Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA

[Paragraph377]

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’.
Indeed. And ‘leadership’ is a bold world to use when describing CASA heirachy, but I guess it’s the only politically correct management term the spin doctors could source. Fair enough.

[Stickshift3000]

These staff surveys are standard practice, but yes, the CASA scores are worse than the APS average.

Hardly a surprising outcome when a large number of technical experts have left, leaving a greater proportion of incompetent office ‘clerks’ behind:

https://members.professionalsaustralia.org.au/APEA/Latest_News/CASA_in_Crisis.aspx

[VH-MLE]

Leadership is a trait that rarely exists within the modern workplace. CASA is a typical example, but with the added power of dragging its subjects - the aviation industry, in whichever direction it decides to go (which is usually the wrong one!!).

Today's "leaders" are much more about self interest & climbing the ladder than motivating people to follow their direction & that is evident across the board - politics, government departments (like CASA) & business in general. My current workplace is no different, but then again whatever goes on in my workplace doesn't have a flow on effect on the aviation industry...

VH-MLE

[glenb]

21/10/20

Dear Senator McDonald,


My name is Glen Buckley. Firstly I would like to convey my appreciation to you for raising my matter in the RRAT Estimates meetings currently underway. I have attached the link and refer specifically to Mr. Carmody's responses provided from 6:30 onwards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WNdcR0vcBk&feature=youtu.be


I am fully satisfied that Mr. Shane Carmody, the CEO of CASA has deliberately misled you when providing his response to your questions. He leads you to believe that the only complaint I had was regarding a case of defamation. Mr. Carrmody knows that is not the truth, and his response was intended to deflect you. It was deliberate, calculated, and was not truthful.

He is fully aware that I have made a claim for compensation on behalf of me, my staff, customers, and Suppliers.

He is aware that I have raised allegations of vindictive and vexatious conduct, in clear breach of CASA stipulated procedures. The allegations were substantial and if upheld those personnel would not be able to remain in the employ of CASA. They have clearly breached the requirements of Administrative Law, Natural Justice, and Procedural Fairness, as well as CASAs, own Regulatory Philosophy, and obligations placed on CASA by the Minister's Statement of Expectations and the PGPA Act.

Mr. Carmody further leads you to believe that I raised allegations against only one individual in CASA and he is fully aware that I have raised allegations of misconduct against Mr. Aleck, Mr. Crawford, and Mr. Martin, as well as two other individuals, although they have since left the employ of CASA. Some of those remaining with CASA sat opposite you in the Chamber yesterday.


Mr. Carmody leads you to believe that the ICC reports to the Board. Whilst that is technically correct, Mr Carmody sits on that Board. Therefore there is effectively a line between Mr. Carmody as the Board Member and CEO of CASA.

Mr. Carmody was fully aware that a Commonwealth Ombudsman's Investigation is underway into my matter and is divided into two phases. He was aware that the Ombudsman has finalized Phase One of his investigation and has found CASA erred and that CASAs error could have caused "detriment" to occur. Phase Two continues. That will investigate the restrictions placed on my ability to trade, and the direction from the CASA Region Manager to my Employer that my continuing employment was untenable. Mr. Carmody is aware that after that CASA direction to my Employer I spent 8 months unemployed and have now been forced out of the industry. I have been left destitute.

Mr. Carmody is fully aware that the findings in Phase One of the Ombudsman's findings subject CASA to the likelihood of a class action based on the economic damage caused to so many.

Mr. Carmody is aware that I allege CASA provided misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and that I have submitted evidence in support of that claim. That misleading information provided by CASA to the Ombudsman was clearly not truthful and was designed to impact Phase Two of his investigation. I have called on the Chair of the CASA Board Mr. Anthony Mathews to act with integrity, and come forward with the truth. I am awaiting his decision.


Mr. Carmody is fully aware that I allege the conduct of those personnel has resulted in the closure of several businesses. He is aware that those business owners have lost their business and associated investment. He is aware that dozens of employees lost their employment as a result of misconduct by CASA personnel. He is aware that the conduct of these individuals has impacted on me financially and impacted on my mental and physical well being as well as bringing, and bought unacceptable reputational damage. He is aware that many millions of dollars damage has been bought to approximately 30 entities as a result of the conduct of Messrs, Aleck, Martin, and Crawford.

Thank you for the opportunity you have presented. My hope is that Mr. Carmody can act in a well intentioned and truthful manner, put aside any other temptations, and bring clarity to this matter.

Thank you for your support. Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

I have already received an email from Senator Susan McDonald asking for my telephone number. I have provided that and look forward to the opportunity to chat to her

[Paragraph377]

21/10/20

Dear Senator McDonald,


My name is Glen Buckley. Firstly I would like to convey my appreciation to you for raising my matter in the RRAT Estimates meetings currently underway. I have attached the link and refer specifically to Mr. Carmody's responses provided from 6:30 onwards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WNdcR0vcBk&feature=youtu.be


I am fully satisfied that Mr. Shane Carmody, the CEO of CASA has deliberately misled you when providing his response to your questions. He leads you to believe that the only complaint I had was regarding a case of defamation. Mr. Carrmody knows that is not the truth, and his response was intended to deflect you. It was deliberate, calculated, and was not truthful.

He is fully aware that I have made a claim for compensation on behalf of me, my staff, customers, and Suppliers.

He is aware that I have raised allegations of vindictive and vexatious conduct, in clear breach of CASA stipulated procedures. The allegations were substantial and if upheld those personnel would not be able to remain in the employ of CASA. They have clearly breached the requirements of Administrative Law, Natural Justice, and Procedural Fairness, as well as CASAs, own Regulatory Philosophy, and obligations placed on CASA by the Minister's Statement of Expectations and the PGPA Act.

Mr. Carmody further leads you to believe that I raised allegations against only one individual in CASA and he is fully aware that I have raised allegations of misconduct against Mr. Aleck, Mr. Crawford, and Mr. Martin, as well as two other individuals, although they have since left the employ of CASA. Some of those remaining with CASA sat opposite you in the Chamber yesterday.


Mr. Carmody leads you to believe that the ICC reports to the Board. Whilst that is technically correct, Mr Carmody sits on that Board. Therefore there is effectively a line between Mr. Carmody as the Board Member and CEO of CASA.

Mr. Carmody was fully aware that a Commonwealth Ombudsman's Investigation is underway into my matter and is divided into two phases. He was aware that the Ombudsman has finalized Phase One of his investigation and has found CASA erred and that CASAs error could have caused "detriment" to occur. Phase Two continues. That will investigate the restrictions placed on my ability to trade, and the direction from the CASA Region Manager to my Employer that my continuing employment was untenable. Mr. Carmody is aware that after that CASA direction to my Employer I spent 8 months unemployed and have now been forced out of the industry. I have been left destitute.

Mr. Carmody is fully aware that the findings in Phase One of the Ombudsman's findings subject CASA to the likelihood of a class action based on the economic damage caused to so many.

Mr. Carmody is aware that I allege CASA provided misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and that I have submitted evidence in support of that claim. That misleading information provided by CASA to the Ombudsman was clearly not truthful and was designed to impact Phase Two of his investigation. I have called on the Chair of the CASA Board Mr. Anthony Mathews to act with integrity, and come forward with the truth. I am awaiting his decision.


Mr. Carmody is fully aware that I allege the conduct of those personnel has resulted in the closure of several businesses. He is aware that those business owners have lost their business and associated investment. He is aware that dozens of employees lost their employment as a result of misconduct by CASA personnel. He is aware that the conduct of these individuals has impacted on me financially and impacted on my mental and physical well being as well as bringing, and bought unacceptable reputational damage. He is aware that many millions of dollars damage has been bought to approximately 30 entities as a result of the conduct of Messrs, Aleck, Martin, and Crawford.

Thank you for the opportunity you have presented. My hope is that Mr. Carmody can act in a well intentioned and truthful manner, put aside any other temptations, and bring clarity to this matter.

Thank you for your support. Respectfully, Glen Buckley

Glen, all that you say is undoubtedly true. However, Mr Carmody, if further questioned, may simply not ‘recall’ those emails, phone calls or discussions. I also suspect that if after several years of fighting you DO end up with CASA firmly by the balls, they will offer you a generous payout with a confidentially clause and non-disclosure attached. Meanwhile Mr Carmody will fly off into the sunset with a clean sheet and generous Government superannuation package while Dr Aleck and other mentioned acolytes enjoy their ongoing highly remunerated positions at Malfunction Junction.

Either way Glen, you are a damn legend.Never stop fighting.

[Bend alot]

Hello Mr Carmody,

Glad you read this - that shows how low a person you are.

Stop hiding behind lawyers, you do not pay for - make a comment publicly, have your say!

[glenb]

I have had a discussion with Senator McDonald's office. Whilst I am unable to discuss the contents. I have no doubt that she is acting in a well-intentioned manner, and has heard my allegation regarding Mr. Carmody misleading her. I will be able to reveal more in 21 days. Cheers. Glen

[Shipwreck00]

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.


Keep digging. I hear inspector numbers of pilots and engineers have halved in a short term. Lits leave none replaced. Word is on the street that moral is poor as and staff are bullied. There are a couple of reports on regulators, the one on the New Zealand authority is really damning, bullying, abuse, same for FAA, sounds like ours is the same. Probably need to fix the rot first.

[Sbaker]

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/pid.pdf

Read the first part of this document.. spells it out... so CASA trying to run people out of money:

""pecuniary interest" is an interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person or another person with whom the person is associated as provided in section 183."

[TBM-Legend]

I have had a discussion with Senator McDonald's office. Whilst I am unable to discuss the contents. I have no doubt that she is acting in a well-intentioned manner, and has heard my allegation regarding Mr. Carmody misleading her. I will be able to reveal more in 21 days. Cheers. Glen


Sen McDonald is a personal friend and I started her on the aviation trail beginning with the Angel Flight debacle. She is solid as a rock.

[Sbaker]

Can we FOI the Jim (James) Venn report? Apparently it's eye opening?

[LAME2]

Googled James Venn and found this on page 150 of link below.

Ongoing harassment of individuals

https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/107_p_phelan_pro_aviation_29_jan_2014_redacted.pdf#page150

[Shipwreck00]

Sen McDonald is a personal friend and I started her on the aviation trail beginning with the Angel Flight debacle. She is solid as a rock.
Then why isn't anything changing. Rumour is there is an overpaid contractor running casa, not carmody, morale is down the drain, bulling is rampant and we are the victims of a dysfunctional regulator. Why is the government sitting back and doing nothing while we endure increased costs, regulation for the sake of it and a regulator that is in turmoil internally?

[Lead Balloon]

Why isn’t anything changing, despite Senator McDonald’s position and focus?

First, “the government” doesn’t care. Why would it? It doesn’t need to care.

Secondly, Senator McDonald has only recently become a Senator and, sadly, is ‘on her lonesome’ in the Coalition when it comes to voting on motions of benefit for GA. Senator McDonald voted to disallow the Community Service Flight kneejerk instrument imposing conditions on pilot licences, but how many of her Coalition colleagues did so with her? Donut.

If Senator McDonald sticks with her principles, she’ll eventually - if not already - be facing a personal dilemma about her party affiliation. Will be fascinating to see what she decides.

[glenb]

Senator Susan McDonald will have one quality many of her male counterparts may lack. Empathy!

[glenb]

Dear Mr Buckley,



Thank you for your email.



I have reviewed the video testimony of my appearance on Tuesday afternoon and advise that I responded appropriately to the question from Senator McDonald: “Is it correct that there’s been a settlement made with Mr Buckley recently?”.



My response: “Senator, partially. There has been no settlement made. Mr Buckley put in a complaint about a CASA officer with regard to defamation and said that the CASA officer defamed him. CASA’s lawyers, because we have external lawyers acting on our behalf because it’s a liability for CASA, offered a small settlement to Mr Buckley and he declined. That is the only settlement matter that I am aware of.”



This was a direct response to a direct question regarding a settlement.



There were no questions asked around other matters, including those currently with the Commonwealth Ombudsman.



I was prepared to answer any questions regarding your numerous assertions and allegations, had such questions been raised. They were not.



Regards

Shane



Shane Carmody

CEO and Director of Aviation Safety

Civil Aviation Safety Authority

[glenb]

Glen Buckley <[email protected]>to Shane, Susan, Minister, [email protected]
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
Thu, 22 Oct, 16:15 (8 hours ago)
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
it’s all about intent! Mr. Carmody. intent, integrity, honesty, and a moral compass

[glenb]

something to the effect of "CASA rarely gets to puts its view forward". dishonestly leading Senator Susan McDonald to have the view that he hadn't been presented with an opportunity to defend the conduct of his Senior Executive. A blatant lie. Just ask Australian Flying Magazine and Hitchy about how "keen' they were to have their point of view put forward He just keeps digging. I'm sure AOPA will also concur that he has rejected an invitation to put his view forward. What hope has a Senate Inquiry got if the CASA personnel cant act with integrity. What hope has aviation safety got. What hope do jobs and Australian owned businesses have. i hope something comes of all this. For us all

[Shipwreck00]

Glen Buckley <[email protected]>to Shane, Susan, Minister, [email protected]
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
Thu, 22 Oct, 16:15 (8 hours ago)
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
it’s all about intent! Mr. Carmody. intent, integrity, honesty, and a moral compass
He won't understand that, just look at how run down our so called regulator has become under his control.

[The Big E]

Rumour is there is an overpaid contractor running casa

If this is indeed true, then let the smokescreen be removed and let the Industry see as to who is the 'puppet master' and who is the puppet :ok:.

Y'all take care now. Regards, 'E'.

[glenb]

25/10/20

To the relevant person within the Attorney Generals Department

I want to lodge allegations against the following CASA Employees for their part in unlawful conduct that has bought detriment to myself and other Entities.

Their conduct has lead to the loss of my two businesses. Melbourne Flight Training a flying school, and APTA a business offering contracted safety and compliance service to smaller flight training operators.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman has completed Phase One of his investigation into this matter, and I am fully satisfied that his Report supports my contention that their misconduct has caused detriment. I am also fully satisfied that Phase Two when completed will highlight further unlawful conduct by CASA personnel.

The allegations are made against

Mr. Shane Carmody- CEO of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)
Mr. Jonathan Aleck-CASA Executive Manager, Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs.
Mr. Graeme Crawford- CASA Executive Manager of the Aviation Group
Mr. Craig Martin- CASA Region Manager, Southern Region.
Mr. Anthony Mathews- Chair of the Board of CASA.


I am alleging that these gentlemen as a collective, have

Endeavored to facilitate a cover-up of this matter.
Have consistently demonstrated a willingness to deliberately frustrate a fair and lawful outcome by breaching procedures they are obligated to comply with.
Have acted unlawfully.
Have acted for reasons other than safety.
Breached obligations placed on them by the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct and the Australian Public Services Values, CASA Enforcement Procedures as stipulated in their own manuals, breached the Minister's Statement of Expectations, obligations placed on them by the PGPA Act, and obligations placed on them by Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness, and Natural Justice.
Misled Senator Susan McDonald in the Senate Estimates Committee
Attempted to deliberately mislead the Commonwealth Ombudsman in his investigation with the unsuccessful intention of altering the outcome.


Whilst, not a point of law they have clearly breached the ethical and moral obligations placed on them by CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy.


A full investigation into the conduct of these personnel will bring clarity to the matter. I have raised allegations against these individuals publicly as I have no other choice to defend my reputation. I also believe that their conduct has impacted negatively and demonstrably on aviation safety. Because of the substantive nature of the allegations that I make against them, I believe they are fully entitled to a full and comprehensive investigation.

I await your response on how I should proceed with this matter.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Dear Mr. Shane Carmody (CEO of CASA), Mr. Jonathan Aleck (CASA Executive Manager Legal International and Regulatory Affairs), Mr Graeme Crawford (CASA Executive Manager Aviation Group, and Mr. Anthony Mathews (Chair of the Board of CASA). As you are aware I have made allegations that CASA has acted to mislead Senator Susan McDonald during the Senate Estimates, and has also provided misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office, with the intention of potentially perverting the outcome of his findings. I felt it timely to draw your attention to your obligations in accordance with Legal Services Directions 2005. I particularly draw your attention to the bolded paragraph "IntroductionOn 22 June 2012, the Full Federal Court handed down its decision in LVR (WA) Pty Ltd v Administrative Appeals Tribunal which reinforces the overarching obligation of Australian Government Agencies and their legal representatives to act as model litigants in accordance with the Legal Services Directions 2005. This decision illustrates the supremacy of the model litigant obligation which may, in certain circumstances, extend further than merely acting honestly, ethically, legally, and in accordance with court rules.
BackgroundOn 30 July 2010, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) dismissed an application for merits review made by LVR (WA) Pty Ltd (the Applicant) in relation to a decision of the Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner). In unique circumstances, the Tribunal dismissed the application without conducting a review of the decision on the basis that the Applicant had failed to comply with a procedural direction made by the Tribunal relating to the filing and serving of evidence.

The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application for review was the subject of a separate dismissal hearing (the Dismissal Hearing), in anticipation of which the Tribunal had made directions for further evidence to be filed in relation to the non-compliance with its earlier directions in the main proceedings. The Applicant filed and served the affidavit of Mr Schokker (the Schokker Affidavit) only three days before the Dismissal Hearing and some seven weeks after it was directed to do so. The Schokker Affidavit responded to the evidence filed by the Commissioner and addressed the applicant's non-compliance with the directions made by the Tribunal in the main proceedings.

Save for a small number of paragraphs, the published reasons of the Tribunal relating to its decision to dismiss the Applicant's application were copied verbatim from the Commissioner's written submissions (the Submissions) without attribution. Because of the Applicant's late service of the Schokker Affidavit, only two paragraphs of the Submissions referred to the Schokker Affidavit and those paragraphs were not reproduced in the Tribunal's reasons.
The decision at first instanceThe Applicant subsequently brought an action in the Federal Court seeking judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal to dismiss the application on the basis that the Tribunal had failed to take into account the responsive content of the Schokker Affidavit. In dismissing the application for judicial review, Gilmour J relied heavily upon the Tribunal's reasons and found that the mere absence of any reference to the Schokker Affidavit in the Tribunal's reasons did not indicate that the Tribunal had failed to take into account the Schokker Affidavit when making its decision. Critically, the fact that the Tribunal's reasons had been almost entirely copied from the Submissions was not disclosed to the Court by either party.
Full Court HearingThe Applicant appealed from the decision of Gilmour J on the basis that his Honour had erred in finding that the Schokker Affidavit was taken into account by the Tribunal in making its decision. The critical fact relating to the source of the Tribunal's reasons was again omitted from both parties' written submissions to the Full Court which was comprised of North, Logan, and Robertson JJ.

Prior to the matter being heard, the Court became aware of the source of the Tribunal's reasons and queried the parties as to why this fact had not been disclosed at first instance or on appeal. The response of the Commissioner was that it merely responded to the submissions of the Applicant and given the source of the Tribunal's reasons was not raised, it did not address the issue in its own submissions.

The Full Court held that it was "a distraction to examine the reasons of the Tribunal as if they were an independent text without reference to their source" [at 130]. Given the substance of the Schokker Affidavit was not dealt with in the Submissions, the Full Court further found that it could not be inferred that the Tribunal took the substance of the affidavit into account when making its decision. The appeal was therefore allowed, the decision of the Tribunal set aside and the matter referred to the Tribunal for further consideration.
Model Litigant ObligationsThe Full Court stated that "being a model litigant requires the Commonwealth and its agencies, as parties to litigation, to act with complete proprietary, fairly and in accordance with the highest professional standards" [at 42]. The Court further indicated that the content of this obligation may surpass other professional obligations to act honestly, ethically and in accordance with the law and court rules.

The Court also traced the model litigant obligation back to the traditional relationship between the Crown and its subjects and noted that the Commonwealth and its agencies have no legitimate private interest in the performance of their functions and frequently also have greater access to resources than private litigants. For these reasons, the Court held that Australian Government Agencies and their legal representatives should act as moral exemplars when engaging with private litigants.

In the present case, the Full Court found that the Commissioner had an obligation, as a model litigant, to ensure that the Court was fully aware of the relevant circumstances concerning the source of the Tribunal's reasons. The Court stated that "if the appellants failed to fully explain the position to the primary judge then the Commissioner should have done so" [at 40] and indicated that it was inadequate of the Commissioner to only respond to the submissions made by the Applicant.
ConsequencesThis decision of the Full Federal Court highlights the critical importance of Australian Government Agencies to act as model litigants to ensure that its interactions with private litigants are fair and transparent. This decision further serves as a reminder that Australian Government Agencies and their internal and external legal representatives must act as model litigants at all times, including where it is not necessarily in the strategic interests of the Agency to do so."

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

02/11/20

Dear Colin (CASA Board Secretariat). Could you please ensure this correspondence be forwarded to Mr. Mathews at the soonest opportunity? Could I be advised when that has occurred? I do appreciate that the Commonwealth Onmbusdan is investigating this matter, and CASA has used this as a reason to ignore my previous requests. This request is independent of the Ombudsman Investigation but will form part of my submission to the Senate Inquiry. I intend to submit that within 24 hours so request a prompt response.




Dear Mr Matthews,

I anticipate having my submission to the current Senate Inquiry submitted within the next 24 hours.


In that submission, I will be making substantive allegations against some members of CASAs Management. The allegations are substantive, well supported, and truthful. I have strong industry support. As you are aware I am highly appreciative of Senator Mccdonalds, well intentioned involvement in this matter, and have included her amongst the recipients. These matters do have the potential to negatively impact on aviation safety. As these personnel opertae at the most senior levels these matters affect aviation safety nationally.

The conduct of these CASA personnel was vindictive and vexatious, and I allege unlawful.

The detriment caused by their conduct is significant, as you are fully aware.

Over the last two years, I have made multiple requests to meet with any two members of the Board. You have decided not to facilitate that request.

You did faciliate a meeting with yourself and the CASA Region Manager, which was not what I had requested.

Interestingly I note, that it was that very same CASA employee at that meeting that subsequently sent an email to my then Employer, that my continuing position was "untenable, based on comments i was making publicly."

Prior to making my submission, in 24 hours I would like to ask you again.

Am I able to meet with any two Members of the CASA Board for 2 hours? CASA would be welcome to have any other attendees that they felt necessary, including those I have made allegations against. I will attend with only one other person, and that person will not be a lawyer.


Could I respectfully request that you consult with your fellow Board Members, and advise me of the Board decision?

I appreciate that Mr. Carmody the CEO and DAS, of CASA, also holds a Board position.

You will appreciate my preference that Mr. Carmody, not be involved in decision making regarding facilitating a meeting. That could be seen to damage the integrity of the request.

I look forward to your response at the soonest practical opportunity, as it will clearly demonstrate intent and Board integrity, which will be relevant to my submission


Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee



2 November 2020

Dear Mr Buckley

Invitation to give evidence at a public hearing on the general aviation industry



On behalf of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee I invite you to attend a public hearing with the committee on the inquiry into general aviation, with particular reference to aviation in rural, regional and remote Australia.



Date: Friday, 20 November 2020

Location: Senate Committee Room 2S3
Parliament House, Canberra

Your appearance: 12.45pm – 1.15pm
Via videoconference or teleconference

Please confirm with the secretariat the method in which you intend to appear before the Committee.

The hearing is scheduled to commence at 9.30am and run through to approximately 1.45 pm. Please email the secretariat staff about 15 minutes before your scheduled time and let them know you are ready to join the videoconference.

Arrangements to connect to the hearing for videoconferencing appearance

The attached document, Videoconference Instructions, provides important information on how to connect to the hearing on Friday 20 November 2020.

Testing your connection

All witnesses appearing before the Committee via videoconference will need to undertake a videoconference test. Please us the following self-testing link to test your connection prior to the hearing date. https://www.webex.com/test-meeting.html (https://www.webex.com/test-meeting.html)

Hansard Witness Forms

A completed Hansard witness form for every witness appearing is required (use the attached document or download this from http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard available at the bottom left of the web page). Please return this to [email protected] by COB Friday 13 November 2020.

What to expect on the day

At the beginning of your appearance, the Chair will invite you to make a brief opening statement of approximately 5 minutes, in which you may wish to outline your main arguments, summarise your views or highlight
the issues you would like to emphasise for the committee. The committee does not usually permit visual aids or Powerpoint presentations to be used in opening statements.

Following your opening statement, the committee will ask questions, seek information relevant to the inquiry's terms of reference and allow you to amplify any points made in your opening remarks. If you wish to provide further documentation to the committee, please email the secretariat a digital copy for distribution.

The hearing is public and will be broadcast and recorded

The hearing is a public event, and the hearing will be available to audio stream on the Parliament's website at www.aph.gov.au/Watch_Read_Listen (http://www.aph.gov.au/Watch_Read_Listen).

Hansard transcription will be made of the hearing, which will become official records of the Australian Parliament. This will also be a public and freely accessible document, including being placed on the internet.

Given this, if you consider there may be a need to give evidence confidentially, it is important that you let the committee secretariat know well in advance.

Further information

Some material to guide witnesses appearing before Senate committees is available at https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Attending_a_public_hearing

On behalf of the committee, thank you for your participation in this inquiry. Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact the committee secretariat on (02) 6277 3511.

Yours sincerely,



Paula Waring, Principal Research Officer

On behalf of

Gerry McInally – Committee Secretary



Paula Waring | Principal Research Officer

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ui=2&ik=4ba85ec092&attid=0.0.2&permmsgid=msg-f:1682205918466994285&th=1758655ec148f06d&view=fimg&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ8Y296j-xqsgZqAfJHt2EEamPQCdpY-YobKYGYFTS7mWfkw9Xa5yJ7YQmlNIeTcFaf2sc3DwFxZ5qfqDcupcTMbMRd2 KjfzJee2mYH0j1Oc3dwplM48TUqEiD0&disp=emb

Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport

Joint Select Committee on Road Safety

SG.62 | Department of the Senate

Phone 02 6277 3025

www.aph.gov.au/senate (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate)

[Andy_G]

I look forward to seeing this Glen. I hope it has a profound impact upon the hearing's outcomes.
GA, and people like yourself really need to be heard and not filtered out.

[aroa]

GO YOU GOOD THING.!!
Excellent work Glen and I,m sure the thoughts of the whole GA industry are behind you, especially those that have been "done over " by CAsA and those vindictive, vexacious and criminal employees that dwell within.

[joe_bloggs]

Go get em!

[Pinky the pilot]

What aroa said. +1

[greenslopes]

Well done Glen. I look forward to hearing how it went.

[glenb]

Dear Mr Buckley



I refer to your latest correspondence of 2 November 2020 addressed to Mr Mathews, Chair of the CASA Board.



As there is no new information provided, CASA is satisfied that your request falls within the allegations made to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, noting the review is currently underway. The outcome of the review will inform next steps.



Yours sincerely



Colin McLachlan

[glenb]

If you refer to post 1115 you will see my Freedom Of Information Request that I made. I had written to a Member of the Board hoping that integrity may prevail. I was concerned that my correspondence may have been thwarted by Shane Carmody. To confirm my fears I made an FOI request and have received the response which is attached. Sure enough, the email to the Board Member was intercepted and Mr. Carmody intervened. One of the problems i guess when the CEO also sits on the Board.He has obviously been following this, so a big hello and welcome to Mr. Carmody. If you are not signed up to Pprune unfortunately you won't be able to open it. For those that are members, it makes an interesting read.

It's an uphill battle but the exercise is good for me.

[Paragraph377]

Mr Carmody, and former DAS/CEO’s before him, have periodically received weekly briefings outlining/highlighting key comments made about them or CASA on social media or websites such as Pprune. This normally happens when there is something ‘big’ going on that involves CASA. I can assure you that this is correct. In former days when the Screaming Skull was DAS he would often become very angry at Pprune comments, and so would Hoody, but Hoody would often have a silent chuckle behind the scenes.

Glen, if you have their attention then that is good. They wouldn’t read your posts if they felt the comments weren’t relevant or potentially threatening to their gravy train. They are adverse to spotlights, which is a common thing among cockroaches. However they won’t be too concerned as one of your bullies recently left CASA and Big Ears leaves later this month. Teflon Aleck will never get a scratch on him, which is a shame because anyone who has intimate knowledge of how the CASA machine operates knows that Aleck is the key piece of the jigsaw that has been there for over a quarter of a century and he is the architect of today’s CASA. Until he ever leaves there will be no change. And even if he leaves he has an understudy in Mr Anastasi of whom he has been mentoring for the good part of 15+ years, so CASA won’t be changing its ways anytime soon, not unless a Royal Commission was formed and the subsequent result was a complete dismantling of the Frankenstein’s monster and AMSA became the new aviation regulatory agency.

[zanthrus]

Maybe a couple of Snake eyes or GBU's through the windows at CASA will fix the cockroach problem.

[Sunfish]

Glen, I strongly advise you to get advice and coaching on how to present yourself before the Committee. I have never been before one but I am advised that it may not be as simple as it looks, especially if one of the Senators decides to be hostile towards you and your point of view.

[Pearly White]

Glen, I strongly advise you to get advice and coaching on how to present yourself before the Committee. I have never been before one but I am advised that it may not be as simple as it looks, especially if one of the Senators decides to be hostile towards you and your point of view.I second Sunfish on getting some training. I wonder if anyone here has a contact that might assist pro-bono? I've been subpoena'd to appear before a Senate subcommittee and there were a number of particularly nasty players whose motives were entirely political and had nothing to do with getting to the truth of the matter in the public interest. I got some coaching beforehand which proved invaluable. Too long ago for my coach to be any use to Glen now, but there must be folks out there who are current on such matters. How can we help?

