Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA

[megan]

the behavior of the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison government(s) has certainly set the scene for what atrocious behaviourHave you emptied your bile tank? Should we run a contest to see which side of politics you support?

[AerialPerspective]

Have you emptied your bile tank? Should we run a contest to see which side of politics you support?

Far from 'bile', I happen to think what has been done to Glen is absolutely atrocious and amoral but sadly, it fits the profile of this current government to a tee - I said at the outset, it doesn't matter who you support politically (and just because I criticise them, doesn't mean I support the other side either, but feel free to enlighten me to similar actions by the other side if you like, I don't think you'll find either the extent or the quantity evident in this current government), this government is the most morally corrupt in Australian history - plenty to poke a stick at on the other side of politics too but as far as I'm aware they haven't used an aid program to spy on a friendly country, after which the principles just happened to end up getting consultancy gigs with the company that stood to benefit and who gets prosecuted?? Oh, the whistleblower and his lawyer of course - need I mention robodebt and the complete refusal to answer any questions about anything - and what has become standard government practice in the last 7 years, pursuing, on ridiculous 'secrecy' laws ANYONE who even criticizes the government or any of its programs.

In that environment is it any wonder CASA is allowed to walk all over anyone as do other government departments when the lesson is there for all to see.

Do a google search if you like for one similar example involving Border Farce and the way they treated Nancy Bird-Walton's niece, an Australian Citizen, banging on her door in the middle of the night and threatening her with deportation. Her mother was from PNG so I guess that's how they 'profiled' her - there's a major newspaper story from a couple of years ago. What's worse, is her father was considered a hero and decorated by both the Australian and US Navies for his actions during WWII and a bunch of goons, empowered by this government torment his daughter when she's an Australian citizen. Now, let me see, where have I heard of Australian citizens being deported before, that's right, during Howard's government - I seem to remember at least half a dozen people languishing on the streets in foreign countries because they were wrongly deported - one was a Qantas Flight Attendant FFS.

The fact you dismiss it as bile, suggests you might think what has been done to so many people by this incompetent administration is perfectly OK.

[megan]

Not at all AP, plenty to complain about with all governments no matter the party involved, your words "the morally corrupt and reprehensible behavior of this government" can be applied to individuals within all governments, no matter at what level of society they operate (local council to federal), businesses too.

[AerialPerspective]

Not at all AP, plenty to complain about with all governments no matter the party involved, your words "the morally corrupt and reprehensible behavior of this government" can be applied to individuals within all governments, no matter at what level of society they operate (local council to federal), businesses too.

True, but I believe this government, in the federal sphere (acknowledge there have been corrupt governments at State and local level on all political sides) stands apart in my mind. I cannot in my entire lifetime recall such a prolific collection of not just corrupt, not just morally corrupt, but mean, nasty and deliberately cruel, behavior.

Obviously this is just a comment based on my view of why an organ of the State was able to do what it did to a gentleman like Glen, goes some way to explaining the environment of impunity the government has created - by the way, when I say mean and nasty I mean instituting not just one, but multiple programs of disgusting cruelty that was deliberately targeted to cause harm to the most vulnerable in our society - such as robodebt - a 'program' described by the High Court, when it ORDERED the government to cease and desist, as nothing more than an elaborate program of extortion by a government against the people it purports to represents. People were driven to suicide by that program.

My point being, that's a colossal line that has been crossed, with a number of reasonable parliamentarians even suggesting the country has crossed into a 'pre-Police State'. That, to my knowledge, has never occurred before under any federal government of either political persuasion. Isolated incidents, yes, but this 'mob' has not only cruelly pursued those who challenge it but has repeatedly used the organs of the state to punish, hound and harass. It even descends to the low level of victimizing and denying support to charities that dare to speak out against any particular government policy. That's not just isolated either, its a matter of policy, witness Brandis awarding grants to the arts HE personally liked and denying it to anyone such as comedians that mock the government. Juice Media is a good example of a ridiculous and badly written law that was aimed at nothing more than creating an offense 'impersonating a Commonwealth Entity" which was then used as an excuse for Federal Police to visit the studios of this well known satirical you tube operator and threaten him and his staff with charges under said law. There's some footage of a Senate Inquiry into the law which sounds like something from Yes Prime Minister, except it would've been considered too far-fetched for their writers.

Only thing I can think of to say is that Australia has the government it deserves - as Andrew Wilkie stated (Mr Wilkie being a victim of harrassment by Howard's government for telling the truth about Children overboard) if we're not careful and don't arrest this increasingly accelerating trend, we are going to wake up sometime in the near future and ask ourselves, how the hell did we get here.

I'm no conspiracy theorist by the way, nor politically allied to any party, but I do know something about the constitution and how government is supposed to operate and what 'responsible to parliament' means and what I see is an executive that is out of control and thumbing its nose at custom and precedent and just about any standard of decency. Dutton cancels a visa, High Court orders it be re-issued, so Dutton goes back to his office and cancels it again for a different reason. He goes off deporting people left, right and centre but enables his prominent mates to import their au pairs. That sort of activity is rife at every level of the current government. There have been scandals at the federal level before but never the level of behaviour we are now seeing.

Rant over.

[AerialPerspective]

Hopefully the ink doesn't get to dry and a revamped Christmas version is released.

Glen, reminds me of that old story about the US spending millions of dollars to perfect a pen that would work in zero gravity.... and the whimsical punchline after the detailed examination of the research, development and funds spent.... "The Soviets used pencils".

Perhaps CASA should do their Org Charts in pencil???????

[Shipwreck00]

How does the Scotsman go and Martin survive. Martin is the most arrogant lier of all, he cannot survive the cull surely. Casa management continue to be a law unto themselves but the new CEO does appear to be able to see through them, lets see where that goes. Does CASA really think anyone with any integrity would join, it would be an embarrassment to work for our regulator as they are today, time for real change, time to listen and genuinely listen to the feedback like it actually matters.

[glenb]

you’ve obviously had experience with Craig martin as i have. in a word “cruel”. probably the worst human being i have encountered in my life. On a par with Aleck.

Feeling very pissed tonight as i sit i a hospital bed after having a heart episode on the street. nursing a sore face and my nose broken in two places.

The culmination of three years of being on the receiving end of Martin and Aleck.

[1746]

Glen get well soon!
The most important thing here is your well being and obviously the strain is taking a toll on you and your family!
I don't know if I could continue the fight and oppression that you have to date but please take care of yourself and your family!
We stand with you in your fight for justice, real justice, something that has not been seen to date!
Take care of yourself....that is paramount!
All the best!

[43Inches]

Take it easy Glen, that heart needs some rest for now.

[Clinton McKenzie]

I hope you recover quickly and completely, Glen.

One of the more ghastly realities we face is that some in CASA are prepared for us to be driven to physical or mental breakdown, and ultimately to the grave, in the name of 'aviation safety'. The most dangerous ones are those who are sure they are 'right'.

In 2018 I started a thread about Avmed's biased, intellectually dishonest and unlawful behaviour to which I was personally subjected. An apologist for Avmed posted (as a first post - that's always the 'giveaway') this:The emotional effort and time to 'fight' for a principle or against perceived slights is not going to be healthy for you in the long term.In my supplementary submission to the Senate Committee inquiry into the general aviation industry I say this about the above statement:To people with that mindset, their compliance with the law is a matter of mere principle, not substance. Someone on the receiving end of their unlawful behaviour has suffered a mere perceived slight. Avmed is the authority, and it is for others to comply with whatever, in Avmed's opinion, is required in the interests of aviation safety. The law is for Avmed to wield against others, not for Avmed to comply with if it gets in the way of doing whatever, in Avmed's opinion, will contribute to the achievement of its noble cause.

The single quotation marks around 'fight' and the comment about resistance being bad for your health manifest the languid arrogance of someone who knows that if a mere individual wants to take on an authority committed to a noble cause, the authority is going to bring to bear formidable resources and tactics to drive the individual into the ground. Every 'trick in the book' is going to be used to 'win', including casting the individual in the worst possible light by exaggerating and catastrophizing risks and downplaying matters in favour of the individual. And the process will certainly be very bad for the individual's financial health. ...Sound familiar?

Submission #56 to the current inquiry details a couple of examples of appalling behaviour and demands by Avmed that in my view are the product, at best, of negligent people who are insouciantly indifferent to demanding medical tests entailing risks to the pilot of permanent brain damage or death many, many orders of magnitude higher than the probabilities of winning the lottery, when people with specialist qualifications and experience consider the tests unnecessary.

It is to be hoped that the new CASA PMO is a change for the better. That would require her to understand and accept that Avmed is supposed to comply with the law like the rest of us. And you can't comply with the law unless you know what it is and means. In my first hand experience and observation, some previous occupants considered themselves to be laws unto themselves. I hope they haven't chosen another one of those.

[AerialPerspective]

you’ve obviously had experience with Craig martin as i have. in a word “cruel”. probably the worst human being i have encountered in my life. On a par with Aleck.

Feeling very pissed tonight as i sit i a hospital bed after having a heart episode on the street. nursing a sore face and my nose broken in two places.

The culmination of three years of being on the receiving end of Martin and Aleck. Truly revolting human beings

Take it easy Glen and get well soon, your health and family are most important right now, those other bastards will still be there to deal with when you're fit and well. In any case, they are not worth the trouble right now until you are well.

[aroa]

Glen, All the best for a speedy recovery. Your health, your life is the most important and valuable thing you have.

I can concur re Mr A…no point in going further we know of his evil workings.

Having just beat the council in the Supreme Court, to prove my innocence after a BS and false campaign by a hate filled ceo…to remove my lease and hangar. I suffered a brief hospitalisation due severe stress and a cardiac event as a result.
And the perps just swan off on a ratepayer funded holiday. The victim just has to suck it up.

Qld councils are now corpoRATised, and have learnt very quickly like CAsA, the power benefits of that.
To the great detriment of We, the people.. and any democracy that might have existed in local ‘government ‘(sic)

[joe_bloggs]

Glen get well soon!
The most important thing here is your well being and obviously the strain is taking a toll on you and your family!
I don't know if I could continue the fight and oppression that you have to date but please take care of yourself and your family!
We stand with you in your fight for justice, real justice, something that has not been seen to date!
Take care of yourself....that is paramount!
All the best!

My thoughts precisely- Glen please look after yourself.

[Paragraph377]

Take it easy Glen and get well soon, your health and family are most important right now, those other bastards will still be there to deal with when you're fit and well. In any case, they are not worth the trouble right now until you are well.
What he said, x 10.

Glen, rest up and get your strength back. Your body has been hammered - mind, heart and spirit.

To the less-than-honorable PM, DPM and CASA CEO/DAS; enough is enough. Do the right thing by this man. Do the morally acceptable thing. Right the wrong. Whether you want to or not, you have the authority and the ability to do the right thing by Glen. You know he has been treated unfairly, without compassion and without human dignity. You know it, Glen and his family know it, and pretty much most of the Australian aviation community know it. Drop your f#cking pride, arrogance and contemptible behaviour and close this circus down once and for all. Hand Glen a cheque and an apology and put this to bed, now.

[ClippedWing]

Reminds me of Cromwell's speech to the Long Parliament, or Leo Amery's to Neville Chamberlain: ''You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. In the name of God, go!

[ClippedWing]

Perhaps the Senate enquiry into CASA could read Crowell's speech to them when it delivers its findings:

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice.

Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government.

Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?

Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?

Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.

Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God's help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do.

I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place.

Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

In the name of God, go!

[43Inches]

Do you mayhaps have a few roundheads that can cleanse the halls of this maleficence swept forth from Canberrian lands?

[AerialPerspective]

Reminds me of Cromwell's speech to the Long Parliament, or Leo Amery's to Neville Chamberlain: ''You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. In the name of God, go!

One of my favourite movies is the 1970 movie Cromwell with Richard Harris. It's a bit over-acted in parts but having read a lot about Cromwell, it uses enough of his quotes that are on record to make up for any slight exaggerations in some of the script.......

That event you refer to is acted brilliantly in the movie - one of the 'parliamentarians' says to Cromwell "You can't speak to us like that, we are parliamentarians" to which Cromwell snaps back "YOU are SCUM Sir and a truly unelected scum at that - has this house gone even ONCE to the people it purports to represent.... drunkards, tricksters, villains, whore-masters.... you are no more capable of running the affairs of this nation than you are of running a brothel... this is NO parliament, I shall put an end to your sitting, I hereby declare this parliament DISSOLVED".

Where are you Oliver???? We need you now.......

[AerialPerspective]

Do you mayhaps have a few roundheads that can cleanse the halls of this maleficence swept forth from Canberrian lands?

The word cleanse made me laugh....... one of the writer Gore Vidal's last interviews he talked about his life and the interviewer said "You've done so much in your life" and Vidal observed "Yes, I've done just about everything, although I have never murdered anyone...." The interviewer said "Well, that's a good thing to have left out" to which Vidal replied "Oh, I don't know, I was thinking maybe I could start now, perhaps I'll go to Washington first.... commit some murders there and 'cleanse the republic'"

[43Inches]

While Crommie did much during his tenure, when he died no one had the same charisma and fortitude and the Monarchy returned reinstating much of what was dissolved. In a show of how mad the monarchy were, Charles II had the bodies of Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw all exhumed and "executed" by being hung and beheaded. Obviously this must have been terrible for them... being executed after being dead for a year or more.

They were probably over the moon wherever they were that they had pissed Charlie off so badly to have them executed post death.

[glenb]

Thanks for the support folks. I was out and about the other day, and down i went with no warning. landed face first and broke the nose in a couple of places and some other bits and pieces. Off to the hospital for a few days and in for a pacemaker tomorrow, and out the day after all going well. Stay tuned because i fully intend to come out fighting like CASA haven't seen before. Im coming for Aleck an Martin, and anybody else in the national Part i.e. our ex Deputy PM who covered up and facilitated this misconduct.

Ive seen my two businesses decimated, forced out of the industry, lost my home. my life savings decimated, I've impacted on far too may people, ive been pushed to the brink of suicide and now had my physical health destroyed. Ive watched Aleck and martin blatantly lie to protect their positions.

[AerialPerspective]

While Crommie did much during his tenure, when he died no one had the same charisma and fortitude and the Monarchy returned reinstating much of what was dissolved. In a show of how mad the monarchy were, Charles II had the bodies of Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw all exhumed and "executed" by being hung and beheaded. Obviously this must have been terrible for them... being executed after being dead for a year or more.

They were probably over the moon wherever they were that they had pissed Charlie off so badly to have them executed post death.

And yet, today there is a statue of Oliver Cromwell on the grounds of Parliament at Westminster titled "Cromwell, Our Man of Men" and "Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England".

I don't recall seeing any statues of Charles or his mongrel son, Charles II - a real scumbag who is right up there with the most corrupt monarchs they ever had (actually, the whole system is corrupt, but that's for another day.......)

[43Inches]

I would love to continue the chat on civil war era England, and although some of CASAs dubious cast resemble some of the nefarious characters of the time, I don't want to detract or seem to make lite of Glens work here.

[AerialPerspective]

I would love to continue the chat on civil war era England, and although some of CASAs dubious cast resemble some of the nefarious characters of the time, I don't want to detract or seem to make lite of Glens work here.

Agreed. I would just add one Cromwell quote which echoes my own view of the 'sanctity of monarchy' - when offered the crown, he refused, when parliamentarians asked 'what shall we do with the crown, Cromwell replied "Worthless trinket, give it to a wh--e for the price of her bed" - very, 17th Century and not appropriate by today's higher standards of speech but it does sum up all the nonsense that surrounds divine right and an overbearing executive.

As Samuel Clements (aka Mark Twain) said: "Politicians are like diapers, they should be changed often AND for the SAME reason......."

[Bend alot]

Glen - here as always if you need me.

Love to you and your family.

You might look better with your modified nose!

Cheers Mate take care.

[Paragraph377]

One thing is for certain Glen; you would make a horrible CASA employee! You are fair, reasonable, upright, honest and empathetic. You do not appear to be a narcissist, sociopath or bully. So that pretty well precludes you from working for CASA.

Glen, build up your strength for the continuation of the fight, but make sure you take time out to go for a drive (COVID permitting) and go smell some country air or sea air, watch a few sunsets and throw the dog a few mangled tennis balls. It’s important to fine tune that mind and still be able to take in some of this incredible country’s beauty. Those things can’t be taken from you.

[Chronic Snoozer]

One thing is for certain Glen; you would make a horrible CASA employee! You are fair, reasonable, upright, honest and empathetic. You do not appear to be a narcissist, sociopath or bully. So that pretty well precludes you from working for CASA.

Glen, build up your strength for the continuation of the fight, but make sure you take time out to go for a drive (COVID permitting) and go smell some country air or sea air, watch a few sunsets and throw the dog a few mangled tennis balls. It’s important to fine tune that mind and still be able to take in some of this incredible country’s beauty. Those things can’t be taken from you.

Nor can your integrity be taken from you. It is the mortar of the soul.

[advo-cate]

Been a bit busy with aroa, dealing with the recalcitrant Mareeba Shire Council

See Facebook groups Mareeba Airport.

If a couple of country dudes beat Council and its QC. It can be done Glen.

We all are in this fight, like it or not.

TRUTH will out.

[steelcraft]

CM may have left the building

[glenb]

Please go careful with such announcements. Ive just come out of hospital with a heart issue. I cant handle so much potential good news in the one day. I am actually just putting some finishing touches to a letter. to Mr Craig Martin. Will hold off. Hopefully i can direct my energies to the one remaining individual, Mr Jonathan Aleck. The man actually responsible for the legislative mess for the last decade. Very keen on any updates. Cheers. Glen.

[glenb]

Well folks, I’m out of hospital, off work with heaps of free time for a protracted period. Thanks for all the well wishes.

So, what happened?

I was heading out for one of my daily trips to the Supermarket. A particularly exciting excursion if you live in lockdown Melbourne.

Went to open the car door, and that’s the last I remembered. No dizzy spells or any warnings. Woke up in the gutter. An occurrence that hasn’t been that common of recent years. I lay there for a moment reminiscing on the good old days, until a sense of embarrassment came over me. I dusted myself off, after a quick cursory glance to make sure no neighbors had witnessed me.

Started the car up and continued to the Supermarket. A quick glance in the rear-view mirror and was quite startled with what I saw. My boyish good locks somewhat in tatters, with a good dose of blood and a boxers nose. Planned a quick inflight diversion to the hospital and off I headed.

