was of high quality. (18% less than other medium-sized agencies)
Only 37% of respondents thought their Senior Executive overall was of high quality (26% less than other medium-sized agencies)
Only 32% of respondents thought that the Senior Executive work as a team. (15% less than other medium-sized agencies)

It certainly highlights the dissatisfaction within CASA with the Senior Executive.

One would have thought those results alone would raise alarm with the Ministers Department, and compel him to instigate change of Australias national aviation safety regulator, CASA.

[glenb]

Here is Part 1 and 2 of the full CASA survey. More to follow

[Paragraph377]

Glen, these surveys are standard practise within most organisations. They undertake them because they are told to do it. It’s a tick and flick exercise. Regardless of whether the results show that the Organization is a dysfunctional train wreck or a robust well loved party house, it’s all for naught. The Minister doesn’t care and neither does the Board or anyone else at the EM level. There has been previous annual surveys and there will be more to come in the future and they are about as useful as a dog with 6 testicles. The EM up to the Ministers level are too busy counting their salaries, reviewing their superannuation entitlements and looking for the next opportunity to dive into the taxpayer trough. You have to remember that you are dealing with an Organization with a history of being a tyrannical bully with no regard for due process, fairness or justice. So why would they care about what the minions in the place think?

[glenb]

This component covers- Immediate Supervisor, Workplace culture,

[A30_737_AEWC]

Glen, these surveys are standard practise within most organisations.

Common in the APS in the Australian Government, including in Defence.

[Lead Balloon]

The variances from the results of the surveys in comparator agencies are telling, and not in a good way particularly for CASA’s senior ‘leadership’.