[Pearly White]

I second Sunfish on getting some training. I wonder if anyone here has a contact that might assist pro-bono? I've been subpoena'd to appear before a Senate subcommittee and there were a number of particularly nasty players whose motives were entirely political and had nothing to do with getting to the truth of the matter in the public interest. I got some coaching beforehand which proved invaluable. Too long ago for my coach to be any use to Glen now, but there must be folks out there who are current on such matters. How can we help?
Seek and ye shall find:
https://www.mediamanoeuvres.com.au/senate-estimates-hearing-training/
https://mediasuccess.com.au/senate-estimates/

[Seabreeze]

Glen,
Apologies if I am trying to teach you to suck eggs.

When Presenting:
Plan carefully what you will say. Summarise the key message in your first sentence. Describe most important matters briefly and succintly, so as to underscore these. Do not distract your audience with minor matters.

When answering questions:
Take a few seconds to let the import of the question sink in, then answer briefly in a couple of sentences. If the Senator wants more detail, they will ask. There is very limited time so you will want to avoid getting distracted into discussing minor or irrelevant matters.

Have your key messages in point form in large font on a single piece of paper in front of you for reference. You may be asked for further comments or a summary at the end, but don't rely on this.

Obvious presentation techniques often forgotten by interviewees: Always look the Questioner (and the other Senators) in the eye, and speak loudly enough that all can clearly hear you.

Good luck.

SB

[havick]

Best of luck Glen. Also agree with getting some prep before hand.

[Flaming galah]

I’ve seen Glen on the Ben Morgan show. Not sure he needs this coaching you’re all frothing for as he’s compelling, natural and engaging enough as it is.

[havick]

I’ve seen Glen on the Ben Morgan show. Not sure he needs this coaching you’re all frothing for as he’s compelling, natural and engaging enough as it is.

He tends to go off on tangents on this forum.

[harrryw]

We need more people who go off on tangents and tilt at windmills.

Stand up
Speak up
Shut up
Sit down.

[4forward8back]

I’ve seen Glen on the Ben Morgan show. Not sure he needs this coaching you’re all frothing for as he’s compelling, natural and engaging enough as it is.

A person might fly a 172 nicely, but you wouldn't throw them into an A380 without training.

[tail wheel]

A previous CASA DAS was an active and interesting PPRuNe user.

[Paragraph377]

A previous CASA DAS was an active and interesting PPRuNe user.
And so was a member of the ‘legal team’. Naughty naughty.

[tail wheel]

And so were many CASA staff, Regional Managers et al. I don't think they realized most web sites record IP addresses............. :}

[glenb]

08/11/2020

To the Members of the Board of CASA,


Mr. Anthony Mathews (Chair of the Board of CASA)
Mr. Shane Carmody (Director of Aviation Safety, and CASA CEO)
Mr. Mark Rindfleish
Mr. Michael Bridge
Ms. Donna Hardman
Ms. Elizabeth Hallet
Ms. Marlyn Andre

As you will be aware, I have been given an opportunity to present before the Senate Inquiry into CASA. I am extremely appreciative of this opportunity. As you will be aware I am claiming misfeasance/malfeasance and negligent misstatement against a small group of the CASA Executive Management, including Mr. Shane Carmody, Mr. Jonathan Aleck, Mr. Craig Martin, and Mr. Graeme Crawford

I allege that those personnel acted unlawfully, and breached my rights under Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness, and Natural Justice. They acted vindictively and vexatiously.

Their conduct has resulted in the closure of a number of businesses, associated loss of jobs, and bought enormous damage to my mental health, and caused enormous economic damage to me personally. You will also be aware that I have made multiple attempts over the last two years to meet with the Board, and you have chosen not to afford me that opportunity. As you will appreciate, from my perspective each of you has been complicit in facilitating a cover-up of this matter and clearly failed in your respective roles to ensure the good governance of CASA. I will raise these same allegations against you when presented the opportunity before the Senate Committee.

You will each be aware that similar allegations have been raised against these personnel before, and in fact, their conduct formed the basis of an ABC investigative story aired on the ABC.

Your failure to act ethically and with good intention is a clear failure against CASAs' own published Regulatory Philosophy, and the obligations placed on you when you accepted a position on the Board of CASA.

For clarity, those personnel took three separate and distinct, and deliberate actions.

Stage One- Without any warning at all, and not based on any safety allegations, CASA reversed my business's approval and placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade. That business was called the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA). I emphasize that by CASAs' own admission there were no safety allegations or allegations of regulatory breaches. On multiple occasions and in writing I advised CASA that those restrictions on my business's ability to trade would cost me in excess of $10,000 per week if I were to avoid business closures and redundancies. After 8 months of having those restrictions applied, the business was unable to continue trading and was sold at 5% of its value to ensure the continuing employment of my highly valued personnel. I was dealing not with a matter of law but only a "change of opinion" by Mr. Jonathan Aleck in his role as CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs.

Stage Two- Those CASA personnel then advised that I had to transfer my remaining business Melbourne Flight Training (MFT) to the new owners of APTA. The Commonwealth Ombudsman has investigated this matter and clearly found that conduct to be unlawful.

Stage Three- After the failure of APTA and the transfer of my remaining flying school, I managed to obtain employment within the industry whilst continuing to defend my reputation and my position, until CASA sent a direction to my employer that my "continuing employment was untenable based on comments that I was making publicly."

The purpose of this correspondence is to ensure that you are each aware of my allegations and I draw your attention to the following "thread" running on this topic. You will note that it has had over 650,000 views and strong feedback supporting my position. https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa.html

Whilst I am confident that each of you are fully aware of this thread, I wish to ensure you have been notified and availed with the opportunity to familiarize yourselves with it, as it will form the basis of my "submission".

Yours thankfully, Glen Buckley.

[Mr Approach]

Dear Glen,
I have expressed by cynicism about the current Senate enquiry many times in this forum and others; this is based on the political views of the Chair Senator Susan MacDonald. Her own web site contains this information "She is a member of the Liberal National Party of Queensland and sits with the National Party in federal parliament." The National Party in the Federal Parliament traditionally controls the portfolio containing aviation matters and hence CASA; currently the Minister is the leader of the National Party the Honourable Michael McCormack.

Am I just being silly or is the National Party so badly organised that it will allow a Senator from Queensland to undermine an agency which is the responsibility of their Leader? If everyone reading this thinks so, or believes that Senator MacDonald is just doing some undercover work for Minister McCormack, they underestimate the power of political patronage. Even though, I believe, that Senator MacDonald's father was once the president of the Country Party in Queensland, the Nationals choose whose name is put forward for safe Senate seats and if the honourable lady rocks the boat, they will get rid of her.

My personal (cynical) view is that her endeavour is designed to shore up the outback Qld vote for the Nationals without actually doing anything. (That is not to say that a little win over Angel Flight would consitute not doing anything, but I hope you get the drift)

The truth is that the Minister could institute changes in CASA at any time, however he will not and indeed will appoint a steady-as-she-goes successor to Mr. Carmody, who will do precisely what the Minister wants.

Good luck Glen, but choose your avenues of redress wisely.

Your aye - Mr.Approach

[Paragraph377]

If you want to know what CASA truly stands for then consider what a very senior person in CASA once said;

‘Regulation by Obsfucation’ - self explanatory.

‘Regulation by Accumulation’- travel as much as you can and gain as many frequent flyer points as you can.

’Ask not what you can do for CASA, but what CASA can do for you’ - milk every taxpayer dollar you can out of the place in T/A, expenses, overtime and travel. Bleed the trough dry.

And of course a very well known legal roadstop once said; ‘all aviators are criminals, it’s just that they haven’t all been caught yet’.

[Flaming galah]

If you want to know what CASA truly stands for then consider what a very senior person in CASA once said;

‘Regulation by Obsfucation’ - self explanatory.

‘Regulation by Accumulation’- travel as much as you can and gain as many frequent flyer points as you can.

’Ask not what you can do for CASA, but what CASA can do for you’ - milk every taxpayer dollar you can out of the place in T/A, expenses, overtime and travel. Bleed the trough dry.

And of course a very well known legal roadstop once said; ‘all aviators are criminals, it’s just that they haven’t all been caught yet’.

Who said these things, and when?

[Paragraph377]

Who said these things, and when?
Yeah right, I’m going to name names? Not likely. But they were said, and not 30 years ago either. And I forgot another quote from a famous CASA Inspector, this time; “Being a CASA regulator is all a game. It’s a very serious game, but it’s all a game”. Believe me if you wish. If you don’t, well it doesn’t bother me one little bit as it’s all irrelevant anyway because unless there is a 777 with a roo on its tail poking out of a great big smoking hole there will never be change at CASA. N.E.V.E.R

[Flaming galah]

Yeah right, I’m going to name names? Not likely. But they were said, and not 30 years ago either. And I forgot another quote from a famous CASA Inspector, this time; “Being a CASA regulator is all a game. It’s a very serious game, but it’s all a game”. Believe me if you wish. If you don’t, well it doesn’t bother me one little bit as it’s all irrelevant anyway because unless there is a 777 with a roo on its tail poking out of a great big smoking hole there will never be change at CASA. N.E.V.E.R

I hope you’ve put in a confidential submission to the Senate Committee’s GA review naming the person. Otherwise you’re complicit.

[Paragraph377]

I hope you’ve put in a confidential submission to the Senate Committee’s GA review naming the person. Otherwise you’re complicit.
You really are a flaming galah aren’t you. How old are you, child? I’ve got more hours under my belt and managerial aviation experience than you will ever have in a life time. Senate inquiry’s come and go, senate estimates come and go, Government internal investigations, reports and recommendations come and go, and senators, ministers and independents come and go, and all for naught. I’ve seen at least 20+ senate inquiries over 35 years and more CASA/CAA DAS/CEO’s than I really care to remember. Hell the regulatory reform program commenced the year before the great pilot dispute of 1989 when Hawke and Keating ruled Australia and the reform program still hasn’t been completed!!!! I’ve spoken to Ministers and their minions, politicians and independents, business CEO’s and CASA themselves. I’ve written submissions, publicly supported a plethora of aviation industry groups and I’ve put time and money into fighting the system for justice. It’s all as useful as collecting stale cabbage leaves....If that is complicit then I’m proud to wear that badge.

P.S And submissions that I have tendered have not been CONFIDENTIAL. Let’s see you try that some time Junior.

[Sunfish]

Para377+

‘’Absent a smoking hole, a concerted negative campaign in marginal seats will do the trick IMHO. As for negotiation, discussion, reviews, reports, etc. don’t make me laugh! You need to demonstrate naked political power if you want to see change.

[Progress Wanchai]

You really are a flaming galah aren’t you. How old are you, child? I’ve got more hours under my belt and managerial aviation experience than you will ever have in a life time. Senate inquiry’s come and go, senate estimates come and go, Government internal investigations, reports and recommendations come and go, and senators, ministers and independents come and go, and all for naught. I’ve seen at least 20+ senate inquiries over 35 years and more CASA/CAA DAS/CEO’s than I really care to remember. Hell the regulatory reform program commenced the year before the great pilot dispute of 1989 when Hawke and Keating ruled Australia and the reform program still hasn’t been completed!!!! I’ve spoken to Ministers and their minions, politicians and independents, business CEO’s and CASA themselves. I’ve written submissions, publicly supported a plethora of aviation industry groups and I’ve put time and money into fighting the system for justice. It’s all as useful as collecting stale cabbage leaves....If that is complicit then I’m proud to wear that badge.

P.S And submissions that I have tendered have not been CONFIDENTIAL. Let’s see you try that some time Junior.

Yet you say you won’t name names with the inference that you’d be intimidated to do so.

If you’ve the same credibility in the real world as you have on an anonymous internet forum then I’m not surprised you’ve had little success in influencing the direction of the industry or the regulator.

[Paragraph377]

Yet you say you won’t name names with the inference that you’d be intimidated to do so.

If you’ve the same credibility in the real world as you have on an anonymous internet forum then I’m not surprised you’ve had little success in influencing the direction of the industry or the regulator.

Naming names in a legally governed process and in a forum where the person(s) named cannot return serve by litigating against you for defemation is different to naming names on an internet blog site.

As I have said, I have done my part in challenging the CASA status quo, and you are correct - it failed. But at least I can say that I had a crack at it, much the same as Glen is having a crack at it. What about you Mr Wanchai - keyboard warrior and self appointed judge of other people, what big brave bold actions have you taken, if any? Likely not much because nothing has changed within industry and the regulator, as you’ve pointed out.

[Flaming galah]

Naming names in a legally governed process and in a forum where the person(s) named cannot return serve by litigating against you for defemation is different to naming names on an internet blog site.

keyboard warrior and self appointed judge of other people, what big brave bold actions have you taken, if any?

Ummmmmm, you won’t name names in ‘a legally governed process’ though.

And keyboard warrior. Pot kettle much? 😂

[Paragraph377]

This thread is too important to Glen to have it trolled into being locked. If any idiots out there want to argue with me please send PM’s.

Glen, many have come up against CASA over the decades with several people really rocking their foundation for a bit but that was about it. Your tenacity and thirst for justice is commendable and many of us in the aviation community are fully behind you, irrespective of what the outcome may of may not be. Keep fanning the flames mate!

There is an old saying that perhaps CASA doesn’t quite grasp; “When people lose everything and they have nothing left to lose, they lose it”. Now not that you have ‘lost it’ so to speak, but you have lost your business, home and income and you have been mentally stripped bare by them. That makes YOU a very dangerous adversary to them. There are several possible outcomes from your actions, but at this point in time I reckon that one day we will log into Pprune and find that you have dissaperared, vanished like taxpayer money in a Politicians grubby hands. That will be because a big fat payout cheque (with numerous confidentiality clauses) will have arrived in your mailbox. I hope that day comes for you mate as you deserve something. It won’t undo the past but it will set you on course for a new future....keep the fire burning.

[Valdiviano]

+ 1 to P377

[glenb]

Dear Mr. Anthony Mathews, and all Members of the CASA Board


Whilst I appreciate that you may not be in a position to personally respond to my request, can I ask that you draw on Mr. Jonthan Aleck in his role as the CASA Executive Manager, Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs as well as any other personnel that you deem appropriate in formulating an official CASA response.


As you are aware, there are three primary core issues that have brought detriment to me, my family, and a number of other entities.

Issue One- The reversal of approval on APTA after 10 CASA personnel had spent two years designing it with me, approved it, approved bases under it, audited it, and in fact recommended it to a number of operators. By providing me with several short term interim approvals to operate, over a period of 8 months, the business was starved of revenue and was sold at 5% of its value. Importantly CASA has clearly stipulated procedures in their Enforcement Procedures Manual that they are compelled to follow should they Cancel, Suspend or vary an AOC, and those procedures were completely bypassed. No "show cause" notice was ever issued by CASA. The Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office is currently investigating that matter. My concerns with this matter were the clear breaches of Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness, and Natural Justice

Issue Two- The advice that my remaining business/flying school, Melbourne Flight Training, had to be transferred to the new owners of APTA. On this point, CASA, and specifically Mr. Craig Martin advised on 20/06, "For the avoidance of doubt, this would allow flight training to be conducted by APTA employees only-not employees of affiliates. Mr. Jason McHeyzer advised that CASA required complete operational control which included staff, resources, and total financial control. Currently, I do not believe that the Ombudsman's Office is investigating that matter

Issue Three- After obtaining employment in the industry, Mr. Jason McHeyzer the CASA Region Manager sent a direction to my Employer that my continuing employment was untenable based on comments that I was making publicly. As with Issue One, CASAs Enforcement Procedures Manual stipulates the procedures to be followed if a CASA approved Head of Operations is deemed not to be a 'fit and proper person". By completely bypassing these procedures, I was denied a fair process. On this matter, the Commonwealth Ombudsman is investigating.

On issues One and Three, CASA has refused to respond to my fair and reasonable questions, using the investigation by the Ombudsman's Office as a reason not to respond. I have previously spoken to the Ombudsman's Office and it appears that despite the investigation, I am entitled to maintain correspondence with you, and I believe that CASA is unfairly and unlawfully drawing on that investigation to frustrate my efforts to fairly resolve this matter.


However, in this correspondence, I am writing to you regarding Issue Two.


This matter has been specifically addressed by the Ombudsman's Office in Phase One of the Ombudsman's investigation. I have attached the Ombudsman's report for your reference. In light of that, I feel I am fully entitled to a detailed response.

You will note that in Phase One of the Ombudsman's report he made the following statements.

"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."

He then goes on to state "as of October 2016, no Australian legislation prohibited "franchising of an AOC, subject only to the exclusivity of the AOC Holders operational control"

You will be fully aware that this conflicts with the advice provided to me by CASA, and that error on behalf of CASA has clearly resulted in detriment being caused to me.

CASA advised that a franchised AOC was not permitted and that "for the avoidance of doubt, this would allow flight training to be conducted by APTA employees only".

Phase Two of the Ombudsman's investigation deals with the "7 day notice period" for continuing operations and the direction to terminate my employment. As Phase One is completed and that is the phase relevant to the MFT issue (transferring my school to the owners of APTA), I now wish to seek CASA advice on where we move to from here. You have advised that we could progress matters on receiving the Ombudsman's findings.


The detriment caused is significant, as my flying school of 12 years was "handed over" to the new owners of APTA. This instantly denied me access to any revenue. This problem was only further compounded when Mr. Mc Heyzer the CASA Region Manager sent a direction to my Employer that my continuing employment was untenable based on comments that i was making publicly. This led to my termination and a protracted period of unemployment.

In the attached email dated 22/08/20, I advised Mr. Martin that I had complied with his requirements and transferred staff, resources, and financial control. Unfortunately, that left with me ongoing expenses by way of contractual obligations to a number of entities, which I was unable to attend to. Some of those entities have initiated legal action for breaches of my financial obligations to them. This occurred because of the CASA direction to transfer my income but did not attend to expenses.

For clarity, I feel I have a valid basis for a claim on CASA regarding the loss of my flying school of more than a decade, Melbourne Flight Training. That claim would require me to submit a request to the Department of Finance by way of the CDDA scheme https://www.finance.gov.au/individuals/act-grace-payments-waiver-debts-commonwealth-compensation-detriment-caused-defective-administration-cdda/scheme-compensation-detriment-caused-defective-administration-cdda-scheme

I also draw your attention to Post 1273 in the thread on PPrune that is currently running https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa.html. This post refers to the Full Federal Court decision handed down on 22/06/2012 and obligations to act as model litigants.

I have also included an excerpt from The Commonwealth Ombudsman's office below. CASA has unnecessarily dragged this matter on for far too long. The time has truly arrived where the Board of CASA is compelled to act with good intent, and integrity, and work towards a mutually agreeable solution.

"Compensation for ‘detriment’ caused directly to a person by ‘defective administration’ can be made under the Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA Scheme). ‘Detriment’ includes personal injury, property damage, and economic detriment. Examples of ‘defective administration’ are an unreasonable agency failure to follow procedures or to give proper advice or giving advice that was incorrect or ambiguous. A payment under the CDDA Scheme can be authorized by the agency against which the claim is made. Legal liability to pay compensation does not have to be proved"


I am fully satisfied that I have a valid basis for a claim under the CDDA Scheme. Could you please clearly identify if you will stand in the way of me making such a claim, or am I able to proceed? I note that CASA could veto such a claim, hence I seek clarity on that matter.

My hope is that you will act with good intent. Should you choose to frustrate my attempt at fair and reasonable compensation I will approach the responsible Minister, Mr. Michael McCormack directly to seek a resolution.

Respectfully Glen Buckley

[Lead Balloon]

First paragraph from here: https://www.finance.gov.au/individuals/act-grace-payments-waiver-debts-commonwealth-compensation-detriment-caused-defective-administration-cdda/scheme-compensation-detriment-caused-defective-administration-cdda-scheme The Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA Scheme) provides a mechanism for a Non-Corporate Commonwealth Entity (NCE) to compensate people who have experienced detriment as a result of the NCE’s defective administration.CASA is a Corporate Commonwealth Entity, not a Non-Corporate Commonwealth Entity.

No compliance and enforcement action was taken against you. The content of the Enforcement Procedures Manual is irrelevant to the circumstances.

You’re not (yet) involved in any court or tribunal or other legal action to which the Model Litigant rules apply.

Please (please) Glen, reach out to someone - anyone - who has some idea about what you’re up against, before sending off another letter. That was, I understood, one of the points of the crowd funding. And there are people who may be willing to help you for free.

It may be therapeutic for you to send letters to CASA, notwithstanding the content may be dismissed out of hand by CASA, but I’m confident your energies could be better applied to activities that are both therapeutic and more likely to focus CASA’s attention.

[glenb]

As usual, thank you for the wise advice

I have attended lawyers on a few occasions now, and as you will appreciate they are damned expensive. It has been quite challenging to find a legal firm that has the appropriate expertise. I do have a further meeting on 17/11/20 and feel reasonably confident that this organization will be able to represent me.

I really need the Commonwealth Ombudsman's report finalized before I move too much further. A bit difficult to say too much more here, apart from express my very sincere appreciation. Cheers. Glen.

[aroa]

Keep at it. Where there's a will, there's a way.!
And as casa knows their employees have done wrong, casa has 'vicarious liability 'for their actions.
Good luck !

[TBM-Legend]

This thread is too important to Glen to have it trolled into being locked. If any idiots out there want to argue with me please send PM’s.

Glen, many have come up against CASA over the decades with several people really rocking their foundation for a bit but that was about it. Your tenacity and thirst for justice is commendable and many of us in the aviation community are fully behind you, irrespective of what the outcome may of may not be. Keep fanning the flames mate!

There is an old saying that perhaps CASA doesn’t quite grasp; “When people lose everything and they have nothing left to lose, they lose it”. Now not that you have ‘lost it’ so to speak, but you have lost your business, home and income and you have been mentally stripped bare by them. That makes YOU a very dangerous adversary to them. There are several possible outcomes from your actions, but at this point in time I reckon that one day we will log into Pprune and find that you have dissaperared, vanished like taxpayer money in a Politicians grubby hands. That will be because a big fat payout cheque (with numerous confidentiality clauses) will have arrived in your mailbox. I hope that day comes for you mate as you deserve something. It won’t undo the past but it will set you on course for a new future....keep the fire burning.


From the Senate estimates it was revealed that our warrior Glen was offered a deal of about $1.0M by Carmody and knocked it back....

[Bend alot]

From the Senate estimates it was revealed that our warrior Glen was offered a deal of about $1.0M by Carmody and knocked it back....
Should that be true - cheers Glen.

[Paragraph377]

From the Senate estimates it was revealed that our warrior Glen was offered a deal of about $1.0M by Carmody and knocked it back....
Loose change. Glen has lost potential income for the next 20 years, not to mention pain, suffering, bullying and intimidation. That wouldn’t even buy his family a half decent house in the city or pay to start up a new business with infrastructure.

[aroa]

And just how much has Carmody taken away from the taxpayer in his time with CAsA...Millions....plural.
What a pee weak offer ! These buggers insult yr intelligence. and yr sense of decency.

[glenb]

Hi folks, about to walk into work so need to be brief.

There has been one offer only. Mr Carmody walks into work at 9am and out the door at 5pm.

He earns more that day alone than the total of the offer made to me.

As i’ve said before. It’s all about intent.

Cheers. Glen

[thorn bird]

" Mr Carmody walks into work at 9am and out the door at 5pm."

That's strange Glen, I heard he's dropped at work around ten AM, occasionally, and picked up around two PM. So your calculation may be a tad out.

[glenb]

Probably still accurate as i had factored in a three hour lunch break during such an arduous day as he works so diligently to improve aviation safety in Australia.

[Stikman]

Probably still accurate as i had factored in a three hour lunch break during such an arduous day as he works so diligently to improve aviation safety in Australia.
Careful mate....your position will become untenab.....oh, never mind. :}

[glenb]

Our ref: 2019-713834



Dear Mr Buckley



I refer to our investigation of your complaint about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).



I apologise for the delay in completing our investigation of this matter and in responding to your recent email.



At the outset, I also wish to acknowledge the significant personal toll I understand these issues have had and continue to have on you.



In your most recent email you asked that we consider postponing any further investigation of matters that are not related to the termination of your employment. In my view, the adverse effect of this whole issue upon yourself and the long-running nature of the dispute, means it is in everyone’s interest that we do not postpone our investigation. However, I accept it would be helpful to finalise our consideration of the initial issue you raised with our Office first – this being the issue of CASA’s email of August 2019.



While I don’t see a good reason to postpone our consideration of the other issues, I appreciate that you would like the opportunity to discuss these matters with us before we complete our assessment. I will make sure that you have the opportunity to discuss these matters with us before any final decisions are made. Depending on your availability, I am hopeful we can arrange a time to speak over the phone next week. Please let me know if there are any times next week that you may be available to take a call.



Kind regards

[Stickshift3000]

Well done Glen for continuing to gain traction on your matters.

I know that many in the industry are keenly watching.

[Paragraph377]

Probably still accurate as i had factored in a three hour lunch break during such an arduous day as he works so diligently to improve aviation safety in Australia.Shane Patrick Carmody and the history of the taxpayer trough

Let us begin;

Jug ears is on around $600k per year which excludes 15.75% super plus travel allowances and other treats from the taxpayer trough. That’s just the past 4 years. Prior to that he spent around 12 years earning around $400k per year excluding 15.75% super plus travel allowances and many many additional treats from the taxpayer trough while greasing his way through other Government departments. In total he spent 31 years in Government ‘administrative’ and bureaucratic roles, and then another 15 years prior to that in the armed forces. Total time on the Government payroll - 46 years! 46 years sucking on the public teat.

This bloke wouldn’t know how to run and manage his own business in the real world if the cure for COVID depended on it. His life experience is the Canberra bubble where the streets look like the Truman Show and slender Government folk work 3 hours per day working and spend the rest of the time eating Kale sandwiches while sipping celery and honey smoothies.

He, like many a CASA executive before him, shall retire with his millions and enjoy the luxuries of a wealthy retirement. He shall not be held to account for any of the malfeasance and misfeasance heaped upon industry and individuals during his tenure. My prediction is that during the gap between Jug Ears last working day and the new CEO trough swiller taking the reigns fully is when Mr Buckley will likely get a sudden paycheque that meets his financial satisfaction and there in one fell swoop will be Carmody forgotten, Glen forgotten and the new CEO will enforce a few minor changes and assist in burying previous Shennanigans!

Keep an eye on the mailbox Glen.

[Bend alot]

Still with you Glen, as always anything I can do to help simply ask.

Wishing you and you family all the best in this up coming season.

Stay strong,
Bendy.

[glenb]

I believe a claim of misfeasnace in public office can be directed at an individual even after they have left the office of CASA, and if successful the individual may have to pay the claim. Im hoping someone here may be able to bring clarity to that.

[aroa]

Thought from Oz GA. all the best for yr efforts inside tha Cantberra bubble on the 20th. Go well.!!

[glenb]

18/11/20


Dear Members of the RRAT Committee, the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office, the CASA Board, and Mr. Shane Carmody


I have been presented with the opportunity to appear before the RRAT Senate Estimates on Friday 20th November 2020.

I am fully satisfied that the CEO of CASA, Mr. Shane Carmody has misled that inquiry with the intent to deflect Senator Susan McDonald and Members of the Committee, for the purpose of altering the Committee's findings.

It is important. If the CEO of CASA, Mr. Shane Carmody chooses to mislead you, that cannot possibly improve safety outcomes or the quality of the findings.

Such characteristics if unchecked may have allowed that unsafe characteristic to manifest through the Senior Executive of CASA and that is fundamental to my presentation on Friday 20th November.

At Senate RRAT on 20/10, you specifically asked Mr. Carmody about the issues between CASA and Glen Buckley.


In Mr. Carmody's response, he leads you to believe that there was only a single issue that I had with CASA. That issue was a matter of defamation against a single CASA Officer.

At the time of his response, he made a deliberate decision not to advise you of a claim that I have made against CASA that extends to many millions of dollars and is intended to fairly recompense the many Parties that have been affected by this. Personally, I have been bankrupted, but many staff, customers, and suppliers have also been unfairly affected. The allegations are against several members of the CASA Senior Executive and not a single CASA Officer. Mr. Carmody was fully aware of this when responded. He chose his words carefully but it's about "intent"

In reviewing the footage of his presentation he has not acted with "good intent", and that is essential to the inquiry. In reviewing his presentation there are numerous other examples that I am able to supply, both on my matter, and on others. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WNdcR0vcBk&feature=youtu.be


I raise this matter because the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office is currently investigating these matters. I believe that Mr. Carmody has also been responsible for misleading information provided to the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office, although that is a separate matter.

Dear Mr. Carmody, could I respectfully request that you provide the RRAT Committee with a copy of the claim that I have submitted to CASA prior to my presentation on 20/11/20.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[Sunfish]

I think I can see what you are doing here........

[glenb]

Quite probably you are.

im hoping that my opportunity on Friday presents a highly cost effective alternative to a Royal Commission

[Paragraph377]

Quite probably you are.
im hoping that my opportunity on Friday presents a highly cost effective alternative to a Royal Commission

Cost effectivenss is commendable Glen. It’s something CASA themselves should try sometime. When you have Carmody on a total package of $684k and Aleck on $485k they could save $1.1m on wasted money right there by not having these 2 bludgers on the payroll.
Thats a very big trough for just 2 of the many CASA piggies.

[Blueyonda]

Senate Committee:

I suppose CMT3 wilted (as stated by Carmody) because Glen knew more than the manager?
If Glen has harassed and stalked CASA staff members, why didn't they lodge a complaint with the relevant authority?
Carmody seemed a little nervous when speaking with Sen. McDonald. The odd hand shake when not steadied by a firm surfaced to rest it on.

I missed the first 2 hours. RAAus component was light listening but I liked the Glen V CASA show.

I would like to see an independent investigation into culture within CASA.