The pain became a bit intense, and common sense took over, so I pulled over and called my daughter who took me to the local hospital, Cabrini.

The triage nurse advised that I had to do a covid swab before being processed. Now as most of us know the people that do these swabs are under some misguided understanding that they are brain surgeons trying to extract some grey matter. Not a pleasant experience at the best of times, and there was no way anybody was shoving anything up my broken nose at that particular point in time. I advised them that they can take a swab from any opening on my body, but just not the nose. Quickly resolved with a mouth swab, and a short wait before they admitted me to the Cardio ward.

It was promptly determined that I was an elite athlete.

Well, they weren’t the doctors words exactly. What he did say was that my heart rate was at 39 beats per minute, and that is usually the domain of elite athletes. You have to take a compliment wherever you can get it.

A few nights wired up like the back of a full-on entertainment system and was given a couple of options.

A pacemaker the next day, or a 6 week trial with a Holter (an electrical tracking device). Taking a couple of days to think about my options. No driving at all until I get it resolved one way or another, and similarly off work until it gets resolved.

i did ask if a dietary change would perhaps be an option. i.e increasing cigarettes and coffee intake to get the heart rate up but i sensed a strong preference for a more traditional medical approach

Unfortunately for Mr. Jonathan Aleck the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Services, that means I have lots of free time to type way and hold him accountable.

So that’s where we are at. I'm feeling great, energized, and looking forward to coming weeks. Mr. McHeyzer has departed CASA, Mr. Shane Carmody has departed CASA, Graeme Crawford has departed CASA, and I’ve just heard that maybe Mr. Craig Martin has departed CASA.

Only one more to go, I tremble with anticipation as I type that sentence. Thanks for sticking by me folks. Cheers. Glen. I miss this industry, filled with a lot of good people.

[glenb]

13/10/21

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

I am writing to you as the person that I consider accountable and responsible for my entire matter, and the related damage caused.

You were the sole decision maker, and at any time prior to issuing the notification in October 2018 and at any time after, you could have finalized this entire matter in a single day. In fact, you could have completely avoided it had you decided to.

That is the truth, and I will attend to that shortly in correspondence to the CASA Board, CEO and Deputy PM.

The purpose of this correspondence, however, is to call on you to act with integrity and in a truthful manner. If you choose not to do so, I will follow up with more extensive correspondence.

You have misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman to be of the view that CASA only found out about my businesses structure just prior to October 2018.

You know that to be incorrect, and I call on you to clarify this substantial misunderstanding. It is in fact central to this entire matter.

I am exhausted by your conduct. It has cost me my two businesses, my involvement in an industry I loved, cost me millions of dollars, and left me bankrupt. I have negatively impacted on so many people dependant on me. You have destroyed me financially, mentally, and having been released yesterday from hospital after an issue with my heart, physically.

Your “body of work” is complete, I fear it brings you some grotesque satisfaction.

The CASA position presented to the Ombudsman is preposterous. As you are fully aware.

I had been operating in that structure for almost a decade prior, since our involvement with AV8 in Darwin. With full CASA knowledge and approval.
Ten CASA personnel were involved over a two-year period in the total redesign of my business, and CASA personnel assessed and approved over 600 requirements. Those same CASA personnel have offered to come forward and tell the truth on this matter. I have extended that offer to the Commonwealth Ombudsman
CASA revalidated the entire operation in April 2017 when it approved the business as a Part 141/142 (one of the first in Australia), eighteen months before CASA “found out”, about the structure.
Routinely audited the entire operation with several CASA personnel over a one-week period in November 2017 (almost a year before you claim you “found out about” my structure.
CASA approved our entire Operations Manual Suite referred to as the Exposition and approved bases via formal processes etc etc.
CASA personnel regularly attended Group Operational Meetings and Safety meetings on numerous occasions, and CASA provided training to us in Group meetings.

I need not continue. My hope is that I will not need to. It should not be necessary. You have already diverted far too many public CASA resources to covering up this matter, and engineering your desired outcome.

I personally have expended everything, and I mean everything in trying to expose this matter.

Please note that I have not included anyone from CASA in this correspondence. I will leave it to your discretion if you deem it necessary to share this correspondence with the CASA CEO or Board.

My expectation is that you will reach out directly to the Commonwealth Ombudsman via written notification and clarify the truth regrading CASAs knowledge and involvement in my business years before you claim you first became aware. I ask that I be included in that correspondence.

If you in your role, maintain that it is CASAs position that you only became aware of the structure of my business just prior to October of 2018. I will write to the CASA CEO Board and CEO seeking confirmation that will be the official CASA position.

My sincere hope is that the new CEO and Board Chair do not need to become involved in this matter, although it seems increasingly unlikely. This matter is entirely in your hands, I urge you to act appropriate to your role.

Glen Buckley

[INTERESTED BYSTANDER]

Cabrini is a good place to be. They saved my life a few years ago after a Surgeon damaged my heart during what was supposed to be a simple operation.
Good luck for your future battles, after all your efforts Karma must prevail.

[Paragraph377]

Perhaps the blowtorch has been turned up a notch, hence these regulatory experts ‘leaving’ their bubble, their protected CASA cocoon. As has been pointed out already, and as many people know, Mr Aleck is the architect of all things putrid. A little bearded weasel of a human being who likes to appear dottery like an innocent old man. Far from it. He is the reason CASA is the way it is today. Unless ‘Pip’ cuts off the snakes head, nothing will change. He is the last major piece that needs unthroning. Then start afresh at the top and middle tiers, a new day dawns. After the management structure has been revamped, then adopt the Kiwi regs and we are well on our way to normality. Should take 4 years to do if it is done correctly. It’s better than the lame **** Regs and Civil Aviation Act that we have today, considering that work on the Regs commenced in 1988 and it still not finished today, regardless of what big ears Carmody said last year. Lies lies lies.

Glen, I reckon you have finally rattled the CASA cage. These people are not leaving just because you have been asking for them to be dealt with. Crawford was A/g DAS/CEO recently and Martin was promoted not that long ago, so technically they have been climbing the ladder to lofty heights. A sudden departure would not have been part of their normal annual performance appraisal process. No, they have been boned because some very highly ranked bureaucrats are becoming uncomfortable, most likely because of what their Barristers are telling them. And I reckon the PMC are also starting to feel a little heat and they aren’t too pleased about that. Keep that blowtorch alight Glen!

[aroa]

Dr Discrepancy, aka Smart Aleck, and a few others with ‘expletives deleted’, has some acolytes A. Anusnasti is one, that comes to mind….there are others.
CAsA is corrupt, there is no doubt at all about that. It’s Soviet is self protecting, accountable to none and home of the BS spiel for top CYA.
What a national disgrace.! The true cost financially and of decades of lost opportunities is unfathomable.
And Industry that could ….and a Bureaucrazy that couldn’t ruined it all.
Shame on all Governments and politicians.

[Vref+5]

Heh Glen, return the favour, send your letter to HIS new boss, whoever it may be!

[SRFred]

These people are not leaving just because you have been asking for them to be dealt with. Crawford was A/g DAS/CEO recently and Martin was promoted not that long ago, so technically they have been climbing the ladder to lofty heights. A sudden departure would not have been part of their normal annual performance appraisal process. No, they have been boned because some very highly ranked bureaucrats are becoming uncomfortable, most likely because of what their Barristers are telling them. And I reckon the PMC are also starting to feel a little heat and they aren’t too pleased about that. Keep that blowtorch alight Glen!

Do you happen to know their ages as it might be the 54/11 option if they have been in the circus for years.

[Paragraph377]

Do you happen to know their ages as it might be the 54/11 option if they have been in the circus for years.
Aleck is in his 60’s, well past the APS 54/11 escape route. Besides, he is on around $350k per year and also gets to exercise powers that no doubt feed his narcissistic cravings. With that kind of salary and his never ending erections from having his bullying cravings fed, why would he leave? CASA - the gift that keeps on giving.

P.S I forgot about Anustasi, he has been mentored by Aleck for over 20 years. If one goes then the other should go,otherwise mini-me will step into the Doctors shoes. Not a good thing for Australian aviation.

[barleyhi]

from Pip Spence:

'I’d like to think the CASA I lead is a respected regulator, a transparent regulator. Inevitably, some people won’t like a decision, but I never want people to be able to say, ‘We have no idea why they decided what they did’."

I have no idea!!

[Paragraph377]

from Pip Spence:
'I’d like to think the CASA I lead is a respected regulator, a transparent regulator. Inevitably, some people won’t like a decision, but I never want people to be able to say, ‘We have no idea why they decided what they did’."
I have no idea!!

Oh dear me. For Pip to expel that pile of excrement means has spent her entire bureaucratic career living beneath a large stone (or is it just living within the Can’tberra bubble). Besides, how can anyone trust a DAS who is named after an embryonic plant enclosed in a protective outer covering? Many years ago Mr Aleck and another complete bureaucratic tool, Martin ‘Beaker’ Dolan (remember him Peeps?) used to both live a stones throw away from each other in their palatial Can’tberra abodes. It would be nice to see Aleck ‘retired’ effective immediately. That way he could could spend more time with the triplets, spend time with Beaker hypothesising about MH 370 while smoking Cuban cigars and laughing about how the government filled their superannuation accounts with millions of taxpayer dollars as a reward for incompetence. “ It’s good to be the king”.

[Pinky the pilot]

'I’d like to think the CASA I lead is a respected regulator, a transparent regulator.

Which merely goes to show that one does not need illegal mind altering substances to be totally delusional!:rolleyes:

Just working in Can'tberra will suffice.

[Josh Cox]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/449x337/grahams_hierarchy_of_disagreement1_449x337_2dc8273d9c53a7299 15b53d0f6727258b1f62797.png

Name shaming, a dick move Paragraph377, stay in the top three rows buddy.

[Paragraph377]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/449x337/grahams_hierarchy_of_disagreement1_449x337_2dc8273d9c53a7299 15b53d0f6727258b1f62797.png

Name shaming, a dick move Paragraph377, stay in the top three rows buddy.

Josh Cocks, this thread is about the malfeasance, abuse and bullying of an innocent person - Glen Buckley. CASA through their actions have waived their rights to be treated, respected or even acknowledged. In fact, as an organisation I wouldn’t piss on them if they were on fire. Mate I’m not interested in your rainbow pyramid. If you don’t like what I write then don’t read it.

[Josh Cox]

Name calling, nice, I didn't know "dick moves" could be a Superpower (Marvel or DC ?).

Unfortunately if you behave, as you are in the posts above, how does that help your cause ?

[Paragraph377]

Name calling, nice, I didn't know "dick moves" could be a Superpower (Marvel or DC ?).

Unfortunately if you behave, as you are in the posts above, how does that help your cause ?

I don’t have a cause. Anyway, you don’t interest me one little bit nor do I care what you think. I won’t indulge you any further as this thread is about Glen and his unfortunate dealings with CASA.

Glen, I’ve heard today that there may well be some interesting Independent nominations for next years federal election. Xenophon has already dropped a few breadcrumbs but there may also be one or two more that would be interested in taking CASA to task in the senate, so who knows what the future may bring.

[aroa]

Glen, Trust you are relaxing and recuperating.

In my joust with the council and research to win and knock the ceo off his hobby horse, I came across this.
An earlier way of saying…beware the man who has nothing left to lose.

“Must I at length the Sword of Justice draw?
Oh cursed effects of necessary Law,
How ill my fear they by my mercy scan,
Beware the fury of a patient man”

You are that patient man.
Go well.

[Bend alot]

How's the budget going Mate?

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

We can wind it up again (with pleasure).

[glenb]

Hi folks, the following post will be extremely long and run over half a dozen posts due word limits. Most of it is a cut and paste from previously submitted and posted material. The most pertinent part of this correspondence is the introduction to Mr. Craig martin in the first post, calling on him to comments against the commitments he gave me in the meeting from the accountants office on April 4th and found in the attached timeline.

CASA has led the Ombudsman's Office to believe that I was "unwilling and unable" to resolve the issue of the contracts. I argue that CASA deliberately dragged the matter out for 8 months, as evidenced by this post/ Consider that i have now been deprived of revenue for 6 months.18/10/21

Dear Mr Craig Martin,

Please note that I have included the CEO of CASA Ms. Pip Spence and the CASA Board in this correspondence, as the matters are significant, and have the potential to impact on aviation safety, if my allegations are to be substantiated.

I understand that over coming weeks your intention is to depart CASA. Despite our differences, I do wish you well in your future career outside of aviation safety.

Prior to your departure, and while still in your role as the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Oversight, I would like to provide you with the opportunity to correct any errors in my recollection of our meeting on April 4th, 2019.

I am working on a timeline of some of the core issues, and important dates. Don’t worry, I appreciate that what follows, appears to substantial document, and you will no doubt be extremely busy. I don’t expect you to read through it in its entirety.

Can I ask that you scroll down to one date only and that date is April 4th, 2019? I do not seek confirmation of anything else in this correspondence although I would like to give you the opportunity, while still in your role, to refute my recollection of the contents of that meeting, and the firm commitments you gave me on behalf of CASA at that meeting.

From my clear and well supported recollection, you gave me a very firm commitment that finally after 8 months, CASA was about to lift the trading restrictions, and let my business resume operations, immediately that I embedded the CASA suggested text, and returned it to you.

I embedded the suggested text in the commercial contracts. Exactly as CASA suggested.

On the 9th of April, CASA wrote to me indicating that the matter was now finalised, and therefore my business could resume operations, and that the trading restrictions would be lifted. That information came through to me at 6.30PM, and confirmed the commitments Mr Martin had given me in the meeting from my accountant’s office on the 4th April, only days earlier.

Then at 11.30 PM the same night, only hours later, CASA wrote to me and reversed that approval, and I was back in exactly the same situation I had been for the last 8 months, with the trading restrictions still in place.

My understanding is that there was some intervention or communication with Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs in that interim period, although I am not asking you to comment on that.

At To clarify. I am only seeking comment against my recollection of the commitments you gave on April 4th, 2019, as reflected in the following timeline, on that date only, nothing more, nothing less. If you dispute anything, or disagree with my version of the commitments given, could you please clearly communicate that to me.

I hope that you will respond to my fair and reasonable request. It is important, and it is pertinent. An employee of CASA has misled the Ombudsman’s Office to believe that there was multiple well intentioned efforts made by CASA. I steadfastly refute that assertion by CASA Your commitments given to me on April 4th 2019, and then reversed by Mr Jonathan Aleck are indicative, that in fact no well intentioned efforts were made by CASA.

Yours thankfully,

Glen Buckley



TIMELINE

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

2006:

The Company commenced operations at Moorabbin Airport.



2012

The Company commenced operations at an additional base for a Company called AV8, in Darwin at the International Airport, with two other bases outside of Darwin. This was fully approved by CASA. It is this multi base format that commenced in 2012, yet CASA claim they did not become aware of until October 2018, more than 6 years later, when they claimed it was unlawful.



2016

A second Company called TVSA based outside of Melbourne also joins my Company, at the time trading as Melbourne Flight Training. CASA, despite fully approving this additional base, will later claim that CASA was not aware of the structure.



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. Ten CASA personnel were involved in this process, and the entire proposal was sent for a Peer review within CASA. The approval was issued by CASA. This was a significant project costing many hundreds of thousands of dollars.



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 that CASA later claims they were not aware of. 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.


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

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.

[glenb]

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 many years before, and as far back as our Darwin operation 6 years earlier.



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 trading 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.

Mr Peter White, the CASA Executive Manager who had been dealing with my matter appeared to cease his employment with CASA at about this time.

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 notes 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 that had been in place for six months, 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, after waiting a staggering 6 months with trading restrictions in place.

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.

My accountant queried 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 by Mr Martin, and Mr Crawford.

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, and I had been able to do it for the last 6 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, assuring me that if I utilised the CASA suggested text, the restrictions would be lifted.

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, restrictions would be lifted.

Mr Martin 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 APTA 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.

I reiterated that I was prepared to put anything into the contracts that CASA required., and had been since October ,6 months earlier.

Mr Martin explained that APTA was unlawful without contracts, but advised 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. My accountant expressed his confusion ta CASA wanting to put matters of control and supervisory responsibility in commercial contracts.

Mr Martin confirmed that “CASA had perhaps given me incorrect advice”.

My accountant again sought a clear direction from Mr Martin, and highlighted the financial impact on the business, and that he was depending on a resolution, or he would be obligated to direct me to cease operations, as the businesses funds were by now exhausted and it was becoming increasingly difficult for the business to meet its obligations to suppliers and staff.

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.

To summarise this meeting Mr Craig Martin and Mr Graeme Crawford gave me very clear commitments, that if I embedded the CASA text, I could return to business as usual. On 9th April, CASA would not meet the commitments made at that meeting.



9th April 2019 at 7.33AM

I 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.


CASA Executive Manager of the Aviation Group- Mr Graeme Crawford at my accountant’s office less than a week prior.
CASA Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance- Mr Peter White via email
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.



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.

[glenb]

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.

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 aware of 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 Organization 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 legislation. 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 in 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.









DOCUMENT IS STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS

[glenb]

Miscalculated that one folks, didnt need the full set. I look forward to Mr. Martin response, if any.

[glenb]

That quote from Pip Spence, do you recall where you got it from. Very apt to my situation. Cheers. Glen

[Stretch06]

That quote from Pip Spence, do you recall where you got it from. Very apt to my situation. Cheers. Glen

I think this is the interview glenb

https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2021/10/both-feet-on-the-ground/

[Paragraph377]

I think this is the interview glenb

https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2021/10/both-feet-on-the-ground/

What a stupid article. Full of fluff and hollow statements. I mean, wow, Pip has a long history of ‘observing’ aviation. Woohoo! How encouraging. Has she spent time at the aircraft viewing area at Brisbane airport? Does ‘viewing’ mean watching the cabin crew from Seat 1A? And she has an ‘interest’ in aviation. Again, what does that mean? Does she own Qantas shares or have a niece or nephew that works in aviation?

Let’s be serious; a career bureaucrat does not know the working parts of this industry. She has no idea. She does not understand the negative impact that ‘her’ agency has had on Australian aviation. She does not understand the impact an outdated civil aviation Act and pisspoor regulations have had on the aviation industry. She does not understand how badly her agency has mistreated parts of the aviation industry and engaged in malfeasance and misfeasance.

