Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA

[McLimit]

and you have a formal invite to GA biggest ever Party when this is over!

Even bigger than the proposed spa parties on the back balcony at Bundoora Pde? ;)

[Pinky the pilot]

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.


Seconded.:ok:

[Sunfish]

If this alleged behavior has occurred remotely like what Glen has stated, then nobody can or will invest in Australian GA Aviation in future because it will be seen to be too risky....except perhaps a few "get rich quick" shonks.

[Paragraph377]

If this alleged behavior has occurred remotely like what Glen has stated, then nobody can or will invest in Australian GA Aviation in future because it will be seen to be too risky....except perhaps a few "get rich quick" shonks.

Sunfish, ‘remotely’ is an understatement. This behaviour has certainly occurred, and unfortunately for Glen it occurred to him, and many prior to him. This is also one of the reasons that GA has officially died. Just one example is the canary in the coal mine, Bankstown airport. A once bustling airport filled with maintenance, training and recreational activities, abuzz with enthusiastic, passionate and safe operations that is now a ghost town. May as well turn the whole airport into a motor go-kart track. GA is dead.

[glenb]

10th February 2021.



APTA Submission to Ombudsman- Correspondence 2 of 4 submissions.



Dear Mark, Complaint Resolution Officer at the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office,

I am writing to clear up some misunderstandings that appear to have developed in the investigation to date, and to accept your offer of a telephone call with your office. I anticipate that could require up to 90 minutes, so respectfully request that you forward me some options that would be most practical for you, and I will make one of those options work. I would like the opportunity to clarify any matters raised in this correspondence.

Until these potential misunderstandings can be clarified, may I call on the Ombudsman’s Office to suspend the investigation, as any immediate determination would be made on information that is not correct. I appreciate that the technical nature of this issue may result in delays as your office seeks the information that it requires and respect that you may need to draw on expert independent opinion.

I am fully satisfied that information has been provided to your office by CASAs Executive Management, with the intention of “engineering” CASAs desired outcome. It is imperative that I put these matters clearly on the record, and let your Office decide on which party is acting with integrity and working with sincerity towards a transparent process, and a fair outcome.



For clarity, I am fully satisfied that CASA has misled the Ombudsman’s Office.

To obtain a fair outcome, I believe it is essential that the Ombudsman’s Office, clarifies quite clearly that CASA had fully sanctioned and approved more than one entity to operate under an AOC in the flight training sector immediately prior to placing restrictions on my business, and that had always been the case.

APTA was in fact the first time that a system had been designed, over a two-year period, with 10 CASA personnel, and approved by CASA and audited by CASA, and in fact recommended to flying schools by CASA, that took a CASA accepted system and invested heavily to significantly improve it. i.e., with higher levels of operational control, a large and well-resourced safety department, high levels of internal auditing, frequent well documented Group meetings, dedicated Head Office, timely communications, standardised procedures, advanced IT systems, increased safety, a large team of highly qualified management drawn from the Airforce, Airlines and ex CASA personnel and compliance etc.



All to a demonstrably higher standard than was accepted practice in the industry, until that time. The intention is to set an industry-leading benchmark standard and pursue business opportunities in regional areas with an industry-leading group capability amongst the Australian owned sector of the industry. It was a big vision, highly dependent on CASA being well-intentioned and professional, and indeed acting lawfully.


All of this was delivered under the single CASA issued Authorisation/Air Operator Certificate, and as the Authorisation Holder, I was fully responsible and accountable for all operations under that AOC including all pilots that delivered flight training under my AOC, irrespective of which base they worked at, or if they were paid by me, or someone else. That factor was irrelevant as far as maintaining operational control.



Even if an instructor wanted to teach on a voluntary basis to teach Scouts or for his own pleasure, If he or she did it under my AOC, I was responsible, and that pilot operated in accordance with our Exposition (operations manuals) Where the income for the pilot is derived from is irrelevant. I am responsible for the operation delivered under my AOC, by every pilot, on every occasion.

For clarity going forward, there are three separate and distinct issues.

1. CASA closing down APTA without any prior notice by placing restrictions on its ability to trade that deprived it of revenue, and that the CASA personnel involved would have been fully aware that those restrictions would lead to the business's closure.

2. The direction that I had to transfer my remaining flying school, Melbourne Flight Training, to the new owners of APTA, in what CASA called “direct operational control”. Something never previously applied to a flying school before, and with no basis in law.

3. The direction that the CASA Region Manager directed my Employer that my continuing employment was “not tenable.”

I have finalised my correspondence with you on the matter of point 3, so this correspondence relates to Point 1 only, and I will write to you on Point 2 within the next 10 days.

There will be a fourth and final submission approximately 10 days after that, and it will outline the impact of the CASA action on my family, suppliers, staff, customers etc. I feel that it is important to have an appreciation of this impact, in determining whether CASA's action was reasonable in the circumstances. As you are aware throughout the 8-month period before I lost my business, I did write to CASA on multiple occasions and clearly identified the commercial impact of their actions. They were known to CASA personnel, and they would have been fully aware of the commercial impact at the time of making their decisions, and in fact, this knowledge would have formed part of their decision making. Therefore, I feel it is pertinent to any allegation of misconduct if I were to make one, that known and foreseeable consequences are considered in determining if CASAs actions and decisions were reasonable in the circumstances.

I would like the opportunity to draw your attention to the following considerations in arriving at your final report:

Prior to presenting the considerations, I do want to clarify the following:.

CASA did make a determination that the CASA business model was illegal. CASA did contact all of my customers, CASA advised we were operating illegally,and CASA did force each of those existing Members to leave APTA. They were given no option. By CASA forcing all customers to leave APTA, that obviously led to the failure of the business



The basis for CASA forcing all members to exit APTA, including my own business, was that the structure was unlawful, and that was the reason for CASAs decision to apply restrictions on the business's ability to trade.



Twelve months after CASA had finalized all customers leaving APTA the Ombudsman report was released and quite clearly found that the structure was not illegal. On this matter, I refer you to Consideration One. Despite all of my other concerns raised by the process, the fundamental point is that CASA did close down the business, and had no lawful basis to do so.



Now that the Ombudsman’s report has been released and found, “no Australian legislation prohibited franchising of an AOC subject only to the exclusivity of the AOC Holders operational control,” CASAs entire basis for their action is unlawful”.



In the second part of his finding he goes on to state; “subject only to the exclusivity of the AOC Holders operational control.



It would be likely that CASA would now retrospectively change their argument to one of “operational control”. I welcome the opportunity to demonstrate how APTA provided industry leading levels of operational control, that was known to CASA.



In rough figures the APTA concept required approximately $1,000,000 to operate per annum, to maintain or exceed the CASA requirements for suitable operational control. The Business model was built on ten members sharing equally in the operating costs of the structure. As CASA forced each customer to depart, that left me subsidising the cost of delivery of APTA, which became unviable with no customers. CASAs restrictions made it impossible to trade, leading to the forced sale of the business at 5% of its agreed value, after I was unable to meet upcoming salaries.

After 8 months and CASA having still not finalised the matter, and with all customers forced to leave APTA and a surety of operations that was soon to expire, the business was in an impossible situation. If the Ombudsman has not seen this documentation, I would call on the Ombudsman’s Office to ask CASA for the initial correspondence that was sent to all customers of APTA. This was sent very early in the process, and prior to me having any opportunity to defend APTAs position.


CONSIDERATION ONE- THE DECISIONS OF CASA PERSONNEL WERE UNLAWFUL AND HAD NO BASIS IN LAW.

Before I proceed I must clarify one point to ensure there is no misunderstanding on my behalf. In Phase One of the investigation, The Assistant Director of Investigations of the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office, found that:

“As of October 2016, no Australian legislation prohibited franchising of an AOC, subject only to the exclusivity of the AOC Holders operational control, and that remained the case as of 25th March 2020.”

This finding clearly supported my position.

CASAs initial position prior to the release of phase one of the investigation, was the opposite of the Ombudsman’s finding and this was in fact, the basis of CASAs action against my business and can clearly be demonstrated to be so.

For clarity, the CASA action was based on CASAs assertion that the structure was illegal and that franchising of an AOC was prohibited. The Ombudsmans Office found that was not the case and that it was not illegal.

I had a telephone call with the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office after the release of Phase one of the investigation, and the Assistant Director of Investigations advised me that his findings are the more substantive findings when compared to CASAs. If I accept that, then CASA has acted unlawfully.

The significant damage to so many businesses, employees, suppliers, customers, and my own family may have been avoided had CASA acted lawfully against me and my business, and most especially so if CASA had followed its own procedures in its Enforcement Procedures Manual.

It would be relevant to read two initial pieces of correspondence that were sent to CASA. Within a few days of CASA initiating their action I had sent a response to both my CASA Region Manager and the CEO of CASA, Mr Shane Carmody. I refer you here to posts #1497 and #1498. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 75 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-75.html)




CONSIDERATION TWO_ CASA HAD ALWAYS SANCTIONED AND APPROVED MORE THAN ONE FLYING SCHOOL TO OPERATE UNDER A SINGLE AIR OPERATOR CERTIFICATE. REVERSING APTAs APPROVAL OVERNIGHT WAS A COMPLETE CHANGE OF POLICY APPLICATION AND WAS APPLIED TO APTA ONLY. THAT ACTION BY CASA WAS NOT BASED ON ANY SAFETY CONCERNS OR REGULATORY BREACHES. IT WAS A ‘CHANGE OF OPINION”, WITH NO VALID BASIS.

First and foremost, I believe the most critical aspect to identify, is that the practice of more than one flying school operating under a common Air Operator Certificate (AOC) was in fact, standard industry practice, and fully approved by CASA. That had always been the case.

CASA has led the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that APTA was something completely new, and that previously CASA had not sanctioned this practice i.e., more than one entity operating under a single AOC. For CASA to present their contention is simply being untruthful and misrepresenting important underpinning facts to your office.

The APTA model operated in exactly the same way as CASA had permitted other operators, with Members maintaining their own business, while handing over safety and compliance. APTA was resourcing an existing CASA sanctioned practice to design a safer and more compliant system. The truth is that the APTA system provided far higher levels of control than previous operations that CASA facilitated.

If CASA continues to represent their case that CASA did not permit more than one flying school to operate under a single AOC, it can easily be disproven.

One only has to question how the Latrobe Valley Aero Club was CASA approved to be operating right up until the minute it applied to join APTA. That application to join APTA was rejected by CASA in the initial notification of October 2018, which can be found at Post#44 Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 3 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-3.html)

The truth is that Latrobe Valley Aero Club was operating under another operator's AOC, yet CASA would not permit them to operate under APTAs AOC. That decision by CASA needs to be justified, and the reasons for the differing approach by CASA needs to be ascertained.

In my local region, whilst Latrobe Valley Aero Club was operating under the AOC of another organisation right up until the day that they elected to transfer to operate under APTA. Similarly, Ballarat Aero Club had been operating under the AOC of another organisation. My own organisation had also provided coverage for a school referred to as TVSA. There were also a number of other flying schools in outer metropolitan Melbourne i.e., Point Cook and Avalon operating under these arrangements with other flying schools. I had also previously used this arrangement to facilitate a program for Air Force cadets. The practice was common throughout Australia, and for CASA to assert that is not the case is a blatant misrepresentation, and easily proven to be so. Interestingly, this exact practice was also common in QLD, the region that Mr Martin came from. He had permitted it in his home state of QLD, but in Victoria, he would not permit it.

In the design of APTA I actually took an existing CASA sanctioned and approved practice and spent two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars designing a system side by side with 10 CASA personnel that was then fully re-approved by CASA in April 2017. I had been providing AOC coverage for other organisations throughout my businesses previous 13 years of operation. I took an existing CASA sanctioned practice and dramatically improved on it, while providing an opportunity for well-intentioned smaller operators, predominantly in rural areas to thrive, through an industry leading system that measurably increased safety and regulatory compliance. CASA approved this system in April 2017, and audited it 6 months later in November 2017, and approved bases under it. No concerns were ever raised by CASA.

I must emphasise that the 10 CASA personnel were heavily involved in every aspect of the design of APTA and assessed over 600 procedures and approved them.

I have written to CASA on multiple occasions to obtain a response and bring clarity to the matter i.e., did CASA previously approve multiple entities to operate under one AOC? All those written requests that I have on file have been ignored. CASA is very reluctant to respond to this query. I can understand that they would be.

Once it can be demonstrated that CASA did in fact sanction multiple flying schools under an AOC, it will allow a comparative assessment. If CASA had not previously permitted and approved such operations, then none will exist, so a comparative assessment of the alleged deficiencies in APTA systems and procedures compared to other operators cannot be made.

If, however, it is ascertained that CASA did permit multiple flying schools to operate under a single AOC, then the APTA model can be compared to other existing models. i.e., a comparison of oversight, operational control, safety, compliance, manuals and procedures, safety and incident reports, risk assessments, accident investigations etc etc can be made. For CASA to act against my business and not others, the reasonable assumption would be that there is a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety, when clearly that is not the case. Why was APTA selected?

This may assist to clarify the reasons why APTA was not permitted to operate, yet other organisations were, and if there was a valid basis for CASAs actions and were CASAs actions proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances. Was APTA deficient or was it in fact offering industry-leading levels of control? A comparative analysis will quickly provide the answers required.

At this stage I would refer you to Post #55 in PPRuNe Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 3 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-3.html) If you are a Pprune Member you will be able to open up attachments, and the Aviation Ruling is an attachment at the bottom of the post. This refers to the Aviation Ruling that was released by CASA in 2006 and was the basis of CASAs action for the first two months of restrictions placed on my business. After 2 months CASA realised that they had erred in using it, and CASAs alternating narrative commenced, as they moved on to different topics.

Ironically, the very fact that CASA produced the Aviation Ruling in 2006, suggests that at the time of its release, CASA did carefully consider the matter of more than one entity operating under an AOC. The matter arose because of a well-known incident in the Charter sector (passenger and freight carrying). CASA determined that the Aviation Ruling would apply to the Charter sector and not the Flight Training sector. CASA advised the flying schools of their decision and fully sanctioned the flight training sector sharing an AOC, right up until they reversed APTAs approval, 15 years later.

In your correspondence you were of the understanding that “in creating APTA you were seeking to create an entirely new business structure, with Members control over their business”.

That understanding is not correct. I took an existing CASA accepted practice, replicated the existing CASA accepted standard and significantly improved it. Exactly as with previous operators doing the same thing. Businesses maintained control over their own business i.e. what electricity provider they used, what colour they painted the walls, etc. as they always had.

APTA was fully responsible for all areas that CASA had an interest in i.e. safety, and regulatory compliance. Business matters are not generally under the remit of CASA, whereas safety and regulatory compliance, clearly are.

To completely resolve this matter one simple question, needs to be put to CASA, and a truthful answer obtained.

Immediately prior to reversing the CASA approval of APTA on 23rd October 2018, was CASA permitting APTA and many other AOC Holders around Australia to have more than one flying school operating under a single AOC?


CONSIDERATION THREE- THE REQUIREMENT FOR CONTRACTS WAS A UNIQUE REQUIREMENT PLACED ON APTA ONLY AND NOT OTHER OPERATORS

The issue of the contracts can now be addressed. I refer here to the initial notification that came from CASA and can be accessed via the PPRuNe thread at Post #44 Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 3 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-3.html)

Once the Ombudsman’s Office can establish the truth that CASA did sanction the practice of more than one flying school operating under a single AOC and had done so for at least the entire 25 years of my involvement in the industry, and probably longer it will allow a comparative assessment, and that opportunity is essential. For example, why did CASA place restrictions on APTAs ability to trade when other Operators did not have that requirement to produce a contract, or restrictions placed on their businesses. It doesn’t seem reasonable in the circumstances. CASA is clearly placing a higher requirement on me than other operators. My intent is to fully comply with any CASA requirement placed on me and have demonstrated over the previous decade with my school, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT). But if CASA is able to identify that something is “wrong”, then it is incumbent upon CASA to identify the legislative deficiency and advise me what “right” looks like, so that I can address it.

The requirement placed on me by that initial notification to produce contracts within 7 days, or potentially have all operations ceased, was a new and unique requirement that had not been placed on other Operators. I have no issue with CASA making that request. That request, however, should not be accompanied by a letter from CASA advising only 7 days surety of operations, especially if it CASA has identified that there is not a safety risk, and there are no risks to anyone’s safety at all. It just does not seem reasonable in the circumstances, surely a less combative approach would be used for the initial notification such as a face-to-face meeting seeking a mutually agreeable solution which I would have been very receptive towards.

The fundamental question can now be asked. Why did CASA place restrictions on APTA's ability to trade based on a lack of contracts, when the truth is, CASA had never required contracts of any other Organisation conducting operations in the same way, and there was no pre-existing or legislative requirement to have a contract. It was a unique requirement placed on my business only.

Once CASA placed restrictions on APTAs ability to trade, it was incumbent on CASA to identify the legislative deficiencies in the existing legislation, clearly and concisely identify what CASA require, and do so in a timely manner.

These administrative delays as well as being unacceptable cause negative commercial impact, which in itself may compromise aviation safety.

Mr Alecks view was a retrospectively applied requirement based on his particular requirement, and was not CASA practice, and had no basis in law. My obligations as the Authorisation Holder/AOC Holder were fully contained within the many thousands of pages of existing CASA legislation, and in the extensive manuuals and procedures that CASA had helped me write, what else was I required to attend to?

I had absolutely no concerns about complying with any reasonable CASA direction or request.

To completely resolve this matter one simple question needs to be put to CASA, and a truthful response obtained:

If we now accept that CASA had for at least the last 25 years, and potentially longer, approved other operators to share an AOC, then does CASA have on file ANY contracts from any other operator in Australia and if so, could they provide them to the Ombudsman’s office as an example of what is “acceptable” to CASA?, If CASA identify that they have never made that requirement and do not have any other contracts on file, could they explain why APTA had unique requirements on its business?

[glenb]

CONSIDERATION FOUR- EMBARRASINGLY FOR CASA THEY REALISED THAT THEY ALREADY HELD THE CONTRACTS, DESPITE CASAs INITIAL DENIAL AND THE FACT THAT THEY HAD ALREADY IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS ON APTAs ABILITY TO TRADE

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 by me, on multiple occasions. This was well before the date of October 23rd, 2018. CASA had “overlooked” that very important fact.

Had CASA considered the contracts that they held,it is likely that CASA would not have asked me to produce contracts that they already held. It could also be assumed that the CASA personnel involved should have made different decisions.

At that stage, I reasonably expected that CASA would have repealed the trading restrictions and proceeded with the process in a well-intentioned manner.

CASA demonstrated a determination now to pursue their alternating narrative, rather than admit error i.e. moved back to the Aviation Ruling, but after a couple of months, after they realised that was tenuous, it then moved back to contracts and then the “new” audit results appeared.

The existing 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 CASA had no interest in the contracts because we had just been through a 2-year process with CASA to design APTA, and that process was all about ensuring that APTA provided industry-leading levels of operational control, by the way of the 600 procedures that we submitted to CASA to have assessed and peer-reviewed prior to CASA awarding us the Part 142 Approval 18 months earlier, and 6 months after that conducting a CASA Level 1 audit.

These 600 procedures were embedded into our operating manuals or Exposition which measures over 1 meter in width when printed out. These operating procedures required significant IT systems and infrastructure behind them, which we invested in. In that manner, we could be fully satisfied that when our pilots operated in accordance with our Exposition, they fully met the thousands of pages of CASA legislative requirements. By having a dedicated Head Office with a highly qualified Executive Management team, supported by admin staff, and providing CASA 24/7 internet access to every aspect of our operation, we could ensure industry-leading levels of operational control could be maintained.

CASA has made no allegation that any of our procedures to have not been fully complied with i.e. none of CASAs actions are supported by any allegation of any regulatory breach, or breach of our manuals, or in fact ever raised any safety concerns,

To put it quite simply, I had exhausted “things” to put into manuals and procedures. I did not know what CASA was trying to achieve, I simply could not comprehend it. I was highly dependent on CASA to provide guidance to me

CASA was not prepared to become a signatory to the contract yet were stipulating requirements. I clearly and concisely needed to know those requirements.

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 and I can supply evidence of that at Post #1447 at Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 73 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-73.html)

The issue of the contracts can now be addressed. I refer here to the initial notification demanding the production of contracts in 7 days that came from CASA on October 23rd, 2018.that came from CASA and can be accessed via the Pprune thread at Post #44 Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 3 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-3.html)

I would direct you to a number of posts on Prune that deal more with this matter and specifically to the following two posts on Pprune, Post #58 and post #107. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 3 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-3.html)

Consider this. CASA has many thousands of pages of legislative requirements placed on a flying school. I met every single one of those legislative requirements. I also had a contract with my members. There was no requirement for me to have one, it was something that I initiated, and not a legislative requirement placed on any other Operator

If CASA were not satisfied with the contents of my existing contract, it was incumbent on CASA to direct to me to what they need in those contracts. CASA was seeking something that I could not solve, without their input. I met all legislative requirements, and I had a contract that had been subject to multiple legal reviews and all members were fully satisfied with. Quite simply, it was impossible for me to determine what CASA wanted. When I asked for guidance, I was advised by CASA that it’s not their job to provide guidance. I have that in writing and can provide the correspondence if required. I disagree, it was very much CASAs responsibility to clearly and concisely direct me to their requirements.

Initially, CASAs' position was that they would not provide guidance. I was in an impossible situation. Consider this. I have met every legislative CASA requirement. I have demonstrated an exceptional safety record, and there are no safety allegations raised. I have a contract that can be found at Post 58, Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 3 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-3.html), and CASA advise that they are not satisfied with the contract. CASAs concern is so significant, that they have placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade, yet there is absolutely no supporting safety case or a risk assessment conducted by CASA. It just is not a reasonable course of action for CASA to be pursuing.

Without CASA guidance it is impossible to solve as I don’t know what is missing, that is not covered in existing legislation. My contract fully satisfied APTA and all Members as they each had a legal review done. The only party not satisfied was CASA, and they refused to become a signatory to the contract, despite my requests that they should become a signatory.

If there was a CASA identified deficiency in their own existing legislation, it was incumbent on CASA to highlight that perceived deficiency and provide direction to me on what they require in the contracts. I cannot possibly know what CASA wants in contracts if it is something not covered by the many thousands of pages of existing legislation that my Organisation meets. If CASA were after “something else” I needed to know what that “something else” was if I was to resolve the matter.

Importantly this entire matter could have been resolved within 24 hours, anytime after I received the notification in October 2018, if CASA knew what they wanted.

· A meeting could have been scheduled with my Head of Operations, my PA, and our Technical Writer.

· CASA could have dictated what they required. I would have willingly embedded it word for word.

· CASA could have approved it, and the contract distributed for signing. The members were willing and anxious.

· This entire matter could have been fully resolved within 24 hours.

· Any delay between those timeframes is entirely CASAs responsibility.

The question to CASA is:

When you placed the restrictions on APTA by way of the initial notification calling on APTA to supply contracts is it true that CASA already held the contracts and that they had been provided to CASA on multiple occasions, although for some reason CASA “overlooked” this fact.



CONSIDERATION FIVE_ CASA LEGAL CLAIMS THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF APTA

In the preliminary assessment, the Ombudsman’s office stated; “However, it does not appear on the evidence available to us that the legal area of CASA had been made aware of the way APTA and its members were operating, and therefore we cannot conclude CASA had properly considered if the operations posed any regulatory issues, until October 2018.”

I find it impossible that the legal area of CASA had not been made fully aware of the way APTA and its Members were operating. If CASA maintains that position, I allege that CASA is misleading the Commonwealth Ombudsman s Office. Whilst I appreciate that would be a very “convenient” position for CASA to adopt it is clearly deceitful.

Many flying schools had operated in exactly that manner throughout my 25 years in the industry, and long before.

Over the previous 13 years of my business’s operations, it had been doing exactly that, as had many other flight training organizations i.e. more than one flying school under an AOC. It was effectively impossible that CASA legal did not know. It was exactly the same business that had been operating since 2006, undergoing a change of name to “APTA” only. The name change was undertaken to better represent the capability i.e. from Melbourne Flight Training to Australian Pilot Training Alliance. There were no other changes.

The fact that CASA issued the Aviation Ruling in 2006 for the Charter industry (passenger and freight carrying), and specifically permitted flying schools to continue operating under the one AOC indicates the timelines that we are considering. The matter of multiple entities under an AOC, had obviously been considered by CASA legal department in 2006, and CASA at the time had specifically briefed the flight training industry that the Aviation Ruling did not apply to them. After placing the restriction on the Charter sector of the industry they permitted the practice in the Flight Training sector to continue, exactly as they advised flying schools that they would. CASA would have had ample opportunity to become “aware” of the way the business, as many others had operated over the previous decades. Surely there is some duty of care on CASAs behalf when a business depends entirely on CASA for its very existence. Considering that CASA hold on file every single APTA procedure, that is contained within APTAs Operations Manuals referred to as the “exposition”. At what stage is CASA legal reasonably expected to become aware.

I had worked side by side with ten CASA personnel on a new and substantially improved system for over two years. CASA assessed every one of their more than 600 requirements and granted me a Part 141 and 142 Approval in April of 2017. The Company had effectively been completely revalidated over a two-year period as I worked side by side with that team of 10 CASA personnel. CASA committed many hundreds of hours to the process, and they will have that on file.

At the time of CASA revalidating the business in April 2017, APTA was operating with the multi-base structure. The CASA procedure was extremely robust and thorough, with many hundreds of thousands of dollars invested into the two-year project to ensure I met or exceeded all CASA requirements. On completion of the approval process, the entire approval was passed on within CASA for a peer review and approval. It would be almost impossible that CASAs Legal Department would not have been fully aware, and especially so considering that was the actual Department that issued the Part 141 and 142 Approval in April 2017, eighteen months before CASA changed their mind, and reversed the businesses approval. Mr. Aleck had been the Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs over an extended period, and would have been fully aware.

Furthermore, CASA indicated to me that they spent more hours working with my organization than any other organization. CASA would track the hours that they allocate to each operator, and a request for that information by the Ombudsman will indicate that CASA directed significantly more resources to APTA than to other operators. CASA has previously advised me of that fact. There is no doubt that CASA was very involved with APTA. In fact every single one of the many thousands of CASA procedures was written to meet the requirements of CASA legal.

We were also one of the first of Australias 350 flying schools to meet the new regulatory requirements ahead of the deadline. As one of the first operators with the 141/142 approval, it is likely that CASA legal would have been heavily involved, and certainly aware.

You will recall that CASA had also previously fully approved APTA MFT Base, APTA TVSA Base, APTA LTF and APTA AVIA to operate. Surely by now, one would expect CASA legal to be aware.

Throughout the design and reapproval stage, APTA already had TVSA and MFT operating under the AOC, i.e. the entire design with CASA was built around the existing multi-base structure, and all APTAs procedures and systems were designed from the ground up, with CASA, to accommodate that arrangement.

Furthermore, a study of the emails between CASA and APTA/MFT over the two years leading up to APTAs revalidation in April 2017, will demonstrate literally hundreds of pieces of correspondence, many requiring input from the CASA legal department, as we submitted, and CASA assessed over 600 procedures during the design of APTAs manual suite.

Recall, I had worked side by side with ten CASA personnel over more than two years, as I attended to over 600 CASA stipulated requirements that needed to be embedded into our manuals. CASA assessed every one of those 600 criteria, as being acceptable. I requested the checklist that CASA used to revalidate my business under Freedom of Information (FOI)and that can be found at Post# 441. Via this link Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 23 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-23.html) Note that you will need to be a member to access that document. Membership is quick, easy, and anonymous.

There will be literally hundreds of emails between APTA and CASA throughout the two year design period of APTA leading to its revalidation in April 2017 as every one of those procedures had to be sent to CASA for review and approval. The final manual suite was approved and extends to many thousands of pages when printed out.

Furthermore, in November 2017, several CASA personnel visited APTA and spent one week conducting a Level 1 audit (the highest category). This audit involved visiting the bases and auditing those procedures. No concerns were raised, and CASA legal would have been aware of that audit and the associated results.

Furthermore, one of our first bases was Learn to Fly. Its approval was quoted by CASA as a 5-hour task, and we paid the associated fee for a 5-hour regulatory task. That took a staggering 10 months for CASA to process, so I suggest that CASA put significantly more hours than quoted into the regulatory task, or alternatively worked very slowly. Over that 10 months, it is likely that CASA legal would have reviewed that application. It was finally approved by CASA almost one year after the initial application was submitted.

I can also provide you with a copy of emails that support my contention that CASA legal would have been fully aware, for example, the email to. Mr. Crawford the CASA Executive Manager of the Aviation Group dated 7th October 2017 accessed via Post #1448 Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 73 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-73.html). This correspondence demonstrates that 12 months before CASA took action, they were aware of the concept at the most senior level and had been provided contracts..

I appreciate that it would suit CASAs story to claim that the legal department was not aware, but on the balance of probabilities, it is quite likely that this assertion by CASA is misleading, to say the least. It is highly likely that CASA had numerous opportunities over the 13 years to properly consider the operation. It is not feasible that CASAs legal department was not aware. I depended almost entirely on advice from CASAs legal department throughout the 2-year project with the 10 CASA personnel, and they revalidated my Organisation with multiple bases operating under it.

The important point here is that even if CASA had not become aware of my operational structure over the last decade of training, and if during the two years that CASA worked side by side with me on APTA, and approved APTA, and audited APTA, and approved bases under APTA, if we assume that Mr Alecks legal department was not aware, it really doesn’t matter.

Also consider that in fact APTA wasn’t initiated by me. When the new Part141/142 legislation came in, I was required to comply if I was to continue operating after 3 years when the cutoff arrived. All I did, was comply with every legislative requirement using CASAs own guidance material and have over 600 CASA requirements assessed.

The Ombudsman found that there is no legislation in Australia that prohibits the structure, so how can it possibly be illegal?

It’s only a question of whether Mr. Aleck's interpretation is correct or the Ombudsman’s Office

Another pertinent post that could now be reviewed is Post#182 accessed via the following link Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 10 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-10.html)

The question to put to CASA on this matter would be.

Does Dr Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs seriously contend that his department was not aware of the APTA structure, and could he advise when he first became aware of the structure.?


CONSIDERATION SIX- THE RIGHTS OF ME AND MY BUSINESS TO PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND NATURAL JUSTICE, OR CASAs OBLIGATIONS TO OPERATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INTENT AND PROCEDURES OF CASAs ENFORCEMENT MANUAL.

I note in your correspondence you acknowledge that “following up the issuing of the notice with a phone call may have also assisted”.

There appears to be a misunderstanding that I was seeking a follow-up telephone call, and that is not the case.

A follow-up phone call would not have changed anything. My point was simply was that when I immediately called the signatory to the letter of October 23rd the CASA Regional Manager, he apologized and said that he, “wasn’t all over it” and would have to speak to his CASA team. I simply felt that the signatory of such significant correspondence from CASA should have been fully aware and conversant with what he was signing prior to sending me that correspondence, although as stated, that was not the crux of my complaint.

At that time we did schedule a meeting, but CASA was later to postpone that meeting to have an internal CASA meeting with the team involved. I suspected at this stage, that CASA was using the delay to “get their ducks in a row”, and make sure that the Melbourne office was “singing the same tune”. I was becoming increasingly anxious and concerned, as I had many people depending on me.

I ask that you consider what appear to be the breaches of administrative law, procedural fairness, and natural justice, and CASAs own Enforcement Policy in Chapter 2 and the Legal Basis of Regulatory Enforcement located in the same publication at Appendix 2. Enforcement manual | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au) (https://www.casa.gov.au/publications-and-resources/publication/enforcement-manual)

When CASA choose to cancel, vary or suspend an AOC, there are strict procedures that apply to ensure procedural fairness, and these were completely bypassed, and these can be found in CASAs own Enforcement manual. My complaint was based on CASAs failure to follow their own procedures when they decide to cancel, vary or suspend an AOC, as outlined in their manuals. It does not seem reasonable in the circumstances to bypass these procedures, and most particularly when the action is not supported by any safety case, and there are no identified regulatory breaches. It is a change of opinion by both Mr Aleck and Mr Crawford.

I anticipate CASA may well try and put forward some weak argument on semantics to try and justify their position. Considering the actions that CASA took against my business, and the commercial impact of the path that they chose, the impact of their actions was certainly a cancellation or suspension of an AOC. There can be no doubt that it is at least a variation of that AOC. Those CASA procedures should not have been bypassed, and most certainly if it was not a safety matter, nor were there any identified regulatory breaches.


For clarity the correspondence delivered on October 23rd, 2018 immediately had a catastrophic effect on revenue for the business, immediately halting the business's access to revenue. CASA also wrote to all of my customers advising them of such, prior to giving me an opportunity to satisfy CASA and resolve CASAs confusion. The Members of APTA were each advised that APTA was not permitted and that they would have to leave APTA. That is what CASA then did. This effectively destroyed the business, and resulted in so much personal and financial loss to my family, as my customers were forced to leave, and I was left with the fixed operating expenses. CASA did all of this while “considering” whether APTA would be permitted to continue and was operating under an interim approval. The unnecessary delays that CASA applied at every stage throughout the 8 months that I was able to financially prop up the businesses, caused detriment.

You will recall that absolutely no concerns had been raised in any way about the operating model of APTA, and when I walked into work early on October 23rd, 2018 I had no idea of what was to unfold later in that same day. Absolutely no concerns had been raised by any CASA employee, at any time. Surely, if CASA intends to issue a notice that effectively closes down a business, and brings enormous reputational harm, that I am entitled to some notice that is coming, or an opportunity to clarify any misunderstandings.

The CASA restrictions applied were substantial, and CASA immediately began dismantling the business before I was given an opportunity to defend myself, or the businesses and staff that depended on me for their livelihood.

Had CASA followed their own procedures it is highly likely that this entire matter and the associated loss of businesses, loss of jobs, and millions of dollars would not have been lost.

Consider that to the best of my knowledge, CASA has never taken such significant and prompt action against a business, even when CASA has identified a safety concern or a regulatory breach. The CASA action was not reasonable in the circumstances.

As well as obligations on CASA to adhere to their own Enforcement Manual they are required to comply with their own Regulatory Philosophy, and at this stage, a relevant post and link to CASAs Regulatory Philosophy could be found at Post# 769 and #943,945 accessed via here Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 39 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-39.html)

Regarding the Regulatory Philosophy, whilst I appreciate that CASA is not legally bound to adhere to the Regulatory Philosophy, it does provide criteria, which “intent” can be assessed against.

There can be no doubt, and that is clearly supported by CASAs correspondence in the first two months. CASA maintained its position that the operation was illegal when in my opinion it clearly was not.

CASA's actions were taken on the basis that CASA had reversed their previously held position and made a determination that APTA was in fact illegal. CASAs position was later to have been found incorrect by the Ombudsman and is referred to in a later Consideration.


Considering that many millions of dollars investment have been lost, businesses closed, people losing their jobs, and the opportunities lost to the Australian owned sector of the industry, etc, it is possible that perhaps CASA has handled this matter in what could be politely described as sub-optimal. It is possible that for so much damage to have been caused, it may be that something went wrong. An open and thorough investigation may prevent this from happening to another business.

The question to put to CASA would be:

Are you fully satisfied that you have afforded Mr. Buckley procedural fairness, natural justice, and adhered with all requirements in your Enforcement manual when you elect to “cancel vary or suspend an AOC” and has the conduct of the personnel involved been in accordance with CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy and the requirements placed on them by Administrative Law?

[glenb]

CONSIDERATION SEVEN-OPERATIONAL CONTROL

In your correspondence, you stated: “This is because CASA appears to have had a reasonable basis for being concerned that APTA lacked sufficient operational control over the other entities that were reportedly operating under APTA’s approvals and authorizations”, and “it had good reason to be concerned about the operations of APTA and its members”.

I absolutely refute CASAs assertions to you on this matter, and ask why would CASA have a “reasonable basis for any concerns?”, or “good reason”. That statement cannot be permitted to go unchallenged.

CASA can provide no supporting evidence, to support “reasonable basis” or “good reason”. Surely if CASA is to close down a business, there must be some burden of proof on CASA to demonstrate that APTA was unsafe or breached regulations. Some evidence, anything at all must be put forward.

Consider the CASA terminology, “satisfied”. As you will appreciate it’s a very broad statement, and particularly so in an environment where CASA is obligated in the Civil Aviation Act to provide “clear and concise aviation safety standards”. There can be no doubt that CASA placed far far higher standards of “satisfaction” on APTA than it did to other operators. Was that well intentioned, and lawful? Very clearly, I feel not.

The very first inclination that I had that CASA had any concerns at all was the notification that CASA was to shut down my business in October 2018. That initial notification claimed that the structure of APTA was unlawful, 18 months later the Ombudsman found that it was not. CASAs hand has been forced, and they must now pursue a “lack of operational control” as their basis. It is predictable.

If CASA had a reasonable basis for being concerned that APTA lacked sufficient operational control, it is reasonable that CASA should have bought those concerns to my attention, and provided me the opportunity to rectify any deficiencies. That would in fact be my rights under procedural fairness.

No concerns at all were ever raised by CASA, with me in any way whatsoever about operational control. Surely there would be some correspondence raising concerns at some stage and most particularly at the audit stage. Surely there would be a safety concern, an email, something, anything at all.

How was there a “reasonable basis”. I fact I would strongly contend that in fact, CASA had absolutely no reason at all to have concerns about operational control, and perhaps should have been directing their limited resources elsewhere, to other organisations that perhaps had widely known safety concerns, rather than APTA, which I will address later.

If CASA want to support their actions based on satisfying themselves about operational control. Only 18 months earlier, I completed a two year Project with 10 CASA personnel, who were allocated by CASA as CASA Subject Matter Experts to design APTA, leading to its Approval to continue doing what it was already doing for the previous decade, only much better. CASA came back 6 months later after fully approving the APTA structure and conducted a Level 1 audit of APTA. If they were satisfied with operational control, less than 12 months earlier, at the audit, what was it that gave CASA concerns about operational control, in the next 12 months. Why didn’t my CASA Certificate management Team (CMT 3) being my CASA oversighting team that I am in daily contact with, alert me to any concerns.

The truth is that APTA offered unparalleled levels of operational control, and any comparative analysis will demonstrate that. We have by now firmly ascertained that in fact CASA did permit operations that were identical to mine to operate. The only difference between my structure and others is that my system was designed with CASA for that specific purpose. CASAs actions simply cannot be supported.

Once it is has been ascertained that in fact, CASA had always approved multiple flying schools to operate under a single AOC, it allows a comparative assessment. If the Ombudsman's Office was to ask CASA to produce the operations manuals for the Organisation that provided AOC coverage for Latrobe Valley Aero Club prior to APTA and compared them with APTAs procedures you will find a significant difference. I would strongly assert that the difference will be measurable. That is not a direct indictment on the AOC provider that provided the service previously. That was a Charter Company based in Regional Victoria, operating the flying school at a remote base away from their Head Office. This is a challenging position for an operator due to the difficulties of oversighting a remote base using systems that were not specifically designed to do that, yet were fully CASA approved and audited so obviously exceeded CASAs minimum standards. For clarity, that Operator does however have an impeccable industry reputation.

I am reluctant to draw other Organisations into this matter. Although, I feel it is somewhat essential at this point in time. One of the Companies has now ceased operations so feel I can make comment on it. Previously I have refrained to ensure fair processes prevailed for that organisation.

In CASAs Southern Region let's consider three organisations that were aiming to deliver significantly larger volumes of flight training and came under the control of CASAs Southern Region. The point of this is CASAs' real intent when they call on “operational control”. Two of these Organisations B and C were delivering approximately 150,000 hours flight training per annum, as opposed to APTA (Organisation A) which was delivering less than 15,000 hours across all bases. APTA had a Key Personnel structure as required by CASA that was larger than either Company B or C. This was done to ensure high levels of redundancy and operational control could be maintained.

· Organisation A is APTA, an organisation built and designed with CASA to deliver up to 150,000 hours of flight training per annum. At the time of CASA taking its action, the systems and procedures designed to accommodate 150,000 were delivering less than 10% of that volume. It is unlikely that high levels of operational control were not occurring. All resourcing was in place to cater for significant growth. All APTA procedures were designed drawing on military structures of accountability and reporting. The entire system was designed to be scalable. In fact the system that the Australian Defence Force (ADF)has now adopted, is the most similar analogy that I can make. Im also advised that APTA structures were a consideration in the design of that ADF system.



· Organisation B is a large foreign-owned organisation. At the time it was delivering somewhere in the vicinity of 150,000 hours of flight training per annum, predominantly to a number of International Airlines via cadetships. The Company is regarded in the industry as well intentioned, professionally managed, and provides an industry benchmark standard in almost everything it does.



· Organisation C was a relatively new Organisation with a big vision. Similarly, to Organisation B, they were delivering volumes of flight training of approximately 150,000 hours per annum, or more than ten times the volumes APTA was delivering at the time. There can be no dispute that many within the industry had raised concerns with CASA about this operator over many years. This organisation appeared to have a disproportionate amount of aircraft accidents, which potentially supported the allegations being made against them by many within the industry. CASA audits clearly indicate that CASA had concerns about this organisation and specifically relating to operational control. Importantly no independent findings have been made, so these are assertions only. This organisation has a class action against it, by the students and has recently ceased operations. The case will be very much about the levels of operational control. Importantly, with this matter, it was not CASA that initiated the action but a group of students coming together because they felt CASA had failed them.



Of the 350 flight training organisations in Australia, I really must question why APTA was identified for special treatment, yet Company C continues to be permitted to operate by CASA.

Consider Organisation B above, who also operate multiple bases. Call on CASA to provide manuals for that organisation. Compare their systems and procures to mine. Were my CASA approved procedures so deficient to Operator Bs? So much so, that CASA shut the business down. Consider also that Operator delivers 10 times the volume of flight training that APTA does yet had a smaller management team of CASA Key Personnel.

Alternatively the Ombudsman’s office could now compare incident reports, accident reports, continuous improvement submissions, systems, procedures etc. An enormous number of resources now become available to ascertain whether CASAs concern about operational control had a valid basis.

Recall that CASA has not alleged that we breached any procedures in our CASA approved procedures, so the reasonable assumption is that we fully adhered to all CASA approved procedures, as we did. If that is not the case, I would call on CASA to clarify that. These were the very procedures that CASA fully approved 18 months earlier, to do exactly what we were already doing, and adhering to. The only thing that changed was CASAs requirements and opinion.

Previously when flying schools operated under a shared AOC, there may have been a lack of standardization between the two organizations. APTA was the first time in Australia that CASA had worked with a Company to attend to the deficiencies in the previously accepted CASA practice, and fully designed a system based on CASAs own requirements, approved it and audited it. This was a very significant investment for an Australian flight training business, and I am fully satisfied that it provided industry-leading levels of operational control, and safety. I relish the opportunity to have that tested.

APTA's systems and procedures were designed side by side with 10 CASA personnel as I attended to over 600 of their requirements, over a two year period. APTA was engineered from the onset to provide far higher levels of operational control than was the CASA accepted standard. The Approval process had been completed over two years previously with the revalidation of Part 141/142 being approved in early 2018. We had fully satisfied CASA with all of our procedures at that stage. We were doing exactly as we were approved to do, and following all CASA approved procedures. It is incumbent on CASA to identify what aspects of our approved procedures raised concerns for CASA and why weren’t they raised at any time prior, and most especially if the concerns were so significant that CASA had to bypass any sort of consultative approaches such as a telephone call or a meeting.

There are many arguments to counter CASAs assertion, but the fundamental point must be that CASA identifies any regulatory breaches, or any safety concerns any evidence of a lack of operational control, and that should have been provided at the time, or indeed even now.

Evidence will clearly support that APTA in fact offered unparalleled levels of operational control. The APTA members that had previously operated under someone else's AOC will testify that in their experience this is the case. Please advise if you would like me to supply correspondence from those Members.

I have been contacted by an ex-CASA employee and a senior member of the defence force and advised that my system is remarkably similar to the system that the Australian defence force has adopted and that APTA procedures were considered and many adopted in the system that the Airforce now uses. I am able to obtain correspondence from those personnel supporting that contention.

Similarly, I have been contacted by 2 ex-CASA personnel two that had involvement in the design and approval of APTA. They have offered to provide correspondence offering their perspective if required, and CASA legal maintains that they were not aware.

Surely CASA has some level of a duty of care. If I have been operating with multiple bases over the previous decade, and then undergo a revalidation process with 10 CASA personnel, to obtain a revalidation and then CASA add bases using our procedures, it is highly unlikely that CASA legal was not aware.

CASA cannot possibly be permitted to close down multiple businesses on concerns of the level of operational control if they cannot provide any supporting evidence. It is a significant allegation to make and should be able to be supported with some evidence.


If CASA requires testimony from a flying school owner, I can provide it. You will recall that I owned Melbourne Flight Training, one of the members of APTA. I had operated my school both outside of APTA and within APTA. In the new system where my flying school operated under APTA, there were far higher levels of operational control. If the Ombudsman requires, I will obtain testimony to that effect from the schools that operated under APTA. Most have already extended the offer to me, and I have no doubt that all will be more than willing to provide a reference or testimony to that effect if asked. In fact, at Post #75 you will find a post by a customer that operated at an organization both before and after APTA, that post suggests a high level of operational control and intent. Other pertinent posts are Post #66 and Post #424. The venture was well resourced and well-intentioned, and the truth is that any comparative analysis of APTAs procedures against other operators will support that fact.

Post #66 Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 4 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-4.html)

Post #75 Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 4 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-4.html)


The very concept of APTA actually increases operational control. Consider when I operated my flying school outside of APTA. I constantly had to juggle the priorities of safety V compliance V commercial return. For example, an operator could be tempted to let an aircraft fly with a minor instrument unserviceable. The balance between safety and commercial return, Do I send the plane out on a local flight in good weather with the minor unserviceability to get the $400 for the 1-hour flight. Or do I ground the aircraft for two days, depriving it of 10 hours of revenue, disrupt my customers' bookings, and have staff idle. When I had MFT, it was a tough decision.

Under APTA, I had no option, quite simply the systems and procedures would not permit that flight to proceed. It worked well from a safety and compliance perspective because APTA looked after the CASA considerations i.e. safety and compliance. That flight would not proceed. APTA was under no commercial pressure in its decision making.

One final point that I would like to add. Consider that for a decade the Company had been a Registered Training Organisation under the oversight of the Australian Skills Qualification Authority (ASQA). This organisation conducted audits of our business. They were fully satisfied with our levels of operational control, and we held an audit history with ASQA that could only be described as exceptional. I am able to provide those audit results if required.

Similarly, the Company had delivered training to many International Students over the previous decade. As a CRICOS approved provider able to deliver training to International Students, we were subject to additional auditing. All training for all international students was conducted under our full operational control and delivered to the highest standards. No complaints by any international student was ever raised against my business, which is something I am particularly proud of and is unusual in this industry. It is unlikely that my business did not maintain the very highest levels of operational control.

I would call on CASA to support their allegations by providing three scenarios. If CASA could present three scenarios that they had concerns about, and I would welcome the opportunity to explain how APTA had CASA approved procedures in place to consistently demonstrate the highest levels of operational control.

I believe that CASA had unparalleled opportunities to satisfy themselves about operational control. In fact, I would suggest that APTA was the most transparent aviation business operating in Australia. For the first time, we had given CASA 24/7 internet access from any location to access our entire system including, all training records, aircraft unservicaebilities, predictive maintenance, Safety Meeting minutes, Management Meeting minutes, risk assessments, syllabi, flight and duty records etc. This was an Australian first, and that alone should have satisfied CASA that we had the very highest levels of operational control. Quite simply, I would not have given CASA full access if I wasn’t fully confident in the systems.

By having 24/7 access, it provided CASA with the opportunity to instantly identify any deficiencies and approach me in a timely manner, rather than waiting two years for a CASA audit.

In contrast to CASAs assertion, I do not believe that CASA had any valid basis to have “good reason to be concerned about the operations of APTA and its members”.

If CASA contends that APTA did not provide sufficient operational control, are they able to specifically identify what led them to that assumption i.e. any specifics to support their contention, and especially considering that the Level 1 audit lasting over one week with a team of CASA personnel identified no deficiencies that were bought to the Organisations attention?

For clarity, can CASA provide any examples or scenarios where operational control could be “compromised”, and may I be provided with the opportunity to respond?



CONSIDERATION EIGHT- CASA ONTEND THAT THEY OBTAINED INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE

CASA contend that they “obtained independent legal advice that suggested CASA had good reason to be concerned about the operations of APTA and its Members.”

That statement conflicts with statements made to me by the previous CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance (Mr. Craig Martins predecessor). He advised that CASA was yet to receive legal advice and that they would share that legal advice with me once CASA received it.

On the day it was scheduled to arrive, I was advised that the lawyer's wife had a baby and that there would be a delay. I am not fully satisfied that CASA did in fact receive external and independent legal advice until much later, and if CASA received such independent legal advice that indicated, “CASA had good reason to be concerned about the operations of APTA and its Members,” I should be entitled to see that legal advice and be able to defend my position against that legal advice.

For clarity, if the independent legal advice advised that there was “good reason to be concerned about the operations of APTA”, then I ask. What information was provided to the legal firm to arrive at that deduction if there were no safety concerns or identified regulatory breaches? How could an external legal firm possibly identify that there were good reasons to be concerned about APTA, if no concerns had been raised, and there were no regulatory breaches. It is simply absurd. I have to question the legitimacy of any independent legal advice that was obtained.

If CASA did obtain that independent legal advice, what was the date that the advice was sought and received? i.e. was it advice received prior to CASA initiating their action or was it advice received much later, and potentially as part of damage control, or repositioning by CASA?

I am confident that if CASA were asked to provide a copy of that legal advice it would prove very revealing. My feeling is that the legal advice was either never received, or obtained very late in the process, or in fact, did not support CASAs case, and therefore was never produced to me, despite the undertaken given to me by CASA, hence the lawyers' wife having a baby.

Irrespective, the question remains, on what information did the independent legal firm depend on to arrive at its advice? Am I entitled to ask CASA to produce or at least summarise the advice that they presented, so that I can challenge it if required? Surely, I must have that right. How can I ascertain if the information CASA provided was accurate, truthful, and well-intentioned?

I am concerned that I am dealing with the opinion of only CASA employees, Mr. Aleck and Mr Crawford, therefore I would ask that CASA share the legal advice that they received. That way the Ombudsman can be satisfied as to the content of external legal advice as opposed to Mr. Aleck's and Crawford’s opinion and ascertain the basis for the independent legal advice that indicated CASA had good reason to be concerned about the operation of APTA and its members. It may be that the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Services is not motivated by aviation safety in his decision making, or applying significantly higher standards on me, and my organisation that are not valid.


At this stage I would like to draw your attention to Pprune posts #1497 and 1498, accessed via here. They contain two of my very first pieces of correspondence to CASA and included Mr Shane Carmody. They provide a good insight into the situation I was confronted with. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 75 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-75.html)

CONSIDERATION NINE- THE COMMERCIAL DETRIMENT AND CASAs ENFORCEMENT MANUAL PROCEDURES.

Had CASA followed the stipulated procedures in CASAs own Enforcement Manual which can be accessed here Enforcement manual | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au) (https://www.casa.gov.au/publications-and-resources/publication/enforcement-manual), there would in fact potentially have been a completely different outcome. If CASA is to Cancel, Suspend or Vary an AOC they have obligations under administrative law/natural justice and procedural fairness to comply with their own procedures. It is essential to understand that immediately on receipt of that notification on its impact on me and my business was catastrophic. Those actions and decisions by a small and select group of Senior CASA Executive did result in significant damage to a number of people.

It is imperative to understand that CASA proceeded on the basis that after more than a decade, it had overnight, determined that my structure was illegal. CASA did contact all my customers, including my own flying school, and force them to leave APTA. That obviously led to the failure of the business. That was not the customers' preference, and they will attest to that. They were forced to leave the business by CASA. A significant investment in safety and compliance had now been lost.

Phase One of the Ombudsman’s Findings now indicate that CASAs actions were not lawful.

With absolutely no prior warning at all, not even the opportunity of a telephone call or a meeting to raise any concerns or try and resolve the issue prior, CASA send that notice on October 23rd, 2018.

Consider also that APTA is a Registered Training Organisation delivering an Advanced Diploma in Aviation over an 18-month period. It needs more than “interim” CASA approvals of only days or weeks. APTA and its members need to have surety of operations, in order to enrol students. The minute that notice was issued by CASA, it became unethical and most likely illegal as an RTO to enrol students in a course that you may foreseeably not be able to deliver. Very few businesses in Australia dependent on an ongoing relationship with their customer could survive with interim approvals and most especially an education provider.
Importantly CASA did write to all my customers advising that the operation was not lawful and they were then forced by CASA to leave APTA. The customers were given no option. The leadup to that action by CASA is important and I will outline it here.

Immediately on the issue of that notice of October 2018, CASA effectively shut down my business, and the truth is that they did shut down my business.

CASA directed the Members that they were not permitted to join APTA. Some businesses were forced into closure, while others exited APTA and continued on their own as a Part 141 school, and accepted the reduced capability, smaller safety department, etc

Consider the many employees that I have depending on me for their livelihood. They are now employed by an Organisation that CASA is seeking to close. The security of their livelihoods is now very much in question. CASA has strongly suggested that all currently operating bases will be closed in as little as 7 days. These personnel understandably begin seeking alternative Employers. The impact of that alone on an Organisational culture is devastating and cannot possibly enhance safer outcomes, irrespective of the accompanying commercial impact.

Consider the hundreds of students that are halfway through an 18-month course of flight training. There Registered Training Organisation (RTO) appears likely to close at short notice, and most definitely before completion of their course. The perception amongst clients is that the Organisation must have grossly breached regulations or CASA must have grave safety concerns if it is likely CASA will shut down the entire operation in as little as 7 days. Customers understandably seek to transfer to other organizations. The reputational damage to the business is devastating, as word spreads quickly in the industry.

Consider the instability caused to the Bases that CASA has already approved and are most likely about to have their approvals reversed. As there is only one approval, their continuity of operations is uncertain past 7 days. Some of these aeroclubs have been operating for 100 years, and are irreplaceable in rural areas, as they face closure.

Consider the immediate effect that this notification has on the flying school's ability to recruit students. It now becomes impossible to recruit students to an 18-month training course, when the organization has only 7 days surety of operations, and the word is now on the street that CASA is seeking to shut down the Organisation. Obtaining new revenue becomes impossible.

Consider the impact that this has on APTA. I had fixed operating costs in excess of $1,000,000 per annum or $20,000 per week. No flying school is going to consider joining APTA when CASA has reversed its approval on the business overnight. Existing customers understandably will exit the Organisation and accept the lower category Part 141 approval, and just have to accept the reduced capability that comes with that lower approval.

The APTA product was a method to increase safety, and regulatory compliance, and provide security into the future. By CASA notifying my customers almost immediately that they are operating illegally, it destroys any confidence in the APTA product, and as customers are forced to leave by CASA impacts on revenue and cash flow

It damages my reputation because, with the best of intent, I have been representing APTA as designed in conjunction with CASA and fully approved by CASA. It was, but that changed overnight on October 23rd October 2018.

Consider that this went on for an unacceptable 8 months. My access to revenue was completely denied, yet I had fixed costs of approximately $20,000 per week with approximately half of that being salaries if I were to avoid redundancies. The CASA action doomed the business to failure.

Quite simply a more reasonable course of action in the circumstances would have been to arrange a meeting prior to imposing restrictions on the business and give me the opportunity to meet any stipulated CASA requirements and avoid a less desirable outcome, such as has occurred. If CASA followed their own Regulatory Philosophy this would not have happened.

[glenb]

CONSIDERATION TEN-WHAT HAPPENED TO THE EXISTING MEMBERS

You will recall that CASA directed that all customers had to leave APTA, despite their clear preference to remain with APTA

APTA Simjet in Brisbane never commenced operations despite their significant investment in the Boeing 737 simulator, facility, and staff. In order for CASA to conduct their inspection and approval, everything had to be in place. Simjet achieved this, but CASA changed its mind on APTA during the induction process. An unnecessary loss of so much investment. This particular member bought so much capability to the group, particularly for the future growth of APTA and its Members attracting both International and Domestic students.