[aroa]

Never mind an "investigation " only a Royal Commisssion will get CAsA's ****ty nappies hung out on the public line for all to see.
And than ..if that doesnt get CAsA blown out of the water....we really are fcuked.
When you have liars and turd polishers like Carmody and Smart Aleck in charge, who have years of experience "snow jobbing" and bs-ing politicians, the its no wonder we are where we are today..

[advo-cate]

Never mind an "investigation " only a Royal Commisssion will get CAsA's ****ty nappies hung out on the public line for all to see.
And than ..if that doesnt get CAsA blown out of the water....we really are fcuked.
When you have liars and turd polishers like Carmody and Smart Aleck in charge, who have years of experience "snow jobbing" and bs-ing politicians, the its no wonder we are where we are today..

A dreadful display by Carmody. An angry, angry, angry man, who would not fully reply to the good Senators.

As Senator McDonald said: A lot of the people who I speak to are NOT HAPPY with casa.

As we all know well, many people will not appear in person due to the likely personal attacks or attacks on their business. Carmody showed today how to undertake a personal attack. Glen B, the "low flyer", the aopa lawyer and on.

The threatened pilot at casa head office, who was in a public area. Directly threatened by Carmody and his thuggish "security guy".

A disgraceful display from an overpaid thug.

[vne165]

Advo, (or anyone else)
Is there a link to watch the angry, angry, angry man. I did a perfunctory u-tube search, to no avail.
Thanks in advance if someone can help.

[joe_bloggs]

this link worked earlier

https://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/LiveMediaPlayer?vID={074BC70B-3DD8-4C6D-BCB1-55DB8A8F0BA6}

[Ralo]

I can’t post a link, but a search of “senate estimates live” takes you to the correct page - you’re after 20/11/20 “Senate, Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport Legislation Committee (Australia`s general aviation industry”

[Blueyonda]

Try this. Casa was the final representative. Allotted around 45 minutes but may have been longer.

Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport - 20/11/2020 08:49:59 ? Parliament of Australia (http://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=524701&operation_mode=parlview)

[Section28- BE]

The Best to you 'Glen' and your family...., a 'given' !!!!!.

'A' question- Was, this 'hearing' in Sydney or Canberra....????

Ta-
be well all/
rgds
S28

[Lead Balloon]

Senator Patrick and the Committee Secretary were in Canberra. The Committee Chair was working 'remotely', as was Senator Sterle.

[Section28- BE]

Got-Ya- thanks, 'Lead B'- Senator McDonald...., video/zoom or in the room with 'Glen'...???

ta/rgds
S28= BE

Edit- Senator McDonald 'is' the Chair....???

[Lead Balloon]

I'm pretty sure that Senator McDonald and Glen Buckley were not in the same room, but only they can confirm.

And it's irrelevant...

[Shipwreck00]

18/11/20


Dear Members of the RRAT Committee, the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office, the CASA Board, and Mr. Shane Carmody


I have been presented with the opportunity to appear before the RRAT Senate Estimates on Friday 20th November 2020.

I am fully satisfied that the CEO of CASA, Mr. Shane Carmody has misled that inquiry with the intent to deflect Senator Susan McDonald and Members of the Committee, for the purpose of altering the Committee's findings.

It is important. If the CEO of CASA, Mr. Shane Carmody chooses to mislead you, that cannot possibly improve safety outcomes or the quality of the findings.

Such characteristics if unchecked may have allowed that unsafe characteristic to manifest through the Senior Executive of CASA and that is fundamental to my presentation on Friday 20th November.

At Senate RRAT on 20/10, you specifically asked Mr. Carmody about the issues between CASA and Glen Buckley.


In Mr. Carmody's response, he leads you to believe that there was only a single issue that I had with CASA. That issue was a matter of defamation against a single CASA Officer.

At the time of his response, he made a deliberate decision not to advise you of a claim that I have made against CASA that extends to many millions of dollars and is intended to fairly recompense the many Parties that have been affected by this. Personally, I have been bankrupted, but many staff, customers, and suppliers have also been unfairly affected. The allegations are against several members of the CASA Senior Executive and not a single CASA Officer. Mr. Carmody was fully aware of this when responded. He chose his words carefully but it's about "intent"

In reviewing the footage of his presentation he has not acted with "good intent", and that is essential to the inquiry. In reviewing his presentation there are numerous other examples that I am able to supply, both on my matter, and on others. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WNdcR0vcBk&feature=youtu.be


I raise this matter because the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office is currently investigating these matters. I believe that Mr. Carmody has also been responsible for misleading information provided to the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office, although that is a separate matter.

Dear Mr. Carmody, could I respectfully request that you provide the RRAT Committee with a copy of the claim that I have submitted to CASA prior to my presentation on 20/11/20.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Well if you watched this, you have just witnessed the wool being pulled over a politians eyes and a senior public service stretching the truth. We in industry are not listened to, consulted yes, thats about it. The preconceived rules are what we get, the consultation is a box ticking exercise.

[Paragraph377]

Just got to get this out of the way, but what is it with Crawford and Carmody with the goatee beards; which one is mini-me? Two marionette puppets! Fools.

Glen; good, honest and respectful delivery of your message. You can be proud of what you have said and your family can be proud of their husband and father. Respect.

Mr Carmody; what an absolute embarrassing human being. The body language - hands flat on the table and ready for a fight from his opening statement. He even admits to being ‘emotional’. This is the organisations CEO? The anger, belittling speech and hostility Jug Ears displayed is evidence that the fish rots from the head. This is what represents CASA. Shame shame shame. Carmody’s last hoorah as he retirees fat and happy after having never held down a real job, just a career bureaucrat. There are only two options for CASA and they are the same two options that have been discussed for many years now;

A Royal Commission, or;
A complete dismantling, now.

[advo-cate]

Just got to get this out of the way, but what is it with Crawford and Carmody with the goatee beards; which one is mini-me? Two marionette puppets! Fools.

Glen; good, honest and respectful delivery of your message. You can be proud of what you have said and your family can be proud of their husband and father. Respect.

Mr Carmody; what an absolute embarrassing human being. The body language - hands flat on the table and ready for a fight from his opening statement. He even admits to being ‘emotional’. This is the organisations CEO? The anger, belittling speech and hostility Jug Ears displayed is evidence that the fish rots from the head. This is what represents CASA. Shame shame shame. Carmody’s last hoorah as he retirees fat and happy after having never held down a real job, just a career bureaucrat. There are only two options for CASA and they are the same two options that have been discussed for many years now;

A Royal Commission, or;
A complete dismantling, now.



A judicial inquiry is way to go. This is LNP Queensland policy.

[Blueyonda]

A judicial inquiry is way to go. This is LNP Queensland policy.

And what happened there in the last election?

[vne165]

Thanks for the link Bluey
The angry, angry man is rattled. Reminds me of this guy:
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/208x400/6555842_tapped_out_unlock_grampa_0f443d544acce5402a70fc7f19f eda51c93dec0a.png

[vne165]

Kudos to McDonald, she is tenacious.

[glenb]

Allegations raised by Mr. Carmody regarding "assault" and stalking"



21/11/20



Dear Mr Carmody, CEO of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority,



I refer to your attendance at the Senate RRAT Estimates Committee and associated comments that you made about me on 20/11/20.



I made my presentation between the 3-hour 50 minute mark through until 4 hours and 32 minutes. Immediately after my presentation, you were offered the right to reply and I have attached a link to your presentation at that inquiry. Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport - 20/11/2020 08:49:59 ? Parliament of Australia (http://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=524701&operation_mode=parlview)



I refer to comments that you made at the 4 hour and 38-minute mark where you claimed “He has assaulted my staff, he has stalked my staff”



Whilst I appreciate that in making such comments you are protected by Parliamentary privilege. That Parliamentary privilege is intended to allow full and frank disclosure of matters. It is not intended for the CEO of CASA to make false allegations against an individual or to blatantly lie and mislead Parliament, and more so considering your position as the CEO of CASA.



Whilst I do appreciate that you were somewhat “rattled” and may not have had the clarity of mind that would be ideal in such a situation, I would like to afford you the opportunity to correct that blatant untruth.



For clarity, I absolutely and totally refute that claim, and as you will appreciate that comment has bought angst to my family.



The purpose of this correspondence.



If you stand by that claim that I assaulted and stalked your staff, can I request the details of those allegations? Are you able to provide any supporting details of such incidents? Ideally, this would include details of the alleged incidents such as dates, times, and circumstances of the alleged assault or stalking matters.



My assumption is that such matters would be held by CASA on file, there would be Workcover documentation, a formal complaint lodged within CASA, or something similar.

If you are unable or unwilling to support those allegations my intention would be to make a Freedom of Information request to obtain any supporting documentation and fully refute that scurrilous allegation and a blatant untruth.



Respectfully, Glen Buckley.

[Aviater]

The Aviation community is in your corner Glen. Press on & best of luck.

[Paragraph377]

Unfortunately for Mr Carmody, who is a weak man only familiar with being protected by teams of legal folk, secure buildings, and of course the protective cocoon of the Canberra bubble and the taxpayer teat, he wouldn’t know what the intent ‘of assault and stalking’ actually is in the real world.

I guess that to Mr Carmody, an overly firm handshake would constitute assault, or perhaps Glen ‘stared down’ one of Carmody’s CASA minions while Glen was being pineappled? Poor Poor Shane, heaven help him if ever one of his staff were assaulted with a wet ball of cotton wool! And stalking, oh dear. Did Glen repeatedly watch Carmody Capers on YouTube or perhaps inadvertently hop in the same elevator as a CASA employee in one of their buildings? Naughty Glen, you could hear the fear in Mr Carmody’s heavy breathing and nervous speech during his 45 minutes. I would imagine Me Carmody has sought out and received AFP protection and Morrison’s office has permanently assigned Shane two officers.

I never thought that Carmody would completely lose his marbles before Dr Dolittle Aleck, but I’ve now repealed that thought and it seems that Shane is in the midst of some form of mental or emotional decline.

How long til this fool leaves CASA, 1 week or so? Go pack up your desk Shane, grab your bag and the box of Kleenex tissues on your desk and depart the building immediately. Don’t slam the door on your way out.

[Two_dogs]

Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport - 20/11/2020 08:49:59 ? Parliament of Australia (http://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=524701&operation_mode=parlview)

Rex Patrick 13:54
I know you said that you know, you engage in consultation, the evidence we've heard today in relation to that particular committee was that it was, ahh, not necessarily consultation with, but consultation to

[Ange Stewart]

You did so well.

[Blueyonda]

I think the way Carmody’s forehead corrugated on some responses interesting.

What has me curious is we have a person that’s ready to walk out the door for the last time and he is showing these signs of punching on and defending a position at the senate committee. He must be being pushed?

[Paragraph377]

I think the way Carmody’s forehead corrugated on some responses interesting.

What has me curious is we have a person that’s ready to walk out the door for the last time and he is showing these signs of punching on and defending a position at the senate committee. He must be being pushed?
No, not pushed. He has finished his career with the public service and it’s now time to cash in decades worth of 15.4% superannuation. He announced his departure halfway though COVID. Another gutless so-called leader bailing when the times get tough. He served his Ministerial Masters well and now comes the payoff. But yes, he is continuing the fight becuase that’s what pride and arrogance does to a person. Bitter and twisted down to his last breath. That is one of the reasons CASA is and always has been such a dysfunctional mess - proud, arrogant fools who attract like minded proud, arrogant fools. Glen Buckley has been a thorn in Carmody’s side and that has been hilarious.

[Lead Balloon]

You could not make this stuff up.

Amazingly, we heard that the CMT initially allocated to APTA comprised a bunch of delicate petals who had been captured by Mr Buckley, and Mr Buckley has harassed, stalked and assaulted CASA staff! Naturally, none of these allegations have been put to Mr Buckley or referred to police. You just make the allegations under Parliamentary privilege. Brave man, Mr Carmody!

CASA 'tries to accommodate' McDermott Aviation's business model. How kind of you! It must be mindbogglingly difficult to deal with the operator of N-registered aircraft. All those 'hoops' CASA has to 'jump through' to 'accommodate' a foreign registered aircraft in Australia. The potential risks to aviation safety of an N-registered aircraft in Australia must be catastrophic. And we all know why people keep aircraft on the N-register: Because of Australia's Galapagos regulatory regime whose outputs are not recognised in first world aviation nations. It is 'kinda handy' keeping aircraft on the N-register, Mr Carmody, for reasons that we all know.

More than 70% of McDermott Aviation's jobs had been completed by CASA within 30 days. Wow! Give yourself a bonus! Does McDermott Aviation pay fees for those jobs to be done?

CASA "approved" 25,000 aviation medicals in the last 12 months and "rejected" 84. Tell us, Mr Carmody: Out of the 25,000 "approved" medicals, how many of the applicants were subjected to tests and have conditions imposed on their certificates, which tests and conditions the applicant's doctor and specialist medical advisors say are not necessary? How much did and will those tests cost in terms of time, dollars and risk exposure to the persons subjected to the tests? How is it that a bunch of glorified GPs in CASA know better than qualified specialists?

And then there's the pilot accused of low flying. Mr Carmody literally said this:

"That's not what the instruments on his aircraft say, Senator. They say he was at 125'."

I **** you not: That's what Mr Carmody said.

Was Mr Carmody or someone from CASA in the aircraft looking at "the instruments" during the flight in question? Methinks not.

Methinks that CASA might be going on the output, not of "the instruments", but of a transponder or GPS 'chip'. Gosh, transponders and GPS 'chips' now reliably transmit or record the actual distance, down to the foot, of an aircraft above the actual terrain/water below? Who knew? And I'm sure the punters to whom I wave adjacent to me on the South Head Signal Station when I fly down Victor 1 would swear on a stack of bibles that I'm 'low flying'. And on a nice high pressure day, my transponder says I'm at minus 100'. I guess the punters must be right!

Methinks CASA would have some considerable difficulty convincing the CDPP to prosecute on the basis of these kinds of 'evidence'. So what does CASA do when it doesn't have evidence to support the prosecution of someone? It persecutes them administratively and condemns them under Parliamentary privilege. Brave man, Mr Carmody!

And I just shake my head at the regulatory reform bull****.

CASA announced, in July 2020, that Mr Carmody had achieved "the resolution of CASA's long standing Regulatory Reform Program" and "oversaw the end of the epic safety regulatory reform program". But in the hearing, Mr Carmody said "the reg program is pretty much complete". Which is it? (Rhetorical question. We all know the answer. It's back to the weasel words that we've been hearing for decades. The "major parts" have been completed and, of course, like Part 61, will be fantastic when they come into operation.)

Mr Carmody seemed to me to be saying that anything 'before his time' in the regulatory reform program is not a problem. All of his predecessors' contribution to the regulatory train wreck is just - well - it just is. A whole bunch of people from industry were involved in consultations throughout, so apparently they have no grounds on which to complain. Apparently, that makes the regulatory train wreck - which has none of the promised characteristics and achieves none of the promised outcomes - OK.

Apparently, turning 200 pages of complex, convoluted dross into 73 pages of complex, convoluted dross in the form of the Part 138 MOS is a 'good' thing from Mr Carmody's perspective. And apparently the industry asked for it! What the industry actually asked for, Mr Carmody, was blessed relief from the process: The production of something - anything - to just 'make it stop'. And, of course, the Part 138 MOS is incomplete. It has "reserved" Chapters. And we all know why.

And then Mr Carmody said that the whole of the regulations should be reviewed!

I say again: You could not make this stuff up.

[Bodie1]

I'm struggling to get any of those links to work, could it be a Mac thing??

[Blueyonda]

B1

I can only suggest to clear your internet history and cookies. The link work on my iPad.

[Paragraph377]

I'm struggling to get any of those links to work, could it be a Mac thing??
Could be. But the link seems to work fine. It was an interesting Senate sitting and what I found interesting is that public speaking, particularly in a senate environemnt is not Glen’s background. As is very clear, Glen is a skilled aviator and has spent decades getting his hands dirty. He spoke very succinctly. On the other hand, Mr Carmody knows naught about getting his hands dirty, with the exception being manual turd polishing, and his many decades of being trained how to speak spin and BS in the political arena are his main skill. His knowledge of aviation is about as much as Queen Elizabeth’s. His emotional speech, being short of breath and giving the death stare to any moving object showed him up for the arseclown that he is. He spoke with disrespect to the good Senator, Glen, and other industry players. A truly angry outnof control little man. He is the physical representation of CASA. Houston, everyone can now see the problem.
He and his executive team, the Board and the cardboard cutout Minister have also shown what complete muppets they are also. Friday was a sad day...

[triadic]

I hate to say it, but the best leader of the civil aviation department in my time was good old Sir Donald Anderson who was the Director General of the then Dept of Civil Aviation (DCA) and I don't believe the following organizations have had a leader anywhere as good since. CASA is a joke, even the name is misleading - Safety Authority?? You jest of course. CAA was more appropriate, but even CARA (regulatory) might be closer to the mark. Why is it that I can carry a copy of the FARs around in my nav bag but would need a wheel barrow or more to carry all the Oz regs about?? Why is it that an instructor in the USA can instruct without being attached to a flying school? Why is it that we need approval to mount a go-pro camera on a GA aircraft in Oz? At Oshkosh there are over a 100 different mounts for go-pro cameras for sale! The management of Civil Aviation in Oz is a joke and the serious part is that it is killing the industry by significant over regulation. Sad.
The answer is close to what Glen said. We need a complete review of the upper level management of the organisation and to have folk in those rolls that have some idea of what they are doing and not feeding their ego for power and control! Let us hope and pray that the new Director will not just play the politics, but try and sort the mess that CASA is out.
One needs to remember that you can be compliant but not safe, but as safe as practical and not be compliant - one cannot guarantee 100% safety.

[glenb]

22/11/20



Allegations that Mr. Carmody, CEO of CASA provided misleading information to the RRAT inquiry



Dear Mr. Carmody, the RRAT Committee, the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, and the CASA Board.



I would like to bring some clarity to a matter of significant disparity between what I advised the RRAT Committee and the misleading information that Mr. Carmody in the role of the CEO of CASA provided. I believe that Mr. Carmody was deliberately misleading the RRAT inquiry. This matter is significant as I am claiming that CASA was frustrating my efforts to arrive at a resolution.



In the RRAT inquiry, Senator Sterle queries why I did not pursue legal action earlier. The following correspondence may bring some clarity to that.



Prior to engaging a lawyer, I felt that I should exhaust all opportunities at following due processes i.e. approach the Board who are responsible for the good governance of CASA.



Refer to the attached clip from the RRAT Senate Estimates on 20/11/22 Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport - 20/11/2020 08:49:59 ? Parliament of Australia (http://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=524701&operation_mode=parlview)



Please listen to the recording from the 4 hours 30 minute mark, where I made, in part, the following statement to the Senate Estimates Committee.



“I wrote to Mr. Tony Mathews, the Chair of the CASA Board for 6 months before I went public with this……….. 6months…….. had he acted within an appropriate timeline I probably wouldn’t be where I am now…”



The attached emails, clearly support my contentions. CASA initiated the restrictions on the business's ability to trade on 23/10/18. I initially wrote to the CASA Board on 02/01/19. I first went public with my allegations 6 months later on 06/04/20 by making my very first post on PPRuNe and that link follows as evidence of my claim. The post that I made can be found here. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa.html).



At the 4 hours and 35-minute mark, Mr. Carmody the CEO of CASA, summarised and refuted my statement in the following way, “Mr Buckley says the CASA Chair had ignored him, well the CASA Chair met face to face with Mr. Buckley, a fact which he conveniently omits”.



I make note of his very emotional tone suggesting that CASA had perhaps embraced my offer to meet, when in fact it was clearly being resisted.



I have attached emails that relate to the chronological listing below, and clearly support the truthful contention that I did on fact write to the Board repeatedly over a period of 6 months, and was ignored.

· 2nd January 2019 I wrote to the Board of CASA raising substantive allegations regarding unlawful conduct by CASA personnel. I sought the Boards direction on what action needed to be taken. I also pointed out the commercial impact of CASA actions.My request was not responded to.

· 2nd April 2019. I wrote to the CASA Board raising substantial allegations regarding unlawful conduct by CASA personnel and making myself available to meet with any TWO Members of the CASA Board. I made myself available to travel to any location in Australia at any time that CASA could facilitate my request

· 22nd May 2019, I wrote to the CASA Board yet again

· 28th May, the CASA board responds by assuring me that the ‘Board is abreast” of the situation and I was not able to meet with CASA.

· 5th June 2019, I made a further request to meet with the Board, and highlighted how Mr. Crawford had written to me and advised a meeting would not be facilitated with the Board.

· 11th June request to meet with the Board.

· 14th June, CASA advise the possibility of a meeting. Note that this is 6 months after I had made my initial request

· 28th June CASA advises a meeting is available on 19th July 2019.

· 19th July 2019, meeting proceeds more than 6 months after the initial request.

For clarity. I absolutely maintain that I did write to the CASA Board for 6 months on multiple occasions raising substantive allegations. My reasonable requests were not met, and more than 6 months after my first request, I did have a meeting with the Chair of the Board of CASA.



That meeting finally occurred on 19th July 2019, 6 months after multiple requests were made. I had requested to meet with any two Members of the Board to ensure integrity. That request was never facilitated and still has not been.



I did meet with Mr. Tony Mathews and instead of a second member of the Board as I had requested, Mr. Mathews elected to be accompanied by the CASA Region Manager, Mr. Jason McHeyzer.



Interestingly It was Mr. Mc Heyzer the CASA Region Manager that wrote to my Employer on 27th August 2019 ( a little over one month after the meeting), directing that my continuing employment was “untenable based on comments that I was making publicly”, and I was terminated.



I hope that this correspondence supports my contention and brings clarity to any misunderstandings that may have arisen from Mr. Carmody's misleading response.



Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

23/11/20



Correcting Mr. Carmody's allegations to the Senate RRAT that I have posted on “almost every other website”





Dear Mr. Carmody,



Whilst I do somewhat apologize for the repeated correspondence, I am merely trying to correspond on one matter per piece of correspondence to bring additional clarity to what is a difficult subject.



As you are aware, I believe you have not acted without ethics or integrity, and in fact, attempted to mislead the current Senate inquiry.



In your recent presentation to the RRAT, you made the following comment at the 4 hours and 38-minute mark;



“Mr Buckley has harassed my staff on Pprune and almost every other website” Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport - 20/11/2020 08:49:59 ? Parliament of Australia (http://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=524701&operation_mode=parlview)



The truth is that I have only ever made comments on one website, so your assertion “almost every other website” could perhaps suggest to the RRAT that I am a “trouble maker” going to multiple websites and making allegations against CASA. If my intention was to cause mischief I would have pursued my case through a more public forum such as Facebook etc, rather than the industry website Pprune.



For clarity and to ensure that the truth prevails.



I have posted on only one website and that is Pprune. The link is attached. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa.html)



I have not posted on “almost every other website” and Mr. Carmody was fully aware of that when he made the misleading comment.



Mr. Carmody, could I respectfully request that you identify to myself and the Senate RRAT, any other websites that I have made comments on.



Thank you in anticipation of you clarifying this matter and ensuring that truthfulness prevails.



Respectfully, Glen Buckley



P.S. On post 33, on the Pprune website, I made the following post which I feel is pertinent.



“Dear Moderator,
I appreciate that you are currently reviewing the contents of a letter I wish to publish. Let me be very clear. I fully stand behind anything I say and will be prepared to defend it with evidence. The issue is significant. The fact is that CASA do engage with Industry, and often that manner is inappropriate. My concerns are in the public interest, and in the interests of safety. I prefer this forum as it is appropriately discrete. I am not trying to cause mischief, I would use another social network for that. I am trying to communicate with my industry peers via the only forum available to me. My issue, in my opinion, is pertinent to all business operators in the GA industry. My phone number is 0418772013 if you wish to talk to me. I need guidance from my industry peers and am seeking it through here. Thank you for your consideration.”
https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/no_photo.png

[advo-cate]

Glen, Your experience is not unusual as the casa Board is well captured by the CEO.

A person I know well, has a matter that the required Board intervention and he spent 2 years asking for a meeting.

Finally, the person had a promise from Geoff Boyd [as the chair at the time], to meet with the Board. in a regional setting. That was not facilitated, so he traveled to Canberra [where the next Board meeting was being held]. Geoff Boyd told him he didn't want the person to contact him again [The person had known Geoff since 1994 and Boyd did LAME work on his aircraft at the time].

When the person went to the public area in Aviation House - Furner Street and asked for Mr. Boyd, as Boyd was in the building at the time. There was no response from Boyd or the Board to facilitate a meeting. Instead Jonathon Hanton the ICC arrived and spoke to the person saying that a meeting was being refused. The ICC did arrange a meeting with the FOI officer for a matter that was being requested. The FOI officer was not allowed to speak to the person without Adam Anastasi - casa legal - being present. A breach of the FOI process.

Not to be put off after a 3000km trip, the person came back even earlier the next day to see if he could get lucky as the Board members arrived. The person made the same request as the day before, from the public area. Again the ICC staff came to see him.

An obnoxious "security officer" came downstairs while he was having a private meeting with the ICC. The security officer carried a direct threat from Carmody that they were calling the police to have the person arrested if he did not leave the building.

Good try Carmody.

Threat, public area, improper process, intimidation, stand-over tactics and more.

Why does the aviation community know that Glen is telling the truth.

[Paragraph377]

Senator McDonald is also pushing for a deeper review of airport infrastructure particularly concerning the Essendon Fields crash. The scary thing is that the Essendon Fields executive team has basically no aviation experience, except for one individual, a so-called expert who has left a trail of destruction behind him at little airports. Airport management are all commercial people and are still completely obsessed and focused with retail development, office space leasing and putting little thought or care into safe airfield operations. Hopefully the Senator carves open the blatant folly of the ATSB investigation which is a standing joke within industry. Again, another CASA airport debacle that was swept under the carpet.

[Lead Balloon]

My apologies for the (slight) thread drift, Glen.

On the subject of the allegations by Mr Carmody against the pilot of an aircraft whose “instruments”, according to Mr Carmody, “say he was at one hundred and twenty five feet”, I’m following with interest a thread on another aviation forum about a pilot who says Flightaware always shows his altitude as 300’ below that indicated on the aircraft’s altimeter, not explicable by differences in QNH. Some very interesting information linked in that thread.

The difference between Height-Above-Ellipsoid versus Height-Above-Geiod in the Geometric Altitude parameter in ADS-B is fascinating. And wouldn’t it be funny (not for the pilot concerned) if the 125 number cited by Mr Carmody is actually a parameter expressed in metres rather than feet...

[Paragraph377]

My apologies for the (slight) thread drift, Glen.

On the subject of the allegations by Mr Carmody against the pilot of an aircraft whose “instruments”, according to Mr Carmody, “say he was at one hundred and twenty five feet”, I’m following with interest a thread on another aviation forum about a pilot who says Flightaware always shows his altitude as 300’ below that indicated on the aircraft’s altimeter, not explicable by differences in QNH. Some very interesting information linked in that thread.

The difference between Height-Above-Ellipsoid versus Height-Above-Geiod in the Geometric Altitude parameter in ADS-B is fascinating. And wouldn’t it be funny (not for the pilot concerned) if the 125 number cited by Mr Carmody is actually a parameter expressed in metres rather than feet...

Mr Carmody is not an Aviator, nor does he understand aviation processes or procedures, and neither do most of his minions, therefor that may be the reason that the emotionally challenged Mr Carmody speaketh bulls#it to the good Senator.

Now, had Mr Carmody been asked to explain the procedures and processes pertaining to spin, deflection and obsfucation, middle aged manopause and the emotional toll on the male mind, and perhaps Government perks and financial benefits for Career bureaucrat office workers, he would have done extremely well in the Senate and he would not be in a position where he is now being ‘called out’ for making himself and his organisation and the Minister look like a bunch of complete arseclowns.

[Lead Balloon]

Again, my apologies for the slight thread drift, Glen.

From AC 20-165B here: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_20-165B.pdf

Geometric Altitude.

Ensure the geometric altitude provided by the position source is based on Height-Above-Ellipsoid (HAE) instead of Height-Above-Geoid (HAG). Do not interface a position source that provides HAG or Mean Sea Level (MSL) altitude to the ADS-B equipment unless the ADS-B equipment has the ability to determine the difference between an HAG and HAE input, and the ADS-B equipment has demonstrated during design approval that it can properly convert HAG to HAE using the same model as the position source. It would also be acceptable to demonstrate that the error due to conversion of HAG to HAE does not cause the GVA to be exceeded.

From here https://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0703/geoid1of3.html (https://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0703/geoid1of3.html)with my bolding: GPS has transformed how altitude at any spot is measured. GPS uses an ellipsoid coordinate system for both its horizontal and vertical datums. An ellipsoid—or flattened sphere—is used to represent the geometric model of the earth.

Conceptually, this precisely calculated ellipsoid, called an oblate ellipsoid of revolution, was intended to replicate the MSL as the main geodetic reference or vertical datum. If this ellipsoid vertical datum is used, height above the ellipsoid will not be the same as MSL and direct elevation readings for most locations will be embarrassingly off. This is caused, in part, because the GPS definition of altitude does not refer to MSL, but rather to a gravitational surface called the reference ellipsoid. Because the reference ellipsoid was intended to closely approximate the MSL, it was surprising when the two figures differed greatly.Good luck prosecuting someone for low flying on the basis of the output of 1013-referenced SSR transponder or the geometric altitude parameter output of a GPS!

Would be fascinating to find out to what “instruments” Mr Carmody referred.

[thorn bird]

Isn't it an "Offence" to give false or misleading information to a senate inquiry? or does that only apply to the great unwashed?