Message to Pip - you aren’t in charge and neither is your Board. You are a toothless tiger. You are there to ensure that your beloved Minister isn’t embarrassed by any of your agency’s shenanigans. You are there to act as a bullet proof vest to ensure your Minister is never held to account for the shortcomings of your agency. You are a shield of Teflon for your Minister.
Tootlepip

[AerialPerspective]

What a stupid article. Full of fluff and hollow statements. I mean, wow, Pip has a long history of ‘observing’ aviation. Woohoo! How encouraging. Has she spent time at the aircraft viewing area at Brisbane airport? Does ‘viewing’ mean watching the cabin crew from Seat 1A? And she has an ‘interest’ in aviation. Again, what does that mean? Does she own Qantas shares or have a niece or nephew that works in aviation?

Let’s be serious; a career bureaucrat does not know the working parts of this industry. She has no idea. She does not understand the negative impact that ‘her’ agency has had on Australian aviation. She does not understand the impact an outdated civil aviation Act and pisspoor regulations have had on the aviation industry. She does not understand how badly her agency has mistreated parts of the aviation industry and engaged in malfeasance and misfeasance.

Message to Pip - you aren’t in charge and neither is your Board. You are a toothless tiger. You are there to ensure that your beloved Minister isn’t embarrassed by any of your agency’s shenanigans. You are there to act as a bullet proof vest to ensure your Minister is never held to account for the shortcomings of your agency. You are a shield of Teflon for your Minister.
Tootlepip

I don't know the person and I'm sure you're absolutely correct in what you suggest - however, sometimes it takes someone from outside to spot the rot in an organisation. Not that that was the case with Qantas in the late 80s when the last of the old guard had departed the CEO ranks, I heard a lot of derogatory remarks about why we needed this Canberra bureaucrat to come in and run the company, they were talking about John Menadue who turned out to be one of the best CEOs in any company I've worked with - given, Menadue already had a business career as well as a diplomatic and public sector career but I just mention it as a cautionary tale - but despite making that observation, I fully expect that in about 12 months I'll be saying "Paragraph, you were right".......

[glenb]

Our organisational chart | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au) (https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/our-organisational-chart)

Posting a letter to Ms Pip Spence later today. Will be sure to get it up here at 5PM.

[glenb]

TO:

Mr. Mark Binskin AC- Chair of the CASA Board

Ms. Pip spence PSM- CASA CEO

CC:

The Office of the Deputy PM.



Dear Ms Spence, and Mr Binskin,

Congratulations on your respective appointments. The General Aviation (GA) is highly dependent on you, in your respective roles, as am I.

I would like to qualify the following correspondence by acknowledging that you are both relatively new to the positions and have had absolutely no involvement in this matter to date, and therefore not responsible for it.

Similarly, the Honourable Mr Barnaby Joyce has only recently taken over from Mr Michael McCormack, as the Minister responsible for CASA.

Mr McCormack has been fully briefed on this matter by the previous CASA Chair of the Board, Mr Anthony Matthews, in accordance with the obligations placed on him by the Ministers Statement of Expectations of the Board of CASA.

Although Mr McCormack never responded to my correspondence his Office has recently acknowledged receipt, of extensive correspondence from me, including allegations of misfeasance against one of the CASA Executive Managers, and therefore would be considered the Subject Matter Expert (SME) within the National Party.

You will be aware of my matter; my name is Glen Buckley the previous owner of Melbourne Flight Training (MFT) and the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA). Two flight training businesses shut down by CASA in October 2018. This was done with absolutely no supporting Safety Case despite my repeated requests for one.

I am fully satisfied that a CASA employees’ misconduct is the reason for the loss of my businesses, and others, and I have previously made allegations of misfeasance in Public Office against him before Parliament.

Other people have contacted me and offered to come forward and present their evidence, including CASA employees, against that same individual.

The impacts have been significant. Several businesses were closed, people lost their jobs, suppliers were left unpaid, customers impacted, and domestic and international students were impacted.

That is the reason that I am pushing to have my matter fully investigated in a well-intentioned manner. Far too many people have been impacted by this, and that causes an enormous burden on me.

The purpose of this correspondence.

I wish to provide you with a copy of a recording that I have not previously published.

If you listen to that recording of a CASA employee, it will bring this entire matter to a prompt resolution.

It will clearly demonstrate that CASA has mislead the Commonwealth Ombudsman in his investigation of this matter. Please be assured that there will be absolutely no doubt once you have listened to it.

(Some content of personal impact on my family removed for this postXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I am currently off work for 6 weeks after being released from hospital with a heart condition that I attribute to the conduct of this employee. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXI have come home decided to publish the recording.

Because of this individual misconduct I do not have the funds to obtain legal advice on this matter, so will default to your guidance.

Can each of you please advise the method that I can provide you with a copy of that recording in a confidential and appropriate manner.

Thank you for your consideration, and I hope you choose to take advantage of the opportunity presented.

Glen Buckley

[glenb]

The CASA Legal Department advises the Commonwealth Ombudsmans Office that "they only first became aware of APTAs structure just prior to October 2018. Note that October 2018.

My email to three CASA personnel that i was required to correspond within CASA. This email is two years and a half prior. June 20th 2016.. The one of only dozens of emails. Its obscene really.



"Dear XXXXXX (three senior CASA employees)

As you are aware i am in the process of putting together an alliance of flight organizations., under an Industry Leading Group of Professionals. My intention is to build a team that can communicate with CASA in an effective, professional and constructive manner

I have now invested significantly in this proposal. If practical i would like the opportunity to meet with you in the CASA Office to outline my proposed course of action. I will be seeking significant guidance from CASA during the process. My intention is to get it right first time. I want to genuinely want to work with CASA as closely as your resources permit................"

I really cannot believe that CASA would seriously put that proposition to the Ombudsman, and that apparently it has been accepted. Its trully staggering.

[glenb]

Dear Mr Buckley

I refer to your email of 3 November 2021 addressed to the Chair of the CASA Board, Mark Binskin AC and CASA’s Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety (CEO/DAS), Pip Spence PSM. I have been asked to respond on their behalf.

At the outset, Mr Binskin and Ms Spence thank you for your congratulatory wishes, and both confirm their commitment to ensuring CASA performs its important regulatory and safety-related functions in a way that is supportive of the general aviation community.

The particular point of your email concerns a recording you say demonstrates that CASA has misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman in his investigation of your complaints about CASA. The Chair and the CEO/DAS consider it more appropriate that you provide that recording directly to the Ombudsman, on the basis that it is the Ombudsman who will be in the best position to consider its bearing on his office’s investigation of your complaints.

Should you also wish to share the recording or a summary of its content with the Chair and the CEO/DAS that would be a matter for you.

Yours sincerely

Colin McLachlan
Colin McLachlan | Board Secretary

[Bend alot]

Dear Mr Buckley

I refer to your email of 3 November 2021 addressed to the Chair of the CASA Board, Mark Binskin AC and CASA’s Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety (CEO/DAS), Pip Spence PSM. I have been asked to respond on their behalf.

At the outset, Mr Binskin and Ms Spence thank you for your congratulatory wishes, and both confirm their commitment to ensuring CASA performs its important regulatory and safety-related functions in a way that is supportive of the general aviation community.

The particular point of your email concerns a recording you say demonstrates that CASA has misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman in his investigation of your complaints about CASA. The Chair and the CEO/DAS consider it more appropriate that you provide that recording directly to the Ombudsman, on the basis that it is the Ombudsman who will be in the best position to consider its bearing on his office’s investigation of your complaints.

Should you also wish to share the recording or a summary of its content with the Chair and the CEO/DAS that would be a matter for you.

Yours sincerely

Colin McLachlan
Colin McLachlan | Board Secretary


I would not waste my time or effort with the Ombudsman.

CAsA lawyers can request a copy from your lawyer.

[Paragraph377]

‘Tootle’ Pip Spence would have been very well aware of your ‘case’ when she commenced her tenure Glen, I can assure you of that. Her first command from the Ministers office will have been to deflect all of this negative publicity away from the Ministers office. That can be evidenced by the fact that the Acting DAS, the arrogant Scottish git, departed the organisation rather quietly recently, shortly followed by Mr Craig Martin. A gradual chipping away at the executive managers involved in the Glen Buckley fiasco has been taking place. That’s part of the game one plays when they float around at the top tier of an organisation - always be ready to be the scapegoat for someone more powerful. It is a scenario that has been played out at CASA on many occasions over the decades. It’s amazing how Jonathon ‘Teflon Jon’ Aleck is always well clear of the carnage after the dust settles. **** wouldn’t stick to that bloke even if super glue and dyna bolts were used.

Keep going Glen, you’ve come this far. With a Federal election probably taking place not long after May 2022, you might be able to get some support from some Independents who are willing to take a few pot shots at the current mob of LNP crooks and shonks in power.

[glenb]

6th November 2021

cc: Ombudsman

Dear Colin, (CASA Board Secretariat),

Thank you for facilitating a prompt response to my correspondence dated November 3rd, 2021

I am formally requesting that CASA initiates contact with the Ombudsman’s Office forthwith.

It is my belief that CASA is duty bound, if not compelled, to contact the Ombudsman’s Office as soon as practical, after it became aware that it had potentially mislead the Ombudsman’s Office or provided information that is at its best inaccurate.

There can be no doubt that CASA has misled the Ombudsman’s Office to believe “CASA only became aware of APTAs structure just prior to October 2018; this is blatantly not the case.

In fact, that representation is very far from the truth of the situation as I am alleging that CASA has deliberately or otherwise mislead the Ombudsman’s Office and will provide evidence of that.

There are two fundamental points in asserting that CASA has mislead the Ombudsman’s Office, and. whilst not limited to only these two items, they are most significant.

Firstly, CASAs previously maintained CASA did not become aware of APTAs structure until, just prior to October 2018. From a legal perspective, I appreciate the significance of that statement. If it were the truth, it would work favourably for CASAs position in this matter. My assertion is that an employee / or employees of CASA were responsible for the provision of information to the Ombudsman that is clearly untruthful and was provided with the intention of misleading the Ombudsman on a number of issues. The purpose being to influence the outcome of the investigation.

Secondly, CASA maintain that they made a number of well-intentioned attempts to resolve this matter in good faith and finalise the wording for the contracts. Whereas I would strongly assert that CASA did not act in good faith, deliberately frustrating the matter; what is more to the point never actually had any intention of resolving this matter. I will provide and release the recording of the CASA personnel that I have mentioned previously.

Dealing with the first point only in this correspondence at this time, I will address the second matter at a later date.

The impact of CASA’s misconduct and misinformation has been significant, and quite frankly after having spent every waking moment of the last three years dealing with this trauma, I am well and truly over it. Far too much time and stress has been directly related to me refuting clearly untruthful information by CASA to no avail.

It seems entirely appropriate that CASA reach out to the Ombudsman’s Office and advise that after the receipt of this correspondence, they request the Ombudsman’s Office to place the investigation on hold. Such action will enable CASA to reassess its position and provide both the Ombudsman’s office and myself with CASAs position, hopefully this time reflecting the truth. CASA may choose however to maintain its “position” in that they were not aware of the structure of APTA until just prior to October 2018.

Please find attached supported samples of emails to and from CASA dating back 2 ½ years before they claim that they first became aware.

Sampling of the emails and the timeline from mid-2016 are attached; that is, before CASA claim they first became aware of APTAs structure. I have also attached a copy of the proposed contract that was supplied to Mr Graeme Crawford the CASA 2IC on October 7th, 2017,being 6 months after APTA was fully approved by CASA; interestingly, one year before CASA claim they first became aware of my structure.



Exhibit A: 20 June 2016 => Email from Glen Buckley to the three CASA oversighting personnel. (2 ½ years before CASA claim that they became aware of APTA.

“Dear John,

As you are aware, I am in the process of putting together and alliance of flight training organisations, under an Industry leading group of professionals. My intention is to build a team that can communicate with CASA in an effective, professional and constructive manner.

I have now invested significantly in the proposal. If practical I would like the opportunity to meet with you in the CASA Office to outline my proposed course of action. I will be seeking significant guidance from CASA during this process. My intention is to “get it right”, the first time. I genuinely want to work as closely with CASA as your resources permit…………”



Exhibit B: 21 June 2016 => Response Email from CASA to Glen Buckley

This email is from CASA arranging the requested meeting



Exhibit C: 21 June 2016 => Email from Glen Buckley finalising meeting late June 2016,

(that is 2 ½ years before CASA claim they first became aware of my businesses structure).



Exhibit D: 23rd June 2016 => Email from Glen Buckley to CASA

This email has a 9-page document attached to it, that can leave absolutely no doubt in the readers mind as to the structure that is intended.



Exhibit E: 13th July 2016 => Email from Glen Buckley to three oversighting personnel within CASA.

This email advises CASA that I am obtaining some interest in this concept and requesting CASA time frames to add new Entities.

This attached the 2016 version of the proposed contract to Mr Crawford; it was provided as a courtesy in the interests of transparency. When CASA sent the initial notification years later in October 2018, they “overlooked” the fact that these contracts had been supplied on multiple occasions, and that can be clearly evidenced.



Exhibit F: 18th January 2017 => Meeting with Mr Graeme Crawford 2IC of CASA.

This is almost 1 ½ years before CASA claim they became aware of the structure.

The meeting occurred in Canberra on an unrelated matter. Interestingly, it was the CASA Executive, Mr Crawford who raised the subject of APTA; therefore, he was clearly aware of APTA existence at that time.



Conclusion

CASA has an obligation to act as a model litigant and whilst I certainly don’t intend to go through the charter here, I would like to highlight a sampling; however, Mr Jonathan Aleck will be fully aware of those obligations. The first of these being particularly salient in this matter.


Not requiring the other party to prove a matter which the Crown knows to be true.
Act honestly and fairly
Not causing unnecessary delay.
Endeavouring to avoid litigation wherever possible.
Not taking advantage of a claimant who lacks the resources to litigate a legitimate claim
Apologising where the Crown is aware that it or its lawyers have acted wrongfully or improperly,
The Court also traced the model litigant obligation back to the traditional relationship between the Crown and its subjects and noted that the Commonwealth and its agencies have no legitimate private interest in the performance of their functions and frequently also have greater access to resources than private litigants. For these reasons, the Court held that Australian Government Agencies and their legal representatives should act as moral exemplars when engaging with private litigants.

Trusting that you have the freedom to act with integrity in this matter and make good the wrong that CASA has perpetrated on myself and my family.



Yours Faithfully,





Glen Buckley

[Lead Balloon]

The model litigant obligation has nothing to do with CASA's interactions with the Ombudsman, Glen.

If you have some 'smoking gun' recording, just publish it.

They don't care, Glen. They just don't care. Your fundamental weakness is the belief that they do care and have any shame. They don't. This is 21st century Federal government.

[glenb]

Cheers Lead Balloon appreciate the prompt input.

My understanding is that the model litigant obligations must be followed in the case of litigation, and as you pointed out, have nothing to do with the Ombudsman's Office. Whilst i appreciate its probably somewhat naïve, surely the principles and intent should apply, at least ethically. .

I also agree that it is highly unlikely that CASA will act with good intent. One way or another the response to that correspondence will leave me in no doubt.

Honestly Lead Balloon, i will at least know that i have exhausted absolutely every opportunity to encourage CASA to act in a decent manner.. It is unlikely, but the CASA response will clearly identify to me where i need to be directing my resources and energy.

Cheers. Glen

[Paragraph377]

Glen, if you haven’t already, get in touch with Nick Xenophon’s office. At the very least, he is amicable, smart and understands law. He also has political experience. Plus he understands how the Senate works and he has grilled CASA previously during estimates and inquiries. He knows the machinations of our esteemed aviation regulator. If he does make a return to politics, it will be as an Independent. The two of you might just have something in common that could be beneficial to both of you. Make the call…

[Lead Balloon]

Rex Patrick would probably be a potentially more sympathetic and effective person to talk to than Nick Xenophon. Rex Patrick is still in the Senate and is a pilot.

As a Victorian, Glen should be able to get the ear of Senator David Fawcett. He will understand what's happened but, unfortunately, he's a member of a major party and must therefore continue to pretend that CASA's doing a great job.

[AerialPerspective]

Glen, if you haven’t already, get in touch with Nick Xenophon’s office. At the very least, he is amicable, smart and understands law. He also has political experience. Plus he understands how the Senate works and he has grilled CASA previously during estimates and inquiries. He knows the machinations of our esteemed aviation regulator. If he does make a return to politics, it will be as an Independent. The two of you might just have something in common that could be beneficial to both of you. Make the call…

Or Senator Rick Patrick. He seems to make a point of challenging the current government on every dodgy act they engage in.

I agree with Lead Balloon though, this shower in Canberra think nothing of leaking private text messages from national leaders and heads of state in a pathetic attempt to get this excuse of a PM out of a 'loss of face' - I've never seen such a pathetic individual in the position of PM in my life, even Billy McMahon would be better.

In order to get traction in this, I feel you need to find a way of wedging these bastards - with an election coming up they need to be frightened sh-tless about bad publicity, but the timing has to be right, as if they react badly and lose the election, as is likely, the impetus may be lost except for perhaps a new government wanting to address outstanding matters while making it obvious under which administration it occurred and how that administration ignored the matter.......

[Paragraph377]

Or Senator Rick Patrick. He seems to make a point of challenging the current government on every dodgy act they engage in.

I agree with Lead Balloon though, this shower in Canberra think nothing of leaking private text messages from national leaders and heads of state in a pathetic attempt to get this excuse of a PM out of a 'loss of face' - I've never seen such a pathetic individual in the position of PM in my life, even Billy McMahon would be better.

In order to get traction in this, I feel you need to find a way of wedging these bastards - with an election coming up they need to be frightened sh-tless about bad publicity, but the timing has to be right, as if they react badly and lose the election, as is likely, the impetus may be lost except for perhaps a new government wanting to address outstanding matters while making it obvious under which administration it occurred and how that administration ignored the matter.......