APTA Whitestar Aviation in Ballina had commenced operations under the CASA approved Temporary locations procedure that APTA utilized, but halted operations when CASA advised that the CASA approved Temporary locations procedure was now unlawful as per CASAs initial notification. I made multiple written requests to CASA to ascertain if we could reactivate this base, but CASA never answered. After waiting months for an answer from CASA, the base closed down, with the associated loss of investment. More on this particular matter can be found at Post #223 and Post #224 accessed here Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 12 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-12.html)

APTA Ballarat Aero Club resumed operations as a Part 141 Organisation, a significantly lower category of flying school than they previously had i.e. Part 142. They also lost their ability to operate as a Registered Training Organisation, and their approval to enroll international students. They departed APTA because CASA insisted that be so. CASA had determined that the operation was illegal, despite the Ombudsman’s findings twelve months later that the CASA position was not lawful. They have also lost significant business opportunities that would have been afforded to them under the APTA model. Like the other schools that continued on as a lower Part 141 Organisation, they now have access to a far smaller safety department, which is in fact an important consideration.

Similarly, the Latrobe Valley aero club ceased operations in its own right with another flying school now contracting flight training to the school. Similarly, they now operate on a reduced capacity without the higher Part 142 approval, inability to deliver the 150 hours integrated CPL course, deliver training to international students, or to operate as a Registered Training Organisation.

The APTA AVIA base and APTA ARC bases both expedited an application for a lower category Part 141 approval with the associated loss of capability that comes with being a Part 141 Organisation, and not having CRICOS, RTO, or 142 status.

I was directed by CASA to transfer my own flying school, Melbourne Flight Training to the new owners of APTA on the basis that sharing an AOC was not lawful. I was forced to transfer my staff and customers effectively closing down my flying school of 13 years. I was forced to transfer, my revenue but was left with all ongoing contractual obligations by way of leases etc, with no capacity to pay. Later the Ombudsman finds that in fact the practice was lawful, and therefore CASA actions were not lawful but by then my business was gone,

Learn to Fly was able to purchase a business that had a Part 142 approval, and that ensured that they could continue, and were probably the least affected.

The Owners of our APTA Vortex base purchased APTA at 5% of its agreed value, in order to ensure that they themselves did not cease operations, as they would have, and the business continues in a smaller scale model, operating as a single flying school, with the size of the structure and safety department significantly scaled-down.

The applications for new members that expressed interest in joining APTA were advised that CASA was still considering the matter. Understandably they lost confidence in the product, and my understanding is that both organizations also ceased operations.

In my fourth and final piece of correspondence to you on this matter, I will outline in significantly more detail the impact on a number of entities of CASAs action.


CONSIDERATION ELEVEN- THE OMBUDSMAN, APTA AND CASA DO NOT DISAGREE.

In CASAs initial notification dated 23rd October 2018, located at Post #44

CASA claims that “Paragraph 7 of the CASA Aviation Ruling Franchise AOC arrangement states; The AOC Holder at all times remains responsible for the actions of another person conducting operations under the AOC”.

A careful review of that sentence alone will lead the reader to believe other pilots operating under an AOC is permitted, but that the AOC Holder remains responsible for the actions of another person conducting operations under the AOC.

Let me put that in perspective. Irrespective of who operates under my AOC, I am responsible for that operation. If that pilot was paid by me, paid by someone else, or indeed even if he or she was a volunteer delivering flight training to the Scouts, I am fully responsible and accountable for that operation irrespective of who pays the pilot, and even if the pilot isn’t getting paid and isn’t an employee.

I have absolutely no disagreement and after 25 years in the Industry, fully appreciate the responsibility that comes with that statement. On this matter, there is no dispute. In fact, that was the underpinning guiding principle in the design of APTA. I fully understand and concur with that statement. CASA is reaffirming a statement that I would be fully aware and was aware of.

In that initial notification, however, two employees of CASA, most probably Mr. Aleck, CASAs Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Services, and Mr Crawford, CASAs Executive Manager have applied their opinion, and importantly it is only their opinion, as the letter goes on to state; “The Ruling does not permit an AOC Holder to authorize a third party body corporate to operate under its AOC”. That is a vastly different statement to what the Aviation Ruling actually says i.e. “The AOC Holder at all times remains responsible for the actions of another person conducting operations under the AOC”.

Whilst I respect these two mens interpretation, I feel it is a “long bow to draw” to arrive at that interpretation from the previous statement extracted from the Aviation Ruling. This is not an insignificant point. More so considering that was CASAs entire basis for closing down my business. Any business is entitled to operate in an environment that is more secure than

This point becomes especially critical when it is considered that CASAs core function in the Civil Aviation Act is to provide “clear and concise aviation safety standards”. The reference to this obligation can be found in the Civil Aviation Act at 9. CASA functions”. As a business owner, I have a fair and reasonable expectation that CASA should be able to direct me to clear and concise aviation safety standards that support CASAs position. I refer you to the Civil Aviation Act.

“9 CASA’s functions

(1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:

(a) civil air operations in Australian territory;

(b) the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory;

(ba) ANZA activities in New Zealand authorised by Australian AOCs with ANZA privileges;

by means that include the following:

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

(d) developing effective enforcement strategies to secure compliance with aviation safety standards;

(da) administering Part IV (about drug and alcohol management plans and testing);

(e) issuing certificates, licences, registrations and permits;

(f) conducting comprehensive aviation industry surveillance, including assessment of safety‑related decisions taken by industry management at all levels for their impact on aviation safety;

(g) conducting regular reviews of the system of civil aviation safety in order to monitor the safety performance of the aviation industry, to identify safety‑related trends and risk factors and to promote the development and improvement of the system;

(h) conducting regular and timely assessment of international safety developments.”



CONSIDERATION TWELVE-THERE WAS ONLY ONE AOC/AUTHORISATION

Now consider what the Ombudsman found in Phase one of his investigation, which was a stark contrast to CASAs position initially. The Ombudsman finds; “As of October 2016, no Australian legislation prohibited franchising of an AOC..”. This is perhaps one of the most significant points. CASA maintained that it was prohibited.

In CASAs original notification dated 23rd October 2018, also stated; “Section 27(8) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 states that an AOC is not transferrable.” On that point I also fully agree with CASA, an AOC cannot be transferred.

There was no attempt to transfer the AOC by APTA at any stage. There was only one AOC and I was the Authorisation Holder. I held accountability and responsibility for ALL operations conducted by all pilots under my AOC. It was essential that I had high levels of control to secure my “peace of mind” that I had full operational control over all operations conducted under my AOC. I had been in the flight training industry as an Instructor, Head of operations, and a business owner operating a flying school for 25 years. It would be reasonable to expect me to have an expert knowledge on my obligations, and perhaps more than many of the CASA personnel with who I was dealing with. None of them with any experience in flight training at all.

All pilots and all operations actually came “inwards towards the authorization holder and were required to operate in accordance with our procedures. There could be no confusion as there was only one AOC, and that was APTAs. The Members of APTA did not hold an AOC and were obviously fully aware that they did not have an AOC, so they could not operate their own flying school.

It was not feasible that a pilot could operate to any other procedures than APTAs CASA approved because there was no other AOC approved, or any other procedures. i.e. all pilots operated under APTAs AOC, or they simply could not operate, as there was no other option.

The Members did not hold their own AOC, or CASA required Key Personnel i.e. CEO, Head of Operations, and Safety Manager. Therefore, they could not deliver flight training in their own right. They effectively had nothing to hand over, as they were not a CASA-approved flight training organization, and that is in fact the reason for joining APTA.

To significantly simplify it, it is just one big flying school in all areas that CASA has control over. i.e. safety and compliance. The business matters of the entities i.e. what electrictity provider to select, to paint the walls in white or blue etc remained with the Member, or indeed who paid the pilot, but traditionally these were not matters that CASA involved itself in.

If it was a matter that was accountable to CASA, it was the Authorisation Holders responsibility.i.e, APTA



CONSIDERATION THIRTEEN-HOW COULD THE TEMPORARY PROCEDURES PROCEDURE THAT CASA SUGGESTED AND PROVIDED TO ME, NOW BE CLAASSIFIED AS ILLEGAL.

I refer again to the initial notification dated October 23rd, 2018, and specifically the last paragraph of that correspondence where it deals with “Temporary Locations”

That is in fact the exact procedure that CASA suggested I utilize, and the basic procedure comes from CASAs own guidance material for flying schools. I incorporated CASAs' suggestion into my manuals. The procedure was approved by the CASAs legal department. We had used the procedure over the previous twelve months and CASA had approved bases under it. CASA had also conducted a Level One audit of the organization and that specific procedure and raised no concerns whatsoever. Irrespective of all that it, is the procedure that CASA suggested we use for the exact purpose that they approved it to be used for. How could CASA possibly apply a complete reversal of their own approval that they recommend, approved, utilized, and audited?
CASA actually reference that very procedure in their own guidance material specifically for flying schools, which refutes CASAs assertion that Temporary locations are not intended for flying schools, which was a line of argument used by CASA at one stage. They are actually ONLY intended for flying schools. Once I directed CASA to their own guidance material, they appeared somewhat awkward, but by then the correspondence of October 2018 had already been sent by CASA.

This is ludicrous, I use the CASA procedure as suggested by CASA personnel, from their own guidance material land 18 months later, CASA applies a complete reversal, and refuse proposed applications, and reverse previously approved bases that utilised that very same procedure. Surely CASA must have some duty of care. Its akin to a police officer telling you the speed limit is 110Kph, and then booking you for speeding at the end of the road. It simply cannot be justified.

Then this became an unauthorized activity where I am potentially liable for litigation from CASA and/or the businesses that have depended on me to deliver on my commitments to them under APTA which is fully approved by CASA.

This is a significant point, and I would direct you to the following posts on Prune that provide more information. Post #46 and Post #223 Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 3 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-3.html)

[glenb]

CONSIDERATION FOURTEEN-APTA MADE A NUMBER OF ATTEMPTS TO SUBMIT ACCEPTABLE CONTRACTS, BUT CASA REJECTED ALL ATTEMPTS

You will recall that when CASA placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade by way of a 7-day surety of operations, they placed a requirement for contracts.

Embarrassingly for CASA, they realized only after sending that notification that, APTA had already provided copies of our contract on multiple occasions, and in fact, we had emailed a copy to Mr. Crawford, now the Acting CASA CEO approximately 12 months earlier. I also had a meeting with CASA personnel in the CASA Offices where I provided copies of contracts. These facts are now not in dispute with CASA.

CASA will contend that they made a number of “good faith attempts” to help me resolve the contracts issue. As the person directly involved, that is very much NOT the case and would urge you to consider the following. The relevant attachments to this post can be found at Post #1464 at PPRuNe Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 74 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-74.html)

CASA sent the notification placing restrictions on the business's ability to trade by way of a 7-day surety of operations and demanding that I provide contracts.

I pointed out to CASA that previously APTA had initiated contracts of its own prerogative, and that they had been provided to CASA on multiple occasions, and I provided my evidence of that assertion.

CASA then reluctantly agreed that they did in fact have the contracts, yet CASA did not lift the restrictions on the business's ability to trade, and they remained in place over the 8 months, until I could no longer meet my obligations for wages and salaries.

I asked CASA to make a decision against my existing contracts they would not. I wanted CASA to make a decision because then I would have something I could attend to, or alternatively something that I could challenge in the AAT.

CASA simply advised that my contracts were not acceptable. Consider the following timeline. The correspondence relating to this topic can be found as an attachment at Post #1464 on PPRuNe Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 74 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-74.html)

January 25th, 2019, 3 months after CASA place restrictions on the business's ability to trade, CASA write to me asking for information in my contracts. By now, my entire customer base has lost confidence as they have been operating for 3 months with no future certainty about the organization. No student enrolments have been taken, and staff is concerned about their jobs. Existing APTA Members are by now making plans outside of APTA as it appears the issues are significant if they have not been resolved after 3 months.

February 18th, 2019, I write to CASA advising that their suggested changes to the contract have been fully embedded, and this correspondence also notifies CASA that one of our Members, at the Ballina base was ceasing operations due to the ongoing delay in getting approved. This correspondence also answers questions that CASA put to me. Most of those answers were already known to CASA as for the first time in Australia we provided full access to APTAs entire system. CASA was able to log into any aspect of our operation at any time from anywhere in Australia. This was an Australian first and ensured the very highest levels of operational control and oversight could be maintained. This correspondence also calls on CASA to act expeditiously because of the commercial impact.

February 19th, 2019, APTA responds to CASA requests and provides signed copies of contracts. These are the same contracts that have previously been supplied to CASA.

February 21st, 2019, I write to CASA and all APTA Members updating them that all CASA requirements have been embedded into a new contract and make plans to move forward, with that new contract.

March 4th, 2019, - Advised by CASA that in fact the embedded changes that CASA had recommended and provided were now not OK and that we now needed to have yet another meeting. That meeting is now scheduled almost 3 weeks later, on March 20th, 2019.

The entire matter should never have commenced but APTA has now had restrictions on its ability to trade for over 4 months. The negative commercial impact and reputational damage is significant.

March 13th, 2019 CASA now places some additional requirements to be embedded into the contracts.

March 15th, 2019 I confirm my availability for a meeting, reaffirm that I am willing to put anything into the contracts that CASA require, ask if CASA are becoming a signatory, and call on them to clearly and concisely stipulate what they require, as they have rejected my most recent attempt which fully embedded all the CASA requirements exactly as CASA advised. I simply am at a complete loss as to what CASA requires. In this correspondence, I am imploring CASA to provide direction as to what they want so that I can promptly attend to it.

By now APTA as a business is decimated, deprived of revenue, staff losing confidence, suppliers losing confidence, and the businesses revenue severely curtailed by CASA actions. My parents have intervened to cover salaries and avoid redundancies, customers are leaving APTA and the business continues to operate under an interim approval that expires on May 13th 2019.

March 26th,2019 I write to Mr. Aleck with yet another attempt at a contract, reiterate that I will put anything into the contracts that CASA directs me to, call again on CASA to clearly identify the changes that they require. This correspondence also once again clarifies the commercial impact and the fact that CASA appears to be targeting APTA. Importantly, in this correspondence, I call again on CASA to make a “decision” so that I have something to appeal. The failure by CASA to make a decision over such a prolonged period is having a devastating impact on the business.

April 9th, 2019 I make a further submission with all new CASA requirements embedded and imploring CASA to resolve this matter.

April 9th, 2019, CASA advises me that the matter is finalized and that we will be returning to Business as Usual, then the email is retracted by CASA and another email sent advising to hold off until CASA legal can approve it.

April 17th, 2019 I am advised that CASA still doesn’t have what they require.

By this stage, my parents have funded $300,000 towards staff salaries, as the business had been starved of revenue for almost 6 months. With no end in sight, and cashflow becoming increasingly difficult I refocused my energies into minimizing the impact of the imminent loss of the business. I simply cannot ask my parents to keep funding well more than $10,000 per week to meet my obligations for wages and salaries.

CASA had still failed to identify what they needed in the contracts. I had made multiple submissions, and the last two submissions embedded CASA suggested text word for word. Still CASA was not satisfied. I am in an impossible situation after 6 months with customers now being forced to leave APTA by CASA, and I am no closer to achieving a contract that satisfies CASA. By now, I was very much of the opinion that CASA had no intention to resolve the issue of the contract.

Consider also that at any time CASA could have fully resolved this issue within 24 hours. From the onset, I made it perfectly clear that I would place absolutely anything in the contracts that CASA requires. They simply needed to provide me their required text. I would have sat with CASA across a table, with my Head of Operations, Personal Assistant and our Technical Writer. We would have raised any concerns with that CASA text, noting it is extremely unlikely that we would have any objections. We would have then embedded the text into the contracts and distributed the new contracts to our Members for return by close of business the next day. All Members were willing to meet those turnaround times. It truly was that simple. It only depended on CASA knowing what it was that they required, and providing that direction to me. The delays that extended for 8 months in resolving this issue were entirely as a result of CASA changing the goalposts, and not knowing what they required. A relatively straightforward matter became extremely difficult to resolve.


CONSIDERATION FIFTEEN- ADMINISTRATIVE HALT PLACED ON ALL APTA APPLICATIONS FOR REGULATORY TASKS.

CASA applied an Administrative Freeze and refused to process APTA applications and regulatory requests throughout the 8-month period. Once CASA initiated that action against APTA they also initiated an “administrative freeze” on all administrative tasks, and the impact of this was significant upon APTA, as no capabilities could be added or renewed. i.e. as a simulator's approval would expire, CASA would not renew it, leaving the asset idle. A new simulator was acquired, and similarly, CASA would not validate it. We applied to add new Key Personnel to the Management team. i.e., a third CASA approved Head of Operations to provide high levels of redundancy, and further the already high levels of operational control, that was put on hold. CASA tried to add new courses that we were fully entitled to deliver, and CASA refused to process these applications. CASA had no basis in law to refuse those applications. The commercial impact of this action on the business and customers was substantial.

APTA as a Part 141/142 Organisation submitted applications to add on new courses, such as low level, multi-crew, etc. CASA would not process those applications. These were courses and capabilities that APTA was fully entitled to deliver. This administrative freeze placed on APTA by CASA was harmful to the business and had no validity because it was a completely separate issue to the reason CASA placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade.

Refer Pprune Post #267,268,271,272,273,274, for further pertinent information.


CONSIDERATION SIXTEEN- APTA ONLY DID WHAT CASA ASKED OF APTA.

If there is any doubt that I was effectively “led up the garden path” by CASA, then I refer you specifically to POST #1395 on PPRuNe which can be accessed here. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 70 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-70.html)

If you refer to the “underpinning knowledge” component of that post, it will outline the background to the revalidation of APTA as a Part 142 Organisation. We were already operating with the APTA structure i.e. providing AOC coverage for multiple bases and had been for more than a decade.

Part 141/142 was a separate process that CASA required of all flying schools in Australia to undertake, or otherwise, they would have to cease operations in three years.

During that two-year project and revalidation by CASA, every single one of our procedures was overhauled as we drew on our previous experience providing coverage for multiple bases. We attended to over 600 CASA requirements, each of which was CASA assessed and approved. We were attending to CASA requirements in their own checklist with 10 CASA personnel. We embraced all opportunities for improvement in conjunction with those CASA personnel.

The point being is that I had no other option but to undergo the Part 141/142 process. It was something forced upon APTA if it intended to continue trading. We attended to every CASA requirement in the design of APTA and were fully approved by CASA as part of our revalidation 18 months earlier. Surely if CASA was to question our operation, concerns should have been raised then, rather than CASA encouraging and facilitating me to do something that they would later claim was illegal.

I had no option in the design of APTA from day one with CASA to respond directly to CASAs more than 600 stipulated requirements and found in Post # 441. This was a two-year project. I did invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into exceeding every one of the 600 requirements.

To get an indication of the enormity of the task, simply approach Oxford CAE, they completed the process at a similar time to my Organisation. In fact, at the CASA Head of operations conference organized by CASA in Canberra, they put forward a presentation to CASA and attendees on just how enormous, expensive, flawed, and time consuming the process was. It required many thousands of hours dedicated to it. CASA worked side by side with me assessing every one of those 600 requirements that CASA stipulated.



CONSIDERATION SEVENTEEN- THERE ARE NO ALLEGATIONS BY CASA OF ANY REGULTORY BREACHES

For complete clarity, at no stage did CASA ever allege any regulatory breaches until much later in the process. When CASA did much later raise allegations of regulatory breaches which I was compelled to respond to, and resolve to CASAs’ satisfaction, CASA was unable to support any of the allegations, and they were later withdrawn by CASA many months later.

CASA has withdrawn every single allegation as there was no supporting information or evidence for any of them. If my understanding is incorrect, and CASA have any outstanding allegations of any regulatory breaches at all, I call on CASA to bring those to my attention and the attention of your office, and to me. CASA raised no allegations of any regulatory breaches initially when they sent the correspondence in October 2018. The allegations only came much later when CASA identified that they had not written up the audit results. The rewrite of the audit results raised completely new allegations.

You may recall that CASA identified to me that they had erred, and not written up the audit notes months after the audit. CASA committed to having those audit results written up over the weekend and given to me by the following Tuesday at the latest. When the “new” audit now raised allegations of regulatory breaches that were not raised at the CASA Onsite Exit Meeting. More on this topic can be found at Posts # 59, 216, 222, 942, 983, and 1226.

Initially, CASA raised an allegation of a regulatory breach that our signage did not meet the Regulatory size requirements. At this meeting, there were several CASA personnel from my new CMT (CASA oversighting team) present. The truth is that there are no regulatory requirements. At that meeting at the CASA Head Office, I asked if they could direct me to the legislation. CASA advised that they did not have access to the legislation, which seemed unusual in CASAs Head Office. This led me to believe that these people may not have been acting with good intent. CASA advised that they would write to me on this matter. When the correspondence arrived, CASA conceded that there was no regulations but they did offer their opinion on what they required. This was immediately implemented by APTA. This allegation of a regulatory breach was in fact not a regulatory breach but merely an opinion, which I respected and complied with.

There was the written allegation that our Flight School Management System wasn’t working properly. The system was highly advanced, and it did require training. I had extended multiple offers to CASA to provide training for their staff at no charge. CASA never accepted the offer. This was a problem with the CASA Employees capability on the system. There were no “problems” with the system. I do not believe that CASA will dispute that statement.

CASA did make an allegation of multiple breaches of flight and duty times, which is a significant allegation. This occurs when an operator allows a situation to develop where a pilot may fly in an unsafe condition due to overwork and fatigue. Immediately that CASA raised that allegation I wrote back to CASA because I had confidence in the APTA systems that woud not and could not have happened. I simply asked that CASA provide the name of the offending pilots so that I could investigate. CASA could not state the name of the pilot. This was simply ludicrous because the pilots' file is the starting process for the audit. i.e. a flight and duty breach must by its very nature be attached to a pilot.

CASA did later supply a copy of the offending flight and duty times by way of an attachment. It became immediately obvious that CASA had made an error. The system provided contained a predictive capability, so it could look ahead, and effectively say “on your current booking schedule you will exceed your flight and duty in five days’ time, please reschedule your bookings to ensure this doesn’t happen, or you will be unable to despatch your flight in five days’ time. The CASA employee was looking at the red warning flag for a future date, warning of what could happen, if the pilot didn’t reschedule his roster. I think that this CASA employee was caught out by the advanced IT systems that we incorporated and may not have been familiar with the high levels of operational control, that he may not have encountered before. For clarity, there was no breach of flight and duty times based on the information that CASA provided to me.



CONSIDERATION EIGHTEEN- THE LACK OF GOOD INTENT



I wrote to the CASA Board, Executive Management of CASA on multiple occasions raising substantial allegations of misconduct. Despite repeated requests, I was ignored or a period of 6 months. Correspondence to the CASA Board can be found at

· Posts # 1, 41, 44, 76, 82, 85, 98, 107, 147, 148,164,187, 191, 198,199, 260, 287,639, 686, 687, 688, 690, 787,809,920,934,935.936,940,941,946,955,958,976,1080,1088,10 89, 1094,1100,1102,1109,1110, 1115,1140, 1151, 1205,1274,1282,1297,1310, and 1326,



I raised concerns about a new CASA person that was oversight my organisation. My concerns were raised with CASA and that individual initiated the action against APTA and information on this matter can be found at

· Posts # 56, 290, 305, 924



Notifying CASA of the commercial impact refer;

· Posts # 45, 185, 223, 257, 258, 259, 261, 262 , 263, 264, 265, 275, 285, 315, 749, 820, 821, 852, 862, 1001,1141,1178,1191,1192,1193,1194,1196,1197



On matters regarding Craig Martin. The point of these posts is that CASA injected Mr. Craig Martin into the matter to support the CASA Region Manager at the time, Mr. Jones. I provided Mr. Martin with the perfect opportunity to gather my responses and the responses of the CASA employees that I had allegations against. I suggested that he obtain their answers to the same questions. I didn’t need to know the CASA employees’ answers. I only needed to know that he had asked the question of both Parties, as that would have alerted him to the fact that APTA did provide high levels of operational control. Mr. Martin chose not to ask the questions and advised me of such. This was extremely disappointing as it made me concerned that there may be a lack of intent.

· Posts # 84,224



Proposed resolution that I have put forward to CASA.

· Post #1167

[glenb]

CONSIDERATION NINETEEN- CASAs REGULATORY PHILOSOPHY

Consider that CASA has a Regulatory Philosophy, and I have included an excerpt from Australian Flying magazine on the release of CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, that came out in 2015. CASAs Regulatory Philosophy can be accessed here. Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au) (https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/our-regulatory-philosophy)

“Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) director of aviation safety Mark Skidmore says a set of new key principles will make a “real, positive and lasting difference” to the regulator’s dealings with the aviation community.

As part of its response to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (https://australianaviation.com.au/2014/12/government-backs-bulk-of-asrr-recommendations/) (ASRR), Australia’s aviation safety watchdog has published a list of 10 key principles that will guide and direct its approach to regulation.

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

Skidmore said the new regulatory philosophy was “clear and concise set or principles that would guide all our actions” and sharpen the focus on how and how well CASA did its job.

The director of aviation safety said CASA would, where necessary, develop new policies and procedures to give “meaningful effect to our regulatory philosophy”.

“I am committed to ensuring these principles make a real, positive and lasting difference to the way CASA operates and way we interact with the aviation community,” Skidmore said in a statement on Wednesday.”

Whilst I do appreciate that CASA may not be legally obligated to comply with its Regulatory Philosophy, it does have an ethical and a moral obligation to comply, and when a CASA employee chooses not to act in accordance with that Regulatory Philosophy it does potentially indicate a lack of good intent. With regards to the Regulatory Philosophy, CASA has clearly not complied with it, and most especially points 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 9 of that Philosophy.

I respectfully request that you consider the obligations placed on CASA by each of those points in their philosophy, in arriving at your final determination.



CONCLUSION

I robustly maintain that the levels of control that APTA offered were industry leading. Importantly, APTA underwent a two-year revalidation process with 10 CASA personnel, and many hundreds of thousands of dollars were invested by APTA in that process. The APTA product was designed from its initial conception to provide unparalleled levels of operational control, and it did so very well. Like all organisations it must be subject to a process of continuous improvement and that is something the organisation embraced.

I have a reasonable expectation that CASA will respect the Rule of Law, i.e. that CASA be open to criticism from me without fear of retribution, that CASA will apply the law equally and fairly to all industry participants, to ensure that’s CASAs opinions and laws are known to industry participants, and that they are capable of being known by being clear and concise, as is required of CASA in the Civil Aviation Act. I have an expectation in all my dealings with CASA, that there will be a presumption of innocence, and that my business is not subjected adversely to a retrospective change of opinion. I also believe that all CASA personnel are subject to, and accountable to the law.

There can be no doubt that CASA came into my Organisation and closed it down. There was no safety case and there was no regulatory breach. I was trying to protect my flying school and 9 others initially to survive in an increasingly complex environment. CASA should have been supportive of the concept. It increased safety, increased regulatory compliance, increased organisational skillsets, and provided significant business opportunities, most particularly in regional areas.

This is not a minor administrative compliant. This is a complaint about abuses of position and power. It is a complaint about misconduct by a small number of senior CASA personnel. It is a complaint about the many millions of dollars damaged caused to so many businesses. It is a complaint about the many students, customers, staff and suppliers that have been impacted. It’s a complaint about the loss of such a unique opportunity for regional Australian aviation that could have been realised. It’s a complaint about a small group of personnel within CASA referred to in industry as The Iron Ring” and consists of Mr Crawford, Mr Aleck, and Mr Martin who choose to act unlawfully, and with a flagrant disregard for ethics, morals, professionalism or their obligations in the workplace. It’s a complaint about my family’s life being decimated by the deliberate actions and decisions of these individuals, with no supporting justification for their actions on the basis of safety or any regulatory breaches.

Allegations have been made against the Iron Ring before, on many occasions, and their conduct continues unchecked by a CASA Board that is either impotent or chooses to be complicit in this conduct. You will recall that I wrote to the CASA Board on multiple occasions raising significant allegations. The Board chose to ignore those requests for more than 6 months. You will recall that I asked to meet with any two Members of the Board to raise my allegations. Had the Chair of the Board acted in a timely manner, so much damage could have been avoided.

The Chair of the Board eventually chose to facilitate that meeting over 6 months later, but rather than two Board Members being present as requested, he came with a CASA employee. The very same CASA employee only weeks later directed my Employer that my continuing employment “was not tenable”, and I was left unemployed.

I draw your attention to the ABC investigative piece that was aired on the ABC. A story about a gentleman by the name of Bruce Rhoades. The program was about the breaches of administrative law, being denied natural justice and procedural fairness. I had previously spoken to Mr Rhoades before he passed away from cancer while still trying to clear his name. Like me, he lost everything. I have spoken to his family and I have their consent to mention this matter. I urge you to utilise the resources of the Ombudsman Office and obtain a copy of the ABC 7.30 program that aired regarding the conduct of the “iron ring”. The program cannot be viewed here as it has time expired, although I have attached it for your reference. Dying pilot tries to clear his name after fatal plane crash - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-29/dying-pilot-tries-to-clear-his-name-after-fatal-plane-crash/10396812)

Please find a link to current Youtube videos that Mr. Rhoades produced prior to his death. Callous CASA - Bruce Rhoades. - YouTube EXPOSING CASA 2 - YouTube CASA - A LAW UNTO ITSELF - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9uSryNIU3A&feature=youtu.be) CASA CONDEMNED 2 - YouTube Senate Inquiry 19/11/18 - CASA DISGRACE - YouTube Senate Inquiry 19/11/18 - CASA DISGRACE - YouTube

These same individuals have caused enormous harm to me, my family and the people around me. They also caused so much harm to Mr Rhoades and his family. Since this matter commenced over two years ago, I have received overwhelming support from industry. Whether it be the 1500 Posts and ¾ million views on Pprune, or the less public support, it has been exceptional.

Several business owners and pilots have approached me with allegations against those same individuals. They will be willing to come forward and present their allegations if given the opportunity.

Several senior CASA personnel that have since left the organisation have come forward. They are not on the side of either CASA or me, but they are prepared to come forward and simply tell the truth. I have their consent and I can put you in contact with them, if you feel this would assist you at arriving at your determination.

The Members of APTA are prepared to come forward and make a written submission outlining how APTA increased safety and compliance, and how unparalleled levels of operational control was maintained, and in fact, several organisations have already made those submissions to CASA.

Personally, I have been devastated by CASAs actions. At 56 years of age I have lost my home, my two businesses, my life savings, my reputation, and my health. My family has been traumatised, and as we are imminently to be declared bankrupt, one must really question whether CASAs actions were reasonable in the circumstances when this all could have been avoided by a well-intentioned discussion that could have had this entire fiasco avoided had CASA acted in a well-intentioned manner, and in accordance with their own procedures

I hope that this additional material is of some benefit in bringing more transparency to the matter. I will forward through two additional submissions, as stated earlier.

Respectfully



Glen Buckley

[Sunfish]

This document needs an executive summary. Less is more. While I know not the truth of your allegations, you need a one pager (no more) that looks something like the following. A journalist can then pick up your case quite easily and perhaps write about it.:


Glen Buckley built an aviation training business (APTA) on a franchise model that enabled widely dispersed small flying schools to meet new and expensive administrative and safety requirements of CASA. The APTA franchise business model allowed small schools to comply with the new standards in a cost effective manner, by adopting the APTA systems and methods.

CASA worked with APTA in developing and establishing its suite of systems and procedures with the intention of ensuring that they exactly met CASA requirements. CASA professed itself more than satisfied with both the development process and the product which APTA. At all times CASA knew that APTA was employing a franchise business model and that the systems and processes CASA approved would be "rolled out" to participating flight schools. The use of such a franchising business model in flight training was not a new development and CASA has and still does permit such arrangements prior to APTAs initiative.

APTA subsequently enrolled XX schools in the program, employing yy staff and students and training ZZ pilots.

On (date) without warning, CASA suddenly reversed its attitude to APTA, declaring its business model illegal, destroyed the business and those of its customers, abusing it's owner and proceeded to drive him out of the Aviation industry. There is no lawful basis to justify any of these actions, let alone the tactics used to achieve this result.

Mr. Buckley now seeks redress.

[glenb]

i couldn’t agree with you more.

I have engaged the services of a journalist who is working on exactly that, and it should be finalised shortly. i.e next 14 days.

i will direct them to your post.

Appreciate the enduring support over the last couple of years, cheers. Glen

[McLimit]

This document needs an executive summary. Less is more. While I know not the truth of your allegations, you need a one pager (no more) that looks something like the following. A journalist can then pick up your case quite easily and perhaps write about it.:

Rubbish,

Journalists have had the opportunity to do this for some time and haven't. I know of one aviation journalist that is well aware of the situation. It's just too hard for that person.

It needs a journalist with the intestinal fortitude to follow it through to its conclusion rather than a fluff piece that hits a paper then disappears into the ether.

[glenb]

I am ready to go public with this.

I am satisfied that the Deputy Prime Minister has enough knowledge of this matter to have acted by now, if he intended to do so.

Mr Dick Smith.

If you have access to any media contacts that would be prepared to work with me in bringing my substantive allegations to media attention, i would be very appreciative.

Cheers. Glen

[Sunfish]

McLimit: Rubbish,

Journalists have had the opportunity to do this for some time and haven't. I know of one aviation journalist that is well aware of the situation. It's just too hard for that person.

It needs a journalist with the intestinal fortitude to follow it through to its conclusion rather than a fluff piece that hits a paper then disappears into the ether.

You have just conclusively demonstrated why CASA can get away with this and other abuses. Journalists with the intestinal fortitude you refer to only exist in Hollywood movies and even if they did exist, the chances of one of them firstly making sense of what CASA will claim is a "highly technical safety issue" and translate it into a story that won't make the publics eyes glaze over in a microsecond, is zero. Journos write stories to sell advertising; "Man beats puppy" sells more than "CASA rejected my thronomister modification!".

What I can safely say is if Glen can mobilize public opinion via a puff piece or anything else then CASA will be directed to settle this in a heartbeat. The converse is also true.

...And I have direct personal experience of doing exactly that myself, though not with CASA.

....And I've written press releases for Government.

[Global Aviator]

I disagree, if you get a journo who understands and sees the injustice they will run it.

Getting that journo is the hard part.

Want to get the public onside, media is the only way, preferably mainstream.

You can write as many press releases as you like. They can have all the bells and whistles, unless it’s a journo with a name or a terrier they go nowhere (unless it’s a topic they want to cover).

Capt B has certainly done the work on this from reading these pages. Surely someone on here must have some great media contacts!

[Paragraph377]

I disagree, if you get a journo who understands and sees the injustice they will run it.

Getting that journo is the hard part.

Want to get the public onside, media is the only way, preferably mainstream.

You can write as many press releases as you like. They can have all the bells and whistles, unless it’s a journo with a name or a terrier they go nowhere (unless it’s a topic they want to cover).

Capt B has certainly done the work on this from reading these pages. Surely someone on here must have some great media contacts!

Try journalist Anthony Klan. His details are available on Google.

[JakeFlyz]

Moderators, please do not remove this observation of mine as I am speaking on a number of my peers in the GA space.

A bit about myself, I have just turned 30 and hold an instructor rating and have flown non-stop for the last 10 years. Like many of you, I live for the sky. I am a strong advocate for safety for all of us that share the sky.

There are a number of different forms of GA as well as civil aviation that all have to share the same airspace and admittedly, we do have to priorities civil over the hobbyists whilst also empowering flying schools to produce safety minded pilots. Recreational flight is a luxury just like if you where to go yachting, and I would rather that than cowboys flying around in dodgy aircraft playing dodgems up there! Flying schools have a HUGE responsibility to engrain safety and best practice in their teachings and I've been witness to many clubs just copy and paste regulation, well after they have began operating and have never aligned their operations with P&Ps they have copied and pasted. Many GA operators think that much of the regulation is a money grab but you would be deluded to think GA contributes more than 1% of what the civil aviation sector contributes.
GA is financially insignificant, much of the cost is directly linked to making sure you all aren't filling your papers with BS as way too many of them do. I know, I have worked for a number of flying schools and found that many find it easier to act like there is some sort of tyranny going on in CASA then to implement a legitimate operational framework. Hell, some of them you didn't even need CASA for a non-conformance , SafeWork would have been enough!

I've followed this thread for a long time now just out of curiosity/entertainment and it reminds me of some of the 'flying schools' that are really just over 50's flying club where you sit around sipping coffee crying about rules you cant keep up with. Being able to read all this has been incredibly entertaining but It has gotten to the stage that I cannot watch a group of old men hating life and spreading hate just because they struggle to interpret regulation. Read any of Glens emails to officials and they are embarrassingly obvious to be a manifestation of tension and anger. Look at the times they've been sent too! People notice that mate.

All this energy acting hard done too when you could have maybe just rectified your non-conformances. Many of us know you where 'shut down overnight' because your model was immoral. You cannot sell plug and play policy just so schools don't have to care about it! There is a responsibility each school has to embrace and teach and swear by! Sick of hearing pilots telling young aspiring pilots all these preconceived ideas of regulation when you are the problem.

I think for the reputation of the majority of us GA pilots, you chill out on trying to represent us. It is no longer entertaining but I am genuinely concerned for the level of emotion and hate that I have read here. 99% of what is written in this thread is an emotional opinion with 0 supporting evidence. All of the "proof" Glen has provided isn't proof at all? It is so odd how you all interoperate it and the personal attacks at some individuals are incredibly misleading and I pray someone files a defamation of character case against Glen just to reset his perspective.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but this whole thread is a deluded manifestation of harshness.

Rgds,
Jake (ARN 799286)

[McLimit]

..And I have direct personal experience of doing exactly that myself, though not with CASA.

Is there anything? Anything...................anything at all you haven't had direct personal experience of? Anything?

Why aren't you getting out there with the article for Glen then?

[Paragraph377]

Moderators, please do not remove this observation of mine as I am speaking on a number of my peers in the GA space.

A bit about myself, I have just turned 30 and hold an instructor rating and have flown non-stop for the last 10 years. Like many of you, I live for the sky. I am a strong advocate for safety for all of us that share the sky.

There are a number of different forms of GA as well as civil aviation that all have to share the same airspace and admittedly, we do have to priorities civil over the hobbyists whilst also empowering flying schools to produce safety minded pilots. Recreational flight is a luxury just like if you where to go yachting, and I would rather that than cowboys flying around in dodgy aircraft playing dodgems up there! Flying schools have a HUGE responsibility to engrain safety and best practice in their teachings and I've been witness to many clubs just copy and paste regulation, well after they have began operating and have never aligned their operations with P&Ps they have copied and pasted. Many GA operators think that much of the regulation is a money grab but you would be deluded to think GA contributes more than 1% of what the civil aviation sector contributes.
GA is financially insignificant, much of the cost is directly linked to making sure you all aren't filling your papers with BS as way too many of them do. I know, I have worked for a number of flying schools and found that many find it easier to act like there is some sort of tyranny going on in CASA then to implement a legitimate operational framework. Hell, some of them you didn't even need CASA for a non-conformance , SafeWork would have been enough!

I've followed this thread for a long time now just out of curiosity/entertainment and it reminds me of some of the 'flying schools' that are really just over 50's flying club where you sit around sipping coffee crying about rules you cant keep up with. Being able to read all this has been incredibly entertaining but It has gotten to the stage that I cannot watch a group of old men hating life and spreading hate just because they struggle to interpret regulation. Read any of Glens emails to officials and they are embarrassingly obvious to be a manifestation of tension and anger. Look at the times they've been sent too! People notice that mate.

All this energy acting hard done too when you could have maybe just rectified your non-conformances. Many of us know you where 'shut down overnight' because your model was immoral. You cannot sell plug and play policy just so schools don't have to care about it! There is a responsibility each school has to embrace and teach and swear by! Sick of hearing pilots telling young aspiring pilots all these preconceived ideas of regulation when you are the problem.

I think for the reputation of the majority of us GA pilots, you chill out on trying to represent us. It is no longer entertaining but I am genuinely concerned for the level of emotion and hate that I have read here. 99% of what is written in this thread is an emotional opinion with 0 supporting evidence. All of the "proof" Glen has provided isn't proof at all? It is so odd how you all interoperate it and the personal attacks at some individuals are incredibly misleading and I pray someone files a defamation of character case against Glen just to reset his perspective.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but this whole thread is a deluded manifestation of harshness.

Rgds,
Jake (ARN 799286)

Tautological nonsense from a child with little life experience.

[Lead Balloon]

All this energy acting hard done too when you could have maybe just rectified your non-conformances.And what were those ‘non-conformances’, JakeFlyz?

List them.

I’m sure Glen would have been and would now be extraordinarily happy to know..

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey Jake, I'll ask again...Wot's a 'PA-28' in the scheme of things..??

Griffo

[Sunfish]

McLimit: Is there anything? Anything...................anything at all you haven't had direct personal experience of? Anything?

Why aren't you getting out there with the article for Glen then?

Already given Glen my two cents worth.

I have very, very little flying experience BUT I have far more real world business and Government experience than one or two people here and that includes you. Furthermore I can draw on the experience of sundry old farts who know much more than I if I want.

I would have been delighted to have direct personal experience of the Wine and entertainment industry, but that, sadly, eluded me.

To put that another way, The Lament of the Aged to the young: "If you only knew, if we only could".

[glenb]

Good Morning Jakeflyz

Appreciate you joining up and taking the time to post. I equally welcome the support as well as the criticism. With 10 years fulltime instructing experience (and an ARN), my assumption is that you have quite a broad depth of experience over 10 years full-time instructing, so your comments have to be considered.

As someone following, it appears that you may have missed the point.

There were no allegations of a regulatory breach that I could attend to. It was a change of opinion by someone within CASA that was later found to be an incorrect opinion by the Commonwealth Ombudsman who assures me that his is the more substantive finding.

The topic obviously stirs up some emotion in you, but I think your references to industry participants as "old farts" etc is slightly unnecessary, but I do welcome any posts.

Regarding the timing of emails, there were certainly some early morning posts, but as you may appreciate, there were and continue to be a lot of sleepless nights.

All the best, safe flying and cheers. Glen

[Torres]

Jakeflyz. You are obviously very naive.

You are suggesting that Senate Inquiries, various Coroners and the Commonwealth Ombudsman has made incorrect findings in respect to CASA?

I sincerely hope you are never b*stardised by CASA as so many other innocent people have.

[V-Jet]

I haven't followed this in depth, but what I have read has been interesting. I know CASA has more power than most Govt Depts (rightly or wrongly) but what you've been going through, Glen, is not unique to Aviation. Any Govt Dept is in a position of power and can throw their collective weight around in a similar vein with little chance of redress. As you say, it takes 'one' person/activist to get 'one' other on board and then all bureaucratic hell can be unleashed on the unsuspecting.

Robert Gottliebsen (The Oz) has for years been campaigning on behalf of small business against the behaviour of some sections of the ATO for example. There aren't many people who know the 'real' story of Hoges vs the ATO, but what Hoges did for Australia is without question. Michael Cranston was apparently Hoges' principal ATO antagonist but perhaps instead of chasing Hoges for a few million over near decades, he could have spent 5 minutes looking over his son's hundreds of millions of obvious and blatant tax fraud activities.The incidents may not be the same, but the results are - destroying the small guy with the enormous weight of bureaucratic power. I've been involved with a couple of exercises (albeit FAR smaller and less consequential) in a similar vein, one has now just ticked up twenty years.

These issues always escalate with 'you' constantly fighting their collective intelligence, unlimited budgets and the tiny egos of those who have never, ever done anything for themselves but are expert in pointing out why 'you' can't. I am forced to the opinion it is in part jealousy, and they are 'projecting' the reason for their own fears/failures onto 'you'. Also, as another wise person told me 'If you pay a group of people to find problems and investigate them, they will do just that and find incredibly complex solutions to problems they discover that never existed before.'

Keep it up Glen, I admire your tenacity.

[Paragraph377]

I sincerely hope you are never b*stardised by CASA as so many other innocent people have.
Unlikely. He would need to be more qualified than just having an ‘ARN’ to upset CASA. But if he does get pineappled by then let’s hope he doesn’t come on here complaining. Nobody will be interested in him.

[Paragraph377]

I sincerely hope you are never b*stardised by CASA as so many other innocent people have.
Unlikely. He would need to be more qualified than just having an ‘ARN’ to upset CASA. But if he does get pineappled by them let’s hope he doesn’t come on here complaining. Nobody will be interested in him.

[Sunfish]

Jake, I enjoyed your post. You sound just like I was at around age 36. I had a bagful of scientific knowledge about all sorts of things and an MBA to prove it. I had enjoyed reasonable career success up to then on the basis of analysing the tasks I was given and applying hard work, initiative, common sense and scientific principles. I had even built some safety systems that supplied data to the CAA. as it then was. My motto at the time was "if you can't measure it, then it doesn't exist." I would have approved of your opinion of Glens situation, on the basis that CASA was rational with our best interests at heart, the rules were logical and evidence based, personal considerations were irrelevent and a belief that if you followed the rules you are going to be OK.

I then leapt out of the airline frying pan and into the management consulting fire. Over the next fifteen years I had the stuffing knocked out of me. In a succession of jobs in manufacturing, IT, Government and high tech, I learned a few things; People lie all the time. People steal all the time. People do very stupid things when you least expect it. People make decisions on personal preference to benefit themselves when they should be working to the greater good. Judges and lawyers are not your friend. Contracts are worthless when one side decides they aren't useful to them any more. The "right" answer to a problem doesn't exist most of the time. And rules ? Rules????? make up as many as you like. A smart lawyer or malevolent person will twist rules into knots and get away with it. I've watched perfectly good and hard working people being made scapegoats for terrible crimes. But wait there's more. These days you also have to be politically correct as well and wade through another layer of bullshyte to get anything done.

So Yes, when you hear old farts going on about the state of the nation, they do sound like whingers and whiners to you, as they would once have to me. After all, rules are rules. Follow them and you are OK, right? Life is simple, not only simple, but linear. The old farts are coming from a different perspective. They know how hard, unfair and risky it is for people to try and get things done. Their conversation reflects a deeper knowledge.

Glens model was about helping flying schools cope with a crushing administrative burden inflicted on them by CASA - a noble cause. He is now living proof of the old saying: "No good deed goes unpunished".

[megan]

I don't mean to sound harsh, but this whole thread is a deluded manifestation of harshnessIt's not of the thread, but a fair assessment of your post.

[Telfer86]

Jake I wonder if you used your real ARN , or it is just a fake in an attempt to enhance your argument ?

Your claim to be speaking on behalf of "a number of people" who are these people & where is anything to support your assertion,
, "Jake of fakey ARN is my voice & shall be my voice on the internet"

The tone of your post is both arrogant & snide

It's baffling to see how you have any evidence to state GBs concept was "immoral" , who an earth are you to make this kind
of value judgement ?

Obviously GB and his team thought it was worthwhile , legitimate and useful , added to safety , reduced costs , promoted GA
You may disagree with what they thought , but how could you possibly claim that it is "immoral" ?

Also how do you know , what the intent of the various joiners to APTA you state "they didn't have to care about it ? "

How do you know that ?

Obviously anyone can disagree with what GB was trying to do with APTA , that you don't think it was practicable , could be implemented from
a distance etc etc , had too many members , APTA could attend site enough or conduct all tests

But the only critique you have is to issue a decree or proclamation that it was it was immoral (doing something you know to be wrong, unseemingly ,unethical) because you say so

You have not provided one shred of detail or evidence as to why APTA falls short of the mark

Why don't you detail exactly what your concerns with APTA are ?

Or do you somehow think you have the right to "call out" the GB/APTA project because it is your right to "call out" whoever you want whenever with zero evidence

What a true millennial you are , why don't you do some "shout outs" for us also

[Paragraph377]

The funniest thing about JakeARN, the millennial, is that even though he may have a beef against the older guys, a retired commercial pilot like myself will have earned more in my career than he ever will. The big money days are virtually over and a ‘millennial’ such as JakeARN will never jag so much as a R/H seat on a twin turbine.

JakeARN, stick to doing circuits at Jandakot or Archerfield, or should that be Caboolture aerodrome??

[V-Jet]

Whether you like Glen, APTA, or anyone associated with it, is either irrelevant or a minor side issue.

As Glen has pointed out many times, where were the breaches? To be shut down after years of collaborative work with the regulator by a Departmental minion with nothing better to do that day is appalling. Glen had no 'non comformances' to conform to! How do you explain that to staff? An Employer has a self imposed obligation to 'do the right thing' by people they employ. Then the reputational damage. From what I can see, Glen has carried himself in an exemplary manner against all odds - and from his testimonies on social media I suspect I would at least respect the guy in person, if not genuinely like. However, if he became Chief Pilot, CEO or MD of another aviation company tomorrow, would I choose to work for him? Only the very, very naive would leap onboard without asking themselves some extremely serious questions about the truly enormous regulatory target he must now walk around with on his back. And again, why? What did he do 'wrong'?

[Flaming galah]

Jakeflyz. You are obviously very naive.

You are suggesting that .... the Commonwealth Ombudsman has made incorrect findings

But isn’t that exactly what Glen is suggesting?

[Torres]

Maybe, I haven't been following the story close enough? I understood from previous comments the Ombudsman had acknowledged improper practice by CASA but failed to take any positive or rectification action?

Regardless of the independence of the Ombudsman, I suspect it would be a very game Ombudsman to make a finding of serious malfeasance or malpractice by CASA, it's Board or it's Minister.

The two you dropped out "...Senate Inquiries, various Coroners..." have made findings critical of CASA.

[glenb]

I am sitting here in the garden typing away on my formal allegations, which I intend to send today to the respective parties. I will publish that on here after i have sent it.

I am fully satisfied that what I am writing is the truth, it is related to aviation safety, and it is in the Public interest.

Regarding your comments regarding the Ombudsams Findings, which can be found at Post #1057. On the release of that, I wrote to Mr. Anthony Mathews, the Chair of the CASA Board asking to meet in a well-intentioned manner, with the intention of at least resolving this for all other Parties. I was refused that request on the basis that CASA would not deal with me until Phase Two of the investigation is completed.

Back later, cheers. Glen

Once again, its all about "intent"

[glenb]

Statement of Expectations for the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the Period 15 July 2019 to 30 June 2021 (legislation.gov.au) (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00977)

[SIUYA]

That's all well and good Glen, but they are only expectations of the so-called Minister that in his belief, things will happen or be the case in the future.

There is nothing in the Statement that defines any measures (KPIs if you like) to provide assurance that the expectations can, have, or will be met.

Given the Minister involved, that should come as no surprise I don't think. :mad:

[glenb]

Formal submission of allegation of misfeasance submitted to Mr Anthony Mathews, Chair of the Board of CASA

Copied in: Senator Susan McDonald, Chair of the Senate RRAT Committee.

Attachment: Phase One of Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Report.

Australian Flying Magazine- APTA before CASA action

Australian Flying magazine- APTA after CASA action

Further information on misfeasance Legal briefing No. 98 | AGS (https://www.ags.gov.au/publications/legal-briefing/br98)





14th February 2021

Dear Mr Anthony Mathews, Chair of the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

Dear Senator Susan McDonald and RRAT Committee. (for the attention of the Deputy PM if you deem it appropriate),



My name is Glen Buckley, and I am writing to each Member of the Board of CASA, and the Senate RRAT Committee of Inquiry.

Employees of CASA, like all Government employees occupy positions of trust. They are entrusted by the Government and the community to undertake important aviation safety work on the community’s behalf. With this trust comes a high level of responsibility which should be matched by the highest standards of ethical behaviour from every employee of CASA.

These obligations placed on every employee of CASA by way of administrative law, criminal law and legislation, and CASAs own procedures are intended to provide the public and industry with confidence in the way CASA employees behave, including in the exercise of authority when meeting the responsible Ministers objectives. A strict adherence to these obligations will ensure CASA has a safe, well intentioned, and effective organisational culture, and ensure that its employees act lawfully, which will optimise aviation safety.

The obligations placed on every CASA employee are found across several documents but not limited to the following.

· CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy,

· the APS Values, that CASA undertakes to comply with.

· the APS Code of Conduct, that CASA undertook to comply with. Refer Note below.

· the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. This in particular is one area where a direct link exists between specific legislative obligations and the Code. The PGPA Act provides, through the duties of officials, a set of expected behaviours necessary for high standards of governance, performance and accountability,

· CASAs Enforcement Procedures Manual, and CASAs own Enforcement Policy

· Administrative Law, Natural Justice Procedural Fairness and the Rule of Law

Note regarding CASA Employees and their obligations to the APS Code of Conduct.

· In November 2013, the Deputy Prime Minister at the time announced an independent review of aviation safety regulation.

· One of the recommendations of that Review was that “CASA adopts the Code of Conduct and values that apply to the Australian Public Service”.

· CASA agreed to this in principle and advised; “The Governments new Statement of Expectations to the CASA Board will reaffirm the requirement that CASA Staff adhere to a Code of Conduct and set of values consistent with those that apply to the APS.”

· In the Implementation Report dated 31st July 2017, CASA advised that this matter was “Completed: The latest update to the SOE issued to the CASA Board in March 2017 continues to require CASA to have a code of conduct and values consistent with those of the Australian Public Service. CASAs Code of Conduct was amended in late 2014 and aligns with the APS Code of Conduct and Values.”

The purpose of this correspondence is to formally submit allegations of Misfeasance in Public Office in support of my presentation to the Senate Estimates Committee on November 20th, 2020. A link to that presentation can be accessed here on AOPAs website Senate RRAT General Aviation Inquiry Commences – AOPA Australia (https://aopa.com.au/senate-rrat-general-aviation-inquiry/)

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. In making this formal allegation I understand that the following criteria are essential in making that allegation. I am fully satisfied that the criteria have been met.


the defendant must be the holder of a public office.
the defendant must have purportedly exercised a power that was an incident of that office.
the defendant's exercise of power must have been invalid/unlawful.
the exercise of power must have been accompanied by one or other of the following forms of 'bad faith':

the defendant must have exercised the power knowing that he or she was acting in excess of power AND with the intention to cause harm to the plaintiff (sometimes referred to as targeted malice)
the defendant must have been recklessly indifferent to whether the act was beyond power AND recklessly indifferent to the likelihood of harm being caused to the plaintiff
the defendant must have acted with reckless indifference to whether the act was beyond power AND there must have been, objectively, a foreseeable risk of harm to the plaintiff. This third form of bad faith is very controversial.
the exercise of power must have been productive of loss.




At the time of my presentation to Senate Estimates, I made allegations against 3 CASA employees. Mr Carmody, Mr Crawford, and Mr Aleck. I note that Mr Carmody is no longer an employee of CASA.

I do however fully stand behind, and formalise my allegations made in Senate Estimates against current CASA Employees.

· Mr Graeme Crawford the current Acting CEO of CASA and previous Executive Manager of the Aviation Group.

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

After a review of my information and careful consideration I am also including Mr Craig Martin the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance in my allegations of misfeasance in public office.

I am fully satisfied that these three individuals worked complicitly and collaboratively.

· They have made considered decisions and taken considered actions that cannot be justified on the basis of safety or any regulatory breaches. The detriment caused by those actions and decisions has occurred. The conduct was unlawful, and that is supported by Stage One of the Ombudsman Report.



· The actions and decisions of these CASA employees has caused harm to me and my family. It has caused mine and other businesses to close, and employees to lose their livelihoods. The detriment caused is significant and extends to many millions of dollars. These actions and decisions were deliberate and calculated, and the CASA employees were fully aware of the commercial and reputational impact that would, and did, result.



· Together they have made decisions that demonstrably reduce aviation safety. Each of the entities that were removed from APTA now have access to a significantly less resourced safety department, they have lost access to group expertise, and the sharing of group information to draw on a larger data pool and enhance safety outcomes. I am able to prepare a comprehensive safety case supporting my contentions. I note that CASA has been unable to provide any supporting safety case for their actions, which would normally have been part of their preparatory work.



· They have breached Administrative Law obligations specified in CASA Enforcement manual particularly with regards to procedures for cancelling, suspending, or varying an Air Operator Certificate (AOC) that can be found in CASAs Enforcement Manual. It is most likely that CASA will try and justify their actions by claiming that it was not a cancellation, variation, or suspension of an AOC. To all intents and purposes, it clearly was. Enforcement manual | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au) (https://www.casa.gov.au/publications-and-resources/publication/enforcement-manual)



· The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Report has found that CASA erred, and that detriment could have been caused. From my own personal experience, there can be no doubt that significant detriment has occurred.