[Lead Balloon]

The Parliamentary privilege resolutions agreed to by the Senate on 25 February 1988 say, among other things:
...
3 Criteria to be taken into account when determining matters relating to contempt

The Senate declares that it will take into account the following criteria when determining whether matters possibly involving contempt should be referred to the Committee of Privileges and whether a contempt has been committed, and requires the Committee of Privileges to take these criteria into account when inquiring into any matter referred to it:
...
Offences by witnesses etc.

(12) A witness before the Senate or a committee shall not:

(a) without reasonable excuse, refuse to make an oath or affirmation or give some similar undertaking to tell the truth when required to do so;

(b) without reasonable excuse, refuse to answer any relevant question put to the witness when required to do so; or

(c) give any evidence which the witness knows to be false or misleading in a material particular, or which the witness does not believe on reasonable grounds to be true or substantially true in every material particular.
...That’s a very (very) high threshold to meet.

I have no first hand knowledge, but I suspect that, in the case of the allegedly low flying pilot, Mr Carmody would simply say that he was told by one of his staff that the aircraft’s “instruments” said the aircraft was flying at one hundred and twenty five feet and, accordingly, it is true that he was told that and he has no reason to believe the statement to be false or misleading. Of course, whether the aircraft was in fact flying at one hundred and twenty five feet is a related but entirely different question.

But it was in my view a very (very) big call by Mr Carmody to flatly assert that Glen has stalked and assaulted CASA staff. Effectively, Mr Carmody seems to me to have asserted that Glen has engaged in criminal acts. I reckon Glen would have reasonable grounds to take those allegations up with the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges.

Odgers says this at page 536, with my bolding, about witnesses whose evidence reflects adversely on another person:Evidence which reflects adversely on another person, including a person who is not a witness, must be made known to that person and reasonable opportunity to respond given. The committee must consider whether to hear the evidence, publish it, and seek a response to it from another person. These rules, in Resolution 1(11) to (13), do not define the meaning of evidence which reflects adversely on another person. However, certain general principles of interpretation apply.

Evidence given to a committee encompasses written statements or submissions accepted by the committee as well as oral presentations at hearings. The rules do not apply to evidence merely on the basis that it is contrary to other evidence. For the purposes of its inquiry, a committee will seek as many considered views on the subject matter as is reasonably possible. In many cases, the views offered will, and should, differ, contradicting each other and criticising the rationality, accuracy or acceptability of alternative or competing opinions. Thus, evidence adverse to another witness’s case does not fall within the application of the rules. The rules deal with adverse “reflections”, that is, evidence which reflects adversely “on a person” (including an organisation) rather than on the merits or reliability of an argument or opinion. To bring the rules into operation, a reflection on a person must be reasonably serious, for example, of a kind which would, in other circumstances, usually be successfully pursued in an action for defamation.It seems to me that if Mr Carmody had asserted, to the public and not under parliamentary privilege, that Glen had stalked and assaulted people, Glen would have grounds to pursue defamation action against Mr Carmody. I certainly would, in equivalent circumstances.

[Paragraph377]

Mr Carmody, as the Executive Officer of CASA, has been a complete embarrassment. His emotional rant in the Senate, his disrespect towards Senator McDonald and his deep seeded vitriol and potentially libellous statements against Mr Buckley are representative of who CASA are and how they operate. He acts like a spoilt child who has been caught red handed throwing its broccoli in the rubbish bin. Wha wha wha sniffle sniffle. A stamp of the feet and the cursory ‘NO NOT’ screamed out in between tears.

And the DAS might be the head of CASA, but Dr Aleck is the head that turns the neck. Or if you like - the gloved hand that turns the puppets head. What a performance in the Senate, as always - the little old bearded man quietly, gently and calmly speaking. Oh so innocent, helpful and sweet. A couple of ‘confused looks’ with the odd stammer or two while giving the appearance of a little old innocent man that you would spot sitting on a park bench feeding hot chips to seagulls while muttering to himself. But no not this bloke, he has spent many years throwing herrings at the Senators and appearing to be this little innocent old bookworm peering above his law books while he throws bulls#it to the Senators while muttering about ‘laws’, ‘policies’ and ‘intent’. Smart survivor that one. He has outlived many a DAS from Dick Smith to the Screaming Skull and beyond. But behind the scenes he is an angry, vitriolic vindictive human being who actually enjoys steamrolling innocent people and cheering from the sidelines as people’s personal lives, businesses and way of life burn to the ground. CASA fosters bullies, sociopaths and narcissists.

The only way forward to dismantling the CASA Frankenstein is to;


hold a Royal Commission into it
gut the organisation starting at the top tier, and;
adopt and implement the NZ Regulations.

[aroa]

Right on Para 377...in a big nut shell !!
You got it, we get it, most pollies dont get it, Waggaly Mc Do Naught hasnt the brains to get it ! CAsA is THE GREATEST NATIONAL CLUSTERFCUK in the country., and buggered the GA Industry in the process Get it ?
Hopefully the good Senator McDonald, Sterle and Co will seriously pick up on the call by many for a Royal Commission or a Judicial Inquiry* ( which is LNP qld policy* ) Is 'hope' entirely dead??

Having been the recipient of the evil, very long term bearded one, Dr Smart Aleck, his behaviour means he should follow Carbody out the door " Wait not upon the manner of your going, but go at once ! " (WS)
No slimy phrases, no weasel words , not legal acrobatics and more excuse wriggles than a smelly tin of bait worms... FFS JUST GO.!! And put GA out of the results of your misery.

[glenb]

Guernsey's civil aviation director removed over conduct - BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-guernsey-55046616)

[glenb]

Request by Glen Buckley for retraction of the allegation of assault and stalking.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif Dear Mr. Colin MacLachlan, Chair of the Board of CASA, and all Board Members.

Please note that I have included other Parties in this email.



In Senate Estimates on 20/11/20, Mr. Carmody, the CEO of CASA raised allegations of criminal conduct against me, when he said the following.“He has assaulted my staff, he has stalked my staff.”



I absolutely refute those allegations. These are significant allegations and impact on my reputation. I would like to provide Mr. Carmody the opportunity to fully retract his statement and unreservedly apologize for it.



If Mr. Carmody refuses to fully retract that statement and publicly apologize, I will refer this matter to the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges. There are rules associated with adverse reflections on a person, and I feel Mr. Carmody's comments have clearly breached these.



As this matter should be easily attended to, I request that this matter be finalized by way of a retraction and published apology by 5 PM on Tuesday 8th December 2020.



Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[sagesau]

I feel there may be a 'stress related' leave application being submitted soon.

[Blueyonda]

If Mr Carmody has made false allegations then that is incredibly poor form from a government bureacrat. We do not tolerate Chy-na posting a false image of an Australian soldier holding a knife to a child’s throat.

[thorn bird]

"If Mr Carmody has made false allegations then that is incredibly poor form from a government bureacrat."

Standard form for Mr Carmody. His appearances at estimates are better defined by what he doesn't say rather than what be says. Its all about Politics, which is derived from the word Poly, meaning many and Ticks, meaning blood sucking parasites.

[Lead Balloon]

If Mr Carmody has made false allegations then that is incredibly poor form from a government bureacrat. We do not tolerate Chy-na posting a false image of an Australian soldier holding a knife to a child’s throat.

It would be incredibly poor form on anyone’s part. It would also be incredibly stupid form on the part of a bureaucrat. But the key word is “false”. That involves knowledge of inaccuracy and intent to make the allegations nonetheless.

I have no first-hand knowledge of the circumstances, but if I had to speculate I’d say Mr Carmody’s explanation will be that some of CASA’s staff ‘felt uncomfortable’ or ‘felt stressed’ when dealing with Mr Buckley, and that when Mr Carmody tried to summarise that in the short time available on 20 Nov he “inadvertently chose words that some might consider inaccurate” because of his “unwavering commitment to and focus on providing a safe workplace for staff”. That, or some equivalently exquisite sophistry to downplay the seriousness of what the words meant and to put in a good light the motivation for using them.

(As an aside, I’d confidently predict that Mr Buckley would prefer to have had zero dealings with CASA staff and instead have been able to just get on with APTA’s business. The frequent interactions with CASA staff were necessitated by the requirements imposed by CASA! I’d be ‘bothering’ CASA frequently and insistently, if my business survival depended on getting ‘ticks’ in numerous CASA-imposed ‘boxes’, particularly if I was paying fees for the exercise.)

Or maybe Mr Carmody will provide (1) details of when he and the staff concerned reported Mr Buckley’s behaviour to police and applied for AVOs, and (2) an estimate of when Mr Carmody understands prosecution action will likely commence. An unwavering commitment to providing a safe workplace for staff would, surely, involve at least reports to police and applications for AVOs if CASA staff are, in fact, being stalked and assaulted.

[Blueyonda]

It would be incredibly poor form on anyone’s part. It would also be incredibly stupid form on the part of a bureaucrat. But the key word is “false”. That involves knowledge of inaccuracy and intent to make the allegations nonetheless.

I have no first-hand knowledge of the circumstances, but if I had to speculate I’d say Mr Carmody’s explanation will be that some of CASA’s staff ‘felt uncomfortable’ or ‘felt stressed’ when dealing with Mr Buckley, and that when Mr Carmody tried to summarise that in the short time available on 20 Nov he “inadvertently chose words that some might consider inaccurate” because of his “unwavering commitment to and focus on providing a safe workplace for staff”. That, or some equivalently exquisite sophistry to downplay the seriousness of what the words meant and to put in a good light the motivation for using them.

(As an aside, I’d confidently predict that Mr Buckley would prefer to have had zero dealings with CASA staff and instead have been able to just get on with APTA’s business. The frequent interactions with CASA staff were necessitated by the requirements imposed by CASA! I’d be ‘bothering’ CASA frequently and insistently, if my business survival depended on getting ‘ticks’ in numerous CASA-imposed ‘boxes’, particularly if I was paying fees for the exercise.)

Or maybe Mr Carmody will provide (1) details of when he and the staff concerned reported Mr Buckley’s behaviour to police and applied for AVOs, and (2) an estimate of when Mr Carmody understands prosecution action will likely commence. An unwavering commitment to providing a safe workplace for staff would, surely, involve at least reports to police and applications for AVOs if CASA staff are, in fact, being stalked and assaulted.

LB

Point taken on semantics of language.

Look at how smarting and pleased Mr Carmody appears to be with himself with what I perceive to be getting 1 up on senator McDonald around the 12.35 mark.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QKlwOh5L9ig

[Lead Balloon]

If Mr Buckley writes to the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges and that Committee decides to inquire into Mr Carmody’s allegations made against Mr Buckley under parliamentary privilege, it will be interesting to see if Mr Carmody is able to sustain his smug facade.

[Paragraph377]

Or maybe Mr Carmody will provide (1) details of when he and the staff concerned reported Mr Buckley’s behaviour to police and applied for AVOs, and (2) an estimate of when Mr Carmody understands prosecution action will likely commence. An unwavering commitment to providing a safe workplace for staff would, surely, involve at least reports to police and applications for AVOs if CASA staff are, in fact, being stalked and assaulted.

Well Mr Carmody is a very safety focussed C-Level Executive, after all he ensured that ‘COVID Safety Signs’ were placed in and around CASA buildings and he increased the supply of hand sanitizer and available face masks. He has previously asked for more ‘slips, trips and warning signs and bollards’ too be placed in the wet areas or upon freshly mopped surfaces in many CASA buildings. And he has even supported the placement of ‘Dangerous Snake Warning Signs’ around numerous CASA buildings that sit within semi- rural retreat type parkland settings. And how could we forget his robust approval of building posters for PPE, ear plugs, hi-vis vests, hat and sunscreen use and the ‘please empty your desk bins daily to mitigate fruitfly signs’! Yes, Dear Shane is very very safety conscious.

[aroa]

Allegations against GlenB. Nothig new here. Its the CAsA way. If there is any heat , deflect that by a "story"
Doesnt matter if its not true, what can cbe done about it. In this case ...maybe something
The way of Carbody Dr Discrepancy, Anasnasti, Gobsome, and many others...any old BS will do.
Whatever it takes to denigrate the victim and make a counter 'safety' issue out of nothing.
Hello Good Senators...keep plugging away...and for a Royal Commision as well.

[Blueyonda]

What is the last sitting day for the senate?

[Lead Balloon]

Last programmed sitting day for HoR and Senate for 2020 is Thursday 10 December.

There’s a Senate Committee hearing programmed for Friday 11 December, but not of the RRAT Committee.

Nothing else programmed yet, and not likely to be.

[Vref+5]

So they can let their mate Carmody walk off into the distance, then next year when/if any findings are made, he can simply say “everything was fine when I was there, totally compliant when I left, what went wrong??”

[glenb]

I had a number of people wanting access to the Senate Estimates. If interested AOPA have it well presented. Cheers. Glen.

Senate RRAT General Aviation Inquiry Commences – AOPA Australia (https://aopa.com.au/senate-rrat-general-aviation-inquiry/)

[Lead Balloon]

So they can let their mate Carmody walk off into the distance, then next year when/if any findings are made, he can simply say “everything was fine when I was there, totally compliant when I left, what went wrong??”
You’re assuming the Committee will make findings critical of CASA. That’s a brave assumption.

The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. The past behaviour of Senate Committees is bi-partisan abdication of responsibility to the ‘independent regulator’.

Still, it’s been a weird period in our history. It is remotely possible that the majority of the Committee will step up and take responsibility.

[Sunfish]

Glen it sounds to me that the CASA strategy is to wait you out. Delay, delay and delay. After all, there is a chance after the next election that there will be a new government that will know nothing about your case and all the ministerial letters and advice will be gone - locked up for twenty years as usual. All that will exist is the official file (held by CASA), Hansard and nothing else. There will be a new minister who is not bound by his predecessors actions.

This is why we ned an Australian aviation lobby group focussed on electoral politics.

[Paragraph377]

Well, with the senate inquiry technically still ongoing and an interim report still due on the last parlimentary sitting day of 2020 which is 10 December 2020, I do not expect there to be any outcomes that are any different to the results of previous senate inquiries - a slap with a wet lettuce leaf. The Government politicians will enjoy their 4 month Xmas break commencing 11 December, the report will be bound in chains and left to gather dust in TRIM, and the emotionally challenged Canberra bubble boy Carmody will scamper off into the sunset with his millions of dollars in superannuation, sailing the globe in a 56 foot yacht called ‘Safe Seas For All’. Next year - rinse, wash, dry, repeat. Groundhog Day starts over, CASA’s tautological nonsense will continue and the aviation industry shall keep sliding into the abyss. Cue the merry-go-round music......

[glenb]

Regarding the letter sent to the Chair of the CASA Board and posted in Post 1373 on here regarding allegations of assault and stalking made by Mr. Carmody in Senate Estimates against me.

I asked Mr. Mathews the Chair of the CASA Board to respond by 5 PM on Tuesday 8th December.

Unsurprisingly. The time passed with no response.

Its all about "intent'

[Paragraph377]

Regarding the letter sent to the Chair of the CASA Board and posted in Post 1373 on here regarding allegations of assault and stalking made by Mr. Carmody in Senate Estimates against me.

I asked Mr. Mathews the Chair of the CASA Board to respond by 5 PM on Tuesday 8th December.

Unsurprisingly. The time passed with no response.

Its all about "intent'

Mr Matthews is probably busy under the Ministers desk, or blowing up party balloons for Mr Carmody’s farewell lunch. Or perhaps he is eating cucumber sandwiches and drinking a Kale smoothie while relaxing in an outdoors eatery on Furzer Street. But yes indeed, it’s all about ‘intent’. I guess their ‘intent’ is to keep obsfucating, deflecting, remaining uncooperative, deceiving, spinning and ducking and weaving.

CASA’s use of ‘intent’ goes back decades and has been used heavily in most of the regulatory punishments dishes out upon industry folk, such as Glen. The legal boffins purposefully write many of the rules so that they appear ‘grey’, they can be used in whatever way CASA feels like using at the time. If they like you, you are classed as compliant. If they don’t like you, they will say you are non-compliant and then pursue you to bankruptcy such as in the case of Glen. These ‘rules’ are then followed up by a loosely constructed and poorly designed ‘Act’ which can also be massaged to suit the outcome that CASA is seeking.

History is littered with victims like Glen, people like Bruce Rhoades (R.I.P), Paul Phelan (R.I.P), Karen Casey, Gerald Repacholi (R.I.P) and Shane Urquhart and many more.

I’m surprised CASA doesn’t use ‘intent’ in their statement of expectations, mission statement and perhaps WHS statement? Something like; “Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority, where intentions are what dreams are made of”.

Glen, wishing nothing but the very best for you, your family and friends over Xmas mate.

[aroa]

I second that. !

[glenb]

Dear Secretary



During a hearing of the Rural Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on 20 November 2020, Mr. Shane Carmody the Director of Aviation Safety (DAS) and Chief Executive Officer of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority said this, among other things, about me:



“Mr. Buckley … has assaulted my staff, he has stalked my staff in the Melbourne office and, frankly, we've had enough of him.”



I completely reject those allegations.



I respectfully submit that on any interpretation of the term “adverse reflection”, Mr. Carmody’s allegations are an adverse reflection on me.



As you will be aware, the Parliamentary privilege resolutions agreed to by the Senate on 25 February 1988 relevantly include the following:



“1 Procedures to be observed by Senate committees for the protection of witnesses



In their dealings with witnesses, all committees of the Senate shall observe the following procedures:

…

(11) Where a committee has reason to believe that evidence about to be given may reflect adversely on a person, the committee shall give consideration to hearing that evidence in a private session.

(12) Where a witness gives evidence reflecting adversely on a person and the committee is not satisfied that that evidence is relevant to the committee's inquiry, the committee shall give consideration to expunging that evidence from the transcript of evidence, and to forbidding the publication of that evidence.

(13) Where evidence is given which reflects adversely on a person and action of the kind referred to in paragraph (12) is not taken in respect of the evidence, the committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity for that person to have access to that evidence and to respond to that evidence by written submission and appearance before the committee.

…”



Mr. Carmody’s allegations against me were broadcast and now appear in Hansard. I consider that I am entitled to a reasonable opportunity to respond by written submission and appearance before the Committee. It cannot reasonably be the case that Mr. Carmody is free to make such serious allegations against me under Parliamentary privilege, unsupported by any evidence submitted to the Committee or made available to me, and the matter is resolved by a mere written denial by me.



I, therefore, request that you let me know if the Committee will give me an opportunity to appear again to respond to Mr. Carmody’s allegations.



Ideally, I would appreciate the opportunity to present before you with Mr. Carmody and any nominated CASA support personnel present.



If both perspectives can be presented simultaneously, it will streamline the process and provide the Committee the opportunity to more effectively consider the matter.



Absent a reasonable opportunity to respond, I will consider making a submission in writing to the President of the Senate, requesting the submission be referred to the Committee of Privileges.



Please understand, this matter is important to me.

(To the PPrune reader, I have edited a paragraph here outlining my current employment position. I'm not permitted to broadcast that position. What I will say is that I'm not a water meter reader any more. I got tired of having my arms ripped to shreds by all the residents of Camberwell, Canterbury and Mont Albert who had one bloody rose bush in their entire massive front lawn, and decide to plant it right above the water meter. I could feel them staring at me from their loungerooms as they chuckled with delight)



I underwent an extremely thorough security check prior to being offered the position. If those allegations by Mr. Carmody of criminal offenses were upheld, my employment would be untenable. The fact that I passed the security screening process to obtain the position, further suggests to me that Mr. Carmody's allegations are untruthful and misleading.



Thank you in anticipation of your assistance in bringing transparency to the process.



Please note that I had extended a request to Mr. Anthony Mathews the Chair of the Board of CASA. I had requested that he respond by 5 PM on Tuesday 9th December 2020. Mr. Mathews chose not to respond, therefore I am submitting this request for your consideration. A copy of that correspondence has previously been submitted to you, but have copied it below for your reference.



Respectfully, Glen Buckley


COPY OF PREVIOUS LETTER SENT TO MR MATHEWS (CHAIR OF THE CASA BOARD)

Dear Mr. Colin MacLachlan, Chair of the Board of CASA, and all Board Members. Please note that I have included other Parties in this email.

In Senate Estimates on 20/11/20, Mr. Carmody, the CEO of CASA raised allegations of criminal conduct against me, when he said the following.“He has assaulted my staff, he has stalked my staff.”

I absolutely refute those allegations. These are significant allegations and impact on my reputation. I would like to provide Mr. Carmody the opportunity to fully retract his statement and unreservedly apologize for it.

If Mr. Carmody refuses to fully retract that statement and publicly apologize, I will refer this matter to the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges. There are rules associated with adverse reflections on a person, and I feel Mr. Carmody's comments have clearly breached these.

As this matter should be easily attended to, I request that this matter be finalized by way of a retraction and published apology by 5 PM on Tuesday 8th December 2020.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[Blueyonda]

There is no hope 😳



https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1458x1812/60b2de20_f15a_4b4d_b06a_52b39a63122c_0a460a08f0510fa2458514c e7edcfb28093fafe0.jpeg

[havick]

There is no hope 😳



https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1458x1812/60b2de20_f15a_4b4d_b06a_52b39a63122c_0a460a08f0510fa2458514c e7edcfb28093fafe0.jpeg

What a f*ing joke. Only politicians can get away with basically producing no results whatsoever.

[glenb]

11/12/20

To the Committee Secretary,

In response to Senator Sterle's offer to submit questions to CASA seeking a response. Please find attached my correspondence on this matter. Thank you, Glen Buckley.



11/12/20

To Members of the RRAT Senate Estimates Committee,

My name is Glen Buckley the previous owner of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA) and Melbourne Flight Training (MFT). I had the opportunity to present before you at Senate Estimates on 20/11/20.

I am appreciative of the opportunity Senator Sterle provided to me, by offering to submit my questions to CASA via the Committee. Many of these questions have been put to CASA before, but CASA has chosen not to respond.

Noting the time of year, I would be highly appreciative of these questions being put forward to CASA at the earliest practical opportunity in 2021.

I have been attempting to resolve this matter with CASA for over two years. Your assistance in bringing transparency to the process is sincerely appreciated by me, my family, by the staff who lost their employment, the students affected, the suppliers impacted, and the owners of several small businesses forced into closure by the decisions and actions, of the personnel I have alleged misfeasance against in this matter.

CASAs decision making is not supported by regulations, and they have no supporting safety case. I am dealing with matters of opinion only, within the senior CASA Executive, and those opinions are not well-intentioned, and importantly they have demonstrably reduced aviation safety.

I raised those allegations of misfeasance in public office against those CASA personnel during my presentation on 20/11/20. I standby those allegations without the protection of any parliamentary privilege. Shortly I will publicly raise those allegations against the named individuals plus one other CASA Employee.

I am confident that if CASA provides truthful and well-intentioned answers to the following questions, this matter can be bought to a satisfactory resolution. That will allow all those affected to move on with their lives and allow CASA to redirect valuable resources back to areas more pertinent to aviation safety. This matter can be resolved if good intent is permitted to prevail.

Mr. Shane Carmody will shortly depart CASA and his accountability will end. His responsibility will not.

Mr. Graeme Crawford the CASA Executive Manager for the Aviation Group would be the Subject Matter Expert (SME) on my matter and would be my recommended point of contact after the departure of Mr. Carmody.

Alternatively, Mr. Craig Martin, the CASA Executive Manager for Regulatory Services and Surveillance has been the CASA nominated point of contact, and also has expert knowledge of this subject.

Mr. Jonathan Aleck is the CASA Executive Manager, Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs, and the individual responsible and accountable for the industry’s regulatory structure. He has been in the role for many years and would be able to provide any legislative justification for CASAs' actions and decisions.

Ideally, I would appreciate a specific response to each question rather than a grouped response. From my experience with CASA, grouped responses tend to overlook important criteria and allow CASA the opportunity to provide a more “engineered” response that may not reflect all considerations with their appropriate “weighting”.

Before presenting the questions, it is important that I clarify the required underpinning knowledge. Should CASA challenge any statements made in the underpinning knowledge, could they clearly identify that in their response. Whilst some of the statements are my perspective, I would ask CASA to highlight any errors on my behalf.

Could I also clarify that I am seeking a response that can be considered also by the Committee? My expectation would be that responses consider that many of the readers, understandably, will not be Subject Matter Experts on aviation training and safety matters, therefore as clear and concise explanation as practical would be appropriate and appreciated.

Underpinning knowledge

1. CASA commenced a legislative reform program called Part 61 (pilot licensing) and Part 141/142 (Flying School operations) in March 2002. Part 141 being the less complex Flight Training Organisation (FTO) and Part 142 the significantly more complex option. CASA scheduled this program for completion in 2005. The legislation was subsequently postponed by CASA on multiple occasions. The final of many postponements being from December 2013 until September 1st, 2014. when it was finally introduced (10 years behind the intended schedule. and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget), This legislation gave flying schools 3 years to comply i.e. until September 1st, 2017. After that 3 year timeline, they had to cease trading if the process of Transition to the new regulatory structure i.e. Part 141/142, was not completed. If I wanted to continue operating my business after September 1st, 2017, I was required to comply with the new CASA requirements.





2. In the CASA Regulation Impact Statement (RIS), dated December 2012, that preceded this legislative change, it stated on page 15 regarding the impact on business; "Businesses: The existing flight crew training businesses will be required to meet new standards, however, again whilst these represent a deviation from existing standards the changes are relatively minor, which is supported by the feedback that CASA obtained from the consultation process."



3. The truth is that it was in fact the most significant change that Australia's flight training sector had ever experienced. That is evidenced by the fact that within the first 12 months no existing flying schools had completed the process, and CASA was forced into extending the deadline date referred to as the "Transition date” by a further 12 months. All 350 flying schools in Australia would support the contention that the changes were clearly not, "relatively minor", it was in fact, a complete overhaul of every aspect of flying school operations. The industry depended on CASA for an accurate RIS, but it was grossly inaccurate. This was a contributing factor to the resourcing issues CASA faced during implementation.



4. The size and nature of my school suited the less costly Part 141 option.





5. The Part 141 option would however remove access to over 90% of my revenue by removing access to my "150 flying hour commercial pilot license course'. The mainstay of my business. This is a significant point. I would lose access to over 90% of existing revenue streams for courses that I had been delivering since the commencement of the business more than a decade earlier.



6. If I wanted to continue trading after September 1st, 2017, and retain my revenue streams, I needed to revalidate as the higher category Part 142 school, as that was now the only classification of school that could deliver the "150-hour commercial pilot license course", being the course that my business depended on.





7. CASA asked all schools to schedule their implementation program to ensure they met the deadline of September 1st, 2017.



8. CASA requested that I advise my scheduled Transition date. I scheduled to complete as close to the deadline as practical to delay the significant cost increases associated with the new legislation for as long as practical. Although the associated work required would commence in the background. I would not activate the new structure until as late as practical.





9. Twelve months into the three-year Transition period no schools had completed the Transition.



10. CASA asked me to "take a lead" on this matter, and bring my intended Transition date forward, and committed to giving me significant support if I agreed. They were keen to “get the ball rolling” amongst the industry.





11. I agreed and began working with 10 CASA personnel for the next 18 months on a proposal that would transition my own organization and eventually nine other organizations.



12. CASA put forward over 600 new procedural requirements that needed to be incorporated into our systems and procedures. APTA complied with every item. Each item adhered to all CASA guidance material. CASA Personnel assessed each individual procedure by way of face to face meetings with CASA personnel. All suggestions, requests and recommendations made by CASA personnel, were willingly adopted in the design of APTA. CASA was intertwined in the design of APTA. Every single procedure was fully approved by CASA.





13. CASA records will support my contention that CASA allocated more hours to my Transition than any other operator. Ten CASA personnel were heavily involved in my revalidation. CASA expressed this fact to APTA, and it is supported via emails from CASA.



14. I acknowledge that I did put significant pressure on CASA to allocate more resources to APTA as CASA timelines were exceedingly slow. For example, CASA apply an hourly rate to job requests. A job request that was quoted by CASA as a 7-hour task, and paid for by APTA, took 10 months for CASA to process. This was typical, and I wrote to CASA on many occasions about this. We were working towards a very tight deadline, if CASA was unable to resource the project it would potentially lead to significant difficulties for the business after September 1st, 2017, as it would not be able to continue trading.





15. As the deadline or Transition date of September 1st 2017 approached it became apparent to CASA that the vast majority of Australia's Flight Training Organisations were not going to be ready.



16. In March 2017 I sought confirmation from CASA that there would be no extension to the September 1st, 2017 deadline (Transition Date). CASA advised no extensions.





17. Based on that assurance above, I proceeded with the Transition. In April 2017, CASA activated my new Part 141 and 142 Approval. CASA approved APTA with two Flight Training Organisations (FTO) operating under the procedure that CASA had approved i.e. MFT and TVSA. This arrangement had been approved by CASA before the Transition which makes CASAs reversal of opinion more confusing.



18. CASA subsequently approved other FTOs to operate under the APTA model i.e. LTF and AVIA





19. Less than 4 weeks later in May 2017, with less than 20 of Australia's 350 FTOs were approved as a Part 142 Organisation, CASA postponed the deadline 12 months to September 1st, 2018. This was in contrast to the advice they had given me previously, and I depended upon.



20. I immediately asked CASA if I could revert to the previously less costly structure that the majority of schools could operate under for the next 12 months. CASA advised no.





21. In September 2018, the Transition date was finally implemented and a further short-term extension was provided to FTOs that had not met the date.



22. CASA conducted the highest level of audit available to CASA being a Level 1 audit. This was completed in November 2017 (6 months after Transition to the new regulations). No concerns were raised at all by CASA about the structure, in fact it was quite the opposite. CASA had now assisted in the design of APTA, approved it, audited it, recommended it, and approved bases to operate under it. I was confident that the concept was going to be successful, and that it was fully CASA sanctioned.