I agree with both Leady and Aerial 100%. Fawcett is a very intelligent politician, and Patrick is no dunce. But because they’ve already got a lot of skin in the game I thought that a (possibly) returning Xenophon might be keen to grab a headline or two and use a case like Glens to stir up some action. Either way, it would be nice if some politician, any politician, could take the time to examine Glens case and become his champion for justice. It is palpable that anagency staffed by public servants, which ultimately is accountable to a government minister, could treat an Australian citizen so disgracefully. It’s something one would expect from a dictatorship. Oh, hang on a minute…..

[AerialPerspective]

I agree with both Leady and Aerial 100%. Fawcett is a very intelligent politician, and Patrick is no dunce. But because they’ve already got a lot of skin in the game I thought that a (possibly) returning Xenophon might be keen to grab a headline or two and use a case like Glens to stir up some action. Either way, it would be nice if some politician, any politician, could take the time to examine Glens case and become his champion for justice. It is palpable that anagency staffed by public servants, which ultimately is accountable to a government minister, could treat an Australian citizen so disgracefully. It’s something one would expect from a dictatorship. Oh, hang on a minute…..

Paragraph, I agree 100% - Xenophon is always one to grab an issue then grab the testicles of the government minister (figuratively) until he gets answers.

Hopefully, the voters that will elect Xenophon all have photo ID otherwise they might be disenfranchised, yet another disgustingly low, cynical and disgracefully amoral little move by this shower, they know they're on the nose so out comes a 'Trumpian' BS move - a solution in search of a problem (as I explained elsewhere, it's a solution to a different problem, low socio-economic voters who may not have ID and who have been treated like garbage by Morrison). We mustn't have them voting, no.

Reminds me of that scene in Yes Prime Minister where Hacker insists that public opinion is important, isn't this supposed to be a democracy, doesn't the public deciding represent what that's all about - Humphrey responds "But Prime Minister, this is a BRITISH democracy". "You know what happens if the RIGHT people don't get power??" "No, what??" "The WRONG people get it."

I don't care about politics and the party sides, but JCA I hope the LNP get thrown out - and yes, Xenophon would be perfect, I was just offering another head kicker to the list LOL

[glenb]

.....and its the new Labor candidate for the local electorate of Chisholm, so i write to her today......... (and copied the CASA in.)

11/11/21
Dear Ms Carina Garland, Labor Candidate for the seat of Chisholm. My name is Glen Buckley, a 56-year resident of Mount Waverley, having been born less than 500 meters from where I now live with my wife and three children.

I was pleased to receive your brochure in the letter box and see that Gladys Liu the current Liberal incumbent has some competition at the next election, and most especially considering that this is Australia’s most marginal seat. I wish you well. It will be interesting.

I will declare my hand and advise you that I had considered running as an Independent at the next election myself, and my draft website can be found by googling “glenwithten”. This was a project I commenced some time ago, initiated due the lack of assistance afforded me by the Office of the Liberal Party in the electorate of Chisholm, and specifically Ms Liu. Admittedly it is a project that had dropped off my priorities but something that I am reconsidering. I receive a lot of encouragement from the many members of the local community whom I have developed relationships with over the last half century.

My matter is complicated but concerns misconduct of a serving employee of Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), and an associated coverup of that misconduct that extends to the Honorable Mr Michael McCormack whilst serving in the role of Deputy PM and the Minister responsible for CASA. I realize the substantive nature of this allegation, however please be assured that the supporting documentation cannot be disputed. Mr. Michael McCormack was “fully briefed” on this matter by the previous CASA Board Chairman, Mr. Anthony Mathews. I have also ensured via written correspondence, that he is fully aware of the matter.


The purpose of this letter is to request a meeting with the appropriate person or persons within the Labor Party, including yourself, and it is a matter that I am directly seeking your assistance in. Senator Glenn Sterle has some knowledge of my matter as the allegation of misfeasance in public office was raised before him, by me in the Senate recently. I have also had the pleasure of meeting him in his Office some years ago now. He may be a good initial contact for your Office.

I appreciate the substantive nature of these allegations, but there is a significant body of documented evidence of my claims, and they extend through the Office of Ms. Liu and through the National Party and most especially Mr. McCormack.

I have attached two articles from Australian Flying magazine that provide an overview of the matter.

My “matter has been discussed on a pilots forum with over 800, 000 views, simply look for Glen Buckley and Small Business Versus CASA on the first page via this link Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)

A number of current and ex CASA personnel at the most senior levels, have offered to come forward and tell the truth on this matter. Those currently employed would need to abide by their obligations in their role and correct procedures need to be adhered to.

Thankyou for considering my matter, and I hope you are able to offer a level of assistance that has not been forthcoming from Ms Liu to date.

Please be assured that I am not acting vindictively or vexatious, these are serious and substantive allegations of deliberate misconduct that have had a significant impact on a number of businesses, employees, domestic and International Students.

For three years, I have been simply requesting the opportunity to meet with CASAs and seek fair redress for the other people impacted by the action that CASA took against me. They refuse to meet. Any assistance in facilitating this opportunity would be highly appreciated.

The coverup from within the Office of Ms Gladys Liu is concerning and much of the damage could have been avoided had, she acted in a timely manner when I first bought it to her attention well over two years ago. I hope that my experience with your Office can be more productive. Please note I have included the Office of Gladys Liu, CASA Board, CASA CEO in this correspondence. It has also been posted on the pilots’ forum that I referred to earlier in my correspondence.


All the best, and I hope to hear from you. Cheers. Glen Buckley 0418772013.

[SRFred]

Glen I watch your case with fascination and wish you well in your endeavor for justice but I wonder if it is counter productive to copy CASA into correspondence such as this. It does appear that you need a "Political Champion" to further your case against what appears to be a classic example of the modern Australian public servant who is able to hide behind the motto "not in the public interest" to address issues/stuff-ups they have caused whilst also mouthing that they are model litigants.

As I say keep searching for your "Political champion" but reduce the amount of stuff you copy to CASA.

All the best with your endeavor for justice.

[glenb]

Appreciate the support and feedback. Your not the first to say that i.e. hold my cards closer.

Ive got a slightly different approach however.

If i remain open and transparent it gives someone involved the opportunity to step forward and act with integrity at any time. Besides i don't like to be blindsided. I was on the receiving end of it from Mr Aleck.

I know this is a slowburn folks but have been it does keep simmering. Surely it must be getting a bit embarrassing for CASA by now.

[pcx]

Glen

Someone in CAsA embarrassed. Maybe a few individual employees but as an organisation.

For that to happen there would need to be at least a small amount of integrity within the organization. Not something that has been displayed over the last approximately 20 years.

Hopefully the looming general election might get you some traction. I wish you all the best.

I can't help feeling that the only way you will get any recourse will be to drag them kicking and screaming into the light in Federal Court forced to give testimony under oath.. I fully understand the costs involved in that but suspect that while ever CAsA believe they can continue to stonewall and lie their way along they will continue to do so.

If you do contemplate court action then I would hope that our industry gets behind you. I am prepared to start the financial support with a $1000 donation.

Maybe there is some way that we can get industry to indicate what level of financial support might be available to you while not contributing until the funds are required for legal action.

In any event we are all watching with interest and hoping for an outcome that you are happy with.

[glenb]

Thanks PCX. There are still ample funds in the GoFund me that industry provided for me. If integrity within CASA prevails those funds will be sufficient.

If CASA choose not to act with integrity, I will most certainly come back to the industry for the required funding to move forward.

My family think I'm somewhat naïve, but i do feel that this can be resolved with two parties acting in a well intentioned manner. That just involves Mr Aleck not being involved in the decision making.

[glenb]

Why would a CASA employee try and mislead the Ombudsman’s office to believe that CASA were not fully aware of the structure of my business?

First its worth having an appreciation of what constitutes a negligent misstatement. I was directed to this by a learned Ppruner some time ago This information was exceptional and provided me with direction.

A negligent misstatement is a claim which is brought by one party against another at common law in tort. This claim arises if the party (CASA) against whom the claim is brought made a statement which was considered to be negligent (Defendant) and the party bringing the claim (Claimant) relied on this statement to its detriment and suffered a loss as a result of this statement.

In order for a claim for negligent misstatement to succeed the Claimant must be able to show to the court that on a balance of probabilities the Defendant owed them a duty of care. This duty of care is not to cause such harm which was suffered by their negligent misstatement, further that they breached the duty of care owed and that the Claimant has indeed suffered loss.

If the Claimant cannot satisfy the aforementioned then they will not have a claim for Negligent Misstatement.

It would very much suit the Manager of CASAs Legal department, if my business was something that I just went off and did with little or no CASA involvement. If that were the case I would have to just roll over and let him move on to the next person that upsets him.

Basically, I need to demonstrate that CASA was aware of, and involved in the design of my business. As they clearly were. In fact, all schools in Australia were not permitted to operate after September 2016, if they did not go through a full revalidation as a Part 141 and 142. Recall that I was delivering this multi base structure for six years prior.

As part of that revalidation, we redesigned every element of the business including personnel, infrastructure, and our manuals and procedures. It was a very large project, in fact the cost of the Transition exceeded the Companies entire profit over the last decade. For Mr Jonathan Aleck to be involved in leading the Ombudsman to be of the view that CASA was not aware of my business structure, is blatantly a lie, perpetrated to “water down” my options.

At the right time, it will be proven beyond any doubt. At this stage and before proceeding, I anxiously await the Ombudsman’s findings. I need to know whether my resources are being allocated to a fair fight, which would be far more efficient, or whether I need to allocate more resources to exposing the entire matter.

My belief is that under a new Minister, a new Board Chair, and a new CEO, a new level of ethics and integrity will be bought to the matter.

I understand why CASA would perhaps lead the Ombudsman's office to be of the view that they were not aware of what i was doing although the correspondence in Post 1814, should go part way to expose CASAs lack of ethics and integrity.

Watch this space, aiming for a few posts.

I might just add that i was contacted by a past very senior CASA Executive who has also come forward and offered to tell the truth to the Ombudsman. Its interesting that the Ombudsman chooses not to take advantage of it. This experience of the last three years has certainly taught me the additional weighting put to CASAs input in such matters. The individual is certainly on the back foot. Lucky I am so stubborn, buoyed by widespread industry support.

Cheers folks. I know that this forum is being followed, so I appreciate all the input including the criticisms, cheers. Glen.

[glenb]

12/11/21

To:




Air Chief Marshal (retired) Mark Binskin AC- Chair of the CASA Board.
Ms. Pip Spence PSM- CASA CEO



My name is Glen Buckley, the previous owner of Melbourne Flight Training and APTA, the two businesses shut down by CASA in October 2018. Let me acknowledge that you have had no involvement at all in my matter to date, both being new to your respective roles.

I would like to request the opportunity to meet with you both. The intention of this meeting would be to “tell my story”. Ideally, Mr Aleck as Subject Matter Expert would also attend that meeting, although I will leave that up to you.

I would like to attend on any day at any location within Australia with my father. I hope that you will afford me the opportunity for a face to face meeting.

Please be assured, I will ensure it is respectful and productive.



Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Dear Mr Buckley



Thank you for the correspondence you provided today, and your previous correspondence dated 6 November 2021.



Both requests have been provided to the Chair of the CASA Board and the CEO/Director of Aviation Safety.



I anticipate that a response to your emails will be provided early next week.



Best regards



Colin

[joe_bloggs]

My belief is that under a new Minister, a new Board Chair, and a new CEO, a new level of ethics and integrity will be bought to the matter..

Wouldn’t that be great. Although with what I have witnessed over the last 4 decades I won’t be holding my breath.

[glenb]

13/11/21

Dear Ms. Taylor, (Aviation Adviser to Mr. Barnaby Joyce, Deputy PM and Minister responsible for CASA)



You will be aware that I allege CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Mr Jonathan Aleck has deliberately provided untruthful information to the Ombudsman Office, with the intention of perverting the findings of the investigation. I fully appreciate the substantive nature of my allegation, but it is supported by an overwhelming body of evidence, some of which is attached.



Mr Aleck has clearly led the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that CASA did not become aware of my business structure until sometime just prior to October 2018. This is clearly not truthful, and Mr Aleck would have been aware at the time that he was providing untruthful information. The attached emails clearly indicate that the information he has provided is not truthful, and CASA were fully aware of the structure at least two and a half years proper to the date that Mr Aleck asserts.



Furthermore, a current and highly experienced CASA Flight Operations Inspector by the name of XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX has offered to come forward and tell the truth on this matter. This gentleman is a current employee of many years’ service, and is highly respected within industry for his professionalism. He was involved in the initial meetings 2 ½ years prior and is prepared to simply tell the truth on this matter. For the sake of expediency, may I suggest that your Office establish contact with him directly to further support my claims of misleading information provided to the Ombudsman.



My reasonable expectation is that the office of the Deputy PM would promptly intervene on this matter and soon as soon as the Office becomes aware that Mr Aleck may have displayed misconduct during the course of his employment, and mislead the Ombudsman’s Office.



As you are aware, I have raised allegations of misfeasance in public Office before the Senate, and it concerns me that there appears to be no accountability within CASA, which has the potential to impact on aviation safety. I have now bought this to the attention of Mr Barnaby Joyce, and make myself available to discuss this matter further.



Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Dear Mark of the Commonwealth Ombudsman s Office.

Several current and past CASA employees have offered to come forward to the Ombudsman’s Office and provide further information on my matter. I have extended this offer previously.

.Over coming days, I will introduce you to a number of these individuals. Today, I am introducing you to Mr XXXX. Mr XXXX previously operated at the very highest levels within CASA, and would be considered a Subject Matter Expert on my matter, and I have included him in this introductory email. His personal email address has been included as a recipient.

I will leave it to Mr XXXX to introduce himself. His credentials are impeccable. On my issue, Mr XXXX was the only CASA employee that I had confidence and trust in.

Unfortunately, Mr XXXX departed CASA due health reasons.

Many past industry colleagues have encouraged me to reach out to him over the last three years since this matter began. I chose not to because I knew that he was dealing with a health matter. I had met Mr XXX in a number of meetings and knew that if he was fit enough to work, he would be working.

An industry colleague advised me that he had returned to the workforce, I reached out to him after three years , and we established contact a few days ago.

He offered to tell the truth on this matter, and that is all I would expect of him. In fact, the truth is all I need. Therefore, I would encourage the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office to establish contact with Mr XXXX.

On establishing contact with Mr XXXX, I will leave it to him to introduce himself, but I will say that he has operated at the highest levels across several departments, including XXXX, XXXXX, and XXXX, I provide that information on my recall so he will have to clarify that experience.







Respectfully, Glen Buckley



Dear Peter White,



Thankyou for the opportunity to have a brief discussion on the phone the other day. I appreciate that you have not followed this matter over the last three years, but I am confident your recall will be accurate, and I note your comments that you have significant note taking to support any information that you provide.



Peter, I hope this comes out the right way. I am not calling on you as friend, because I haven’t earnt that position. I am however calling on you as the only CASA employee involved in this matter that I have an unwavering trust and confidence in. I know you will only tell the truth. That is exactly what I need. Nothing more, nothing less.



The ramifications of this have been significant. Several Businesses have closed, many millions of dollars have been lost by a number of dependant businesses, staff have been not received entitlements, suppliers have been left unpaid, local and international students had their training impacted, not to mention the potential for the industry, and particularly in regional areas.



On a personal level, I have lost everything, My wife and I have been left destitute, and I have been bankrupted. I have completely lost any ability to assure my wife’s welfare should either one of us stop working. My wife has had only four days free of work since October 2018, as she desperately tries to rebuild our lives. The impact on my own mental and physical health has been unacceptable.



Something went very very wrong.



Before the Senate, Mr Carmody made a number of clearly untrue allegations against me. He alleged that I had stalked and assaulted CASA employees which I absolutely refute and impacted significantly on me and my family. That is not pertinent to this particular matter. He did however go on to state that I was “unwilling and unable to produce contracts to CASAs satisfaction”. This may be an area that you will be able to address.



I am seeking your involvement to provide as much information as the Ombudsman’s Office requires to ensure that improvements are put into place within CASA to ensure that this can never happen again.



On behalf of my family and most especially my father. Thankyou sincerely,



Glen Buckley.

[LeadSled]

Paragraph, I agree 100% - Xenophon is always one to grab an issue then grab the testicles of the government minister (figuratively) until he gets answers.

Hopefully, the voters that will elect Xenophon all have photo ID otherwise they might be disenfranchised, yet another disgustingly low, cynical and disgracefully amoral little move by this shower, they know they're on the nose so out comes a 'Trumpian' BS move - a solution in search of a problem (as I explained elsewhere, it's a solution to a different problem, low socio-economic voters who may not have ID and who have been treated like garbage by Morrison). We mustn't have them voting, no.

Reminds me of that scene in Yes Prime Minister where Hacker insists that public opinion is important, isn't this supposed to be a democracy, doesn't the public deciding represent what that's all about - Humphrey responds "But Prime Minister, this is a BRITISH democracy". "You know what happens if the RIGHT people don't get power??" "No, what??" "The WRONG people get it."

I don't care about politics and the party sides, but JCA I hope the LNP get thrown out - and yes, Xenophon would be perfect, I was just offering another head kicker to the list LOL

Folks,
Please check your facts, the proposed ID requirements to vote DO NOT require photo ID -- indeed they only require the broadest test, almost anything with your name on it --- and if you can't even do that, you "self declare" and the system will check up in arrears. Nobody will be denied a vote, on the day, by this legislation.

And I do know, from personal experience, that the old Labor adage: "Vote early and vote often" is not just a cute saying, any more than "getting out the graveyard vote".

And anybody who thinks a Labor Government, beholden to the Greens to get anything through, will be good for aviation, are you kidding?? Go read the Green's web site, or any of their Senators, than tell me aviation (especially GA) has ANY future under the Green's Climate Change hysteria.

Tootle pip!!

[Lead Balloon]

The Coalition has been in power for about 75% of the time (19 out of the 26 years) since CASA was created.

A pox on all the major parties.

Let's get the focus of the thread back on supporting Glen...

[LeadSled]

The Coalition has been in power for about 75% of the time (19 out of the 26 years) since CASA was created.

A pox on all the major parties.

Let's get the focus of the thread back on supporting Glen...

Agreed, but I do have an aversion to complete and deliberate departure from the facts, much as CASA does so often, as in Glen's terrible treatment.

To quote a late and unlamented former DAC/CEO:" But, Minister, If I had to have the evidence, I would need a hundred more inspectors".