· Have provided false or misleading information, and wilfully failed to disclose relevant information to the Ombudsman during his investigation, which was intended to affect the findings of the Ombudsman, Similarly information provided to the Senate Estimates Committee was “misleading”



· Failure to act with honesty and integrity, and with a callous disregard for the impact of their actions on my wellbeing, and that of my family, and other persons impacted by the conduct of these personnel. Their actions and decisions were not necessary, they were not compelled to make those decisions. There conduct has been bullying and intimidating in nature.



· Choosing not to follow clearly established CASA procedures.



· When presented with options, those CASA personnel would choose the option that was more likely to cause harm to me and my business, when a less harmful option and arguably more effective option was available.

I request that CASA, or preferably the Deputy Prime Minister appoint someone who is independent and unbiased to conduct an investigation into the alleged misconduct of the named Employees. The purpose of that investigation would be to ascertain the lawfulness of the actions and decisions made by these individuals.

I anticipate that this investigation would need to be conducted by a Subject Matter Expert (SME) with the required technical knowledge of the aviation industry, and preferably with experience in pilot training. My suggestion would be a CASA shortlisted applicant for the position of CEO may have the expertise and experience, and this may be a practical option that would be agreeable to both Parties.

Rather than seeking to punish any employee, I believe an investigation will provide the individuals I raise allegations against with the opportunity to defend their conduct, and this process will protect the integrity of CASA and maintain public and industry confidence in the reputation of CASA. As Australia’s aviation safety regulator this must be an important consideration

My hope is that an investigation would proceed with as little formality and as much expedition as proper consideration of this matter allows. This matter has continued for over two years, and it is time now to bring both transparency and resolution to the process. I’m sure that the CASA Board will also appreciate the opportunity to bring good governance to the matter in as short a timeline as practical.

By making these substantive allegations, it may have an adverse effect on the nominated employees’ ability to carry out their duties, and on the workplace in general. I appreciate that the CASA Board, and Mr Anthony Mathews in his role as the Chair of the Board, in consultation with the Deputy Prime Minister, will have to consider whether it is appropriate to stand these personnel aside on full pay pending an investigation, which I believe appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. I urge the CASA Board and the Deputy Prime Minister to consider the following in arriving at their considered decision.

· Any potential impact on aviation safety i.e., the safety and well-being of Members of the Public, if the conduct was to be proven. i.e., misconduct



· Potential for repetition of that behaviour that could potentially impact on other businesses and their employees. Noting that I have been contacted by many in industry that have been similarly impacted by the conduct of these same individuals in the past. All have expressed a willingness to come forward and make a submission if required. Consider also that the conduct of these same three individuals was previously the basis of an ABC investigation on the 7.30 Program. Unfortunately this link is now expired but you will have the resources to access Dying pilot tries to clear his name after fatal plane crash - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-29/dying-pilot-tries-to-clear-his-name-after-fatal-plane-crash/10396812) Also the following link contains access to questions put to CASA by the 7.30 Program. The 7.30 Program notes how they have information which contradicts CASAs assertions. CASA's Responses to 7.30's Questions (documentcloud.org) (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5023318-CASA-s-Responses-to-7-30-s-Questions.html)



· Public confidence in CASA. This matter has significant public attention with ¾ million visits to the story on Pprune. 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)



· The risk that an investigation of the allegation may be compromised by the employee’s continued presence in the workplace.



· Any risk to the safety of any other employees and their work environment by way of bullying, intimidation, or any other negative behaviours.



· Whether an allegation of misfeasance in Public Office is determined to be a significant matter.



· To what extent is the alleged behaviour within the control of the employee. i.e., was its wilful misconduct, as I am alleging that it is.



· Relationship between the alleged unlawful act and the employee’s employment.



· Any potential impact on any required security clearances



· The significance of the acts and role of CASA i.e., the safety of aviation in Australia.



· Ability to carry out duties safely and effectively.



· The Seniority of the personnel that allegations are made against and the respective expectations of them in their role, and the vision for CASA under a new CEO/DAS.

I appreciate that these allegations initiate a multistage process, with the initial stage being identifying behaviour that may amount to suspected misconduct, including receiving allegations of misconduct, followed by deciding how to handle the suspected misconduct, and considering whether it is necessary to suspend the employee and any review of that decision.

This is a complicated matter that is best attended to initially with an aural presentation. I anticipate that would take up to two hours, and I would invite Mr Mathews the Chair of the Board to bring along any CASA personnel that he requires, and I anticipate that would include the personnel I have made allegations against.

If I am provided with that opportunity, I will present evidence in support of my allegations at that time. This matter has received wide industry interest with almost ¾ million visits to Pprune, where a significant amount of background research can be undertaken. A link can be accessed here with a link to the thread located 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) with additional discussion found on another forum Aunty Pru which can be accessed here The noble Art - Embuggerance. (auntypru.com) (https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=57&pid=11834#pid11834)

I am not making these claims vindictively or vexatiously and they are not without merit. I am someone directly impacted by the conduct of these individuals. I also respect that if I am fully liable in law for my comments that I make, and I am aware of the ramifications if my allegations were found to be without merit.

Allegations have been raised against these three individuals previously. Ex CASA employees have contacted me and expressed a willingness to come forward and tell the truth. Business owners and individuals who have been affected by the conduct of these individuals have also contacted me and provided the processes can be in place to avoid retribution from CASA they will also come forward.

My personal situation is that I have been left destitute by the conduct of these individuals, and I am not I a position to fund legal action to have my claims tested. These allegations do have a potential to impact on aviation safety. I request that you direct me to the next course of action. I appreciate that CASA will repudiate these claims and contend that there is no evidence. The purpose of my presentation would be to put forward evidence in support of my claim of misfeasance in public office against Mr Crawford, Mr Aleck, and Mr Martin.

Respectfully,



Glen Buckley

[Sunfish]

Perhaps consider:

Copy to ICAO and FAA.

One page press release and copy of your letter to every media network in Australia plus U.S. Flying Magazine and U.K. "Flight".

If you do,

Do it fast today before CASA responds.

People should consider saving this page in case it disappears.

BTW your PM box is full.

[glenb]

Perhaps consider:

Copy to ICAO and FAA.

One page press release and copy of your letter to every media network in Australia plus U.S. Flying Magazine and U.K. "Flight".

If you do,

Do it fast today before CASA responds.

People should consider saving this page in case it disappears.

BTW your PM box is full.

Working on this all day, currently working on letter to kids school to halt bankruptcy ( a big priority today),

Your advice is sound, and i will do my best.

Regarding mailbox full. There are too many sentimental messgaes in their and i dont want to delete them.

Best contact [email protected]

[Paragraph377]

Perhaps consider: Copy to ICAO and FAA.

The FAA couldn’t give a rats arse about what Australia does. Their level of incompetence and politics is even worse than ours. Look no further than the 737 MAX debacle. As for ICAO, another mob of toothless bastards that are way to busy sitting in their Montreal palace writing one sentence rules and then sending them to States like Australia and saying; “you work out how to do it and comply with what we want you to do” with minimal to no guidance. Their posturing and fence sitting over MH370 was and still is a disgrace.

You could take the FAA, ICAO, CASA and put them all through a trommel and what you get out the other side is only good for using on your garden patch.

[glenb]

I will refer to this correspondence regarding CASAs definitions i.e. employees and direct operational control later once these attachments have been approved. Cheers. Glen

[Lead Balloon]

CASA just made it up, Glen. CASA's position is, in effect, that it's the 'vibe' of Parts 141 and 142 (backed up with an incorrect assertion about the law of agency).

[Sunfish]

Glen, if this is a true statement of affairs, then it is utter crap on CASA's part. What CASA are willfully ignoring is what is called in the military: "The Chain Of Command" - a series of interlocking delegated authorities codified in law.

In the military perspective the chain is; Sovereign - GG - officers - NCO's - private soldiers.

In civil matters there is the same set of interlocking authorities: Civil contract - sub contract - contract of employment.

CASA's argument is the equivalent of asking the head of the NBN how he will exert "direct operational control" over a sub - sub contractor who willfully runs over a Koala in his Hilux during working hours.

FFS that is why we have sub contracts and employment contracts! CASA lawyers are in fact questioning their own existence - making a nonsense of the very thing that is supposed to require their services - a set of interlocking contracts. ALL contracts have an implied clause that those bound by it will comply with applicable law and regulation! You can't write an enforceable contract that says they don't have to!

I can see why CASA would do this being cynical. They don't get to bully individual schools under the APTA model. Either they argue with APTA - a bigger customer, or shut up. If they catch a school stuffing up, then they report it to APTA and APTA deals with it to CASAs satisfaction.. What could be simpler?

[glenb]

19/02/21



Correspondence to Ombudsman regarding the forced closure of Melbourne Flight Training, my business of 13 years. Submission three of four.



Dear Mark, Complaints Resolution Officer, Commonwealth Ombudsman Office,

Thank you for the offer of a telephone call to further discuss this matter, and I am confirming that I would like to accept the offer. Could you please advise some options that would be suitable for you?



Relevant Information



Attachments: Initial Correspondence sent by CASA to APTA on 23rd October 2018.

Attachment: “Employees and Direct Operational Control” This contains approximately a number of emails on the topic with a short summary below.

· Email 30/06/2019- My response to Mr. Martins email of 20/06/19 where he directed that “for the avoidance of doubt, this would allow flight training to be conducted by APTA employees only- not employees for affiliates.” I believe that this was an unlawful direction, and my perspective is supported by the Ombudsman Office. CASA seemed to determine to tie responsibility for pilots to where they derived their salary. This was clearly not accepted industry practice and would demonstrably reduce safety. My perspective was that I was responsible for all pilots, irrespective of where they derived their income, as was accepted industry practice, and continues to be. In this correspondence, I also call on CASA to define “employee” and draw on existing CASA definitions that support my perspective i.e., responsible for all pilots irrespective of where they derive their income.

· Email 16/08/19- My direct appeal to Mr. Crawford (current Acting CEO of CASA) to provide a definition of “direct operational control”. Mr. Martin copied in.

· Email 21/08/19- Email requesting Mr. Martin to acknowledge receipt of my email 16/08/19 and a further email, requesting CASA to meet with me and the Pilots Union to determine an acceptable definition of employee and direct operational control. My hope was that such a meeting could be mutually beneficial.

· Email 22/08/19- A further request to my previous emails requesting a definition of direct operational control, and confirmation that I have complied with CASAs direction that I had to transfer all MFT staff, MFT resources, and financial control to the new owners of APTA, effectively giving away my business of 13 years that had a multimillion-dollar value for absolutely nothing.

· Email 16/09/19- This is a follow-up email to my previous and still unanswered email of one month earlier.

· Email 25/09/19- Email to Mr Martin and Mr Mcheyzer (since left CASA) calling on them to define operational control. I am now in significant financial distress and am seeking an explanation from CASA

· Email 26/09/19- Email from Craig Martin that still provides no definition of Direct operational control. This email does also make some statements that I am obviously aware of a CASA Approved Head of Operations, CASA-approved CEO, an RTO Principal Executive Officer, and a business owner of 13 years, who has been a pilot for 25 years. Importantly this correspondence makes an incorrect statement, Mr. Martin writes “In October 2018, CASA advised that it would finally assess the matter on the basis of the information available on July 1st, 2019. That wording could perhaps lead the reader to believe that CASA gave me 9 months to resolve this matter. Recall that in fact, CASA gave me only 7 days surety of operations. A number of short-term interim approvals to operate were issued, over the 8 months but the restrictions on the business's ability to trade remained. With me, and my parent's funds exhausted, including the sale of the family home, APTA was by now sold as of June 30th (the day earlier)

· Email 10th October 2019 Further request for a definition of direct operational control.

· Email 20th November 2019 a further email to Craig Martin seeking a definition of Direct operational control. Legal issues are now developing with suppliers and staff who have been affected, and I am desperate to get an explanation for upcoming court appearances as a result of MFT being closed down by CASA.

Link to Prune: A chat forum on my matter that has over 1500 comments, and ¾ million visits; 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)



Executive Summary



As you are aware, there are three separate and distinct issues.

Issue 1. CASA closing down APTA without any prior notice by placing restrictions on its ability to trade that deprived it of revenue, and that the CASA personnel involved would have been fully aware that those restrictions would lead to the business's closure. As you are aware, I am firmly of the belief that had no basis in law, and that is clearly supported by the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Report, where he identified that CASA had no basis in law and that CASAs actions had the potential to cause detriment, which I clearly contend that it has. This was a complete reversal of my business overnight, which had been designed with CASA over a two-year period, approved, audited, and recommended by CASA. I have attended to this in my second submission. I have contacted the Chair of the Board of CASA, Mr. Anthony Mathews, but he has advised CASA will not interact with me until the Ombudsman Report is finalized.

Issue 2. The CASA direction that my flying school of was an “unauthorized operation. The business that had been trading for 13 years was closed by the actions and decisions of some CASA personnel., and the subject of this correspondence. Of all the action that CASA took against me and my businesses, I feel this is the most inexplicable, and arguably caused the most damage.

Issue 3. The direction that the CASA Region Manager sent to my Employer that my continuing employment was “not tenable.” The impact of that on my reputation and my ability to remain in the aviation industry. I am firmly of the opinion that this direction had no basis in law. It certainly had no basis in safety. It had a significant impact on me financially, reputationally, and on my wellbeing, and obviously that of my family. I have attended to this matter in my first submission.

I have now made a submission against issue 1 and Issue 3.

In this correspondence I am referring specifically to Issue 2, being the closure of my established business, Melbourne Flight Training by the actions and decisions of a limited number of CASA personnel.

To clarify the chronological order, this was the second stage, and occurred just prior to CASAs direction to my Employer that my continuing employment was not tenable, but after the forced sale of APTA at nominal value due to restrictions on its ability to trade. i.e. no surety of operations from July 1st2019.

This correspondence is my third submission, with the fourth and final submission to follow, that being the impact of CASAs action on my staff, my students, my suppliers, the flying schools, other businesses, and me and my family. In my opinion that final submission is significant. I am alleging that CASA personnel, made deliberate and considered actions and decisions, they were fully aware of the commercial implications on mine and other businesses. This applies to their conduct from the date of sending that initial correspondence on 23rd October 2018, through until the loss of the business 8 months later. Throughout the 8 months, I made repeated please to CASA to resolve this matter due to the commercial impact.

To the purpose of this current correspondence, which requires an appreciation of the following underpinning knowledge.

· The initial notification from CASA of 23rd October 2018 had a paragraph titled “unauthorized operations”. (that document is attached)

· It listed 5 companies that were allegedly conducting “unauthorized operations”.

· One of those 5 companies listed was Melbourne Flight Training (MFT)

· MFT was my own flying school that I had been operating for the previous 13 years.

My question on this topic. How could Melbourne Flight Training possibly overnight become an “unauthorised operation”, when it was operating EXACTLY the same way, and with the same structure that it had for the previous 13 years? This was incomprehensible. It made absolutely no sense at all. How could my own flying school that had delivered industry-leading levels of safety and compliance, with absolutely no allegations against it at all by CASA, suddenly become an unauthorised operation, and advised that it was to be shutdown. All of this with only 7 days’ notice. This was truly incomprehensible. On that basis, CASA should have written to every flying school in Australia. It was truly absurd. I have made multiple requests to CASA to have this clarified, all have been ignored. My hope is that the Ombudsman’s Office is able to obtain an explanation from CASA, if indeed there is one, and determine if CASA conduct seemed lawful and reasonable in the circumstances.



Initial impact of the CASA action



As you can imagine, the notification that my own school MFT, where my family derived their livelihood was now threatened with a cessation of operations in 7 days, and that CASA was likely taking enforcement action came as a shock and was totally unexpected. I could not understand why I was being targeted, and not every other school in Australia. This was extremely traumatic, and more so because CASA was in the process of shutting down APTA, a CASA approved structure that many businesses depended on for their continued operations.

There were no aircraft accidents or incidents at all. There were no regulatory breaches. I knew this school backwards, after all, I had set it up over a decade prior. For some inexplicable reason, my business had become an unauthorized operation as deemed by CASA overnight and with no prior warning.

The impact of that initial action on MFT was commercially fatal.

My flying school was immediately unable to enroll new students. It was unable to conduct any marketing. The existing staff immediately become concerned about ongoing employment, I was unable to recruit new talent to the organisation, ongoing contractual obligations to suppliers are in doubt, obligations to financial institutions become difficult to meet with revenue streams restricted. Its reputation was decimated as word spread that CASA was shutting down MFT. Potential customers assume that CASA is closing down the business on safety concerns when that is clearly not the case.

The business was instantly and immediately crippled. The costs remained i.e., rents, leases, contracts, salaries, insurance, etc but revenue was halted. This determination that MFT was an unauthorised operation was inexplicable, but the damage was very real.



Further Information



It's important to understand the difference between APTA and MFT. Whilst APTA was the CASA approved system that was authorised by CASA 18 months prior, my “business” where my family derived their livelihood was in fact Melbourne Flight Training, the flying school that I had established 13 years earlier with my closest friend and had been my source of income throughout that time. APTA was the overriding system to ensure my flying school and initially, nine others could continue operations in the more burdensome Part 141/142 legislative environment that was only just introduced.

This matter was never resolved with CASA. MFT operated as best it could over the 8 months, as an unauthorised operation, and once I had sold APTA under duress, CASA directed their attention to my remaining business, my flying school MFT. In a previously undefined CASA term, the CASA Region Manager (who had no experience in the flight training sector of the industry) directed that in order for CASA to be assured of Direct Operational Control, I had to transfer my staff, students, resources, and financial control of the business MFT to the new owners of APTA, or MFT would have to cease operations.

I complied with CASAs request. By now, I was financially and emotionally drained after 8 months of trying to bring common sense and good intent to the process. I was not in a good place so to speak and resigned myself to the loss of the business. Any peace of mind came from the fact that the new owners of APTA would keep me on as an employee. At this stage, I did not know that only weeks later, CASA would send a direction to my new Employer that my continuing employment was untenable. But I have covered that in my first submission.



Ongoing Impact of CASA Action



After I complied with the CASA direction to transfer my school MFT to the new owners of APTA. When CASA made the direction that I had to transfer all my staff, students, and full financial control to the new owners of APTA. This direction had no basis in law. As you can imagine, as soon as I transferred my staff, students, and full financial control to the new owners of APTA, I was left with nothing. I no longer had any way to derive my livelihood. A Business

This created a number of difficulties for me. The first priority was that I had to minimise the impact on staff. If I was to transfer all of my staff as CASA required, what happens to their accrued annual leave, long service leave etc. I was being forced to transfer my staff to another Company. The attached correspondence shows my attempts to resolve this matter. I was effectively being forced to terminate my staff.

Many students elected to continue on their training with other providers, but their training was significantly impacted by the closure of APTA.

I have a number of impending court cases as a result of this. My business was forced into closure by CASA, but many contractual obligations remain for printers, telecommunications, internet etc. I have been left with no way to meet these contractual obligations, and it highly likely that I will be declared bankrupt. You will recall that CASA sent the direction to my Employer that my continuing employment was no longer tenable.

The loss of MFT had a significant impact on me, as it was more than just a business to derive my livelihood, it was far far more to me than that, although I will attend to that in my next correspondence.

For clarity on this matter, I do not believe that CASA had any basis at all to direct me to advise that MFT was an unauthorised operation or to direct me to transfer my staff, students and resources to another entity. The impact on me has been significant, and as you can imagine impacted the future security of me and my family.



Thank you for considering this matter, and I look forward to the opportunity to chat on the phone.



Cheers. Glen Buckley

[Lead Balloon]

Glen, if this is a true statement of affairs, then it is utter crap on CASA's part. ..Here is the key passage from correspondence from CASA to Glen: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.I note, as I noted earlier, that, remarkably, not a single legislative provision is cited to support that assertion. It is, in effect, merely an assertion about the 'vibe' of Parts 141 and 142.

It is regulation conjured in the mind of a complicator.

As you've noted, vast amounts of important, complex activity are carried out in the real world through subcontractors and the employees of subcontractors, none of whom are in any respect the agents of the prime contractor.

Glen added a clause to the contracts with APTA members, to make clear that APTA had regulatory aviation safety responsibility for their activities. CASA then 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).That was, as a matter of practicality, the death knell for the APTA model.

[glenb]

FYI, you are very much on my Christmas card list!

[glenb]

i will deal with this in more detail later. The CAR 5 legislation may not have been written for my business model, but Part 141 and 142 was. in fact it was called the legislation for contracted training and checking. It’s exactly what 141 and 142 was.

I still clearly remember a CASA FOI saying we were the first Management Team that understood what 141 and 142 was about.in front of industry witnesses who clearly recall it.

it’s all about intent

[Sunfish]

Quick question. I understand CASA is looking to recruit and appoint a new DAS/CEO...

I assume anyone contemplating accepting such an appointment would do due diligence.

What person would take the job with this steaming turd of a case hanging overhead?

[Lead Balloon]

The sort of person who will be able to say, with a straight face, that what was done to Glen was necessary in the interests of the safety of air navigation. Might even believe it (which would be scary).

[Sunfish]

My opinion, is that any appointee who does NOT have a plan to favorably resolve this dispute has automatically destroyed their credibility and what is left of CASA's credibility if Glen is to be believed..

[Chris2303]

My opinion, is that any appointee who does NOT have a plan to favorably resolve this dispute has automatically destroyed their credibility and what is left of CASA's credibility if Glen is to be believed..

Seriously, I don't think that they are overly worried about their credibility!

[glenb]

To anyone following this story n detail, I have included a copy of the full contract that APTA used. Whilst the legal component may not be of interest to many, the other components i.e. the intent of APTA and other details will be integral in my argument going forward. I suggest reading from point 35 onwards if the legal aspect is of no interest.

CASAs' initial argument was that the structure was not lawful. Once the Ombudsman found otherwise, it would be expected that CASA would have to change their line of attack, as they have. Its now very much about operational control.

To say I relish the opportunity ahead would be an understatement. CASA is now drawn out to battle me on the topic of "operational control". This will allow a comparative assessment of the 350 flight training organizations "operational control". The assumption being that CASA deemed mine to be the worst in Australia, or they would have gone after another Organisation such as SOAR.

SOAR being Victoria's largest flight training provider, that recently went into liquidation with Box Hill Institute tied into the fiasco. Had CASA moved their concerns about Operational control about 500 metres away from APTA, there may have been a different outcome i.e. less aircraft accidents.

Feedback suggests to me that the matter of SOAR and BHI will be very much about the operational control of the Authorisation Holder over the operations being conducted.

Anyway a read of the attached document once approved will provide an exceptional overview of what APTA was about, and "operational control".

CASA. Its all about "intent"

[glenb]

According to CASAs 2019/20 annual report, CASA has an Aviation Safety Committee (ASC), and that Committee is responsible for the "governance of aviation regulatory and safety risk". This sounds like a high-powered committee overseeing the "governance" of these matters. I have no doubt that the Closure of APTA would have been a topic at one of these meetings. Therefore I have sent a Freedom Of Information (FOI) request.

Provided that the public is entitled to know the membership of that committee, I look forward to being advised of the membership. I am quite confident that the names Aleck, Crawford and Martin will appear on that Committee, and may be the only members. Time will tell. I suspect CASA will have a reason not to advise the public of the Committee Membership.

"24/02/21 Please accept a Freedom of Information Request from Glen Buckley.

In this correspondence, I am making a request about CASAs Aviation Safety Committee (ASC), referenced in CASAs 2019/20 Annual report, with an excerpt below. Please note my bolding.

Under Freedom of Information can you please advise

1. The membership of the ASC.
2. Can I request the minutes of the meeting or any associated documentation from the meeting that APTA was discussed at. My assumption is that my matter would have been considered at the ASC level, and there would be correspondence reflecting that.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley
In the CASA 2019/20 Annual Report the following comments are made.On track

CASA’s Aviation Safety Committee (ASC) continually reviewed data from a variety of sources to inform its decision-making and approach to surveillance and proposed policy development. Aviation safety data and trends were presented and discussed at ASC and CASA Board meetings.



The ASC produced 11 sector safety risk profiles, which are in various stages of completion in accordance with the Sector Safety Risk Profile Program. The program further informs surveillance planning through the National Surveillance Selection Plan. The governance of aviation regulatory and safety risk is managed by the ASC. The ASC met 11 times during the reporting period. The ASC reviews civil aviation safety incidents and accidents and surveillance findings which can lead to the revision of the sector safety risk profiles and/or the launch of sector-specific education activities.

[glenb]

I sent the following letter to the CASA Board, and the receipt has been acknowledged.



Request of CASA Board for a Statement of Reasons



Link to CASAs full 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)

Link to Pprune Post #1546.Correspondence to Ombudsman describing the matter. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 78 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-78.html)





24/02/21



Dear Mr. Anthony Mathews, Chair of the Board of CASA, and the CASA Board,

In this correspondence I refer specifically to CASAs obligations in accordance with CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy and most particularly the sixth item of that Regulatory Philosophy, which I have copied below. I am calling on you, and the Board to ensure that CASA acts in accordance with that commitment given to Industry.

“6. CASA communicates fully and meaningfully with all relevant stakeholders.

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


what it is CASA proposes to do
why CASA is proposing to do so
what considerations CASA has taken into account in forming its view on the matter to hand
what alternatives (if any) had been considered and why those alternatives had been ruled out
what the effects of the proposed actions are expected to be and
what recourse is available to persons who are, or are likely to be, affected by the proposed action.

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


clear and concise, using plain language and concepts wherever possible
correct and complete, authoritatively informed and fully informative
responsive to the questions or issues to hand and
timely.”

To the purpose of this correspondence.

I have several upcoming court cases that have resulted from the closure of my business, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT) when CASA determined that it was an "unauthorized operation"

These court cases are based on my inability to meet ongoing financial commitments to Suppliers, Customers, and Employees. Whilst I am not necessarily disputing the amounts, the closure of my two businesses by CASA and then the direction by CASA to my Employer that my employment was no longer “tenable” has left me with no ability to meet those obligations. There are no hidden bank accounts or Trust Funds, my wife and I would have less than $1000 in life savings at the moment. I have no assets at all having lost my house, my flying school premises, my two businesses, my employment, reputation, and well-being. I have been left with no ability to meet those commitments, and it is reasonable to assume that one of those upcoming court cases will result in me being declared bankrupt.

The notice that Melbourne Flight Training was deemed by CASA to be an “unauthorized operation” with no prior notice at all, left the business in a position that it could not recover from. This is explained in more detail by accessing the link to PPrune above.

The first of these Court cases occur in early March. It is essential that I am able to attend those Court Cases and provide an explanation of what occurred. For me to appear in Court and state that CASA closed my business down, could lead the Court to believe I had not operated safely or in compliance with regulations. That would be a reasonable assumption in the circumstances, although it is not correct. You are aware that CASA is not alleging any concerns over any matters of safety, and there are no alleged Regulatory breaches. It was a “change of opinion” by an individual within CASA, that lead to the closure of MFT.

I feel any person making a determination over this matter may find my story “hard to believe”. i.e., determined to be an unauthorized operation based on opinion and not safety or regulatory breaches.

I am effectively requesting a "Statement of Reasons", that fully explains to me the basis of CASAs decision that my flying school of over 10 years is deemed to be an “unauthorized operation” and is forced into closure.

Therefore in accordance with CASAs Regulatory Philosophy Item 6 could you please attend to each of the following queries. My intention is to produce it to the Court as support of my current situation.

Could I ask that you attend to each of the following dot points individually from CASAs Regulatory Philosophy with regards to how MFT was deemed to be an unauthorized operation an how I was required to transfer my staff, and customers to another flying school. I have encapsulated CASAs Regulatory Philosophy into the questions.

I truly do not understand the rationale behind CASAs' decision making, and in a Court, I will not be able to adequately explain the situation. Could CASA please provide a written explanation responding to the following questions about my business, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT)

1. What it is that CASA did? i.e. deeming MFT an unauthorized operation subject to closure in 7 days, and placing a requirement to transfer my staff and customers to another business not owned or affiliated with me in any way.

2. Why CASA made that determination?

3.What considerations did CASA take into account in forming its view on MFT being an unauthorized operation.

4. Did CASA consider any alternatives and why were those alternatives ruled out?

5. What were the expected effects of CASAs proposed actions?

6. What recourse is available to me as someone affected by the CASA action?

Could I also ask that in preparing your response that it be as clear and concise as practical and that CASA uses plain language and concepts where practical for my own benefit, but also mindful that my the intention would be to present it to a Court of Law. I call on the Board to ensure that document is correct, complete, authoritatively informed, fully informative, and responsive to the questions at hand, in accordance with commitments provided in CASAs Regulatory Philosophy.



Finally, as the Court Cases are soon to commence, may I respectfully request a timely response, to my fair and reasonable request. Please note I have made these requests to CASA previously, but no response has been forthcoming.



If you determine that CASA is not prepared to respond to my request, could you advise me as soon as you become aware of that decision, and I will forward a request directly to the Deputy Prime Minister as my expectation is that you have advised him off this matter.





Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Sorry my Pprune message box is full, and there are no more messages that I'm prepared to delete (too much sentimental value).

To the Ppruner who sent me the media reccommendation with initials BM.

Thankyou and i have sent an email. Cheers.

[pcx]

I'm wondering if it would be possible to subpoena some one from CASA to appear in one of your upcoming court cases to assist the court in understanding how this whole situation came about.

[glenb]

I think that’s a brilliant idea. i will write to the Court and make that request. Once done, i will post a copy here.

There are three Parties in the litigation and all would be keen to get an explanation from CASA.

Thanks for taking the time to post, cheers. Glen

[glenb]

On advice from here, i called the Court this morning and have submitted this. Cheers. Glen.


To Magistrate presiding over case number K12266238 ROCAIR v APTA. THIRD-PARTY, MFT PTY LTD. SCHEDULED 3rd March 2020.



My name is Glen Buckley, and I am the owner of Melbourne Flight Training Pty Ltd.



May I respectfully make a request for your consideration?



I believe that all Respondents to this litigation will benefit from this proposal and will support it. It is intended to bring clarity to a matter that I believe will be integral to a lawful and fair resolution. At this stage, I have not put forward the proposal to them and will leave that to the Court's determination.



This entire matter has arisen because of directions made by CASA.



If a representative from CASA was subpoenaed to appear as a Subject Matter Expert (SME) it will bring resolution and clarity to the matter. The SME within CASA is the Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs, Mr. Jonathan Aleck. I believe he would be willing to make himself available.



I have made multiple requests to the CASA Board seeking an explanation for their actions and decisions, none has been forthcoming. Please note I have copied my most recent correspondence sent to the Chair of the Board of CASA, Mr. Anthony Mathews on 24/02/21 below. I have not received a response and have included Mr. Mathews in this correspondence.



Mr. Mathews the Chair of the Board of CASA is keeping the responsible Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Mr. Michael McCormack fully informed of this matter, and I have included him in this correspondence, to ensure that is continuing to occur.



This matter is significant and has widespread industry attention. I have had the opportunity to appear before Senate Estimates and have formally raised allegations of misfeasance in public office against three CASA Employees.



The matter is extremely complicated and has resulted from the CASA direction that my business was an unauthorized operation, and CASA directed that all resources that derived revenue i.e., staff, aircraft, customers had to be transferred to another company, leading to the closure of the business. The CASA direction did not however attend to liabilities to Suppliers, Staff, and Customers, which is the current matter in dispute.



Thank you for your consideration and I apologize for the short timelines, but I am acting on the suggestion of an industry acquaintance.



Respectfully, Glen Buckley












file:///C:/Users/ready/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.png
COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE SENT TO CASA24/02/21



Request of CASA Board for a Statement of Reasons

Link to CASAs full 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)

Link to PPRuNe Post #1546.Correspondence to Ombudsman describing the matter. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 78 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-78.html)


“24/02/21

Dear Mr. Anthony Mathews, Chair of the Board of CASA, and the CASA Board,

In this correspondence I refer specifically to CASAs obligations in accordance with CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy and most particularly the sixth item of that Regulatory Philosophy, which I have copied below. I am calling on you, and the Board to ensure that CASA acts in accordance with that commitment given to Industry.

“6. CASA communicates fully and meaningfully with all relevant stakeholders.

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



what it is CASA proposes to do
why CASA is proposing to do so
what considerations CASA has taken into account in forming its view on the matter to hand
what alternatives (if any) had been considered and why those alternatives had been ruled out
what the effects of the proposed actions are expected to be and
what recourse is available to persons who are, or are likely to be, affected by the proposed action.

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



clear and concise, using plain language and concepts wherever possible
correct and complete, authoritatively informed and fully informative
responsive to the questions or issues to hand and
timely.”

To the purpose of this correspondence.

I have several upcoming court cases that have resulted from the closure of my business, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT) when CASA determined that it was an "unauthorized operation"

These court cases are based on my inability to meet ongoing financial commitments to Suppliers, Customers, and Employees. Whilst I am not necessarily disputing the amounts, the closure of my two businesses by CASA and then the direction by CASA to my Employer that my employment was no longer “tenable” has left me with no ability to meet those obligations. There are no hidden bank accounts or Trust Funds, my wife and I would have less than $1000 in life savings at the moment. I have no assets at all having lost my house, my flying school premises, my two businesses, my employment, reputation, and well-being. I have been left with no ability to meet those commitments, and it is reasonable to assume that one of those upcoming court cases will result in me being declared bankrupt.

The notice that Melbourne Flight Training was deemed by CASA to be an “unauthorized operation” with no prior notice at all, left the business in a position that it could not recover from. This is explained in more detail by accessing the link to PPRuNe above.

The first of these Court cases occur in early March. It is essential that I am able to attend those Court Cases and provide an explanation of what occurred. For me to appear in Court and state that CASA closed my business down, could lead the Court to believe I had not operated safely or in compliance with regulations. That would be a reasonable assumption in the circumstances, although it is not correct. You are aware that CASA is not alleging any concerns over any matters of safety, and there are no alleged Regulatory breaches. It was a “change of opinion” by an individual within CASA, that lead to the closure of MFT.

I feel any person making a determination over this matter may find my story “hard to believe”. i.e., determined to be an unauthorized operation based on opinion and not safety or regulatory breaches.

I am effectively requesting a "Statement of Reasons", that fully explains to me the basis of CASAs decision that my flying school of over 10 years is deemed to be an “unauthorized operation” and is forced into closure.

Therefore in accordance with CASAs Regulatory Philosophy Item 6 could you please attend to each of the following queries. My intention is to produce it to the Court as support of my current situation.

Could I ask that you attend to each of the following dot points individually from CASAs Regulatory Philosophy with regards to how MFT was deemed to be an unauthorized operation an how I was required to transfer my staff, and customers to another flying school. I have encapsulated CASAs Regulatory Philosophy into the questions.

I truly do not understand the rationale behind CASAs' decision making, and in a Court, I will not be able to adequately explain the situation. Could CASA please provide a written explanation responding to the following questions about my business, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT)

1. What it is that CASA did? i.e. deeming MFT an unauthorized operation subject to closure in 7 days, and placing a requirement to transfer my staff and customers to another business not owned or affiliated with me in any way.

2. Why CASA made that determination?

3.What considerations did CASA take into account in forming its view on MFT being an unauthorized operation.

4. Did CASA consider any alternatives and why were those alternatives ruled out?

5. What were the expected effects of CASAs proposed actions?

6. What recourse is available to me as someone affected by the CASA action?

Could I also ask that in preparing your response that it be as clear and concise as practical and that CASA uses plain language and concepts where practical for my own benefit, but also mindful that my the intention would be to present it to a Court of Law. I call on the Board to ensure that document is correct, complete, authoritatively informed, fully informative, and responsive to the questions at hand, in accordance with commitments provided in CASAs Regulatory Philosophy.

Finally, as the Court Cases are soon to commence, may I respectfully request a timely response, to my fair and reasonable request. Please note I have made these requests to CASA previously, but no response has been forthcoming.

If you determine that CASA is not prepared to respond to my request, could you advise me as soon as you become aware of that decision, and I will forward a request directly to the Deputy Prime Minister as my expectation is that you have advised him off this matter.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley”

[Valdiviano]

Glen,
May I respecfully suggest, if you need more money, start another "Go Fund Me" and I will be one of the first ones to contribute again.
Best wishes
Pat

[vne165]

Valdi - I second that.

[Bend alot]

I'm in too.

[Cedrik]

I'm in, I'm sure everybody who has had anything to do with CASA will contribute

[Breedapart]

Yes put it out there again Glenn, you cant lose.

[glenb]

Great to see a few of the old posters back, and a couple of new ones. The support on Pprune has been overwhelming. I will endeavor to get a couple of posts up here over the coming days.

One of those is a response from Mr. Mathews the Chair of the CASA Board. It's quite frustrating how CASA consistently say that I have not produced any evidence, yet it is CASA that denies me the opportunity to present the evidence. Therefore I will call for an investigation. It would be a brief and relatively straightforward matter provided it is an oral presentation, with CASA participating. It would take no more than one day for CASA and I to present the matter, with another day for questions and deliberation. At the end of the second day, there would be a very clear indication for the requirement or not, of a full investigation into the contact of these three CASA employees.

You will recall that over two years ago as this matter began to unfold, I kept quiet and tried to resolve it with CASA for 6 months before I went Public. You may recall that for 6 months I also wrote to the Board of CASA on multiple occasions seeking the opportunity to meet with any two members of the Board (to maintain integrity) and present my evidence. Those requests were consistently ignored, only exacerbating the commercial and emotional damage being caused.

You may recall that after 6 months of repeated requests, Mr. Anthony Mathews the Chair of the Board of CASA eventually facilitated a meeting. Not with two members of the CASA Board, as I had requested, but himself and the CASA Region Manager. That same individual only weeks later sent an email to my Employer that my employment was no longer tenable.

The fact is that both CASA and I want the same thing. The opportunity to present our stories in full. Submitting documents and playing email ping pong is unnecessarily complicated and highly ineffective. A face-to-face oral presentation will rapidly finalize this matter.

To those of you that have suggested the Go Fund Me again. Thankyou.

The existing fund has ample remaining funds to meet its intended purpose which was to build an investment prospectus. The next call will be for an investment opportunity and not a donation. Provided that "prospectus" put together by the large law firm indicates a high likelihood of success, the legal firm can arrange litigation funding at about 1/3 of the "win". My first option will be to go out to the industry and seek a group of investors seeking a potential return slightly lower than what the law firm is able to offer.

Thanks agin everyone, and copied below is a letter to my Local Member Ms Gladys Liu

"To the Honourable Ms. Gladys Liu, Member for the Electorate of Chisholm


My name is Glen Buckley, a 55 year resident of this electorate.

On 20th November 2020, I raised formal allegations of misfeasance in Public Office against three CASA employees, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Aleck. The link to that presentation can be found here GA Inquiry - 20/11/20: Glen Buckley - Part I - YouTube

I intend to raise a petition and present it to the Deputy Prime Minister via your office, calling for an independent investigation into the conduct of these personnel. This will also allow me the opportunity to present my supporting evidence. That investigation would only require two days and would need to be conducted by an appropriate individual with expert knowledge of the flight training industry. A suitable individual could be selected from the CASA shortlist of applicants for the recently filled position of CASA CEO.

My intention would be to submit that to your Office once it has 20,000 signatures on it.

Can I respectfully request that your Office provide me any guidance on the best way to present a petition of this nature and the associated requirements.

As this is also a matter of aviation safety, my intention is to commence this as soon as practical.

The matter can be accessed in detail via the following link which today will reach 3/4 million views on this subject. 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)

Respectfully, Glen Buckley 0418772013

[glenb]

In Post #1556 above i sent a letter to the CASA Board. Not surprisingly, their response follows

Dear Mr Buckley

I refer to your email of 24 February 2021 addressed to the Chair of the CASA Board, Mr Tony Mathews, and to other members of the CASA Board. The Chair has asked me to respond on behalf of him and the other CASA Board members.

In keeping with the advice that has been provided previously in response to your requests of the Board, unless and until you have credible new and relevant evidence and information to offer in respect of your concerns, the Board is not inclined to consider the unsubstantiated allegations you have repeatedly made against CASA and certain individual CASA officials. Neither is the Board inclined to respond to questions clearly premised on the purported validity of claims and assertions of the same nature, regardless of the reasons for which you say you require such responses.

If, in the context of any legal proceedings in which you may be involved, there is a legitimate basis on which information might properly be sought and obtained from the CASA Board, there will be processes and procedures in accordance with which the provision of such information might be required. In this instance, as in any other, should a request or demand for the provision of certain information from CASA (or the CASA Board) be made formally, under the auspices of a judicial authority or as may otherwise be authorised by law, such a request or demand, duly served on CASA, would naturally be considered and dealt with accordingly.

In the meantime, the Board is satisfied that, insofar as CASA’s dealings with you have been concerned, and to the extent the principles of the Regulatory Philosophy have been germane to particular aspects of those dealings, CASA’s actions have been consistent with its commitments under the Regulatory Philosophy, including principle 6. On that basis, the Board is satisfied that, in substance, variants of the six (6) questions raised in your email of 24 February 2021 have previously been considered and effectively addressed by CASA on many occasions.

Responses were provided to your various related and repetitive questions on behalf of the Board previously. CASA’s Industry Complaints Commissioner also addressed your related concerns on occasions.

In addition to the advice offered to you by CASA’s Industry Complaints Commissioner, beyond this, CASA provided responsive information and advice to you on at least eight (8) occasions:

23 October 2018
21 December 2018
25 January 2019
12 February 2019
20 March 2019
24 March 2019
2 April 2019 and
21 May 2019.

This chronology is illustrative, but by no means exhaustive, of CASA’s repeated efforts to convey to you precisely how and why CASA was not satisfied that your organisation was operating, or contemplated operating, in a manner consistent with the fundamental operational control requirements specified in the legislation for flying training activities under CASR Parts 141 and 142.

Challenging though the effective implementation of an alliance model of the kind you seem to have envisaged might be, recognition of the feasibility of such arrangements was implicit in CASA’s ongoing efforts to advise, guide and assist you to rectify the shortcomings and deficiencies in your attempt to execute your plan.

On this basis, the Board believes the concerns reflected in your questions have been fully and fairly addressed.

Yours sincerely

Colin McLachlan

Colin McLachlan | Board Secretary

Civil Aviation Safety Authority |16 Furzer Street, Philip ACT 2606

GPO Box 2005, Canberra ACT 2601
p (02) 6217 1318 | m 0478 302 047 | * [email protected]

www.casa.gov.au

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ui=2&ik=4ba85ec092&attid=0.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1693179158658492619&th=177f617954ef28cb&view=fimg&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ9FyeEpHtyyO0dAXm52bH-MqIXxcEbdYwW1hBiiUkWYNDNLFsALiCniDzYMcFlFbpI-g7LY-a35JafJYVIZMUmY3DHCf3hVF2q6xka7QgcudvOlspuU00OwiwY&disp=emb (https://www.facebook.com/CivilAviationSafetyAuthority) https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ui=2&ik=4ba85ec092&attid=0.2&permmsgid=msg-f:1693179158658492619&th=177f617954ef28cb&view=fimg&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ_g1Dv_Ad8XShOuXJQ_FodirOQwmwcf-UhlYf_0KpiPu70nw273-eT5YZjoP2RVkZ8RuEjY1I7nl_d70CerTNCrDytOoE5PrtG_oiDC0grGZxX9c OjMzsypXls&disp=emb (https://twitter.com/CASABriefing) https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ui=2&ik=4ba85ec092&attid=0.3&permmsgid=msg-f:1693179158658492619&th=177f617954ef28cb&view=fimg&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ9yaL-NRaSqbrvPr1ig0eLUHuGdP3qSAxbAZ4ReKdpIaWujamj8kO8RRSfkSNO8bxI Fj7KMPDXImEtAM4TsZUIhK43XP6No4Tc5V18e8fKyM9u0RN_vn5AQv8w&disp=emb (https://www.linkedin.com/company/civil-aviation-safety-authority-casa-/) https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ui=2&ik=4ba85ec092&attid=0.4&permmsgid=msg-f:1693179158658492619&th=177f617954ef28cb&view=fimg&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ_b2uPxU7DzIN9k5GYzZq9MLEKaCdb14TnlaM3NbvOWrXbVQ 0fSxMBXexb8I9U7Zw3EQcsnGnKSKYBpE81cONSgRNttE8m7zNUQkHZoq2ubw d_fdioSDzSfGvU&disp=emb (https://www.youtube.com/user/casabriefing)



From: Glen Buckley <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, 24 February 2021 3:15 PM
To: McLachlan, Colin <[email protected]>
Subject: Correspondence to all Members of the CASA Board from Glen Buckley



Request of CASA Board for a Statement of Reasons



Link to CASAs full 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)

Link to Pprune Post #1546.Correspondence to Ombudsman describing the matter. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 78 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-78.html)





24/02/21



Dear Mr. Anthony Mathews, Chair of the Board of CASA, and the CASA Board,



In this correspondence I refer specifically to CASAs obligations in accordance with CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy and most particularly the sixth item of that Regulatory Philosophy, which I have copied below. I am calling on you, and the Board to ensure that CASA acts in accordance with that commitment given to Industry.



“6. CASA communicates fully and meaningfully with all relevant stakeholders.

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

what it is CASA proposes to do
why CASA is proposing to do so
what considerations CASA has taken into account in forming its view on the matter to hand
what alternatives (if any) had been considered and why those alternatives had been ruled out
what the effects of the proposed actions are expected to be and
what recourse is available to persons who are, or are likely to be, affected by the proposed action.

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

clear and concise, using plain language and concepts wherever possible
correct and complete, authoritatively informed and fully informative
responsive to the questions or issues to hand and
timely.”



To the purpose of this correspondence.



I have several upcoming court cases that have resulted from the closure of my business, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT) when CASA determined that it was an "unauthorized operation"



These court cases are based on my inability to meet ongoing financial commitments to Suppliers, Customers, and Employees. Whilst I am not necessarily disputing the amounts, the closure of my two businesses by CASA and then the direction by CASA to my Employer that my employment was no longer “tenable” has left me with no ability to meet those obligations. There are no hidden bank accounts or Trust Funds, my wife and I would have less than $1000 in life savings at the moment. I have no assets at all having lost my house, my flying school premises, my two businesses, my employment, reputation, and well-being. I have been left with no ability to meet those commitments, and it is reasonable to assume that one of those upcoming court cases will result in me being declared bankrupt.



The notice that Melbourne Flight Training was deemed by CASA to be an “unauthorized operation” with no prior notice at all, left the business in a position that it could not recover from. This is explained in more detail by accessing the link to PPrune above.



The first of these Court cases occur in early March. It is essential that I am able to attend those Court Cases and provide an explanation of what occurred. For me to appear in Court and state that CASA closed my business down, could lead the Court to believe I had not operated safely or in compliance with regulations. That would be a reasonable assumption in the circumstances, although it is not correct. You are aware that CASA is not alleging any concerns over any matters of safety, and there are no alleged Regulatory breaches. It was a “change of opinion” by an individual within CASA, that lead to the closure of MFT.



I feel any person making a determination over this matter may find my story “hard to believe”. i.e., determined to be an unauthorized operation based on opinion and not safety or regulatory breaches.



I am effectively requesting a Statement of Reasons, that fully explains to me the basis of CASAs decision that my flying school of over 10 years is deemed to be an “unauthorized operation” and is forced into closure.



Therefore in accordance with CASAs Regulatory Philosophy Item 6 could you please attend to each of the following queries. My intention is to produce it to the Court as support of my current situation.



Could I ask that you attend to each of the following dot points individually from CASAs Regulatory Philosophy with regards to how MFT was deemed to be an unauthorized operation an how I was required to transfer my staff, and customers to another flying school. I have encapsulated CASAs Regulatory Philosophy into the questions.



I truly do not understand the rationale behind CASAs' decision making, and in a Court, I will not be able to adequately explain the situation. Could CASA please provide a written explanation responding to the following questions about my business, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT)



1. What it is that CASA did? i.e. deeming MFT an unauthorized operation subject to closure in 7 days, and placing a requirement to transfer my staff and customers to another business not owned or affiliated with me in any way.



2. Why CASA made that determination?



3.What considerations did CASA take into account in forming its view on MFT being an unauthorized operation.



4. Did CASA consider any alternatives and why were those alternatives ruled out?



5. What were the expected effects of CASAs proposed actions?



6. What recourse is available to me as someone affected by the CASA action?



Could I also ask that in preparing your response that it be as clear and concise as practical and that CASA uses plain language and concepts where practical for my own benefit, but also mindful that my the intention would be to present it to a Court of Law. I call on the Board to ensure that document is correct, complete, authoritatively informed, fully informative, and responsive to the questions at hand, in accordance with commitments provided in CASAs Regulatory Philosophy.



Finally, as the Court Cases are soon to commence, may I respectfully request a timely response, to my fair and reasonable request. Please note I have made these requests to CASA previously, but no response has been forthcoming.



If you determine that CASA is not prepared to respond to my request, could you advise me as soon as you become aware of that decision, and I will forward a request directly to the Deputy Prime Minister as my expectation is that you have advised him off this matter.





Respectfully, Glen Buckley

IMPORTANT:

[Lead Balloon]

The heart of the issue can be reduced to a handful of sentences, Glen. It's not that complex. And, with the greatest respect, continued voluminous correspondence with CASA or anyone else (other than a judge or tribunal member) will not change the heart of the issue.

CASA's position

CASA's current position is that, on its (recently conjured up) interpretation of Part 141 (and Part 142), APTA had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy CASA that APTA had sufficient operational control over its members. CASA's position is that CASA was justified in demanding from APTA "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) ", before CASA would be satisfied.

(You should note that "CASA" here just means the subjective opinion of an individual, the identity of whom you can safely guess.)

[b]APTA's position

APTA's position is that what APTA provided was sufficient to demontrate compliance with the legislation, noting that this assertion from 'CASA' is a fiction: "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.")

The practical problem

To get an authoritative statement of what Parts 141 and Part 142 actually require, APTA would have to spend years and hundreds of thousands, in a court or tribunal, battling master sophists wielding the 'safety' card. CASA will say that, absent evidence of 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 agreements between APTA and its members, those members could be out of control and creating high risks to the safety of air navigation.

If it makes you feel better to continue writing to CASA, what you should be asking for is specific authority for this proposition: "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." Ask CASA to cite a specific regulation, or a specific statement in an explanatory memorandum for Part 141 or 142, or the specific reasons of a judge or tribunal member who's considered the legislation, as authority for the proposition.

As I've said, the above is in my view regulation conjured in the mind of a complicator. The 'authority' for the proposition will, I reckon, boil down to 'the vibe' but expressed in enormously impressive but ultimately vacuous motherhood statements, assuming you don't receive the usual crickets chirping as a response. They don't care, because they don't have to.

[Seabreeze]

I think I have written this before.

Glen, CASA does not need to respond to you because their do nothing option leaves matters in limbo forever. They do not need to negotiate.

You will need to instigate legal action to recover lost funds. Only when a court date is set might you be able to negotiate an outcome. Even then they will estimate how little might buy you off and make absurd offers. You must be firm and ready to outlay for a court case, then an appeal etc. See for example the battle Peter Ridd (an individual) is having with James Cook University (large organisation with deep pockets). That one is going to the High Court.

Good luck fighting city hall.

[V-Jet]

Nice summary LB.

No one should ever forget that it is the taxpayer and not the culprits that foot the bill for negligence (or worse) in a Govt Dept. There is no personal penalty in all but a very very few cases - Depts have spent decades protecting themselves.

There is a fascinating case between Grollo and the NSW Govt currently being fought over Barangaroo. Here is one example in a log of issues.
'
On July 12, 2016, Grollo attended a meeting with Van der Laan at which he stated words to the effect of: “We have an obligation to consult reasonably, but after that we have the right to terminate the consultation and move forward with what we want"

A common theme in Govt Depts.

[Paragraph377]

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/779x450/capture_d310ab6548aed047db3f550bad68c237ee3034ef.png
Hi Glen & others
Below is a current job opening released at CASA (and another 2 similar positions that came through on my subscribed CASA emails). It's ironic that about your post, because they must be aware of the change that is required that you speak of. This job is for a Business Transformation Specialist. And other similar jobs on the CASA site too.... IF YOU CAN'T BEAT THEM - JOIN THEM .... Is that how the saying goes?

Not bad money considering ‘these unprecedented times’ that we live in. Package of around $170k to sit around an office (or is that sit at home on Zoom), drinking coffee, postulating over getting anything done, writing change management reports filled with wa#k words and bureaucratic speech, trying to look busy while having nothing to do but play with your carrot. Good job! I’m going to apply.

[havick]

Nice summary LB.

No one should ever forget that it is the taxpayer and not the culprits that foot the bill for negligence (or worse) in a Govt Dept. There is no personal penalty in all but a very very few cases - Depts have spent decades protecting themselves.

There is a fascinating case between Grollo and the NSW Govt currently being fought over Barangaroo. Here is one example in a log of issues.
'


A common theme in Govt Depts.

Just highlights that as Lindsay Rose (previous owner of jayrow), “Rules are for idiots”.

Pretty accurate seeing as the government departments don’t even know or follow their own rules.

[Chris2303]

Just highlights that as Lindsay Rose (previous owner of jayrow), “Rules are for idiots”.

Harry Day Quotes
Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men

[glenb]

Prior to Mr. Craig Martin taking on the role of CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance, the position was held by Mr Peter White. A person of impeccable credentials and a strong commitment to ethics. He traveled from Canberra to visit the Ballarat Aero Club. The Aero Club facilitated the visit and sent the attached correspondence as a follow-up in support of the APTA concept.

The letter was written by Mr. Warwick Kinscher the Secretary of the Ballarat Aero Club. This letter was prepared off his own initiative with no input whatsoever from APTA management. The letter encapsulates many of the demonstrated benefits of APTA and most particularly to the Regional sector.

Mr. White the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance responded to the aero club with the following

"Dear Warwick, I thank you, fellow Board Members and staff from BAC for your briefings on Saturday 12th January. My observations and the feedback provided provides strong support for the APTA model, and more importantly, evidence of a model that can assist ongoing flight training by regional and/or smaller aviation providers in a contemporary regulatory environment. My appreciation to you all, safe flying, kind regards, Peter White.

Unfortunately, he left CASA shortly after and Mr. Craig Martin stepped into the role.

[glenb]

I will attend to this in a post later today but I am keen to get the ball rolling regarding the PPrune "pending approval process". The post that follows later will be my correspondence to Senator Susan McDonald, the RRAT Committee and the Deputy PM with the evidence attached. Cheers and thanks all.

[glenb]

Letter sent today. Attachments are in the post above for those interested. Cheers. Glen.11th March 2021.



To the Chair of the Senate RRAT Committee, Senator Susan McDonald, and Members of the RRAT Committee.



My name is Glen Buckley, the past owner of a business that was shut down by CASA. I had the opportunity to present before Senate Estimates on 20//11/20.



This is an allegation that the CEO of CASA at the time, Mr. Carmody substantially mislead the Senate Estimates Committee, and specifically in his additional submission to the inquiry. I will provide supporting evidence.



You are aware that I have raised allegations of misfeasance in public office against CASA employees, Mr. Carmody, Mr. Aleck, and Mr. Crawford in Senate Estimates on 20/11/20 and followed that up with a written submission.



In my follow up written allegations submitted to the Senate Estimates I had withdrawn allegations of misfeasance against Mr. Carmody. My rationale in that decision making was that he had retired from CASA, and I was of the opinion that any associated safety risk was therefore reduced. Whilst I have withdrawn the formal allegation of misfeasance against Mr. Carmody, I am compelled to bring this matter to your attention.



Please note that I have included the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Mr Michael McCormack, as the Minister responsible for CASA on this correspondence for his information only. I do not require a formal response from his Office, at this stage. I anticipate submitting substantial separate correspondence to him on this matter shortly.



I have also included the Commonwealth Ombudsman as that office is currently investigating this matter. I have included the Ombudsman as it is reasonable for me to assume that if Mr. Carmody in his role as the CEO of CASA has misled the Senate Estimates Committee, it is feasible that he or one of his employees may also have provided that same misleading information to the Ombudsman's Office.



I have also included Mr. Anthony Mathews as the Chair of the Board of CASA, and the person responsible for the governance of CASA.



In the supplementary submission to the Committee dated 29/12/20, Mr. Shane Carmody made the following statement to the Committee, note my bolding.

“During that time, CASA provided Mr. Buckley with substantial guidance, advice, and individual support to assist him to satisfy CASA that organizational arrangements of the kind required were, as he claimed, effectively in place. This, as said, was something he was persistently unable or unwilling to do”



Mr. Carmody’s comments may lead the Committee to believe that I was “persistently unable or unwilling” to produce contracts that satisfied CASA, when that is most definitely not the truth, and is in fact very far from the truth. Evidence to support my contention will follow later in this correspondence, and by way of the attachments.