23. In May 2018 I was advised of a change of oversight by CASA personnel. On receipt of that notification, I immediately requested a one on one meeting with the Region Manager to raise concerns that one of the CASA employees may not be an appropriate person to oversight my organisation. This was based on comments he had made publicly, and information from other operators who had dealings with him. I specifically requested that the meeting be “on the record”. CASA will have that on file.



24. My concerns were not acted upon, the change of CASA oversighting personnel proceeded, and shortly afterwards the CASA employee that I had raised concerns about was integral in initiating the CASA process that was to follow. I was obviously dealing with a completely polarised view by personnel within the Melbourne office of CASA. My previous oversighting team CMT2 had been supportive, whereas the new team CMT 3 appeared aggressive, and to be actively working to bring harm to me and my business.





25. At the initial meeting between the new CASA oversighting team referred to as CMT 3, I had emailed suggesting that the new team give me an oversight on APTA, so that I could “fill in any gaps” and ensure we have a clear understanding to ensure a professional relationship going forward. At the start of the meeting the Region Manager advised that they would not be doing that. This raised my concerns about “intent”.



26. On October 23rd 2018 with absolutely no prior notification at and absolutely no concerns having been raised in any way I received notification that

a. My business had only 7 days surety of operations.

b. The businesses depending on me had only 7 days surety of operations.

c. We had been operating unlawfully.

d. Enforcement action was most likely.



27. On those restrictions being placed on the business, I immediately bought the commercial implications to the notice of CASA. The business was now derived of its opportunity to enrol new customers. The expenses remained and I estimated them to be in excess of $10,000 per week in order to meet staff salaries. I wrote to CASA on the following dates advising them of the commercial impact on my business. 24/10/18, 29/10/18, 2/11/18, 7/11/18, 9/11/18, 12/11/18, 4/12/18, 5/12/18, 21/12/18, 8/1/19, and 13/03/19 and CASA will hold that correspondence





28. Shortly afterwards and before I had an opportunity to resolve the matter, CASA had written to my customers advising them that their operations were operating unlawfully.



29. CASA also applied a freeze on all administrative tasks for 8 months until the forced sale of the business. Applications for renewals of simulators were not processed. An application for a new simulator was halted. The organisation had an application in for courses, and they were not processed. There was no reason those administrative tasks should not proceed. APTA as a fully approved CASA Part 141 and 142 operator was entitled to have those applications processed. Applications to add Key personnel to the management structure also ground to a halt. I believe that this was a breach of Administrative Law and CASA should have processed those tasks.





30. CASA identified that they had not written up audit results for Latrobe Valley Aero Club months after the audit was completed. CASA gave me an undertaking to complete the audit results over the weekend. Completely new allegations of regulatory breaches appeared in those audit results. I made repeated requests for supporting information i.e. evidence. CASA ignored my requests. I refute entirely those false allegations of regulatory breaches that were raised many months later and differed entirely to the Exit Meeting at the time the audit was conducted. CASA is required to raise all anomalies at the exit meeting, and the audit results are expected to replicate that meeting.



31. CASA directed that "franchised AOCs" were not permitted and directed that my business, Melbourne Flight Training, had to be handed over to APTA.





32. APTA had maintained an Industry-leading record of safety and compliance throughout its 15 years, and that is the feedback that CASA provided to APTA. No action by CASA has ever been based on safety, and no safety concerns at all have been raised by CASA. Similarly CASA is unable to identify any regulatory breaches.


I would be very appreciative if CASA could answer the following questions.



Question One – CASA previously permitted multiple entities to operate under a single Air Operators Certificate (AOC)



Throughout my 25 years in the aviation industry, CASA had approved more than one flying school to operate under a single Air Operator Certificate (AOC). This was CASA accepted practice. The AOC holder taking on full accountability and responsibility in the regulations and for safety, for all operations, across all bases operating under the AOC.

Evidence of this is that my own business, Melbourne Flight Training business shared its AOC with another flying school, with me remaining fully accountable in CASA legislation for all operations across both bases. This was approved by CASA.

Latrobe Valley Aero Club was also doing exactly that with another AOC Holder immediately prior to joining APTA. They joined APTA because it was designed with CASA and CASA approved. In fact, it was the first time that CASA and a flying school had worked collaboratively to design a system that addressed the deficiencies that existed with the existing CASA sanctioned arrangements that were in place for multiple entities operating under a single AOC.

Can CASA clearly and concisely explain why it was that Latrobe valley Aero Club was previously permitted to operate under another operators AOC but when they operated under mine, it was not acceptable and they were potentially subjected to regulatory action?



Question Two- (CASA was integral in the design and approval of APTA. I depended highly on CASA for guidance)



CASA was integral in the design of every aspect of APTA, and that at least 10 CASA personnel assessed and approved over 600 procedures that were incorporated into a suite of operational manuals, over a two year development period. The entire application underwent a Peer Review by senior CASA personnel prior to approval and was fully approved by CASA in April 2017. At the time of approving APTA in April 2017,there were already two bases operating under the system, being MFT and TVSA. CASA did go on to approve other bases under the system i.e. LTF and AVIA. CASA did also suggest to both the Ballart Aero Club and Latrobe Valley Aero Club that they should consider joining APTA as an alternative to ceasing operations.

Does CASA agree that they were heavily involved in the design and approval of APTA and in fact CASA personnel spent more time working with APTAs application than most other applications? APTA was fully approved and by CASA. The notification of October 2018 was a complete reversal of opinion.



Question Three- Was CASAs initial contact appropriate, lawful, proportionate and in line with industry precedent



On October 23rd 2018, you provided Glen Buckley a letter.

That letter gave Mr Buckleys business only 7 days surety of operations. It advised that CASA then provided a number of short-term interim approvals to operate over the next 8 months. You also wrote to all his customers advising them that they were potentially in breach of the regulations, and subject to regulatory action.

The impact of this action is substantial, and more so because Mr Buckley had several businesses depending on him in order to conduct their business.

With only 7 days of surety, followed over the next 8 months by subsequent short term approvals, it left the organisations future in doubt. It was impossible to enrol students in the courses, it was impossible to market the business, enormous instability was created amongst suppliers, cusomers and staff. APTA was fundamentally about providing smaller Australian Owned businesses and aero clubs the opportunity to continue in the new and more costly regulatory environment. The CASA actions including CASA contacting customers significantly eroded confidence in APTA

Mr Buckley claims that this notification came with absolutely no prior warning at all. Until receipt of that correspondence, Mr Buckley was confident that CASA fully supported his business.

Giving an aviation business potentially only 7 days to operate is a significant burden to place on any business in any industry. Such action would be rarely used by CASA and only in instances where there was a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety

Generally if CASA were to take such action there would be a process to vary a business owners Air operator Certificate, and those procedures are outlined in the Enforcement manual which can be found here. Enforcement Manual (casa.gov.au) (https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/enf/009rfull.pdf). Bypassing those stipulated procedures breached Mr Buckleys rights.

In my case these procedures were completely bypassed, and the first notification was that initial notification.

How often would CASA take such heavy handed action against a business. Was it appropriate in the circumstances. Mr Buckley advises that this notification came completely out of the blue with no prior notification. Were there any less combative actions considered, such as picking up the phone and raising any concerns, or scheduling a meeting.



Questions Four (Contracts)

When CASA initially issued the restrictions on the businesses ability to trade, they simultaneously requested that we provide contracts between the entities. This was a new requirement, and had not been placed on other operators previously. I have written to CASA on numerous occasions asking if they held such “contracts” for other operators. They have chosen not to respond. I assert that CASA will hold no contracts as the requirement was a new requirement unique to my organisation.

Interestingly, we had pre-empted any CASA requirement and we did have contracts that we were satisfied with. Once CASA realised this it created a somewhat awkward situation. They were making a demand for contracts, when they already held them.

I believe that once CASA identified that they already held contracts they should have immediately lifted the trading restrictions placed on the business.

A comprehensive email trail can be provided on this matter. CASA were not satisfied with the contracts but could not advise what they required. This matter was to drag on for a staggering 8 months with the trading restrictions in place.

It was incumbent in my view that CASA identified any deficiency in the legislation that needed to be attended to in the contracts. If CASA were not satisfied with the contracts they had to identify what they needed.

CASA did provide suggested text which I embedded and returned to CASA. CASA approved this new format contract then hours later reversed that approval and advised that it was not up to them to tell me what was required in the contracts. The situation was impossible for me to resolve.

Had CASA ever required other operators to hold a contract? Does CASA acknowledge that at the time they made a demand for contracts, CASA actually did hold the contracts.?



Question Five (Why did the Board choose not to facilitate a meeting when serious allegations were raised by Glen Buckley)

I wrote to the CASA Board on 02/01/19, 02/04/19, 22/5/19, 28/5/19, 6/6/19, 11/6/19 and finally obtained the opportunity to meet with Mr Mathews, the Chair of the Board of CASA on 20/07/19, which was 9 months after CASA initiated the restrictions on the business ability to trade, and 6 months after my first correspondence to the Board raising the most significant allegations of misconduct by CASA personnel.



Had the Board responded in a more timely and appropriate manner, it may well be that the situation could have been resolved. As we now know, multiple businesses have been forced into closure.

Can the Board explain why they chose not to respond and facilitate a meeting as requested. My request was merely to meet with any two members of the Board at any location in Australia. I have made multiple requests over the last two years to meet with any two Members, and that request has not been met. I still make myself available for that meeting if it can be facilitated.





Question Six (Transferring MFT )

After restricting APTAs ability to derive revenue, Mr Buckley’s parents stepped in and covered the staff salaries to avoid redundancies.

They contributed approximately $300,000 over the 8-month period. With interim approvals to operate placed on the business, and the business deprived of revenue, Mr Buckley was forced to sell APTA for approximately 5% of its previous value. Mr Buckley had to walk away from that business without one cent benefitting him or his family. He did however retain his flying school called Melbourne Flight Training. (MFT)

CASA however directed that his staff and customers at MFT had to transfer to the new owners of APTA. This resulted in Mr Buckley losing his second business of 15 years, Melbourne Flight training being handed over to another entity. The financial obligations on Mr Buckley remained to suppliers for leases etc. Deprived of revenue from his business but recurring contractual obligations in place, he was placed in an impossible situation.

Is there any legislative basis at all for CASA directing Mr Buckley to transfer his flying school to another entity. This action alone resulted in Mr Buckley losing his business of 15 years, and being deprived of his livelihood.



Question Seven (direction to Employer that my position was untenable)

After CASA had placed restrictions on APTAs ability to trade, and after CASA directed that Mr Buckleys remaining flying school had to transfer all staff and students to another entity, Mr Buckley secured employment with the new owners of APTA. CASA then sent a notice to his Employer that his “position was untenable based on comments that he was making publicly”, and he was terminated.

This is a highly unusual direction, and normally a CASA approved Head of Operations would be afforded the protection of the CASA Enforcement manual to ensure his rights in accordance with Administrative Law, Natural Justice and procedural fairness.

I believe Mr Buckley has made multiple requests to have his offending comments identified. The only place Mr Buckley has made any public comments, is on PPRUne. It seems entirely reasonable that if CASA sent that direction to his Employer that CASA identify the particular comments from the forum that lead to that direction. The forum can be accessed here. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa.html)

Could CASA please identify the specific comments that lead to the direction to my Employer that my employment was untenable based on comments that I was making publicly?



Question Eight ( CASA directing significant resources to secure their objective)

Mr Buckley claims that the impact of the CASA actions and decisions has been significant. Many millions of dollars has been lost, several businesses have closed, customers have had their training impacted, staff have lost employment, he has lost his home and is now destitute. He has robustly defended his position. Putting all of that to one side for the moment, I assume that CASA have directed a significant amount of resources to this matter.

Could CASA provide an indication to the committee as to how many resources have been redirected to CASA achieving their objective. For example how many man hours would have been allocated to the project, how much money has been spent on legal fees etc.





Question Nine (supporting safety case)

I assume that prior to initiating the action against Glen Buckley’s business, CASA would have prepared their case. Mr Buckley claims that CASA actions have reduced aviation safety.

This would be a routine procedure in any organisation dealing with safety matters.

Can you advise if CASA prepared any risk assessment or safety case prior to initiating the action, and would CASA be prepared to provide that to the Committee, and to Mr Buckley.



Question Ten CASAs Regulatory Philiosophy

CASA has a commitment to industry, and part of that is contained within CASAs Regulatory Philosophy which can be found here. Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au) (https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/our-regulatory-philosophy)

Mr Buckley contends that had CASA acted in accordance with the Regulatory Philosophy this entire situation could have been avoided.

After careful consideration of the Philosophy and considering each point, is CASA fully satisfied that it has complied with each of those commitments given to industry in the Regulatory Philosophy in their dealings with APTA, MFT and Glen Buckley



Thankyou for your consideration, respectfully



Glen Buckley

[glenb]

To Whom it may concern.


On 20/11/20 the CASA CEO Mr. Shane Carmody made allegations that i had stalked and assaulted CASA personnel. This statement was made to the RRAt Senate inquiry.

Prior to him raising that allegation of criminal conduct in the Senate, I had no idea of these allegations which I vigorously deny.

Could I make a Freedom of Information Request for any information that CASA has on file about me regarding stalking or assaulting CASA personnel?

Thank you in anticipation of your assistance. Could that information be forwarded to me at the return email address?

Regards. Glen Buckley

[Obie]

What a f*ing joke. Only politicians can get away with basically producing no results whatsoever.

That's a bit harsh, havick, reporting that b***er all has been done meets the requirement to report surely!?
...err, hang on a bit! I may have that a tad wrong!

[Jetman346]

This is unbelievable, I really hope justice prevails as this is not acceptable and CASA needs to be held accountable, I am sure there are some great people in CASA but sounds like a few egotistical elite have set a very bad culture and the worst part is they probably know bugger all about aviation, hang in there Glen

[VH-MLE]

That unsigned letter from Susan McDonald is the clearest example I've seen of the contempt politicians have for their constituents. Furthermore, it epitomises why politicians are despised by so many...

[Pinky the pilot]

Furthermore, it epitomises why politicians are despised by so many...

I can still remember reading a quote attributed to former Labor Senator Graham 'Whatever it takes' Richardson who supposedly once wrote something along the lines of '.....if the general public really learned just what goes on in politics/parliament, there would be politicians hanging from lamp posts...':ooh:

Further comment could possibly be viewed as seditious.:hmm:

[Sunfish]

Think of the wider context for the moment......

IF what Mr. Buckley says is substantially true and correct, then what does this matter indicate with respect to the risks involved in investing in aviation in Australia??????

From the professional investor standpoint, we have a new category of risk. We already have sovereign risk - the possibility that the rule of law may collapse, business risk - the possibility of competitor action, market risk, etc.,etc. To that matrix we have to add CASA risk - the possibility that a bloody minded regulator decides to destroy you, if Mr. Buckley is to be believed.

It is axiomatic that you have to manage risk in order to invest. How can you manage "CASA risk"? The answer appears to be that you cannot. Compliance does not appear to guarantee protection.

Therefore no professional investor is going to waste their time. There goes thousands of jobs and a chunk of GDP. That is what Governments should worry about.

[TBM-Legend]

That unsigned letter from Susan McDonald is the clearest example I've seen of the contempt politicians have for their constituents. Furthermore, it epitomises why politicians are despised by so many...


Please explain. Sen McDonald is one of the few "friends" the industry has in the Parliament. The Public Servants are the ones maneuvering behind the politicians backs [just like the Brereton Report]

[VH-MLE]

TBM - please read the letter & tell me after the amount of info that’s come out of the Senate hearings to date - particularly in Glen’s case, that you’re happy with that interim report. If she’s a “friend” I’d hate to have her as an enemy! It’s a totally dismissive piece of correspondence - in my opinion anyway...

[Sunfish]

The letter is a pro forma one to ensure the Committee is not in contempt of the Senate. They have reported......that their report is not finished. It signifies nothing. There will be many others.

[harrryw]

The letter is a pro forma one to ensure the Committee is not in contempt of the Senate. They have reported......that their report is not finished. It signifies nothing. There will be many others.
Of course contempt of the public does not matter? n fairness I do not place ALL the blame on her.

[Sunfish]

Harry, have you considered that maybe the Committee has so much excellent material that it is taking a long time to digest? I think its worth the wait.....

[Bend alot]

Dear Glen,

I must first say that I am very happy you are still with us, I know you have had some very dark times.

I am so pleased that your community has shown you strong support and continue to do so.

I hope you legal battel is going strong.

I wish CAsA would accept what they have become.

Most of all I wish you and your family the greatest of all Christmas's, just based on love.

You are inspirational Glen!

All the Best Bendy.

[glenb]

Appreciate the sentiments folks. I cant believe this matter has dragged on for over two years, and the last year and a half here on Pprune. The sentiments, comments, guidance and suggestions provided to me on this forum have been invaluable and very much appreciated.

I may not take every suggestion on board, but they have all been considered and appreciated.

Surely this must come to a head soon, and the fight will go on until it does.

Thanks again for all the support. Im certainly in a much better place going into this Christmas compared to last Christmas. Twelve months ago i was very much on the edge. This one, ive got a job, a rental property, and even got some gifts under the tree this year.

A much better place, and in part due to everyone on here. Thanks for following the story, Glen

[Valdiviano]

Merry Christmas Glen, I hope 2021 is a GOOD year for you and your family
Kind regards

[glenb]

CASA imposed restrictions on businesses ability to trade



Request for clarification of potentially misleading information provided by Mr Shane Carmody CASA CEO, to Senate Estimates by CASA on 20/11/20



Attachments: CASAs initial and subsequent interim approvals to operate.

Ombudsman’s Report Phase One



20th December 2020.



Dear Mr Shane Carmody, and the RRAT Senate Estimates Committee.



I am fully satisfied that comments made by the CEO of CASA, Mr Shane Carmody in the Senate Estimates Committee on 20/11/20, have the potential to mislead the Committee.



The comments made by Mr Carmody contained gross errors and were not an accurate representation of the truth.



I would like the opportunity to correct any misconceptions that may have been created by the following statement that Mr Carmody made just prior to the 7-minute mark of his presentation, and accessed via this link https://youtu.be/QKlwOh5L9ig



“the notice we provided in October of 2018 was for allowing him to expand his services, which happens all time. We did not approve that. We did not stop him operating. We allowed him to continue to operate under his current arrangement”



That comment would lead the Committee to believe CASA actions only prevented me from expanding.



That is far removed from the truth. Had Mr Carmody’s statement been the truth, it is likely that the several businesses forced into closure would still be operating, and the impact would not be so significant.



Despite Mr Carmody asserting that, “he continued to operate under his current arrangement”, as the owner of the business, I can assure you that was not the case. I have outlined 9 consequences that resulted from that notification, and the significant commercial impact on my business, and other affected entities.



One

Without any warning, on 23rd October (refer attached) CASA provided a notice to my Organisation, that it had only 7 days surety of operations.

That correspondence also led me to believe that I was operating unlawfully, and it was unlikely that this matter could be resolved.

I have attached that correspondence as evidence of my assertion.

For CASA to take such heavy handed and disproportionate action against a business, one would expect that CASA had identified a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety or sustained regulatory breaches. This action was based on a “change of opinion” within CASA only.

· 23rd October 2018 without any warning, you advised that the business had 7 days surety of operations.

· 30th October 2018 to 12th February 2019, the business operated on a minute my minute CASA approval that could be immediately withdrawn.

· 12th February to 13th May 2019 a short term interim approval to operate was issued.

· 13th May 2019 to 1st July 2019, a further short term interim approval to operate was issued.

· 31st June 2019, the business was unable to meet salary commitments to its staff and was sold for 5% of its agreed value. The nominal price was in exchange for debt obligations accrued over the 8 months with trading restrictions in place.

As with any business, to have only 7 days surety of operations and be advised that your business will “not be permitted to continue operating” has a devastating impact on any business operating in any sector, be it a bank, a retailer, a mining company or indeed a flying school. Importantly, this totally unacceptable situation, continued on for 8 months.

· In the case of my business, by placing only 7 days of operations, it makes it impossible to enroll students into courses that typically run over more than 12 months.

· It brings enormous instability to the existing students and their families already enrolled in courses, as it creates uncertainty as to the continuing operations of the business.

· It makes it impossible to attract and recruit, or to retain employees when the business faces such an uncertain future.

· It brings enormous instability to the many staff that depend on the business to derive their livelihood.

· It prevents me from marketing and recruiting to students at the most important time of year i.e., the end of the school year, when graduates from secondary school are considering their career options.

· It raises concern with suppliers that have long term arrangements in place with the Organisation.

Two

Almost immediately after I received the initial notification on 23rd October 2018, CASA will confirm that they wrote to all of my customers advising that APTA was operating in breach of regulations. This correspondence was sent before I had the opportunity to respond or attempt to resolve CASAs issues. It had a destabilising effect on my customers, and eroded confidence in the business model. This was the business model that 10 CASA personnel spent two years designing with me and approving in April 2017.



Three

The Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance advised me that after a meeting with his Executive, (i.e. Mr Aleck and Mr Crawford) they had determined that APTA would “not be permitted to continue operating” and that statement was made in the presence of a witness.



Four

I point out that immediately on receiving that initial notification and on numerous subsequent occasions, I advised CASA in writing that the restrictions on trade i.e. inability to enrol students etc would cost me in excess of $10,000 per week as I paid staff salaries but was denied access to my existing revenue streams. The business was immediately moved into a situation of incurring substantial losses on 23rd October 2018, and this would continue until the issue could be resolved, which after 8 months it was not. This lead to the sale of the business under financial duress in June 2019, when mine and my parents could no longer pay the staff salaries.



Five

The notice of 23rd October 2018, also advised me that my own flying school, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT) that had been operating for 13 years delivering safe and compliant operations was operating in contravention of the regulations. This was a ludicrous assertion. How could my own business operating under my own AOC possibly be operating in contravention of the regulations. It simply operated in exactly the same manner as any flying school in Australia under a fully approved CASA AOC that belonged to me. CASA have failed to explain this to me.



Six

The notice did also go on to state that existing members that had previously been approved by CASA i.e. AVIA and LTF were now also operating in contravention of the legislation, and would likely have their approval reversed, which substantially impacted on their capability and would potentially lead to their closure.



Seven

It also advised that new members that had made substantial investment in establishing their business would not have their applications processed. These organisations were required to have the investment and facilities in place before CASA would make the assessment.

A very significant investment was made by both Simjet in Brisbane and Whitestar Aviation in Ballina. The notification received on 23 rd. October 2018 advised that despite the significant investment made in acquiring a facility, obtaining a simulator, employing suitably qualified staff etc that the approval process would not proceed. The owners of both organisations lost many hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment in Australian aviation because of this reversal in this notification that arrived on 23rd October 2018.



Eight

The Ballarat Aero Club which had ceased operations after almost 100 years of operating had intended to resume operations under APTA. CASA intended to reject that application. Similarly Latrobe Valley Aero Club which was facing closure had joined APTA to ensure its continuity of operations. CASA notified me in that correspondence of 23rd October 2018, that it intended to reject the applications for these two new Members, leaving their future uncertain.



Nine

CASA applied an “administrative freeze” on all APTA applications. These applications were for the addition of new courses that APTA and its customers required. Similarly, a significant investment in a new flight simulator for Ballarat Aero Club was not processed, leaving the investment laying idle for many months. Additionally, a simulator was not renewed by CASA and also lay idle for a protracted period. Upgrades of Key Personnel to strengthen the organisation and enhance safety were not processed.



The truth is that several businesses were forced into closure, many employees lost their job, and millions of dollars of investment was lost, as was a unique opportunity for the Australian flight training industry, and most particularly in the regional sector which APTA was designed to support.

Whilst I appreciate that it is not the Committees role to adjudicate in disputes, and that it has no avenues to provide remedies, this matter is pertinent to the Committees Terms of reference and in particular;

· Whether the current legislation is fit for purpose

· The economic impacts of aviation safety frameworks

· The immediate and long term, social and economic impacts of CASA decisions on small business

· The maintenance of an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry including the training sector.

· Efficacy of CASAs engagement with the aviation sector

· The ability to broaden accessibility to regional aviation across Australia, which is in fact the exact purpose of APTA.



My hope is that Mr Carmody will respond to both the RRAT and myself to add some clarity to the statement that he made to the Committee and ensure transparency.



Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[Sunfish]

Doesn't CASA aver that it is not a regulator of Commerce? Doesn't CASA state that it is only a regulator of safety?

Could CASA please name and explain to the Aviation community the nature of the "Safety" issue that must have existed at APTA? The issue must have been specific to APTA and, like Covid, transmissible to APTA clients (Latrobe, Ballarat, etc) by APTAs infected (infectious?) business model.

This must have been a very sophisticated and subtle safety issue because CASA required that approvals be renewed at very short intervals - seven days? Exactly how did CASA develop and implement a seven day review cycle of the safety of APTA's operations? What did CASA monitor? How did they come to the conclusion that APTA was "safe' for another seven days? How did CASA reach the conclusion that the seven day restriction was operable for some 8 months? Surely a seven day restriction implies a high probability of immediate closure? Were CASA negligent by allowing this matter to continue for 8 months?

Perhaps most of all, how did CASA decide that the safety issue no longer existed after the business was sold?

I am concerned that our regulator should have closed the business completely on discovery of this issue, given the seven day time horizon of continuing approvals. I think the regulator must have been bullied into letting APTA stay open for eight months, after all this was a dire safety matter!

[LAME2]

All very good questions Sunfish.

[Paragraph377]

Perhaps most of all, how did CASA decide that the safety issue no longer existed after the business was sold?
Because to CASA, GLEN was the safety risk. CASA method is quite simple; as a rule of thumb CASA don’t usually care about CEO’s. They know that most are bean counters or toe cutters and know SFA about the aviation industry. However CASA will look closely at a Chief Pilot or the Accountable person in the organisation. If that particular person is either incompetent or ‘has spoken out publicly against CASA or dare I say questioned CASA over a matter or a decision’, then watch out as payback is a bi#ch. I’ve seen CASA lean on an organisation until the Chief Pilot or HAAMC was frog marched out of the place. Usually not because of incompetence, but because they spoke out against CASA. CASA will quietly speak with the other organisation Executives within the organisation and let them know that if the CP or HAAMC isn’t moved on then CASA will pull the doors shut on the organisation. It’s very plain to see that is what happened in Glens case.

CASA are the most vengeful, spiteful, dangerous organisation to cross, even if your beef with them is legitimate, justifiable and truthful. It doesn’t matter. They will dig the deepest of deep holes and bury you in it. Glens case is not the first and won’t be the last, but it’s definitley the most public in many many years. Hopefully for those who have doubted ‘the CASA horror stories’ will now be able to see what they are capable of. ‘Hell hath no fury like a CASA executive scorned’.

[Sunfish]

Para377, I don’t believe that a Government organisation like CASA would do such a thing in this day and age. There must be some other perfectly legitimate reason.

[Paragraph377]

Para377, I don’t believe that a Government organisation like CASA would do such a thing in this day and age. There must be some other perfectly legitimate reason.
With all due respect Sunfish, CASA do exactly that! I’ve been there and seen it with my own two eyes. Full stop. They’ve been doing it for a long time and as can be seen with Glen, they are still doing it. There are a number of posters on here who have personally experienced the same pineappling that Glen received. You speak out and you dig your own grave.

[havick]

Para377, I don’t believe that a Government organisation like CASA would do such a thing in this day and age. There must be some other perfectly legitimate reason.

Its clear you haven’t spent any time in commercial aviation.

The sad thing is, usually once said person is marched out of their position for speaking up against CASA, the replacement is usually a blithering fool which is legitimately detrimental to flight ops safety.

Its particularly awesome to see the next level of circumstance when an ex CASA FOI weasels their way into a head position at an aviation company, due to their own ineptness destroys the company, and then goes back to CASA.

[Bodie1]

Glen, just to expand on the Ballarat Aero Club's investment. They purchased a new Simulator, north of a 50K investment, it sat idle for a significant period of time. There was significant other investments as well.

[The Bullwinkle]

Para377, I don’t believe that a Government organisation like CASA would do such a thing in this day and age. There must be some other perfectly legitimate reason.
Obviously this post is pure sarcasm or an attempt at humour!

[Sunfish]

But Bullwinkle, I refuse to believe CASA would do this. What possible motivation other than safety could they have? Surely there must be a quantifiable danger to the public for CASA to act.

What you seem to be suggesting is that CASA is an unaccountable rogue organisation. I don't believe Mr Carmody is an unaccountable rogue, quite the reverse.

[Bend alot]

But Bullwinkle, I refuse to believe CASA would do this. What possible motivation other than safety could they have? Surely there must be a quantifiable danger to the public for CASA to act.

What you seem to be suggesting is that CASA is an unaccountable rogue organisation. I don't believe Mr Carmody is an unaccountable rogue, quite the reverse.

For years people have been saying Boeing is rotting away - the masses did not believe that was possible! They would not want to hear the truth.

CAsA has been rotting for years - it is far worse than Boeing. Many of us have been saying it for years.

[Jenna Talia]

But Bullwinkle, I refuse to believe CASA would do this. What possible motivation other than safety could they have? Surely there must be a quantifiable danger to the public for CASA to act.

What you seem to be suggesting is that CASA is an unaccountable rogue organisation. I don't believe Mr Carmody is an unaccountable rogue, quite the reverse.

Sunfish's account has been hacked.

[Paragraph377]

But Bullwinkle, I refuse to believe CASA would do this. What possible motivation other than safety could they have? Surely there must be a quantifiable danger to the public for CASA to act.

What you seem to be suggesting is that CASA is an unaccountable rogue organisation. I don't believe Mr Carmody is an unaccountable rogue, quite the reverse.