And, Yes!!, I was there when said DAS/CEO said it!!

Tootle pip!!

[Bend alot]

I think this year glen and family should have a great Christmas.

Think a nice restaurant with a nice hotel & a few cards (gift if you wish) of our wishes.

Anyone up for sorting that?

I would be in for a few bucks, sure his wife would love a nice weekend & know we all care.

[glenb]

All good thanks mate, and a lovely gesture. You folk have done more than enough. Things a lot better this year than the last couple. Just appreciate the support on here, thanks anyway and great to have you still following Bendalot

[Bend alot]

I was not actually asking you Mate.

Never been far away Mate.

[AerialPerspective]

Folks,
Please check your facts, the proposed ID requirements to vote DO NOT require photo ID -- indeed they only require the broadest test, almost anything with your name on it --- and if you can't even do that, you "self declare" and the system will check up in arrears. Nobody will be denied a vote, on the day, by this legislation.

And I do know, from personal experience, that the old Labor adage: "Vote early and vote often" is not just a cute saying, any more than "getting out the graveyard vote".

And anybody who thinks a Labor Government, beholden to the Greens to get anything through, will be good for aviation, are you kidding?? Go read the Green's web site, or any of their Senators, than tell me aviation (especially GA) has ANY future under the Green's Climate Change hysteria.

Tootle pip!!

The point is that the laws are NOT required. This is just a cynical, trumpian load of BS that the arch liar Morrisson has pulled out of his a-se because for someone who didn't want the job, who put his arm around his former leader and said "this is my leader and I'm ambitious for him" then 24 hours later stabbed him in the back and took his job, he knows he's about as welcome as a fart in a space suit right now so the little scumbag will leave nothing, no stone unturned and will not fear to cross any moral barrier to keep his grubby, happy-clappy and speaking in tongues, bum in the seat.

Nothing to do with photo ID or the lack of it. This bastard would have to be the worst PM in our history, all politicians lie but for him it's an art form, he often lies about what he said in the following sentence. When he knows it, he walks away and refuses to answer. For a so-called 'Christian', this bloke is the most amoral person I've seen in that job in my lifetime. Worse than McMahon and that's saying something.

Like in the US, these laws are a solution to a different problem. Wanting to make it as difficult as possible for the people they don't want to vote, to vote. Wait for the queues down the street in May before you say people won't be denied the right to vote.

No one, not even someone as sneaky as John Howard felt the need to go this low.

AND, no one is under any illusion that the ALP would be better for aviation, but rather that in their interest to get elected, taking on Glen's case for political gain could work in Glen's favour.

[Ken Borough]

AP,

Why not tell us what you really think? :} :D (That I agree with most of what you’ve written is irrelevant!).

[Lead Balloon]

On Monday this week I witnessed something that I thought inconceivable: A retired Australian Army Major and Afghanistan veteran accusing the Chief of the Defence Force of being an outright liar (see from about 0954 here: Foreign Affairs, Defence & Trade [Part 1] - 15/11/2021 08:50:00 - Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au) (https://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=560899&operation_mode=parlview) (And remind me of who was in charge of Operation Sovereign Borders and who was the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection at the time.)

Seems to be a disease spreading through governments.

[glenb]

Attachments

Emails raising the concept 2 ½ years before CASA claim they “first became aware of my structure.”
CASA checklist to revalidate all of our systems. (Obtained under FOI). Refer Part 1 of this document that clearly confirm CASA would have been aware of the structure, as Part 1 deals exclusively with such matters. These items were assessed and ticked off by CASA approximately 2 years before they claim they first became aware of my structure.
Technical Assessor Handbook used by CASA. This attends to organisational structure in significant detail. CASA used this guidance to revalidate my structure in April 2017 (18 months before they claim they first became aware of my structure)
Exposition- the overriding set of CASA approved manuals to deliver multi base, multi entity training. These were fully approved by CASA in April 2017, 18 months before they first became aware.





Dear Mark of the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office,

As you are aware I am fully satisfied an employee of CASA has deliberately provided substantially misleading information to the Ombudsman Office. It is most likely that was done with the intention of altering the findings of the investigation.

In this correspondence I wish to introduce a second highly credible witness who has offered to come forward and simply tell the truth on this matter. The truth will contrast substantively to the assertion by a CASA employee, whom you have relied on to provide truthful information.

The gentleman that has come forward as a witness is Mr XXXXXX XXXXX, I met him briefly in a chance encounter at a regional petrol station recently, and he offered to come forward and tell the truth to the Ombudsman’s office. He advised that he retains “extraneous notes”, on this matter.

Mr XXXXX XXXXX will be able to introduce himself, and his credentials, and you can establish contact with him via his email address which has been included in the “recipients” of this correspondence.

I can advise you that his experience includes many years as a Pilot and Officer with the Royal Australian Air Force. Mr XXXX has also operated at the most senior pilot management roles with Airlines in Australia, and Overseas. He has extensive experience in the flight training industry, which is rare amongst CASA employees, so has an expert knowledge on this industry. He is universally respected across the industry as highly professional.

Importantly, he was also a highly respected and qualified senior CASA employee, and one of the CASA employees allocated to my “project” by CASA and the attached emails will clearly indicate that initial contact is 2 ½ years prior to the date that CASA has led you to believe they first became aware.

I recently sent you emails that very clearly indicate the concept was bought up with CASA in the middle of 2016, being two and a half years before CASA claim that they “first became aware” of my business structure. I have attached those emails again.

The truth is that CASA was made fully aware of the multi base multi entity structure in mid-2016, and Mr XXXX XXXX will be able to attest to that. He will be able to address the following matters comprehensively, accurately and truthfully with you.



Did CASA know about my structure years before their claimed date of October 2018.
Was CASA supportive and encouraging of the concept prior to declaring it unlawful in October 2018?
Did CASA give me the go-ahead to continue the Project?
Did CASA allocate CASA employees including Mr XXXX, to assist with and assess every one of more than 600 CASA requirements, in the design of the Exposition. Mr XXXX could speak to the enormity of the task, and the level of CASA involvement required.
Considering the size and scope of the project, and the significant CASA involvement, Mr XXXX could attest to the possibility of CASA not being aware, and most especially as CASA had approved AVIA and Learn to Fly as part of a formal CASA process called a “Significant Change.”
CASA have asserted that they had not previously permitted more than one entity to operate under an AOC. Mr XXXX will be aware that it was in fact common and CASA approved practice for more than one entity to operate under a single authorisation with the authorisation holder accepting full responsibility for all operations, and in fact that was common practice. Clarity on this matter alone will indicate that an employee of CASA has provided the Ombudsman with untruthful information. CASA claim that it was not permitted and had never been permitted. That is clearly not truthful.
Importantly Mr XXXX will be able to confirm or deny that CASA was involved in every facet of assessment and design of more than 600 CASA requirements, and that all procedures and structures were designed around the multi base, multi entity approach, and that CASA was fully aware 2 ½ years before they have led the Ombudsman’s Office to believe.
He will be able to brief you on the processes leading up to the CASA revalidation in the multi base, multi entity structure, including the substantial involvement of CASA personnel, including the use of the attached worksheet that was signed off by himself and others, and the assessor workbook that is attached.
Mr XXXX will be able to attest to the fact that the part 141/142 revalidation was issued in April 2017, and at that time CASA was fully aware of APTAs structure.
Mr XXXX will be able to attest to the truth that APTA was designed from the ground up in conjunction with CASA employees for the sole purpose of delivering a multi base. Multi entity structure. That was exactly its purpose.

Please note that I have included XXXX XXXX in this correspondence. Other Witnesses have approached me, and I will write again over coming days.

Thankyou for your consideration, and I hope that you will consider accessing this witness.

Respectfully



Glen Buckley

[glenb]

First from Ms. Pip Spence.Dear Mr Buckley

I refer to your recent email messages addressed to the Chair of the CASA Board, Mark Binskin AC, and to me, in which you ask for a meeting with us.

As Mr McLachlan indicated in acknowledging receipt of your communications, Mr Binskin and I believe any issues you want to raise, or material that you have that has not previously been provided to the Ombudsman, that relate to the claims you have made against various CASA officers, including your claim that CASA has misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman in the course of their investigation, would best be directed to the Ombudsman to support their independent review of your concerns.

Having reviewed your correspondence of 13 October 2021 to CASA’s Executive Manager, Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, Jonathan Aleck, and of 18 October 2021 to CASA’s then-Executive Manager, Regulatory Oversight, Craig Martin, I also suggest that you draw the issues in those emails to the attention of the Ombudsman.

I have contacted the Ombudsman to advise her that we have encouraged you to refer to that office your ongoing concerns and reiterated CASA’s ongoing commitment to cooperate fully with the Ombudsman in support of any further steps she may wish to take in relation to your complaints.

Once the Ombudsman has completed any further review, Mr Binskin and I would be happy to meet with you to discuss the outcome of the Ombudsman’s independent investigation.

Yours sincerely

Pip





Ms Pip Spence PSM

Chief Executive Officer and

Director of Aviation Safety

[glenb]

Ombudsman ref: 2019-713834







Dear Mr Buckley







I refer to your complaint to the Ombudsman about CASA.







We have decided to review how we handled the complaint. The review will be handled by an experienced officer in my team. The review will examine all the information we have received from you and CASA. We will then decide what next steps we should take.







I expect it will take the Review Officer a couple of weeks to examine all the information on the file.







In the meantime, it would help if you refrain from sending both CASA and this Office further information about your complaint. We will contact you again in due course.







Tim



Review Manager



COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN



Phone: 1300 362 072



Email: [email protected] <[email protected]>

Website: ombudsman.gov.au <http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/>







<http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/>



Influencing systemic improvement in public administration

[glenb]

Dear Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office,

I have recently had the opportunity to talk with a current CASA employee who has offered to tell the truth on the matter.

CASA have lead the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that CASA were not aware of APTAs structure until October 2018, when they declared it unlawful, and closed my business down.

The truth is that there was an extensive process requiring an investment of many hundreds of thousands of dollars, and extensive CASA consultation and formal approval, auditing, interviews of Key Personnel etc

It is deceptive if CASA have led the Ombudsman’s office to believe that CASA first became aware of APTAs structure in October 2018.

The truth is that CASA was fully aware, and fully involved in the development of the business structure over the two years leading up to its revalidation.

During the initial concept stages when I was planning to significantly expand on what I had been doing for many years previously, i.e., a multi base multi entity structure, I approached CASA prior to undertaking the Project and I approached my CASA CMT, being the Certificate Management Team that was oversighting my organisation.

I have spoken to XXXXX XXXXXXX a Flight Operations Inspector of many years’ experience and approximately 10 years as the primary contact within CASA for my flying school, Melbourne Flight Training. Mr. XXXXX is a current CASA employee, so the correct protocols will need to be followed should you elect to contact him.

Mr. XXXXXX recollection is very clear of an after hours meeting that was held at my Flying School Melbourne Flight Training (MFT), discussing the expansion of the concept that I was already doing, and had been doing for many years, admittedly on a larger scale.

He has a clear recollection of meetings at the flying school discussing the expansion of the multi base, multi entity structure. Whilst he would have to refer to his notes, extensive conversations were held around this concept prior to June of 2016. He was fully aware of the proposed expansion to the existing structure.

I would highly recommend Mr XXXXXX XXXXXXX as a highly respected, and highly experienced Flight Operations Inspector, and spent many years as the first point of contact within my business, almost from its inception a decade earlier.

He will be able to provide expert witness against the extent of CASAs involvement in absolutely every respect of APTA.

Importantly Mr XXXXXXX will also be able to shed light on the “Temporary Base” procedure. The procedure that we used to induct new bases was the Temporary Locations Procedure.

This was not our intended procedure to introduce new bases. The procedure was recommended to us by CASA to be used for exactly the procedure it was intended. In this correspondence, I will not recount the story in its entirety here, although I would draw your attention to Pprune Post #46 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), where I have explained in detail this matter. It was actually FOI Inspector XXXX XXXX who suggested the procedure in the presence of another CASA employee, for the use of the Temporary Base procedure.

It does not seem at all reasonable that the very procedure that CASA recommended to me, provided guidance on, approved, audited, and then CASA used that procedure to fully approve our first two Members, and then over two years later does a complete reversal, advises that the procedure they advised me to use for the exact situation becomes illegal, and the basis for declaring all flying schools, including my own flying school of 10 years, “unauthorised”. I very much depended on CASA for their guidance, accepted it, and then its declared illegal by CASA years later, as one of the fundamental reasons for closing several businesses down including those businesses that had been approved by CASA well over a year prior.

Thankyou for considering this additional and important witness as part of your investigation.

I have received the correspondence from your office, asking that I refrain from contacting your Office. Please accept this last witness. Several other witnesses that have pertinent information in this investigation have come forward, and should you feel it worthwhile, I would appreciate the opportunity to introduce those current and past CASA personnel ads well.

Thankyou for your consideration, respectfully.

Glen Buckley

[glenb]

I have made a number of allegations of CASA misleading the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office. Substantially so, and wit the intent of altering the outcome of the investigation, which it clearly has on reading the Preliminary Report which is now under a review by the Ombudsman’s Office.

In Post 1799 of this thread I sent a letter to Mr Craig Martin, asking him to confirm the contents of a meeting at my accountants office, with the intention of winding up the business.That meeting occurred at 11.30AM on 4th April, and is referred to in post 1799.

By now, I had exhausted all funds, and drawn on $300,000 of my parents savings to fund staff salaries, and maintain our large safety department.

In the correspondence in Post 1799, and follow the timeline to the. Two CASA employees gave me an absolute commitment that if I put the CASA suggested wording into the contracts, I could return to Business as Usual. and have the trading restrictions lifted.

I complied, promptly.

CASA reneged, on the commitments given to me at that meeting, as they had done several times previously throughout the 6 months..

The emails in the timeline in post 1799, explain what happened after this meeting.

After 6 months CASA reneged on the commitments made at that meeting, and forced all schools to leave APTA, including my own school of 10 years Melbourne Flight Training.

None of this with any supporting safety case. I have provided the recording of the meeting 4th April 2019 at 11.30AM to the Commonwealth Ombudsman s Office this morning.

[Lead Balloon]

In the meantime, it would help if you refrain from sending both CASA and this Office further information about your complaint.I'm baffled as to who exactly is helped by Glen refraining from sending the same stuff to both CASA and the Ombudsman's office. CASA is ignoring Glen - aside from the usual lip service - and it's not apparent to me as to what the Ombudsman's office would do differently. [Head scratch emoji]

[glenb]

Lead Balloon,

Please be assured that I will be including CASA in on everything, including providing a copy of the recording. My view on that is that any time the new CASA leadership can make a decision. They have the same information as the Ombudsman. There is no need to wait for the Ombudsman's report, hoping it will give them an "out.". In any other Organization Mr Aleck would have been suspended on full pay pending an investigation two years ago. Before the Senate, I made an allegation of misconduct and backed it up with evidence. Absolutely nothing. He continues on as he has for many years now destroying peoples businesses and lives. The lack of accountability in Australia's aviation safety regulator operating under the Australian Coat of Arms is trully concerning, and must negatively impact on the safety of aviation, as those in the industry know it does, not to mention the Deputy PM at the time Mr McCormacks involvement.

[Kaboobla]

The unfortunately reality is that Glen will not win from here. They will grind you down until you suffer a major mental health injury and then once you are institutionalized or worse passed away they will forget you even existed.

I have read every post on this thread. I know how much you have lost and suffered, but you will not win against CASA - they can already 'prove' to the AAT that you are a vexatious complainant.

Its time to cut your losses and get on with your life. Martyring yourself to a bunch of anonymous posters on the internet doesnt make sense.

[glenb]

Appreciate the feedback and i respect your sentiment. I will standby a few weeks until the Ombudsman gets back to me.

Regarding the AAT. This matter isnt with the AAT. I was unable to make a submission to them. CASA was "thinking about it" for 8 months. As no decision was made, there was nothing i could submit. Hence it is with the Ombudsmans Office

Cheers. Glen.

[glenb]

Dear Ms Spence and Mr Binskin,



As you are aware the Commonwealth Ombudsman is reviewing their investigation.



An individual within CASA has led the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the opinion that CASA made a number of attempts to resolve the contracts issue, before lifting the restrictions on the businesses ability to trade.



After 8 months, with all funds from the sale of my home exhausted, and my parents having contributed $300,000 of their own funds to maintain staff and maintain the large safety department, CASA finally provided the required text. On listening to the recording, you will clearly be able to identify the CASA employees assuring me that if I embed the text, I could return to Business as Usual.



I complied; CASA reneged on the commitments given. CASA then determined that it was illegal and forced all customers to leave APTA including my own flying school of 10 years Melbourne Flight Training.



I am supplying this to you to ensure that you have all the information that the Ombudsman's office has, and most likely substantially more.



As the CEO and Chair of the Board, there is no reason that you cannot make a decision and take action. Similarly, if you believe that an employee may have been involved in unlawful behavior and misconduct, as in all Organizations you are empowered to act, and in fact compelled to act.



The recording can be accessed via this link XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX



My hope is that strong and ethical leadership can bring this matter to a well-intentioned resolution.



Respectfully Glen Buckley.



Obviously you will have access to all information, although I have included some pertinent emails below, the recording relates to the meeting from the accounatnts office on April 4th 2019.

[glenb]

TIMELINE

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

2006:

The Company commenced operations at Moorabbin Airport.



2012

The Company commenced operations at an additional base for a Company called AV8, in Darwin at the International Airport, with two other bases outside of Darwin. This was fully approved by CASA. It is this multi base format that commenced in 2012, yet CASA claim they did not become aware of until October 2018, more than 6 years later, when they claimed it was unlawful.



2016

A second Company called TVSA based outside of Melbourne also joins my Company, at the time trading as Melbourne Flight Training. CASA, despite fully approving this additional base, will later claim that CASA was not aware of the structure.



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. Ten CASA personnel were involved in this process, and the entire proposal was sent for a Peer review within CASA. The approval was issued by CASA. This was a significant project costing many hundreds of thousands of dollars.



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 that CASA later claims they were not aware of. 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.



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 many years before, and as far back as our Darwin operation 6 years earlier.



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 trading 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.

[glenb]

4th April 2019 at 11.30AM

The meeting proceeded at 11.30 AM by way of a conference call.