Mr. Carmody would have been fully aware that he was misleading the Committee when making that statement and I am fully satisfied that he mislead the Committee with the intention of deflecting the Committee from obtaining the truth. The Chair of the Senates Committee has already admonished Mr. Carmody for “less than fulsome answers” and I have made several subsequent submissions drawing your attention to those matters.



The clarification of this matter is in fact integral to my entire matter, and perhaps the single most important issue.



Several businesses have been forced into closure, many employees have lost their job, and many millions of dollars have been lost. If I am alleging misfeasance in public office, then the question of “intent” is fundamental.



At all times I needed the CASA required contracts issuer fully resolved by CASA in as short a timeline as practical. It was in fact the CASA employees that I have raised allegations against, who were frustrating the entire matter. Mr. Carmody's inaccurate statement creates the impression that the resistance was coming from my end when that is clearly not the case. It was in fact a small group of CASA personnel who were frustrating and unnecessarily delaying matters.



To the purpose of this correspondence:



Regarding Mr. Carmody’s untruthful submission to Senate Estimates, and for complete clarity.



Mr. Carmody in his role as the CASA CEO stated that my approach to the resolution of the contracts “was something he was persistently unable or unwilling to do”



The truth is that at ALL times I and my management team was ready to immediately implement any changes that CASA required from the date of 23rd October 2018 when CASA placed initially placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade. I was persistently willing to comply with any CASA requirements in the contracts. That was APTA's position from October 2018 until it could no longer continue operating with the trading restrictions in place, in June 2019.



For CASA to suggest that I was “persistently unable or unwilling” is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.



You will recall that other operators doing the same thing as I, were not required to have contracts. It was a new and unique requirement placed on my business only, that I was fully prepared to comply with, despite the fact that I thought it grossly unfair that CASA placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade at the same time they made the request. on my business only.



It was essential for the business that the matter was resolved expeditiously. Consider that CASA had placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade that cost me in excess of $10,000 per week. I fully understood my responsibilities, as they were the same responsibilities, I had been exercising for over a decade as the Authorisation Holder over multiple entities.



There is absolutely no reason either commercially or for safety and compliance reasons that I would demonstrate any reluctance at all to fully comply with CASA requirements of anything at all in the contracts that they required. ALL current legislative requirements were already met. On this matter, both CASA and I had exactly the same interest. There was absolutely no reason for me not to comply. Any suggested CASA changes would have been embedded into the contract and returned within 24 hours. i.e. at any time this matter could have been resolved within 24 hours.



If Mr. Carmody the recently retired CASA CEO, or Mr. Crawford the current CASA CEO, as someone heavily involved in this matter from the onset seriously contends that I was persistently unable or unwilling to comply then I call on the Committee to ask for one single piece of evidence in support of that contention. Can CASA produce an email, a phone conversation, a handwritten note, or anything at all to support their statement? They will not be able to do it. I can do nothing else than call it out for what it is. A blatant lie and a blatant lie made directly to the Senators and most likely to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office. It also clearly demonstrates the complete lack of integrity that the CASA Senior Executive are prepared to demonstrate in pursuit of their objectives.



Evidence that at all times I was in fact, eager to comply can be found in the following emails that are attached. Please note that I have numerous other emails that can be provided that express the same willingness and ability to comply with whatever CASA wanted in the contracts. For Mr Carmody or CASA to assert anything else, is not truthful.



It is critical that this misleading information is clarified. For complete clarity. Mr. Carmody the CASA CEO stated that the finalization of the contracts was something that I was "persistently unable or unwilling" to comply with. That is so far from a truthful representation of the facts that it must be challenged.

Below are excerpts from the full body of the emails which are attached for your reference. If you require further emails supporting my contention, please advise.



Email from Glen Buckley to CASA Executive Manager Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs dated 4th March 2019



“Thank you for the opportunity to meet last Friday, As you will appreciate I was extremely disappointed as I had hoped the suggested changes would suffice. My hope is that by CASAs lawyers meeting with my Barrister that we can arrive at a solution that fully satisfies CASA and that will be my intention. As this matter has now continued on for well over four months, it is now time to bring this matter to a close”.



“APTA wants to ensure that CASA is fully satisfied”





Email from Glen Buckley to CASA Executive Manager Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs dated 15th March 2019

“I am and have been from the onset of the process prepared to write absolutely anything into the contract that CASA requires. As the Authorisation Holder, I accept full responsibility for all operations under my Part 141 and 142 Approval. I am fully aware of that responsibility, and welcome anything that clarifies my responsibilities.”

“I assure you, that if CASA have a clear idea of what they require, they will meet no resistance from me.





Email from Glen Buckley to CASA Executive Manager Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs dated 26th March 2019

…………..“For clarity, I remain committed to a resolution, CASA has advised dissatisfaction with the current APTA contract. I am willing to place any CASA-required text into the contracts that will fully satisfy CASA.. If CASA is of the opinion that the contracts are deficient, it is incumbent upon CASA to advise what they require. A fundamental principle of determining that something is wrong, is that must know what is in fact “right”………… “simply tell me what you want, and it will happen”





Email from my father to CASA Executive Manager Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs 28th March 2019

“Glen has made it abundantly clear that he will include anything you require in his contracts. CASA wrote the regulations, is it really impossible for you to write a suitable proforma contract…?





Email from Glen Buckley CASA Executive Manager Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs dated 28th March

“I remain open to any additional text that CASA prefer or require”





Email from myself to Peter White 9th April 2019

“no need to respond, but my frustration is not all about CASA wanting to satisfy themselves with contracts, my frustration comes from the severity of the action taken by CASA to resolve this matter, the many and still unsubstantiated allegations that CASA threw at APTA, the freeze on processing regulatory tasks, the wasted weeks arguing about the aviation ruling, and the disregard for the Regulatory Philosophy”





Additional information

CASA initiated the restrictions on the APTA's ability to trade in October 2018. With those restrictions costing me in excess of $10,000 per week. That fact was highlighted to CASA in writing repeatedly. i.e. CASA personnel were acutely aware of the commercial impact of their actions and decisions. The CASA action was also significantly damaging the business's reputation in the wider aviation community and with any potential students.



It took a totally unacceptable timeframe of almost 6 months until 9th April 2019 for CASA in an email (attached) from the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and surveillance to write, ……… “I can confirm the content is acceptable to CASA. Finally, CASA had worked out what they wanted in the contracts, and I had fully embedded CASAs requirements that had only been provided days earlier. With the business now almost beyond repair I finally believed that this matter was over. CASA had finally resolved their confusion. I could now focus the business's attention on rebuilding and repairing.



Then approximately 5 hours later I get another email from the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and surveillance reversing his previous email only hours earlier and stating “Can I ask that you hold off.” That email is in the attachments. The entire matter then started up all over again.



Importantly at the time of CASA placing the restrictions on the businesses ability to trade, in October 2018 and CASA demanding contracts, CASA later realized that they already held the contracts that had been supplied to CASA on multiple occasions before they made their demand and placed trading restrictions on the business.



As a side note, could I respectfully request clarity as to whether CASAs additional submission to Senate Estimates, dated 29th December 2018, is signed by Mr. Carmody in his position as the CASA CEO at the time, or were those his personal views. Noting that Mr. Carmody advised Senator Susan McDonald that he was “retiring from CASA no later than the 24th December, Senator”.



Thank you for your consideration of the matter regarding clarification of my business and I, being “persistently unwilling or unable” to comply with CASA requirements. This matter clearly highlights that CASA has not been well-intentioned in their dealings with the Committee or I.



Respectfully Glen Buckley

[jakessalvage]

Whilst I don't agree with your description of Mr White, I'm surprised there isn't more information on this topic available under FOI to support your position. It's possible Mr White not only responded to the Ballarat Aero Club but also challenged the status quo daring to suggest CASAs legal boffins had erred in their interpretation of the legislation. Believe it or not outcome based legislation is intended to allow organisations to develop systems and processes to operate effectively in manner that demonstrates safety standards are upheld, even if the method you do this is not prescribed by the legislation. The inability of CASA staff with bipolar views on compliance to grasp outcome based legislation is a root cause of the plethora of regulations that are contrary to the intent of the philosophy. Add in biases that arise when someone like yourself creates an operating model that CASA experts hadn't thought of and the outcome is very emotional. I'm not sure what the correct term for organisational emotional intellect is but I would guess someone could write a thesis on CASAs shortcomings in this area.

[Stickshift3000]

Believe it or not outcome based legislation is intended to allow organisations to develop systems and processes to operate effectively in manner that demonstrates safety standards are upheld, even if the method you do this is not prescribed by the legislation. The inability of CASA staff with bipolar views on compliance to grasp outcome based legislation is a root cause of the plethora of regulations that are contrary to the intent of the philosophy.

CASA have no knowledge of - nor experience dealing with - outcome-based legislation. While the world commenced drafting outcome-based legislation 20 years ago, CASA still continue to draft overly onerous prescriptive legislation.

I think Glen's problem is far simpler: an incompetent officer at CASA has stuffed up, the organisation is too embarrassed to back down and will fight tooth and claw to bury the issue/s.

[Epicurus]

CASA has advertised for national managers across 5 states within their regulatory oversight division. Is that a spill of the current roles or are they new positions? I’ve also heard that the acting DAS, the arrogant Scottish git, has been earmarked for the permanent DAS role. The guvmint is allegedly giving him time to settle in and learn the role before making his appointment official towards the end of this year.

[Bend alot]

Any update on your little project Glen?

Hope you and your family had a wonderful Easter.

[glenb]

You know how graceful a duck looks on the water while underneath the feet are paddling madly.

This duck cant quack at the moment, sorry. But I am watching and will post soon. Not necessarily a lot to quack about right at this minute. It's a big lake but it's swimmable. I'm increasingly sure it is.

[Paragraph377]

I have long suspected that one of two things will happen in regards to Glen;

1. A CASA gag order and savage litigation attack against Glen will be initiated by the Governments heavily fortified legal battle line in an attempt to shut him up permanently.

2. Glen will just ‘disappear’ one day from the PPRuNe airwaves due to finally receiving a decent multimillion dollar settlement from CASA (naturally it will contain many clauses that gag Glen from making further comment). Again resulting in Glen’s sudden, overnight departure from PPRuNe.

My wish for Glen is option number 2. Either way, the game cannot continue indefinitely and
one can only poke the bear so much. I suspect there is a very good reason for Glen being so quiet of late, however we patiently wait for an update as the battle continues. Never stop fighting Glen. Never.

[glenb]

PREAMBLE FOR THE ATTENTION OF DEPUTY PM, THE HONOURABLE MR MICHAEL MC CORMACK



14th April 2021



To the Honourable Mr Michael McCormack, Deputy Prime Minister, and the Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).



My name is Glen Buckley, the past owner of a business that was closed by CASA. This action was not taken based on aviation safety concerns, nor was it done based on any regulatory breach.



The truth is that I was dealing with a “change of opinion” by CASA employees Mr. Crawford and Mr. Aleck. You will be aware of my matter, as I have also made allegations of misfeasance in public office against those two employees and one other CASA employee, those allegations made before the Senate RRAT Estimates Committee, have been followed up with a written submission, formalizing those valid claims of misfeasance in public office.



In correspondence to Mr Anthony Mathews, the Chair of the Board of CASA, dated 24/02/21 and included below, I requested a “Statement of Reasons” from CASA to explain how my business was determined by CASA to be classified as an “unauthorized operation” and forced into closure. The business had been operating safely and compliantly for over 10 years. This notification that my business was determined an “unauthorized operation” came as a complete and sudden shock. No concerns at all had been raised in the previous 12 years of operation.



That notification came on 23rd October 2018, and I had no prior indication at all that notification was to be issued. There was no prior attempt at all by CASA to raise their concerns with me about my school being an “unauthorized operation”. There had been no legislative change, and I can see no reason for that determination.



The notification that came from CASA did not state that it was a matter of safety. The CASA notification specifically identified the business as an “unauthorized operation”. There were no changes during the previous decade that I am aware of that would lead to this reversal of CASA authorization.



My family was dependent on this business to derive our livelihood, and like all small business owners, my business was intended to look after my family in retirement. The business that had a multimillion-dollar value was forced into closure by this determination by CASA that it was an unauthorized operation. The impact on the welfare of me and my family has been totally unacceptable, and most especially because there were no safety concerns and there were no regulatory breaches. To ensure that there is no misunderstanding; I have lost my business, my job, my security in retirement, my home, life savings, I have had a nervous breakdown, suffered depression, spent 8 months unemployed, and now been declared bankrupt.



This has all resulted from decisions and actions made by CASA employees, Mr. Crawford, Mr Aleck, and Mr. Martin. The effect on my family has been traumatic, and most particularly on my wife who has had a total of only 4 days free from work since October 2018, when CASA determined my business to be an “unauthorized operation”. To sit by and watch the impact of this situation on the health and wellbeing of not only myself, but so many people that I care about is totally unacceptable, unlawful, and totally unnecessary.



As you will see from the attached correspondence, I have several court cases pending, and I have already been involved in one.



My situation is difficult, as I am unable to defend myself because I do not know why CASA determined my business to be an unauthorized operation. Not only did this determination by CASA impact on me and my family, but many employees, suppliers, and staff were also impacted. Understandably these matters are now being pursued through the Courts.



If I am to appear in Court, I must have the opportunity to defend my position, and to do that, requires me to understand why CASA determined my business to be an unauthorized operation.



I advised the CASA Board that if they decided not to provide a Statement of Reason, I would be compelled to write to you in your role as the Minister responsible for CASA, as I am now doing.



At this stage I am requesting nothing from your Office apart from an acknowledgment of receipt of this correspondence, and to ensure you have the required awareness of this matter. Obviously, my hope is that some pressure can be applied from your office to ensure that CASA acts with good intent and in accordance with their own Regulatory Philosophy and most especially commitment 6 of that Philosophy.



Should Mr. Mathews choose not to provide an explanation, I will be compelled to write directly to your Office, seeking your intervention to direct CASA to provide a written explanation for their determination.



My reasonable assumption is that you have been fully briefed by Mr. Anthony Mathews, the Chair of the Board of CASA in accordance with his obligations in the Ministers Statement of Expectations of the Board of CASA. I refer specifically to Section 2 titled Governance where it states, “I expect the Board to keep the Secretary of my Department and me fully informed of CASA’s actions in relation to the requirements stated in this SOE, and promptly advise of any events or issues that may impact on the operations of CASA, including through quarterly progress reports from the Board against the Corporate Plan and this SOE”.



You will be aware that CASA took three separate and distinct actions against me and my family-owned business. Those actions lead to the closure of those businesses, and others, and impacted on students, customers, staff, and suppliers. The three stages were.

1. CASA with no warning, and never having raised any concerns at all about regulatory breaches or safety concerns, reversed their approval of my CASA-approved business APTA. CASA then promptly contacted all customers and forced them to leave.

2. CASA determined that my flying school of more than a decade was suddenly determined to be an “unauthorised” operation and was closed by CASA. The determination that it was an “unauthorised operation” leads me to believe CASA had concerns other than safety or compliance. i.e., CASA did not allege any breaches, but did determine for reasons that are not known to me, that the school of more than a decade had suddenly on October 23rd, 2018 become an “unauthorised operation”. It is this matter that I refer to in the following correspondence to Mr Mathews, the Chair of the Board of CASA.

3. After the loss of my businesses and then securing employment in the industry CASA wrote to my new Employer directing that my continuing employment “was no longer tenable”. Not on the basis of safety or compliance, but on the basis of statements that I was making publicly. CASA has not identified what those statements were, or in what forum despite my requests for them to do so. At that stage, with my reputation totally decimated by the conduct of these CASA personnel, I was left with no option but to leave the industry.

You will also be aware that:

· CASA has never put forward a safety case of any kind. The business was delivering industry-leading standards of safety nor has identified any regulatory breaches in support of their actions that lead to the closure of several businesses, and associated loss of jobs and investment. For clarity, there was no aircraft incident or accident, or any safety concerns ever raised at any stage.

· The Commonwealth Ombudsman supported my assertion that the CASA action had no lawful basis and that CASA had erred. Unfortunately, by the time the Ombudsman was able to complete his investigation the impact of CASAs action was irrecoverable, and the business had ceased.

· You will be aware that the Ombudsman found that CASA actions had “the potential to cause detriment” to occur, as it most obviously has i.e., closure of several Australian owned businesses including mine, and significant trauma to my family. That finding alone should compel the CASA Board to meet with me, and act with integrity and ethics.

· You will be aware that after this determination by the Ombudsman, I wrote to Mr Mathews requesting the opportunity to meet and resolve the matter. He refused that opportunity.

· You will be aware that I have made a fair and reasonable claim to CASA in the past to resolve this matter, and that offer has been rejected. You will be aware that at this stage, I am seeking compensation to restore all affected Parties to the position, they were in, when CASA acted unlawfully on 23/10/2021.

· You will be aware that I have made multiple requests to meet with any two Members of the CASA Board to present my allegations of misconduct and despite multiple requests over more than two years, Mr. Mathews, the Chair of the CASA Board has failed to facilitate that request. I extend the request to Mr. Mathews again in this correspondence and urge you in your position, as the responsible Minister to encourage him to demonstrate good intent and facilitate that meeting. Mr Mathews may advise you that he did facilitate such a meeting, however, the only meeting facilitated by Mr. Mathews was a meeting with himself and Mr. McHeyzer, the CASA Regional Manager. This was not a meeting with two Board Members, as I had requested. Only a few weeks after that meeting, that same Regional Manager attended that meeting directed my Employer that my continuing employment was no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly.

· You will be also aware that I have lodged a formal allegation of misfeasance in Parliament on 20/11/20 in my Presentation to the Senate Estimates Committee. Those allegations were followed up with a written submission to the Senate Estimates Committee and to the Chair of the CASA Board, Mr. Anthony Mathews. Those allegations are against the current acting CEO of CASA, Mr. Graeme Crawford. I have also raised allegations of misfeasance in public office against two other CASA employees, Mr. Aleck, and Mr. Martin. I do not make those claims vindictively or vexatiously. I understand the significance of those allegations and understand I am fully accountable for making those allegations if they are found to be unsubstantiated.

· You are aware, I have previously requested to meet with you, or your well-intentioned nominee to present my evidence of misfeasance in public office and I am again seeking that opportunity.

· You will be aware that allegations of a similar nature have been made against these individuals before and that was the subject of an ABC TV Investigative story. This story concerned a gentleman by the name of Bruce Rhoades who sadly died of cancer whilst trying to bring these same people to account for misconduct, and to clear his name.

· You will be aware that the CASA personnel involved in this matter were made fully aware, in writing on repeated occasions, of the commercial impact of their actions and decisions

· You will be aware that I have been approached by several people affected by the conduct of these same individuals and they have offered to come forward with evidence of their own experiences.

· You will be aware that Mr. Graeme Crawford, one of the CASA employees I have made allegations against now sits in the role of the Acting CEO of CASA and is being considered by both yourself and Mr. Anthony Mathews for an ongoing confirmed appointment.

· You are aware that I have made multiple requests to meet with yourself or a well-intentioned nominee and present my evidence in support of allegations of misfeasance against Mr. Crawford and two other CASA employees. You are aware that my preference would be to have CASA personnel present at that meeting to bring the greatest amount of expediency and transparency to the process.

· If my allegations of misfeasance in Public Office were to be upheld, Mr. Crawford would not be able to be permanently appointed to the role of CEO of Australia’s aviation safety regulator CASA. It seems only fair that this matter be resolved before you make your final determination as to the suitability of Mr. Crawford for the Position of CEO of CASA on an ongoing tenure. If my claims were to be substantiated you will concur that the impact of aviation safety could potentially be impacted, if Mr. Crawford were appointed permanently to that role.

I have included you in the following correspondence to Mr. Anthony Mathews in his role as the Chairperson of the Board of CASA and the person responsible for the Governance of CASA. In this correspondence, I am dealing with Item 2 mentioned in the introduction. i.e., the determination that came overnight, and without warning advising that my flying school of more than a decade was suddenly declared an “unauthorised operation” leading to its closure. I am simply seeking an explanation and expecting Mr. Mathews to comply with commitment 6 of CASAs Regulatory Philosophy.



My intentions going forward are to submit the following correspondence to Mr. Mathews. I am not asking your Office for any response other than acknowledgment of receipt of the correspondence.



I will wait 14 days to give the CASA Board, ample time to respond to my request for a Statement of Reasons.



Should CASA not provide an explanation for their actions, I will write directly to your Office requesting that you direct Mr. Mathews to provide that explanation for the reasons outlined in the attached correspondence.



My expectation is that you will concur that my request is fair and reasonable and in accordance with obligations given to industry by CASA in their Regulatory Philosophy, obligations under Administrative Law, Natural Justice, Procedural Fairness, The Ministers Statement of Expectations of the Board of CASA, ethics, and good governance by the Board.



Thank you for accepting my correspondence on this matter, and may I respectfully request an acknowledgment of receipt.



Yours respectfully



Glen Buckley.









CORRESPONDENCE TO MR ANTHONY MATHEWS CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF CASA 14/04/2021 (DEPUTY PM INCLUDED)

14/04/21



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



I wrote to you on 24/02/21 (appendix one) requesting a Statement of Explanation in accordance with my rights under Administrative Law.



You responded on 03/03/21 and you exercised your right under Administrative Law, by choosing not to provide a Statement of Reasons. Your response is included in appendix two.



The purpose of this correspondence is to resubmit Appendix One again to the CASA Board requesting a Statement of Explanation, and calling on the Board to comply with commitment 6 of CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, accessed here Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au) (https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/our-regulatory-philosophy)





Failing that, I am also calling on you to comply with:

· Other commitments given to industry in CASAs Regulatory Philosophy

· CASAs Enforcement Manual Enforcement manual | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au) (https://www.casa.gov.au/publications-and-resources/publication/enforcement-manual) and the commitments given to industry in that manual, and most particularly sections:

o Preface by Mr. Carmody

o 2.4 High-Level Principles

o 4.4 Decision-Making Considerations

o Section 6 dealing with Variations to an Air Operator Certificate. Noting these procedures were completely bypassed by CASA. These procedures can be located at Appendix One

o Appendix Two- The legal basis of regulatory enforcement.

o Appendix Three dealing with a “Statement of Reasons”

· Administrative Law, Natural Justice, and Procedural Fairness.

· Ethics and integrity.

In your correspondence dated 03/03/21 (appendix two) you referred me to correspondence on various dates. I have reviewed each of the documents that you refer to, and they do not relate to this matter. CASA has not provided any explanation as to how my business was determined to be an “unauthorised operation”.



For clarity. I am resubmitting my letter to you dated 24/02/21 requesting a response against each of the 6 dot points, I have raised. Noting those questions are drawn from CASAs own commitments in the Regulatory Philosophy.



If you truly believe that any documents that you previously referred me to in your correspondence dated 03/03/21 (appendix two), have addressed this query, could you please direct me to which particular piece of correspondence, and direct me to the part of the correspondence, doing so.



Thank you in anticipation of you complying with the obligations placed on you by CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness, Natural Justice, CASAs own Enforcement manual procedures, integrity and ethics, and potentially some direction from the Deputy Prime Ministers Office.



I refer you back to the correspondence seeking an explanation for the determination that MFT was an unauthorised operation sent to you on 24/02/21.



Respectfully,



Glen Buckley









APPENDIX ONE – LETTER SENT TO CASA BOARD REQUESTING A STATEMENT OF REASONS DATED 24/02/21

24/02/21



Request of CASA Board for a Statement of Reasons



Link: CASAs full 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)

Link: Pprune Post #1546.Correspondence to Ombudsman describing the matter. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 78 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-78.html)







Dear Mr. Anthony Mathews, Chair of the Board of CASA, and the CASA Board,



In this correspondence I refer specifically to CASAs obligations in accordance with CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy and most particularly the sixth item of that Regulatory Philosophy, which I have copied below. I am calling on you, and the Board to ensure that CASA acts in accordance with that commitment given to Industry.



“6. CASA communicates fully and meaningfully with all relevant stakeholders.

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

· what it is CASA proposes to do

· why CASA is proposing to do so

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

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

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

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

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

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

· correct and complete, authoritatively informed and fully informative

· responsive to the questions or issues to hand and

· timely.”



To the purpose of this correspondence.



I have several upcoming court cases that have resulted from the closure of my business, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT) when CASA determined that it was an "unauthorized operation”.



These court cases are based on my inability to meet ongoing financial commitments to Suppliers, Customers, and Employees. Whilst I am not necessarily disputing the amounts, the closure of my two businesses by CASA and then the direction by CASA to my Employer that my employment was no longer “tenable” has left me with no ability to meet those obligations. There are no hidden bank accounts or Trust Funds, my wife and I would have less than $1000 in life savings at the moment. I have no assets at all having lost my house, my flying school premises, my two businesses, my employment, reputation, and well-being. I have been left with no ability to meet those commitments, and it is reasonable to assume that one of those upcoming court cases will result in me being declared bankrupt.



The notice that Melbourne Flight Training was deemed by CASA to be an “unauthorized operation” with no prior notice at all, left the business in a position that it could not recover from. This is explained in more detail by accessing the link to PPrune above.



The first of these Court cases occur in early March. It is essential that I am able to attend those Court Cases and provide an explanation of what occurred. For me to appear in Court and state that CASA closed my business down, could lead the Court to believe I had not operated safely or in compliance with regulations. That would be a reasonable assumption in the circumstances, although it is not correct. You are aware that CASA is not alleging any concerns over any matters of safety, and there are no alleged Regulatory breaches. It was a “change of opinion” by an individual within CASA, that lead to the closure of MFT.



I feel any person making a determination over this matter may find my story “hard to believe”. i.e., determined to be an unauthorized operation based on opinion and not safety or regulatory breaches.



I am effectively requesting a Statement of Reasons, that fully explains to me the basis of CASAs decision that my flying school of over 10 years is deemed to be an “unauthorized operation” and is forced into closure.



Therefore in accordance with CASAs Regulatory Philosophy Item 6 could you please attend to each of the following queries. My intention is to produce it to the Court as support of my current situation.



Could I ask that you attend to each of the following dot points individually from CASAs Regulatory Philosophy with regards to how MFT was deemed to be an unauthorized operation an how I was required to transfer my staff, and customers to another flying school. I have encapsulated CASAs Regulatory Philosophy into the questions.



I truly do not understand the rationale behind CASAs' decision making, and in a Court, I will not be able to adequately explain the situation. Could CASA please provide a written explanation responding to the following questions about my business, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT)



1. What it is that CASA did? i.e. deeming MFT an unauthorized operation subject to closure in 7 days, and placing a requirement to transfer my staff and customers to another business not owned or affiliated with me in any way.



2. Why CASA made that determination?



3.What considerations did CASA take into account in forming its view on MFT being an unauthorized operation.



4. Did CASA consider any alternatives and why were those alternatives ruled out?



5. What were the expected effects of CASAs proposed actions?



6. What recourse is available to me as someone affected by the CASA action?



Could I also ask that in preparing your response that it be as clear and concise as practical and that CASA uses plain language and concepts where practical for my own benefit, but also mindful that my the intention would be to present it to a Court of Law. I call on the Board to ensure that document is correct, complete, authoritatively informed, fully informative, and responsive to the questions at hand, in accordance with commitments provided in CASAs Regulatory Philosophy.



Finally, as the Court Cases are soon to commence, may I respectfully request a timely response, to my fair and reasonable request. Please note I have made these requests to CASA previously, but no response has been forthcoming.



If you determine that CASA is not prepared to respond to my request, could you advise me as soon as you become aware of that decision, and I will forward a request directly to the Deputy Prime Minister as my expectation is that you have advised him off this matter.





Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

APPENDIX TWO- CASA BOARD RESPONSE DATED 03/03/21 TO MY REQUEST FOR A STATEMENT OF REASONS



“Dear Mr Buckley

I refer to your email of 24 February 2021 addressed to the Chair of the CASA Board, Mr Tony Mathews, and to other members of the CASA Board. The Chair has asked me to respond on behalf of him and the other CASA Board members.

In keeping with the advice that has been provided previously in response to your requests of the Board, unless and until you have credible new and relevant evidence and information to offer in respect of your concerns, the Board is not inclined to consider the unsubstantiated allegations you have repeatedly made against CASA and certain individual CASA officials. Neither is the Board inclined to respond to questions clearly premised on the purported validity of claims and assertions of the same nature, regardless of the reasons for which you say you require such responses.

If, in the context of any legal proceedings in which you may be involved, there is a legitimate basis on which information might properly be sought and obtained from the CASA Board, there will be processes and procedures in accordance with which the provision of such information might be required. In this instance, as in any other, should a request or demand for the provision of certain information from CASA (or the CASA Board) be made formally, under the auspices of a judicial authority or as may otherwise be authorised by law, such a request or demand, duly served on CASA, would naturally be considered and dealt with accordingly.

In the meantime, the Board is satisfied that, insofar as CASA’s dealings with you have been concerned, and to the extent the principles of the Regulatory Philosophy have been germane to particular aspects of those dealings, CASA’s actions have been consistent with its commitments under the Regulatory Philosophy, including principle 6. On that basis, the Board is satisfied that, in substance, variants of the six (6) questions raised in your email of 24 February 2021 have previously been considered and effectively addressed by CASA on many occasions.

Responses were provided to your various related and repetitive questions on behalf of the Board previously. CASA’s Industry Complaints Commissioner also addressed your related concerns on occasions.

In addition to the advice offered to you by CASA’s Industry Complaints Commissioner, beyond this, CASA provided responsive information and advice to you on at least eight (8) occasions:

· 23 October 2018

· 21 December 2018

· 25 January 2019

· 12 February 2019

· 20 March 2019

· 24 March 2019

· 2 April 2019 and

· 21 May 2019.

This chronology is illustrative, but by no means exhaustive, of CASA’s repeated efforts to convey to you precisely how and why CASA was not satisfied that your organisation was operating, or contemplated operating, in a manner consistent with the fundamental operational control requirements specified in the legislation for flying training activities under CASR Parts 141 and 142.

Challenging though the effective implementation of an alliance model of the kind you seem to have envisaged might be, recognition of the feasibility of such arrangements was implicit in CASA’s ongoing efforts to advise, guide and assist you to rectify the shortcomings and deficiencies in your attempt to execute your plan.

On this basis, the Board believes the concerns reflected in your questions have been fully and fairly addressed.

Yours sincerely

Colin McLachlan

Colin McLachlan | Board Secretary

Civil Aviation Safety Authority |16 Furzer Street, Philip ACT 2606

GPO Box 2005, Canberra ACT 2601
p (02) 6217 1318 | m 0478 302 047 | * [email protected]

www.casa.gov.au (http://www.casa.gov.au/)

[Fliegenmong]

I'm no Lawyer for sure,.....but is that last correspondence essentially trying to say 'we are not going to address specifically what you are requesting because we alluded to it in the past, but will not be drawn to saying anything specific?'

Confusing

What average Joe would be expected to understand this?

[Pinky the pilot]

What average Joe would be expected to understand this?

No-one, Fliegs. It would be almost certain that the whole letter would have either been written by, or certainly approved, by CASA Lawyers!

[Chronic Snoozer]

No-one, Fliegs. It would be almost certain that the whole letter would have either been written by, or certainly approved, by CASA Lawyers!

And it is a response worthy of a John Clarke sketch!

[Mr Approach]

CASA, in it's replies to Glen, refers to the Regulatory Philosophy. This is an artifact created by CASA to justify it's actions. The SOE from the MInister <https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00977> is more relevant. See 2 - Last para, 3 a, b and c, 5 (a) & (b).
Breaching their own aims is par for the course, breaching a ministerial directive should see heads roll.

[finestkind]

CASA, in it's replies to Glen, refers to the Regulatory Philosophy. This is an artifact created by CASA to justify it's actions. The SOE from the MInister <https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00977> is more relevant. See 2 - Last para, 3 a, b and c, 5 (a) & (b).
Breaching their own aims is par for the course, breaching a ministerial directive should see heads roll.
Would be nice to see people held accountable but they have, a) either departed the locality b) do not give a flying “F” as it is not their business/company/name or c) hide behind the system.

[glenb]

14th April received approximately 3PM

Dear Mr Buckley



Thank you for your email dated 14 April 2021 addressed to Mr Mathews and the CASA Board in which you discuss your intent to pursue a ‘Statement of Explanation in accordance with (your) rights under Administrative Law.’ Mr Mathews has asked me to respond on his behalf.



With regard to each of the matters raised, you have provided no new evidence for consideration and CASA is satisfied your allegations fall within the scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation currently underway. The Ombudsman’s office has not yet concluded their investigation or finalised their report on that investigation.



We await the outcome of that process and the Ombudsman’s advice to discuss these matters further.



Your sincerely



Colin McLachlan

[glenb]

Dear Mr. Michael McCormack the Honourable Deputy Prime Minister, and Mr. Anthony Mathews the Chair of the Board of CASA.


Mr. McCormack, I am calling on you to apply any pressure you can to encourage the CASA Board to act with integrity, in accordance with CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, and your own Statement of Expectations of the Board of CASA.


Mr. Mathews, you appear to have misunderstood my reasonable request.

I am not seeking to make any allegations, and this particular request has nothing to do with the Ombudsman's Office. I am not seeking a determination, I am merely seeking an explanation.

I am seeking an explanation from CASA as to how the flying school that I owned, with my own employees operating fully in accordance with all CASA approved procedures in place, operating from my building as it had for over a decade, is determined by CASA to be an "unauthorized operation", and forced into closure. This notification came with no prior notification or indication at all from CASA. It is inexplicable, from my perspective.

The Ombudsman's current investigation is not related to this matter and irrespective of this, the Ombudsman's Office has advised that an ongoing investigation does not prevent me from seeking an explanation from CASA, as I am doing now. It is not reasonable that CASA takes action against a business, fails to explain the basis of that action, and will not explain it to the individual affected, but will to the Ombudsman years later. Surely that can't be fair.

It is likely that CASA has provided that explanation to the Ombudsman's Office, so I can see no reason that the same explanation would not be provided to me, as I have been requesting for more than two years.

It is important that I am very clear.

On 23rd October 2018, CASA wrote advising that my business, Melbourne Flight Training was deemed to be an "unauthorized operation."
There was no significant change during the business's 12 years of operation that I am aware of that would deem it an "unauthorized operation" by CASA.
CASA has never explained this action to me in any manner whatsoever. I have no understanding of how CASA arrived at that determination.
I am not making an allegation, I am merely seeking an explanation



I am fully satisfied that CASA has erred and that they have acted unlawfully. I believe that the CASA Board is aware of this. I believe that there is an attempt by the Board to cover up this matter.


I have firmly bought this matter to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister, and all members of the National Party. My reasonable expectation is that I will be provided with an explanation by CASA, or directed to a previously supplied copy of an explanation if one exists.

For clarity, I am asking CASA to provide an explanation of this particular determination i.e. that my flying school became an UNAUTHORISED OPERATION. This is a fair and reasonable request.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[havick]

Dear Mr. Michael McCormack the Honourable Deputy Prime Minister, and Mr. Anthony Mathews the Chair of the Board of CASA.


Mr. McCormack, I am calling on you to apply any pressure you can to encourage the CASA Board to act with integrity, in accordance with CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, and your own Statement of Expectations of the Board of CASA.


Mr. Mathews, you appear to have misunderstood my reasonable request.

I am not seeking to make any allegations, and this particular request has nothing to do with the Ombudsman's Office. I am not seeking a determination, I am merely seeking an explanation.

I am seeking an explanation from CASA as to how the flying school that I owned, with my own employees operating fully in accordance with all CASA approved procedures in place, operating from my building as it had for over a decade, is determined by CASA to be an "unauthorized operation", and forced into closure. This notification came with no prior notification or indication at all from CASA. It is inexplicable, from my perspective.

The Ombudsman's current investigation is not related to this matter and irrespective of this, the Ombudsman's Office has advised that an ongoing investigation does not prevent me from seeking an explanation from CASA, as I am doing now. It is not reasonable that CASA takes action against a business, fails to explain the basis of that action, and will not explain it to the individual affected, but will to the Ombudsman years later. Surely that can't be fair.

It is likely that CASA has provided that explanation to the Ombudsman's Office, so I can see no reason that the same explanation would not be provided to me, as I have been requesting for more than two years.

It is important that I am very clear.

On 23rd October 2018, CASA wrote advising that my business, Melbourne Flight Training was deemed to be an "unauthorized operation."
There was no significant change during the business's 12 years of operation that I am aware of that would deem it an "unauthorized operation" by CASA.
CASA has never explained this action to me in any manner whatsoever. I have no understanding of how CASA arrived at that determination.
I am not making an allegation, I am merely seeking an explanation



I am fully satisfied that CASA has erred and that they have acted unlawfully. I believe that the CASA Board is aware of this. I believe that there is an attempt by the Board to cover up this matter.


I have firmly bought this matter to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister, and all members of the National Party. My reasonable expectation is that I will be provided with an explanation by CASA, or directed to a previously supplied copy of an explanation if one exists.

For clarity, I am asking CASA to provide an explanation of this particular determination i.e. that my flying school became an UNAUTHORISED OPERATION. This is a fair and reasonable request.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

Honestly this is the meat and potatoes of everything here. Everything else is periphery, but adds to your remedy.

even if CASA does finally provide you an explanation, it is totally unreasonable to not provide that explanation when they deemed your operations unauthorized. They left you no way to respond or make acceptable changes.

That itself is simply a miscarriage of their authority or simply incompetence that is finally brought to light publicly.

[Pinky the pilot]

And it is a response worthy of a John Clarke sketch!

Indeed! And I suspect that he would have referred to CASA's actions as being 'a fustercluck of mammoth proportions!':E

[Global Aviator]

Even when a company has a stack of ‘infringements’ a mile high it is still issued a ‘Show Cause’.

This then allows the company to well, show cause and defend the allegations or rectify.

Having read a good chunk of Glens issues even this did not happen?

[Stickshift3000]

The Australian National Audit Office has commenced an audit into how CASA plans and conducts its surveillance operations, possibly open for public contributions soon:

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/the-civil-aviation-safety-authority-casa-planning-and-conduct-surveillance-activities

[Paragraph377]

The Australian National Audit Office has commenced an audit into how CASA plans and conducts its surveillance operations, possibly open for public contributions soon:

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/the-civil-aviation-safety-authority-casa-planning-and-conduct-surveillance-activities

Folly. The ANAO are another toothless tiger who will receive the CASA treatment - bedazzled with glitter, flashing lights and disco balls. They will be fed herrings to the point where John West can’t supply any more! There will be a display of procedural manuals, flowcharts and a few robust policies on display, and then it will be over. The ANAO shall leave with a briefcase full of..............nothing.

Oh there might be an “Observation” or three, but it will all be lightweight staff. You know, a page number in the enforcement manual written in the wrong font type, or perhaps some naughty Inspector is found to be working from Version 3 of the surveillance procedurals manual when version 4 is the current one. The ANAO will dust off its trusty wet lettuce leaf, give the Scotsman a gentle tap on the buttocks and then present a rosy report to the CASA Board and the impotent DPM McCormack. Next........

[Stickshift3000]

Folly.

I concur..!

[dysslexicgod]

Tell the ANAO some war stories depictking the heroism of CASA and show them a broken thronomister with a tall story attached, maybe half an hour in a simulator plus drinks and nibbles and the job is done. Auditors know SFA about technology and risk.

[glenb]

21/04/21



To the Honorable Mr. Michael McCormack, Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the Nationals and Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

I have included you in this correspondence to Mr. Graeme Crawford, the acting CEO of CASA. Should Mr. Crawford decide not to comply, my intention will be to write directly to you, requesting your assistance in the matter.

May I request an acknowledgement of receipt of this correspondence.

Respectfully,

Glen Buckley



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



21/04/21

Dear Mr. Graeme Crawford, acting CEO and Director of Aviation Safety (DAS),

On 20/1120 in Senate RRAT Estimates Committee, Mr. Shane Carmody (CASA CEO at the time), made allegations to Parliament that I had, “assaulted and stalked CASA staff”.

These comments can be located at the 6 minute 30 second mark, via the following link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKlwOh5L9ig&t=11s

For complete clarity, I have never stalked or assaulted anybody, anywhere, at any time in my life. The allegation that I have stalked, and assaulted CASA employees is a blatant lie, made by Mr. Carmody in his presentation to the Senate Inquiry.

These are serious allegations of criminal misconduct with terms of imprisonment of up to ten years.

My reasonable assumption is that his allegations were an attempt to damage my reputation and discredit allegations that I have made against CASA personnel of misconduct. Irrespective of the motivation behind Mr Carmodys allegations they are a blatant lie.

In support of my allegations, I offer the following

· First and foremost, I am clearly stating that at no time, have I ever stalked or assaulted any CASA personnel. That is the truth.

· Second. I have made a Freedom of Information (FOI) request for any information in support of Mr. Carmody’s vindictive and vexatious allegations. Predictably, CASA could offer no document in support of the allegations of either stalking or assault.

· Thirdly, I would suggest that if a CASA Employee had been assaulted and/or stalked by me, that matter would have been reported to the Police by CASA. Prior to CASA closing my business, I had my own employees, and I am fully aware of the Employers “duty of care” to his or her Employees. The fact that no police report was ever made, would indicate that Mr. Carmody was being misleading in his statements to Parliament. Mr. Carmody has made several clearly untruthful statements about me and my situation, to the Senate Inquiry, and I have bought some those to the attention of the Senate Inquiry recently.

To the purpose of this correspondence.

If CASA stands by the assertion that I have assaulted and stalked CASA staff, I insist that CASA contact Police, assuming that they have not done so previously, submit the allegations, and let the Police determine if Mr. Carmody’s statements were truthful, and I have a case to answer. If the Police determine that I have potentially stalked or assaulted any CASA employees, that will provide me the opportunity to defend myself and steadfastly refute those allegations in a Court of Law and protect my reputation. If Mr. Carmody was blatantly lying in his presentation to the Senators, as I suggest, the matter will go nowhere.

If CASA elect not to pursue the allegations, I believe it entirely reasonable that CASA publicly fully retract those false allegations.

I do need this matter resolved by CASA either by CASA pursuing, or alternatively retracting the allegations.

I left the industry over 18 months ago, when CASA wrote to my Employer advising that my continuing employment was “not tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”

My hope is to return to the aviation industry one day, but that would require me to be deemed a “fit and proper,” person by CASA. Until this matter is resolved, these comments would preclude me from re-entering the aviation Industry, as it is reasonable to assume that CASA would not deem me a “fit and proper” person, if I have previously stalked and assaulted CASA employees.

Should CASA determine that they will not pursue the allegations, and refuse to publicly retract those comments, I will write directly to the Deputy Prime Minister requesting his intervention.

I am also aware that another option available to me is to write directly to the President of the Senate, submitting a formal response, and requesting that be incorporated into the Parliamentary record.

Mr. Carmody, referred to me by name, and I believe that his untruthful comments could adversely affect my reputation. After the direction by CASA to my Employer that my continuing employment was “no longer tenable”, I was forced to leave the aviation industry. In my current employment, those alleged charges would lead to the termination of my current employment.

I appreciate that Mr. Carmody was protected by Parliamentary privilege, and that I have no recourse in law against his blatant misrepresentation of the truth, nevertheless, my hope is that you will act with integrity and good intent, and pursue or retract the allegations.

Mr. Crawford, thankyou for consideration of my request.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copy of correspondence sent to Mr Carmody the day after he made the allegations against me in Parliament. This was also forwarded to the Deputy PM and the Senate RRAT Committee. No response has been received as of 21/04/21



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

[Alpha Whiskey Bravo]

The only thing I've seen Glen "Stalk" is the Coffee van around Moorabbin!

[Tangosierra]

Are Australian Public Servants entitled to Parliamentary Privilege when appearing before a Senate Inquiry ?

[Lead Balloon]

Yes. As with any other witnesses.

[glenb]

You raise a very valid point. I don't believe a Show Cause was ever issued. The only notification I received was that initial correspondence that i have posted way back in Post # 44.

Is that a simple request for documents, or is it a Show Cause Notice (SCN)? i don't know.

It doesn't look like a Show Cause Notice. It doesn't mention that its a Show Cause Notice?

Is that the Show Cause Notice? Does that meet the expectations of administrative law.

If you couldn't be bothered scrolling back to Post 44, i have reattached it here but it will be "pending approval" while correct processes are applied.

[glenb]

If somebody had recorded a telephone call between a CASA employee and that individual in the State of Victoria. Is that recording able to be published on PPRune or alternatively can an individual direct a person to an external link of that conversation.

The contents of that phone call is very revealing.

Cheers. Glen

[Telfer86]

Likely complicated , think not allowed to record a phone call directly in Vic (surveillance devices act) , so technically not allowed
to use a recording app etc

But if you have call on speaker phone & record that onto another device (laptop , iphone , digital recorder) you haven't broken SD act

Not sure , the reality is that phone calls are recorded all the time by all sorts of entities

[galdian]

Likely complicated , think not allowed to record a phone call directly in Vic (surveillance devices act) , so technically not allowed
to use a recording app etc

But if you have call on speaker phone & record that onto another device (laptop , iphone , digital recorder) you haven't broken SD act

Not sure , the reality is that phone calls are recorded all the time by all sorts of entities

Normally after a disclaimer: "Calls may be recorded for quality control or training purposes, please advise if you do not wish to be recorded...." or similar.

[Paragraph377]

If somebody had recorded a telephone call between a CASA employee and that individual in the State of Victoria. Is that recording able to be published on PPRune or alternatively can an individual direct a person to an external link of that conversation.

The contents of that phone call is very revealing.

Cheers. Glen

Glen, could you have the recording transcribed and then post the worded version on here? We don’t need to hear the live recording and actual voices to believe you Glen, we know CASA are c#nts. And besides, this is a ‘rumour network’ after all, so perhaps you could post the transcribed version on here and introduce it by writing something like ‘here is a transcription of a rumoured conversation that took place allegedly between Mr X and Mr Y’? Technically anything posted on this site is only a ‘rumour’.

[CaptainMidnight]

Various state and federal Acts apply.

Suggest you get direct legal advice on the specific situation rather than rely on bush lawyers, lest you get yourself in beaucoup do do ....

[Lead Balloon]

If the CASA employee was not aware of and did not consent to you recording, Glen, beware! (I think Queensland is the only place where it’s not unlawful to record private conversations without consent.)

(And calling something a ‘transcript of a mere rumoured conversation’ won’t avoid the risk. The person concerned will put ‘two and two together’ and pick up the phone to OLC...)

[dysslexicgod]

Very slick legal judo: You were "invited to comment" or "invited to respond" three times in that letter to what are simple assertions by CASA. If you were foolish enough to take the bait, then you are implicitly accepting the truth of CASAs assertions as fact. It's called self incrimination.

This is in effect a series of three "when did you stop beating your wife" type of attack. There was no "show cause" notice because that would have raised the self incrimination alarm because we all know how to answer a "show cause" letter.

Grrrrr.

[TBM-Legend]

Why does Mr Buckley continue to air his dirty laundry on a public forum about his inability to deal with his CASA issues? Free advice on here is like asking those drinking in a public bar for info on how to tell the missus I'm pie eyed yet again and late for dinner..

[Lead Balloon]

Maybe we don’t all think the same and aren’t all ‘legends’?

[TBM-Legend]

You are so correct, however I still don't see the point of seeking advice here for such a "big case" rather than getting proper legal advice. Remember CASA and Govt have the resources of the AG Department and will use the courts [ie public money] to not lose...

[glenb]

You are so correct, however I still don't see the point of seeking advice here for such a "big case" rather than getting proper legal advice. Remember CASA and Govt have the resources of the AG Department and will use the courts [ie public money] to not lose...
TBM

A valid point with a good answer. At the tail end of a 2 hour drive after a 13 hour shift and another one tomorrow, and pulled over.

I will address it by the weekend. Out of steam at the moment and typing on an iphone, pulled over 10 from home, and buggered.

Appreciate the input, i really do. If your saying it, others are probably thinking it

Respectfully, Glen.

[dysslexicgod]

Die like a poisoned rat or fight like a lion.

Is CASA going to roll over and "look after" GlenB if he shuts up? What has he got to lose?

The Australian tradition is to look out for the undergod. That OK with you?

[glenb]

Die like a poisoned rat or fight like a lion.

Is CASA going to roll over and "look after" GlenB if he shuts up? What has he got to lose?

The Australian tradition is to look out for the undergod. That OK with you?

Spot on!

By the way. An undergod is a ripper new term, but i’m assuming you meant underdog.

i have nothing to lose.

on release of this new information, i can assure you that two personnel will depart the organisation shortly afterwards.

They will have no option.

A number of very clear fundamental lies will be exposed.

I am taking legal advice on this.

The intention is to increase aviation safety, and bring a halt to bullying and intimidating tactics by the two personnel involved.

i cannot wait for my day off tomorrow

[V-Jet]

If somebody had recorded a telephone call between a CASA employee and that individual in the State of Victoria. Is that recording able to be published on PPRuNe or alternatively can an individual direct a person to an external link of that conversation

Unless you have notified all involved that any conversation is to be (or being) recorded, you are likely on a sticky wicket. Best avoided.

What is totally legal to publish (and/or discuss) are your diary entires - quite likely made very shortly after any conversation took place while it was very fresh in your mind.

[olderairhead]

https://www.employmentlawonline.com.au/able-record-conversations-managers-employees/#:~:text=The%20Surveillance%20Devices%20Act%201999%20(Vic)%2 0prohibits%20the%20communication%20or,your%20employer%20or%2 0fellow%20colleagues.

The Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic) will not prohibit covert recordings of a private conversation if the party making the recording can show it was necessary for the protection of his or her lawful interests. A person’s “lawful interests” are broader than his or her legal interests, but they cannot be interests that are unlawful: Violi v Berrivale Orchards (2000) 99 FCR 580.

Generally, a mere desire to have a reliable record of a conversation or to gain an advantage in potential future litigation is insufficient. However, if a party is in a serious dispute with another party and the question as to what actually was said is likely to be significant in resolving that dispute, it is arguable recording those words is necessary to protect a lawful interest: Chao v Chao [2008] NSWSC 580.

The recording must be reasonably necessary to protect lawful interests in existence at the time: Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 456. Making a recording because there is a possibility of some form of litigation in the future is not a lawful interest.

[zanthrus]

Phuck the lawyers I will record whatever I like to protect my own interests especially against CASA

[finestkind]

Why does Mr Buckley continue to air his dirty laundry on a public forum about his inability to deal with his CASA issues? Free advice on here is like asking those drinking in a public bar for info on how to tell the missus I'm pie eyed yet again and late for dinner..I struggle to follow your logic. A Governmental bureaucratic system that providers employees safety at the expense to the people they actually supposedly provide a service for with said individual/s not being held accountable for exercising their power incorrectly and excessively due their ability to be untouchable, needs to be called out. The high lightly of a system that is overtly administratively incompetent (yes we all know but do not see many taking the fight to CASA, easier to go with the flow than attempt to correct it when it is just administrative incompetence and unwinnable as opposed to losing your business/career/employment) also need to be called out. Perhaps I have missed the other posts that find the airing of “dirty laundry” inappropriate but on general read/feel for what has been posted find the majority of comments are not only supportive but also interested. If you don’t like the show switch channels.

[josephfeatherweight]

Why does Mr Buckley continue to air his dirty laundry on a public forum about his inability to deal with his CASA issues?
I think this is a tad uncharitable, TBM-Legend. Even if you didn't choose to side with Glen's take on the situation (I do), it certainly appears his grievances are not being attended to appropriately.
I think he has some very valid questions to ask, and given he appears to have attempted to utilise the "proper avenues" and been left without an answer, other than "bugger off", why wouldn't he try everything else?
If I lost my business, my career and my home (and I'm sure other things), I'd be trying everything I could think of to bring me some "justice". Especially when he has been wrongly accused of stalking/harassing the poor CASA staff who destroyed his business.
I normally agree with most of your posts, TBM, but not this one.
Glen, wishing you further strength in your fight!

[glenb]

Dear XXXX of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office,



Further to our phone conversation I have put together a sampling of communications that began more than 2 years before CASA reversed their approval of APTA.



I believe that CASA has also claimed that the Legal Department was not aware of APTA. The concept of shared AOCs had been accepted industry practice for many years, not only by my own Organisation but by many others. You will recall that I spent two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars working side by side with 10 CASA personnel designing APTA. The checklist that CASA used is attached as Appendix 2A.



Once every procedure was assessed and signed off by CASA personnel with the entire product going to a Peer Review and followed by the issue of the full revalidation of the business in April 2017. This was the approval that CASA legal only became awre of more than 18 months later. To be frank, the assertion by CASA is simply not the truth.



I hope you will consider this further information as part of your investigation.



Yours thankfully, Glen Buckley

[Vref+5]

What Legal claim is irrelevant, the delegate signed the approval.

[Paragraph377]

Glen, I’m not sure what other correspondence you had with CASA, but judging from the email trail between yourself and CASA (in post #1622), it would seem that your email to Massey on 25 July 2018 was the trigger point at which you poked the CASA bear. To CASA, your stern email was a “threat, an act of war declared against the big ‘R’ regulator”. From that point they became determined to stamp out some little upstart who dare lecture them and indeed question their accountability for aviation safety and due diligence. Ouch! To CASA, you had now became a very big boil on their buttocks. With each further correspondence the relationship soured. The louder your voice bellowed, the bigger a threat you became until they crushed you like a soufflé.

I feel for you mate and you have the support of many many industry folk. But CASA is an entity that has morphed into a beast so powerful that even the Minister ****s his pants and runs gutlessly in the opposite direction. When that power is given to psychopaths and sociopaths the collateral damage is not only inevitable, it’s ugly, very ugly.

As always, best of luck and best wishes.

[glenb]

Sorry Vref could you expand. Cheers. Glen

[glenb]

14/05/2021- Request for consideration of change of primary contact within CASA



Dear Mr Craig Martin, CASA Executive Manager Regulatory Oversight, (previously Regulatory Services and Surveillance)



I refer to correspondence received from you today, advising me of the following:



“I remind you that I remain the nominated CASA manager for responding to all correspondence received from you by any CASA manager or officer, including the CEO/DAS, but with the exception of the Industry Complaints Commissioner”.



It is important that I formally put this on record. I have done this in the past, but I will do so again.



As you are aware, I have raised an allegation of misfeasance in public office against you. That allegation is not vindictive or vexatious. I am fully satisfied that I have a valid basis for a claim. In my opinion you have been instrumental in causing much of the harm done to date. I have written to CASA before on this matter, requesting that you not be the point of contact.



It does not seem reasonable that l bring an allegation against a CASA employee for misfeasance in public office, and that same individual is then nominated by CASA to be the person that manages the project from within CASA. Surely that brings the integrity of the process into question.



May I respectfully request guidance on who I can raise this matter with? For clarity. I do not believe that process provides me with natural justice or procedural fairness. I am not trying to be combative, but I have a reasonable expectation that CASA acts with good intent.



I would also point out that by dealing through you, it does not provide clear lines of accountability, which are important, and CASA would appreciate the importance of clear lines of accountability.



Finally, and with all due respect. Whilst I respect your industry expertise it is outside of the flight training industry. By writing to the respective Subject Matter Expert (SME) within CASA I feel that to be more effective.



Respectfully, Glen Buckley.

[lucille]

99% of the industry is batting for you,Glen .

Keep strong!

[glenb]

Dear Mr Buckley



As the CASA manager designated to consider your queries to CASA and prepare responses accordingly, my role is largely administrative. Where necessary or appropriate, I seek input from the relevant areas in CASA, which is duly reflected in the substance of my replies.



In light of the volume and frequency of your communications, this is the most effective and efficient way to manage these exchanges. Thus, with a view to maintaining the continuity of the process by which your queries are considered and appropriate responses provided, CASA does not intend to alter these arrangements.



Your unsubstantiated allegations of misfeasance against me, which CASA and I have rejected as baseless, have no effect on the integrity of this, as said, essentially administrative process. If at any point you believe this might not be the case, you should direct your concerns to CASA’s Industry Complaints Commissioner.



Yours sincerely



Craig Martin

Executive Manager

Regulatory Oversight

Aviation Group | CASA


Is it worth writing to the ICC, or is it a waste of time. Any other suggestions?

[Lead Balloon]

Unless you get some genuine therapeutic benefit from arguing with or appealing for assistance from anyone in CASA, I'd suggest you focus on potential legal remedies.