Sunfish, I like your posts generally. You do have some smarts about you. But mate, seriously, have you lost your marbles? Has dementia kicked in? Have you taken up smoking Ice at your age? You are taking the piss, right? If not, mate I suggest you tee up time to have a coffee (or 7) with Glen and let him go through the whole CASA grievance with you. You will soon see that a Government bureaucracy in 2020 is indeed a rogue bastard.

[Sunfish]

Para377, if CASA is indeed as bad as reports suggest, then that is tragedy for Australia. However I think it may just be part of a bigger problem; that is the increasingly risk averse nature of ALL Government and businesses, in fact the entire society, that is slowly paralysing the nation.

By "risk averse", I mean the inability to take any decision that is perceived as having any risk attached to it.

Examples:

- cost of insurance in areas deemed "prone' to bushfires.

- Cancellation of public events (Concerts, shows, etc) because of inability to obtain insurance or outrageous indemnity demands by local councils.

- The entire Government response to Covid19, as exemplified by the Victorian health Ministers press conference yesterday where he blathered on about regulations, procedure, protocols and advice when questioned about Victorias lagging response to the latest Sydney outbreak. Blind Freddy knows we should have closed the borders a day earlier and we should be at least back wearing masks as should Sydneysiders. We should also strictly quarantine all airline crews, domestic and international, cut flights and to hell with returning travellers.

- The business, sport and Government response to the screaming harpies of the feminist movement which has resulted in "Cancel culture" and the destruction of thousands of male careers out of political correctness and the demonisation of men.

- the increasing demand for "mandatory" sentencing for crime and the continuous extension of government control of previously unregulated activities.

So now lets return to Aviation and CASA; I would have thought that if aviation regulation was as bad as people here make out, then there would be some Government crusader who wishes to make a name for themselves by leading a reform agenda to restructure the whole box and dice, regulation, enforcement, etc. However then I thought about the question of risk. By its nature, rightly or wrongly, all aviation is regarded as a risky activity (due to fear of falling/heights, etc.). The regulations are totally focussed on purporting to reduce risk to the public.

Therefore any change that is perceived as altering the risk mitigation profile embedded in the community's psyche is going to be seen as INCREASING risk and danger and is automatically a bad thing. Furthermore it isn't rocket science that bureaucrats will fight back against reform by pressing the risk button. This is going to make aviation reform a very unpopular topic with politicians who understand that the next aircrash is going to be blamed on them for tampering with CASA.

So imagine the shock/horror whipped up by the press if favourite hobby horses were indeed acted upon:

- Medical self certification (Sick pilots! OMG!)

- Owner maintenance (Broken planes falling out of sky!)

- Weight increases, entry to controlled airspace for recreational aircraft (untrained amateurs near my airbus ride!)

- Simpler regulations (pilots are potential criminals, they should be investigated and punished! We need MORE, not less regulation!)

CASA are protecting us from a general public who would close general and recreational aviation down, or severely limit it, if they could. They make aviation possible in this increasingly litigious and risk averse society.

So perhaps Glen threatened the status quo and someone at CASA got worried. Is that a crime? I don't think the general public would think so and the arguments are too technical for them to understand or care.

Both the profession and Glen need to focus on how to explain to the general public what their case is and why the general public should support it. This is in fact a political question and should be treated as such. Before you explode, I wish Glen all the best and I hope the matters are resolved to his satisfaction, I'm just trying to explain what he is up against.

[finestkind]

Is the US/UK/Europe as regulated as we are? We would have to be one of the best countries for civvy aviation. A benign environment when compared to elsewhere and a vast expanse that aviation would benefit.

Sunfish I may be wrong, not being an edumacted person, but I think the gist of Glen's issue is the way he was treated in such a way that by all appearances that it became a personal vendetta against him.

[Paragraph377]

Para377, if CASA is indeed as bad as reports suggest, then that is tragedy for Australia. However I think it may just be part of a bigger problem; that is the increasingly risk averse nature of ALL Government and businesses, in fact the entire society, that is slowly paralysing the nation.

By "risk averse", I mean the inability to take any decision that is perceived as having any risk attached to it.

Examples:

- cost of insurance in areas deemed "prone' to bushfires.

- Cancellation of public events (Concerts, shows, etc) because of inability to obtain insurance or outrageous indemnity demands by local councils.

- The entire Government response to Covid19, as exemplified by the Victorian health Ministers press conference yesterday where he blathered on about regulations, procedure, protocols and advice when questioned about Victorias lagging response to the latest Sydney outbreak. Blind Freddy knows we should have closed the borders a day earlier and we should be at least back wearing masks as should Sydneysiders. We should also strictly quarantine all airline crews, domestic and international, cut flights and to hell with returning travellers.

- The business, sport and Government response to the screaming harpies of the feminist movement which has resulted in "Cancel culture" and the destruction of thousands of male careers out of political correctness and the demonisation of men.

- the increasing demand for "mandatory" sentencing for crime and the continuous extension of government control of previously unregulated activities.

So now lets return to Aviation and CASA; I would have thought that if aviation regulation was as bad as people here make out, then there would be some Government crusader who wishes to make a name for themselves by leading a reform agenda to restructure the whole box and dice, regulation, enforcement, etc. However then I thought about the question of risk. By its nature, rightly or wrongly, all aviation is regarded as a risky activity (due to fear of falling/heights, etc.). The regulations are totally focussed on purporting to reduce risk to the public.

Therefore any change that is perceived as altering the risk mitigation profile embedded in the community's psyche is going to be seen as INCREASING risk and danger and is automatically a bad thing. Furthermore it isn't rocket science that bureaucrats will fight back against reform by pressing the risk button. This is going to make aviation reform a very unpopular topic with politicians who understand that the next aircrash is going to be blamed on them for tampering with CASA.

So imagine the shock/horror whipped up by the press if favourite hobby horses were indeed acted upon:

- Medical self certification (Sick pilots! OMG!)

- Owner maintenance (Broken planes falling out of sky!)

- Weight increases, entry to controlled airspace for recreational aircraft (untrained amateurs near my airbus ride!)

- Simpler regulations (pilots are potential criminals, they should be investigated and punished! We need MORE, not less regulation!)

CASA are protecting us from a general public who would close general and recreational aviation down, or severely limit it, if they could. They make aviation possible in this increasingly litigious and risk averse society.

So perhaps Glen threatened the status quo and someone at CASA got worried. Is that a crime? I don't think the general public would think so and the arguments are too technical for them to understand or care.

Both the profession and Glen need to focus on how to explain to the general public what their case is and why the general public should support it. This is in fact a political question and should be treated as such. Before you explode, I wish Glen all the best and I hope the matters are resolved to his satisfaction, I'm just trying to explain what he is up against.

Better. Much much better. Now you are getting it my friend. Well written and strikes at the core of Aviation’s malaise.

One thing though, several senators have had a bit of a subdued crack at CASA - Heffernan and Xenophon and there are others. But it’s a pointless exercise and senate inquiries and senate estimates are just a game with no real meat and potatoes.

Secondly Sunfish, when you speak of risk aversion you left out Councils removing metal slides and climbing equipment from playgrounds and State Governments removing the Male/Female criteria off your car drivers lisence. All big ticket items. NOT

[aroa]

"The public" have no idea about aviation related issues or the machinations of a bastard bureaucrazy as is CAsA.
Anything can be done in the name of "safety" and it is. With covid it comes to shackling a young woman and dragging her away in front of her kids . That got plenty of publicity. A scary sign of things to come ?
CAsA.s dirty deeds dont get so much press time because the issues are more complex. Reporters are looking for the next 'fish and chip wrapper' being yesterdays mini news item. Too easy for the 24 hr news cycle.
No paper wants to spend time on complex, convoluted issues that need serious investigation.
For aviators who know CAsA, the Buckley v CAsA means something. To Joe and Jill Public it means nothing.

And you are very wrong Sunny. As I read it. Glen spend oodles of time and money for an aviation enterprise that was allowed to proceed.with CAsA's blessing for years..
Change of CAsA team..and all bets are of for sanity to prevail. And what was workable today will be terminated by Friday next as unworkable. Exterminate, exterminate ...all must be destroyed !
And it was
The scrpts of some of these CAsA dramas and play acting,"investigations" read from like something out of the looney bin.
Just ask Quadrio, Kilin, Pantovich, Rudd and many many other
Unless the good Senators can pull a Royal Commission rabbit out of the hat, it will prove that aviation is a risky business.
With CAsA's MOs its way too risky to invest in any aviation business.
Vale ! GA

[dogcharlietree]

Glen, I support your cause to the hilt, but unfortunately cannot support your gofundme campaign.
In July 1994, I applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a Stay of Decision on my licence suspension.
That Stay was denied. It cost me a packet for just an hour or so in the AAT and I vowed then never to take a government department (or bank) to court.
They just adjourn proceedings until the appellant goes bankrupt.
I have made at least three lengthy submissions to various government enquiries and what is the outcome and changes? - nothing.
Regarding a Royal Commission..... I suggest you read "John Jess, Seeker of Justice" regarding the two Royal Commissions into the HMAS Melbourne and HMAS Voyager disaster.
https://www.news.com.au/national/john-jess-mp-fought-for-justice-for-dead-and-living-following-hmas-voyager-tragedy/news-story/338e75471eb48462091bae098498bca5
'When one hears the words Voyager Royal Commission, the first thing that comes to mind is "whitewash." '
Please don't forget, "Impact Erebus", by Capt. Gordon Vette. Justice Mahon's report accused Air New Zealand of presenting "an orchestrated litany of lies",
Regarding my own barrow pushing exercise, I have had far more support with my recently self-published book, "From Hero To Zero".
Politicians do not want to rock the boat. Sad. In fact I'm reminded of Sir Humphrey in "Yes, Minister?
"The terms ‘cover-up’ and ‘white wash’ don’t come close to doing justice to the loathsome performance of the nation’s political elites".

[dogcharlietree]

Having been through a lot in the last 27 years, I have absolutely no faith in;
1) The CASA grievance procedure
2) The AAT
3) The Commonwealth Ombudsmans Office,
4) The FOI act
5) The Australian Office of Information Commissioner
6) Our federal politicians.
But I WILL keep fighting for justice.

[Paragraph377]

And wasn’t it Senator Graeme Richardson that once said “if the public knew what really goes on behind closed doors in Parliament, politicians would be hanging from trees”? Crooked, corrupt, power wielding narcissistic douchebags that are as useful as a bad case of syphilis.

[Checklist Charlie]

Politicians are like a baby's nappy, they require changing regularly and usually for the same reason.

CC

[megan]

Senator Graeme Richardson that once saidHis additional quote was "you do whatever it takes".

[glenb]

In Post 1396, i had made a Freedom of Information request in response to Mr Shane Carmodys allegations that i had "stalked and assaulted" CASA staff. I know that allegation to be absolute rubbish, but have received this response to my request. looks like i might have to wait a tad longer for this information."Good morning Glen,

I have reviewed the documents within scope of your application. However, as the document contains information relating to personal and business information, under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act), CASA has an obligation to consult with any third parties involved.

This consultation process has now commenced and the timeframe to process the request is now extended by a further 30 days from today’s date in order to undertake the consultation process (see sections 27 of the Act).

Kind regards





Freedom of Information Officer

[dogcharlietree]

Glen. For nearly 3 years now I've been requesting under the FOI ATSB/BASI documents relating to my accident in 1994.
They will not release ONE word, citing "secret".
Since when is aircraft safety secret?
They are hiding so much.

[glenb]

BUCKLEY, Mr. Glen, Private capacity

[12:40]

Evidence was taken via teleconference—

CHAIR: Welcome. Do you have any comments to make on the capacity in which you appear?

Mr Buckley: I'm appearing in the capacity as a private individual and somebody that's spent 25 years working in the aviation industry.

CHAIR: Thank you. I invite you to make a brief opening statement before the committee asks questions. Do you wish to make an opening statement?

Mr Buckley : Yes, I'd like to take advantage of that. Thank you.

CHAIR: Please go ahead.

Mr Buckley : I realise this isn't a 21st birthday speech—this is something somewhat more substantial than that—but I would like to take the opportunity to thank some people, particularly Senator Susan McDonald. I realize these sorts of issues aren't things that attract a lot of votes in your electorate. They're bigger picture things that take ethics and integrity, so I want to thank you for that. Senator Glenn Sterle, I don't think you will remember me, but I came into your office about two years ago with another aviation gentleman. You spent time taking me around parliament and spent a lot of time with me. I came home after having a very inspirational day so I have a lot of trust and confidence in you. I met you. Thank you for being on board today.

I want to thank [inaudible] a couple of pilot forums: PPRuNe, Aunty Pru—a couple of organizations that are behind me—all the people that trained together, established a crowdfunding page, and contributed to that crowdfunding page. Probably more important than the financial contributions they made are the comments that they made. They meant a lot to me. I want to thank all my friends, everybody in the general aviation industry that stood up to get behind me. As you may be aware, I've got a forum going that's had close to 700,000 views 1,500 comments. The support's been exceptional.

I also want to apologise. I want to apologise to all of the people that've been [inaudible] to the supply of the business, the value [inaudible] my customers, my family, my parents, my children, my kids' school. Everybody's been impacted by the story that I'm about to tell you. Everything I say today is absolutely truthful. I can support everything I say in writing. This is the truth. This is about intent. If you ask me a question I'll answer in the intent that you want me to answer. I won't try and cover anything up and I will be truthful. I understand that this privilege afforded to me today gives me access to parliamentary privilege and I'm somewhat protected from the comments that I say. I don't want that protection. I want to send a very clear message to Mr Carmody, the CEO of CASA. I am waiving my right to any sort of parliamentary privilege to give my story the credibility that it deserves. You are welcome to initiate any legal action against me at the conclusion of this—

CHAIR: Sorry, Mr. Buckley, you don't need to go down that path. This is a Senate inquiry. Leave it as it is and you continue with your evidence.

Mr Buckley : Okay. This is a prepared statement I want to say. It's fairly brief. While I appreciate the diversity of the experience before me, I cannot reasonably expect you to be subject matter experts on flight training and aviation safety matters. Irrespective of that, you will have an appreciation of the importance of a productive relationship between the regulator and the industry that is regulating, be that aviation, trucking or any other industry. A relationship of mutual respect, trust, and good intention will irrefutably enhance good safety outcomes. If the culture of Australia's national aviation safety regulator, CASA, could be demonstrated to be unsafe, that it did not act in good faith, did not follow clearly stipulated procedures, denied individuals their rights under administrative law procedural fairness, and natural justice; if it could be proven that CASA has done this to many individuals and small business owners in Australia, not just me; if it could be proven those actions were unlawful and couldn't be justified on the basis of any desired safety outcome; if it could be proven those actions cost businesses and jobs; if it could be proven CASA acted vindictively and vexatiously, then you would be compelled to act, as you will be. I'll call on both of you at the end of this. Before I proceed, I want to be perfectly clear, as Mr Carmody will present before you shortly, I put the question to him to clearly outline any safety case 'for the action that you took against me' and clearly outline any regulatory breaches.

I'll talk to you about the business of what APTA was. CASA introduced a regulatory change called part 61, part 141 and part 142. It came in a decade behind schedule, hundreds of millions of dollars over budget and was uniformly rejected by the industry, and CASA will admit the failure of it. It massively increased the cost of running a flying school. The regulatory burden was very, very high. In fact, the regulations meant all flying schools in Australia had to close down in three years unless they complied with the regulations.

I approached CASA and I put to them a concept I was going to call the Australian Pilot Training Alliance. I was going to take my existing flying school, Melbourne Flight Training, and morph it to the Australian Pilot Training Alliance. It was a registered training organisation and had CRICOS approval to train overseas students. In conjunction with 10 CASA personnel over two years and an investment by me of many hundreds of thousands of dollars, I built APTA. It was fully approved by CASA. CASA recommended members to join APTA. The best analogy that I can give is that APTA is probably somewhat like IGA is in the supermarket industry. I took all the powerful approvals that I had in my school of 10 years and put them up the top and provided the opportunity for 10 schools to join underneath. I had full accountability for the entire operation. As I said, CASA helped me design it. They approved the basis to operate under it, and that business operated.

On 23 October 2018, with absolutely no warning at all—not on the basis of any regulatory breaches and not on the basis of safety, Mr Jonathan Aleck, the executive manager of legal international and regulatory affairs at CASA had a change of mind. He will be appearing before you shortly. Ask him what the regulatory support of what he did to me was. There is nothing. He has no rules. The Civil Aviation Act requires one of the functions of CASA to be to provide clear and concise aviation safety standards. I expect Mr Jonathan Aleck, before you shortly, to be able to show you the rules that were broken. There were none. Their conduct was vindictive and vexatious.

I'm jumping around a little bit here, but I want to talk about what APTA did for flying schools in regional areas of Victoria. The cost of running a flying school has gone through the roof. I felt it in my own flying schools. Consider an aero club. It's made up of the local insurance broker, a local farmer and the shop owners—local people come together in a rural aero club to enjoying flying together. It's an important part of these communities. These aero clubs can't keep up with CASA legislative compliance. The constant changes and the restrictions are too burdensome for them. They want to be running aero clubs, having competition days and flyaways and getting around to the bar at night-time and having a chat. That's what APTA was supposed to give them. CASA should have supported this. I was going to take all the compliance and safety responsibility for the operation and let them go about running their aero clubs.

[glenb]

APTA was very well intentioned. It was a very big investment and ultimately it has cost me my house investment savings. Mr Carmody will get up later on and he will say CASA has to assure themselves of good governance. Well, I will say to you, Mr Carmody, that APTA was the first organisation in Australia, not just in flying schools, to give CASA full 24/7 access to every single aspect of the business. The staff training, the students' files, the flight duty, predictive maintenance, communications between the staff—they had access to the whole system. The system was designed with a management structure of schools that do 10 times the volume of flying. It was a registered training organisation subjected to frequent audits. It was a very, very high calibre organisation and a big investment with industry-leading personnel. What did CASA do to me?

Before I start this, I want to talk very briefly about gentleman called Bruce Rhoades. I'm not sure if you're familiar with him. Bruce Rhoades was a gentleman whose company was involved in an aviation accident. He fought diligently to protect his name and his reputation, as I am, but unfortunately he acquired cancer. He went to his grave before he had the chance to clear his name. I apologise to his family, if this brings them any discomfort, because I haven't had the opportunity to seek their approval to tell you this story. But the ABC, 7.30, did an investigation into the conduct of the CASA personnel. He went to his grave not being able to defend himself. I don't know about the decisions he made in the aeroplane on the day. I wasn't there. It's not up to me to judge. You fly yourself, Senator McDonald—constant decision-making. So I can't judge his decisions. To me, they seem to be decisions that are possibly somewhat similar to those I would have made.

What I can assure you, for Bruce Rhoades, who has now passed away, and for his family, is that in his case CASA reverse-engineered the process. They did it to me. They work out what they want and they work backwards. He was breached under administrative law and denied natural justice and procedural fairness. He wasn't given those things. He went to his grave with his reputation in tatters, and I'm not letting it happen to me.

What did CASA do to me? Okay. To simplify this story—we don't have a lot of time, I appreciate that—CASA did three things to me. The first stage they did overnight. For no reason at all, they changed their opinion, came in and placed my entire business on seven days notice of operations. That's classified as a cancellation, variation or a suspension of an air operator's certificate. There are very strict procedures and protocols they need to follow to take such substantive action. Bear in mind this is not on safety grounds; it is the complete reverse. They denied me my privilege under administrative law and they put restrictions on my ability to trade.

For a staggering eight months, I couldn't take revenue. We've just been through this with coronavirus; we know what it does to businesses. No-one was going to join a school that only had seven days certainty of operation in the future. Consider what that does to staff, what that does to employees, what that does to customers and what that does to suppliers. My parents stepped in so I could avoid redundancies with those restrictions placed on my ability to trade. My parents stepped in for eight months and funded the staff salaries to the tune of $300,000 so that I didn't have to make anybody redundant. At the end of the eight months, exhausted of funds and too embarrassed to go back to my parents, I sold that business for five per cent of what it was worth. That was stage 1.

In the second stage, I retained my existing flying school, called Melbourne Flight Training. CASA—this is a right they don't have; this was again their opinion; this isn't defined—came up with something called direct operational control and they required me to transfer my flying school, my staff, students, resources and financial control over to the new owners of APTA that I'd sold the business to. There's no basis for this in administrative law. That left me with debts and leases on photocopying equipment et cetera, with no revenue.

In the third stage, I obtained employment in the industry and continued to defend my reputation on PPRuNe and Aunty Pru, until CASA sent a letter to my employer, saying my position was untenable, based on comments that I was making publicly. I was terminated that day. I spent eight months unemployed, dealing with a very depressed state, and have recently returned to the workforce—outside of the aviation industry. Are there any questions at this stage? Are you happy for me to continue?

CHAIR: Keep going. There will be questions at the end.

Mr Buckley : Thank you very much. I will keep going. I'm going to read from a written statement here. I want to briefly go to the impact on me of CASA's actions, just so that is very clear. I've lost my home. I've lost my business. I've lost my job. I've lost my reputation. My parents have lost $300,000, supporting staff salaries. My daughter's education at a remote university has been impacted. My son is doing his VCE, and I'm unable to pay his school fees. The school has had me declared bankrupt, and that will be activated in February. I have no money. I have been left absolutely, completely destitute and, at 56 years of age, have no hope of ever rebuilding my life once I have been declared bankrupt. I have nothing left.

Whilst I'm no lawyer, I have done extensive research over the last two years that this has been going on into the definitions of 'misfeasance in public office' and 'negligent misstatement'. I've had the opportunity to discuss this matter with several legal firms to ensure my understanding is correct. First, on the subject of misfeasance in public office, Justice Deane in the High Court determined that misfeasance in public office requires an intentional but 'invalid or unauthorised act' to be committed 'by a public officer in the purported discharge' of their public duties which causes loss to a person. It requires that the person committing the act did so deliberately. I'm going to come back to that; that's going to become very important for some allegations I'm shortly to make.

Second, on the subject of negligent misstatement, negligent misstatement is information that is provided but is inaccurate or misleading. It requires that a legal duty must be recognised and requires a certain standard of conduct to protect against foreseeable risk; that there must be a breach of that duty by failing to meet the requisite standard of care owed; and that the party receiving that advice has suffered material injury as a result of that breach. It requires that the 'speaker' of the information, CASA, realise that they are being trusted and that it is reasonable for the party receiving the information to act upon the information or advice.

So I, in this forum, am lodging a formal allegation of misfeasance against Mr Shane Carmody, the CEO of CASA. I'm also lodging to both of you senators a formal allegation of misfeasance against Mr Jonathan Aleck, the Executive Manager, Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, and finally an allegation of misfeasance against Mr Graeme Crawford, the executive manager of the aviation group. My options? I've been out to industry. Industry crowdfunded me $50,000 over a short time. If I have to go out to industry and seek crowdfunding to hold these people to account, I will do it. However, Senator Susan McDonald and Senator Glenn Sterle, I have raised those serious allegations against these people. It should not be necessary for me to go out and get equity funding from industry, but I will do so if required.

I'm going to give you about 10 topics. I realise we don't have lot of time so, rather than go over all the topics, I'm going to give you both a choice of 10 topics. Hit me with one of them and I'll briefly tell you that story. The topics that I could have a chat to you about are the restrictions on the business's ability to trade, the administrative freeze, the limited dates of operation, the contracts issue, the CASA direction to terminate my employment, CASA's use of the aviation rules, the falsified audit results, the temporary locations procedure or my allegations that they have misled the Ombudsman's office. I'll give you those topics again, just for you to jot them down. You can hit me with any of those topics and I will talk to them. I want this to be a positive experience, so I do want to leave 10 minutes at the end of it to give you well-intentioned suggestions as to how I genuinely believe CASA could be improved. You could talk to me about the restrictions on the business's ability to trade, the administrative freeze placed on the business, the contracts issue, CASA's direction to terminate my employment, CASA's use of the aviation ruling, my claim about falsified audit results, my temporary locations procedure or my allegations that members of the CASA senior executive have misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office. Over to you two.

CHAIR: Mr Buckley, thank you for appearing. I appreciate that it will be a very emotional presentation for you, given the impact this has had on you personally and on your children and parents. When we had budget estimates a couple of weeks ago, I was broadly aware of your issue from industry reports. I asked questions of Mr Carmody and his response was not fulsome. I want you to respond to that, because I'm trying to understand. I asked a question of him. He gave me a very narrow answer. Can you comment on what your views are on that?

Mr Buckley : On this matter, I don't want to say that he was untruthful; I want to say that he was deliberately misleading. You asked him if there had been any settlement on my matters and he focused very much on the settlement issue. I have a number of claims against CASA. There are two claims that I have against CASA that I'm going to call part A and part B. Part A of the claim, which I want addressed first, is the claim about everybody outside of my family who's been affected: the staff who have lost their jobs, the businesses that have closed down, the suppliers that have remained unpaid. That's part A of my claim. There's another part of the claim, against the conduct of CASA—breaches of administrative law, natural justice and procedural fairness. Mr Carmody was fully aware of that. The only offer that CASA has made to me—to be honest, I don't recall the amount, because I found it so offensive that I opened the email only once. It was a lot less than $5,000. My recollection is that they offered me a total of about $3,500, somewhere in that vicinity.

CHAIR: I want to ask you about the initial issue, which was that you were establishing—I think you described it as an IGA approach to flight training schools. It has been suggested to me that the issue that was raised was that flight training schools shouldn't be able to use an established SAP and the manuals that you had developed with CASA could be used for one business, but it wouldn't be appropriate to use them for multiple businesses. Is that your understanding? Have I got that right?

Mr Buckley : That would be an argument that perhaps CASA or somebody would potentially put forward. I'd like, very much, the opportunity to refute that. You've got to bear in mind, APTA was designed with CASA over two years with 10 CASA personnel; I attended to over 600 CASA requirements throughout that. I've been contacted by an ex-CASA employee today to say that they'll support this contention. They worked side-by-side with me. We had the most advanced IT system—it was an Australian designed product, as I insisted—and we built a very, very high powered overview system. My staff would each base themselves in the base to make sure the induction was thorough. We had regular meetings, regular audits. CASA does an audit on us once every couple of years. We've audited our own organisation on hundreds of occasions over the two years. We had a very large safety department, the largest safety department of any organisation in Australia. So, no—there was one certificate, one set of procedures. The whole thing was designed to be scalable, with input from ex-military personnel, and the structure was that it could grow and reduce in size as was required.

CHAIR: So, putting aside whether or not that was the case, you were given seven days to stop operations?

Mr Buckley : I'll just stop you there, Senator McDonald. Interestingly enough, the letter originally—I have the letter here—was just a request for documents and it led me to believe that it was most likely that, in seven days, they were going to shut me down. I was issued interim approvals to continue operating throughout the eight-month period, until the business couldn't continue any longer.

CHAIR: So the letter asked for a production of documents, but it didn't require that you stop?

Mr Buckley : Correct. They did let the business go on, but I guess my point is you can't run a business—any business, whether it's BP, ANZ bank, a flying school or, in particular, an education facility—where you've only got seven days certainty of operation. You can't enrol people in courses.

CHAIR: Alright. One of the issues that have been raised by other people who have provided submissions is the consistency in decision-making by CASA officials within and across CASA. Would this be a reflection of that lack of consistency, or am I swimming outside the lanes to suggest that?

Mr Buckley : I can assure the viewers that is not a Dorothy Dix question, but it's probably one of the most beautiful questions you could ask me, Senator Susan McDonald! So CASA are operating what they call certificate management teams. These are small, roving groups of CASA personnel consisting of experts on flight training, safety, aircraft maintenance. I operated under a team called CMT2 for a decade, under the leadership of a gentleman called John Costa—I say his name now, because he has retired and he has left CASA—an exceptional person and a very good team, and they worked with me to design APTA. Then, without warning, I received notification from CASA that I was to have a change of oversighting team, from CMT2 to a team called CMT3. Now, these two teams don't sit across the country from each other; they sit opposite each other at the same desk. As I said, I have the emails. Within 24 hours of being notified of the change from CMT2 to CMT3, I wrote to the CASA regional manager and I requested a one-on-one on-the-record meeting because the new team included a flight operations inspector, Mr Brad Lacy, who has a very bad reputation as being somewhat vindictive and vexatious in the Victoria-Tasmania region.

CHAIR: Mr Buckley, I am very keen to hear your story, but I'm not a legal expert and I don't want you to wade into anything that's going to get you into difficulties. I suggest we leave individual names out of it.

Mr Buckley : Okay. I had a change of oversighting personnel. I went from one team to another team. I requested a meeting with the CASA regional manager, where I said, 'I don't want this individual oversighting my business because I think that that would bring harm to me and my business.' CASA ignored that request. There was the change of CMT to CMT3, and, sure enough, that very individual initiated the action against me. Interesting.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Buckley.

Senator STERLE: (https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Good to see you again, Mr Buckley. On what basis did they give you seven days notice that they were winding up your business or not going to allow you to operate?

Mr Buckley : To simplify the matter, they used a document called the aviation ruling, which is a document designed for the charter industry, not for flight training. That's one of the topics I could talk to in detail. The Commonwealth Ombudsman has completed phase 1 of his investigation and he found that CASA had erred because they used the wrong document. Then they came back to me and said, 'Well, you have to have contracts.' I said, 'I have contracts.' They said, 'No, you don't.' I said, 'Yes, I do have contracts and they've been provided to you previously.' They said, 'No, you haven't.' I provided evidence, and even Mr Graeme Crawford had been provided with a copy of the contract. There were just a lot of CASA errors. Initially there was the aviation ruling, which the Ombudsman and I advised CASA at the start was completely the wrong document. Then it became an issue about the contracts. CASA has never asked any other operator to have a contract. I asked CASA, 'Do you hold contracts for any other operators?' They don't hold any other contracts. That was a unique requirement put onto my organisation, but I'd already pre-empted it because I had contracts and they had been provided to CASA. All of a sudden CASA ended up with mud on their face.