Mr Peter White, the CASA Executive Manager who had been dealing with my matter appeared to cease his employment with CASA at about this time.

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 notes 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 that had been in place for six months, 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, after waiting a staggering 6 months with trading restrictions in place.

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.

My accountant queried 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 by Mr Martin, and Mr Crawford.

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, and I had been able to do it for the last 6 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, assuring me that if I utilised the CASA suggested text, the restrictions would be lifted.

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, restrictions would be lifted.

Mr Martin 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 APTA 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.

I reiterated that I was prepared to put anything into the contracts that CASA required., and had been since October ,6 months earlier.

Mr Martin explained that APTA was unlawful without contracts, but advised 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. My accountant expressed his confusion ta CASA wanting to put matters of control and supervisory responsibility in commercial contracts.

Mr Martin confirmed that “CASA had perhaps given me incorrect advice”.

My accountant again sought a clear direction from Mr Martin, and highlighted the financial impact on the business, and that he was depending on a resolution, or he would be obligated to direct me to cease operations, as the businesses funds were by now exhausted and it was becoming increasingly difficult for the business to meet its obligations to suppliers and staff.

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.

To summarise this meeting Mr Craig Martin and Mr Graeme Crawford gave me very clear commitments, that if I embedded the CASA text, I could return to business as usual. On 9th April, CASA would not meet the commitments made at that meeting.



9th April 2019 at 7.33AM

I 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.

CASA Executive Manager of the Aviation Group- Mr Graeme Crawford at my accountant’s office less than a week prior.
CASA Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance- Mr Peter White via email
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.



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.”






​​​​​​​

[skinduptruk]

Hi Glen, all the best! Cheers, Kurt.

[glenb]

Looks like he has remained working in aviation safety as the Chief Operating Officer at Life Flight Australia.

[Paragraph377]

Looks like he has remained working in aviation safety as the Chief Operating Officer at Life Flight Australia.
Correct. McShisen, Martin, the arrogant Scot - all pawns in the game of safety and they knew they were walking the green mile, hence they bailed. Typical layer of expendable scalps. Teflon Aleck, heavily involved in the Glen Buckley malaise, escapes the fallout of yet another Fort Fumble clusterf#ck. I reckon he must have some photos of powerful politicians with goats, as this bloke always come off cleaner than a hospital operating theatre.

[1746]

Just wanted to say Merry Christmas Glen! We trust you and your family can enjoy Christmas and the New Year!

Hopefully 2022 will finally bring a successful conclusion to this disgusting situation!

You are not forgotten!

[joe_bloggs]

Just wanted to say Merry Christmas Glen! We trust you and your family can enjoy Christmas and the New Year!

Hopefully 2022 will finally bring a successful conclusion to this disgusting situation!

You are not forgotten!

I second that. All the best Glen!

[glenb]

Cheers for the sentiments 1746 and joe bloggs. Unfortunately i spent Christmas day working from 10AM to 11PM and Boxing Day doing the same, nevertheless a great time with my family on the days that I was off.

I have been laying a bit low, letting the Ombudsman's Office do their work. We are a Covid household like so many now, with my daughter having contracted it on New Years Eve, (as the entire family predicted as she headed out on the night). Fortunately contained to her only, although the whole family at home for a week or so we are getting some time together, after the main Christmas and New Years festivities, minus my daughter confined to her bedroom.

I received this update from the Ombudsmans Office today.Our ref: 2019-713834-R

Dear Mr Buckley

I am writing to let you know that I am the Review Officer reviewing your complaint to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman about CASA. I apologise that I did not contact you sooner.

I am in the process reviewing and assessing the information and documentation on your file. Due to amount of information this process is taking longer than anticipated, but I am progressing your matter with priority. I also wanted to let you know that I will be on leave from today until the end of January, so will not have any further updates for you in that time. I will contact you again in February with a further update.

Yours sincerely



Catherine

Review Officer

COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN

[glenb]

Have just got off the phone with Ben Morgan from AOPA who has provided me the opportunity to engage in another presentation at 7PM next Tuesday i believe.

Will update and confirm details over coming days.

Will contain some substantial allegations of misconduct by Mr Aleck which i am fully accountable for. If Ms Spence or Mr Aleck think my allegations are vindictive or vexatious i encourage them to take appropriate action.

[Paragraph377]

Happy new year Glen, you tenacious little devil! Good to see you have had some time with family, even if interrupted by work and COVID. You know, CASA and COVID have a lot in common - they have both completely fuc#ed up Australian aviation. Good to hear that you are teaming up with Ben again. No doubt Tootle Pip or the Loyola Lawyer will be watching with interest. Anyway, I’m sure that 2022 will see CASA continue along with its typical tautological nonsense.

[glenb]

Dear Ms Spence, CEO of CASA



I am sure you will agree that in order for the Ombudsman Office to arrive at the correct determination it is highly dependant on CASA providing truthful information.



I had been providing a multi base, multi entity style flight training delivery with CASAs full knowledge since 2011 when I took over operational control of AV8 in Darwin, and other bases including TVSA, Learn to Fly and Avia. Each of these bases underwent a formal CASA process.



Mr Jonathan Aleck the Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Services had misled the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that CASA first became aware of this structure six years later, just prior to October 2018, which is clearly not factual/truthful.



Can you confirm that CASA has now corrected this falsehood directly with the Ombudsman’s Office, or has CASA chosen to standby the assertion made by Mr Aleck, that CASA first became aware of the structure in October 2018.



An answer to this query will be integral to the investigation. I need to know whether this is a matter I need to prove to the Ombudsman’s Office. I apologize for involving you in this, but as I allege that Mr. Aleck has been dishonest in his dealings with the Ombudsman’s office, you are the most appropriate person in the Organizational Structure to approach on this matter, and to confirm CASAs position.



Yours thankfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

09/01/22



Dear Ms Spence, CEO of CASA,

In your recent correspondence to me, you stated the following: “We do treat your allegations very seriously and if you have new information or evidence to support such an allegation it is appropriate that it be provided to the Ombudsman so that it can be included in their review. Until that review is completed, it is not appropriate that we comment or interfere with the independent process in place.”

I agree that it is not appropriate that you “interfere” with the independent process in place. I do however feel that as the CEO of CASA you are compelled to ensure that truthful and factual information is provided to the investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman’s Office. Mr. Aleck in his role as the Executive Manager of Legal International and Regulatory Affairs has clearly provided untruthful advice to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office. I am fully satisfied that Mr. Aleck has provided that untruthful advice in order to pervert the outcome, and to cover up his misconduct.

As the CASA Organisational Chart indicates that Mr Aleck is a direct report to you in your position as the CEO, you are the most appropriate person to write to on this matter, and to ensure that any misconception manufactured by Mr. Aleck is clarified with the Ombudsman’s Office. As you are aware I have made allegations of misfeasance in public office by Mr. Aleck, before Parliament to Senator Susan McDonald. I encourage you not to be complicit in covering up that misconduct and to take appropriate action and act with integrity commensurate with your position.

Mr Aleck has led the Ombudsman to be of the view that CASA does not and has not ever permitted multiple entities to operate under a single AOC which is blatantly not the truth.

Whilst I can only draw on the 25 years that I have been involved in the industry, throughout that entire period CASA consistently permitted this arrangement. Whilst there is an overwhelming body of evidence, can I draw your attention to this very clear demonstration that supports my assertion.

Latrobe Valley Aero Club operated under the AOC of Bairnsdale Air Charter. When Latrobe Valley Aero Club transferred from Bairnsdale Air Charter to my business APTA under the identical arrangement, CASA determined my business unlawful and closed my business down, at a personal cost to me of several million dollars, and significant “fallout” to employees, customers, and other businesses.

My assumption is that Mr Aleck will continue to propagate falsehoods to protect his position. I appreciate that you are relatively new to the position, and it is not reasonable to expect you to be a Subject Matter Expert on this particular topic. May I suggest that you establish contact with Flight Operations Inspector, Mr Naomichi Nishizawa. In his position he was overseeing both Bairnsdale Air Charter and my organisation and could be considered a Subject Matter Expert on this particular topic. He would be able to bring clarity to the matter. Mr Nishizawa has a well established reputation in the industry achieved after many years as a CASA employee demonstrating the very highest levels of integrity and professionalism.

Can I ask that you confirm to me that you will clarify the truthful situation with the Ombudsman Office or if you choose to support Mr. Alecks assertion, so that I can consider what action I should take.

I apologise for involving you in this matter, although I am sure you appreciate the substantive nature of my allegations.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[Flaming galah]

Dear Ms Spence, CEO of CASA



I am sure you will agree that in order for the Ombudsman Office to arrive at the correct determination it is highly dependant on CASA providing truthful information.



I had been providing a multi base, multi entity style flight training delivery with CASAs full knowledge since 2011 when I took over operational control of AV8 in Darwin, and other bases including TVSA, Learn to Fly and Avia. Each of these bases underwent a formal CASA process.



Mr Jonathan Aleck the Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Services had misled the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that CASA first became aware of this structure six years later, just prior to October 2018, which is clearly not factual/truthful.



Can you confirm that CASA has now corrected this falsehood directly with the Ombudsman’s Office, or has CASA chosen to standby the assertion made by Mr Aleck, that CASA first became aware of the structure in October 2018.



An answer to this query will be integral to the investigation. I need to know whether this is a matter I need to prove to the Ombudsman’s Office. I apologize for involving you in this, but as I allege that Mr. Aleck has been dishonest in his dealings with the Ombudsman’s office, you are the most appropriate person in the Organizational Structure to approach on this matter, and to confirm CASAs position.



Yours thankfully, Glen Buckley

In 168 above you’ve posted a letter from CASA that might show its position is jumbled and makes it look as if it did know? The letter says:

CASA had an awareness of the APTA business model for a significant period of time prior to its compliance with regulation being called into question. In changing its position so drastically, the circumstances were such that CASA’s actions weren’t fair, given APTA’s likely to have relied on CASA’s failure to highlight any concerns when conducting its operations and planning.

[Lead Balloon]

My guess is that ‘CASA’s’ explanation - i.e. Dr Aleck’s explanation - will in effect be that all those drones working out in the regions and interacting with the GA industry aren’t ‘CASA’. They don’t understand the regulatory framework and don’t make decisions as to CASA’s position on regulatory requirements. Only ‘CASA’ - i.e. Dr Aleck - does.

That’s why the email from Mr White to Glen setting out ‘CASA’s’ view on the requirements of Parts 141 and 142 was, in effect, Dr Aleck using Mr White as a glove puppet. “Dr Aleck says and I agree with him…”. I also note that the ‘requirements’ set out in the email were invented by someone who evidently doesn’t understand the law of agency and hasn’t read Parts 141 and 142.

[glenb]

There is no doubt in my mind that there is a "cover up" of this matter. How is it that CASA would be prepared to present a "story" to the Ombudsman and refuse to share that "story" with me. If there was any doubt in my mind that Mr Alecks misconduct is being covered up at the very highest levels, that has been completely removed. Fortunately, Im a tenacious little devil, so have no option but to write directly to Mr Barnaby Joyce and call on him to direct CASA to encourage CASA to act with resaonableness and integrity. I must say, im extremely disappointed with Ms Spence.


Dear Mr Buckley,



Thank you for this email and the email you sent at 2.55pm on Friday, 7 January.



The independent review being undertaken by the Ombudsman on how CASA handled its engagement with you will examine the specific issue that you have raised.



I will pass on to the Ombudsman’s office your concerns about Dr Aleck, as well as drawing to their attention that Flight Operations Inspector, Mr Naomichi Nishizawa is a subject matter expert on this matter.



Yours sincerely



Pip

[glenb]

Dear Ms Spence,

With the greatest of respect to your position.

Over 12 months ago, before Parliament and directly to Senator Susan McDonald, I made an allegation of Misfeasance in Public Office. I made that allegation against Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs. A substantive allegation. One that I stand 100% behind and can support with an overwhelming body of evidence.

For complete clarity, I am alleging that CASA has misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office in its current investigation and has done so with the intention of perverting the outcome of that investigation.

I have provided you with an opportunity to rapidly determine whether Mr Alecks Office has in fact misled the Ombudsman’s Office.

The Ombudsman’s Office appears to be of the view that, CASA was not integral in the design and approval of the APTA business model, and that CASA only became aware of the APTA business model just prior to reversing it approval without warning in October 2018.

That CASA position is the complete opposite of the truth.

CASA was integral in the design and approval of the APTA business model and was fully aware of the structure for 2 ½ years before they claim that they first became aware.

You suggested in your previous correspondence, that the Ombudsman could contact Flight Operations Inspector Mr. Naomichi Nishizawa. My suggestion is that you personally establish contact with your employee and put the question directly to him.

Ask him the following.


When did CASA first become aware of APTA?
How involved was CASA in the design and approval of CASA?
Why would CASA permit Latrobe Valley Aero Club to operate under Bairnsdale Air Charter but not under APTA?

With the responses to those questions, within 15 minutes, you will be able to make a determination as to whether this matter needs to be clarified with the Ombudsman office. I would also ask that you advise me of CASAs position as I am the person impacted.

Unlike CASA, my intention is not to “blindside” anybody. My request is entirely reasonable. Should you choose not to avail yourself of the opportunity, it then becomes a matter of Governance, at which stage I will, write with my request, directly to the CASA Board, and consider my option of contacting Mr Barnaby Joyce. Although Mr Joyce, was not the responsible Minister at time, and is relatively new to the role, I would urge him to draw on the knowledge of the previous Deputy PM, Mr McCormack who has extensive knowledge of this matter, and would be considered a Subject Matter Expert (SME).

For your information I will be appearing on an AOPA Facebook live conference at 7PM and would encourage you to view that program when time permits.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[Paragraph377]

Glen, Ms Spence is following the government manual entitled; “Mandarin Deflection Protocols For Career Bureaucrats’”. All agency heads have to study and apply the protocols contained within this manual when dealing with industry stakeholders, e.g Glen Buckley. Ms Spence is well versed in the procedures contained within the mandarin manual, particularly the chapters dealing with how to deny, deflect, obsfucate, divert, and cover up. You don’t become a Secretary, COO, CEO or any other fancy Department title without having proved yourself capable of engaging in the aforementioned protocols over an extended period of time.

Glen, for over 20 years the Loyola Lawyer has been able to crush and remove obstacles to CASA (people like yourself) by drawing on his narcissism, ego and pride, and of course his unique ability to write weasel words and ‘CASA get out of jail free cards’ into the regulations. He has made sure that he, as a public serpent, has an endless bucket of taxpayer money, access to a long list of high-end Barristers, and of course the naivety and stupidity of a list of former (and current) dopey CEO/DAS’s. He has the perfect work environment for a little old man with small cojones to work in.

Ms Spence will stay for a few years, then move on to another department. She will swan around the cafe scene of Can’tberra for a few more years yet, pick up her OAM, fill the superannuation account with many taxpayer dollars and then tootle pip off into the sunset. At that point, the game begins again……and again and again.

As always, I wish you the best in your endeavours Glen. Keep up the good work and may 2022 be the year that the thorn in CASA’s flesh be embedded deeper.

[glenb]

Dear Mr Buckley

Thanks for your follow up email

Just to be very clear, the issues you have raised are the issues I am expecting to be addressed in the Ombudsman’s independent review.

I am committed to supporting the ombudsman in their independent review and see that as a more appropriate path than undertaking an internal exercise that you are suggesting.

Yours sincerely

Pip



My Response

Dear Ms Spence,



Understood. I will contact the CASA Board.



Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[Paragraph377]

Dear Mr Buckley



Thanks for your follow up email



Just to be very clear, the issues you have raised are the issues I am expecting to be addressed in the Ombudsman’s independent review.



I am committed to supporting the ombudsman in their independent review and see that as a more appropriate path than undertaking an internal exercise that you are suggesting.



Yours sincerely



Pip

Ms Spence is actually ‘committed’ to relieving the taxpayers of approximately $700k per year, committed to rising even higher through the ranks of federal government in the Mandarin fantasy land, and she is committed to remaining a loyal footstool to the Minister of the day and licking, shining and polishing his boots (unless it’s Barnaby, whose boots are coated in cow **** and sweat!)

[glenb]

I have just been liaising with Ben Morgan from AOPA. We have delayed todays scheduled presentation at 7PM. I will get back to you as soon as i have the new date. Cheers. Glen

[Con Catenator]

Mr Naomichi Nishizawa is a subject matter expert......

That's an interesting comment

[glenb]

That's an interesting comment

Is the query as to why I would nominate him as a SME?

[glenb]

Have just been contacted by Ben Morgan of AOPA and we have rescheduled for 7PM tonight for the Facebook Live session. Cheers.

[Mr Approach]

When talking about any Federal Government office or senior bureaucrat, it is wise to bear in mind what has been written by those in the know. In this case an article by Bruce Haigh a former diplomat in DFAT<https://brucehaigh.com.au> "A quarter-century of failure in foreign policy mars Australian credibility". 12 Jan 2022. He is talking about John Howard however his message applies to all Senior Executive Service (SES) appointees.

"At the same time, he [John Howard] politicised the public service, directly intervening or applying pressure with respect to senior appointments. Political loyalty trumped ability and experience. The change soon affected the middle ranks of the public service, fearless and honest advice became a thing of the past, as the nation witnessed with the Tampa affair, children overboard, refugees detained in concentration camps. It was an evil policy and an indicator of worse to come."

[Paragraph377]

Glen, all levels of Government are now almost completely filled with parasites. From the lofty Ministers, the SES band, and down to the mid-tier and lower-tier managers. Departments filled with incompetent rule writers, filled with spin doctors and bull**** artists. They fill their days with long lunches, creating fancy pie charts and dazzling the public with an air of competence while in fact being complete idiots. They love to ‘promote’ diversity, create working groups that foster and implement meaningless bull**** into the Australian public service all at the expense of the taxpayer. The amount of actual time and money that CASA would have spent on the Glen Buckley saga would be mind boggling. A complete and utter waste of taxpayer money being used to ram the largest pineapple on earth up Glen’s ass. And why? Because some egos were bruised, some pride was dented, plus they have a handy bucket of endless taxpayer money that can be freely pissed against the wind.

Look around the world, in western nations. The people are restless, the troops are starting to revolt, society has had it up to their eyeballs with incompetent governments that seem to just keep on digging bigger holes to bury their citizens in. In future years there will continue to be a rise of independent politicians, of non-mainstream political parties, of smaller political groups with ideologies that match the current world scene.