They don't care, Glen. They literally couldn't give a toss.

[Asturias56]

Worse than that - they HATE people like you Glen -you disturb their sleep of a thousand years............... and threaten them with exposure to the light - stay with the media, the public and the lawyers

[gchriste]

Yep Glen you need to let go of this Avenue it will never go anywhere. Nothing on their end has changed in over a year so why would it now. There is only one way forward if you want to pursue. Otherwise you will just be writing the same email and letters in five years living in hope.

[Paragraph377]

It would seem that Mr Craig Martin is merely an administration person, according to his own words. He is just your regular ‘dude’ banging away at a keyboard 9 to 5, writing reports, refilling the coffee machine, shooing away the fruit flys hanging around the lunchroom rubbish bins and changing the ink cartridges in the printer (got to make sure the fax/printer is in good working order so they can send those 16:59 pm Friday show cause notices), What amazes me is that this ‘administrative manager/office girl’ gets paid around $200k to $250k per year. Not bad for a lowly admin Johnny.

[V-Jet]

Your unsubstantiated allegations of misfeasance against me, which CASA and I have rejected as baseless, have no effect on the integrity of this, as said, essentially administrative process. If at any point you believe this might not be the case, you should direct your concerns to CASA’s Industry Complaints Commissioner.
Craig Martin
Executive Manager
Regulatory Oversight
Aviation Group | CASA

If you didn't post that as humorous, Glen, then may I point out that is Champagne Comedy right there!

The 'butter wouldn't melt' drone (in Sector 7G?) signing his name at the end as 'Executive Manager, Regulatory Oversight' (with the very millenial and uber trendy || vertical lines (let me just add a few 'shift backslashes' to show I can do it just like the youngsters |||| ) suggesting you should direct your concerns to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner is hilarious! They who have no doubt already approved the response, have been fully aware of your issue since Day One and no doubt shared a donut or ten at the Kasa Kool Aid Fountain with the drone (Sturbahnfuhrer Martin) minutes before pressing 'send'.

I have always enjoyed Yes Minister. What makes me enjoy it even more is just how good and how timeless their take on exactly this type of 'governance' actually was..

https://youtu.be/WynLMGNqwqs

[sagesau]

Even the AG had to finally step down after he put his hand up and admitted he was the accused. Basic morals would should have CASA staff stepping aside from this until it has been resolved, not sending emails under their professional title claiming the Monty Python excuse (I'm not dead yet, it's not even a flesh wound).

[Global Aviator]

Glen,

I know you will keep going and plugging away at it. No doubt they expect you to eventually give up, we all know you won’t. If you need more funds please do crank up the go fund me. You will certainly need to throw a considerable amount at this.

As for one of the accused saying yeah nah it’s ok that I still conduct the ‘administrative’ process is another layer to the disgrace.

Para377 he certainly wasn’t preparing any show causes for Glen!

This is certainly Monty worthy as stated above, or in the Aussie tune Castle worthy.


Go hard.

[Lead Balloon]

Executive Manager Regulatory "Oversight"?

oversight: Noun. 1. an unintentional failure to notice or do something.

Pretty cruisy job description.

[Paragraph377]

Executive Manager Regulatory "Oversight"?

oversight: Noun. 1. an unintentional failure to notice or do something.

Pretty cruisy job description.
Perhaps CASA have been confused by a word within a word, the word being ‘sight’? Take sight out of oversight and you have a new position title of ‘Executive Manager Regulatory Sight’.

SIGHT
noun

1.
the faculty or power of seeing.


When you take into consideration that CASA like to ‘R’egulate by watching YouTube clips of naughty pilots doing allegedly naughty things, that title might suit Mr Martin.

[glenb]

18/05/21 CASE K12266238



Dear Court Registrar, Moorabbin Magistrates Court, and the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office Reference 2019-713834, and to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Mr Michael McCormack.



To the Presiding Magistrate of case K12266238

I fully respect the legal process, and I am mindful of the significant resources that have been directed to this matter by all Parties. Nevertheless, I am unable to attend the case on Thursday 20th May 2021.

I understand that I am fully accountable for what I state here, and you have my word that this is the truth. I am submitting this to you, and fully appreciate that the legal and moral obligations to tell the truth are as strong as if I was in the courtroom, and under an Oath.

My name is Glen Buckley, for the next few weeks residing at 6 Susan Court, Mount Waverley. I am the owner of the Business Melbourne Flight Training named as a Third Party in the court case scheduled for Thursday 20th May 2021.

I have already experienced two court cases related to this matter, and the last one, I found particularly difficult. I was unable to afford legal representation and represented myself. My naive assumption being that I simply needed to attend and tell the truth.

Unfortunately, my lack of understanding of this matter was misconstrued as deception, and that is not the case. Quite simply, for my own mental health, and the wellbeing of my family, I am not prepared to put myself through that again. Not without a representative from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) also appearing to explain what happened or providing me with a written explanation for me to bring to the Court.

I have made numerous requests for an explanation as you will see from the attached communication with CASA.

My best explanation that I can provide as a background.

In October 2018, Mr Jonathan Aleck the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Services determined that my two business, APTA, and MFT were an “unauthorised operation”. I was later found out that it was his opinion only, and that no external legal advice had been obtained at that stage. As stated, I was dealing with his opinion, not a law or regulation.

Later external legal advice received by CASA confirmed that Mr Alecks opinion was incorrect. That was also supported by the findings in stage one of the Ombudsman’s office investigation. Stage two of the Ombudsman’s investigation continues.

CASA placed restrictions on the businesses ability to trade. CASA advised that they would be short term restrictions. My expectation was that CASA would resolve this matter in a short time frame of approximately one week. I could not have reasonably assumed that this matter would continue for over 6 months and still be no closer to being resolved. After 6 months, with those trading restrictions still in place, it became obvious that those restrictions were not going to be lifted. My parents had already funded $300,000 to staff salaries to avoid redundancies. It was inevitable that the business had to be closed or sold.

I sold APTA for 5% of its value due to the CASA trading restrictions, including a CASA issued interim approval to operate that expired in a matter of days, with no certainty of operations was assured after that date. The new owners were taking a big gamble, hence the reduced price. Every single cent from that sale went to creditors of that business. I did not receive anything at all. The business was forced into a situation where it was effectively given away. I was to remain on as an employee, as a condition of the sale of the business.

CASA then turned their attention to my flying school, Melbourne Flight Training, that also had restrictions on its ability to trade for 8 months. CASA directed that I had to transfer all staff, students, customers, marketing, and financial control to the new owners of APTA. I had effectively been forced to give away my second business.

I do not believe this direction had any basis in law. I reluctantly complied with CASAs request. The CASA direction made no mention of who became liable for the financial obligations for the business Melbourne Flight Training. I was left with the debts that accumulated whilst the trading restrictions were in place, and still accruing, including this matter for consideration today.

After the loss of my two businesses APTA and MFT, CASA then wrote to the new owner of APTA advising that my continuing employment was untenable, based on comments that I was making publicly. Hours later I was terminated, and I did not receive any entitlements owed after more than a decade with the business.

The fact that CASA refuses to provide an explanation, makes it impossible to present before the Court, as I have no explanation, and I do not understand why this happened.

To assist you in your determination and for complete clarity

These monies that are owed are ethically and morally my responsibility to resolve. They are expenses incurred between CASA initiating their action in October 2018 through until I was forced to transfer the business i.e. customers, staff, marketing, and financial control to the new owners of APTA approximately 9 months later.

Despite my best intention, it is not likely that I will ever be able to resolve this debt and the many hundreds of thousands owed to so many businesses, customers and employees that have been impacted by this matter. My family has been left destitute by the conduct of those three CASA employees, and imminently about to be declared bankrupt, if that has not already happened.

I have continued to push the office of the Deputy PM for his intervention and submitted a formal request for compensation for affected Parties before pursuing any compensation for myself. That claim for compensation includes the other parties in this legal action.

I have made allegations of misfeasance in public office against three CASA employees Before the Senate on 20/11/20, and that was followed up with a written submission to the Deputy PM. No response has been received by the Deputy PMs Office.

Several requests over the last two years to the Deputy PMs Office requesting a meeting to present my evidence of misconduct have similarly received no response.

I continue to push this matter for the many people affected. My hope being that CASA will act in a well-intentioned manner and meet with me, so that I can pay back everybody that I have a moral or ethical obligation to, irrespective of which Party is deemed to be legally liable.

The matter has received wide industry support with over ¾ million visits to this story, on a discrete pilot’s website. Whilst I do not expect the Magistrate to review the material, it does go someway to indicating that it may have some “substance”. 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)

Regarding the Court case. I am unable to present before the Court and present my case. My reasons are as follows, and I mean no disrespect to the judicial system.

The impact of this matter has been substantial. Quite simply, I no longer have the mental capacity to deal with the fallout from this matter. I am placing my health and wellbeing as my priority. I do that for the benefit of my family who depend on me.

Eighteen months ago, I was depressed and suicidal, my family having lost absolutely everything. I had a nervous breakdown and an extended period of unemployment.

Since that correspondence in October 2018 from CASA, my wife has had a staggering 4 days free of work, as she works through every public holiday, family birthday etc trying to rebuild some modest level of future security. This is literally killing her and it breaks my heart.

I have been dealing with this matter and its fallout for every waking moment of the last two and a half years. I cannot resolve it.

My current situation is that my family has been provided a notice to vacate our current rental property, as the Landlord is selling the property. Between my wife and I, we do not have the money to afford a furniture removalist, let alone a rental bond. Our situation is grim, and was totally avoidable, but for the misconduct of those individuals. I am staring down the face of being homeless in a matter of weeks.

Quite simply, I have spent 18 months trying to get out of a very dark place and fighting not to go back there. Until CASA can provide an explanation, I am not prepared to risk it.

I recognise that by making this decision, I may have committed a regulatory breach. I will respect any determination made and commit to doing my utmost to resolve any associated financial penalties, or any other punishment applied.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley







To the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable, Mr Michael McCormack the Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)

My understanding is you have been fully briefed on this matter over the last two and a half years by Mr Anthony Mathews, the Chair of the Board of CASA. I have also written to you on several occasions since October 2018 requesting the opportunity to present evidence in support of my allegations of misconduct/misfeasance in public office against current CASA employees.

You are aware that I raised allegations of misfeasance in public office against three CASA personnel, Mr Crawford, Mr Aleck, and Mr Martin in Parliament on 20/11/20 and followed up with a written submission to your office. After many months, that correspondence remains unanswered.

You are also aware that similar allegations were made by Mr Bruce Rhoades, against those same three individuals, and that formed the basis of an ABC program into their conduct. Tragically Mr Rhoades died of cancer whilst still trying to clear his name and hold these same three individuals to account. I have his family’s approval to mention this matter. He attributed his terminal illness to the stress caused by the misconduct of those same CASA employees. His family will verify Mr Rhoades thoughts on this matter. The fact that the ABC devoted an investigative story into this matter alone, suggests that my allegations should be considered by your office, and most especially because misconduct amongst the senior executive management of CASA could potentially negatively impact the safety of aviation.

I have also advised you that senior ex CASA employees have contacted me, and offered simply, to tell the truth, should that opportunity present, and I again extend that offer to your Office.

My allegations are substantive, and there is an overwhelming body of evidence in support of those allegations by myself and other affected individuals I have written to you on several occasions over the lasty two years, seeking the opportunity to present my evidence. You have chosen not to present that opportunity.

For complete clarity.

Again, I am making a request of your office to facilitate an investigation into the conduct of those three CASA personnel. The impact of their action has no basis in safety or regulatory compliance

I respectfully request, a well-intentioned and comprehensive response from your office on this matter, as I have previously requested.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley



To the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office – Reference 2019-713834

As you are aware there are three matters being investigated by your office.


The CASA reversal of approval of my business APTA.
The determination that my flying school of more than 10 years, Melbourne Flight training (MFT) was suddenly an “unauthorised operation”, provided 7 days’ notice of continuing operations and under what CASA deemed, “direct operational control”, I was forced to hand over all customers, staff, financial and marketing control to another business. CASA made no determination on the liabilities, and therefore all liabilities fell back on me, leading to this current court case.
The direction to my employer that my continuing employment was not tenable based on comments that I was making publicly.

The correspondence above is to the Magistrate presiding over a related court case. For clarity, this is related to the second issue identified above.

May I respectfully request that the above correspondence be considered prior to your final determination as to the appropriateness of that direction.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

not sure what it means, but i got this

Good afternoon,

The Court notes the contents of your email.

The Court is expecting an Application to uplift this action to another jurisdiction and is awaiting the outcome of that. This is quite a lengthy process as it has to be considered by the Designated Judicial Officer of both Courts.



Kind regards



Regards,
file:///C:/Users/61418/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.jpg

[Thirsty]

'another jurisdiction'? Court of public opinion? Have you tried 3AW?

[Global Aviator]

To a higher court?

Glen - fire up the go fund me. You need legal representation, yes the personal approach works but it will only go so far.

Set the bar high, 500k. You have gained much more interest since the last go fund me. 500k maybe dreaming however have a crack. I know you have already spoken to the legal eagles, however go harder.

[glenb]

To a higher court?

Glen - fire up the go fund me. You need legal representation, yes the personal approach works but it will only go so far.

Set the bar high, 500k. You have gained much more interest since the last go fund me. 500k maybe dreaming however have a crack. I know you have already spoken to the legal eagles, however go harder.

Global Aviator, I love your enthusiasm, you get me very motivated. I'm sitting on the side of the road about to head into work. There are two aspects I guess. The legal argument. Commenced. Protracted, Expensive, subject to perversion by some CASA personnel with little ethics or integrity, facilitated by an impotent Board. Stressful etc

Or ethics, and integrity might prevail. The Honorable Mr. Michael McCormack might tap Mr. Anthony Mathews on the shoulder and say. I think we erred here Mr. Mathews. Ensure this is fixed fairly. Fixed fairly means, all impacted parties fairly recompensed, and an investigation conducted into the conduct of Crawford, Aleck, and Martin. I will keep pushing for the latter.

Final pieces being put to a substantive post this weekend incorporating some "new information" that i will be submitting to the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Deputy PM.

Thanks again all. Appreciated, Cheers. Glen

and because it impacts on aviation safety and is in the public interest, on here of course

[Bend alot]

Hope you and family are doing well Glen, many of us are still with you.

Cheers Bendy.

[dysslexicgod]

Glen you need a "plan B" for yourself and family. I'm worried for you.

[glenb]

I am currently very limited in what i can post. I woke up early this morning and was working through my correspondence.

I will write to the Ombudsman today challenging some information that the CASA Legal Department headed up by Mr Jonathan Aleck has provided to the Ombudsman. In my opinion that CASA Department has been responsible for providing significantly misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, presumably for the purposes of engineering CASAs preferred outcome.

CASA claims that they were not aware that APTA provided multi base coverage for different entities at the time they revalidated APTA as a Part 141 and 142 Organization in April of 2017.

Unfortunately, for Mr. Aleck, i have the email that i sent to CASA on 23rd June 2016, almost one year before CASA revalidated APTA. That email contained an overview of the concept and how i intended to present it to industry.

So for Mr Alecks department to claim that they were not aware is quite simply not the truth. I will write extensively on this matter later today, an overwhelming and interesting body of evidence is developing.

Below is part of the email sent to CASA on 23rd June 2016. Really Mr Aleck, are you still going to claim that CASA didnt know. I will also be drawing this information to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister.

In the following posts, is the information i provided to CASA, two and a half years before they became aware of APTA and reversed its approval. Trust me folks, its very challenging trying to hold the Executive Management of CASA to account, when they are prepared to blatantly lie.


I claim that CASA is deliberately misleading the Ombudsman Office

[glenb]

WHY AM I APPROACHING YOU?

I’ve owned a Flying School for 10 years now, and worked way too hard, for way too long. The Business is becoming increasingly complex to run. There are an increasing amount of what I call “tripping hazards”. I am concerned about the future of Australian Owned Businesses in the Flight Training Sector. My Business IS my Superannuation, I’m concerned somewhat for my family’s future.

I consistently strive for perfection in my Business but increasingly I feel like I cannot keep up anymore. I am exhausted by the bureaucracy associated with simply “proving” that I am already doing the right thing. I get frustrated by the Fee Help System. I need to get focussed on my Business now, but I keep getting pulled away.

Despite all this, I love what I do, and I want to do it well. In fact, I want to make my Business the best business it can afford to be. Increasingly I have been considering how I can continue to operate my Business and operate it successfully. How can I increase its potential in a time of “doom and gloom” for our Sector? I’ve come up with this proposal. I want to get 10 likeminded Schools. Schools that genuinely want to survive in the new environment and “step up to the plate”. A range of predominantly regional schools and some capital city Schools. Australian Owned Businesses that really have the intent to deliver on the Regulators requirements and maintain a robust Business. Owners that really do appreciate robust procedures designed to be Simple, Accountable and Effective can be both safer and more compliant. If they meet these criteria, they can potentially be more cost effective to deliver.

It is a challenge, we need to pool our resources, genuinely work collaboratively and assemble the very best Group Head of Operation, Group HAAMC, Group Safety Manager, and Group Compliance and QA Manager. The background work is well underway, we can do this.

My proposal is to join this concept exactly as I propose you do, assuming it potentially suits your Business. My intention isn’t to generate debate on why we are in this situation. This is the much “bigger picture”, this is the future of Australian owned sector of the flight training industry.





AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCEPT

A Group of Schools combining their Resources to share a team” of Industry leading professionals providing high levels of Safety and Regulatory Compliance. A Group Head of Operations, a Group HAAMC, a Group Safety Manager, and a Group Compliance QA Manager. Full accountability for safe and compliant operations rests entirely with me as the CEO of the organisation. I need you to be sharing the vision. By working collaboratively, we will be able to resource a pool of talent that we could not achieve individually. A team of Schools with good intent, working collaboratively together, while communicating effectively with CASA and sharing their financial and Business resources to gain access to a greater pool of talent to lead the Group. I wish to reiterate that the key to this concepts success is the Quality of those Industry Leading Personnel at the top, and the intent of all of us operating below. We recognise we need exceptional Leadership. We will be financially capable to secure it.

Each Business Operates under my AOC with the AOC Holder providing those Industry Leading Key Stakeholder positions. Each Organisations own key positions are no longer required as they move centrally and rove between the Member Organisations. The existing Chief Flying Instructor effectively becomes the Senior Base Pilot. From my own experience as a Chief Flying Instructor, I was increasingly being pulled away from ensuring quality outcomes as i attended to burdensome paperwork.

Oversight will be facilitated by a program called “Flight School Manager “which we would share. Like many Australian Schools I am now using this program. It has been designed to be easily expanded amongst our Schools. It contains all Rosters, Scheduling, Training Notes, Briefings, Maintenance tracking, theory delivery, Safety Management, Bookings, Flight and Duties etc. in a one stop shop. It can also deliver all briefings and Theory Courses. Obviously participants and their Personnel will be fully trained. This is how we can provide the required levels of oversight. In fact CASA could Audit our entire Organisation, live from their own as we will provide full access to them. It provides the member organisations with unmatched levels of oversight and information sharing.

Importantly, your Business remains your own Business in its entirety, including branding and all financial aspects. We will develop standardisation among the Members, with clear lines of Reporting and accountability. You keep paying your utilities and your day to day running costs. AIPT takes on all responsibility for safety and compliance.

In my own Organisation I operate with 4 new overriding, largely generic but fully compliant manuals. All Schools would adopt those compliant manuals. Lying under these 4 manuals are the Base Procedures Manuals. These are the manuals where you outline your specific requirements and Procedures at your Own Base, just as I have done for mine. This is where you retain, your Businesses unique procedures. I am currently using this System providing oversight of another large Flight Training Organisation that had difficulty securing Key Personnel. It is working now, and can be expanded. In fact it can be expanded easily via the application of the Base Procedures Manual. With appropriately qualified Personnel in your Organisation you will have the ability to offer an unparalleled range of Courses.



CHALLENGES

The vast majority of Australian Owned Flight Training Operators would have very well-founded concerns about continued Operations in three years’ time. It would be reasonable to expect that there is a preference by Authorities that there are less Flight Training Operators in Australia, as that makes the Regulators task easier. We need to protect against that.

A Challenge immediately ahead is the Transition to a 141 or a 142 Organisation. A bigger challenge will come soon after when we are audited for compliance against these complicated criteria. The Transition is not the “big issue”. The challenge actually comes after the Transition in ensuring you have the resources to maintain Compliance. This approach will allow us to attend to this challenge co-operatively.

The cost of rewriting compliant manuals alone was more than $100,000 for my Organisation and took far too much of my attention for far too long. This was extremely challenging from a resource perspective in my own Organisation. This approach will substantially free up both financial and time resources to allow you to focus on running your Business.

[glenb]

WHICH FLIGHT TRAINING ORGANISATIONS CAN PARTICIPATE?

The cornerstone of this concept is the protection of the Australian Owned Sector of the Flight Training Industry. It is open to current Industry participants and is not intended to “ease” new entrants into the market. Therefore, it is eligible to existing Businesses only. Those Businesses must be able the demonstrate Intent to work towards the highest standards of Safety and Compliance.

There will be two different rates. A commercial rate to businesses such as my own, but a subsidised rate for aero clubs in regional areas.



HOW IS MY BUSINESS PROTECTED, IF I JOIN?

The Business remains its own “Business Entity” with regards to Ownership and all financial aspects. There is no change. We are only pooling our financial resources to engage Industry Leading Personnel to lead us and reduce the burden on us. Your Business continues to be branded as your own name. The Group name will be Australian Integrated Pilot Training. My own Business would become AIPT-Melbourne Flight Training.

All organisations including my own will pay 3 monthly in advance. You can withdraw at any time with three months’ notice,

You would be able to liaise with CASA to potentially continue your own AOC in the background for “peace of mind” should you elect to withdraw at some future date.

Our Businesses each remain 100% our Own Businesses.

The Profit and Loss of my AIPT will be open to all members within the group. There will be extremely high levels of transparency. The intention of this proposal is literally to support each other’s continued existence.

Fees increases will be capped at the highest of 5% per annum or CPI, whichever is higher, for a period of 5 years. My expectation is that the rates would actually decrease significantly once membership numbers reached required levels.

Any increases after that time require approval from at least 75% of Group members.

We will work collaboratively to design procedures to ensure all Parties meet regularly.

We will have a facility for input from the Membership base to ensure they are actively involved in Group Management.

All members irrespective of size have equal voting rights in situations where required.

CASA required Roles are now filled by Industry Leading Professionals and the Business Owner can get on with the function of running a Business.

It may be that some Business Owners who act in a CFI/HOO position may be able to Retire but still allow their Business to keep running as the CFI/HOO position does not necessarily need to be held by them.

The Accountable positions now fall outside of your Business, however there will be Contractual Obligations and a high level of support and oversight provided to the Group.

Continued Membership will be assured provided you act with intent to work towards the highest standards of Safety, Ethics, and Business Standards. We will work together to design mutually agreeable criteria.



BENEFITS TO THE BUSINESS OWNER

Decrease in Operating Costs- A proposed schedule of costs is attached. A Flight School Flying 4000 hours per annum would contribute $90,000 per annum. Considering that this is probably less than the Salary of your HOO alone, there can be no doubt that this is a cost effective option. It includes all manuals and procedures, Industry Leading Stakeholders and support. The responsibility for Key Stakeholder position such as HOO/HAAMC/Safety Manager will be managed centrally. Most Businesses will benefit with a reduction in Salaries of somewhere between $100,000 to $200,000 per annum. The cost savings will be Significant. Our Businesses will become more robust

Decreased workload to a more manageable size– In my own Flying School, I am trying to balance the Roles of HOO/HAAMC/ and Business Owner. Having less workload on myself will give me the opportunity to focus more of my resources on to maintaining my “Business”, which is of critical importance to me, and more so than ever in the current environment.

Increased Buying Power- A co-ordinated group of Flying Schools dealing as One, will have access to better costings on Fuel prices, Office Supplies, Telecommunications, Accountancy, Bookkeeping, Legal advice, Utilities etc. on a National scale, and on a more local geographic area, smaller operators may be able to pool maintenance facilities and offer support to each other in other ways.

Increased flexibility with deployment of Resources. Ability to temporarily transfer highly standardised staff between facilities to meet fluctuations in demand, or loss of Personnel due career progression. No long term commitment required regarding Salary costs. Sharing of highly standardised, fully inducted Instructors at relatively short notice when required. The opportunity to mentor and train junior Staff will be exceptional.

Increased Business Opportunities will become available as the Group will have access to Overseas Student Training approvals by way of CRICOS, as well as FEE HELP for Domestic Applicants. The Group can share marketing on International Opportunities. Together we could market appealing Flight Training in different Geographic areas. An RPL in one location, an IFR in another. Consider the capability of up to 20 Schools delivering highly standardised training between varying Geographic Locations across Australia. The Australian Owned Sector would now be able to seriously compete with our Internationally Owned Flight Training Organisations

Maintain your Business “Feel” Your Business will continue presenting the same way to your customers and will maintain its own feel. This is not your Business being taken over. This is your Business working collaboratively with like-minded Businesses to gain access to greater resources. Your Business remains entirely your own Business and does not require a name change. Your Business remains its own standalone Business.

Retaining Key Personnel is always of concern to Business Owners. In fact increasingly it is difficult to attract and retain Key Personnel and I only anticipate this becoming more challenging in the future. This approach will provide extremely high levels of Key Personnel redundancy. Many Businesses including my own, are heavily reliant on my own health. We gain access to Quality Personnel that an Organisation acting alone could not fund. The Key roles will have CASA approved Deputies. Further redundancy is provided by the experience of the Senior Base Pilots (predominantly ex-CFIs)

The Group sharing of Safety related information and resources has significant Safety Benefits to your Business. Traditionally Safety related information has moved vertically, but now we will have the Opportunity to share Safety information laterally between organisations.

Audits will be centrally managed. Many of the traditional “headaches” to the Business Owner can be moved off site, with the “on site” time requiring less of CASAs and the Businesses resources. The time allocated to face to face contact with the Regulator can be used more effectively.

A United Voice when dealing with CASA will make engagement more effective and potentially have more capability to engage. The Group will have the Business Owners forming a Committee. The Committee liaises with the CASA approved Key Personnel and the Power Team communicates to the Personnel via the respective Senior Base Pilot.

Change Management is a major challenge for Industry at present. We can address that more effectively in a collaborative manner.

Compliant manuals to the new regulations will be provided. These will facilitate your Transition to a Part 142 Organisation. The Cost of doing this alone will potentially save organisations significant financial resources. The cost of writing our new Part 61/141/142 manuals for my own Business has exceeded $100,000. These costs are only part of the costs associated with the Transition.

New Courses can be added. We have an extensive range of Approved Courses, and have the ability to add on more. You will gain access to a full range of Courses that you may not have been able to offer previously. With Support and appropriately qualified personnel you will have the opportunity to pursue new revenue streams.

Access to resources, not so easily available to individual Organisations, such as Legal Advice. Accounting Advice, Technology upgrades



BENEFITS TO CASA

Increased Safety Outcomes- The points below will provide a strong case for Improved Safety Outcomes,

Industry Leading Professionals, quite possible ex-CASA, Experts, heading up senior positions. This Power Team will be capable of engaging CASA in the highest Professional manner. They will be well networked and will have an appreciation of the Regulators expectations. They will be highly experienced and experts in their field. The calibre of these Personnel could not be attracted by an Organisation acting alone.

More efficient and effective engagement-The ability for CASA to deal primarily with one AOC Holder, rather than a wide ranging group of Individual Stakeholders can only improve Communication. Putting the “blame” argument completely to one side, for the sake of the “concept”. CASA is now in an impossible situation. A finite resource can only continue to be effective for a limited time. CASA needs results as much as Industry does. More streamlined communication is in everyone’s interest.

Increased sharing of Safety Information. This concept will provide unparalleled levels of lateral sharing of Safety Information. These levels of sharing are exceptional and can only be achieved by the Industry working collaboratively. AIPT will commit to providing the most well funded safety department of any flying school in Australia.

Improved Utilisation of Limited CASA resources-CASA is understandably resource stretched maintaining oversight of 250 different schools whilst meeting its other Industry obligations. If CASA Personnel could deal with one effective team of Key personnelinstead of 10, 20, or 30 different Schools there will be significant Productivity gains.

Increased Financial stability to AOC holders can only improve Safety Outcomes.

Experienced Staff to easily redeploy between Bases to address Experience and Oversight deficiencies. Resources can be shared. An experienced Aerobatics Instructor can be redeployed to upskill another Base etc.

A Positive public relations opportunity exists for CASA to work collaboratively with Industry in an innovative approach to improve Safety and Business Outcomes and arrest the failure of Australian Owned Businesses. An extremely attractive Opportunity for CASA to actually provide some very meaningful support to Industry.

Request formal CASA involvement.The Funding model will allow for the Group to meet 75% of the costs for a CASA Flight Operations Inspector or Similar to do a 12 Month placement with us, to ensure the System works to their Satisfaction. If CASA can work closely with the Members through the CASA approved Key Personnel, we can effectively design procedures that are Simple, Accountable, and Effective to the satisfaction of all Stakeholders.

A rigorous ‘Continuous Improvement Program will be implemented” throughout the Group. We will work collaboratively to high levels of Standardisation and improvement.

Test feedback can be captured across a broader range of candidates and that feedback can be directed back into improving Group Training.

Auditing will become significantly easier. The majority of the Auditing could be completed off site by way of Flight School Manager. It will reduce time spent on location. The time spent on location can now be used for more effective engagement.



WHAT INPUT WILL MEMBERS HAVE INTO TEAM OF KEY PERSONNEL

We will present you with what we refer to as a “POWER TEAM”. They will consist of an Industry Leading Head of Operations, an Industry Leading HAAMC, an Industry Leading Safety Manager, and an Industry Leading Audit and Quality Control Manager. That Team will have your confidence. If not, you are under no obligation to join.

As a Group we are offering Salary Packages unmatched in the Industry to date. This Package will ensure we can select the Leaders in their Respective Fields. I envisage the HOO being on a package in the range of $180K to $220K, with the other three roles Safety, HAAMC, and QA being in the range of $150K to $180K. On those packages, I am confident we can attract Industry Leaders. We have already shortlisted potential Applicants but will not commit until we can assure ourselves, we have the best Personnel available to achieve our goals.

[glenb]

WHAT DO WE EXPECT FROM TEAM OF KEY PERSONNEL

They will be demonstrated leaders in their Field. They will have a Proven Track Record,

They will be well regarded within our Industry.

They will have the respect of both the Regulator and Industry.

We expect them to be a Professional in all dealings with all stakeholders.

The positions will be rewarding but challenging. The Team will have to be able to communicate effectively to all Stakeholders, being CASA, the Personnel through the Organisational Structure, and the Business Owner.

Applicants would be highly experienced commensurate with the Salaries being offered. They are a unique opportunity for the right Individuals to gain high levels of Job Satisfaction and a new challenge

We expect that they have demonstrated achievement in Project Management.

The ability to develop procedures that are Simple, Accountable, and Effective, while maintaining high levels of Safety and Compliance. At all times being aware that a robust Business is more likely to be a safe Business. Appreciate that a financially viable Industry is a Safer Industry, and be able to demonstrate a commitment to the Australian Owned Sector of the Flight Training Industry. Our procedures cannot have “tripping hazards”

They need to be prepared to travel to ensure they maintain high levels of face to face engagement.

They need to have a Vision and be prepared to design and implement that Vision in conjunction with the Team.

A high level of communication skill.



WHAT WILL MY BUSINESS PAY FOR THIS?



There should be no increase in costs to the Business. In fact the ability to have Key Personnel centrally located and “shared” will significantly reduce costs.

Rather than 10 separate schools paying $100,000 each per annum for their Head of Operations, ten Schools working seamlessly and colboartively,could attract the “Super HOO” for $25,000 each or a total of $250,000.

Our Buying power will depend on how many participants we can attract, and this will in turn effect the charging.

My objective is to have a cost of $25 per hour for the first 2000 Flight Training Hours p.a.

$20 per hour flown for 2000 to 6000 Flight Training Hours p.a.

$10 per hour in excess of 6000 Flight Training Hours p.a.

Some typical cost scenarios

2000 hour school pays $50,000 per annum

4000 hour school pays $90,000 per annum

6000 hour school pays $130,000 per annum

8000 hour school pays $150,000 per annum.



How will it be funded? There are 250 Flight Training Organisations across Australia. Assuming 10 schools joined the concept and those schools averaged 4000 hours. Ten income streams of $90,000 per annum provides a $900,000 fund to appropriately staff the concept.

Let me use my own Business as an example. Because I intend to join this group, exactly as I am proposing that you do. My own Business will be treated exactly like any other participant Business.

My Business flies approximately 8000 hours per annum. I would contribute $150,000 per annum. In return I get fully compliant manuals, A Head of Operations, a Safety Manager, An auditing and QA Manager, my Transition to a 142 is managed and with that the ability to retain delivery of the 150 hour Integrated CPL, access to Overseas Student Training and potentially Vet Fee Help. I can refocus my own attention to running my Business and freeing up capacity to pursue opportunities. I am convinced that this approach will allow me to focus on Business, be the most cost effective option and may be the only way to maintain my Business into the future.

INFORMATION ON FLIGHT SCHOOL MANAGER, OUR OVERSIGHT TOOL

We will utilise an Australian owned product called Flight School Manager to ensure the very highest levels of operational control can be maintained. The program is an existing program, but we are making a significant investment to upgrade the system to meet the needs of one organisation operating from multiple sites. Traditionally, the practice of multiple operators under the one AOC has been fraught with challenges, and in todays complex environment they don’t adequately meet the requirements.

For the first time ever in an industry first we will provide CASA full access to our entire system. Feedback from industry is a preference not to do so. I feel strongly that we have nothing to hide. We will be operating to the highest standards of safety and compliance. By involving CASA it allows us to highlight deficiencies and address them in a more proactive manner.


Group Management
Course Progress Reporting
Electronic Phone Book
Full Booking Outcome Reporting
Electronic Student And Instructor Personal Details Files
Multiple Airbase Management
Electronic Document Library
Full Learning Management System
Flight Board Display For 42' Monitors
MYOB Integration Available
Automatic Student Achievement Record Completion
Instrument Approach And Night Recency Management
Automatic Aircraft Weight And Balance Calculations
Full Student, Aircraft And Instructor Reporting


On-Line Scheduling
Staff And Student Rostering
Aircraft Maintenance Management System
Predictive Aircraft Maintenance Planning
Electronic Student And Instructor Logbooks
Detailed Aircraft Maintenance Reporting
Detailed Student Progress Reporting
Customisable Flight And Duty Time Limits
Up to 16 Additional Qualification Fields
Automated Student and Instructor Emailing
Automated Flight and Duty Time Management
Units and Elements Of Competency Manager
Charter Quoting
Full Australian Airfield Directory
Syllabus designer

· FSM provides all the management systems required for Part 141 and 142 compliance and is pre-loaded with all the MOS Units, elements and their associated Performance Criteria making syllabus design, lesson plans and training record development a quick and streamlined process.



Over 48 flying schools Australia wide are now utilising the functions and features of FSM for their flight school management, saving time, money and audit stress

[glenb]

It seemed such a good concept. CASA knew about it. CASA worked with me to design it, CASA approved it, CASA audited it, CASA approved bases under the system, CASA recommended it.

CASA changed their mind overnight in October 2018. Not on a legal concern, not on a safety concern, quite simply a change of opinion by Mr Alecks Department.

Im not the first person to have their life destroyed by this man, but i will be the last!

[Paragraph377]

It seemed such a good concept. CASA knew about it. CASA worked with me to design it, CASA approved it, CASA audited it, CASA approved bases under the system, CASA recommended it.

CASA changed their mind overnight in October 2018. Not on a legal concern, not on a safety concern, quite simply a change of opinion by Mr Alecks Department.

Im not the first person to have their life destroyed by this man, but i will be the last!
Glen, if you manage to slay the beast, a feat not achieved by any before you, we will be celebrating with you like it’s New Years Eve. We’ve had the Champers on ice since 1988. It may even taste rather pleasant!

[glenb]

SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORRT OF MY ALLEGATION THAT MEMBERS OF THE CASA SENIOR EXECUTIVE ARE MISLEADING THE OMBUDSMANS OFFICE




Appendix A- Emails referred to in the timeline below and attached to this post.
Appendix B- The “concept,” detailing APTA and sent to CASA 23rd June 2016. This is perhaps the single most important document in this correspondence as it clearly refutes CASAs claim that they were not aware of APTA in April 2017. This has been posted on Pprune on posts 1646,1647, and 1648
Appendix C- Part of the manual suite (Exposition) that was prepared. It is a large document but outlines all policies and procedures of how APTA will manage its operation in a safe and compliant manner. I have not attached this to this pprune post.
Appendix D- Technical Assessor worksheet, where CASA ticked off, once they were fully satisfied with our procedures. This was obtained from CASA under FOI and is the Worksheet CASA used for APTAs revalidation.



12th June 2021



To the Commonwealth Ombudsman,

Please note that I have included the Deputy Prime Ministers Office, and other recipients in this correspondence. My hope being that Mr McCormack, in his role as the Minister responsible for CASA will intervene and bring this matter to a resolution. It is important that his Office is fully informed of this matter.

I have also included Senators on the current Senate RRAT inquiry, as I have previously raised an allegation of misfeasance in public office against Mr Aleck in Parliament, on 20/11/20, and feel compelled to include them.

My understanding is that Mr Jonathan Alecks’ department within CASA, has led the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that: “CASA was not aware what APTA was doing at the time of its revalidation in April of 2017 as a Part 141/142 Organisation and only became aware later.”

Apparently, according to CASA I then operated APTA for a further 18 months after that revalidation, and CASA added additional bases, until CASA suddenly realised anddetermined that I was operating unlawfully and placed restrictions on my business in October 2018, leading to its demise, 8 months later in June of 2019.

CASA imposed those restrictions even though they raised absolutely no concerns at all of any nature, prior to initiating the restrictions. It seems unjustly harsh, particularly considering there are no safety concerns and no regulatory breaches, simply a change of opinion of a CASA Employee.

To the point of this correspondence.

I intend to provide evidence that CASA has mislead the Ombudsman’s Office if CASA continue to claim that they were “not aware of what APTA was doing as of April 2017”, when they revalidated APTA as a Part 141/142 Organisation

Please consider the following timeline as evidence to support my assertion that CASA is misleading your Office in its investigation, and that in fact CASA was fully awre, and I had followed all protocols to ensure they were awre

In reviewing this timeline consider that CASA notified me in October 2018 that I was now operating unlawfully. CASA revalidated the model 18 months prior in April 2017. CASA claim at the time of revalidation in April 2017, they were not aware of APTAs model. I absolutely refute that statement. Note the correspondence that commenced well before our revalidation in April 2017.


Email 20th June 2016 to CASA addressing the concept of an alliance of flight training organisations. Approximately 10 months before revalidation and two and a two and half years before CASA reversed the approval. Note that this stage we were already providing AOC coverage for MFT and TVSA.
Email 21st June 2016 to CASA advising my timeline for expanding operations and specifically visiting flying schools. In that correspondence I actually request that someone from CASA meet with me and potentially interested Members. The purpose of requesting this meeting is to ensure I have CASAs support.
Email 23rd June 2016 to CASA. I attached and submitted a detailed proposal of the APTA concept to CASA by way of an attachment to this email. This is a significant email. It provides written notification to CASA of the concept of APTA. It contains details about the proposal and how it will be operated. I have attached this extensive correspondence as Appendix B. This is a must-read document, because it clearly refutes CASAs claim that they were not aware of what APTA was doing and intended to do in the future. Recall that it was not until 2 ½ years later that CASA supposedly finally became aware of APTA and reversed the approval.
Email 13th July 2016, I contact CASA to advise that I have got significant interest in the APTA concept, and intend to add a further base. This is still over 2 years before CASA allegedly become aware of APTA.
Email 1st August 2016 Advising CASA that I am officially changing the name of the business from MFT to APTA to more accurately reflect what APTA is actually about i.e., a “collaborative approach’ between the schools that will be APTA Members.
Email August 1st, 2016, from CASA advising that they will meet with me 4 days later at Moorabbin Airport to discuss the details about the APTA proposal which they did.
Meeting August 4th, 2016, at the Melbourne Flight Training base with CASA personnel. This was the meeting referred to 4 days previously. Protracted discussions were held around the concept. CASA personnel were highly supportive of the concept and particularly about the improved quality outcomes that would result. CASA also used the phrase “this is not an unseen approach; Airlines and the military use it. We understand the concept and are familiar with it”.
January 18th, 2017, which is 4 months before CASA issue our revalidation, I meet with the Executive Manager of the Aviation Group, Mr Graeme Crawford in Canberra. It was obvious at that meeting that he was aware of the concept at this stage. We discussed it, and the emails confirm that.
August 2016 to April 2017. After receiving such support from CASA, APTA continues working on its Exposition (manuals and procedures). This is an enormous task, and we had been working on it for many years prior. Every procedure is designed around the multi base format that we were already doing. Based on the support I have received from CASA; we commence a very intense period of developing manuals and procedures in conjunction with CASA personnel

CASA would have the Ombudsman believe that APTA underwent the following processes, already operating in the multi base format, and overhauling all the processes, and no one at all within CASA became aware. Its just not feasible that this could possibly be the truth.

APTA was required to draw on many thousands of pages of CASA rules and regulations to write up our manuals and procedures. For this we drew, in part on the following legislation which clearly outlines what needed to be contained within our Exposition for the CASA revalidation.

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 142.340 Part 142 operators--content of exposition (austlii.edu.au) (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.340.html)

We then referred to the CASA Part 142 “sample exposition” and our existing operations manuals (Exposition) The following link is the CASA provided sample exposition. CASR Part 142 sample exposition v3.1 | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au) (https://www.casa.gov.au/files/casr-part-142-sample-exposition-v30)

We then continued working with renewed diligence (we had started this project part time two years earlier) to write up all the policies and procedures. Importantly, there were ten CASA personnel involved in this project as we worked side by side with those CASA personnel to design the Exposition around the concept presented to CASA in writing on 23/06/16 and in our meeting with CASA on 04/08/16. This was an enormous project, requiring many hundreds of hours allocated to it by both APTA and CASA personnel. It also required significant investment.

This resulted in a suite of manuals that are referred to as the Exposition. In Appendix C, I have attached only a small portion of the completed product. These are our main suite of manuals. I would strongly encourage you to view these, as they will provide an indication as to the size of the project, and the quality of the end result. It is these documents that guide every aspect of APTA. Refer Appendix C

CASA personnel then used the Technical Assessor Handbook which provides extensive guidance to CASA personnel on how to assess our procedures. Again, I encourage the Ombudsman’s office to review that document. It provides comprehensive guidance on how thorough CASAs procedure is.The link to that document can be found here. . CASR Part 142 technical assessor handbook | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au) (https://www.casa.gov.au/publication/part-142-technical-assessor-handbook)

After reviewing and assessing all of these procedures, the CASA personnel then indicate that they are satisfied with all our policies and procedures and tick them off against the CASA Assessor Worksheet, which I obtained under Freedom of Information and is attached as Appendix D.

The assessing CASA personnel then submit our policies and procedures contained within our Exposition (part of which is contained in Appendix C) with the completed Technical Assessor Worksheet in Appendix D to higher levels within CASA for a Peer Review. Most likely this would occur in CASAs office of Legal International and Regulatory Affairs for authorisation of approval.

We were one of the first flying schools in Australia to be ready for the new legislation, and it is likely that CASA was having a thorough review of one of the first new 141/142 Approvals to be issued in Australia. If CASA is to be believed, still no-one within CASA has become aware that APTA is providing a multi base, multi entity approach, despite the fact that we had been doing it years prior.

On completion of that process, CASA will issue the Part 141 and 142 Approval.

Just prior to the CASA revalidation being issued, the APTA Key Personnel are interviewed and assessed by CASA. These are the legislated accountable positions within the Organization. The title we used for the Key Personnel was Group CEO, Group Head of Operations, and Group Safety Manager. These personnel are interviewed and assessed by CASA against the Exposition. A significant part of each of these interviews was the CASA personnel covering the topics of procedures, operational control etc in a multi base/multi entity format as we had been doing for many years. The interview was based around the APTA multi entity approach that we utilised.

But, according to CASA they were still unaware of the multi base/multi entity format.

Somehow according to CASA, throughout the process that precedes this date CASA still was not aware of what APTA was doing. It’s an absurd assertion, clearly false and most likely intended to manipulate CASAs preferred outcome in the Ombudsmans investigation.


Email 26th April 2017, APTA revalidation as a Part 141/142 has been issued by CASA. Emails arranging for the CASA Regional Manager to come to the APTA Head Office to present our Approvals as a revalidated Part 141/142 Organisation approximately 4 months before the deadline of September 1st, 2017. Still, according to CASA, if they are to be believed, CASA is not aware of what APTA is doing, despite the presentation being in our brand-new Head Office for APTA.

At that Presentation there was significant discussion with the attending CASA personnel, and me and my management team. The recollection of attending APTA management and my own recollection is that the attending CASA personnel spent a significant amount of time with the entire APTA management team. Extensive discussions were based around our existing bases, MFT at Moorabbin and TVSA at Bacchus Marsh. There was no doubt that the contents of that discussion were entirely based around the business model and plans moving forward. A high level of encouragement was offered by CASA. Therefore, at the time of CASA awarding our revalidation as a Part 141/142 in April 2017, there was no doubt that CASA was fully aware, as at the time of approval we already had two bases, and CASA had just worked with us to write our entire Exposition based around this. For CASA to assert that they were not fully aware of APTA is blatantly untruthful, especially considering the content of “the concept” sent through almost one year earlier on 23rd June 2016 and attached as Appendix B.

CASA claim that they only became aware of what APTA was doing, at some after now.

CASA took no action and raised no concerns at all until October 2018,which is 18 months later, so my assumption is that they supposedly claim they became aware some time just prior to issuing the notification in October 2018,otherwise I presume they would have acted earlier.


Email 7th October 2017, being one year prior to Casa’s reversal of APTA in which I refer to my meeting in Canberra with Mr Graeme Crawford, CASA second most senior person, on 18th January 2017 which is four months before CASA revalidated APTA in April 2017. CASA was clearly aware of the concept, and at the highest levels, although they would have the Ombudsman’s Office believe otherwise.
Email 26th April 2017 from me to CASA acknowledging that the Part 141/142 Approval is about to be issued. CASA claims that on this day, CASA was not awre of what APTA was doing. I strongly refute that, and particularly so because of the detailed correspondence I provided to CASA on 23rd June 2016, and the many hundreds of interactions with CASA on the matter and most significantly in the 6 months leading up to our re-approval of APTA in April 2017.
Email 26th April 2017, the CASA Executive Manager of the Aviation Group, Mr Graeme Crawford congratulating me and my APTA team. CASA would now claim that at this stage he remains unaware of APTAs model.
June 2017, CASA delay the introduction of the legislation by 12 months to September 2018 instead of September 2017, due to most flying schools not having been able to complete the required transition to the new regulations. This delay was to cost APTA approximately $700,000.
October 2018 CASA reverses APTAs approval with no prior warning.
Meeting 20th December 2018 in CASA Melbourne Office between me and my father and Mr Peter White, CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance. At this meeting Mr White advises two critical pieces of information. Mr White assured me that CASA were fully awre of APTA and would not claim that they did not know about APTA, he then went on advise that irrespective of that APTA would not be permitted to continue operating. The assurance was not met, as CASA now claim that they were not aware. The Ombudsman’s Office could verify this with Mr White.



If at this stage there still remains any doubt in the mind of the Ombudsman’s Office, I can provide you with contact details of four CASA personnel who will confirm to your Office that CASA was fully aware of APTA at the time of revalidation as a Part 141/142 Organisation in April 2017, and in the period prior.

I encourage you to contact these personnel, as that will potentially bring this matter to more prompt and fair resolution. Whilst their preference would be to maintain confidentiality, all will be prepared to publicly put their name to those statements if that is what is required. They will only be telling the truth, and In my opinion, no investigation could be completed without availing yourself of that opportunity.

It will clearly identify that the multi base concept was CASA accepted and sanctioned industry practice, but more importantly, that CASA was fully aware of what APTA had been doing for many years and intended to continue doing and expanding on in the future. They will each confirm that CASA was fully aware throughout the design process and at the time of approval. One CASA employee retains “extraneous” note taking which he will provide in support of the truth on this matter.

Please advise if you would like me to provide contact details of those employees, as they can be provided immediately that you request them. Some of these personnel have now left the organisation and would appreciate the opportunity to bring light on this matter, and on others matters that would be pertinent to your investigation and the claim that “CASA was not aware” of what APTA was doing.

Also please consider APTA had been providing a multi base operation prior to the revalidation of the business model as a Part 141/142 in April 2017, as was common industry practice in the flight training sector throughout my last 25 years in the industry. That is why CASAs approach towards me and my business is so totally inexplicable.

Importantly, the practice of more than one entity operating under a single Authorisation Holders Air Operator Certificate (AOC) was very much accepted industry practice but much more than that it was fully sanctioned and accepted by CASA. It had been for many years. If CASA continues to assert any argument to the contrary, I must be provided the opportunity to provide irrefutable evidence that CASAs assertion is very far removed from the truth. On this matter, I could provide you a signed statement with several long-term industry participants simply signing that this statement is the truth. Please advise me if that would be of any assistance to your office in its investigation.

The purpose of this correspondence was to provide evidence in support of my stated position that CASA was very involved in the design of APTA and had full knowledge of it at the time of the revalidation as a Part 141/142 Organisation in April of 2017.

Thankyou for considering this additional information, and I hope that you will deem it appropriate to speak to the personnel that I have suggested. Please contact me, for prompt provision of their details.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley, a person significantly impacted by this matter.

[zanthrus]

Glen this seems to me to be the most comprehensive and damning evidence of CASA criminal lies and deception yet.

I hope it makes some progress for you mate.
However, as many people have already mentioned on this thread, I still reckon you NEED a good QC on your side not Dennis Denuto. “The Vibe” won’t be enough to win this one.

[Global Aviator]

Glen keep at it, you know you have industry wide support.

as many have mentioned your case seems to be very strong.

Is it not time to hand it to the legal experts with a stack of cash and say game on. How do you get that cash? From industry, I reckon a go fund me would surprise you as did the first one.

You also need to allow a media budget and possibly a media liaison / PR rep, to come out of the go fund me of course.

As much as this will be a long drawn out court process it will also be the court of public opinion. Aussies love a battler and do not like government slapping people down (that’s reserved for the tall poppy syndrome of successful people of which you probably would have suffered had CASA not beat them to it).

Just my personal opinion of course!

[Paragraph377]

Glen, I am a big believer that with change comes opportunity. Now that Cardboard Cutout McCormack has been rolled from his DPM position and Tomato Head Joyce has regained the coveted throne of DPM, it would appear that you have a new pathway to traverse upon your quest for justice. Hopefully you will get more traction with the odd Nationals leader, farmer and serial shagger.

The question for the Tomato should be now that he has regained his front bench position as leader of the Nationals party and Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, will Mr Joyce, as a promoter of Australian values, small business, battlers and fairness, finally take action against CASA for its many decades of mismanagement, one example being the treatment of Mr Buckley? Mr Joyce purports to be a champion (not campion) of the people and has publicly stated that his priority is about the people, not about the position. So what do you say as member for New England Barnaby, are you going to put your money where your mouth is? (well, we know where his mouth has been)

Let’s see if the Tomato actually has a set of kahunas or if he has a set of hairless micro plums.

[V-Jet]

The last duty the ex Deputy PM did late at night before he was ousted (when he undoubtedly had a lot on his mind and no need to assist at all) was to provide a business (with which I’m involved) his near priceless signature to allow it to operate against some fearsome bureaucratic opposition. Apparently the look on the chief protagonists face when presented with the signature was priceless. I was very sorry he was gone. I’m very pleased he has returned. My (admittedly 3rd hand) experience couldn’t have been better - I was stunned he bothered to help, especially over something so small on what must have been a very difficult day for him personally.

Based on my experience, I’d suggest Glen would get a fair hearing.

[glenb]

Just prior to the last election, a peer from industry facilitated a meeting with Barnaby Joyce in his Canberra Office. I agree with your observations.

I wrote to him after that meeting expressing my thanks. I found him to be straight down the line, frank, doesn't tell people what they necessarily want to hear, and somebody who likes to Get Shi# Done (GSD).

A new Chairperson with an understanding and appreciation of lines of reporting, responsibility, accountability, conduct, procedures and sound decision making.

A CEO/DAS free from the iron ring and able to look at the state of affairs, and objectively so. From feedback so far, a good listener. A CEO who knows that CASAs own research suggests unacceptable levels of staff dissatisfaction with the Executive Management, which is replicated universally by the industry itself. A CEO who has vision and sees an opportunity.

All overseen by a Minister who is keen to transform the image of the Nationals.

If this matter is to avoid going to Court, it will happen over coming weeks one would hope.

[glenb]

30/06/2021



Appendix A- My response to the initial notification outlining the commercial impacts of the CASA restrictions.

Appendix 2A- CASA worksheet obtained under Freedom of Information.

Appendix C- Email that Mr Martin referred to in meeting from accountancy firm.

Appendix D- My letter to CASA dated April 30th 2019.

Appendix E- Copy of original contract.





Dear Mark of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office.



Firstly, may I apologise if I have not proofread this document adequately. I am in the process of moving home and committed to getting this to you by tonight. I have significant time constraints.



I had been a vocal critic of CASAs implementation of the regulatory suite which was delivered a decade behind schedule, and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. I was approached by the media on these topics, and I made truthful comment.



It is not unlikely that my criticism of some elements of CASA may possibly have caused some employees to act for reasons other than aviation safety or regulatory compliance. It is increasingly likely if allegations have been made against those individuals previously, and that lead to an ABC investigative story, as you are aware.



I walked into my business on October 23rd, 2018, having no inclination that by the end of the day CASA would advise me that my flying school of more than a decade, MFT had suddenly been declared an unauthorised operation, and my business APTA was declared to be operating in breach of the regulations. Absolutely no concerns at all had been raised by CASA prior to receiving that notification. Initially, and for the first two months the CASA position was that my operation of more than 10 years had been declared unlawful. It was ludicrous, but concerning.



You are also aware that several businesses were forced into closure directly because of the restrictions on my businesses ability to trade. Employees lost their jobs, significant investment was lost, suppliers were left unpaid, students training was impacted, many millions of dollars were lost by a number of well-intentioned Operators, and the impact on me on my family has included the loss of my home and my two businesses. After enduring all of that, CASA then wrote to my Employer advising that my continuing employment was “no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”. Those comments were me defending myself against CASAs actions.



I was now completely forced out of the industry I loved, and had spent 25 years working in. I was left unemployed, depressed, and it has left me destitute at 56 years of age. Like many business owners, my business was my security in retirement. It has gone. My wife and I will most likely never be able to recover from this situation. My wife has had a total of four days free of work since that correspondence in October 2018, as she desperately tries to rebuild our life from the start. In all of this, the impact on my family is the most heart-breaking to watch. Soon, I will make my final submission to your Office and that will clearly outline the impact of the actions and decisions made by the three CASA employees that I have named.



I can assure you that I am someone very affected by the decision making of CASA employee, Mr Aleck, working closely with Mr Martin and Mr Crawford



Those consequences are directly as a result of the “opinion” of a CASA employee. They are not supported by a safety case or regulations. In fact, quite the contrary, there is a demonstrable safety case that CASA actions have actually impacted negatively on safety. As stated, it is the application of an individual’s opinion. It may not be well intentioned and led to my allegations of misfeasance in public office that I made on 20/11/20 before the Senate Inquiry.



Allegations of misconduct were previously made against those same three CASA Employees by Mr Bruce Rhoades. A pilot who died of cancer, desperately trying to bring the alleged misconduct of those same individuals under investigation. under investigation, and repair the enormous harm bought to him and his family. This story was aired on the ABCs 7.30 Report. I mention this because many other affected people have contacted me and offered to make a confidential submission to your office raising the same allegations against those same three individuals. It is reasonable to assume that “where there is smoke, there is fire”. These are not vindictive or vexatious allegations. These are facts. The impact is real and can clearly be demonstrated. The named CASA personnel cannot say the same. They are completely unable to present to your office a supporting safety case, a regulatory breach, or in fact demonstrate any sort of a well-intentioned motivation.