Here's another one. I asked CASA, 'When a new member comes on board, how do I induct these new flying schools into the organisation?' CASA advised me to use a procedure called the temporary locations procedure, which I adopted. According to my manuals, CASA approved that and CASA approved bases under it, CASA audited it and CASA commended me on it. Then, when I got the initial notification, they told me that the temporary locations procedure wasn't the approved procedure. 'You recommended it to me. I put it into my manuals on your recommendation and then you audited it. You've approved bases under it.' The point is that that's my claim. I was a big critic of CASA before this regulatory program came in. Dr Jon—I'll keep away from naming names but—

Senator STERLE: (https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)No—I think the chair will support me here. Dr Aleck will be there and we can ask him questions, so you can name him. The chair won't mind, because that's on the record.

Mr Buckley : CASA's regulatory program, as you are probably aware, is a decade behind schedule and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. Before it was introduced, I argued with CASA at every conference and at every opportunity: 'Don't bring this in. It will decimate the Australian owned sector of the industry. It will decimate flying schools in country areas.' What happened? Obviously, it came in and it's had a devastating effect on the industry. Dr Aleck is the man responsible for this program. He is Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs for CASA. He has been there for many, many years and many people have raised allegations against him, as I said.

Senator STERLE: (https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)You sat with CASA; they helped you to design it and they said, 'Here is the box to work in,' and you worked within the box. I understand that you had financial support from your parents. You said it was because you didn't have redundancies. Was there a legal avenue? Was there a dispute settlement procedure? Was there somewhere for you to say, 'Hang on CASA, I have the right to put forth my case'? Was none of that going on?

Mr Buckley : No. I ask that Mr Carmody or Dr Jonathan Aleck be asked to put forward their case in plain English with good intent to try to provide an overview of the reason for their actions.

Senator STERLE: (https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Okay, we'll do that. But let me ask you this, then: did you seek legal advice?

Mr Buckley : The industry did a crowdfunding page for me on what I should do, and that's why I'm fully satisfied that I have a claim of misfeasance against those individuals.

Senator STERLE: (https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Sorry, Mr Buckley. I'm asking: did you have to go and actually engage—ugh, this gives me the creeps—a lawyer to throw good money after bad? Did that happen?

Mr Buckley : No.

[glenb]

Senator STERLE: (https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Can I ask you why?

Mr Buckley : Just to make sure I understand, you're asking why I didn't go to a lawyer to pursue this matter until now?

Senator STERLE: (https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Yes, when it first came up. I've been around industrial relations a while, and what they say is one thing and what happens in reality is another thing. But did you have contracts with CASA to become the overarching training provider?

Mr Buckley : That was the process that I went through for the two years, so that was basically the intent. I already had the process operating under me in a somewhat similar format. It was a two-year ground-up engineering process to attend to a deficiency that existed in the industry. Each of the members sought legal advice on the contracts. There was a lot of input into the contracts. But, in my opinion, CASA can bring up the contracts, but CASA had regulations, and I met every single one of the regulations. They stipulated over 600 procedures. The suite of manuals is as wide as I can go on the camera here.

Senator STERLE: (https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Okay. But, going back to my original question—there's probably a very good reason—why did you not go and seek legal support or advice and say, 'How can I defend myself? How can I avoid losing not only my house but my parents' money? My workers have lost their jobs.' You've lost your job, and then CASA came in and told the crew that they were through; they had to give you the flick. You were eight months unemployed. Why didn't that happen? I'm just trying to get a clear picture.

Mr Buckley : The situation is that, as soon as CASA put those restrictions on my trade, that cost me somewhere between $10,000 and $15,000 per week. I started haemorrhaging money quickly. My parents stepped in to support the cycle. There wasn't a lot of money left over. I believed that good intent would prevail. I put complaints in to the Industry Complaints Commissioner. This is one of the suggestions I'd like to attend to, and I'd like to leave enough time for that. On the aviation ruling, which was the document that CASA originally used, the CASA internal Industry Complaints Commissioner came back and found that it wasn't worth investigating because CASA had taken it off the table. So then I put a complaint in to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and the Commonwealth Ombudsman came back and found that there was a deficiency that could have caused detriment to me. So the answer to the question is that I'm a big believer in due process. The process is to go to the Industry Complaints Commissioner as the first thing. These things take time. Also, I've never engaged a lawyer. I've been in court on two occasions and haven't engaged a lawyer, because once a lawyer's engaged it's combative. It's two parties each trying to do the other one over. I just want CASA to sit down, acknowledge that they've made a mistake, say a lot of people have been impacted by this and return everybody affected to the situation they were in in October 2018, before CASA started this process. It shouldn't need a lawyer. It should need Tony Mathews, the chair of the board, to step up and act with good intent.

Senator STERLE: (https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Forgive me, Mr Buckley, but I am unclear as to why CASA cut you off at the knees.

Mr Buckley : Yes. There is no safety argument. You put that to them. Ask them: 'Was there any regulatory risk? Did any planes slide off the runway? Were there any allegations of unapproved maintenance? Were there any allegations at all?' Ask them that question.

Senator STERLE: (https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Alright. Why do you think they did it? You did touch on a certain person—CMT2 to CMT3.

Mr Buckley : Yes.

Senator STERLE: (https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Give us a bit more history. Don't mention the name; that's fine. But why would this individual go out of their way to put you out of business?

Mr Buckley : I think it came from higher up. That's why I say it was misfeasance. I think it comes from the highest levels in CASA. I was a critic of the regulations before they came in. I predicted what they would do to industry. They did do it to industry, so I was somewhat of an embarrassment. I also point out that CASA introduced these new regulations. They came to me. There are 350 flight training organisations in Australia. They gave these 350 businesses three years to transition to the new format, parts 141 and 142, or cease trading after that date. Those new regulations took away 90 per cent of my revenue by way of the 150-hour commercial pilot licence rules. My business was faced with shutting down in three years and a loss of revenue unless I stepped up to what was called a 'part 142' organisation. I was very, very critical of CASA and I still am critical of CASA.

Let me give you a brief example of what these new regulations have done to a country flying school versus a city flying school. A country flying school will probably be, in almost every single case, below a classified part 141 school. My school, like many of the city schools, is a higher classified part 142 school. Both the 141 school and the 142 school can deliver a commercial pilot licence. In the 141 and 142 schools they can fly to exactly the same syllabus, fly exactly the same aircraft with exactly the same flying instructor, they do all the same CASA flight exams, they fill in the same CASA CPL test application form and are able to do exactly the same flying test. The 141 school has to do the training in 200 hours. The 142 school—the higher level school, like mine—gets to do it in 150 hours, but it's competency based training. How can CASA possibly mandate that a 141 school, a country school, be forced into delivering a 200-hour commercial pilot licence with GST on it, when the guy down in the city, at my business, can do a 150-hour commercial pilot licence course, exempt of GST? It's the same course. It's competency based training. Why should the guy in the country flight school have to fly another 50 hours before he can do a flight test, even if he meets the competency? You can understand why country flying schools haven't got a snowflake's chance in hell. People from the country will gravitate to the city to chase the more cost-effective option provided in the big-city schools. It's ludicrous.

Senator STERLE: (https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)It does sound like it was set up for failure. Chair, there are a lot of questions we need to pose to CASA, and I'll be very interested to hear their points. There's a lot of background information there. I'm very keen to know why they cut you off, Mr Buckley. Could you prepare something for us about that—just a simple set of questions to put back to the committee that we can ask?

Mr Buckley : Certainly, I can do that.

Senator STERLE: (https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)We can seek answers. If you parted your hair the wrong way, or you wore orange socks, or you gave them the ****s—sorry, you upset them—I could understand, but I'm none the clearer.

Mr Buckley : Wilco, nor am I. When Mr Carmody—who's down there now—spoke at the last RRAT committee, he said that CASA very rarely get the opportunity to publicly defend themselves. Here's a perfect opportunity for Mr Carmody to publicly defend himself. I'll make a written submission of suggestions of how I believe CASA could be improved, because I realise that we're getting short of time. I'd like to say something in parting. You are aware that CASA did surveys of their own staff. There was a massive lack of confidence in the senior executive of the organisation. It really does need a clean-out.

I very formally, before the both of you today, lodged a claim of misfeasance. I believe there should be a process by the Commonwealth Ombudsman or the Attorney-General's Department for that allegation to be followed through. I stand fully liable for everything I say. I'll support it with evidence. If that isn't forthcoming, I will go out to industry and I will seek industry support. I live in the seat of Chisholm, a marginal seat, and at the next federal election I will run as an independent politician against the current incumbent, Gladys Liu, if I have to. I'm not going away, Mr Carmody. Let me be very clear.

CHAIR: I just have one more question for you, Mr Buckley. At the very first step, when you went to the Industry Complaints Commissioner within CASA, what where the words you used—was it that CASA had said it was off the table?

Mr Buckley : Correct. The document that CASA used—it must have been bring-your-kid-to-work day or something, because they used completely the wrong document. CASA's argument was that, because it was off the table, they weren't investigating. That means that CASA could go and allege unsafe behaviour by a pilot, who tries to appeal to the Industry Complaints Commissioner; CASA realise that they've ballsed-up two months down the track and say they've taken it off the table, and he's denied his rights. I emphasise that the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigated the same matter, found an administrative deficiency, and it did cause detriment to me. I await stage 2 of his investigation, which will include the CASA direction to my employer to terminate my employment based on the comments that I was making publicly.

CHAIR: I'm still intrigued about the independent complaints commissioner. So that person has gone and sought advice, I assume, from the legal team at CASA?

Mr Buckley : Yes.

CHAIR: It's a little bit circular, isn't it?

Mr Buckley : It's very, very circular. That's one of my suggestions to you. Mr Carmody sits on the board of CASA, who the Industry Complaints Commissioner reports to. It's ludicrous to me. This is one of my suggestions: there needs to be a redesign of the board. I wrote to Tony Matthews, the Chair of the CASA Board, for six months before I went public with this. He completely ignored every request. I raised substantive allegations against these personnel. It was six months. Had he acted within an appropriate time line and demonstrated good governance, I'd probably be in a very, very different situation today.

CHAIR: Mr Buckley, we are out of time. I am very pleased that you have had the courage to come forward and do this. I do have some serious concerns about due process when people are pursued by CASA. I've a number of complaints from people who've come before me, so I'm very concerned that we have a cultural issue that urgently needs to be addressed. But, of course, that's cold comfort to you who have lost your home. Your parents are so out of pocket, and, devastatingly, your children have been impacted as well. So I thank you for your contribution today. I know you'll be watching the rest of the inquiry with interest. This is the process of a Senate inquiry—to try and shine lights into dark corners and help bring some justice to issues. Thanks for coming today. Please go with our thanks.

Mr Buckley : Thank you so much, both of you, for your time.

[glenb]

I have prepared the attached index. I recognize that this is a complicated matter. By opening the attached index it may help the reader more quickly get to posts of particular interest.

I have this in a Word table but could not successfully upload it in the correct format.

[glenb]

Posts 500 to 1000 approximately

[glenb]

The final summary of posts, indexed for quicker reference.

[Sunfish]

Sounds like a job for Donald Trump.

[Lead Balloon]

Another public hearing of the Senate Committee will be held on Thursday 28 Jan.

[Paragraph377]

Another public hearing of the Senate Committee will be held on Thursday 28 Jan.
More ‘talk’, more ‘throwing questions around’, more ‘shock and horror on Senators faces’, more ‘slaps with the wet lettuce leaf’ - more tautological senate folly.

Q. Mr Carmody, what have you got to say about all of the CASA shenanigans? Mr Carmody? Mr Carmody? Mr Carmody?
A. Umm Madam Chair, Mr Carmody (like many before him) has taken his 40 years of public service Super and his huge retirement slush fund and he has skipped out the door ma’am. The last we saw of him he was muttering something about tautology and having ear reduction surgery in Mexico. However we believe he is in Cancun as he was spotted doing naked cartwheels on dining tables while downing Mojito’s. Carmody out.....

[glenb]

19/01/21



Dear Mark, (Complaint Resolution Officer of the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.)



In this correspondence, I am referring only to the direction from the CASA Region Manager, to my Employer at the time, that my continuing employment as the Head of Operations for APTA was “no longer tenable”, and my subsequent termination from that employment.



I have received your advice that you feel, "further investigation of the complaint is not warranted. " I also respectfully acknowledge the matter is not closed and you have left me the opportunity to respond.



I will write to you on other matters under investigation separately, after I can gain some clarity on this matter first.



I appreciate that these are complicated matters, and I am seeking the opportunity to ensure I have adequately presented my perspective before a final outcome is determined by your Office, regarding the direction from a Region Manager at CASA to my Employer, that my position was 'no longer tenable'.



You are aware of the background to this matter, and that CASA had reversed my business's approval to operate with no prior notice and placed significant restrictions on its ability to trade. After 8 months with those restrictions placed on the business, and my parents having already contributed $300,000 to meet the salaries for my staff in order to avoid redundancies, I could ask them for no more financial support.



I could not meet my upcoming payroll obligations and the business was sold under duress, for 5% of its agreed value due to the CASA trade restrictions, and limited date of approval that CASA had placed on the business. A condition of the transfer of the business to the new owners was that I remain with the Organisation, as an Employee. I can supply correspondence in support each of those contentions.



Could I respectfully put forward the following considerations as my final submission before you make a finding on this specific matter.





Consideration One- Power imbalance



There was a significant power imbalance between the sender of the correspondence i.e. CASA, and the recipient of that correspondence i.e. the new owners of APTA.CASA management was in a position to exert significant influence over the new owners of APTA, and both sides would have been fully aware of that power imbalance.



You will recall that CASA had issued APTA an interim approval for the business to trade only until July 1st, 2019 with no surety of operations after that date. In fact, future operations were significantly in doubt as, after 8 months, the matter was still no closer to being resolved.



The new owners were to take over the business one day prior to the expiration of the business's interim CASA approval, being the last day of the financial year June 30th, 2019.



The new owners were taking a significant risk, and their investment was solely dependent on CASAs' decisions over the coming days and months. There can be no doubt that CASA potentially carried significant influence in any directives or directions that were sent to APTA, and understandably the new owners of APTA would feel somewhat compelled to comply with CASA preferences, directives, and directions, in order to protect their investment. CASA Executive Management were fully aware of the significant influence they exerted.





Consideration Two- The “intent”of the email



The email from the CASA Region Manager to the new owner of APTA was sent at approximately 2.15PM on 27th August 2019 and stated:



“Hi (new owner of APTA), 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 authorized to speak on behalf of APTA. Thanks again, Jason.”



The "intent" of that correspondence is noticeably clear and cannot be disputed. I was terminated slightly over 3 hours later at approximately 5.30 PM, in the presence of an industry colleague.



If that email had NOT been sent, I am fully satisfied, I would not have been terminated from employment at 5.30 PM on 27th August 2019.



The use of the phrase “not tenable” implies that my position as the CASA approved Head of Operations (HOO) was not able to be maintained, justified or defended. The use of that word to an Employer in the private sector from a CASA Regional Manager is significant and carries significant weight.





Consideration Three- The emails in chronological order



CASA claim that they contacted the new owners of APTA later that afternoon to clarify the matter. I find that assertion unlikely, as had that have occurred the termination of my employment would not have occurred a few hours later.I simply do not believe that assertion by CASA, that they clarified the matter on the same day.



The truth is that later that night, in fact at 1.45AM, I wrote to the CASA Region Manager that made the direction to my Employer.



“Dear Jason, May I respectfully request if you make any determination regarding my continuing employment with my current employer, or have any concerns that may have an impact on my families welfare, or my ability to derive an income. that I be involved in that correspondence. Respectfully, Glen”



At approximately 8AM of that morning the Region Manager responded;


“Glen, I acknowledge your email. I have asked the accountable manager (new APTA owner) to clarify whether you continue to operate as Deputy HOO, and whether you are authorised to speak on behalf of APTA.I will leave it to Mr XXXXXXX, as the accountable manager, to communicate his decisions to you. Regards. Jason McHeyzer Region Manager.”



I responded almost immediately with the following correspondence, noting that I had already been terminated and was now unemployed.


“Hi Jason, sorry my inquiry isn’t actually specifically regarding APTA or my role within APTA. I’m trying to plan for my family going forward. I am simply asking for you to consider my reputation when contacting any employers or potential employers. Can you clarify if CASA has concerns about me in a Key Personnel role only? I was about to get my instructor rating active but will change my plans if you are opposed to me having a wider involvement in the industry. I don’t think the question really needs to involve (New Business Owner), because it’s a query about my wider employability. Thankfully, Glen



Understandably I was quite anxious and sent a follow up email at approximately 4PM on Wednesday 28/08, approximately 24 hours after I was terminated, hoping to get a response as soon as practical.

“Hi Jason, just after an acknowledgement of the previous email regarding my wider employability, cheers. Glen”.



Mr McHeyzer responded approximately 1 hour later with the following:

“Hi Glen, I have been in a meeting all day. I acknowledge your email and I am not aware of any concerns in relation to your flight crew licence, instructor privileges or employment in the industry. Regards Jason”



At approximately 5AM the following day, Thursday 29/08/19, I sent the following to Mr McHeyzer. It is important to understand that at this stage Mr McHeyzer most likely has no knowledge that I had seen his email directing my Employer that my employment was untenable as I was not an intended recipient.


Dear Jason, Can you please advise or confirm that during the last 3 days you have not sent any correspondence to any Employer or potential employer that could potentially impact on any current or future employment for myself. Please advise by 5PM today, to assist me with future plans for me and my family. I call on you to provide that, rather than require me to make a request under FOI. Glen.



On Thursday 29th August at approximately 6PM, the CASA Executive Manager Mr Craig Martin inserted himself into the situation with the following email to the new owner of APTA. This is now 48 hours after I have been terminated, and CASA has had the opportunity to craft a response to minimise their liability in this matter.


Dear Mr XXXXXI refer to your email excahange with Jason McHeyzer on Tuesday afternoon 27th August 2019, and in particular to Mr McHeyzers email to you of 2.14PM on that day.I understand that MrMc Heyzer spoke to you in a telephone conversation later in the afternoon of 27 August 2019 to clarify his intentions.

I confirm here that Mr Mc Heyzer sought to ensure that APTA was aware that Mr Buckley was representing his views as the views of APTA. The proprietary or impropriety of this was and is entirely a matter between you and Mr Buckley.

Please be assured CASA has no issue with Mr Buckley being or remaining an employee of APTA, and it is a question for you to decide whether he should be or remain so.Mr Mc Heyzer also sought your advice in relation to Mr Buckley’s role.In the event Mr Buckley, or anyone else for that matter, should be nominated by you as a person to hold a position in APTA for which CASAs approval would be required, we would consider any such nomination fairly, on the merits and according to the applicable requirements at that time, having regard to the relevant considerations.For now, I apologise for any confusion Mr Mc Heyzers email may have created, and I trust his follow up telephone advice of 27 August 2019 coupled with his message clarifies CASAs position.Yours sincerely, Craig”





Consideration Four- Breach of Procedural Fairness/ Administrative Law/ Natural Justice



I had occupied the position of CASA approved Head of Operations for over a decade. If CASA deem that an individual is not a “fit and proper person” to hold the CASA approved position of Head of Operations (HOO), there is a clearly stipulated CASA procedure to be followed and that can be found by accessing the following link to CASAs Enforcement Manual. Enforcement Manual (casa.gov.au) (https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/enf/009rfull.pdf) By following these procedures it ensures that obligations placed on CASA by Administrative law/Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness are adhered to. In my case they clearly were not.



Chapter Two outlines CASAs Enforcement Philosophy is and is pertinent to this matter. Of more significance perhaps is the procedural fairness afforded me by Appendix Four where it deals specifically with the "fit and proper" person.





Consideration Five- Direction was not based on safety or compliance considertions.



The direction by the Region Manager to my Employer could not be substantiated on the grounds of safety or regulatory compliance. If the direction was not based on safety and not based on regulatory compliance, then it was highly inappropriate to send such a direction to an Employer. The CASA Employee demonstrated misconduct and can only be assumed to have acted vindictively or vexatiously. The motivation and intent of Mr Mcheyzers email should be considered. It cannot be defended with integrity.





Consideration Six



I do respect that in exceptional circumstances a CASA Officer may be able to directly contact an Employer and direct that one of their employees holding a CASA approved position is not tenable in light of comments that a person is making publicly.



My reasonable expectation is that those comments would have to pose a "grave and imminent risk to aviation safety, i.e. flagrant breaches of safety regulations or suggesting to fly an aircraft into a building for example. In my particular situation and acknowledging that Mr Mcheyzer identified that his action was based on comments that I was making publicly, and noting that I was only making comments on Pprune.



I feel that it is reasonable that CASA specifically identify the comments that lead to Mr McHeyzers direction. The fact is that it was sent on the basis of comments that I was making publicly and it appears entirely fair that those comments are identified, and I anticipate that this has already been done as it is likely the starting point of any investigation i.e. what were the comments that Mr Buckley made to initiate Mr McHeyzers direction, and in what context could CASA take exception to those comments.





Consideration Seven



CASA has given a commitment that it will comply with the Public Service Code of Conduct. This requires that an Employee must:


behave honestly and with integrity in connection with APS employment.
act with care and diligence in connection with APS employment.
when acting in connection with APS employment, treat everyone with respect and courtesy, and without harassment.
when acting in connection with APS employment, comply with all applicable Australian laws.
use Commonwealth resources in a proper manner and for a proper purpose.
not improperly use inside information or the employee's duties, status, power, or authority:

to gain, or seek to gain, a benefit or an advantage for the employee or any other person; or
to cause, or to seek to cause, detriment to the employee's Agency, the Commonwealth, or any other person.

at all times behave in a way that upholds the APS Values and Employment Principles, and the integrity and good reputation of the employee's Agency and the APS.
comply with any other conduct requirement that is prescribed by the regulations (regulations available on the ComLaw website (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015C00713)).



Employees are also required to comply with APS Values

· Impartial: The APS is apolitical and provides the Government with advice that is frank, honest, timely and based on the best available evidence.

· Committed to service: The APS is professional, objective, innovative and efficient, and works collaboratively to achieve the best results for the Australian community and the Government.

· Accountable: The APS is open and accountable to the Australian community under the law and within the framework of Ministerial responsibility.

· Respectful: The APS respects all people, including their rights and their heritage.

· Ethical: The APS demonstrates leadership, is trustworthy, and acts with integrity, in all that it does.

CASA Employees are also obligated to conduct themselves in accordance with CASAs Regulatory Philosophy Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au) (https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/our-regulatory-philosophy)

Considering these obligations, and in light of the direction sent by Mr Mcheyzer to my Employer, I am fully satisfied that he has displayed misconduct in his role with CASA, and most especially because of the senior position that he held within the organisation.



Consideration Seven



There is no dispute that CASA sent the email at approximately 2.15PM on 27/08/21 and approximately 3 hours later, I had been terminated.



This caused financial, and reputational damage to me. For Australia’s aviation safety regulator to send an email that led to my termination makes it extremely difficult to remain in the industry and obtain employment. The reasonable assumption by any potential employer is that the CASA direction would be based on safety or compliance considerations. After my termination it soon became apparent that I was going to have difficulty obtaining employment in the industry. CASA had closed down my two businesses, APTA and MFT after more than a decade of operations. After a period of 8 months unemployment, I returned to work outside of the aviation industry, and industry that I had been involved in since the early 80s and with my own business for 13 years.







My expected outcome



I acknowledge in your correspondence that you noted; “one of the only outcomes we could potentially obtain from you would be an apology from CASA and advice that it did not direct APTA to end your employment. Please let me know if you are still interested in obtaining a written apology and formal advice from CASA that it did not give a direction to your Employer in relation to your continuing employment. I can contact CASA to arrange for this if you would like.”



I will refer to your offer of obtaining “formal advice from CASA that they did not give a direction to my Employer in relation to my continuing employment.” As CASA clearly did send that correspondence, I feel there is little value in them making a statement that they did not, never the less I will avail myself of the opportunity you have presented.



I do however have a reasonable expectation that CASA does issue an apology, and that be a public apology. This matter has gained significant interest from the wider industry, and there can be no dispute that I have had reputational damage that extends across Australia. A simple letter addressed to me, will have negligible impact on restoring any reputational damage throughout the industry.



That apology would need to clearly state that the CASA direction was not based on matters of safety and that there were never any allegations of regulatory breach. Regarding anything else that CASA chooses to write i have no requirement other than the expectation that they will confirm that the direction was not based on safety or regulatory concerns. That will go a significant way towards me being able to protect my reputation, and perhaps ease the pathway for me to re-enter the industry, that I worked in for over 25 years. My expectation is that CASA would post that apology in Australian Flying Magazine and also Fridays edition of the Australian which traditionally carries an aviation supplement on Fridays. Alternatively, it could be an apology placed prominently on the CASA website. I would remain open to a well-intentioned discussion with CASA on this matter.



I note your comments that “It is open for you to consider taking action against APTA if you believe you were unfairly dismissed or there are unpaid wages or leave entitlements.”



My legal firm has estimated my entitlements by way of annual leave, long service, and termination entitlements after 15 years with the Company as an employee to be slightly under $200,000. I understand that I cannot expect the Ombudsman’s Office to make a determination regarding that .



A claim for the monies owed to me, would most likely cause significant cash flow challenges and effect the personnel that depend on APTA to derive their livelihood. This is a difficult ethical decision which I will deal with at a later point in time.



Thankyou for accepting my submission on my matter, and I hope that in your final finding you can identify if Mr McHeyzers actions and decisions were wrong, unjust, unlawful, discriminatory, or just plain unfair as stated on the Ombudsmans website.



Suggested Improvements



Prior to me departing the industry on the direction to my Employer I had spent over 30 years in the Industry with the last 13 years as a business owner, and CASA Approved Head of Operations, I would occasionally be on the receiving end of verbal “guidance” from CASA personnel that a potential employee I was considering were not suitable and that I should continue looking. On those occasions I was concerned that CASA employees would make such comments and potentially affect an individual’s livelihood. In my case, CASA erred and rather than restrict it to a verbal direction they made it in writing. I feel that CASA should have a policy or procedure that CASA Employees are not to interfere in amtters relating to an individuals career, unless that directive can be supported by a demonstrable safety case.



Thankyou for your consideration of this matter, and I will anxiously await your determination.



Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[A30_737_AEWC]

Glen,

A question if I may ask as I don't have the requisite knowledge/understanding at this time. It comes to mind after reading your recent posts. If I've previously missed something, my apologies in advance.

At the time that the CASA Regional Manager wrote 'THAT' email to your employer, did you hold any kind of instrument of appointment from CASA ? Maybe my terminology is dated as I've not worked in the civil system of airworthiness management.

Or was it that case that you were a person nominated in a critical role from an airworthiness/safety perspective in that organisation's procedures and processes pursuant to the applicable regulations/roles that applied to the flying school sector ? I'm more familiar with the latter personally, where the airworthiness regulator satisfies itself that the people an organisation nominates in key roles are suitable/acceptable. Note that the organisation 'FIRST' determines that it is so.

[glenb]

Thanks for the question.

A Part 141 and 142 Organisation had a requirement for the following key personnel.

CASA approved CEO
CASA approved HOO
CASA approved Safety Manager

I was CASA interviewed and approved to operate in the roles of HOO and CEO.

By CASA sending that direction, CASA completely bypassed their obligations to determine that i was not a fit and proper person.

That direction was based on "comments i was making publicly i.e. only on Pprune. Not based on safety or compliance concerns. totally unacceptable and unalwful.

Cheers. Glen

[A30_737_AEWC]

Thank you, Glen.

What you've described absolutely aligns with the kind of expectations I had from Defence/Commercial Industry engineering/maintenance organisations under the ADF system of airworthiness/safety management. It's about sticking to the underpinning principles first in my book, then ethical behaviours.

Apologies if my question seemed a bit personal and abrupt. I asked the question as I was curious if CASA challenged you on the assessment as CEO & HOO. Clearly they hadn't.

I have my own opinion of the chap who sent you that email and I may have hinted at it in a previous post. Clueless and totally reliant on his previous experience which he must have thought would acquit him in the role he had in CASA. Only it didn't.

But their complete failure to follow any kind of documented processes (allowing transparency and good governance) in the initial email action is beyond obscene IMO. I've suffered a similar outcome (different context) in another aviation environment with 'a couple of his kind'. After 6 years (and coupled with a couple of other significant life events outside of my control), I'm only coming back to being reasonably functional in the last 6 months. Doing it alone is difficult and reaching out when you need to (or even when you don't) is the imperative.

My best wishes to you Glen.

A30_737_AEWC

[glenb]

I have attached correspondence from me to Mr. Graeme Crawford the CASA Executive Manager of the Aviation Group, It is dated 1 year before CASA initiated the restrictions on the businesses ability to trade

This correspondence demonstrates that CASA was aware of the APTA concept and the correspondence clearly indicates that a contract was in existence and in fact provided to Mr Crawford.

These matters have previously been denied by CASA, but here is irrefutable proof that CASA was aware of APTA and that contrcats were in place.

Evidence of CASA misleading the Ombudsmans office by claiming that they were not aware of APTA.

[glenb]

I have written to the Attorney General and received this response.

[Ange Stewart]

I have written to the Attorney General and received this response.

Hi Glen

The links to the Crawford and Carmody letters appear to not be working.

can you verify?

[Bend alot]

Hi Glen

The links to the Crawford and Carmody letters appear to not be working.

can you verify?
The attachments are pending approval by a mod - normally they are pretty quick.