Glen, keep up the fight and never waiver in quest to seek justice. If at the end of the day you expend every dollar you have and every drop of blood in your body, you will be able to sleep comfortably knowing that you did your very best. Only a few more months to go and you will have the creator of the aviation white paper, lickspittle Albanese and his Labor minions to contend with. There won’t be any changes in CASA though, the same unpolishable turd will remain.

[glenb]

Sorry folks, contacted by Ben again and unfortunately he is having difficulties connecting to Streamyard via the internet. Postponed again.

On the bright side, its our 25th wedding anniversary today. Had planned on redoing our vows and having a holiday for our 25th. Due to our current financial situation and health we will try again next year for our 26th anniversary hopefully.

This year, treating ourselves to takeaway. Looking forward to a good souvlaki. Not quite what i had planned years ago, but they do make a dam good souvlaki. I know it doesnt sound very romantic, but we do have a candle somewhere to add to the romantic night, and the lower light levels will cover up the sauces dribbling down my unshaven face, which would only have degraded the whole experience for my wife who is a staunch vegetarian. She will probably have a mung bean burger which may actually be even more disgusting.



Thanks all, and Im so sorry to have to postpone again. It will happen.

[glenb]

19/01/22



Attachments

· Two articles from Australian Flying “APTA before CASA action” and “APTA after CASA action”, provide a plain English overview.

· Emails clearly indicating CASA involvement 2 ½ years before CASA Executive Manager, Mr Jonathan Aleck has led the Ombudsman to believe that CASA first became aware of CASA.

· Copies of proposal and contract provided to CASA more than two years before they claim that they first became aware of CASA titled “ APTA agreement.”

· The CASA Worksheet obtained under FOI where CASA assessed all procedures, signed off on them, sent them for a peer review, approved them, 18 months before CASA claim that they first became aware.

· CASA initial Notification







Dear Air Chief Marshall (Retd) Mark Binskin AC, Chair of the Board of CASA, and Members of the CASA Board.

My name is Glen Buckley. You will be aware of my matter, as it has been the subject of an ongoing investigation by the Ombudsman’s Office, and I have written to the CASA Board on multiple occasions.



Background Information

CASAs basis for shutting down my business with no warning, was not based on any identified safety concerns, nor concerns about operational control, or in fact, any identified quality outcomes at all. CASA has never made any assertions against any of those criteria.

CASAs basis for closing my businesses was simply an allegation that my business was operating unlawfully against CAA 27(8), this was even though I had been operating for over a decade, and the last six years in the same “structure” that you claim was unlawful. Importantly, this structure was designed and revalidated over a two-year period with 10 CASA personnel involved and was fully revalidated 18 months prior to CASA suddenly determining that it was now “unlawful”.

CAA 27(8) was the only single piece of legislation that CASA ever made an allegation against and was the basis for declaring my business “not permitted”, giving it only 7 days surety of operations, placing restrictions on its ability to trade, enforcing an administrative freeze on all pending CASA regulatory tasks, and then contacting and requiring all customers to leave my business. This allegation made by CASAs Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Department, can be found, on the upper half of page 2 of the attached initial CASA notification (Appendix- Initial Notification).

In that correspondence you refer to the legislation and state, “Section 27(8) of the Civil Aviation Act states an AOC is not transferable. “

The interpretation and application of that legislation as a basis for closing my business down, with no prior warning, is the first time in my 25 years in the industry that I have seen it applied by you in that manner and has absolutely no industry precedent. For complete clarity, I do not feel it had any lawful basis, and I do not believe it was well intentioned. It was yet another case of Mr Jonathan Aleck decimating somebodys life and their livelihood.

CASAs previous and consistent interpretation of CAA 27(8) “an AOC is not transferable”, has been that the CASA issued AOC, cannot be sold or transferred on its own. i.e.


CASA permits an Authorisation Holder to sell his Company and AOC together.
CASA does not permit an Authorisation Holder to retain his Company and transfer the AOC only, to another Entity. The AOC cannot be sold as a “stand alone” item.

Hopefully you can appreciate my confusion, and why I have absolutely no understanding of why this specific legislation was used to cause so much harm. There was never any attempt by me to sell the business or transfer the AOC, either together or separately. None.

From my perspective, that allegation of a regulatory breach is ludicrous, and a complete change by CASA in the way that they had applied that legislation and has no precedent at all.

I completely refute that I ever transferred my AOC or considered transferring my AOC. I believe that your opinion has no valid basis in law or precedent

My allegation against CASA Executive Manager Jonathan Aleck of deliberately providing misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office

To the purpose of this correspondence. I am fully satisfied that substantive and misleading information has been provided to the Ombudsman’s Office with the intention to pervert the findings of the Ombudsman’s Office.

That information was most likely provided by CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, Mr Jonathan Aleck. You will be aware that I have made an allegation of misfeasance in public office against him in Parliament before the Senate inquiry and followed up with correspondence to the Board and the office of the Deputy PM at the time, Mr McCormack, as the Minister responsible for CASA.

You will also be aware that many other individuals and Organisations have made similar allegations against Mr Aleck of misconduct, none of which have been addressed by CASA. The continued coverup of Mr Alecks conduct through to the very highest levels of CASA is despicable and continues. As recently as yesterday, I have been contacted by people who have similarly had their entire lives decimated by this man.

The purpose of this correspondence is to bring to your attention that clearly misleading information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office by Mr Aleck, and for the Board to take appropriate action to ensure that the information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office is corrected, and that truthful information be provided.

You will be aware that I have written to Ms. Pip Spence, the CASA CEO, and she has chosen not to correct this situation. I understand that as an appointed public servant she may have other considerations that prevent her from acting in the manner that I would expect. It then becomes a matter of ethics, integrity, and truthfulness, it is a matter of Governance, and I feel it appropriate that I write to the Board.

Ms. Spences response was that she did not want to correct the clearly false information provided by Mr Aleck because she did not want to “interfere” with the investigation. I am fully satisfied that if CASA chooses not to correct that situation, then CASA is in fact becoming complicit in facilitating that situation, and therefore actually “interfering” in that investigation by choosing to endorse Mr Alecks blatant misrepresentation of the truth.

For complete clarity, I allege that CASAs Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Branch under Mr Aleck has clearly misled the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that CASA was not aware of APTAs structure until just prior to the notification in October 2018 that led to the closure of the business.

This substantially misrepresents the truthfulness of the situation. There has been substantially misleading information on several topics provided to the Ombudsman’s Office although in this correspondence I am addressing only this one topic. That being the prior knowledge that CASA had of my business model.

In support of my allegations, and calling on you to rectify the situation, I am providing you with the following information, all of which you have the capability to satisfy yourselves as to the accuracy of, and then to act as the Board of most organisations would be compelled to act on.



Evidence that CASA was fully aware of the exact structure of my business model well before CASA assertion that they first became aware, “just prior to October 2018” when they acted and closed my business down.


CASA own Industry Complaints Commissioner stated the following in his own investigation: “CASA had an awareness of the APTA business model for a significant period of time prior to its compliance with regulation being called into question. In changing its position so drastically, the circumstances were such that CASA’s actions weren’t fair, given APTA’s likely to have relied on CASA’s failure to highlight any concerns when conducting its operations and planning.”

If the findings of CASAs own Industry Complaints Commissioner are not enough to compel you to rectify the misinformation, then I ask you to also consider the following,




CASA had always permitted, and formally approved, more than one flying school entity to operate under a single AOC provided that the Authorisation Holder accepted full responsibility and accountability for all persons operating under the AOC irrespective of where they drew their salary. That was the case throughout my entire 25-year involvement in the industry, and in fact that was the case for decades prior. Any CASA Flight operations Inspector with experience prior to October 2018, will be able to verify the truthfulness of that situation to you. The CASA Board will be able to ascertain the truthfulness of that statement easily and promptly, and therefore becomes compelled to act.




CASA was fully aware that I had been delivering a multi base, multi entity approach to flight training for at least 6 years before CASA claim that they first became aware of it. With full CASA approval, and by way of formal processes, I had taken over operational control of AV8 (a Darwin based flying school), 6 years earlier. It is simply ludicrous for CASA to suggest that they had no knowledge of this operation, as a formal and comprehensive CASA process was required. This clearly demonstrates the precedent that CASA permitted such activity and was fully aware of what I was doing for at least 6 years before Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman’s office believe.




CASA approved via formal processes referred to as a Significant Change, the addition of other bases including, Melbourne Flight Training (my own school), Learn to Fly and AVIA. The latter two schools being Moorabbin flying schools not owned by me. The addition of these two additional bases occurred approximately two years before Mr Aleck claims CASA first became aware of the structure. This involved my business submitting manuals and procedures that were fully approved by CASA. It involved CASA visiting the sites to assess their suitability, and me having to pay fees for those CASA tasks.




CASA conducted the highest-level audit referred to as a Level One Audit. This occurred in November 2017, approximately 1 year before CASA claim that they first became aware of the structure. This involved visits to the CASA approved bases. It is not reasonable to claim that CASA auditors visited these bases and engaged with my Key personnel at those sites and addressed correspondence to my organisation about those audits at those sites. It would simply be ludicrous for CASA to maintain that they were not aware.




Many CASA employees attended our weekly Group Meetings, and minutes of those meetings and attendees can be provided. Ten CASA personnel attended those meetings 18 months before Mr Aleck claims that CASA first became aware. During the CASA attendance at those group safety meetings it was very clearly apparent that we were operating a multi base, multi entity structure. Furthermore CASA personnel attended and delivered briefings to meetings with all bases in attendance.




Mr Alecks false assertions also disregard the fact that APTA underwent a substantial process over a two year period as we attended to the revalidation of the structure as a Part 141/142 Organisation and was formally approved by CASA in April 2017, being 18 months before CASA claim that they first became aware. The design process with CASA was substantial and required an investment by me, of several hundred thousand dollars.




Whilst I cannot expect you personally to be a Subject Matter Expert on the topic, you do have access to resources within CASA to determine the truthfulness of the situation. I would encourage you to verify this information directly with Flight operations Inspector Naomichi Nishizawa, as he was the CASA employee directly involved in the process, at the time. He can verify that apart from a name change only from Melbourne Flight Training to APTA, the identical structure had been adopted with formal CASA approval for at least 6 years.




Similarly, Mr Nishizawa will also be able to confirm that the structure was fairly commonplace within the industry with many operators including Latrobe valley Aero Club which operated under the AOC of Bairnsdale Air Charter (BAC). When Latrobe Valley decided to change from operating under BAC to my business. It was my business that was declared unlawful and shut down with no prior warning.




In June 2016 I wrote to CASA advising that I intended to significantly expand this structure, and I sought CASA involvement in completely overhauling my operation and investing significantly in designing a system that was engineered and designed from the ground up to improve on what we we already doing. At the time CASA was very supportive of the concept, and you will be able to verify that by contacting the CASA employees involved in that process, and specifically current employee, Mr Naomichi Nishizawa. A number of past CASA employees have also contacted me offering to come forward and tell the truth on this matter. I worked side by side with 10 CASA personnel over a two-year period to redesign the business for the exact purpose of delivering this multi base multi entity structure. This required an investment of many hundreds of thousands of dollars.and the revalidation as a Part 141/142 Organisation occurred in April 2017 (18 months before CASA claim that they first became aware of APTA. At the time of this revalidation, I was operating in the multi base, multi entity structure, and had been for many years.




I invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars in a head office facility, personnel, manuals, and IT systems to continue delivering a far improved version of the multi base, multi entity structure that I like many other flying schools had been delivering throughout my 25-year involvement in the industry. This investment occurred many years before Mr Aleck asserts CASA first became aware.





In considering whether to correct this misinformation, I ask you to consider the following obligations placed on CASA which include, but are not limited to the following:



Purpose of the Board of CASA

“….to ensure CASA performs its functions properly, efficiently and effectively.



Obligations under the Public Governance, Performance and accountability Act 2013 (PGPA)

26. Duty to act honestly, in good faith and for a proper purpose

An official of a Commonwealth entity must exercise his or her powers, perform his or her functions and discharge his or her duties honestly, in good faith and for a proper purpose.

27. Duty in relation to use of position

An official of a Commonwealth entity must not improperly use his or her position:

(b) to cause, or seek to cause, detriment to the entity, the Commonwealth, or any other person.

28. Duty in relation to use of information

A person who obtains information because they are an official of a Commonwealth entity must not improperly use the information:

(b) to cause, or seek to cause, detriment to the Commonwealth entity, the Commonwealth or any other person.



CASAs own 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)





Aviation Safety consideration

The aviation safety consideration alone, should be enough to compel you to act. If my allegations are correct, and please be aware that there are many within industry would make the same allegations as mine, then you are compelled to act. Misconduct at the Executive Level of CASA cannot be facilitated by the CEO and Board.



Under the previous CASA CEO, Mr Shane Carmody there was a very vigorous campaign designed to crush me. Sadly, it has been successful. My mental and physical health is decimated. I have lost my home, and my two businesses, I have been left bankrupted and living week to week, terrified of how I will keep a roof over our head when inevitably My wife or I stop working, all without any safety case at all to support all the harm caused.

It is the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Australia’s National Aviation Safety Regulator operating under the Coat of Arms, the community is rightfully entitled to the very highest standards of ethics and integrity.

For complete clarity, Mr Jonathan Aleck has led the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that CASA was not fully involved in the design and approval of the business structure that I used.

I claim that CASA is deliberately and substantially misleading the Ombudsman’s Office in the investigation.

There is an overwhelming body of evidence to support my assertion that CASA had full knowledge of my structure, and to assert any other position is simply immoral, and most likely illegal.

I urge you to stand Mr Aleck aside on full pay until this matter can be fully investigated by CASA. By allowing the very person that substantive allegations have been made against to be the person responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman’s Office is not acceptable. I know of no organisation that would permit this to happen, and most certainly it should not be permitted within a Nations aviation safety regulator. The potential and ongoing risk to aviation safety of permitting a CASA Executive to remain in his position when such allegations have been made against him by so many affected individuals, cannot be justified on any level.

Should you choose not to stand him aside, I must insist that as a minimum he be immediately removed from any further involvement in this matter. An allegation of misfeasance in public office has been made against him, and he should not be the person nominated by CASA to be responsible for the provision of information to the Ombudsman’s Office. It makes no sense at all, on any level.

Without disclosing the current nature of my employment, I now work in a field in which many employees at any time are “under investigation”, some are permitted to remain operational during the investigation, whilst others are not. Most investigations find the employee has acted appropriately, and on occasions not.

Whilst I personally have not been under investigation, I will embrace the situation if it were to occur. It ensures a workplace with ethics and integrity. No doubt Mr Jonathan Aleck would welcome an investigation into his conduct, as I would in my own workplace. An innocent person has nothing to fear from a well-intentioned and well run investigation.

Surely the CASA Board must have a reasonable doubt as to the integrity of the information provided by Mr Aleck, and is compelled to act, and rectify the situation. Should the Board choose to facilitate this misinformation, my intention is to establish contact with Senator Susan McDonald and my local MP, Ms Gladys Liu requesting a two-hour meeting for me to fully brief them on the facts, and to bring this matter directly to the attention of Mr Barnaby Joyce, the Deputy PM, Leader of the Nationals and the Minister responsible for the conduct of CASA and its employees.

On February 11th, I will commence a group of sessions with a psychiatrist to attempt to repair the trauma caused by Mr Alecks conduct. I have finally accepted this option at the insistence of my GP and family. There is no doubt that Mr Aleck caused the financial harm, but CASAs continued coverup of this matter causes the psychological trauma. I am not the first to be impacted in this matter, but I must be the last.

I await a response from you, that you intend to clarify the truthfulness of CASA involvement and knowledge of the structure that I adopted with the Ombudsman’s Office.

Once again I extend my request to meet with any two Members of the CASA Board. The exact same request that I have made on multiple occasions over the last three years. That meeting should occur before the Ombudsman’s investigation is completed to ensure the accuracy of that investigation, and to ensure that the Ombudsman’s Office findings are based on facts and not blatant lies propagated by Mr Jonathan Aleck, to cover up his own misconduct.

Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Nice "pickup". Thankyou. Your suggestion embedded in previous post. Cheers. Glen

[Flaming galah]

Nice "pickup". Thankyou. Your suggestion embedded in previous post. Cheers. Glen

No worries mate. They will probably fish through what you said here and say because you reckoned the Independent Complaints Commissioner report is substandard and lacking honesty and integrity it must be wrong

[Paragraph377]

No CASA Board members will meet with you Glen, as they are gutless turds. They are too afraid to crawl out from behind the protective government wall that shields them from ‘’outsiders’ such as yourself. You see, you are not of their concern. Their sole purpose is keeping the government and its ministers safe in their cosy jobs, that is what concerns them the most. The Board are part of a protective barrier that keeps society at an arms length from their beloved minister. If you were to meet with them they might stumble in their conversation. You see, they need to communicate with you in writing only, they need to present your requests/queries/questions to CASA legal for a scripted response, which they send back to you. To meet with you face to face would be a horrific and unsettling experience for these bottom dwellers to go through. In their world that would be risky, you might ‘trip them up’, or they might verbally say something that supports your case, and they can’t risk that. These fools need scripts in front of them.

I applaud your tenacity Glen. You are a true champion for justice. At the very least your correspondence with the Board will no doubt cause the Chair to take time out from his busy schedule of drinking kale latte’s, eating keto salads and licking every particle of dust off the ministers shiny shoes.

[Flaming galah]

No CASA Board members will meet with you Glen, as they are gutless turds. They are too afraid to crawl out from behind the protective government wall that shields them from ‘’outsiders’ such as yourself.

Post 1843 makes this statement being expressed in such absolute terms wrong.

[Paragraph377]

Post 1843 makes this statement being expressed in such absolute terms wrong.
Just because Ms Spence says that she and the Chair are happy to meet with Glen does not mean that they will actually do so. CASA is as trustworthy as Ivan Milat with a rifle. Seeing is believing. The day that Glen actually meets with Spence and the Chair face to face is the day that CASA earn a morsel of credibility. Until then, buyer beware.

[glenb]

Approximately 3 hours after sending that previous correspondence to the Board,in Post #1878, the Board has digested the information and responds with the following via the Board Secretariat.