These considerations are significant, and most especially because CASA had no supporting safety case, never identified any regulatory breach, never raised any queries as to the quality outcomes of the Organisation. It was literally just that, a change of opinion. The decision maker took no external legal advice, applied his opinion, and made a decision that he was not compelled to make. In making that decision he would have been fully aware of the implications on the business, and throughout the process I wrote to CASA on multiple occasions highlighting the significant commercial impact, which I will address later in this document.



The decision maker within CASA was not compelled to make the decisions that he made, and there was no precedent. They had no supporting regulation, and CASA has never identified their supporting safety case despite multiple requests made by me. If the intent of the application of decision is not made on the basis of a regulatory breach and has no supporting safety case, that application of opinion should be able to be questioned, and most especially so for the individual who has been impacted.



The impact of the “opinion” is totally unacceptable and would have been completely avoided had CASA chosen to “engage” with me rather than adopt an unnecessarily combative stance and place those restrictions on the business. As I have stated previously I only needed CASA to clearly and concisely advise me of the terminology that they wanted in the contracts, and the entire matter could have been resolved at any time within 48 hours. There was no resistance at all from APTA or the entities depending on APTA. Our interest was to have this matter fully resolved to CASAs satisfaction at any time.



Please note, and related to the matters before you now, that I have made allegations of “misfeasance in public office”, against CASA employees, Mr Crawford, Mr Martin, Mr Aleck and Mr Carmody in Parliament before the current Senate Inquiry on 20/11/20 which can be accessed here and located at the “12:40” position on that recording. RRAT Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport - 20/11/2020 08:49:59 - Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au) (https://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=524701&operation_mode=parlview)



I have also made a number of written submissions to the office of the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia at the time, Mr Michael McCormack, as the Minister responsible for CASA. None have been responded to by his Office.



I would like to provide some additional important and pertinent information that I believe needs to be considered as part of your investigation, and most particularly regarding your preliminary opinion where you were of the view.



“On examining the correspondence between yourself and CASA subsequent to the notice of October 2018 it appears to me that there was an impasse of sorts, though CASA appears to have made a number of good faith attempts to assist you in resolving the issue. I accept that you would have liked CASA to provide clearer advice about what material to place in contracts between APTA and members of the alliance. However, it seems to me that CASA provided sufficient assistance in the circumstances.”



Regarding your preliminary opinion, that CASA provided sufficient assistance, and that CASA made a number of good faith attempts, I strongly refute that, based on my own personal experience and would like to submit further supporting information for consideration prior to your final determination.



Regarding there being a number of good faith attempts. There was only the one attempt by CASA, rather than a number of good faith attempts. That attempt came almost 6 months after restrictions were placed on the business on April 2nd, 2019, by which time the business was decimated. CASA had contacted all customers and told them that I was acting unlawfully many months earlier. The timeline of 6 months was commercially fatal, due to the unreasonably long delays, and a major contributor to the significant commercial harm done to so many stakeholders.



Regarding the finding that, I “would have liked CASA to provide clearer advice”. It is much more than that. I was completely dependent on CASA to provide that advice. They were asking for something additional to the legislation, which we had fully attended to in our Exposition. Because it was something outside of the legislation, I needed guidance on what CASA wants. I complied with every bit of legislation. The existing legislation is very clear on my accountability, and after 25 years in the industry and almost half of it as the owner of a large flying school, I understood those obligations at an expert level, and the legislative environment I was operating in. There was nothing else that my Exposition could attend to. If CASA wanted to design a new rule, that was fine, and I was willing to comply, but I was not in a position to guess what it was that CASA was after. All requirements are held within the CASA approved and designed Exposition. I have attended to this later in the correspondence, where I deal specifically with the contract versus the Exposition.



Please allow me to go through the following timeline, with particular attention to the communications between CASA and I, in April of 2019. Importantly the reversal of commitment given to me by Mr Aleck and Mr Martin, shortly after that meeting





TIMELINE



2006:



The Company commenced operations at Moorabbin Airport.





April 2017



The Company completed a two-year process and a very significant investment with CASA, to redesign all systems and procedures to meet the new regulatory requirements of Part 141/142. In April 2017 APTA was one of the first schools in Australia to obtain the new Part 141/142 Approval. At the time of approval, we were operating in a multi base format. This revalidation entailed a complete overhaul of systems and procedures to ensure the multi base format met the new regulatory requirements. Every aspect of every system was designed in conjunction with CASA and contained within our Exposition. CASA assessed, approved, and audited every one of those systems and procedures.



November 2017



Six months after obtaining the new CASA approval, the Company undergoes a routine CASA Level 1 audit. A level 1 audit is the highest level of audit that CASA conduct. The audit is standard procedure after the issue of a Part 141/142 Certificate. The audit was conducted at the Head Office location and also at the bases. No issues of concern were raised at the audit. No concerns at all were raised regarding the structure of the Organisation that CASA had fully revalidated only six months earlier, and as the Company had been doing for many years prior. The contracts that had been in place and provided to CASA were the contracts that we went to audit with. Absolutely no concerns are raised by CASA.





23rd October 2018.With no warning, after more than a decade of safe and compliant operations, CASA provides notification that my business is operating illegally, is “not authorised”, and most likely subject to regulatory action. I am provided with only 7 days surety of operations. CASA places several restrictions on the business’s ability that halt the business taking on any new customers or students from that date.



There was no allegation by CASA that we were doing anything unsafe, and that we were doing anything wrong. Quite simply, CASA changed their mind, or rather, someone within CASA changed his mind.



The next day, I notify in CASA in writing of the impact of the restrictions with this correspondence attached as Appendix A. My initial estimates are that the restrictions will cost me more than $10,000 per week. As the restrictions continued for many months, that figure grew to approximately $20,000 per week.



Only eighteen months earlier the business and its structure were revalidated by CASA. To say I was completely bewildered would be an understatement. There was no basis in safety or regulatory breaches for CASA to have taken this action. It was totally inexplicable then and remains so today. It came with no prior indication. No one from CASA had raised any concerns, not even by way of a face-to-face chat or a telephone call. Absolutely nothing at all. As a family-owned business this was devastating news.





20th December 2018



In the Melbourne CASA Office on 20th December 2018, the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services advised me and my father that “under the current CASA regulations the APTA model would not be accepted by CASA and was operating illegally. It may work some day in the future but not now”.



I was in dismay. I recall that I responded, “that will send me bankrupt”, as it now has.



I was advised by the CASA Executive Manager that CASA would work with me to dismantle APTA but could not propose any practical solutions that would not result in a loss of jobs, decrease safety and lead to the closure of businesses, and loss of significant investment.



Both my father and I spent the train journey home working out how to handle the staff redundancies. Many of my staff had many years of loyal service. I also expected potential legal action from my members, and understandably so. I had led them to believe that APTA was fully approved by CASA, as it was. From their perspective there would understandably be some suspicion that I had mislead them on the legitimacy of APTA if CASA were now shutting me down. There were several businesses now dependent on me for their surety of operations, and also my Suppliers who were supporting me during this “temporary” interruption to business with the business’s revenue restricted. They had already been supporting me for two months since the matter commenced.



Later, CASA became aware they had erred and had no basis for that determination that I was operating illegally, leading to a change of approach, and the topic would now alternate over a range of topics. They fell away as CASA realised none of them could “stick” and focussed on the issue of “contracts” which is one of the considerations before the Ombudsman now.



It is important to realise, that at this stage, CASA has stated that my operation is illegal, the terminology in the initial notification makes that very clear. There are no concerns about safety or quality outcomes of the Organisation. It is a determination that my business is illegal, and all indications are that I will be closed down. The ramifications of this correspondence are clearly laid out in Appendix A.

[glenb]

2nd April 2019



It is only now after having restrictions in place for 6 months that CASA makes the first attempt to provide me with guidance. This point is significant. How can I have my business deprived of revenue for 6 months waiting for CASA to determine what will satisfy them, in a completely new requirement that they have placed on my business, and on my business only.



It seems reasonable to me that when CASA placed those trading restrictions on the business six months earlier based on content of the contracts, they should have had a clear indication of what they wanted at that time, and it should not have taken 6 months. This is now two years after the business was revalidated as a Part 141/142 Organisation doing exactly what we were doing for the decade previously. I believe that this point is significant. If CASA wanted to put something into the “contracts”, I was fully supportive of that. CASA met no resistance from me, but it was incumbent on CASA 6 months earlier to have an idea of what they required. In order for CASA to determine that something is wrong, they should have a concept of what “right” looks like.



If CASA provided the required text that would satisfy them, I could have had it embedded, and returned within 48 hours. The restrictions could have been lifted, and I could have returned to Business as Usual. It really was that simple. The matter should have been completely resolved in less than 7 days, as I believed that it would be, and am certain could have been. But it took CASA a staggering 6 months.



I attended to all CASA legislation in my Exposition. If CASA want something in the commercial contracts, that was not already covered by the existing legislation, that is fine, but I cannot possibly speculate what that is. It was incumbent upon CASA to clearly and concisely advise me because they were requiring something outside of the legislation. Despite the fact that CASA were not prepared to be a signatory to the contract.



These restrictions CASA put in place were not proportionate, and most especially because they remained in place for 6 months before CASA was able to identify to me, what they required in the “contracts”. Furthermore, I do not believe the restrictions were lawful, and strayed dramatically from the policies and procedures outlined in CASAs Enforcement manual, Writing Guide, Regulatory Philosophy, Ministers Statement of Expectation, PGPA,



It was unlawful, unfair, and totally unnecessary. A well-intentioned discussion would have had the entire matter promptly resolved in a matter of days. I emphasise that it took CASA 6 months to clearly and concisely advise me what they required. Throughout this entire period, I am unable to take on customers or students as the entire business is operating on an “interim approval” and CASA have placed an administrative freeze on all required regulatory tasks that the business is reliant on.





20th March 2019



I meet with the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance. Mr Aleck at Melbourne airport and have a discussion regarding APTA. Mr Aleck produces a checklist that he expects APTA to attend to. Surprisingly, it is exactly the same checklist that CASA had already ticked off on and can be found as Appendix B. This is the checklist that APTA and CASA used to design the Exposition for APTA over a two-year period. The suite of documents that are the backbone of every aspect of operations. Every single item that Mr Aleck identified at that meeting had been assessed by CASA as satisfactory two years earlier, audited for compliance by CASA, and contained within our Exposition, a part of which has been provided to the Ombudsman Office. It seemed absurd that he was showing me that same checklist. Everything on that list had been assessed, approved, and audited by CASA. There was nothing else that I could write, everything on the list had been attended to. It is important to appreciate that our existing commercial contract directed the signatories to comply with our Exposition (operations manuals). For clarity, we had the Exposition, and we had a commercial contract. The commercial contract made it clear that all operations were in accordance with the Exposition, and everybody had to sign to say that they would comply with the Exposition. That checklist was obtained by me under FOI and is attached as Appendix B.



In writing this paragraph, I have realised that this particular topic needs to be very clearly pointed out.



There is no CASA legislative requirement for a “contract”, but there is for the Exposition. Everyone who operates under my authorisation at all bases signs the Exposition regularly to state that they will comply with the Exposition. Each staff member did that on every day that they operated.



The contract, which is of a commercial nature, and attached as Appendix C is our first version, and directs that all operations will be in accordance with our CASA approved Exposition. I was in an impossible situation, I did not know what CASA wanted, so could not possibly resolve the issue. It was incumbent upon Mr Aleck to clearly and concisely advise me what it was that he wanted, that I had not already attended to.



2nd April 2019



With the trading restrictions in place throughout the last 6 months CASA finally provides guidance on the content that they would like APTA to place in the “contracts”. It seems reasonable to me that when CASA placed those trading restrictions on the business six months earlier based on content of the contracts, they should have had a clear indication of what they wanted at that time, and it should not have taken 6 months. This is now two years after the business was revalidated as a Part 141/142 Organisation doing exactly what we were doing before.





4th April 2019 at 8.30AM



I emailed Mr Peter White, the CASA Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance at the time, requesting a meeting at 11.30AM that same day from the office of my accountancy firm.



I advised that the meeting would be about the potential cessation of all operations at APTA, Ballarat Aero Club, Latrobe Valley Aero Club, Simjet, Whitestar Aviation, AVIA and Learn to Fly, and MFT. This situation had come around due to cashflow difficulties as a result of the CASA restrictions being in place for 6 months. The affected businesses had been unable to enrol customers for a period of 6 months. As we have seen most recently with COVID restrictions, few businesses simply could survive 6 months deprived of revenue, and in my case with no Government support at all.



My accountant was obligated to intervene, and sought an explanation, before advising me on how to proceed. By this stage my parents had funded $300,000 towards staff salaries so that I could avoid redundancies. The business had been unable to take on new customers for 6 months, many existing customers were departing. Staff and customers had lost confidence in their ongoing job security and training. The reputation of the business and my own personal reputation had been significantly impacted.



It was imperative that the matter of the contracts was resolved at that meeting. The matter was time critical; my funds were completely exhausted; Suppliers were understandably concerned. These were long term suppliers with established and valued relationships with my business. They backed me during the initial restrictions on the businesses cashflow. They like me believed that this matter should have been resolved months ago. None of us could have imagined that it would not have been resolved by now. The business could not proceed if the restrictions remained in place. It was imperative that the “interim operations” and other CASA imposed restrictions be lifted and the business permitted to return to “business as usual’.



I recounted to my accountant, the story to date of the delays in CASA producing what they wanted in the contracts, and other matters including the use of the Aviation Ruling, the advice from Peter White that Mr Aleck had determined that APTA would not be permitted, the many allegations of regulatory baseless breaches that CASA made, but withdrew every single one of them, as they were not valid.



My accountant had grave concerns about the impact of the restrictions on the business over the previous 6 months, and like me, could not see any basis on safety or law for the CASA actions. It was a change of opinion. By now the business is under extreme financial distress. My accountant was extremely concerned that after 6 months waiting for CASA to determine what they want in the contracts; the matter was still not resolved.





4th April 2019 at 11.30AM



The meeting proceeded at 11.30 AM by way of a conference call. In attendance representing CASA was the Executive Manager Aviation Group Mr Graeme Crawford, and the Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance, Mr Craig Martin. Also in attendance were two staff from my accountancy firm and two staff from APTA.



My note taking of this event is comprehensive. All four attendees took comprehensive quotes with emphasis on quotes made by the CASA personnel. The matters that would be attended to at that meeting would determine if I was to cease all operations that day or resolve this matter immediately. By now my home had been sold, my parents had spent their life savings and it was increasingly difficult to meet my payroll obligations. My families funds across three generations had simply run out. There were multiple attendees taking notes and recording statements and commitments. Those note can be validated by four statutory declarations of the attendees.



At that meeting, CASA Executives Mr Martin and Mr Crawford individually gave me firm and repeated commitments that if I embedded the CASA suggested text, that was provided to me only two days earlier by CASA into the contracts, then the restrictions on the businesses ability to trade would be lifted. APTA would be promptly approved to continue operations and as CASA termed it, return to “business as usual” as it had been 6 months earlier. This commitment was made by both Mr Martin and Mr Crawford at that meeting. I emphasise that each of them gave me repeated assurances.



Mr Martin and Mr Crawford repeatedly confirmed that if I embed the suggested text into the contracts that all would be resolved. They confirmed that once the amended contract was returned the restrictions would be lifted and confirmed that is the advice, they had received from Mr Peter White. Mr Martin advised me to get the contracts to them as soon as possible. “Once signed and returned to CASA, we would be returning to business as usual”.



Mr Martin urged me to get the contract back as soon as possible, as that was “all we were waiting for”. His tone suggested that they were waiting on me, as they were. Although I had only received the text from CASA two days prior.



I advised Mr Martin and Mr Crawford that the completed contracts would be returned in the next day or two, we had only had the information supplied to us by CASA two days earlier.



Comments similar to these were repeated on multiple occasions by each of those CASA employees throughout the meeting.

My accountant queried Mr Crawford as to why it had taken 6 months for CASA to provide the suggested text and lift the restrictions on the business. Mr Crawford advised my accountant that he didn’t have to explain CASAs position and that he didn’t have to talk to him because he was the accountant. It was obvious at that meeting that Mr Martin and Mr Crawford were unable to justify the unacceptable timelines and were not going to explain the reason that it took CASA 6 months to work out what it was that they wanted.



There was no doubt in my mind or my accountants that at the conclusion of that meeting CASA would lift the restrictions if I returned the contracts with the CASA guidance fully embedded, because those were the repeated assurances given to me at that meeting.



I did ask Mr Martin and Mr Crawford why APTA was required to have a contract when other operators doing the same thing did not have the contractual requirement placed on them. CASA advised that my operation was unlawful without contracts but would not explain why my flying school was being targeted, but others were permitted to do the same thing for at least the last 25 years.



I pointed out that CASA had held contracts for 18 months, before they sent that correspondence in October 2018, and asked why we were still dealing with this years later.



I explained very clearly the commercial impact on me, my family, the suppliers, customers, students, employees etc. Both men were already fully aware of the commercial impact on the business and the impact on my wellbeing. This was however reiterated at the meeting because, it was important to ensure both men were fully aware that this matter needed to be resolved promptly. Several businesses and their employees were depending on this matter being resolved. The business had now been unable to attract new business for 6 months.



My accountant again reiterated the commercial imperative. “We do not have much time”. “We need to get this done or we must wind up the business” “we need to try and make up the substantial lost ground.



Mr Martin said that Mr Whites email of April 2nd answered the accountants question. Mr Martin was answering in the affirmative. And kept referring to that email.



Whenever I tried to get an explanation, I was repeatedly met with “If you want to go back six months, well go back six months”.



Mr Martin assured me that once the contracts were signed. He advised that CASA could not approve new customers until the contracts were resolved. He advised that CASA was not permitting new customers to join because they were waiting to get contracts finalised.



I confirmed that regulatory tasks that had been on hold for 6 months would now proceed These courses were APTA courses, both Mr martin and Mr Crawford both advised that the tasks would proceed once the contract was back. He advised that tasks were put on hold because the A PTA model may not be permitted.



Mr Martin read me document of April 2nd which is attached as Appendix C to reiterate that restrictions would soon be lifted based on Mr Whites advice.



There was a discussion around the CASA requirement for contracts.



Accountant sought clarification of why we had contracts and that they were only to satisfy CASA not Members or APTA.



I reiterated that I was prepared to put anything into the contracts that CASA required. Mr Martin explained that APTA was unlawful without contracts, although it was not a contract for CASA. My accountant pointed out that in fact it was CASA wanting to become involved in the commercial contract between members, CASA was actually interfering in the contract, and particularly so if CASA was not prepared to be a signatory to their required contract.



Mr Martin confirmed that “CASA had perhaps given me incorrect advice, although it was well intentioned”.



My accountant again sought a clear direction and highlighted the financial impact and that he was depending on a resolution.



At this meeting Mr Craig Martin stated that his predecessor, Mr Peter White has seen the positive outcomes of APTA firsthand. This occurred on Saturday January 12th, 2019, when Mr Peter White visited the facilities.



This 6-month delay had come close to destroying the business. It was becoming obvious that I would need to approach my parents for further funding to avoid staff redundancies. I had been unable to take on any new customers for a period of 6 months, and the accountant was advising that I must cease operations, unless this matter could be immediately resolved.





9th April 2019 at 7.33AM



APTA embeds fully all CASA suggestions into the contract as advised 4 days earlier, and six months after trading restrictions are in place. All Members are fully satisfied.



That contract is returned to CASA for review by Mr Peter White the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance at the time, and my primary contact within CASA.



My reasonable expectation at this stage was that the business would soon be able to work towards repairing the enormous damage done. as usual as CASA had already assured me on so many previous occasions during the previous 6 months, and most recently by Mr Martin and Mr Crawford at the Accountants Office days earlier on April 4th.





9th April 2019 at 6.32PM



CASA has now received the finalised contracts from me and my members approximately 12 hours earlier. Peter White the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance at the time, reviews the contracts and sends me an email titled “I can confirm the content is acceptable to CASA”. Within the body of the email, it goes on to state.



“Dear Glen, I have reviewed the draft contract provided this date. I can confirm the content is acceptable to CASA. My appreciation to you and your staff for provision of same…….”



On receiving that email, I was overwhelmed. Finally after more than 6 months I thought it was over.. By now the business had been decimated and my parents had put in $300,000 of their own money to ensure I could avoid any staff redundancies over the previous 6 months that the trading restrictions had been in place. Many of my customers and staff had already left because of the previous 6 months uncertainty, and I had been unable to take on new customers or students for 6 months The accountant had very firmly advised me that this matter must be resolved immediately, or he would have to intervene. He would not permit continued operations now costing approximately $20,000 per week.



I have now had a commitment from the following three individuals that if I embed the CASA suggested text that I have waited 6 months for, my businesses MFT and APTA will be able to continue.



1. CASA Executive Manager of the Aviation Group- Mr Graeme Crawford at my accountant’s office less than a week prior.

2. CASA Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance- Mr Peter White via email

3. CASA Acting Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance- Mr Craig Martin at my accountant’s office less than a week prior.



There is no doubt in my mind that this matter that has dragged on unnecessarily for 6 months will finally be resolved, and I can return to business as usual and try to repair the substantial damage that has been caused. The cashflow crisis on the business has now been continuing for 6 months, my parents funds are exhausted, as are mine, and the businesses is on the cusp of collapse.



This good news is to be short-lived.

[glenb]

9th April 2019 at 10.56PM.



Only hours later, after having there is yet another complete reversal and I am back at the start of the process again when CASA write back to me and ask, “can you hold off distributing for a day or two”.



The only two individuals within CASA that have more seniority than Mr White, Mr Martin and Mr Crawford are Mr Shane Carmody, the CEO of CASA and Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs. It is more likely that Mr Aleck was the decision maker of the reversal, as he is the Executive Manager responsible for these matters, although that is only my reasonable assumption, I have no evidence of that.



Something happened on the evening of Tuesday 9th April to lead to a complete reversal from CASA.



12th April 2019, (Friday)



CASA advise that they will contact me verbally over the weekend.



16th April 2019 (Tuesday)



CASA advise that they would like another teleconference.



17th April 2019 (Wednesday)



CASA advise that they have some “disappointing news”. The contracts were now not acceptable, CASA put a proposal to me that they would now pursue a different approach, although a new approval for interim operations would now be issued. It was the “interim approvals” that bought so much instability and uncertainty to the business. The matter was still not resolved, and another interim approval to operate is issued. Any remaining confidence in the APTA model and my flying school, MFT by customers and potential customers is now lost as they have been in “limbo” for 6 months already. Their reasonable expectation, as was mine, was that this matter should have been resolved long ago.



24th April 2019



I write to CASA raising my concerns. Attached as Appendix D



30th April 2019



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



Interestingly this legal advice, that CASA received does not mention Part 142 Operations which are contracted checking and training and make up over 90% of APTAs revenue. I believe that CASA received legal advice on part 142 operations but chose to avoid mentioning Part 142 activities because these are clearly permitted and exactly what Part 142 is all about i.e. contracted checking and training. I have asked CASA to bring clarity to Part 142 operations on a number of occasions, but they choose not to answer this question. This new legal advice received 6 months later, differs very much to the assertion by CASA in October 2018 where Mr Alecks position was “The Ruling does not permit an AOC Holder to authorise a third-party body corporate to conduct operations under its AOC. This was Mr Alecks opinion and was later found incorrect by the Ombudsman in Stage One of his investigation, when the Ombudsman found; “As of October 2016, no Australian legislation prohibited “franchising of an AOC”.



This point is significant for the investigation by the Ombudsman office, because the Ombudsman is of the view that CASA took legal advice. I was advised by CASA that in fact at the time of CASA initiating their reversal of approval in October 2018, they had NOT received external legal advice. CASA advised me that they only sought external legal advice much later on, and in fact only received that external legal advice in April, which is 6 months after the restrictions were placed on the business. If that is the case, then the truth is that when CASA initiated their action, I was dealing only with the opinion of Mr Aleck.



In phase two of the Ombudsman investigation (not yet finalised) the Ombudsman was of the view that CASA had received external legal advice. I do not disagree that CASA did perhaps obtain legal advice, but I would question the timelines and what information CASA provided to the legal firm i.e., was it accurate? Based on the fact that the legal advice was only confirmed as received some time just prior to 30th April, (“now received the external legal advice’) leads me to believe that in fact there was no prior external legal advice and confirms my view that I may have been dealing with a CASA employees’ opinion, and not any basis in law or safety. Mr White had also confirmed to me that there had been no prior external legal advice taken by CASA).



The matter should immediately have been resolved at this stage.



Despite this, CASA offer yet another short-term interim approval for APTA to operate, while CASA look at alternative options.



30th April 2019,



I advise CASA of the impact on my business and my health. Refer Appendix D. With the restrictions on the businesses ability to trade remaining in place, and the matter far from resolved, I will be unable to meet the upcoming payroll for my employees, and I have only two options.



Shut the business down or try and sell the business at a nominal value.



If I shut the operation, hundreds of student’s part way through their training would have been impacted, and many staff would have lost their jobs. Similarly, Suppliers would be impacted. Several businesses dependent on APTA had already been forced into closure because of the 6-month delay, and the several remaining businesses would also be forced into closure.



June 6th, 2019



CASA CEO Mr Carmody sends me correspondence “…To be absolutely clear, if CASA does not have the evidence we require i.e. contracts, in hand by 1st July 2019, we will have no choice but to consider what further action we may need to take in relation to the flight training operations in which APTA and its affiliates are engaging.”



June 30th, 2019



The decision to sell the business had now been made and the business was sold. The business previously valued at approximately $4,000,000, is sold to an APTA customer (to ensure their own continuity of operations) for 5% of its value at approximately $200,000. Not one cent ever enters my own account, and all payments are made directly to creditors of APTA who have been impacted by the last 6 months of trading restrictions on the business.



The reason for the 5% was the business after 8 months was operating on an interim approval. It had no surety of operations after June 30th as the CASA approval was to expire. The matter was no closer to being resolved. By now, all confidence in both APTA and MFT had been lost, the situation was not recoverable. By the Member purchasing the business at a nominal value, they are able to ensure their own survival.



CASA continues pursuing the closure of APTA and forces all remaining customers to leave APTA. APTA continues operating under different ownership but now as a single school operating alone. I hope that the above timeline you can understand that I may not believe that CASA made a number of good faith attempts, and did not provide me with sufficient guidance.

[glenb]

The very fact that CASAs attention was only on contracts, and not on the Exposition is inexplicable.



The “Contract” being the commercial agreement between APTA and its Members. CASA would not normally have any involvement in these commercial contracts. CASA never required contracts of any previous operator. It was a new requirement that CASA placed on my business only.



The “Exposition”, on the other hand is the suite of CASA approved manuals for our operation., This particular “contract” is referred to by CASA as the Exposition. To explain the significance of the Exposition, it may be most appropriate if I draw on the legislation and CASAs own information. This information is important. Had CASA had concerns about operational control or any aspect of operations they should have been working with me on the Exposition. Its inexplicable that they had no interest in the “exposition” yet were insistent on becoming involved in the commercial contracts between customers and myself. The existing contract that APTA had adopted for the last two years directed signatories to operate in accordance with the Exposition.



If I believe that CASAs motivation was safety or regulatory compliance, they would have attended to it in the Exposition. CASA placing restrictions on the business based on commercial contracts is inexplicable, has no precedent in the industry, and has no basis in law.



To gain an appreciation of the Exposition, I draw your attention to the following information from CASAs website and the legislation.



“An Exposition is a document, or set of documents, which describe how your organisation will conduct its operations safely. It sets out both for CASA and the personnel involved in your operation how you intend to comply with all applicable legislative requirements and manage the safety of your operation.



The relevant regulations will outline what you must include. It will include information about your organisation, personnel, facilities, policies, systems and procedures for conducting your activities.



A flight training organisation is required to describe procedures by which the operator conducts and manages its training activities, including the supervision of instructors and trainees. Your exposition must accurately reflect how you will conduct your activities. It needs to be written and structured in a logical way. This will ensure the relevant parts can be readily identified and provided to your personnel who are responsible for complying with them.



Example, CASR 142.340 requires a Part 142 flight training organisation to describe procedures by which the operator conducts and manages its training activities, including the supervision of instructors and trainees. Your exposition must accurately reflect how you will conduct your activities. It needs to be structured in a logical way. This will ensure the relevant parts can be readily identified and provided to your personnel who are responsible for complying with them. The procedures in your exposition should also provide enough detail so that your personnel can conduct their activities consistently in line with your intentions. Each procedure should address, where required.



· What must be done?

· Who should do it?

· When it must be done.

· Where it must be done

· How it must be done

· Record Keeping

· How the procedure is monitored and approved



Once the relevant authorisation has been issued by CASA, you are obliged to conduct your activities in accordance with your exposition.



I have extracted that from CASAs own guidance material, and below is the legislative requirements for the Exposition.



Below is an extract from CASR 142.340. This link outlines the regulatory requirements for the contents of the Exposition. It clearly demonstrates that the Expsition is the place to making changes, and not a commercial contract, although I was open to that idea if that was CASAs preference as it was. It was unusual, but I was willing to comply.



CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 142.340 Part 142 operators--content of exposition (austlii.edu.au) (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.340.html)



Considering the significance of the Exposition, that is the location that any changes should have been made if CASA had concerns about operational control or any other matter. Not in the contracts. I was always fully compliant and willing to embed anything into the contracts, but as stated I was wholly dependent on CASA clearly stating what it was they wanted that was in addition to what I already had. What I already had was an Exposition that was CASA approved and attended to every piece of relevant legislation



The purpose of this correspondence is to ensure you are aware of my perspective that CASA did not make a number of good faith attempts, reversed their decision, and did not act in a timely manner. It was those administrative delays that caused so much commercial harm.



Mark, I draw on 25 years experience in the flight training industry, and half of that as the owner of a highly respected flight training school with a demonstrated industry leading record of safety and compliance. The CASA action was the most aggressive action I have seen taken against any organisation ever. In cases where there have been allegations of safety breaches, those organisations have been afforded more procedural fairness. From my own personal experience, and that is shared by my management team, those CASA employees were not acting in a well intentioned manner and were pursuing an agenda. It felt very much as the business owner that this matter was not going to be resolved. I am in the middle of a house move and need to make this submission to you, please excuse me reverting to dot points for the last part of this correspondence. I hope I have conveyed:



The unusual nature of CASA requiring the commercial contract to be the place to outline safety matters, rather than the Exposition.



Appreciate that if CASA had concerns about my business, then it was logical that CASA would pay attention to the Exposition, although CASA never requested changes to the Operations Manuals (Exposition). CASA insisted that changes be to the commercial contracts. This was highly unusual and not accepted industry practice, or previously required by CASA of other flying schools.



To understand the significance of the Exposition to matters that CASA was concerned with i.e. matters of safety and compliance. This was the document that everyone had access to and is used to maintain operational control and ensure safe and compliant operations. As the Authorisation Holder and owner of MFT/APTA I was responsible and accountable for the quality outcomes. This is the suite of documents referred to by all personnel at all bases daily.



To appreciate the relative insignificance of the commercial contract to matters of safety and compliance. By convention commercial contracts are usually signed and filed and accessed by only a select few. They are not regularly updated, widely distributed, and would be a highly ineffective way of managing operational control or safety matters, particularly considering that the Exposition is available, and the expected primary source of such information. This was inexplicably CASAs preferred option. It was unusual but I was always willing to place anything into the contract that CASA required. After all, I was 100% responsible and accountable for all operations. There is no reason that I would be resistant to any CASA requirements that CASA need in order to make that more clear than what already exists in the legislation. On this matter my interests and CASAs were closely aligned. It should have been easy to resolve.



Understand that had CASA not placed restrictions on my businesses and instead resolved this without those restrictions in place. None of this damage would have occurred. None of it. The restrictions were not reasonable.



To understand that CASA never required these contracts of any operator previously.



That CASA placed restrictions on my business ability to trade and that those restrictions continued for 8 months until the business was forced into a cashflow crisis. There was no safety case and no regulatory breach



I would place anything that CASA required in any document, but it was incumbent on CASA to provide the required information. I could not resolve this matter. Everything was already attended to.



Importantly, I had no opposition to CASA becoming involved in commercial contracts, I was at all times willing to comply with absolutely anything that CASA required, despite the highly unusual nature of their involvement. This situation is even more unusual that at no time CASA ever required any structural or organisational changes to the Exposition. The Exposition being the area that CASA would normally involve itself, after all that is where all requirements for safety and compliance are contained. Any commercial arrangements with suppliers etc would normally be held in the contracts, which CASA traditionally has had no interest in.



CASA never required contracts of other operators. This could easily be proven if the Ombudsman’s office simply asked CASA if they held on file any contracts between suppliers and customers in the flight training industry, and more specifically were other flying schools in the same or similar arrangements as APTA/MFT required to have a contract, and if so could they provide a copy to the Ombudsman’s office. The truth is that CASA never required this of the other Operators doing what I was doing. I know. I have asked them.



I believe that the Ombudsman’s Office also needs to understand that the CASA regulations regarding supervising, mentoring, oversighting, quality control, operational control, checking, auditing training records etc were written before mobile telephones and the internet were utilised. They were written decades ago for a completely different environment, and the truth is that the regulations were not “fit for purpose”. The APTA system was industry leading and fully utilise advances in technology to maintain unparalleled levels of oversight and operational control. Any comparative analysis between my operation and another would show the strength of our systems, personnel, and resources. We had the largest flight safety department of any flight school in Australia. CASA interestingly has never made any allegations regarding quality outcomes. The line of argument initially was that I was operating illegally. Once CASA discovered they had erred on this matter, rather than admit error it became a topic of “contracts”



CASA had planned to have finalised this regulatory change program to make them more fit for purpose in 2006. It was finally partially delivered 10 years and many millions of dollars over budget. That existing legislation only became more outdated as a result of those delays, as did the “new”, Part 61/141/142 still awaiting implementation. Technology was moving ahead in leaps and bounds. When the CASA legislation was written, we could only reach each other if we were at home and via the landline if the phone wasn’t engaged. Consider how much better we can communicate now and improve safety outcomes.



I took advantages in technology over the last 25 years and applied them to the revalidation process to ensure those increases in technology were applied to supervising, mentoring, oversighting, quality control, operational control, checking, auditing etc as I developed my Exposition.



The notification of the commercial impact was notified to CASA on multiple occasions. There could be no doubt in the mind of Mr Aleck, Mr Martin, and Mr Crawford of the commercial impact. I have the evidence in writing. That knowledge of the commercial impact would have been amongst their respective considerations when making decisions on how this matter would be managed.



In closing, please understand that I waited a staggering 6 months for CASA to advise what they wanted in the contracts. They provided that guidance on April 2nd, 2019. I returned it April 9th. On that day CASA advised it was acceptable, and later the same day applied a reversal, and the entire matter was no closer to being resolved.



Please understand that this was a matter that could not be resolved by me. I attended to every single requirement of many thousands of pages of documentation contained within CASA regulations.



There were no safety breaches or concerns ever raised by CASA. There were no regulatory breaches. The entire system was designed with CASA. The system was approved by CASA 18 months earlier. There was only one CASA issued authorisation and that was the single authorisation that entities operated under. I had 25 years industry experience and was fully aware of my responsibilities and accountabilities as that Authorisation Holder for the quality outcomes across all bases. Our Exposition was written in that manner, CASAs own legislation is written in that manner.



As the Owner of that flight training organisation and CASA issued authorisation, I was fully awrecof the responsibility and accountability. I drew on 25 years industry experience, half of that as a CASA approved Chief Flying Instructor (CFI), CASA Approved Head of Operations (HOO), CASA Approved CEO, and a Grade One Multi Engine IFR instructor with 25 years experience. I had also owned a flying school for more than a decade and based on CASA feedback, that Organusation had delivered industry leading standards of safety and compliance.



This need not have been such a “confusing” issue for CASA. Many operators had been doing the same thing well before I joined the industry over 25 years ago. CASA have attempted to present this concept as something not seen before. That is not truthful. One only has to ask how Latrobe Valley Aero Club operated up until the day they joined APTA. The provider of the AOC coverage, the day prior wasn’t required to have a contract. I was.



I feel strongly that CASA should have obtained legal advice before commencing their action and placing restrictions on the business.



APTA met every existing piece of CASA legislation and that was embedded into a comprehensive manual suite. I was in an impossible situation. It was CASA that wanted the additional text and to become involved in the contracts. They were seeking something that was in addition to the lefislation. I could not resolve this situation. It was incumbent upon CASA to advise me what they wanted. This is critical to this entire matter. CASA initiated the action in October 2018. At that stage I depended on them to advise me what CASA wanted in the contracts. With trading restrictions on the business in place for a staggering 6 months, the business was doomed.



The truth is that had Mr Aleck/Martin/Crawford chosen to resolve this matter, it could easily have been resolved. That is the plain and simple truth. Furthermore, it could have been resolved promptly i.e., 3 working days.

The matter of contracts did not need to be an issue. Mr Martin, Mr Crawford, and Mr Aleck chose for it to be an issue.



At any stage CASA needed only to tell me clearly and concisely what they wanted in the “contracts”. I choose the words deliberately because that is in fact the very terminology in the Civil Aviation Act as one of the core functions of CASA, refer Appendix A



The truth is that after 25 years of experience in the flight training industry, with almost half of that as the owner of a highly respected flying school, I was acutely and fully aware of my responsibility for the outcomes of all operations delivered under my AOC. My responsibility was 100%. The existing legislation makes that very clear. I had been a CASA approved Chief Flying instructor for over a decade, CASA approved Head of Operations and a CASA approved CEO. It is highly unlikely that I would have passed each of those CASA assessments if I was not fully aware of my obligations.



The contract was a commercial agreement between APTA and its Members. The agreement was in two parts. Part A with the legal component and Part B with the intention of APTA. I provided the contracts to CASA on multiple occasions during the 18 months lead up to CASAs reversal. CASA did not show any interest in the contracts, their interest understandably, was the Exposition. As it should be. I reiterate that CASA have never required contracts of other Opeartors. Any changes to APTA should have been reflected in the Exposition. If CASA want to become involved inn the commercial aspects of the agreement, which are in the contract, the onus is on CASA to advise me of the content that they require. A copy of the contract is attached as Appendix E.



Once again, please accept my apologies for a document that has not been proofread as much as I would have liked. I am limited for time, thank you for your consideration.



Respectfully



Glen Buckley.

[glenb]

Please find a document below those outlines the restrictions that CASA placed on the business, and their impact. I feel somewhat that the implications of the trading restrictions on the business are not being given the appropriate consideration in this matter. They were not proportionate, not necessary, and Mr Aleck was not compelled to make the decisions he made. These restrictions were unnecessary and had no basis in law or CASA procedures. A face to face well intentioned discussion of less that 3 hours duration could have had this entire fiasco avoided. It really could have been that simple, if all Parties were genuinely acting with good intent.



Consider that CASA provided short term “interim approvals to operate” in accordance with the timelines below. No education provider, or in fact any business could continue to operate in any industry with such limited surety of operations.



23/10/18 7 days surety of operations.

30/10/18 to 12/02/19 No surety of operations. Awaiting CASA determination.

12/02/19 to 13/05/19 Interim Approval expiring midnight 13/05/19.

03/05/19 to 01/07/19 Extension of Interim Approval to midnight 01/07/19.(Company transferred just prior to expiry of this final interim approval, the CASA CEO led me to believe that there would be no more extensions,



It is important to appreciate the impact of these interim approvals on the business. Had those restrictions In October 2018, after twelve years of operation, and 18 months after CASA had revalidated APTA to continue to provide multi base operations, CASA writes to me and advises that I have 7 days certainty of operations, that I am operating unlawfully, and subject to regulatory action.



CASA also placed an Administrative “freeze” on all pending regulatory tasks. I was unable to process applications. The impact of this was significant. I had a number of projects that were essential to operations and CASA would not process, these included freezes on CASA processing applications for Key Personnel that were essential to increasing oversight and control to prepare for anticipated growth of the Organisation.



Refusal to process additional courses to be added. These were courses that we were fully entitled to add on to our capability.



A new flight simulator laying idle for many months, as CASA would not process the application for its approval until the matter of contracts was resolved.



This was very clearly a variation of an AOC, and a very significant one i.e. short term interim approval to operate, and a freeze applied on all regulatory tasks. The CASA Enforcement Manual clearly outlines the procedures that should have been followed. by CASA. These procedures are outlined in CASA manuals to ensure compliance with administrative law, natural justice, and procedural fairness. These procedures were completely bypassed in CASAs’ dealing with me on these matters. CASA have a particular format for a Show Cause Notice (SCN). None was ever issued. This was one of the many breaches of procedures that should have been followed when varying my AOC. This document also outlines CASAs Regulatory Philosophy. In CASA dealings with me they demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the obligations placed on them to act professionally. Enforcement Manual (casa.gov.au) (https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/enf/009rfull.pdf)



For clarity, CASA initially advised me that they were going to close down the business and that what I was doing was unlawful.



The impact is immediate:



· First and foremost, enormous reputational damage is done to me personally and immediately. Until this point in time, I have been of the view that CASA is supportive of APTA. They helped me design the systems, assessed the systems, approved the systems, audited the systems and in fact recommended APTA to flying schools. I have led customers to believe that APTA is fully CASA approved, as it is. The notice that APTA has as little as 7 days to continue operating brings enormous harm to the businesses, staff, customers, students and suppliers that are dependent on the APTA. Those people depending on me, understandably have concerns that I have involved them in something that is not CASA approved. The implications on those entities are significant.



· The flying schools are no longer able to enrol students. Courses for the Commercial Pilot Licence which comprise 95% of the business’s revenue, typically take 18 months. This CASA action occurred at the very time the business attracts new students considering their options after finishing High School. No person will enrol in a school with CASA action pending and only 7 days surety of operations.



· My own flying school Melbourne Flight Training that I have been operating for 12 years has suddenly been declared an unauthorised operation by CASA, and I have been advised that I will most likely be subject to regulatory action. This is simply ridiculous. My school operates in exactly the same awy it has for more than a decade. This action is inexplicable. Multiple requests to CASA to have this explained have not been answered. This cannot possibly be justified.



· The parent Company APTA is unable to attract new flying schools to join. CASA has determined that the model is now unlawful. The structure costs approximately $1,000,000 per annum to run, and is dependent on ten contributing members. I have members wanting to join, but CASA refuses to process new applications. Customers waiting to join have their confidence in APTA impacted as they are placed on hold. Bases that CASA has previously approved will have their approvals reversed.



· The entire reputation and credibility of APTA and me, are immediately called into question. I have a number of Entities that are wholly dependent on APTA for their continued operation. The initial correspondence from CASA leads me to believe that CASA is not only refusing previous approvals but reversing existing approvals i.e. my own flying school of more than a decade has suddenly been declared an “unauthorised operation” and CASA advises “if APTA has facilitated these Companies operating in contravention of the above provisions, it would be a party to such contraventions.” It was simply ludicrous that my own school could be deemed an unauthorised operation. My initial written response is attached as Appendix A



· Existing APTA members who have previously been approved by CASA have now had their approvals reversed. By joining APTA, they now have a situation that their continuing operations are wholly dependent on APTAs approval that has now been cut back to 7 days I the future. The CASA correspondence leaves little doubt that it is more likely than not, that APTA will be closed down, with that, their own businesses will be forced into closure. The



· Existing students in the flying schools become concerned. They have commenced their training, and now their education provider has only 7 days certainty of operations. Understandably they consider options at other Registered Training Organisations (RTO) for the balance of their training. APTA/MFT had been a Registered Training Organisation RTO 22508 with an impeccable audit history, and the highest levels of compliance. An obligation on me as the owner of that RTO and the responsible person, is that I do not enrol students into a course that I may not be able to deliver.



· The business is seeking to add new talent to the Organisation in preparation for projected growth. I am unable to enter into employment contracts with new staff. A recent course of graduates with an expectation of employment on graduation have now lost that opportunity.



· CASA has placed an administrative freeze on all regulatory tasks. I have applications with CASA for the addition of new Key personnel, addition of new flight simulators, and new courses needing to be added to cater for business demands. All of these projects grind to a halt. The impact on the business is substantial. CASA should not have placed these tasks on hold, as they were essential for the business, essential to increase oversight, and essential to increase quality outcomes.



· Existing staff become concerned about the security of their respective livelihoods. Their employer has been given only 7 days’ notice of continuity of operations. Many of these employees have been with me since I opened the business more than a decade ago. Whilst CASA did issue several short-term approvals, the staff become increasingly concerned. They know that cashflow has been impacted, and that new students are not signing up. Obviously, they become concerned for their future.



· As a Registered Training Organisation, I have legal obligations on me, not to enrol students if I cannot deliver a course of training.



· International Students planning to move to Australia to train with the Organisation, have to be contacted and told to put their plans on hold. This alone creates an enormous amount of instability.



· Suppliers that I have long established relationships with are impacted. Without any notification at all, and no time to plan, CASA has provided me only 7 days surety of operations. Throughout the process, I believed at all times that this matter could have been promptly resolved, as it could have been. The Suppliers gave me short term support, but like me, they did not expect this matter to drag on for a staggering 8 months.

[Valdiviano]

2 or more CASA personnel, pushing the wheelbarrow of a competitor?

[Paragraph377]

2 or more CASA personnel, pushing the wheelbarrow of a competitor?

It wouldn’t be the fist time that has happened. Those of us who have spent many decades in the industry are well aware of how CASA operates and depending on ‘who you know’ you may receive favourable, or non-favourable actions from the ‘R’egulator.

As a side point, here is an example of local government malfeasance, or really ‘corruption’ is the better term. I attach the link because there will always be those who say a government or government agency wouldn’t act Out of line. If you believe that, well you also believe pigs can fly.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/13198384

Glen, based on what I know about your case I still think CASA went after you the moment you put pen to paper and told them their delayed approval process may be jeopardising safety. However, it would be an interesting exercise, just for ****s and giggles, to see who, if anyone, has benefited from the closure of your business? Another exercise, for the purpose of filling time, might be to see who those beneficiaries are linked to by way of current or former CASA employees both past and present. After all it is a small industry and if there were any anomalies I am sure they would become apparent.

“CASA, it’s all just a game, but a very serious game”

[glenb]

There are a number of reasons that CASA might have taken me off their Xmas Card list just prior to October 2018 when they shut the operation down. Reason Number One. In the middle of a house move now, into a smaller residence. Lots of tip runs, Gumtree, and moving going on. So just the one here.



I had been a vocal opponent on elements of the introduction of CASAs Part 141 and 142 legislation for many years prior to its introduction. I did this via attendance at CFI Conferences, correspondence, engagement with CASA personnel at every opportunity, and without looking up my posts from many years ago, I suggest on here.

.

Flying schools were operating under legislation that was not fit for purpose. As a flying school owner I was dealing with legislation and operational requirements that were no longer practical. Most of these pertained to matters such as supervising, mentoring, developing and ensuring quality outcomes.



Most of the applicable legislation was written before mobile telephones and the internet were used. Many on here wont remember it but, the only way a CFI could supervise when away from the office was by a landline at his home. If you were out of the house, you had to check in from a public telephone. If an accident or incident happened, you didn't know till you played back the answering machine. The weather came via fax machine, and that's how you submitted a flight plan. All student training records were handwritten entries into a record of training retained in a filing cabinet at the school. The only way to supervise a junior instructor was to be over his shoulder, and to check his work.



Advances in technology changed all that. You could mentor and supervise from anywhere in the world effectively. Review training notes, get images of aircraft, weather unserviceability's for advice and guidance, get real time weather updates, and transfer information in so many different ways that make the job so much more different today.



CASA introduced a Regulatory Reform Program for the flight training industry referred to as Part 141/142/61.



It was scheduled to be completed and fully implemented by 2005 from my memory. Hopefully a reader on here has access to the old advertising from CASA. Anyway it finally came in well over a decade behind schedule and many hundreds of millions of dollars over budget allegedly. By the time it came in over a decade behind schedule we got something that once again was outdated, not practical, negatively impacting on real safety, and costly to deliver.



I opposed some of the changes that were proposed.



First CASA proposed the two Commercial Pilot Licenses continue as they are now. A 150 hour option or a 200 hour option. CASA proposed that if a pilot on a 150 hour course didn't complete his PPL component in 6 months (from memory) and his CPL within 15 months from commencement, then he would not be able to continue on the 150 hour course and have to complete a 200 hour course. Whilst i saw some merit in what CASA was trying to achieve it had significant flaws.



In my communication with CASA i used the Tasmanian school as an example. A student is coming towards the tail end of his training, and the weather in unusually bad compared to previous years, and the already tight 15 month program seems likely to blow out by a month. There was to be no consideration, That student would be forced to do an additional 50 hours flying at a cost of approximately $10,000. What does that commercial pressure do to decision making. Does the school and student feel pressured to push the margins to try and complete the course on time. There were a number of scenarios. I just didn't think that a fixed date increased safety at all. After all the test is the test. If you are at test standard at 150 hours even if it is just outside the 15 months, the transfer to the 200 hour course seemed unreasonable. After all we are testing competency. That the important point. Mandating an additional 50 hours seemed unreasonable. Common sense prevailed and this change did not go ahead.



My second objection to Part 141 and 142 was not successful, and it went through in a format that i thought was unfair on smaller schools and those in regional areas.



Without going into the background here, Australia has two different Commercial Pilot Licenses as i said before. i.e. the 150 hour course and the 200 hour course. What's the difference. 50 hours and GST on the 200 hour course. The similarities are more noticeable. Both candidates train to the same syllabus. They do identical CASA theory exams, they can get trained by the same instructor, they can do the test with the same examiner to exactly the same standard, the same paperwork goes off to CASA and the identical pilot license is issued, not even indicating whether the candidate got there in 150 hours or via the 200 hour course.



Under the new regulations the 141 school could only deliver the 200 hour CPL, and the 150 hour CPL is the exclusive domain of the larger Part 142 schools. Whilst i don't have access to current figures, i suggest that there isn't an Australian Owned flying school with Part 142 capability in regional Australia.



My argument was that if its competency-based training with all of the same requirements, surely any candidate who meets the competencies should be entitled to conduct the flight test at 150 hours. Why would the smaller rural school with only part 141 capability have to deliver an additional 50 hours training? This would only encourage rural kids commencing training to move away from the regional 141 schools towards the city based 142 schools. This seemed to me to be an unreasonable new stipulation, that would only further fuel the decline of general aviation in rural areas. For clarity, I had to head down the path of the 142, otherwise i was going to lose access to my 90% of my revenue, being the 150-hour CPL. My interest in this matter was that despite it potentially benefitting my own organization, it would lead to increased difficulties for regional aero clubs and businesses, and lead to students gravitating away from the smaller Australian Owned businesses to the larger schools which are increasingly under the control of foreign ownership.



I thought my argument was valid, I was passionate about the Australian Owned sector of the industry, and I robustly put forward my case. Unfortunately, I gave Mr. Barnaby Joyce a bit of an emotional display at the Tamworth rally on this topic.



Anyway, that's one reason that I may have annoyed someone high up in CASA.

[AerialPerspective]

It wouldn’t be the fist time that has happened. Those of us who have spent many decades in the industry are well aware of how CASA operates and depending on ‘who you know’ you may receive favourable, or non-favourable actions from the ‘R’egulator.

As a side point, here is an example of local government malfeasance, or really ‘corruption’ is the better term. I attach the link because there will always be those who say a government or government agency wouldn’t act Out of line. If you believe that, well you also believe pigs can fly.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/13198384

Glen, based on what I know about your case I still think CASA went after you the moment you put pen to paper and told them their delayed approval process may be jeopardising safety. However, it would be an interesting exercise, just for ****s and giggles, to see who, if anyone, has benefited from the closure of your business? Another exercise, for the purpose of filling time, might be to see who those beneficiaries are linked to by way of current or former CASA employees both past and present. After all it is a small industry and if there were any anomalies I am sure they would become apparent.

“CASA, it’s all just a game, but a very serious game”

I think after the bugging of the Timor Leste government offices, the subsequent availing of high paid jobs or consultancies with the private company that stood to benefit by those that made the decision(s) (including one particular ex Minister whom juicemedia referred to as a 'useless sack of sh-t', the same one that when his daughter didn't get elected, practically called the voters idiots) and the subsequent persecution and secret trials of Witness K and Bernard Collaery as well as the persecution of journalists for reporting the truth.... for example, in addition to the TL bugging; consideration of raiding journalists by PD to find who leaked the Au Pair info, raiding of journalists for reporting the truth - or what appears to be shaping up as truth - regarding murder of innocents in a war zone, robodebt and other scandals, we probably don't need any convincing that at the very least, this government is rotten to the core and malfeasance is its middle name.......

Actually, there's a thought, perhaps juice media could do one of its 'Honest Government Ads' on Glen's situation.......

[Lead Balloon]

This is why the major parties are in such a 'hurry' to establish a Commonwealth Integrity Commission with real teeth!

[AerialPerspective]

This is why the major parties are in such a 'hurry' to establish a Commonwealth Integrity Commission with real teeth!

Well, one is, the other two reel in fear of it because they know it will expose even more of their bastardry....

[Lead Balloon]

Back to the topic...

Glen

Can I suggest that whenever you send voluminous material about your case to anyone, you add this at the start:

"Background

My business and livelihood were effectively destroyed in 2019 when someone in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority woke up one morning and decided to conjure up some law that does not exist. Up until that point, CASA was aware of the detail and had approved of the operations of the safe and successful flying training organisation I was continuing to build.

The law that someone in CASA conjured up was this:

"The operational and organisational arrangements 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."

That statement sounds really impressive but is, in reality, rubbish.

Why didn't I take legal action against CASA? Because I could not afford to take on an organisation that has a longstanding reputation for using whatever tactics it can to drive people into the ground when it chooses to.

I am hoping that, by bringing these matters to your attention, you might be able to assist me in righting the wrong that has been done to me by CASA. The detailed factual background and supporting material for what I have said, follows."

Although you are across all of the gory and painful detail, others who come to the matter 'cold' will, I reckon, be helped by a 'big hands small maps' explanation of what your grievance is about.

[glenb]

I concur Lead Balloon, i actually like your introduction and will embed it. Below is a work in progess but would be keen on any feedback.


Dear (media representative)

#TheCanberraBubble has emerged as the buzz term when it comes to describing Parliament House and the government’s apparent dysfunctional culture. Facing accusations of gender inequity in its ranks, a barrage of sexual assault and harassment claims, allegations of corruption, bullying and intimidatory behaviour, and public sentiment that Australia’s ruling bodies are ‘out of touch’ with the general population, the government stumbles along through scandal after scandal, often dragging the executive and judiciaries of our democracy with it.

In amongst the turmoil, in November 2020, the Senate Standing Committee’s General Aviation Inquiry, heard allegations of misfeasance in public office against (principally three) long-standing public servants from senior management at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA); including Shane Carmody, the then Director of Aviation Safety, Jonathan Aleck, Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Services, and Graeme Crawford, Manager of CASA’s Aviation Group. The same individuals that were the subject of an investigation by ABC 7.30 Report (Adele Ferguson and Chris Gillett - October 2018) into CASA’s behaviour in the matter of Bruce Rhoade’s fatal aircraft crash in January 2017 in Western Australia.

The forty minutes of testimony that Mr Glen Buckley, former Director of APTA (Australian Pilot Training Alliance) provided to the Senate Committee, is a snapshot, he alleges, of the depth of wrongdoing and abject failure of the safety regulatory authority to discharge its obligations to his company, the Australian public, and to the aviation industry. The impact of the alleged wrongdoing is substantial having resulted in a number of business closures, loss of associated jobs, and the loss of many millions of dollars to the entities affected.

Under the democratic principle of the ‘trias politica’ - the separation of powers - each arm of democracy (the parliament, the executive, and the judiciary) should have the power to govern, but also be kept in check by the power of the other arms. The democratic principle is the purposeful dissolution of power to ensure the integrity of all.

This principle, as demonstrated by Glen’s story detailed below, is not the modus operandi of CASA. In effect, a law unto itself, it develops the regulations, often as delegated legislation with no parliamentary oversight or control. It has absolute power to govern those regulations. It has the power to decide whether those regulations have been broken. And it has the power to decide the fate of those under its control. CASA, or more specifically, those in power within it, took a mere matter of months to destroy Glen’s 25-year flight-training career.

Aviation is weather dependent; and it is a brave aviator indeed that flies in ill weather. Glen’s story lays bare the actions of an industry regulator, primarily facilitated by those individuals at the helm, behaving like an ill wind to whomever it chooses. A regulator acting at personal will, and without tangible accountability.