[Lead Balloon]

It is open for you to consider taking action against APTA if you believe you were unfairly dismissed or there are unpaid wages or leave entitlements.What a perfectly bureaucratic solution!

A CASA goon beasts the company that you built and had to sell for a song because you were led up the garden path by CASA, and the solution is for you to sue the company.

(Glen: Between whom was the proposed contract referred to in your corro with Crawford to be? Do you have a copy of CASA corro that describes what contract CASA was after?)

[glenb]

At work for the next three days, working 13 hour shifts that are a 2 hour drive each way from home, so slightly time limited until then. it may take me till Tuesday on my next day off. Give me a couple of days for a very informative response. Nothing surprises me anymore LB. An allegation of misfeasance raised in Parliament against Crawford. and he ends up heading up Australia safety regulator. Only in CASA.

[glenb]

You will recall that with no prior warning on 23rd October 2018 I received notification that CASA intended to close down my business. CASA will endeavor to misrepresent that they strictly followed their obligations under Administrative Law, Procedural fairness, and natural justice.

I did have the opportunity to meet with the Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance approximately 1 month later, where I was formally advised that CASA was closing down my business, and to expect written notification of such.

Attached is a copy of the email that I sent to the Executive Manager who had made this determination after consulting with his Seniors in the organization, Mr. Graeme Crawfor, and Mr. Jonathan Aleck.

This has all unfolded within less than 30 days. I have robustly defended APTA within those 30 days, but to no avail. There can be no doubt that CASA were completely bypassing any of my rights to maintain my business. A lack of ethics and good intent, yet again

[Sunfish]

Glen do you have any written communication from CASA regarding their awareness of and approval of APTA?

The letter you posted regarding Carmody is in fact an email from you, not Carmody, in which you alleged you received good service and support for APTA.

I’m sorry, but this is not evidence because anyone can write their own emails and a lack of response from CASA cannot be taken as consent or approval for anything.

There is an old Indian/British public service axiom: “The file must talk”. If you do not have written evidence in the form of communication from CASA backing each of your allegations then you are wasting your time.

It is no good you producing your correspondence without written responses from CASA. If you have been responding to verbal demands from CASA and you didn’t get them in writing (all of them, in detail, not just vague threats) you are SOL.

Also ALWAYS start any letter or email with the sentence: “ I refer to our previous telephone/Email/ correspondence on this subject and perhaps the date of the latest letter if relevant.. What that does is ensure the other party cannot claim ignorance or misunderstanding because by default that includes ALL previous discussion between the parties in your deliberations.

‘’Please accept my apology if this is not news to you. I hope for your sake there is a better paper trail than the current one because without it you will be dismissed as a fantasising malcontent by the authorities or at worst for CASA, they may have accidentally misled you due to the inaction of some low level, now retired, public servant.

Carmody can simply say he doesn’t know what you are talking about.

[Vref+5]

Apart from CASA issued 141 and 142 certificates, with locations listed, and approval for temporary locations listed in the exposition?

[Sunfish]

The certificates prove nothing except that at one time Glen allegedly did enough for CASA to agree to issue them.

Furthermore post 1453 indicates that "The evidence" Glen offers yet again is another email from Glen. It is NOT an official communication from CASA.

I have been here before in another life. Unless Glen has written evidence from CASA in the form of official CASA communications, NOT his own emails allegedly replying to some verbal statement by CASA, then I am out of this.

I wish Glen well and also CASA.

[glenb]

Sunfish there are literally hundreds of emails. This was a two-year project conducted with 10 x CASa personnel. Many hundreds of thousands of dollars investment were made in personnel and systems. Over that two-year period, CASA assessed over 600 items that we wrote procedures for. The original CASA checklist that they used was obtained under FOI and can be found at Post 441. This alone required hundreds of emails as we had each procedure approved. The manuals were written from day one with CASA as we developed APTA. Many hundreds of hours were spent working with CASA. CASA approved bases under the system and CASA conducted a level 1 audit with no concerns raised. CASA issued the approvals etc etc.

There can be no debate on the topic that CASA was fully involved in the development, and approval of APTA. If CASA try and contend otherwise,

and Vref. You get it.

[Sunfish]

Thank you Glen, could you perhaps post one or two of these hundreds of emails from CASA supporting your position?

[glenb]

Apologies Sunfish, but all direction at the moment is directed towards another significant task. Whilst I could track them down, it would take some effort, as I no longer have access to emails back that far, since I left the Company I think it will achieve little. Quite simply the approval would not have been processed as Part 141/142 Organisation without a significant CASA process being undertaken. Sorry, I'm not of more help, but I just don't have the capacity at the moment, as I am working towards a couple of important deadlines. Those involved in the flight training sector will appreciate how significant the task was, and that a Part 142 approval could not possibly have been written and approved without significant CASA involvement. Cheers. Glen. Signing off for the night on Pprune to keep typing a submission for the Ombudsman, which may reveal more answers to your questions.

[Bend alot]

Thank you Glen, could you perhaps post one or two of these hundreds of emails from CASA supporting your position?
It is not in Glen's best interests to do work for CAsA - Sunfish, it is extremely clear CAsA have a eye on this thread.

Best if you have the type of advise you think you have - to PM Glen - not try give ammo to CAsA (if you are correct in your point/s).

[NGsim]

Sunfish you seem to have a huge faith in the public system.
In other threads you chastise the corporate executive type as the snake in the grass (and typically rightfully so). But in this instance you’re under the impression that there simply must have been a safety issue for CASA employees to go down the road that they chose. Perhaps the individuals involved share a lot of common personality traits. Albeit with a slightly lower IQ in one of the sectors.

[Paragraph377]

Sunfish you seem to have a huge faith in the public system.
In other threads you chastise the corporate executive type as the snake in the grass (and typically rightfully so). But in this instance you’re under the impression that there simply must have been a safety issue for CASA employees to go down the road that they chose. Perhaps the individuals involved share a lot of common personality traits. Albeit with a slightly lower IQ in one of the sectors.

To be fair to Sunfish, I get the impression he has quite a robust background in business and perhaps as a CEO. My guess also is that at some point in time he has been burned by corporate parasites. But I also expect that his experience in working for or dealing with a Government regulator is minimal at best, and that is not a criticism. My assessment could be wrong and if so, then sa la vie. But until you have dealt with CASA either as an employee or as a client (industry participant) you cannot fathom what these douchebags are very capable of. In fact mere words or Ramblings on PPprune cannot relay the truth of what goes on. Glen is the perfect example. How long had he worked in aviation? Had he ever been on the ‘wrong side’ of CASA prior to 2 years ago? Had Glen heard the rumours about CASA’s vindictiveness? Probably, but he had never experienced it first hand. And now he has. Now he is telling ‘his’ story, and for some of us it is oh so familiar. For others, it is a shock and possibly they see it as inconceivable. But it isn’t.

All niceties aside, CASA is an out of control but protected species. No senate inquiry, senate estimates, investigation or any other action against them has succeeded. That my friends, tells you everything that you need to know.

Until CASA is dismantled, is subject to a royal commission or there is a kangaroo tail poking out of a giant, smouldering crater THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE AT CASA. None.

[Sunfish]

Guys, with apologies to Glen, I have been “burned” in business to the tune of at least $200,000 and countless hours of work by a very convincing Gentleman with a sad story to tell. Unfortunately for all of us at the time - me, our business, a major U.S. company and a U.S. Federal Government Department. our colleague falsified one tiny but important element in his “story”. That cost us a total of at least a million in wasted effort and potentially cost the Australian and U. S. economy tens of millions of dollars.

I learned the hard way to be sceptical and ask for proof. I should have done so months ago.

[glenb]

I will be referring to this in an upcoming post. I'm hoping to post it now, and it will be used to refute CASAs assertion to the Ombudsman that CASA made a number of "good faith" attempts to resolve the contracts issue.

I will post once the pending approval process is finalized. Cheers. Glen.

[Lead Balloon]

The crux of the issue is this from CASA:
The operational and organisational arrangement contemplated by CASR 141 [and Part 142] are based on a conventional business model, under which all of the operational activities conducted by the authorisation holder are carried out, for and behalf of the authorisation holder by persons employed by, and in all respects as agents of, the authorisation holder.

From a regulatory perspective, and in the interests of safety, the essense of this model is that the authorisation holder is fully accountable under the applicable legislation, and is demonstrably able and willing to do everything that needs to be done to ensure that its safety-related legislative obligations are effectively fulfilled. As a matter of operational control, and integral to the very object of the authorisation[s] involved, CASA must be satisfied that all these considerations have been, and will continue to be, satisfied by the authorisation holder.I note that, remarkably, not a single legislative provision is cited to support that collection of motherhood statements. It is, in effect, merely an assertion about the 'vibe' of Parts 141 and 142.
Now it may be that CASA's opinon is correct. But it may not be. I don't understand why you didn't take them on to test the question. Of course CASA would, as usual, go into full air safety sophistry mode, but you might have jagged a judge or tribunal member who'd insist on legislative support for CASA's Wizard of Oz act.

In any event, that's why CASA wanted to:

- see clauses, in the contracts between APTA and its 'franchisees' - described by CASA as 'subordinate entities' - that 'contractually relinquish or subordinate what would otherwise be the kind of operational autonomy they might otherwise entertain [a very odd word, I must say...] (as a corporate entity with the potential to perform such functions on their own accord [another very odd word, I must say...] to the authorisation holder (APTA); and

- be convinced that those contractual arrangements were 'effectively implemented'.
If you accept or are otherwise not going to challenge CASA's assertions about the vibe of Part 142, it follows that you had to have contract arrangements in place to the above effect.

Your email of 18 February 2019 completely muddles what it was that CASA wanted to see in the contracts. That email says:The correspondence dated 25 January had some text at the first dot point that commenced "the subordinate entities....." That text suggests that the Members actually have an approval or permission and are handing something over, when in fact they are not. The concern being that by signing they may be contractually tying themselves in more than they would like. i.e. "potential to perform such functions on their own accord" when in fact they don't.You got it completely arse-about, Glen.

The text did not suggest that the Members were getting an approval or permission. APTA was the only approval holder. That was precisely CASA's point.
If APTA was going to be the only approval holder, the Members had to contractually bind themselves to be operationally controlled by APTA, otherwise there was no way in which CASA could be satisfied that someone responsible for regulatory compliance (APTA) had control over the operational activities of the APTA Members.

The Members were 'handing something over'. They were binding themselves to be operationally controlled by APTA. If the Members were not willing to do that and wanted to conduct operational activities 'on their own accord' - that is, not under the operational control of APTA - then each Member entity would have had to apply for and obtain its own, separate, Part 142 approval.

On CASA's view of Part 142, it was simple:

- the Members had to contractually bind themselves to be operationally controlled by APTA (and CASA required evidence of that), and

- APTA had to exercise that control effectively (and CASA required evidence of that).

Unless you are willing and able to take CASA on and win in an argument about the proper interpretation of Part 142, or you can produce copies of binding agreements, between APTA and its Members, with clauses to the effect required by CASA, I reckon it is, unfortunately, 'game over' for you from a regulatory perspective, Glen. It seems to me that your only path to any compensation lies in a negligent misstatement/equitable estoppel argument. That would require you to show that CASA encouraged you to believe that your model satisfied the applicable regulatory requirements without clauses, in binding agreements between APTA and the Members, to the effect required by CASA.

[glenb]

I am finalizing a 15,000-word submission for the Ombudsman Office. Yes 15,000 words. Remember how you used to groan at school when you got a 1500 word essay. Consider also that i am a one finger typer. If CASa wanted to get rid of me, they simply need to chop my right pointer off. Anyway......

I have taken on board much of the recent feedback and questions put to me on here and tried to embed it as best I could. I will be very keen on any suggestions. Any tough questions, mild, I repeat mild, abuse, etc.

I will post it on here today if all goes to plan. It will be a living document, so I will edit it here, prior to submission. I hope to submit it, by the close of business this Friday.

If you do need to communicate with me, and you would rather not do it on here, could I ask that you email [email protected]. My Pprune message box is full, and I don't want to delete any more messages. (they hold a lot of sentimental value) cheers. Glen 0418772013

[glenb]

THIS POST REMOVED AS IT WAS A DRAFT LETTER WHICH HAS BEEN FINALISED.

THE FINALISED LETTER CAN NOW BE FOUND AT POSTS 1505 to 1510 INCLUSIVE, CHEERS. GLEN

[glenb]

this post removed from here as it was a draft. The finalsed correspondence to the ombudsman can now be found at posts 1505 to 1510, cheers.glen

[glenb]

Content moved to posts 1505 to 1510

[glenb]

Refer Posts 1405 to 1410. This content moved there. Cheers. Glen

[Lead Balloon]

On the matter of the contracts. At the time of CASA sending that initial notification on October 23rd, 2018, calling on me to supply contracts, embarrassingly for CASA, they already held the contracts, and they had been supplied to CASA on multiple occasions, well before the date of October 23rd, 2018. CASA had “overlooked” that very important fact. This indicated to me that CASA had not provided a proper handover when APTA was transferred from CASA CMT 2 to CMT 3.

Had CASA realised that they already held the contracts, it is most likely they would not have placed the trading restrictions on the business, and they would not have called on me to provide contracts that CASA already held or acted in such a heavy-handed manner. The contracts were entirely my own initiative and had been supplied to CASA on numerous occasions. CASA had shown little or no interest on the multiple occasions that I previously provided copies of the contract. My reasonable assumption was that they had no interest in the business aspects, which understandably are outside CASAs remit, unlike regulatory compliance and safety, which clearly are.

Initially CASA denied that I had provided contracts. I directed them to the multiple emails that supported my contention. CASA then concurred that they did in fact hold the contracts. In Post #1448 there is evidence that a copy of our contract was provided to Mr Graeme Crawford, the second most senior person within CASA, over 1 year earlier. At the time of writing Mr Crawford is the Acting CASA CEO. The contracts were also supplied to multiple other CASA personnel on multiple occasions within CASA ...Glen

Can you please post a copy of one of the contracts APTA entered with a Member. You can black out names and addresses and numbers and signatures etc, but I think it is essential to see a copy of what you say CASA had.

If you are not willing to do that, can you confirm that the contracts you say CASA had:

1. were signed on behalf of APTA and the Member concerned, and

2. contained clauses to the effect required by CASA.

I'm not saying the regulatory regime enabled CASA to refuse an approval if the above was not provided but, if the regulatory regime did enable CASA to do so, the terms of the documents that you say are contracts provided to CASA become critically important.

[Flaming galah]

So what did the Ombudsman say that you’re responding to?

[glenb]

So what did the Ombudsman say that you’re responding to?

Im somewhat reluctant to post it on here in its entirety, as I'm not sure if that would meet with the Ombudsamns consent.

I have tried to encapsulate it in my responses. Please note that the document posted is a work in progress, as I'm trying to juggle it around 13-hour shifts, and just wanted to get it out there.

If anyone wants a copy of his correspondence, please feel free to email me [email protected] and request it. Cheers. Glen.

Heading off to work now, with no electronic access until 11 PM tonight. Day off tomorrow, so I shall return

[Lead Balloon]

I think I've figured where it went pear-shaped for you, Glen.

In your email of 21 February 2019, you quoted a clause that your lawyer suggested be added near the signatures page of the proposed contract between APTA and a Member. That clause should have satisfied CASA so far as the contract was concerned, with the only residual issue being demonstration of practical operational control by APTA of its Members.

But then CASA went full retard. In its email of 13 March 2019, CASA demanded: [A] tabular legend, showing how and where the actions called up under each applicable provision of the civil aviation legislation germane to the conduct of operations under CASR Part 141 [and Part 142] are effectively addressed in the terms of the contractual agreement(s).Yeah, right.

When I read this bit of the email, I figured out who'd weighed in to drive you into the ground, Glen:If CASA can be satisfied that the arrangements reflected in the contractual agreement(s) provide an effective and reliable basis on which APTA could be expected to fulful its obligations as an accountable holder of an authorisation under CASR Part 141 [and Part 142], and in the absence of any other reason not to do so, it is expected that CASA would make a favourable disposition of APTA's application. Such a favourable disposition could reasonably be expected to involve the inclusion of such conditions as CASA might reasonably consider to be necessary and appropriate in all the circumstances.The clue is in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the email.

This is regulation conjured up in the mind of the author.

Let us for a moment accept that this assertion by CASA is what the law "contemplates" (noting that laws don't "contemplate" **** - laws don't think): The operational and organisational arrangements contemplated by CASR Part 141 [and Part 142] are based on a conventional business model, under which all of the operational activities conducted by the authorisation holder are carried out, for and on behalf of the authorisation holder by persons employed by, and in all respects acting as agents of the authorisation holder.OK then, let's think that through.

In the "conventional business model", does CASA require the applicant for a Part 141 approval to provide "a tabular legend, showing how and where the actions called up under each applicable provision of the civil aviation legislation germane to the conduct of operations under CASR Part 141 are effectively addressed in the terms of the contractual agreement(s) with the applicant's employees?

Methinks not!

Yet, each employee is an entity separate from the applicant (that's why they can enter a contract of employment with each other) and may have no authority to be the agent of the applicant. Employees are not necessarily "in all respects acting as agents of" the employer, when doing their work.

And an incompetent and poorly supervised employee can pose the same risk to the safety of air navigation as posed by an incompetent and poorly managed independent contractor. (Of course, no air operator has ever taken on pilots or instructors on an independent contractor basis, have they, CASA...) Surely CASA must demand to see contracts of employment and a tabular legend showing how and where the actions called up under each applicable provision of the civil aviation legislation germane to the conduct of operations under CASR Part 141 [and Part 142] are effectively addressed, because the employees are the people doing a lot of stuff that affects the safety of the operations of their employer. Surely!

The fascinating question is: Why did APTA get 'the treatment'?

[Sunfish]

Why did, allegedly, APTA got "the treatment"?

There is a concept in business called 'critical mass" - where business becomes self sustaining and ceases to require seed capital as it generates enough revenue to sustain itself and more importantly grow because it generates further capital that can be invested in the business.

Consider APTA's likely future, assuming it was economically successful under Glens management.

1. It offers a cost effective pathway for flying schools to comply with CASA's strict and voluminous requirements. That is the incentive to the schools.

2. Soon APTA grows nationally and builds a clientele of say 50 schools, assuming that Glens APTA model is scaleable as I expect it was.

3. As time marches , APTA invests in refining its model to achieve further efficiencies and to comply with the natural increase in CASA regulation, amendments, etc.

Pretty soon APTA is the ONLY way for a school to comply with CASA part 141/142 requirements UNLESS the school wants to duplicate APTAs investment in both money and time. The APTA knowledge base is now voluminous and constitutes a huge barrier to entry for new players.

We would call this business a raging success and it would deserve the title because its key success factor is the provision of regulatory compliance at a reasonable costs. APTA fights the battles (sorry, I mean negotiates) with CASA on behalf of everyone. ALL you have to do to run your school is to comply with APTA manuals and you are GUARANTEED to meet regulatory requirements.

Now loook at it from the perspective perhaps of a lower level CASA employee charged with regulating APTA.

1. You are now dealing not with one school but an organisation employing perhaps 2500 people directly and indirectly that teaches perhaps 5000 pupils per year.

2. Considering CASA staffing changes, APTA management now knows more about part 141 / 142 than you do because it has negotiated over every word of regulation written on the subject for the last five years.

3. This isn't a little tin pot business that you can push around any more, assuming you wanted to. APTA is now a major, perhaps THE major, provider of flying school services in the country. You cannot shut them down any more that CASA could shut Qantas or REX. They cannot be bullied. APTA has achieved critical mass.

The result? CASA has lost power and control of the training agenda because it can't change regulations at will without APTAs acquiescence. CASA has lost job opportunities because one negotiation with APTA replaces fifty or more individual negotiations with schools.

For CASA this adds up to loss of control, loss of power, loss of job opportunities. Furthermore APTA paves the way for AMPA (Australian maintenance providers alliance), AGAA (Australian GA Allliance) and ACPA ( Australian charter providers alliance).

As Sir Humphrey would have said: "Minister! This cannot be allowed to happen!".

[Paragraph377]

That’s an easy question to answer Leady. ‘Someone’ from APTA will have done one or more of the following things (prior to receiving ‘the treatment’);
- stood up to a senior CASA employee and tried to ‘put them in their place’,
- complained to the industry complaints commissioner,
- complained to a local Member of Government,
- emailed a ‘****ogram’ complaint in writing to CASA,
- sought legal advice in relation to CASA (which came to CASA’s knowledge)
- a CASA employee or ‘associate’ stood to gain financially by APTA having its wings clipped.

Hell hath no fury like a scorned CASA. A very egotistical, arrogant, conceited, vengeful and sociopathic Government regulator.

[glenb]

All three of you make valuable and well considered input, and you get it. There is no doubt.

Whilst the concept was to grow to only 10 schools initially with an ultimate goal of 20, i’m convinced it would have worked.

i got to ten members right on schedule.

With the Part 141 and 142 and Cricos international student approval, and an RTO, an enormous capability would have been bought to Regional Aviation.

i had met with Australian Embassies overseas and we were well poised to give the foreign owned schools that now deliver over 50% of flight training in Australia, a real competitor.

[glenb]

i will do it all again

[Lead Balloon]

And just so folks can understand why CASA's position is indefensible...

It is not true, as asserted by CASA, that the employees of a certificate/approval holder are "in all respects acting as agents" for the certificate/approval holder. 5 minutes googling will confirm that, if you don't have access to a second year law student.

If it were true that the employees of a certificate/approval holder are "in all respects acting as agents" for the certificate/approval holder, it would follow that, for example, any pilot from Qantas could, as agent of Qantas, bind Qantas to a contract for the purchase of 100 787s.

In effect, CASA required APTA to meet a higher standard than the so-called "conventional" applicants in order for CASA to be 'satisfied'.

CASA being 'satisfied'? Such a clear and concise standard.

[glenb]

my wife and kids let me

[McLimit]

i will do it all again

Grade 1, ME-IR, loads of training approvals, APTA experience, when do I start? :)

[glenb]

Grade 1, ME-IR, loads of training approvals, APTA experience, when do I start? :)

You make me quiver with anticipation, although my wife just rolled her eyes at me.

[Pearly White]

Superb analysis, Sunfish, in what appears to be your second-ever post, and welcome to Pprune.

[glenb]

Refer the following link Additional Documents – Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au) (https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/GeneralAviation/Additional_Documents?docType=Correspondence)
Document 2

[Sunfish]

Was anyone alleging that what CASA allegedly did was not legal?

I don’t think so.

Fairness, equity and natural justice? Well?

[Climb150]

Refer the following link Additional Documents – Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au) (https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/GeneralAviation/Additional_Documents?docType=Correspondence)
Document 2
Forgive my poor ability to fully comprehend a document of this nature. Can someone break it down for me?

[glenb]

A massive topic that is impossible to comprehend by providing a short summary.

In a few words.

I was operating a chain of flying schools in Australia, that was effectively closed down overnight, but not on matters of safety or compliance, CASA changed their mind about the business model.

An investigation by our Commonwelath Ombudsmans Office (Govt investigator) has found that CASA erred, but only until well after the damage was done, and many millions of dollars damage caused, businesses closed down etc.

Principally an argument about administrative law,.

I got an opportunity to appear before Parliament and made allegations of misfeasance in public office against members of the CASA Executive., which the CASA CEO is responding to in that correspondence.

If you are interested, please email me at [email protected] and I will send you two magazine articles that summarise the issues.

Safe travels, cheers. Glen

[Bend alot]

Summery Doc 2 =

Shane Carmody says about Glen B comments "Liar Liar pants on fire".

[Sunfish]

Fairness, equity and natural justice plus estopple.

[ryano]

I have been following this thread from Day 1. It is truly a tragedy that keeps unfolding, but does not seem to have end. Where does it go from here? CASA calls Glen a liar and rejects his statements, as everyone expects they would. But there is no substance to those rejections. There is no justification to CASA's decision making process, no rationale to support their position. They are just strongly worded rejections. So what happens now? Glen has made serious accusations against the most senior personnel in CASA and there is sufficient evidence that requires those accusations to be investigated and a determination made - but how? This isn't about money as I'm sure there are enough willing to chip in to see this through. This case makes it perfectly clear to all that the 'system' does not actually have a process that allows someone to truly challenge CASA. They are a law unto themselves and they have stacked the processes in their favour. They'll ride you out and destroy you before they get held to account. All of the complaints and review processes are just smoke and mirrors because you cannot ever actually win, even when you are truly correct. It's easy to say that this should just go to court, but the reality is that virtually noone could afford this. So if CASA just has to see you to court, they will always win, which is what we have now. It shouldn't take an industry to stand behind a martyr for justice to be served. Glen you are a hero and like so many others, I pray that you prevail. In the mean time, where does this go from here?

[Paragraph377]

I have been following this thread from Day 1. It is truly a tragedy that keeps unfolding, but does not seem to have end. Where does it go from here? CASA calls Glen a liar and rejects his statements, as everyone expects they would. But there is no substance to those rejections. There is no justification to CASA's decision making process, no rationale to support their position. They are just strongly worded rejections. So what happens now? Glen has made serious accusations against the most senior personnel in CASA and there is sufficient evidence that requires those accusations to be investigated and a determination made - but how? This isn't about money as I'm sure there are enough willing to chip in to see this through. This case makes it perfectly clear to all that the 'system' does not actually have a process that allows someone to truly challenge CASA. They are a law unto themselves and they have stacked the processes in their favour. They'll ride you out and destroy you before they get held to account. All of the complaints and review processes are just smoke and mirrors because you cannot ever actually win, even when you are truly correct. It's easy to say that this should just go to court, but the reality is that virtually noone could afford this. So if CASA just has to see you to court, they will always win, which is what we have now. It shouldn't take an industry to stand behind a martyr for justice to be served. Glen you are a hero and like so many others, I pray that you prevail. In the mean time, where does this go from here?

It goes nowhere. It has gone nowhere for the past 30 years. It will go nowhere for the next 30 years unless there is a Royal Commission or a roo tail sticking out of a giant smoking hole. The end......

[Drc40]

This has been a fascinating read although I've only cursorily engaged. It reeks of government stooges running their bureaucracy BS in order to preserve their jobs, power and money for them and/or their cronies. Since the ****** Carmody is retired he's probably untouchable but seems like he should be roasted and toasted for his involvement.

[megan]

If you want a further example of government stooges and bureaucracy look here. Sorry to be off thread, but the machinations are unbelievable, there's an oft quoted saying about fighting city hall.

https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6227959230001?fbclid=IwAR2IDmkHtex81NvIraXmoiUY452HQqC1E4VX 8UigJxsmE2kgTcNtmJyc3D8

[bgbazz]

As an Australian Military veteran who served for more than 15 years in two branches, I am appalled by what I have just heard from Alan Jones.
I did 3 tours overseas, including Vietnam and I just can't believe how badly they are treating these guys and their families. When I came home, I (along with many others) was slapped, spat at and threatened by **@@s who had no idea what really happened over there, but all that pales in comparison to what is being done to these men.

[McLimit]

bgbazz, first of all, sincerely, thankyou for your service.

I wish I was around back in the day when you returned home. it would have been a pleasure to join you in dealing with the cowards that spat at you. Although, from all that I've read it would have been you blokes being locked up for defending yourself.

The 'removal' of natural justice seems to be a thing in this country, makes you proud to be an Australian, NOT.

[bgbazz]

Thanks for the sentiment mate.
You are quite right about the defending ourselves attitude...we were advised to never wear uniform in public and I vividly remember one of the local cops in my hometown saying to me about a week after I came back..."just stay home because you guys are more trouble than you're worth". My parents were devastated.

[glenb]

I will refer to this document in more detail in an upcoming Post. The intention of posting now is to pre-empt the required "pending approval" process which I fully respect.

I will be referring to this correspondence in my finalized submission to the Ombudsman which will be finalized within 24 hours.

You will recall that with no warning I received the letter from CASA in Post 44 at Pprune.

I sent that letter within 24 hours. It's very significant, and as I say will be referred to later.

[glenb]

On 23rd October, I received the notification from CASA.

Within 24 hours I had responded to the CASA Regional Manager, Mr. Jones and that can be found above at post-1497.

The attached correspondence in this Post is a letter to Mr. Carmody the CASA CEO and the CASA Region Manager at the time (since resigned from CASA).

This was sent to Mr. Carmody on 29/10/18 i.e. 3 days of this matter beginning to unfold. Mr. Carmody never facilitated the meeting. This leads me to believe that CASAs actions may not have been well-intentioned.

[Paragraph377]

Now would be the perfect time for Minister McCormack and Prime Minister Morrison to exercise their duty of care and right the wrongs committed by his Government upon Mr Buckley and authorise the CASA Board to pay Mr Buckley a multi million dollar ex gratia payment.

It would benefit the Government as they could action this before the new DAS commences his/her tenure, effectively throwing Mr Carmody under the bus. And he won’t care because he has taken his many millions and retired to a life of luxury and retirement. The new DAS starts with a relatively clean plate, the Government gets rid of a perceived thorn in its side, and Glen and his family get to receive the financial compensation they rightfully deserve, as well as some dignity returned and a chance to start a new chapter in life.

To Minister McCormack;
You and your Government have, and are, spending billions of dollars to supposedly save taxpayers ongoing pain during the COVID-19 pandemic. And in normal Government style you and your Government are also pissing away billions of dollars on fighter planes, submarines, international wars and other ****e funded by taxpayers. My challenge to you is for you to prove you are actually a man with a decent set of testicles and the tiniest moral compass and for you to expedite an immediate payment to Mr Buckley and to right the wrongs that this man and his family have been put through at the hands of the Federal Government.

[glenb]

Here! Here!,

I will drink to that, and you have a formal invite to GA biggest ever Party when this is over!