With recent changes at CASA’s helm, perhaps now is the time for this story.



Aviation is one of the most regulated industries in the world. From the airline industry to general, sport and even unmanned aviation, no pilot or flight organisation escapes the rules. Rule number one is ‘Safety First’. Rule number two is See Rule One. Rule number three is Comply with Rule Number One and Rule Number Two at all cost. The economics of rules one and two are, for Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority, not of paramount concern. With a pot of public money that pays no urgent heed of time, and a legal team to match, the organisation can focus on rules one and two with scant regard for rule three. It has the money and time to afford and protect its self-interests, and to take a far more measured and considered approach to its actions than the often cash-strapped tax-paying organisations that it oversees. Public perception that anyone involved in aviation is just a ‘rich dude with toys’, although occasionally true, is far from the front-line reality. General aviation in particular, maintenance providers, flight training schools, joy flight operators, private charter organisations, and the like, are, more truthfully, a labour of love.

And in Australia, Glen Buckley was one of those front-line tax-paying organisations labouring away at what he loved. A key general aviation industry participant, his Moorabbin-based, registered flight training organisation, Melbourne Flight Training, had an exemplary reputation, with a team of 25 employees and instructors, and included the necessary approvals to train overseas students. The school also had a safety record the envy of industry for the duration of its operation under his tenure. Glen was living the aviation dream. Glen was also respected by industry as an advocate for general aviation, publicly opposing the regulator on occasion, sometimes passionately.

In 2017, driven by CASA’s regulatory overhaul to the flight training organisation certification requirements, Glen used the opportunity to totally overhaul his businesess, The Australian Pilot Training Alliance, and his flying school of more than a decade. MFT impressing the industry, and, evidently, many in CASA. The business addressed industry’s economic concerns regarding the new administrative burdens without compromising rules one and two.

But, it seems, not everyone in CASA was happy with Glen.

From September 2018 to October 2019, Glen believes that key senior personnel from CASA launched an attack on the new business – and it went from ‘all systems go’ to ‘dead in the water’ in twelve months. Glen’s dream had crashed and burned. The organisation’s demise not due to poor management, economic mismanagement, a series of unfortunate events, an industry crisis or a financial crisis (historically the usual suspects) or even a one-in-a-hundred-year pandemic. APTA’s unravelling was insidious and defied logic, beginning with a single, devastating blow from the regulator itself, and then an unrelenting series of strategically-placed cuts. The full story has more twist and turns than an entire season of Dynasty, and, if Glen’s testimony is to be believed, points to a very sour problem with some past and present senior management of Australia’s aviation safety authority - CASA.



Below is Glen’s story.




An ill wind blows nobody any good.

The first inklings of a catastrophic storm building over Glen Buckley’s fertile patch of the aviation industry began a long time ago. In the early 2000s, CASA began drafting regulatory changes that would significantly alter the flight training school landscape in Australia. After more than a decade of development, it became clear to industry that the proposed legislation, although widely accepted as necessary, would cause significant and often prohibitive financial and regulatory burden on Australia’s grassroots flight-training organisations. Many of the schools likely to be most affected would be the quintessential Aussie ‘mum-and-dad’ businesses, time-poor and financially ill-equipped to afford the implementation and sustainment of the proposed weighty changes. Many of them did not survive, and many of those operated from regional and rural areas; their demise accelerating an historical overall decline in the General Aviation ecosystem in Australia that continues to this day.

At smaller than airline-industry airfields, no flight school means less aeroplanes flying on a regular basis. No aeroplanes regularly in the sky means less work for a maintenance facility. No maintenance facility means private pilots are less likely to hangar their aircraft at the airfield. Less private aircraft in hangars means less income for regional airfields, accelerating a weakening in investment and upkeep. Reduced airfield income means less aviation industry organisations drawn to the field due to lack of available industry services and potentially greater safety risks to aircraft, pilots, and passengers. Not a good outcome by any measure.

Further, a decline in the health of regional and rural airfields may mean private aircraft owners are forced onto metropolitan fields, where yes, facilities are available, but also increased hangarage demand. Flight training, too, would be forced to concentrate at metropolitan airfields. More flight-training and private aircraft owners at metropolitan airfields means more small aeroplanes and their (perceived) safety concerns, over dense suburbs. The changes proposed by CASA, according to Glen, held the potential to further degrade the aviation ecosystem and drive the system towards failures. To the viewing public, failure in aviation looks like aircraft accidents; prime-time viewing that the regulator, the government, and especially the industry, would rather avoid.

Glen had been in aviation for decades. He knew the system was a diaspora, a population geographically scattered, and that the whole was greater than the sum of its parts. Australia, the land of wide-open plains and rugged mountain ranges, relies on a web of remote, rural, regional, and metropolitan airfields. The health of the system relies on the people that work at, and on, those airfields. It relies on the organisations that fly from and to, those airfields. And, the industry relies on the regulator to govern the system; to ensure the safety of all the humans and the aircraft in the system and the public that use the system. But should the system rely on the regulator to manage the business concerns of those in the system? To the extent of its impact on air safety, perhaps. To the extent of deciding a business structure or model, perhaps not. Creating income in aviation is one thing, creating income safely, as is the foremost concern of all things aviation-regulated, is quite another, and the aviation industry is one of the most-regulated industries around.

Although Glen’s business, Melbourne Flight Training, was metropolitan-based and as a standalone organisation stood to ultimately benefit from the demise of smaller, remote flight-training schools, Glen was never one to shy away from advocating for his beloved industry. He knew that, although at times factious and fractious, the entire industry relies on each part’s survival. He believed that many of the regional and more remote flight-training operators would not survive under the new regulations, and that the ripple of small failures would potentially disrupt the entire industry, creating a less safe environment for all.

More administrative staff, more paperwork, more reporting, meant less time in the air for instructors; less time doing the one thing that a flight-training business needed to survive; creating income and doing so with safety, not paperwork, dictating the time frame. Glen saw the incoming tsunami of paperwork, reporting and compliance costs looming darkly on his business’ horizon. He fought hard against the changes; his active and vocal opposition to the regulator’s legislative proposals is one of public record. Unfortunately, one that, it seems, would come back to haunt him.

Not known for complacency, Glen began thinking outside the box. How to build a business that would weather the impending storm? One that, as required by CASA, focussed on safety first but was still financially viable? Also never one to turn his back on others, Glen knew there could be strength in numbers, and it was from this premise that he turned his mind to creating a business with the following three elements:

1. Getting instructors into the aircraft and focussed on teaching the student (instruction creates income),

2. enlisting a team of specialists to perform the regulatory actions needed to fulfil CASA’s compliance requirements for all alliance members (a major expense), and simulatneously providing members access to a well funded safety department.

3. spreading the administrative expense of compliance across more than one organisation, significantly reducing the expense of 2 to each alliance member.

The industry knew that the old system had its flaws; the ‘lending’ of Air Operator’s certificates, and the ‘borrowing’ of instructors from other off-site flight-training organisations in adhoc scenarios, that, in reality, afforded both companies no real safety oversight. Operators did this because their organisation simply couldn’t afford, or didn’t have the amount of work for, a full-time Chief Instructor, a full-time Safety Officer, or a designated administrator. Many rural operators simply couldn’t attract qualified personnel to rural areas to ensure continued operations.

The current rules for flying school operations and the control of flying schools were hopelessly outdated and written before the advent of mobile phones and the internet. Quite simply the rules were decades behind the advances in technology.It was, for the most part, why CASA was changing the rules. [AS3] (#_msocom_3) And, they were wielding a big stick; change to the new rules before 1 September 2017, or being forced into closure after that date.

Glen understood that CASA was driving change to address what it saw as a failure of the system. But he also believed that CASA had adopted a safety-at-all-cost attitude, a cost many organisations would not be able to afford. The new regulations significantly increased the burden, requiring unacceptable diversion of resources, to tasks that did nothing to improve safety or quality outcomes,Glen, however, sensed the situation had a potential win-win for the regulator and for the industry; a chance for organisations to operate in a way that made the adhoc system safer; transparent, documented, stable, and more efficient without the consequences of business-failures and their inevitable detrimental effects on the aviation ecosystem. The system involved organisations working collaboratively to increase safety and compliance. Together the organisations had access to the largest safety department of any flying school in Australia.

So, as the saying goes, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. Glen contacted CASA and put forward his concept. CASA welcomed Glen’s model with open arms, even so far as to allocate many hundreds of hours of CASA personnel to assist in its development; a total of ten employees from CASA over the course of two years were meaningfully involved. Back and forth between Glen and CASA went the model; information, advice, revisions, amendments, and paperwork for 600 requirements, slowly working towards the definitive document (the Exposition) that would allow his new business to operate. Given the business model was not too different from the current practices of larger flight training organisations, and what he was doing was simply formalising what many in the industry were already doing that CASA had previously tacitly sanctioned, Glen trusted the governing authority to act in good faith. Even to the extent of providing the regulator with commercial-in-confidence documents such as the proposed business contracts for alliance members. Glen was incredibly grateful for the professional assistance and advice of CASA in developing his Exposition.

With CASA well and truly on board, and after an investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money, Glen (and CASA) had built APTA; The Australian Pilot Training Alliance. CASA hadn’t simply been consulted, APTA had been built on approved CASA material, on hours and hours of extensive consultation, on good faith and mutual aims. Every one of the many hundreds of procedures was fleshed out with CASA personnel, assessed by CASA personnel, and signed off by CASA personnel, before undergoing a peer review within CASA. The system gaining full CASA approval in April of 2017.

It is also well known that CASA has an active and eager legal department; Legal, International & Regulatory Affairs. CASA employees do not make big decisions autonomously and without context; there are processes and approvals and implications to be considered. When CASA makes a decision, it makes an informed decision. A very well-informed decision. It would be remiss to not stress this enough. CASA is an organisation of educated, well-informed, aviation and legal personnel whose ultimate purpose is to ensure the safety of pilots and public. The organisation takes its responsibility to oversee safety in the aviation industry very seriously, at whatever, it considers necessary, cost.

But CASA didn’t simply advise and consult and provide quality information through its wide-angle legal-context lens to Glen over those two years of development; CASA also recommended a number of rural and regional flight training organisations that would benefit from being a part of APTA. Alliances were forged, organisations joined the cause, CASA appeared to be smiling down upon it all; APTA was set to be a working model. Five organisations, one administrative setup, expensive expert personnel employed to fulfil CASA’s new compliance and safety requirements, and an IT system that provided 360-degree oversight of flight safety, all using CASA-provided manuals and compliance systems. Of note, is that the system was set up so that CASA could, at any point, log onto and be an active part of the system. At any moment CASA could see exactly what APTA was doing in relation to flight training, from flight and aircraft records to staff training, communications, and instruction delivery. A first for the flight training industry, providing total transparency, full oversight, and all with CASA’s blessing.

[glenb]

Too good to be true comes to mind.

In April 2017, CASA approved APTA. Four months before CASA’s September deadline for transition to the new rules.

Glen thought he was on a winner. The new rules hadn’t come into force for the industry yet. He was ahead of the game. In a field of what had been around 350 organisations, he now had a mere 12 competitors that were also approved. Ready to roll it all out, he had CASA on side and assurances from the authority that they wouldn’t extend any deadline. So far ahead of the game, who wouldn’t want to be that business? Glen, and his alliance organisations, stepped fully into their gold-standard business.

Then, just weeks after certifying APTA as a fully-fledged flight training organisation under the new rules, CASA moved the goal posts. The storm had begun to brew.

Whereas it is said that all is fair in love and war, the same is not said for business. There are rules by which businesses must abide or face consequences. Both federal and state laws exist; fair trading, insider trading, trading whilst insolvent. CASA’s remit, however, is not the business of business, it is not concerned with competitive economics. The industry needed flight training organisations able to safely comply with the new rules, and safety is paramount. To be fair, CASA really had little option. Rightly or wrongly, in August 2017, the vast majority of flight training organisations were simply not ready. Faced with a tsunami of flight training organisations potentially in breach of the Act, CASA extended the ‘big stick’ date by a year. Glen was dismayed.

In striving to be ahead of the game, Glen had employed the experts, setup the software, invested over 200k, and was working the new system. The two training organisations that made the business an alliance, Melbourne Flight Training and TVSA Pilot Training at Bacchus Marsh, as approved by CASA, were also heavily invested. Working the new rules and operating a flight training curriculum that wasn’t required for another 12 months, however, was costly. Very costly for all involved; except CASA that is. But then CASA is not in the business of making money – and rightly so. But Glen’s business, before the real game had even started, was now operating under financial pressures not of its own, or even force majeure, creation.

Being on the back foot is never a good position for a business. The aim was always to grow, to offer others the opportunities of safety and the efficiencies and opportunities that APTA presented. They say there is always opportunity in a crisis, so Glen sucked up the cost, borrowing heavily from his family, and got on with funding the associated salaries and procedures for the next 12 months whilst waiting for the postponed legislation to be introduced. He figured it would only be a matter of time before everyone caught up, therefore, best to be on the front foot.

In November 2017, APTA was due for its first big CASA audit, called a Level One. This meant a week-long review of APTA’s operations. Happily for Glen, it passed, along with the alliance’s bases, MFT at Moorabbin, TVSA at Bacchus Marsh, and, significantly, the temporary bases, AVIA and Learn to Fly, both at Moorabbin. No concerns were raised about the business model or its operations. As far as the business was concerned, CASA’s audit had further provided confirmation that APTA had dotted all its I’s crossed all its T’s. Glen saw a future.

CASA had previously suggested a number of other aero clubs and training organisations to Glen that might fit into his business model. Latrobe Valley Aero Club was one of those small, rural flight-training organisations struggling to fit into CASA’s new rules. It looked at Glen’s business model and saw a good option. After CASA raised a number of issues with Latrobe Valley operations that were subsequently rectified, Latrobe Valley began operating under APTA’s umbrella on 21 May 2018, via a CASA-approved ‘Temporary Base Procedure’; a procedure that had been recommended to Glen by CASA. It allowed a flight-training organisation to continue operating under the full operational control of APTA whilst CASA assessed the application to approve ongoing and permanent operations. Incredibly CASA would later try and allege that the very procedure they reccommened was unlawful. This was a standard and well-utilised industry practice, and Glen was confident that, in collaboration with CASA, Latrobe Valley could become another alliance member.

Those patches of grey cloud on the horizon, however, were coalescing .

CASA’s personnel operated in teams referred to as a Certificate Management Team (CMT). A system that CASA found ineffective at delivering standardised policy application and only recently disbanded. May 2018 heralded the arrival of a new Regional Manager and subsequent reshuffling of the existing team members assigned to manage each flight training organisation’s certificate. Glen’s old team had been pivotal to the successful development of the APTA business model. The new team, of eight inspectors and a manager, however, exhibited two concerning characteristics. The first being that one member of the new team had an established reputation in the industry as someone “not being professional to work with”.

Glens concerns were so significant that he requested a formal one on one, ON the record meeting with the CASA Regional Manager. The meeting proceeded and Glens concerns were noted. Although Glen was unable to return to the CASA team, he had worked with for the previous decade, he at least felt some security in the fact that he had formally raised his concerns and they would now be held on file within CASA.

The second was that communication from the new CASA management team began to dry up and any communications that did exist had a very different “feel” about them; His concerns were also shared with his Management Team.Glen found this more than a little worrisome. He began to wonder whether the new team either hadn’t received a substantive handover from the old team regarding APTA, or, because the model was ‘different’, they simply didn’t understand it. Or perhaps the team member that wasn’t a fan, was causing some friction? Glen wasn’t surprised to find out later that the CASA employee he previously formalised his concerns about, was one of the “key players” in initiating the CASA action.

Regardless, Glen, with no real evidence to back up a niggling feeling of unease, proceeded with his business plan. He continued marketing the new business as a successful, working model and moving amongst aviation circles, spreading the word. By early 2018, aeroclubs and training facilities as far as Brisbane, Darwin and Ballina were either interested or already operating under APTA temporary base procedure. Although on the back foot financially and with now with 60 approved competitors, things were still looking up for APTA in mid-2018, as the bulk of the industry played catch-up as they headed towards the revised big-stick deadline.

In June 2018, APTA sent in the paperwork to CASA for Latrobe Valley and Ballarat Aero Clubs to be formalised as permanent operating bases of APTA (rather than temporary). CASA had already approved several schools to operate under APTA, so felt confident there would be no significant hurdles.Then, in August 2018, APTA also asked to add a new base for Learn to Fly at Moorabbin who already had a base operating under APTA and Whitestar Aviation which was to be a new base in Ballina. The addition of permanent locations were considered to be significant changes to the Exposition – the document that CASA had helped Glen build. Glen followed every CASA approved procedure in his Exposition.

The next big compliance hurdle, however, was for Latrobe Valley to undergo its Temporary Base audit, this being part of the CASA approved procedure in order to move from a Temporary base to a Permanent base. APTA welcomed the CASA team to Latrobe Valley on 3 September 2018 and the audit went well. An exit interview is required by the regulations and any concerns regarding the operation must be raised at this onsite exit meeting; that is, on the day. None were raised, the team left, everyone was happy – or so it seemed. Latrobe Valley, with a clean bill of health, was left to continue to operate under the Temporary Base procedure and move towards permanently joining the business.

But, that niggling unease? The grey clouds on the horizon? On the 23rd of October 2018, they turned into a storm.

Without any sign, signal, or warning, the winds changed dramatically. CASA pivoted 180 degrees on its official position on APTA’s business model. On that Thursday morning, APTA’s Group Head of Operations received a carefully considered and worded email from CASA, with the subject; “A Notice of Proposal Refusal to Approve Significant Changes to Exposition and Operations Manuals”.

The ramifications of that notification were significant. The correspondence advised that in 7 days time CASA would most likely make a determination that APTA would not be able to continue operating.

The notification also advised that Glens own flying school of more than a decade was now inexplicably an unauthorised operation, both Ballarat Aero Clubs and Latrobe Valley Aero Clubs would be directed to cease operations, strangely LTF Moorabbin base could not move to its new and improved facility but would be permitted to continue operating from its smaller and inferior facility, AVIA which was already a fully CASA approved base would have its approval reversed, ARC aviation currently operating as a Temporary location would be directed to cease operations, as would Whitestar base in Ballina. New applications for Simjet, and Vortex would not be processed, and no further customers could join. The notification also advised that he was in contravention of the Aviation Ruling, and the Regulations, and may be subject to CASA enforcement action. Both the Ombudsman and CASAs own legal advice received much later, indicated that in fact he was not in breach of the regulations. A fact that Glen was well awre of. Unfortunately both the Ombudsman’s determination and CASA own legal advice arrived too late.

The entire notification came with no prior warning. One can only imagine the feelings that would have overwhelmed Glen when he received the notification. Not only was he about to lose his own flying school, he had inadvertently dragged many others down with him.

Despite historical support for the business model, CASA pointed to an Aviation Ruling (an advisory setting out CASA’s policy or position on a particular issue) regarding the franchising of commercial operations, purportedly disallowing APTA. Just like that. In October 2018. Not during all those discussions? Not three years before, during the development phase, when CASA was made aware of the franchise model? Not before approving the model in April 2017 and granting the new-rule, ‘Part 141/142 Certificate’? Glen was stunned. What CASA was proposing was that an Aviation Ruling from March 2006, when the ruling had been written for air charter operations, and subsequent amendments to the Civil Aviation Act in 2014 had seen flight-training organisations specifically excluded from that part of the Act. An Aviation Ruling, that did not apply to his business, was apparently being used to blow shut the school’s doors.

The email also stated that any of the organisations or temporary bases operating flight-training from locations other than APTA’s head office at Moorabbin, were likely in contravention of the Act, and further that, as APTA had facilitated the contravention, it may face ‘enforcement action’. APTA had a mere seven days to respond or most likely be stripped of its certification . And if it did try to state its case, it had to provide the relevant contracts with alliance organisations that proved APTA was the official on-site operator of the flight-training organisation at each of those locations. Only Glen had already provided the relevant master documents of alliance member’s contractual arrangements with APTA to CASA, on a number of occasions during the previous two years. A fact CASA initially denied until he was able to provide evidence. All CASA were really missing were the signatures,

Ignoring for a moment the legal integrity or otherwise of CASA’s email, what its shift in direction really signified and where it bore the greatest immediate implication, having effectively placed APTA on one week’s notice of impending closure, was Glen suddenly had nothing to sell. Without a legally-operating business structure in a highly regulated industry, Glen effectively had nothing. The email, although it wasn’t expressly worded as such, was a death warrant for the business. The actual execution, however, was still nearly 12 months away. Glen, at this point, had simply been hung out to dry. Slowly. In a very ill wind.

The implications of CASA’s decision to reject the business model as ‘disallowed’, slammed into Glen. Those pesky laws that businesses need abide by to legally operate? With just seven-day’s notice of the possible termination of APTA, how could Glen legally, let alone morally, continue to take on, or allow his temporary bases to take on, new students? If students had no certainty of finishing their training and being issued a license, why on earth would they train with APTA? How could he legally, let alone morally, take new alliance members on board? With APTA potentially unable to continue operating, why would new members even look at his model? And how could he legally, let alone morally, continue to operate at a cost of more than $20,000 a week when income, already an issue, with no new students moving through the system, was suddenly looking dire? What would the lawmakers have to say about that?

And Glen certainly couldn’t simply pretend to his members that he hadn’t received it, keep half a dozen bases operating under the pretence that everything was going to be OK, send back the requisite paperwork and hope for the best. Aside from Glen’s personal expectation of integrity, aviation is a small industry. To threaten the closure of that number of flight-training bases, everyone would know within minutes and confidence in his business would be lost immediately, and his hard earned reputation would be in tatters.

Glen immediately spoke to the bases and his employees and powered on. He advised CASA they already had the master contracts, but also provided copies with signatures. Glen also requested more information from CASA as to how to move forward and rectify the perceived issues. Then Glen rang and spoke to David Jones, the new Regional Manager. According to Glen, Mr Jones said he wasn’t really ‘all over the matter’, but strangely, he had signed the letter. Mr Jones said he would organise a team meeting to ‘bring him up to speed’. A seven-day notice of termination of a sizeable business had been delivered to the organisation but the person signing the letter of proposed termination, needed to be ‘brought up to speed’?

CASA had also contended, that their legal department had not, until now, been aware of the franchised structure of the business. An extraordinary claim given that, as one of the very first flight-training schools to be issued with the new training certificate, APTA would hardly have been able to slide under the radar. If anything, it would have been the subject of much closer legal and regulatory scrutiny.

Glen pushed CASA to admit that the 2006 Aviation Ruling did not apply to flight-training organisations. For a full nine weeks, whilst CASA deliberated, Glen was allowed to operate, basically haemorrhaging cash. CASA then admitted the Ruling didn’t apply, checked its wind, and changed tack.

Temporary Base procedures became the problem. CASA asserted that the procedure it had developed, and further, approved APTA to operate the LFT and AVIA bases under, was not designed for flight training organisations. Glen pointed out the Temporary Base procedure had been included in CASA’s very own ‘how-to-set-up-a-flight-school guide’. Again, CASA permitted Glen to continue operating, further haemorrhaging cash. Then, CASA admitted the Temporary Base procedure was not an issue, checked its wind again, and changed tack.

The new Certificate Management Team finally delivered the paperwork of the audit findings for Latrobe Valley. With the Act requiring CASA to provide these findings within seven days of an audit, it had been nearly three months. Remember that exit meeting? The exit interview, as required by the regulations, where any concerns regarding the operation are to be raised? The one where the auditing team had said there were none? Well, miraculously, suddenly, there were plenty. Glen was beginning to feel that this was more than a change of heart related to his business model. But he took a deep breath and leant into this new CASA-created headwind, asking what needed to be done to rectify the problems. More weeks passed whilst Glen waited for an answer. Glen was still ‘allowed’ to operate, although exactly what he had to operate anymore, with no new clients and no new alliance members, and critically, no new income, was fast becoming uncertain.

Glen became increasingly frustrated. Time and again, in dozens of emails and phone calls, he had asked CASA what APTA needed to do to comply in order to operate. Pleading for face-to-face meetings, clarification of any alleged breaches of the Act, he begged for direction. All through November, December, then January, February and March of 2019. Time and again Glen received either no answer, a ‘you are required to fix this’ answer, or no constructive answer. Time, however, was something that CASA had plenty of and Glen had none. Infuriated by months of inaction, the purposeful dragging of bureaucratic feet, and a gut-wrenching fear of the corresponding explosion of debt, Glen’s grey skies got darker by the day.

With little apparent left to lose, Glen, feeling entirely cornered, began lashing out. His correspondences, perhaps understandably, became increasingly urgent, penned in ink the colour of frustration, and drying that ink was a whirlwind of Glen’s commitments, obligations, responsibilities, liabilities. His exasperated requests for direction and guidance from CASA, over those five months, ever more frustratingly for Glen, continued to go unanswered. Yet still, for those five months, Glen’s business and its members were allowed to ‘operate’; all the while Glen was borrowing more and more money from family to prop it all up.

CASA, either unable to unwilling to respond fruitfully to Glen’s letters, had however, found time to contact the alliance members and temporary bases, advising them they were possibly operating in contravention of the Act, that the structure of the business model was illegal. Under threat of losing their businesses entirely, APTA’s temporary bases and prospective members understandably began abandoning ship; the dismantling process had begun.

Finally, after nearly eight months of wholly unproductive to and fro, with APTA bleeding operating costs from every open wound, CASA delivered the fatal blow. In (June 2019?) it demanded that Glen’s original business, Melbourne Flight Training, be absorbed into the deconstructed APTA business. With nothing left operating as a franchised part of the business structure, nothing left in his bank account, and a huge bill of debt to his creditors and family, Glen lost all hope, selling APTA for a fraction of its previous value and became relegated to employee, CASA’s actions, or inaction, had effectively destroyed the franchise business model and removed Glen from direct operational control of even his own business.

Only weeks later, and after the loss of his two businesses, APTA and MFT, CASA wrote to his Employer directing that his continuing employment was “no longer tenable based on comments that he was making publicly”, presumably on a pilots forum called pprune, now with over ¾ million visits to Glen particular matters. 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)

After over a quarter of a century in the flight-training industry and twelve months battling the storm, Glen was done. He had been forced to leave the industry both a broke and broken man. None of this based on a safety issue or a regulatory breach, simply the opinion of a CASA employee.

--------------------------------



CASA’s remit as a safety regulator is to regulate the industry for safety. Its mission is ‘to promote a positive and collaborative safety culture through a fair, effective and efficient aviation safety regulatory system, supporting our aviation community’. At no point has CASA been able to prove that Glen’s business franchise model was deleterious to aviation safety. CASA has tabled no evidence to suggest that aviation safety had or has been compromised by operating in the manner of franchise as utilised by APTA. In effect, temporary bases overseen by a head office, approved by CASA, and arrangements whereby Air Operator’s Certificates are effectively shared, have more or less operated in the industry before and since the demise of Glen’s CASA-sanctioned business model. Which begs the question, why Glen?



Just months later, the Commonwealth Ombudsman found that the business structure, as operated by APTA and approved by CASA, was not illegal. Too late for Glen. Far too late. He had lost everything. In February 2021, Glen was officially declared bankrupt. Forced to leave his beloved aviation industry at age 56, he knows he cannot recover. But he can fight. And, although, in the writer’s opinion, Glen is severely traumatised by the battle lost, he is determined to fight for justice, for his reputation, and for his peace of mind. In pursuit of the truth, Glen has exhaustively demanded answers from CASA, approached the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport, Mr Michael McCormack, MP Barnaby Joyce, and the CASA Board, without success. Glen has also made Freedom of Information requests, returned almost entirely redacted. He has submitted his extensive list of complaints regarding CASA’s treatment of APTA to the Industry Complaints Commissioner and has since tabled his story and answered questions at A Senate Inquiry. Glen’s ordeal is currently being assessed by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and is the subject of ongoing legal action. Several CASA employees have now come forward and offered to tell the truth. Glen has extended an offer to the Ombudsmans Office to meet with those CASA employees to assist in his determination.



Author’s note: APTA continues to operate without any connection to Glen Buckley.

[vne165]

Bravo Glen, a good summary of a parlous situation and outcome, It's well framed and punchy. Get it out there.

[glenb]

I got some assistance i must admit. As Lead balloon suggested i might be a bit too much in the middle of it. I got someone to look through Pprune and some other documenation to see what they came up with, and i reckon im on the right path here.

[glenb]

In the middle of downsizing into a very small new rental property and was on a bit of a downer anyway. Just receive the following email about 30 minutes ago. Richmond better bloody win tonight. Well done Mr Aleck, you must be very proud of your good work.Our ref: 2019-713834



Dear Mr Buckley



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



On 23 December 2020 I outlined why, in my assessment, further investigation of your complaint was not warranted. I have considered the further information you have provided to us in 2021, including your comments and the attachments in your most recent email on 30 June 2021, but have decided to affirm my decision not to further investigate the complaint. Further investigation would not, in my view, result in a substantively different outcome.



As we discussed over the phone on 4 May 2021, my assessment was that CASA had provided us with a reasonable explanation for its view that it was not fully aware of the specific nature of APTA’s operations until just prior to issuing the notice in October 2018. I appreciate that in your view CASA should have been aware of the particular business structure of APTA, and therefore have noted any possible regulatory issues, well before October 2018.



As I noted in our recent phone discussion, during this investigation we asked CASA to explain whether in its view it was aware, or ought to have been aware, of the reported regulatory issues before October 2018. The material you have provided does not, in my view, indicate CASA has misled our Office about this aspect of the matter.



As I understand it, CASA’s view is that the advice you had provided to it suggested that APTA was responsible for flight training conducted at the so-called APTA training bases of members of the alliance. On examining the material you have provided, and the material provided by CASA, for the relevant period I do not believe this to be an unreasonable view in the circumstances. The specifics of APTA’s structure do not appear to have been well defined and clearly articulated in the additional material you recently provided to us. While I accept that it may have been preferable if more action had been taken to clarify APTA’s structure before the notice of October 2018, I accept that there is a not unreasonable basis for CASA’s view that it was not aware of the apparent regulatory issues posed by APTA until around that time.



I have noted in the copies of correspondence you provided on 12 May 2021:


Reference to changing the name of your company
Advice that Avia is intending to join APTA and reference to having signed contracts
An email where you ask CASA for a meeting
An email from CASA recognising APTA’s achievement of gaining Part 141 and 142 Approvals



I acknowledge the material in Appendix B of your email of 12 May 2021 includes some details about your proposal for APTA. I acknowledge your advice that this material was sent to CASA in an email on 23 June 2016, though I am unaware if CASA acknowledged receipt of the reported email. Regardless, the information in Appendix B does not clearly explain the actual structure of APTA. In my view this document is fairly vague about the likely structure and supports CASA’s view that at times the explanations you provided to it about the APTA model were ambiguous and contradictory. For instance, the document suggests that “each remain 100% our Own Businesses” yet also suggests that the AOC Holder will provide all of the “key positions”. This reported email also needs to be considered in the wider context of this matter.



For example, CASA noted that when APTA sought to add Bacchus March as a training base in November 2015 you advised it that APTA would be the operator at that time because TVSA did not have the key personnel required under the regulations. This supports CASA’s view that it was not aware of how APTA was in fact operating when it came to other alliance members given it was not given clear advice that members of the alliance would be conducting flight training on behalf of APTA or would otherwise be operating as separate entities. For instance, the Operations Manuals you submitted to CASA subsequent to the reported email of 23 June 2016 provide more detail about APTA’s structure, but do not provide clear information on this point.



I have no reason to dispute your advice that former CASA officers share your view that CASA was fully aware of how APTA was actually operating well before the notice of October 2018. However, in all the circumstances I do not consider further investigation of this aspect of the complaint warranted. I do not see a good basis to conclude that further investigation would result in uncovering material sufficient for our Office to conclude that CASA’s view is unreasonable. I also cannot see any practical outcome to further interrogating what occurred prior to the notice of October 2018 given our view is that there was a reasonable basis for issuing the notice.



Your most recent email of 30 June 2021 provided further material in support of your complaint. I note that this material is focused more on whether CASA had good reason to issue the notice and whether CASA took reasonable steps to assist you in remedying the reported issues it had identified. I note that I have seen much of this correspondence already in examining CASA’s responses to our Office. For the reasons I have previously outlined, in my view we are not in a position to be critical of the decision to issue the notice in October 2018 nor can we conclude that CASA did not provide sufficient assistance to try and resolve the issues subsequent to issuing the notice.



For the reasons outlined above, in my earlier correspondence, and during our telephone conversations on this matter, I have decided that further investigation is not warranted in all the circumstances.



If you would like to offer further comment please respond via reply email.



I appreciate that you will be disappointed in this email and in the outcome of your complaint to our Office. I understand you have been considering the potential for legal action and raising this matter with a relevant Federal MP. These options remain open to you.



Thank you for bringing your concerns to the attention of our Office.



Kind regards





Mark

Complaint Resolution Officer

COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN

Phone: 1300 362 072

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.ombudsman.gov.au (http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/)

file:///C:/Users/61418/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.gif (http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/)

Influencing systemic improvement in public administration

[AerialPerspective]

In the middle of downsizing into a very small new rental property and was on a bit of a downer anyway. Just receive the following email about 30 minutes ago. Richmond better bloody win tonight. Well done Mr Aleck, you must be very proud of your good work.Our ref: 2019-713834



Dear Mr Buckley



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



On 23 December 2020 I outlined why, in my assessment, further investigation of your complaint was not warranted. I have considered the further information you have provided to us in 2021, including your comments and the attachments in your most recent email on 30 June 2021, but have decided to affirm my decision not to further investigate the complaint. Further investigation would not, in my view, result in a substantively different outcome.



As we discussed over the phone on 4 May 2021, my assessment was that CASA had provided us with a reasonable explanation for its view that it was not fully aware of the specific nature of APTA’s operations until just prior to issuing the notice in October 2018. I appreciate that in your view CASA should have been aware of the particular business structure of APTA, and therefore have noted any possible regulatory issues, well before October 2018.



As I noted in our recent phone discussion, during this investigation we asked CASA to explain whether in its view it was aware, or ought to have been aware, of the reported regulatory issues before October 2018. The material you have provided does not, in my view, indicate CASA has misled our Office about this aspect of the matter.



As I understand it, CASA’s view is that the advice you had provided to it suggested that APTA was responsible for flight training conducted at the so-called APTA training bases of members of the alliance. On examining the material you have provided, and the material provided by CASA, for the relevant period I do not believe this to be an unreasonable view in the circumstances. The specifics of APTA’s structure do not appear to have been well defined and clearly articulated in the additional material you recently provided to us. While I accept that it may have been preferable if more action had been taken to clarify APTA’s structure before the notice of October 2018, I accept that there is a not unreasonable basis for CASA’s view that it was not aware of the apparent regulatory issues posed by APTA until around that time.



I have noted in the copies of correspondence you provided on 12 May 2021:

Reference to changing the name of your company
Advice that Avia is intending to join APTA and reference to having signed contracts
An email where you ask CASA for a meeting
An email from CASA recognising APTA’s achievement of gaining Part 141 and 142 Approvals



I acknowledge the material in Appendix B of your email of 12 May 2021 includes some details about your proposal for APTA. I acknowledge your advice that this material was sent to CASA in an email on 23 June 2016, though I am unaware if CASA acknowledged receipt of the reported email. Regardless, the information in Appendix B does not clearly explain the actual structure of APTA. In my view this document is fairly vague about the likely structure and supports CASA’s view that at times the explanations you provided to it about the APTA model were ambiguous and contradictory. For instance, the document suggests that “each remain 100% our Own Businesses” yet also suggests that the AOC Holder will provide all of the “key positions”. This reported email also needs to be considered in the wider context of this matter.



For example, CASA noted that when APTA sought to add Bacchus March as a training base in November 2015 you advised it that APTA would be the operator at that time because TVSA did not have the key personnel required under the regulations. This supports CASA’s view that it was not aware of how APTA was in fact operating when it came to other alliance members given it was not given clear advice that members of the alliance would be conducting flight training on behalf of APTA or would otherwise be operating as separate entities. For instance, the Operations Manuals you submitted to CASA subsequent to the reported email of 23 June 2016 provide more detail about APTA’s structure, but do not provide clear information on this point.



I have no reason to dispute your advice that former CASA officers share your view that CASA was fully aware of how APTA was actually operating well before the notice of October 2018. However, in all the circumstances I do not consider further investigation of this aspect of the complaint warranted. I do not see a good basis to conclude that further investigation would result in uncovering material sufficient for our Office to conclude that CASA’s view is unreasonable. I also cannot see any practical outcome to further interrogating what occurred prior to the notice of October 2018 given our view is that there was a reasonable basis for issuing the notice.



Your most recent email of 30 June 2021 provided further material in support of your complaint. I note that this material is focused more on whether CASA had good reason to issue the notice and whether CASA took reasonable steps to assist you in remedying the reported issues it had identified. I note that I have seen much of this correspondence already in examining CASA’s responses to our Office. For the reasons I have previously outlined, in my view we are not in a position to be critical of the decision to issue the notice in October 2018 nor can we conclude that CASA did not provide sufficient assistance to try and resolve the issues subsequent to issuing the notice.



For the reasons outlined above, in my earlier correspondence, and during our telephone conversations on this matter, I have decided that further investigation is not warranted in all the circumstances.



If you would like to offer further comment please respond via reply email.



I appreciate that you will be disappointed in this email and in the outcome of your complaint to our Office. I understand you have been considering the potential for legal action and raising this matter with a relevant Federal MP. These options remain open to you.



Thank you for bringing your concerns to the attention of our Office.



Kind regards





Mark

Complaint Resolution Officer

COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN

Phone: 1300 362 072

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.ombudsman.gov.au (http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/)

file:///C:/Users/61418/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.gif (http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/)

Influencing systemic improvement in public administration



Never read so much weasel word obfuscating crap in my life - they APPROVED the operation, it's clear to anyone up to and including a long lost neanderthal with a serious and debilitating head injury that they knew PRECISELY what you were planning from the outset - that much is bloody obvious from the emails you've posted on this forum from the beginning of the APTA concept.

Jesus Christ, they even suggested schools to approach.

I realise that you are disappointed and a bit flattened by this Glen, but don't give up. Just because some bureaucratic public time-server thinks there's no case to answer, doesn't mean it won't frighten the ****e out of the right politician if you keep pushing the case.

The thing about politicians as I'm sure you know is that they are both gutless and opportunistic....... hitting the right nail at the right time where embarrassment or worse - loss of ones seat - is a prospect, will work wonders. I say that because I have been closely following another case of outright bastardry, the one involving bugging and legal action in secret court of the two people regarding the Timor Leste case. I can absolutely assure you that if it heats up and becomes a potential election issue, the government will fold its tents and their alleged 'public interest' reason(s) will evaporate like a wisp of smoke....

This is because the sort of people that are pursuing those two and who have done this to you have about as much substance as ectoplasm. I think someone said a while back on this thread - you need to find a way to frighten the **** out of them and make it part of their personal (selfish) interest. I think it was Keating that said "In any battle, back the horse being ridden by self interest, because you know it'll try its best". Finding that self interest will be challenging but I'm certain there's a pathway there somewhere.......

I'd say for the immediate present, settle into your new abode, keep your family close but think through the next move, it is likely we are heading for what may very well be a watershed election that will be too close to call and there is a mounting anger in the community about quite a few things - the time may be approaching to sprint to the finish line....

In the meantime, we are all (I'm sure I speak for everyone on here) in your corner.

[Flaming galah]

It's a strange world where CASA's ICC is more damning of it than the Ombudsman.

[megan]

A huge pity Laurence Charles Gruzman QC is no longer around Glen, he would likely have taken your case on pro bono just for the fun of jousting with CASA and making them look the fool, and winning the case.

He was an individual who caused lost sleep, ulcers and migraines in the regulator when seen approaching.

[sagesau]

I may have misunderstood the Ombudsman reply but it reads as though CASA claimed they didn't know what was going on until after the paperwork was signed off then they made up reasons to effectively shut Glen down. At no stage could they advise Glen on how to resolve the various unsubstantiated issues and that's acceptable?
At the very least it's gross incompetence and significant lack of oversight within CASA. How could anyone have any confidence that anything CASA signs off as acceptable will actually be so.
Isn't it CASA's role to know what is going on in a timely manner? I'm not sure that having several of CASA's staff working on a project with a client over several years only to claim at the end of the process that it wasn't what they thought it was but couldn't actually define what the problem is, reeks of incompetence or worse. It's not The (anti) Block (movie) where 'it's the vibe'.

[Lead Balloon]

CASA did "advise Glen on how to resolve the various unsubstantiated issues".

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).

That demand was based on some conjured up law that doesn't exist: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.As a matter of practicality, that sounded the death knell for Glens' business and livelihood.

[Paragraph377]

CASA did "advise Glen on how to resolve the various unsubstantiated issues".

CASA demanded:

That demand was based on some conjured up law that doesn't exist:As a matter of practicality, that sounded the death knell for Glens' business and livelihood.

CASA also make sure it used the word ‘conventional’. They like to do that when defending or explaining their own actions - we use ‘conventional models’, we promulgate ‘best practise’ modelling, we believe that the ‘intent’ of the rule is such and such. A bit like a Politician who doesn’t want to get nailed, so he/she says ‘I don’t recall’ instead of a yes or no answer. It’s a carefully crafted and manipulated use of the English language. Dr Aleck has used the law and his own personal beliefs to enjoy feeding his narcissism by tinkering with peoples lives and destroying others. He has no conscience and he has no balls. He likes to hide behind law books and secure office doors because he is a gutless little worm. Is it because his father breastfed him as a child or because the waters around Loyola Chicago were polluted with PFAS which has fried his synapsis? Who knows. All I know is that Pip ought to be careful of the little fuzzy haired grey bearded little man because if she does something that he does not like both him and the arrogant Scot will chew her up and spit her out.

[AerialPerspective]

CASA also make sure it used the word ‘conventional’. They like to do that when defending or explaining their own actions - we use ‘conventional models’, we promulgate ‘best practise’ modelling, we believe that the ‘intent’ of the rule is such and such. A bit like a Politician who doesn’t want to get nailed, so he/she says ‘I don’t recall’ instead of a yes or no answer. It’s a carefully crafted and manipulated use of the English language. Dr Aleck has used the law and his own personal beliefs to enjoy feeding his narcissism by tinkering with peoples lives and destroying others. He has no conscience and he has no balls. He likes to hide behind law books and secure office doors because he is a gutless little worm. Is it because his father breastfed him as a child or because the waters around Loyola Chicago were polluted with PFAS which has fried his synapsis? Who knows. All I know is that Pip ought to be careful of the little fuzzy haired grey bearded little man because if she does something that he does not like both him and the arrogant Scot will chew her up and spit her out.

Quite right Paragraph,

This phenomena is the bane of people like Don Watson who I personally think is a national treasure....... I think one of the reasons that people have turned off politicians in general is because of this sort of utter, weasel-word, BS language.

Some obvious examples to add to the one you allude to above....... note how people like Morrison and Dutton and the rest of them say "We TOOK a decision" - don't have the guts to say "I MADE the decision"...... this presumably so later they can claim "I never said I made the decision". "We are seeking to address the issue and that remains our position" - that sentence doesn't even mean anything. Politicians, diplomats and public servants have all bought into this garbage - no one does anything or accomplishes anything anymore, they just "Seek" to do it.

Don't even get me started on the latest crop of buzz words, 'leaning in', 'cohort', 'low hanging fruit' and the like, etc. These people don't realise how moronic they sound parroting this tosh.

I'm mincing with semantics here I know but CASA goes on and on about "outcomes based" this and that. a RESULT is something that you measure and can predict, an 'outcome' is something that results that usually can't be predicted or isn't known until it eventuates, so even the words they use are moronic - what the hell is 'outcomes based education' FFS - how often do Pilots state that they are flying the aeroplane according to an 'outcomes based procedure'.

I watched a Senate Standing Committee snippet the other day and they had some egregiously over-fed diplomatic person who was asked if the decision they made to vote a certain way at an international conference was dictated by what the United States wanted Australia to do....... this guy sat there for 10 minutes continually saying "We interface constantly with a wide range of interlocutors in achieving outcomes in this space".

You could see the Senator(s) (Carr and Patrick I think it was) becoming closer and closer to the verge of saying "JUST ANSWER THE EFFING QUESTION you obscurantist"

No wonder CASA are the way they are.......

[zanthrus]

Who is "Mark"? Did he not provide his surname? Gutless weasel!!!

[V-Jet]

in my view we are not in a position to be critical of the decision to issue the notice in October 2018 nor can we conclude that CASA did not provide sufficient assistance to try and resolve the issues subsequent to issuing the notice.

In that case, what assistance did CASA provide?

[Sbaker]

Can we setup a whistleblower hotline / e-mail for current CASA / ex-CASA staff, or for people to send in their stories. - go post flyers around their offices, send emails to all known casa emails with the link etc, allow it to be anonymous if required.

Would be very interesting to hear what current or ex CASA FOI officers sides of the story are - when they refuse legitimate FOI requests. - who told them to?.. (illegal by the way under the FOI act).

It's amazing how some conduct could appear to be blatant abuse of public office, but no-one wants to prosecute because it's deemed 'friendly fire' from one govt. Organisation to another... I thought the law was to be applied equally to all irrelevant of position or status... Also there must be an underlining presumption of guilt when CASA are attacking an individual 'for no good reason'.

It is govt. behaviour like this that got Donald Trump elected - and I agree we should drain the swamp.

Administrative law is a joke - there are no penalties applied... All you get is a bloody decision overturned... We need severe penalties for malice and decisions that deliberately detriment others. Maybe a campaign to alter administrative law to include penalties could fix many, many govt. Departments.

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2019C00309

And here is an example of how administrative powers should be used - although it's a different govt. Branch, they are all similar.

https://www.transport.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0005/167207/Information_Sheet_-_Administrative_Decision_Making.docx

So the issue with administrative law, is although there is black and white law that states how things MUST be done... There is no penalty if they don't... There-in lies the issue, and why CASA thumb their noses at everyone.

[Paragraph377]

Can we setup a whistleblower hotline / e-mail for current CASA / ex-CASA staff, or for people to send in their stories. - go post flyers around their offices, send emails to all known casa emails with the link etc, allow it to be anonymous if required.

Would be very interesting to hear what current or ex CASA FOI officers sides of the story are - when they refuse legitimate FOI requests. - who told them to?.. (illegal by the way under the FOI act).

It's amazing how some conduct could appear to be blatant abuse of public office, but no-one wants to prosecute because it's deemed 'friendly fire' from one govt. Organisation to another... I thought the law was to be applied equally to all irrelevant of position or status... Also there must be an underlining presumption of guilt when CASA are attacking an individual 'for no good reason'.

It is govt. behaviour like this that got Donald Trump elected - and I agree we should drain the swamp.

Administrative law is a joke - there are no penalties applied... All you get is a bloody decision overturned... We need severe penalties for malice and decisions that deliberately detriment others. Maybe a campaign to alter administrative law to include penalties could fix many, many govt. Departments.

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2019C00309

And here is an example of how administrative powers should be used - although it's a different govt. Branch, they are all similar.

https://www.transport.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0005/167207/Information_Sheet_-_Administrative_Decision_Making.docx

So the issue with administrative law, is although there is black and white law that states how things MUST be done... There is no penalty if they don't... There-in lies the issue, and why CASA thumb their noses at everyone.
No complaints to politicians, senate inquiries, senate estimate sessions, submissions to the industry complaints commissioner or reports to media or MP’s has induced an arse hairs worth of change or accountability within CASA. CASA are an extension of government. Government protects government. Behind the scenes there has been some pushing and prodding, occasionally a boil gets lanced but nothing major since 1988. Even gangs and mafias last less time than CASA has!! Wash, rinse, dry, repeat.

Its been said before and I will say it again - the only way CASA will change is if a red tail with a white Roo on it ends up poking out of a great smoking hole. A totally palpable suggestion and something nobody wants to see, ever. But until something of that significance happens, forget it. The ‘R’egulator will continue as it has for many decades now. Isn’t that right Pip?

[Sbaker]

Let's hope we don't see a smoking red tail out of the ground anytime soon - or ever - even in that scenario I doubt it would be catalyst for change.

What would be a catalyst for change is if every RPT / Freight pilot grounded themselves for a period of time (start with 1 day nationwide.... Then 2 days the following week.. and so on...) until we got sufficient reforms in place and an independent aviation ombudsman - imagine how fast that would happen if all those planes stayed on the ground... Very impractical, and would never happen - but I think it would have to be some extreme and unprecedented measure such as this that would get a satisfactory result - it's not like they can can bring in pilots on a VISA this time when so many are out of work at home - that would be political suicide.
I am not sure if Glen has tried this route - could be worth a shot?

https://www.finance.gov.au/publications/resource-management-guides/scheme-compensation-detriment-caused-defective-administration-rmg-409

[Bull at a Gate]

sarcasm mode on:

Sbaker, that worked so well last time it was tried didn’t it?

[Sbaker]

Yea, because the govt. Sold pilots out by getting pilots on VISAS.. But as I said - with COVID ATM, that wouldn't be an option

[Paragraph377]

Let's hope we don't see a smoking red tail out of the ground anytime soon - or ever - even in that scenario I doubt it would be catalyst for change.

Have to disagree with you on that one. If such a scenario ever occurred there would be a huge blame game and the ‘R’egulator would come under the spotlight. By default,, from such an event a whole bunch of ‘ugly’ would be uncovered and spew forth. The event of a smoking hole would be the trigger that fires the bullets of change. It’s happened before globally. Aviation regulations are written in blood.

[Lead Balloon]

But someone has to write those regulations. In the event of a smoking hole with a flying kangaroo fin sticking out of it, the government's likely response is to demand that the regulator redouble its efforts to write more regulations.

[Paragraph377]

But someone has to write those regulations. In the event of a smoking hole with a flying kangaroo fin sticking out of it, the government's likely response is to demand that the regulator redouble its efforts to write more regulations.
Yes you make a good point there. Although heads would roll, there would be a whole new suite of toys for Dr Aleck to play with and feed his incessant narcissism and quench the thirst of his sociopathic needs. More rules, more regulations, more safety spin. And of course, no repealing of outdated, unworkable **** encrusted laws that have broken aviation’s back. Lots of new layers to wrap around the stinking onion.

[Pinky the pilot]

More rules, more regulations, more safety spin. And of course, no repealing of outdated, unworkable **** encrusted laws that have broken aviation’s back. Lots of new layers to wrap around the stinking onion.


And a Lawyers feeding frenzy over the stinking hole in the ground that would make a mob of White Pointer Sharks getting stuck into a school of fish look like a Sunday School Picnic lunch!:rolleyes::ugh:

[Seabreeze]

The FAA got a fair kick up the arse from the US government over their 737max firetruckup. But of course that was only after two smoking holes in the ground and many hundreds dead. I am also afraid a smoking hole will be the minimum needed for change in CASA

[Paragraph377]

The FAA got a fair kick up the arse from the US government over their 737max firetruckup. But of course that was only after two smoking holes in the ground and many hundreds dead. I am also afraid a smoking hole will be the minimum needed for change in CASA

The FAA postulated over B737 rudder PCU faults in the 90’s from which numerous aircraft were lost, resulting in hundreds of deaths. Boeing provides a lot of business to the US Government so the Governments regulator was naturally slow to act. That’s just one example. And you are correct Seabreeze, nothing like a smoking hole to bring about needed change. It isn’t an acceptable scenario, however it does seem to be the only way to dismantle and restructure a bureaucratic agency.

[glenb]

I had a number of text messages in my mobile phone with various CASA personnel. Those texts were in my opinion quite "telling".

Now when i go to my phone, the CASA personnel and all related texts have been removed from my phone. Interestingly, it appears to be only CASA personnel. Is this feasible or am i going mad?
Cheers. Glen
[email protected]

[MJA Chaser]

[QUOTE Is this feasible or am i going mad?QUOTE]
I'd say it is possible: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/jul/18/what-is-pegasus-spyware-and-how-does-it-hack-phones

[Valdiviano]

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57881364

[megan]

It may be possible they can be retrieved by someone with the forensic skills Glen.

https://mailtrack.io/blog/recover-deleted-gmail-emails/

[glenb]

Assuming that i find it’s only the CASA messages and contacts missing.

I assume that CASA effectively has the right to have control over their communications on their CASA phones.

i could see the argument, provided i could access them under FOI?

[LAME2]

I thought most phones only displayed text messages for 12 months. Carrier, Telstra/Optus can retrieve from greater than 12 months.

Are you enquiring on sms text messages or email Glen?

[glenb]

both the text message and the contact have have gone. Will contact my provider and check if they can be retrieved, cheers

[V-Jet]

By chance, might you happen to have an old backup (time machine) drive stashed somewhere?

[glenb]

Dear Mark of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office.



Thankyou for providing me your finalised response regarding my complaint regarding CASA. I apologise for the delay in responding as I have been involved in a house move. As you are aware the CASA action has left me destitute and bankrupt, as I have personally lost many millions of dollars, and as you are aware several other businesses were forced into closure. The financial and human toll that this has taken on the wellbeing of my family, and me is totally unwarranted and unneccesssary.The impact has been significant to say the least.



I feel compelled to have a response on record, and I am in the process of preparing that response.



In order to assist me in finalising the response, may I put one important question to you.



There is no doubt that since the introduction of Civil Aviation legislation in 1938, multiple flight training organisations operating under a single authorisation was fully sanctioned and approved by CASA. There is no doubt that this is the truth. This can simply be evidenced, by the Latrobe Valley Aero Club operating under the AOC of a Charter Company in Bairnsdale, up until the day they joined APTA.



When Latrobe Valley transferred from its previous operator to APTA, CASA declared APTAs operation illegal, placed trading restrictions on the business for 8 months that prevented it taking on new customers. CASA also wrote to existing customers advising them of that fact that they were operating illegally and subject to regulatory action.



Can I request an explanation as to why no consideration was made regarding this fact i.e. CASA allowed other Operators to do this but determined that I was operating unlawfully.



It would appear to me that this would be the starting point of any investigation, although you chose not to address this critical factor.



If I could request an explanation as to why no comparative analysis was made, I would be highly appreciative.



Yours thankfully,



Glen Buckley

[Office Update]

Is the case against CASA still ongoing?

Any progress reports please Glen

[glenb]

Will be putting up a post Monday morning, cheers

Update. Apologies behind schedule. Days off Tuesday, and Wednesday. Will post it then

[Paragraph377]

The newly minted CASA CEO/DAS made this comment in her opening missive in May 2021; “I do not pretend to know everything about aviation and aviation safety, but I do bring a depth of knowledge and experience to my job”.

So she is being paid $600k per year to hold the title of Director Aviation Safety, yet does not know everything about aviation and aviation safety! What folly. That explains why 4 months in we are yet to see any ‘moving and shaking’. Her experience instills There is little confidence within our industry that there will be any positive changes to not only CASA, but to some of the ludicrous rules and regulations that are destroying our industry.

Elsewhere in her opening missive she mentions that she brings with her aviation ‘experience’. Ummm, no she doesn’t. Learning bureaucracy and obsfucation techniques from Mike Mrdak and the infrastructure department does not constitute aviation knowledge. Geoffrey Thomas claims to have vast ‘industry knowledge’ as well, but it relates only to information that he pinches from other people and his understanding of what colour the Chairman's lounge seats are. Pip’s experience is in allocating funding to various aviation industry programs, massaging lots of government money, eating kale sandwiches in Can’tberra boutique coffee shops, and attending copious amounts of bureaucratic meetings in which fantasy and nonsense is promulgated and group discussions take place regarding the photographic design and colour details for the glossy annual report are robustly debated.

Best of luck Glenn, you are going to need it when dealing with this departmental Can’tberra circus. Tootle…..Pip

[Chronic Snoozer]

The newly minted CASA CEO/DAS made this comment in her opening missive in May 2021; “I do not pretend to know everything about aviation and aviation safety, but I do bring a depth of knowledge and experience to my job”.

So she is being paid $600k per year to hold the title of Director Aviation Safety, yet does not know everything about aviation and aviation safety! What folly. That explains why 4 months in we are yet to see any ‘moving and shaking’. Her experience instills That no confidence in industry that there will be positive changes not only within CASA, but to some of the ludicrous rules and regulations that are destroying our industry.

Elsewhere in her opening missive she mentions that she brings with her aviation ‘experience’. Ummm, no she doesn’t. Learning bureaucracy and obsfucation techniques from Mike Mrdak and the infrastructure department does not constitute aviation knowledge. Geoffrey Thomas claims to have vast ‘industry knowledge’ as well, but it relates to information he pinches from other people and what colour the Chairman's lounge seats are. Pip’s experience is in allocating funding to various aviation industry programs, massaging lots of government money, eating kale sandwiches in Can’tberra boutique coffee shops, and attending copious amounts of bureaucratic meetings in which fantasy and nonsense is promulgated and group discussions take place regarding the photographic design and colour details for the glossy annual report are robustly debated.

Best of luck Glenn, you are going to need it when dealing with this departmental Can’tberra circus. Tootle…..Pip

Phew! For a moment there I thought she said "I do not pretend to know anything about aviation and aviation safety"

[tail wheel]

https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/standard-page/director-aviation-safety

"Before joining CASA, Pip was the Chief Operating Officer and Deputy Secretary for the Arts at the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications. Before that she was the Deputy Secretary for Transport. In this role, Pip was responsible for aviation and airport policy and program matters."

Deputy Secretary for the Arts???? :confused:

[Chronic Snoozer]

https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/standard-page/director-aviation-safety



Deputy Secretary for the Arts???? :confused:

Does she have any qualifications in aviation safety or safety in general?

[AerialPerspective]

Paragraph377;

GT is the epitome of the Dunning-Kruger effect, not knowing anything and not being able to recognise not knowing anything and thus exhibits unbridled confidence in his abilities which it annoys me no end, media outlets who wouldn't know any better just throw him in front of the camera to spout his sensationalist commentary and throw the word 'Expert' under his name. Sickening for all of us who have spent our lives in all aspects of aviation and know more than he ever will.

What is it about the media that all the so-called experts are the bottom of the gene pool of aviation???? Maybe it just is an arena that attracts narcissists.

[glenb]

Ombudsman Reference 2019-713834

The precursor to this correspondence is a follow up to my letter on page 73 post#1443

Dear Mark of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office.

Regarding my allegations that some CASA personnel acted unlawfully and that their actions lead to the closure of my two businesses. There were three core “topics”.

The overnight reversal of APTAs approval by CASA, and determination by CASA that it would no longer be permitted.
The declaration by CASA that my flying school of more than a decade, Melbourne Flight Training was suddenly declared an “unauthorised operation” and forced into closure. Despite multiple requests, CASA will provide no explanation for this, and I continue to seek one.
The direction by CASA to my Employer that my continuing employment in the industry was “no longer tenable based on comments I was making publicly” leading to my departure from the industry after 25 years.

In this correspondence, I am seeking some clarification prior to potentially requesting a review of my case. I appreciate that you have finalised the APTA matter, but this correspondence relates to the third topic, being the direction by a CASA Employee to my Employer that my “continuing employment was no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”.

I am very much of the opinion that in fact no comments were made publicly by me that would compel a CASA employee to direct that my continuing employment was no longer tenable, and that in fact the direction was vindictive and vexatious. It had no basis in aviation regulations, and no basis on aviation safety.

This particular topic is important because I am claiming that in fact, this entire matter was not based on safety or regulatory matters but was in fact an “engineered” process from within the CASA Executive.

I have made an allegation of misfeasance in public office against three members of the CASA Executive before the Senate Standing Committees General Aviation Inquiry in November 2020.

During the previous 18 months prior to formally raising those allegations in Parliament, I had written to the Leader of the Nationals and Deputy PM at the time, the Honourable Mr Michael McCormack on numerous occasions, and did so again immediately after I appeared in Parliament. None of that correspondence was ever acknowledged or responded to by his Office.

I am fully satisfied that his Office is avoiding this topic, and by him choosing not to respond, I am more dependent on your findings in order to approach my Local Member of Parliament Ms Gladys Liu for assistance.

To the point of this correspondence.

I have previously received your report on the direction by a CASA employee that my continuing employment was untenable. Are you able to confirm if there is a final report coming, or is that matter also closed, and that report is the final report?
I was hoping that the Ombudsman’s Office could direct me to the particular comment or comments that I made that compelled CASA to write to my Employer and make that direction that my continuing employment was no longer tenable, and my assumption is that identifying the comment or comments that I made, and where they were made, would have been a central theme to the investigation, and be integral to a determination of appropriateness and proportionality of the CASA action. Therefore, can I be informed of what the comment/s were, and in what forum were they made.
Was there any update regarding CASA publishing an apology?



Thank you for your consideration, respectfully,



Glen Buckley

[1746]

Glen,
it is good to hear that you are back and still pursuing the faceless men!
I was worrying, as were many other observers of this one side fight, that you might have been overcome.
Please stay safe and look after your self and your family!
All the best!!

[Paragraph377]

Shane Carmody, AOM, received the Order of Australia Medal last year. What for, I don’t really know. A government bureaucrat is not a real achievement, as sitting in a Canberra office drinking coffee and eating truffles really doesn’t fit the criteria of being a real job. Slurping on a Ministers jockstrap for decades also doesn’t meet the criteria of being a real job. So awarding such a person as him a title is absolutely sickening. A gutless bully who used the power of the government to back up his spineless actions. It was never a fair competition, but then again bullies always hang out together.

Carmody spent 32 years as a public servant, with no remarkable achievement other than racking up a huge superannuation nest egg. He also spent 15 years as an ‘army officer’, where he no doubt worked in a non-combative role such as being a cook, a cleaner of bedsheets and mess halls, or working in a nice safe Australian stores facility somewhere. So 47 years on the government teat is pathetic. Too scared to get a real job in the real world. Had this individual had any real life skills, he would not have allowed the situation to foster where Mr Buckley was so mercilessly destroyed.

Glen is a true gentleman and a decent, down to earth guy who was simply trying to eek out a modest living for himself and his family. A smart man who developed a concept that was a good match for industry’s needs. He has put up a brave battle and has a robust set of balls, unlike the spineless turds who oppose him.

Karma is real, and eventually everyone pays for their sins.

[glenb]

Attachments:


Appendix 8B: Magazine article. February 2018 “APTA before CASA action”.
Appendix 8C- Magazine article September 2019f “APTA after CASA action”.
Appendix 8E-Hansard Report- Senate RRAT Committee November 2020
Link to CASA Principles. Particular attention is drawn to Principle 8 and the link to CASAs Regulatory Philosophy. How CASA meets the government best practice principles for policy makers | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/how-casa-meets-government-best-practice-principles-policy-makers#:~:text=CASA%20released%20its%20Regulatory%20Philosop hy%20in%20September%202015.,with%201-2%20years%20of%20the%20regulation%20being%20implemented.)
Appendix- Proposed media release.
Appendix x3 Correspondence to Minister McCormack





15/09/21



To the Honourable Ms Gladys Liu, Member for Chisholm.

My name is Glen Buckley, a 56-year resident of the electorate of Chisholm.

The purpose of this correspondence is to request a meeting with you, to seek guidance regarding the submission of a petition, and to subsequently submit that petition to the House of Representatives via your Office.

I have reviewed the information on the Parliamentary website. I understand the difference between an “e-petition” and a “paper petition”. I understand that an e-petition can only run for 30 days. To achieve my goal of 10,000 signatures I may need a protracted period beyond 30 days, although I am confident of widespread industry support, and would also draw on my local community to obtain my goal. My objective would be to achieve this figure in two months, with it commencing on November 1st and running till the last day of 2021, with submission to your office, in early 2022. I am also considering paying for two months advertising in a prominent aviation magazine to raise awareness of the issue and drawing the publics attention to the petition, I would appreciate direction from your office on the appropriateness of such action.

For these reasons, the E-petition may not be suitable, and the “paper petition” appears the better option. Could you advise whether a petition managed through a website such as Change.org or similar meets the requirements of a “paper” petition for submission.

My suggested wording for the petition follows, but I welcome any input from your Office, to ensure that all protocols are met. I have kept the petition within the 250-word limit.



PETITION

I, Glen Buckley, am requesting that the Minister responsible for CASA provide me with the opportunity for a 3-hour meeting.

My intention would be to submit allegations, against a CASA employee of “misfeasance in public office”, and to submit evidence in support of those allegations. At the end of that meeting, I would be seeking direction on how I should proceed.

To maximise transparency, efficiency and to ensure integrity, a Subject Matter Expert (SME) from the CASA Executive Management level should also attend that meeting and ensure that they have the opportunity to alert the Deputy PM if I misrepresent the situation.

The impact of this individuals’ decisions has led to the closure of several businesses, loss of associated investment, and jobs, and has no basis in safety or regulatory breaches. Not only has it caused significant commercial damage, but it has also had a traumatic impact on the wellbeing of my family, and others.

When faced with alternatives he has deliberately and knowingly made the decision that results in the greater harm and did so repeatedly over an 8-month period. He was not compelled to make the decisions that he made.

At the time of applying his opinion and making his decisions and throughout the 8-month period, he would have been fully aware of the emotional and commercial trauma that would be caused to myself, my family, and others dependent on me, and was alerted to it on numerous occasions in writing. At any time, he could have resolved this entire matter, within 24 hours, but chose not to.

Thank you for your support, Glen Buckley





As you will be aware from the wording, I am seeking a meeting and subsequent investigation of my complaint. That short investigation would ideally be done by someone with a level of industry expertise, to bring increased robustness to the process, and assist in getting to the truth of the matter in a prompt and efficient manner. My suggestion would be to draw from the recent applicants for the position of CEO of CASA. This does potentially impact on the safety of aviation, so a prolonged investigation is best avoided, hence my appeal direct to the Minister.

I feel that a petition is one of my few remaining options to bring integrity and transparency to the process. This individual I have made allegations against is actually in charge of this matter and managing the situation from within CASA. It does not seem reasonable that the person who has allegations made him, is also the person in charge of CASAs management of the matter.

He holds a position of power within CASA and can significantly influence CASA outcomes. I am fully satisfied that he is misleading the Commonwealth Ombudsman in his investigation and that is likely to pervert the outcome, hence my appeal to the Parliament for assistance, and most especially to you in your role as my local Member. The opportunity for me to present my evidence on this matter in support of the allegation is important.

I have raised these substantive allegations against this individual on multiple occasions to the previous Deputy PM, the Honourable Mr Michael McCormack, and have done so on repeated occasions for more almost three years. A limited sampling of that correspondence is attached as: Appendix McCormack in three parts.

Mr McCormack, whilst no longer the Deputy PM remains as a National Party Representative and would be the Subject Matter Expert (SME), within the Government. He has also been fully briefed by the Chair of the Board of CASA prior to his recent departure from the role.

Whilst I am not able to question the Honourable Mr Michael McCormack’s integrity generally, on this matter, it is fair to say, he has not acted in a well-intentioned manner. I say that because he chose not to engage with me on this matter, despite his awareness of it. Mr McCormack was fully briefed by the Chair of the CASA Board at the time in accordance with the Ministers Statement of Expectations.

The matter is complicated, but I believe that you have some pre-existing knowledge. I have attached two magazine articles that provide an overview. These articles have been provided to you some time ago, so I include them again for ease of reference. To anyone not familiar with the matter, these provide an exceptional overview, and are essential reading.

I have also attached a link to my presentation before Senate on 23rd November 2020, and a copy of Hansard. Senate Rural Regional Affairs & Transport Committee GA Inquiry - Mr Glen Buckley - YouTube It is in this Presentation to the Senate Committee, that I once again formally raised the allegation of “misfeasance in public office” against this CASA employee, and I followed that up immediately, with a formal written submission to the Deputy PM at the time, as the Minister responsible for CASA. That substantial allegation raised by me, was not responded to by his office, despite repeated requests both before and after my allegations were raised in Parliament and were bought directly to his attention.

Depending on the time you have to allocate to this matter, I also draw your attention to the “thread” that covers this topic in some detail. Despite being on what I assumed to be a discrete aviators forum at the time, it has now attracted well over ¾ million views. This matter is obviously important to the wider industry and has significant support. I refer you to the comprehensive information available via the following link. 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 also point out that allegations of a similar nature have previously been made against this individual, leading to an ABC investigative story by Adele Ferguson and Chris Gillett on the ABC 7.30 Report in October 2018. I have been approached by many within industry offering to come forward and tell their account of their experience with this CASA employee. Similarly, many of their lives and livelihoods have been destroyed have also been approached by CASA employees who have offered to come forward and tell the truth not only on my matter, but on others.

The purpose of this correspondence is to request a meeting with you or your nominee to seek guidance on how petition that could best be prepared for submission, and what protocols need to be met.

Shortly, I will be writing directly to the Deputy PM, making a request for a meeting. I have been trying to obtain this for over two years, to no avail, and I would like to pre-empt that anticipated rejection by proceeding as expeditiously as possible on this petition.

Please understand Ms Liu, that my family has lost everything as a result of this individual. I lost my two businesses, my home, I was forced out of the industry, I was bankrupted, and am now trully destitute. My business, shut down by CASA was my future security. I have no superannuation. My wife has had only 4 days free of work in over 2 years, as she tries to rebuild our life. The impact on her has been heartbreaking to watch as a husband. Should one of us be unable to work, the truth is we would be homeless. The future of my wife and I is dire, and depressing.

Thank you in anticipation of your assistance on this matter.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley.

[Paragraph377]

Glen, under the Civil Aviation Act and the subsequent legislation, officer delegations and legal framework, CASA inspectors are permitted to evaluate regulatory risk, monitor compliance and then respond to non-compliance. In their mind they have done exactly this in relation to your specific case. To an observer or industry participant, what they have done is bastardise your company and sweep it out of existence for reasons only known to them. Absolute pricks. However, from a legal perspective they have shown that they have acted honestly and with due diligence by eliminating what they perceive as being a safety risk - you/your organisation. They will simply keep on promulgating that message, that they have acted prudently to mitigate and reduce a big scary safety risk to the dear Australian population. They will continue to present it in such a way that it is hard to dispute.

Winning against CASA is like chalking up a win against the Attorney Generals office or the ATO. It does happen, but rarely, and at great cost. Your hope should be that they view you as a pest, a thorn in their side (and successive and future Ministers sides) disrupting their busy Canberra schedule of coffee shop meetings and afternoon truffles, and hopefully they will offer you a few breadcrumbs to go away and leave them alone. As always Comrade, best of luck and we wish you every success.

[AerialPerspective]

Shane Carmody, AOM, received the Order of Australia Medal last year. What for, I don’t really know. A government bureaucrat is not a real achievement, as sitting in a Canberra office drinking coffee and eating truffles really doesn’t fit the criteria of being a real job. Slurping on a Ministers jockstrap for decades also doesn’t meet the criteria of being a real job. So awarding such a person as him a title is absolutely sickening. A gutless bully who used the power of the government to back up his spineless actions. It was never a fair competition, but then again bullies always hang out together.

Carmody spent 32 years as a public servant, with no remarkable achievement other than racking up a huge superannuation nest egg. He also spent 15 years as an ‘army officer’, where he no doubt worked in a non-combative role such as being a cook, a cleaner of bedsheets and mess halls, or working in a nice safe Australian stores facility somewhere. So 47 years on the government teat is pathetic. Too scared to get a real job in the real world. Had this individual had any real life skills, he would not have allowed the situation to foster where Mr Buckley was so mercilessly destroyed.

Glen is a true gentleman and a decent, down to earth guy who was simply trying to eek out a modest living for himself and his family. A smart man who developed a concept that was a good match for industry’s needs. He has put up a brave battle and has a robust set of balls, unlike the spineless turds who oppose him.

Karma is real, and eventually everyone pays for their sins.

Agree with everything you wrote, especially about Glen, could not agree more.

As for the Order of Australia, they're like confetti - I seem to remember in the same year, a bloke who took hold of the country's second largest airline and effectively ran it into the ground financially to the point where the next CEO couldn't pull it up in time and it went into administration also got awarded one of these vacuous 'awards' for 'services to aviation' - well, I guess there is some truth in that, the bloke concerned (the mail room boy) well and truly 'serviced' Virgin, if you know what I mean.

People often complain about someone like AJ getting bonuses but there were times when he and his predecessor, Dixon, decided to forego their bonuses - the MRB never knocked back a bonus or took a cent less through 10 years of ZERO profits.

I know this is about Glen, but I just add that extra commentary to highlight what a joke the entire 'award' system is.

[Pinky the pilot]

Slight thread drift

As for the Order of Australia, they're like confetti

Ah yes, the Order of Australia; Every time I hear those words, for some reason I always think of the similarly named award....The Order of Lenin.:eek:

Once read that the ribbon colour of the two are identical, but NFI if that is true.

The Australian awards system; Otherwise irreverently known as the 'Bunyip Aristocracy.':}

Back to the thread proper.

[glenb]

Sorrtry folks about to walk into work. I will return to add to and edit this, but keen to get it up.I am fully satisfied that CASA has deliberately mislead the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office in the current investigation.

If CASA is to be believed, and I point out that they have very much led what I call an alternating narrative, then I would like to ask one very simple question that requires an explanation that calls into question the ethics, the intention, the integrity and in fact the lawfulness of this matter.

Appropriate at this stage that I refer to Mr Carmody’s Statement to Parliament at the Senate Inquiry into Australia’s General Aviation Industry Friday 20th November 2020. This is more than a year after I have lost the business, due to the restrictions CASA placed on the businesses ability to trade.

“Essentially, Mr Buckley has been asked to do one thing, deliver a legal document between him and his franchisees or his subordinates or whatever he calls them that clearly outlines who has the safety responsibility and supervisory responsibility. Put it in a legally binding document that we will accept, and we would be comfortable with the business model”.

That legally document that clearly outline “safety and supervisory responsibility” already existed, and Mr Carmody would have been fully aware of that and had access to it. It is called the Exposition.

The very same Exposition that CASA designed with me over a two-year period, fully approved in April 2017, and fully audited in November 2018, and raised no concerns at all about. That is the only industry document that contains that information. The exposition clearly outlined safety and supervisory responsibility. Part of it is attached. It is only a small component of our manual suite, but the pertinent section at this stage.

If CASA had a new and additional requirement to be involved in the commercial contracts between entities that had never previously been applied to other Operators surely it was incumbent on CASA to provide clear and concise direction to me on what they required in the contracts.

There can be absolutely no doubt that I would put anything that CASA required into the commercial contracts. Admittedly it seemed bizarre, as these matters would normally be attended to in the Exposition that all staff comply with. However, as an industry first, CASA had chosen my organisation to involve themselves in the commercial contracts.

The significance of this is:

Quite simply, if CASA had come into my office and said, “Glen, we would like to work with the wording on your commercial contracts”.

They would have been met with a coffee and a biscuit, they could have sat down with me and my team. That would include myself as the Group CEO, my Group Head of Operations (HOO), my Group Safety Manager, my Internal Co-ordinator, and my Technical Writer. We would have embedded the wording exactly as CASA required.

The entire matter could have been completely avoided, CASA would have walked out of my office hours later full of caffeine and sugar, and fully satisfied with the content of the contracts. They would have been finalised, signed by all Members, and held on file by CASA.

Truly. If CASAs story is to be believed. Surely the question is.

How did we get to a situation where businesses have been closed down, peoples livelihoods have been decimated, employees have been left unemployed and unpaid, I have been bankrupted, suppliers have been unapid, students have been impacted?

The entire matter could have been avoided without CASA even sending that initial notification.

You understand, why I very much question the intent.

[Lead Balloon]

I say again, Glen:

The heart of the issue can be reduced to a handful of sentences. It's not that complex. And, with the greatest respect, continued voluminous correspondence with CASA or anyone else (other than a judge or tribunal member) will not change the heart of the issue.

CASA's position

CASA's current position is that, on its (recently conjured up) interpretation of Part 141 (and Part 142), APTA had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy CASA that APTA had sufficient operational control over its members. CASA's position is that CASA was justified in demanding from APTA "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) [between APTA and its members]", before CASA would be satisfied.

(You should note that "CASA" here just means the subjective opinion of an individual, the identity of whom you can safely guess.)

APTA's position

APTA's position is that what APTA provided was sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the legislation, noting that this assertion from 'CASA' is a fiction: "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.")

The practical problem

To get an authoritative statement of what Parts 141 and Part 142 actually require, APTA would have to spend years and hundreds of thousands, in a court or tribunal, battling master sophists wielding the 'safety' card. CASA will say that, absent evidence of 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 agreements between APTA and its members, those members could be out of control and creating high risks to the safety of air navigation.

If it makes you feel better to continue writing to CASA, what you should be asking for is specific authority for this proposition: "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." Ask CASA to cite a specific regulation, or a specific statement in an explanatory memorandum for Part 141 or 142, or the specific reasons of a judge or tribunal member who's considered the legislation, as authority for the proposition.

As I've said, the above is in my view regulation conjured in the mind of a complicator. The 'authority' for the proposition will, I reckon, boil down to 'the vibe' but expressed in enormously impressive but ultimately vacuous motherhood statements, assuming you don't receive the usual crickets chirping as a response. They don't care, because they don't have to.

[glenb]

Lead Balloon, please be assured, I am listening to you, I really am. Your posts are highly valued and respected and do attend to the legal aspect informatively, there is no doubt. Your response to what I write below would be appreciated.

Regarding CASAs position. Correct. They will probably argue the point that you raise. My response.

APTA did demonstrate that it had full operational control. There was one AOC, and the Key Personnel specified and required by the legislation. In fact, we significantly exceeded the Key Personnel requirements. We had two CASA approved Group CEOs, two CASA approved Group Head of Operations (with a third undergoing a 12-month induction after transferring from the Airline Industry). We also had two CASA approved Group Safety Managers. The Safety Department was the largest funded safety department of any school in the Country.

This was supported by the industries most advanced IT system supporting that and providing CASA with 24/7 remote access to every aspect of the business. This included scheduling, safety department, flight and duty, minutes of all management meetings, real time info on who was flying and where, student training records, bookings, predictive maintenance etc etc.


Ten CASA personnel designed it over a two-year period, assessing more than 600 revised procedures. One they were satisfied they sent our entire Exposition within CASA for Peer Review and fully approved it in April 2017. They came back and did a level one audit 6 months later in November 2017, with no concerns raised. Then 18 months after approval, say that "CASA didn’t know our structure" and shut the whole thing down.

Importantly, and this is crucial I believe. CASA make no allegations at all that we did not have full operational control. You will note that they lead you to believe that, but never actually go so far as to say that.

CASA was fully satisfied at the approval stage in April 2017. They were fully satisfied at audit in November 2017. They approved bases under the system, and even recommended APTA to aero clubs. CASA never raised and concerns about operational control. Never. To this date, they still haven’t. There are no noncompliance notices (NCNs), no safety concerns, no regulatory breaches. Absolutely nothing. CASA is not arguing that we did not have full operational control. They say that “we must have full operational control”. I agree. We must, and we did. Otherwise, CASA would not have approved the systems and procedures that we followed exactly.

It’s a cunning use of phraseology they use, that leads people to believe that we did not have full operational control. CASA never state which rule was breached or what we did to raise concerns, because there is nothing.

I have asked CASA to identify which procedure they were not satisfied with. There is none. It is just a change of opinion, that was not well intentioned.

CASA is unable to even provide a scenario in which they thought we could lose full operational control. Its typical CASA tactics of trying to mask something in what appears to be a supporting safety argument.

Regarding the energy that I put into writing. It is therapeutic, it really is. Pprune got me through my darkest hours 18 months ago, it really did.

It’s a place to try and protect my reputation. Most people in the industry, my neighbourhood, and my friends and workmates in my new industry only know that CASA closed my business down, and in the process, I was bankrupted. I don’t have the mental capacity to retell the story again and again. Its too traumatic. If I can get away with a simple story, I simply tell people I was a victim of fraud. It tends to make people less judgemental, and allows me to hold my head just that little bit higher. Even my family must have some doubt. They must query how our family ended up in this situation at the hands of CASA. Surely, Glen must have done something wrong?

Its also the method that I use to communicate with the businesses, staff, suppliers, students and customers that have been impacted by the result of CASA shutting me down. Rather than traumatise myself by defending myself on a daily basis, I can deflect some of the stress by pointing people to Pprune for updates.

Belting this out before I say goodbye to my wife who is heading off to work. Apologies for the poor editing, and any typos. Will try and get back later.

Cheers. Glen

[glenb]

Poster #2, Bendy, you still hanging in there.

And to 1746, cheers for following.

[Lead Balloon]

I reckon your arguments are entirely reasonable, Glen. Trouble is, CASA doesn't agree and doesn't care what you or I reckon.

The only person whose opinion counts is that of a judge. Unfortunately, as you and many others have found out, first-hand, the costs and risks of taking on a scare-mongering 'safety authority' are prohibitive. The practical 'standard' is whatever someone in CASA wakes up each day and decides it is.

[AerialPerspective]

Lead Balloon, please be assured, I am listening to you, I really am. Your posts are highly valued and respected and do attend to the legal aspect informatively, there is no doubt. Your response to what I write below would be appreciated.

Regarding CASAs position. Correct. They will probably argue the point that you raise. My response.

APTA did demonstrate that it had full operational control. There was one AOC, and the Key Personnel specified and required by the legislation. In fact, we significantly exceeded the Key Personnel requirements. We had two CASA approved Group CEOs, two CASA approved Group Head of Operations (with a third undergoing a 12-month induction after transferring from the Airline Industry). We also had two CASA approved Group Safety Managers. The Safety Department was the largest funded safety department of any school in the Country.

This was supported by the industries most advanced IT system supporting that and providing CASA with 24/7 remote access to every aspect of the business. This included scheduling, safety department, flight and duty, minutes of all management meetings, real time info on who was flying and where, student training records, bookings, predictive maintenance etc etc.


Ten CASA personnel designed it over a two-year period, assessing more than 600 revised procedures. One they were satisfied they sent our entire Exposition within CASA for Peer Review and fully approved it in April 2017. They came back and did a level one audit 6 months later in November 2017, with no concerns raised. Then 18 months after approval, say that "CASA didn’t know our structure" and shut the whole thing down.

Importantly, and this is crucial I believe. CASA make no allegations at all that we did not have full operational control. You will note that they lead you to believe that, but never actually go so far as to say that.

CASA was fully satisfied at the approval stage in April 2017. They were fully satisfied at audit in November 2017. They approved bases under the system, and even recommended APTA to aero clubs. CASA never raised and concerns about operational control. Never. To this date, they still haven’t. There are no noncompliance notices (NCNs), no safety concerns, no regulatory breaches. Absolutely nothing. CASA is not arguing that we did not have full operational control. They say that “we must have full operational control”. I agree. We must, and we did. Otherwise, CASA would not have approved the systems and procedures that we followed exactly.

It’s a cunning use of phraseology they use, that leads people to believe that we did not have full operational control. CASA never state which rule was breached or what we did to raise concerns, because there is nothing.

I have asked CASA to identify which procedure they were not satisfied with. There is none. It is just a change of opinion, that was not well intentioned.

CASA is unable to even provide a scenario in which they thought we could lose full operational control. Its typical CASA tactics of trying to mask something in what appears to be a supporting safety argument.

Regarding the energy that I put into writing. It is therapeutic, it really is. Pprune got me through my darkest hours 18 months ago, it really did.

It’s a place to try and protect my reputation. Most people in the industry, my neighbourhood, and my friends and workmates in my new industry only know that CASA closed my business down, and in the process, I was bankrupted. I don’t have the mental capacity to retell the story again and again. Its too traumatic. If I can get away with a simple story, I simply tell people I was a victim of fraud. It tends to make people less judgemental, and allows me to hold my head just that little bit higher. Even my family must have some doubt. They must query how our family ended up in this situation at the hands of CASA. Surely, Glen must have done something wrong?

Its also the method that I use to communicate with the businesses, staff, suppliers, students and customers that have been impacted by the result of CASA shutting me down. Rather than traumatise myself by defending myself on a daily basis, I can deflect some of the stress by pointing people to Pprune for updates.

Belting this out before I say goodbye to my wife who is heading off to work. Apologies for the poor editing, and any typos. Will try and get back later.

Cheers. Glen

Glen,

If retelling the story is too difficult then don't. It doesn't matter what people think of you, those of us that know you well, know your character and anyone who wants to say otherwise can go f-ck themselves IMHO. If writing on pprune is cathartic, then keep doing it. I for one go straight to your thread to check for updates when I log on.

But one thing please NEVER do - do not EVER worry about your reputation or your integrity - those of us that know you personally know that you are a gentleman, a man of his word, a man that will be aggrieved if he feels he hasn't delivered on something he promised (which never happened in my experience) and overall someone who I and many others trust and consider to be one of the best and most honest people they've ever worked for (and in my case, that list of good people to work for is very, very short, but you're on it).

Overall, look after your family and keep your head held high - I'm sure many on here can't begin to imagine what you've been through personally even knowing the facts, but remember always, it wasn't you or anything you did, it was a mindless bureaucracy that eats its own and when it runs out, it devours honest people.

I don't want to get into politics but I think in other circumstances there might have been someone or more than one person who would have stood up from that organisation and blown the whistle, but this current government has made that an act that they are vindictive and amoral toward, finding any way to lock someone up for telling the truth about b-stardry. You just need to look at journalists, a respected former AG and international lawyer looking to lose his freedom for defending someone who blew the whistle, not to mention the recriminations that surround the leaking of the Afghanistan events of alleged murder who are being pursued by this government, even though it looks like the 'whistle blower' was telling the truth.

Anyway, I believe as an optimist that this will come to a satisfactory conclusion in the fulness of time because of one simple aspect that is inescapable in this universe - the truth will always out.......

[Paragraph377]

Glen B; “It’s a cunning use of phraseology they use, that leads people to believe that we did not have full operational control. CASA never state which rule was breached or what we did to raise concerns, because there is nothing”.

The misuse and/or personal interpretation of rule and law is what CASA is famous for. Over many decades they have made up their own minds as to what certain rules and regulations mean and they written them in a way that gives them an ace up their sleeve because when it suits them they like to apply whatever ‘intent’ or ‘meaning’ they see fit. And usually that is to suit their own nefarious agenda. Glen, they used this ‘ace’ to nail you to the wall, and others before you.

Lead balloon; “The only person whose opinion counts is that of a judge. Unfortunately, as you and many others have found out, first-hand, the costs and risks of taking on a scare-mongering 'safety authority' are prohibitive. The practical 'standard' is whatever someone in CASA wakes up each day and decides it is”.

Again, so very true. CASA are like a ‘woman choosing which shoes to wear each day’. On any given morning it will normally be a different pair of shoes to the previous day. And some days there will be multiple changes throughout the day, all depending on each wearers personal taste and the days agenda. To try and follow this process or the methodology/thought pattern behind it is next to impossible.

The overarching Civil Aviation Act is ****. It is a convoluted dogs breakfast and the starting point for reform is rewriting the Act. And what a dream come true that would be. By contrast, as a retired pilot and businessman I have also dealt with The Marine Safety National Law Act 2013 (may have been updated more recently, not sure) under which AMSA regulate. And also the Biosecurity Act 2015 under which the Department of Agriculture regulate. Both Acts have both been rewritten and updated in the past 8 years. They aren’t perfect but they are much more clear and precise (maybe lacking some teeth) compared to what they used to be. The 1988 Civil Aviation Act is an outdated load of cobblers and remains that way so that certain CASA legal folk can use it as a weapon when it suits them. It may be fun and games to them (you know who you are) but it negatively impacts and costs Australia’s economy many many millions of dollars in revenue each year. Since 1988, that figure is probably in the billions. If Australia wanted to get serious, the Government would follow the example of my beloved New Zealand who took only 4 years to rewrite the rule set into a more manageable and sensible suite of regulations which sit under a more succinct Civil Aviation Act. CASA is a pathetic joke.

[AerialPerspective]

Glen B; “It’s a cunning use of phraseology they use, that leads people to believe that we did not have full operational control. CASA never state which rule was breached or what we did to raise concerns, because there is nothing”.

The misuse and/or personal interpretation of rule and law is what CASA is famous for. Over many decades they have made up their own minds as to what certain rules and regulations mean and they written them in a way that gives them an ace up their sleeve because when it suits them they like to apply whatever ‘intent’ or ‘meaning’ they see fit. And usually that is to suit their own nefarious agenda. Glen, they used this ‘ace’ to nail you to the wall, and others before you.

Lead balloon; “The only person whose opinion counts is that of a judge. Unfortunately, as you and many others have found out, first-hand, the costs and risks of taking on a scare-mongering 'safety authority' are prohibitive. The practical 'standard' is whatever someone in CASA wakes up each day and decides it is”.

Again, so very true. CASA are like a ‘woman choosing which shoes to wear each day’. On any given morning it will normally be a different pair of shoes to the previous day. And some days there will be multiple changes throughout the day, all depending on each wearers personal taste and the days agenda. To try and follow this process or the methodology/thought pattern behind it is next to impossible.

The overarching Civil Aviation Act is ****. It is a convoluted dogs breakfast and the starting point for reform is rewriting the Act. And what a dream come true that would be. By contrast, as a retired pilot and businessman I have also dealt with The Marine Safety National Law Act 2013 (may have been updated more recently, not sure) under which AMSA regulate. And also the Biosecurity Act 2015 under which the Department of Agriculture regulate. Both Acts have both been rewritten and updated in the past 8 years. They aren’t perfect but they are much more clear and precise (maybe lacking some teeth) compared to what they used to be. The 1988 Civil Aviation Act is an outdated load of cobblers and remains that way so that certain CASA legal folk can use it as a weapon when it suits them. It may be fun and games to them (you know who you are) but it negatively impacts and costs Australia’s economy many many millions of dollars in revenue each year. Since 1988, that figure is probably in the billions. If Australia wanted to get serious, the Government would follow the example of my beloved New Zealand who took only 4 years to rewrite the rule set into a more manageable and sensible suite of regulations which sit under a more succinct Civil Aviation Act. CASA is a pathetic joke.


Bravo. Bravo.

I remember the late eighties/early nineties and 'harmonisation' being discussed in NZ and AU - the difference was, as you say, NZ had it done in 4 years (Civil Aviation Act 1990).

To be fair (well, to give some hope), CASR Parts 91, 119, 121, 125, et al come into force on December 2nd this year, effectively wiping out nearly all of the previous CARs and CAOs and getting somewhere approximating what NZ took 4 years, to our 35 years and still not complete.......

As an interesting aside, there is actually no 'head of power' that enables the Commonwealth to Regulate Aviation and Aerospace under the Constitution. Section 51 ("Parliament shall have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:.......) mentions nothing about aviation.

An attempt was made in the Post War Reconstruction and Democratic Rights Bill (a Bill to Amend the Constitution) to, among other things, grant the Commonwealth power to regulate aviation and navigation. This followed a similar Referendum in 1937 to do the same, both failed to achieve the required majority of voters in a majority of States and a majority overall.

The ONLY reason the Commonwealth is able to regulate aviation is because Parliament DOES have a 'Treaty Power'. The Chicago Convention 1944 is effectively a 'Treaty' so the Federal Government uses it's 'foreign affairs power' as the font from which it is able to make laws to give effect to the Articles of the Convention.

Just shows how out of date the Constitution is in many ways and perhaps the overly onerous method of amendment should be eased somewhat.

Anyway, may be telling everyone something they already knew but I just thought that was an interesting aside.

[Bend alot]

Still here mate, all good my end.

Still hope you rattle them some more.

[Lead Balloon]

The ONLY reason the Commonwealth is able to regulate aviation is because Parliament DOES have a 'Treaty Power'. The Chicago Convention 1944 is effectively a 'Treaty' so the Federal Government uses it's 'foreign affairs power' as the font from which it is able to make laws to give effect to the Articles of the Convention.The interstate trade and commerce power, the corporations power and the incidental power cover a lot of aviation safety regulatory ground, too, but not completely.

[AerialPerspective]

The interstate trade and commerce power, the corporations power and the incidental power cover a lot of aviation safety regulatory ground, too, but not completely.

There are a number of sub-sections of s51 that add on the end "... and similar matters...."

You'd think with hot air balloons already existing and the likelihood that the aeroplane would be a reality within 3 years of the Constitution being enacted that "... and similar matters...." added on the end of shipping and navigation would have covered it but no.

Needless to say, the external affairs power (not the foreign affairs power as I erroneously identified it) has come in very handy for establishing a right to legislate in matters that the Constitution is silent on.

While s128 is onerous, I tend toward supporting it on the basis that if it were much easier to amend the constitution, goodness knows what governments of both stripes would have done to it over the years.

I do however think that a dual system, such as having a second amendment method based on that in the US Constitution (extremely erroneous in their political landscape) where the Parliament must pass something by a special majority (2/3rds), then it must be ratified by the legislatures of 2/3rds of the States might still retain the check on unbridled changes, while allowing a bit more evolutionary change to occur.

[glenb]

Of the three core issues;

1. Reversal of APTA approval.
2. CASA declaring my flying school, Melbourne Flight Training an "unauthorized operation"
3. CASA directing my Employer that my continuing employment was no longer tenable based on comments i was making publicly.

This particular post is about point 3.


Page 73, post #1443 of this forum contains the letter sent to the Ombudsman on 19/01/21.
Page 86, post #1711 of this forum contains follow up correspondence.


Below is the response received 23/09/21

Our ref: 2019-713834

Dear Mr Buckley

I refer to your emails below.

In our email to you on 23 December 2020 I noted that


“one of the only outcomes we could potentially obtain for you would be an apology from CASA and advice that it did not direct APTA to end your employment. I believe this remains true. 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 to be done for you if you would like.”

My understanding from our subsequent contact was that you were not interested in receiving an apology if the substance was simply that CASA did not direct APTA to end your employment and if this apology was not published. My understanding is that the intention was to offer you an apology directly. Please let me know if you have changed your mind or we have misunderstood you on this point.

In terms of reports, our Office has not issued any formal reports about this matter. I note that a report would be issued under the Ombudsman’s name. That said, I acknowledge that earlier correspondence we issued to you was referred to as a “phase 1 report”. This was not a formal report, but was rather Mr Buss’ summary of our investigation at that point. The correspondence sought to confirm the matters we had finished examining, noted the matters on which there was broad agreement between our Office and CASA, and indicated the further aspects of the complaint we intended to examine. I apologise if we were not sufficiently clear about how the investigation proceeded from that point.

I am not aware of any specific comments you made that may have compelled CASA’s contact with APTA on 27 August 2019. However, as we have discussed, it does not seem to me that anyone is of the view that this contact was reasonable and appropriate. I note in this regard the outcome of your complaint to the Industry Complaints Commissioner, and the fact that on 29 August 2019 CASA clarified with APTA that it had no issue with your remaining an employee. Additionally, while I acknowledge your long standing view is that CASA’s actions in this case had an improper basis, I did not see a reasonable basis for this view on examining the internal documents we obtained from CASA during the investigation.

I acknowledge you remain dissatisfied by this whole situation. However, I remain of the view that our Office cannot obtain a better outcome for you by further investigating the complaint.

Yours faithfully



Mark

Complaint Resolution Officer

COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN

[Lead Balloon]

What's happened is this in summary:

1. CASA has distanced itself from the dude who got you sacked and CASA is willing to apologise to you (Glen) that loose cannon dude shouldn't have done what he did.

2. On the regulatory issues, CASA has said to the Ombudsman's office that we, CASA, are the authority and we say the rules allow us to require APTA to provide a bunch of information in order to be satisfied the rules as we interpret them are being complied with by APTA, and APTA did not provide that information. The Ombudsman's office has accepted that.

Unfortunately, I've seen this outcome across a number of areas where the Ombudsman's office is asked to investigate in the last half a dozen or so years. The Ombudsman's office just accepts what 'the authority' or 'the Department' says about some legal issue without actually reading the legislation or forming its own view about what it's been told about the effect of the legislation.

About the only shining light of a Commonwealth organisation that conducts fearless, competent and in-depth investigations and produces corresponding reports at the moment is the Auditor-General and the Australian National Audit Office. Unfortunately, it doesn't 'audit' the kinds of circumstances that crushed APTA into the ground. Its audits focus on the spending of Commonwealth money through e.g. grants (think sports grants rorts and car park grants rorts) or procurements (think $30million for a $3million block of land). Further, the government is of course trying to starve the Auditor-General and the ANAO of resources in order to reduce its capacity to highlight the many unlawful and incompetent actions of government agencies.

[glenb]

Dear Mark of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office,

I apologise if my correspondence of 19/01/21 was not clear on this matter.

In your correspondence you noted; “one of the only outcomes we could potentially obtain for you would be an apology from CASA, and advice that it did not direct the Employer 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 interpreted that as having two components;


one of the only outcomes we could potentially obtain from you would be an apology from CASA and
advice that it did not direct the Employer to end your employment

For clarity, I do expect an apology.

Regarding the first component, advice that “CASA did not direct my Employer to end my employment”., I felt that was of little value because CASA clearly did send an email directing my Employer to end my employment. I don’t believe that is in dispute by anyone, therefore, I could see little value in that component. It happened. It can’t “unhappen”

I do however very much expect an apology, and clarity around that direction.

I have had my two businesses shut down by CASA and. I was then forced out of the industry by that direction from the CASA Regional Manager. It was not practical that I could work in the industry again after that direction. It would and did become public knowledge very quickly.

Industry experience indicates that CASA usually restricted such directions to face to face verbal “suggestions”, rather than as written directives as in my case, for obvious reasons.

As you are aware several businesses were forced into closure by CASAs actions against me. Staff lost their jobs, careers were affected, staff lost entitlements. Suppliers were left unpaid, students training was impacted, and personally I was bankrupted. The moment that CASA put those restrictions on my business, it was doomed.

The personal cost to me runs into many millions of dollars, but there are also approximately one million of debts to parties that were completely innocent, and directly impacted by CASAs actions. They should not have been affected. It is reasonable that many of them would think poorly of me. If CASA shut me down, it would be logical that Glen Buckley had committed some very serious breaches of either a safety or regulatory manner.

Almost everyone in my life has been impacted, including three generations of my family. I have lived in this same area my entire 56 years, and everyone in my community knows that CASA shut me down and I was bankrupted. Its unbearably embarrassing and humiliating.

When I tried to find work and potential employers asked me what happened after 25 years in the aviation industry, I have to explain how CASA closed my business down and then sent an email to my Employer. In an interview that obviously raises concern. Its hard to sweep 25 years under the mat.

My families welfare has been absolutely decimated by the closure of the businesses. My mental health and physical health have been equally decimated. I carry an enormous burden every waking minute of the harm, that I have caused to so many.

My reputation has been absolutely trashed, and I am just too embarrassed to engage with anyone at all from the aviation industry. Many who have been significantly impacted.

None of this is based on safety, regulatory breaches, or quality outcomes. To anyone that doesn’t know the details behind this situation, it is likely that they will assume that Australia’s aviation safety regulator came down hard on me, and that I must have done something that was a grave and imminent risk to safety. When in fact, it clearly wasn’t.

I feel that an apology regarding that direction made public is a fair and reasonable request. It is essential that the apology identify that the direction was made on the basis of comments that I was making publicly, and not based on safety concerns or regulatory breaches.

I request that the apology be published nationally, and my preference would be that it is placed in Australian Flying or on the CASA website.

I am hopeful that you can assist me in obtaining an apology on this matter, and it seems a very fair and reasonable request, and it is very important to me.

Thanking you in anticipation of your consideration, respectfully, Glen Buckley.

[glenb]

I just wanted to express my thanks to a gentleman called Sandy Reith. For many from the Vic/Tas Region they will know Sandy as someone who owned and opertaed a local airfield. Despite departing the industry a number of yeras ago, he still remains active in protecting the interests of GA. I am very appreciative of the support that he has offered to me and the wider industry. Cheers Sandy. As with the efforts of you all, I am highly appreciative. Cheers. Glen.


Ms. Gladys Liu MP , Vic

Electorate Office, Burwood Vic.

15 Sept 21

Dear Ms. Liu,



I believe that Glen Buckley is appealing to you for assistance in relation to the conduct of CASA towards his aviation business.



I fully support his case and endorse his characterisation of the action against him by CASA as unconscionable, I would add disgraceful, and a blot on the Government of Australia.



I’ve been around politics for many years, my brother is Peter Reith, and I understand the difficulties that MPs have in determining the truth when assessing the many claims by their constituents. In this case a remedy for Glen Buckley would create a salutary example and potentially cause a great benefit to General Aviation (GA) and flow on throughout the Public Service. I’m sure that you will be aware that there’s a trend that Australians generally are tiring of bureaucratic over reach.



GA has been suffering for many years since the administration of civil aviation was removed from direct Ministerial control. Over-regulation and the creation of new and unnecessary permissions for which swinging fees are extracted from the GA industry have resulted in the decline of this once growing Australian industry with the loss of thousands of jobs and businesses. The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development statistics show this decline but not in the context of a nearly doubling of our population, thus the situation is much worse than Government agencies portray.



I’m a retired commercial pilot, previous owner operator of Phillip Island Airport where I was Chief Pilot and Chief Flying Instructor with various additional CASA approvals.



On the other side there is a great opportunity to create jobs and garner support from thousands of aviators, happy to discuss further.



Kind Regards,



Alexander C. Reith

[email protected]

[glenb]

28/09/21To the person responsible within the Australian National Audit Office.



I write to you in regard to the current audit into the Civil Aviation Safety authority (CASA) Planning and Conduct of Surveillance Activities.



I am writing to you as a person directly impacted by what I perceive as deficiencies in this area, and I feel that I could make a valuable contribution as part of a process of continuous improvement.



In short, I operated two businesses in the flight training industry, since 2005. That business underwent a complete revalidation by CASA in April 2017.



In November 2017, that entire business underwent a Level One Audit. This being the highest-level audit that CASA can conduct. It involved several CASA personnel over a period of one week. No concerns other than minor administrative matters were raised.



In October 2018, CASA determined that identical business was now declared unauthorised, and placed restrictions on the businesses ability to trade, leading ultimately to its demise which impacted on businesses, students, customers, suppliers etc.



Personally, this matter has cost me many millions of dollars and left me bankrupted.



I am concerned that the business could undergo a CASA revalidation in April 2017, followed up by a Level One audit six months later in November 2017, but be declared unlawful in October 2018. In a subsequent investigation, CASA had advised the Ombudsman’s Office that they were not aware of my business structure until just prior to October of 2018. The Ombudsman subsequently found that despite CASAs assertion, the business was in fact not unlawful. I find it concerning that CASA would not be aware of the organisation structure, despite conducting a level one audit.



Had CASA identified any concerns during the development stage prior to the April 2017, or during that audit, I may have had the opportunity to act in a more timely manner and avoid the associated closure of my own business, business dependent on me, and the impact onmany staff, students, and suppliers also impacted.



May I respectfully request that someone from your office contact me by phone on 0418772013 at a suitable opportunity. In order for me to discuss making a submission,



I would need to arrange a few days annual leave. If my matter is not pertinent to the current audit, then I obviously will not make a leave request to my current Employer.



Yours thankfully, Glen Buckley

[Paragraph377]

About the only shining light of a Commonwealth organisation that conducts fearless, competent and in-depth investigations and produces corresponding reports at the moment is the Auditor-General and the Australian National Audit Office. Unfortunately, it doesn't 'audit' the kinds of circumstances that crushed APTA into the ground. Its audits focus on the spending of Commonwealth money through e.g. grants (think sports grants rorts and car park grants rorts) or procurements (think $30million for a $3million block of land). Further, the government is of course trying to starve the Auditor-General and the ANAO of resources in order to reduce its capacity to highlight the many unlawful and incompetent actions of government agencies.

Lead Balloon is correct. The scope of the ANAO’s audit processes centres mainly on government departments, agencies and bureaucracies spending. They predominately audit what, where and how budgeted monies are spent. As we all know, government money is mostly taxpayer money and that means each department must adhere to governance and spending processes. Even then, there is little to nothing that the ANAO can do, other than issue a damning audit report. A proverbial slap with the wet lettuce leaf. Unfortunately the scope of their work does not include whether a member of the public/taxpayer has been personally screwed or shat on by a government agency.
This government is happy to waste many many billions on continuous bureaucratic f#ckups such as the Defence submarines and aircraft debacles, pork barrelling and rorts programs, snowy hydro mess and the Great Barrier Reef gift of half a billion dollars, yet it cuts budget spending for the ABC and the ANAO! I wonder why that is? This government and successive ones are absolute shysters, crooks and incompetent morons. They are bending over 99% of Australia’s citizens while looking after the interests of the 1%. It is no wonder, in fact it is of very little surprise that poor Glen is being treated like a little worker bee amongst a large hive. He has little say and certainly little assistance from the drones and their Queen as they center themselves in the middle of the hive and don’t give two handfuls of **** about the others.

[glenb]

Not sure if this is going to work. Im new to Dropbox. Im hoping that this will provide a full index of this to assist followers of the story. This is an updated version of a previous copy.




https://www.dropbox.com/s/ew0tyo1x8pcf8x8/Pprune%201%20-%20Copy.docx?dl=0

[Bend alot]

Not sure if this is going to work. Im new to Dropbox. Im hoping that this will provide a full index of this to assist followers of the story. This is an updated version of a previous copy.




https://www.dropbox.com/s/ew0tyo1x8pcf8x8/Pprune%201%20-%20Copy.docx?dl=0


Link works Mate, a bit of work in that.

A quick look at it, but 929 shows the human in you we love.

Hope you and family are doing best you can.

Regards
Bendy

[Flaming galah]

Good to see you’re still fighting Glen. I’m sorry to hear they made you bankrupt, and I guess the AFSA trustee took all the gofundme 50k fighting fund too? Hope you can get an audience with the ANAO.

[glenb]

Good to see another poster pop up again. It has been a long running thread.

Be assured the Go Fund me contributions are secure and being used prudently.

This fight is far from over. Hoping to take some annual leave shortly to ramp this up.

My 25th wedding anniversary coming up in February.

I know it’s ambitious but i need this fully resolved by then. That will be my gift to her and the family.

Thanks again to all.

[Lead Balloon]

Have you read CASA's supplementary submission (46.1) to the Senate Committee inquiry, Glen? I reached for the bucket when I got to this:Australia has an enviable civil aviation safety record, and an approach to its regulatory functions that is widely acknowledged internationally and by the vast majority of Australians to be sound, sensible, fair and appropriate. CASA’s contribution to both achievements has been, and continues to be, significant.

[glenb]

Can anyone confirm that Mr. Crawford has departed CASA. A person that has been very involved in my matter, and someone I raised allegations of misfeasance in public office against. Someone who i can say from my own personal experience utilizes bullying and intimidation as his techniques.

Has someone in CASA, above Mr Crawford (Executive Manager Aviation Group) actually made a bold decision in the interests of safety and the future of the GA industry. If true then the Iron Ring must be hemorrhaging and trembling at the moment.

If anyone has any info, i would love to know. Cheers.

Please tell me this is true. I have just heard this now.

[alphacentauri]

Can confirm…

[glenb]

Thanks alphacentauri, are you able to provide any details i.e. where is he off to? , when?, the "official" reason etc.

[glenb]

Well CASA do some stuff quick. Organisational chart already updated today. No Mr Crawford.

Our organisational chart | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au) (https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/our-organisational-chart)

[Paragraph377]

So the arrogant Scotsman falls on his sword hey? Two down and one to go. Carmody escaped with retirement. Crawford takes the fall for the entire debacle (good riddance), but Dr Aleck aka Teflon Jon, lives another day. C’mon Pip, you’re close, but not close enough….The snake is injured but it’s head still hasn’t been cut off. For a chance at true regulatory reform and a chance to change the direction of CASA and complete the full removal of the Iron Ring, one scalp remains.

Glen, it was interesting to see what Scotty from Marketing had to say about a Federal ICAC being implemented. Of course he opposes it, because if it was introduced there would be no politicians left! He said; “you have got to have processes that assume people are innocent before they are thought to be guilty and that is a real problem." Well, that same philosophy hasn’t been applied in your case Glen. Hopefully your legal team will be able to hold Morrison, his Minister and senior bureaucrats to account. But I dare say that Scotty is too busy defending his Hillshlong pal Brian Houston and having group singalongs while speaking in tongues and laying healing hands on sinners, something that needs to be done to CASA!

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/why-scott-morrison-and-his-government-oppose-a-nsw-style-anti-corruption-watchdog/2be5613e-b7fe-49af-876f-acb423e850ef

[Lead Balloon]

Another one air-brushed out of history. Just like the various PMOs over recent years who've caused so much unnecessary stress, cost and destruction.

And never a 'sorry'. Never.

They never made any mistakes. Never.

[Paragraph377]

Can confirm…

The CASA org chart was ‘updated’ 5 October 2021 to reflect the absence of Mr Crawford.

Goodbye, so long, good riddance….

[glenb]

Hopefully the ink doesn't get to dry and a revamped Christmas version is released.

[VH-MLE]

In CASA’s case, it should read the Disorganisational Chart!

[AerialPerspective]

So the arrogant Scotsman falls on his sword hey? Two down and one to go. Carmody escaped with retirement. Crawford takes the fall for the entire debacle (good riddance), but Dr Aleck aka Teflon Jon, lives another day. C’mon Pip, you’re close, but not close enough….The snake is injured but it’s head still hasn’t been cut off. For a chance at true regulatory reform and a chance to change the direction of CASA and complete the full removal of the Iron Ring, one scalp remains.

Glen, it was interesting to see what Scotty from Marketing had to say about a Federal ICAC being implemented. Of course he opposes it, because if it was introduced there would be no politicians left! He said; “you have got to have processes that assume people are innocent before they are thought to be guilty and that is a real problem." Well, that same philosophy hasn’t been applied in your case Glen. Hopefully your legal team will be able to hold Morrison, his Minister and senior bureaucrats to account. But I dare say that Scotty is too busy defending his Hillshlong pal Brian Houston and having group singalongs while speaking in tongues and laying healing hands on sinners, something that needs to be done to CASA!

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/why-scott-morrison-and-his-government-oppose-a-nsw-style-anti-corruption-watchdog/2be5613e-b7fe-49af-876f-acb423e850ef

No matter how people vote or what their politics, it is beyond political parties when I say I have reached the point where I simply can't stand Morrison, he is without a doubt, the most incompetent, the most annoyingly inept and do-nothing politician that I think we've ever had as PM. He is certainly the WORST PM in my lifetime. There were people on both sides that many hated from time to time but most of them got sh-t done. May not have been the 'sh-t' we wanted at times but you knew where you stood.

Morrison, IMHO has presided over potentially the most morally corrupt federal government we've ever had - where do you start - from his lies told for the cameras about him "seeking" to do this and "seeking" to do that (but never says he WILL do anything), then he's the classic twiddle his thumbs while Rome burns (literally last summer) followed by another shower of weasel words to obfuscate and shift blame.

All the while he and his minions have ruined the NBN (even Rwanda has better fibre internet than we do), stolen money from people via robodebt, persecuted whistleblowers who expose government bastardry, ruined ANY reputation government and the public service once had, even the ATO has been in the firing line for aggressive debt recovery, presided over a disaster in aged care and blamed it on the States and that's before we even get to the AG affair where this weak-willed, gutless and gormless excuse for a human being (let alone a PM) either walks away and refuses to answer questions or in the case of the AG "It's nothing to do with me because I'm not his boss anymore". Jesus, that wouldn't go a round in the schoolyard as a piss-weak excuse.

Which is all a longish way of saying that yes, I agree, if we had a REAL Federal ICAC, one like NSW with the ability to look backward as well as investigate the present, I suspect there would be at least one former federal minister and at least one former PM either in public hearings or in jail for what was done to East Timor.

I'm not sure it would improve Glen's situation straight away because the last 4-7 years ALONE would have a Federal ICAC occupied for the next 4 years digging through the morally corrupt and reprehensible behavior of this government - it's not surprising what's happened in CASA though, when the tree it is attached to has cancer, it spreads everywhere and the behavior of the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison government(s) has certainly set the scene for what atrocious behaviour is - there is not one aspect of anything they've done that has not just scraped the bottom of the barrel but made us all realise "if you look UNDER the barrel" as we've long since reached the bottom - AEC colored signs at polling places, lies and secrecy to cover up incompetence.

[AerialPerspective]

In CASA’s case, it should read the Disorganisational Chart!

This actually puts me in mind of a brief "Britain's best sitcom" doco I watched part of recently. It was made about 20-30 years ago and was about the making of Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister.

The one phrase that stood out in my mind was one of the producers relaying a story about a discussion with Paul Eddington who played Jim Hacker - when he was asked "How would you sum up the character of Jim Hacker" to which Eddington replied "He's a mouse learning to be a rat".

Is it just me or does that seem an apt summary of certain persons in a certain regulator.......

[INTERESTED BYSTANDER]

Could not agree more.