Dear Mr. Buckley

Thankyou for the email copied below. The Chair has advised that you requested an independent review of your allegations. This request was supported by the Chair and the Director of Aviation Safety and is currently in train with the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Until it is completed, none of the Board members will interfere with that process.

Once the review is completed, I understand the Chair intends to meet with you.

Best regards

XXXXXX XXXXXXXX

[havick]

Approximately 3 hours after sending that previous correspondence to the Board,in Post #1878, the Board has digested the information and responds with the following via the Board Secretariat.

Dear Mr. Buckley

Thankyou for the email copied below. The Chair has advised that you requested an independent review of your allegations. This request was supported by the Chair and the Director of Aviation Safety and is currently in train with the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Until it is completed, none of the Board members will interfere with that process.

Once the review is completed, I understand the Chair intends to meet with you.

Best regards

XXXXXX XXXXXXXX

positive turn of events Glen!

[glenb]

Good to have you following still. Cheers.

Yes, it is good that CASA will finally provide me the opportunity to meet. Unfortunately i had hoped to have that meeting before the Ombudsmans Report, to correct the significant amounts of misinformation provided by CASAs, Mr Jonathan Aleck.

From my experience to date with the Ombudsman Office, enormous weight is attached to CASAs input when compared to mine. The misinformation that has been provided by CASA, in my opinion will potentially pervert the outcome. I had hoped that at Board level there would have been enough concerns that they corrected this situation. Apparently not.

This must surely come to an end soon, as I am expecting the final Ombudsman report in about a month or so.

[Sandy Reith]

As reported here from the Board, quote:- “Until it is completed, none of the Board members will interfere with that process.”

This shows that this Board is most reluctant to investigate the facts and truth of Glen’s situation. If it was feeling any responsibility, or wished to test the validity of CASA’s intentions and actions against APTA, it would be inviting Glen to hearings and asking for all of his documentation.

The notion that the Board would be interfering with a “process” is is a specious and fraudulent argument. It’s an unworthy and transparent falsehood because there’s no process, unless hand balling the hot potato is your idea of “a process.”

There is no legal, practical or commonsense reason for the Board to refrain from ascertaining the facts. The reverse is true and would be the responsible course of action.

If this was not so then how is it that it is proper for the Chairman to meet Glen but no other Board members? If there were any other Board members meeting him, where’s the problem? I would urge all the Board members to engage with Glen Buckley in every way possible.

This could then be a watershed, not only for Glen but for the whole of General Aviation because the Board would become familiar with the whole disastrous modus operandi of CASA. They might even become aware of the colossal damage that’s been perpetrated on the whole of the GA industry, including the loss of jobs, services and related GA businesses over the last twenty five years.

[Paragraph377]

This could then be a watershed, not only for Glen but for the whole of General Aviation because the Board would become familiar with the whole disastrous modus operandi of CASA. They might even become aware of the colossal damage that’s been perpetrated on the whole of the GA industry, including the loss of jobs, services and related GA businesses over the last twenty five years.
The Board don’t want to know about Glen and they certainly couldn’t give a handful of monkey crap about GA. The Boards role is to link hands and dance a protective circle around the Minister. That’s the way it always has been and that’s the way it always will be. It’s never been about aviation, it’s always been about giving the public false confidence that the aviation watchdog is doing a great job at ensuring safe skies for all. Now, we all know that is a load of baloney, but the public don’t know any better do they? As long as the Ministers ears are hearing the words “everything is fine, Australian aviation is safe and Qantas chairman’s lounge membership has been renewed” he is happy. And if the Minister is happy the Board will continue to be paid ridiculous amounts of money to meet together and sip herbal tea while eating kale sandwiches.

[Sandy Reith]

Paragraph377 forecasts the a likely outcome overall but industry pressure has got them rattled. Not much but enough to encourage, and certainly showing signs that we’ve not seen since the CASASTROPHE was formed.

The extraordinary RRAT video with CEO Pip Spence floundering about while the now real CEO, Jon Aleck, is visibly relaxing in the knowledge that the initials PS might describe someone’s career end point.

But hold the press, out today is Barnaby Joyce’s new Statement of Expectations. While it has more escape hatches than a slab of honey comb its provisions could be used to up the ante if BJ is the Minister after the election. That’s not much more than conjecture but the wording is different from the run of all previous SoE’s. It even has a requirement that the Board make regular reports on its deliberations. That will give rise to plenty of PR drivel but even that will give us ammunition.

[Sandy Reith]

There was a presumption that Barnaby Joyce would, for the first time in 34 years make some some requirements of CASA that would cause at some some specific reforms to show he means business, CPR with timelines.

What a shame, the de facto CASA CEO won’t have much trouble with that lot because BJ still persists with the idiotic notion of safety being the most important consideration, rather than the health of Australia’s aviation industry.

There it is plainly told, emphasised to CASA and to Australia’s aviation industry.

The well being, the usefulness, the opportunities, the job creation, the international harmonisation, airspace reform, drone ops, aircraft maintenance, Angel Flight’s carriage of sick people to treatment, the flying training, the charter flying, the fairness of the regulatory environment and the costs to General Aviation are all subservient to “safety,”

This SoE gives JA even more work to make reports and comply with the necessity to plan this and that, consult with ‘stakeholders,’ create task forces to decide who are these stakeholders and devise new ways of gathering statistics (more unpaid work from GA operators).

All of the above are catered for in the SoE because CASA is instructed to obtain adequate resources in order to fulfil the requirements of the SoE. The symmetry is beautiful, increase the fees to industry in order to comply with the SoE.

This new SoE is novel in its instructions to consider many matters that could go to the reforms that are desperately needed to revive the battered body of General Aviation. But it all hinges on interpretation and whether or not Minister Joyce, if re-elected and remains the Minister, is prepared to follow through.

There is not only the ‘safety’ catch all excuse that spoils this half hearted, improbable attempt to cause reform but the utterly muddled and unresolved concept about the lines of responsibility. Joyce talks about CASA’s independence in the same breathe as exposing the bleeding obvious, that when all is said and done he, as Minister, is responsible along with Parliament.

There’s not been sufficient intelligence applied to this statement because to do so draws one to the inevitable conclusion, that you can’t possibly have it both ways.

Here is exposed the true problem, the model of governance has by any standard failed. Not in a spectacular fashion, such as a fall at the last hurdle, but in a steadily worsening disease over the last two and three decades. This explains in part the lack of recognition to the miserable state of affairs. Even many in GA and certainly our MPs, won’t easily grasp what’s been lost and therefore cannot understand what the benefits to Australia would be with a proper going aviation industry.

The only real hope for aviation in Australia is for the administration to be conducted through a Department of Government with a Minister in charge, this is the proven Westminster system.

Governance by ‘independent’ Commonwealth corporations is an anathema to our freedoms and democratic responsible government.

Any joy here for Glen? Not much but the otherwise invisible CASA Board is instructed to issue “communiques” about its deliberations, therefore it might have to mention ’the war,’ heaven forbid even Glen’s name might appear. However there’s no stipulated timeline and no doubt there’ll be lots of PR drivel about how they are considering world’s best practice but safety is the highest and overriding consideration.

[Paragraph377]

Sandy:

”The only real hope for aviation in Australia is for the administration to be conducted through a Department of Government with a Minister in charge, this is the proven Westminster system”.

That pretty much sums it up. Sandy is bang on the money. A junior Minister for aviation would be a step in the right direction. To be followed by rewriting the ridiculous Act, adopting the NZ regs and dismantling and then rebuilding CASA. But to have that sort of change implemented within our government really hinges solely on having an event occurring such as a national carrier laying fragmented in the bottom of a smoking hole. An unpalatable thought.

The wiley Loyola Lawyer dropped Spence headfirst onto a giant bucket of **** early in the peace. While he remains cleaner than a Priests frock, she looks like she has been mudlarking on the River Thames. Once again, the Doc puts his own personal stamp on CASA while making the CEO/DAS of the day look like a complete breadcrumb. Welcome to life at CASA Pip, fun times for all. I hope you realise that your credibility is completely destroyed. Your only shot at retribution is to rid CASA of its dross and reform the regulator. Good luck on that count.

In regards to Tomato Head Joyce, he will be in opposition sometime after May 2022. Team Morrison are damaged goods. The creators of the ‘great Australian aviation elephant in the room white paper’, team Labor, will be back to wreck further damage to our already broken country.

Glen, the best outcome we can hope for is financial compensation for you. You’ve earned it, you deserve it, you are entitled to it. That would be a positive outcome for you, your family, and those who support you from the sidelines. Anything above that such as a CASA reform/restructure/giant pineapple from the Minister would be a little extra treacle on the pudding, but not something to hold one’s breath waiting for.

[Sandy Reith]

If we’ve made the slightest difference, and collectively that’s at least probable, and Glen finally achieves financial compensation then we’d be entitled to some gratification. We do have freedom of expression and need to use that right often but carefully.

[Paragraph377]

I am hoping (dreaming) that one day the Government looks at “aviation” as being more than just QF chairman’s lounge privileges. Australian has so much capacity to build up aviation related businesses - passenger travel, freight and cargo operations, maintenance, pilot training, engineering, aircraft and component building and design, fixed wing, rotary, commercial and recreational training, licensing, aircraft storage, and the list goes on. A multi billion dollar sector with the capacity to grow, lead and develop opportunities.

For an isolated nation, aviation is a necessary pathway for our existence. To achieve this, we need clear, concise and workable rules that don’t inhibit the industry or destroy it, but instead enables it to survive and grow. This is where Glen’s case is more than just one man’s journey for justice. What happened had a ripple effect - lives destroyed, businesses destroyed, opportunities lost, careers lost, value to the economy lost! CASA’s actions have a far reaching impact that goes beyond their pride and egos. These sorts of actions have been dealt out by CASA for decades. It really is about time that the accountable Minister actually accepted responsibility for the mess and demanded that his bureaucrats fix it once and for all.

[Sandy Reith]

Para..”It really is about time that the accountable Minister actually accepted responsibility for the mess and demanded that his bureaucrats fix it once and for all.”
Spot on and we’ve probably taken a while to come to grips the inherent and root cause of the debacle that is Australia’s debilitated GA sector, the independent regulator, a hands off attempt by Parliament to govern by remote control, all care (tea and sympathy, see Senator McDonald) but no responsibility.

Note the the two year timeline for her Senate Committee investigation.

At the time of it seemed an inordinately long inquiry. didn’t wake up to the logical sense of it going through to election time so that there was no possibility of reform action in this Parliamentary term.

McDonald and Sterle could have kicked up a racket but no, kicked the can down the road instead.

[Sunfish]

Good luck Glen.

[glenb]

Sunfish, welcome back. i believe you may have made a comment on another forum and i would sincerely welcome you posting it on here for me to respond to. Cheers folk.

[MalcolmReynolds]

CASA are a total disgrace. I have nothing but the utmost contempt and disdain for all these bastards! Thank God I operate under another National Aviation Authority now. They should be all ashamed!

[Lead Balloon]

Oh gawd, the usual ‘peace for our (aviation) time’ crowd are waving the new CASA Statement of Expectations around.

Tell me: What is the penalty for not complying with the CASA SOE and who pays that penalty? I can’t find any strict liability offences or penalty units in it, or in the Civil Aviation Act sections to which it refers. Whose arse is on the line and how?

Emergency back-up toilet paper supply is about all it’s good for.

[Sunfish]

Oh gawd, the usual ‘peace for our (aviation) time’ crowd are waving the new CASA Statement of Expectations around.

Tell me: What is the penalty for not complying with the CASA SOE and who pays that penalty? I can’t find any strict liability offences or penalty units in it, or in the Civil Aviation Act sections to which it refers. Whose arse is on the line and how?

Emergency back-up toilet paper supply is about all it’s good for.

It doesn't read like toilet paper to me, and I have been accused of being a pessimist before.

It reads to me like a coherent blueprint for change and I note that Sections 12 and 12A of the Act specify that the Minister may make Directions that specify what and how the Minister requires CASA to do and subclause in each section says that CASA and its Board must comply with the Ministers directions. The SOE requires measurable outcomes that are very specific, so if they are not delivered to the Ministers satisfaction, CASA and its Board must answer to him.

A for penalties, I'm sure senior managers will walk away with big money but considering the damage some of them may have done, is a few million from the public purse thhat much to get rid of them?

Of course the Litmus test of CASA and the Minister Bona Fides is how they resolve Glen Buckley's case. Fingers crossed for Glen.

[Paragraph377]

It doesn't read like toilet paper to me, and I have been accused of being a pessimist before.

It reads to me like a coherent blueprint for change and I note that Sections 12 and 12A of the Act specify that the Minister may make Directions that specify what and how the Minister requires CASA to do and subclause in each section says that CASA and its Board must comply with the Ministers directions. The SOE requires measurable outcomes that are very specific, so if they are not delivered to the Ministers satisfaction, CASA and its Board must answer to him.


Sunfish, no disrespect intended but you have been dazzled by the shining lights of the SOE. To that end, the Minister has done his job well. Bait, hook and catch.

The SOE is meaningless drivel. All words and no action. They draft similar crap every year, and across all other government agencies as well. Meaningless, hollow, horse ****. It’s like saying that politicians have a duty to serve their constituents and they do it well. Yeah right!! They rort the system, engage in branch stacking, porkbarrelling, falsify travel allowances, and act unethically and immorally and lie and deceive. Yet their terms of employment says different.

Real change will be recognised the day that Spence gets rid of certain individuals, the Regulator is dismantled and rebuilt, the Act is changed and the NZ regs are adopted. Anything less than that, included silly SOE’s and other glossy motherhood statements should be viewed as what they really are - bull****.

[Lead Balloon]

The new SOE is as practically meaningless as the previous ones.
CASA should perform its functions in accordance with the [Civil Aviation Act [1988], the Airspace Act 2007 and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 as well as other relevant legislation.CASA “should” do things in accordance with the law? That’s some special genius, right there.

Guess what Minister? CASA is already obliged to do things in accordance with the law. If you and your Parliamentary buddies spent more time making CASA comply with the law, it wouldn’t have the reputation it has and so many people wouldn’t have lost faith and trust in you and your buddies. You and your buddies created the CASA monster and you continue to let it wreak havoc.
The SOE requires measurable outcomes that are very specific, so if they are not delivered to the Ministers satisfaction, CASA and its Board must answer to him.Quell horreur! The humanity!

When hell freezes over and a Minister sacks a CASA CEO or Board member or all of them at once, what difference do you reckon that would make, Sunfish? Diddly.

The previous CEO “completed” and “resolved” the longstanding regulatory reform program in accordance with the previous SOE. Got a nice shiny Gong and a bag of gold for his troubles. Anyone on planet Earth really reckon the current pile of regulatory crap is “completed”? Anyone outside the ‘Canberra bubble’, that is.

The safety of air navigation trumps everything. And who decides what is and is not in the interests of the safety of air navigation? Not the Minister. The Authority.

The Authority must know best, because it’s the Authority. Why else would it be the Authority?
review its regulatory philosophy and update it if required, in consultation with the aviation sector, by the end of 2022Done. About 15 minutes of work to paper that one over.

fully consider the impact of new regulations on general aviation, with a particular focus on regional and remote AustraliaThat word “fully” is going to need a few more minutes’ work. And I reckon lots of travel. Lots of important people are going to need to travel to regional and remote Australia – not in any of those dangerous little aircraft mind you, and only to places with sufficient starred accommodation.

review its consultation framework with stakeholders in the aviation community to support developing fit-for-purpose regulatory amendments and addressing key safety issues by 30 June 2022Done. Another 15 minutes.

release an exposure draft of proposed regulations for industry consultation before regulations are sent for approvalAlready doing that.

review its client services standards and ensure there are key performance indicators, such as processing times, for all client delivery functions published on its website by 30 June 2022Getting an organisation to decide on its own KPIs? When I was told I needed to establish and report on KPIs for my own team’s performance, I said: “I guarantee our performance will look excellent against the KPIs I choose.”

Dontcha think the KPIs should be set by the people who pay for the so-called ‘service’ or the Parliament which created the monster?

seek to publish by 1 May 2022 a work plan of measures being developed that will reduce, where appropriate, the regulatory burden on general aviationI seek to win Lotto each week. And who decides what’s “appropriate”? You guessed it.

provide an annual report on CASA’s forward regulatory program and how the views of the aviation community have been taken into account.The views of the aviation community are always taken into account by consultation, then promptly ignored to the extent it's convenient “appropriate”.

(And could someone tell the brains trust at Australian Flying magazine that there is no “Civil Aviation Act 1996”.)

[Stickshift3000]

The new SOE is as practically meaningless as the previous ones.

Hardly surprising. When I worked at a (state) regulatory authority the business units wrote the SOE's themselves, for the Minister's endorsement.

There wasn't much point in aspiring to ground-breaking, truly significant achievements if there was a risk they not be met. One of many appalling frameworks I had the pleasure of working with.

[Sunfish]

Well there I was, thinking that the door to the promised land had opened a crack and a ray of sunshine had got out but you lot slam the door shut and tell me I was dreaming.

Let me keep my pathetic optimism a shade longer; if CASA were to be reformed, wouldn't you at least start with an SOE like this?

[Lead Balloon]

Nah. You'd start with blowing the whole thing up, never speaking of it again and starting anew.

Anyone who thinks the Australian sky would fall in if close to $1Billion were not spent on an organisation like CASA each year are the kinds of people who think the traffic lights turning green causes cars to move.

[Paragraph377]

Let me keep my pathetic optimism a shade longer; if CASA were to be reformed, wouldn't you at least start with an SOE like this?
Sunfish, how can a ‘statement’ written by the Board, vetted by some Uni twerps in PMC, and then digitally signed by the Minister, be taken seriously? As the Screaming Skull would say; “it’s all tautological nonsense”. And that’s all that CASA’s yearly SOE is - same ****, different year. As Lead Balloon said, the only way to reform the mother of all Frankensteins, CASA, is to level it and rebuild. Nothing worth saving, start afresh.

[Sunfish]

Para377: Sunfish, how can a ‘statement’ written by the Board, vetted by some Uni twerps in PMC, and then digitally signed by the Minister, be taken seriously? As the Screaming Skull would say; “it’s all tautological nonsense”. And that’s all that CASA’s yearly SOE is - same ****, different year. As Lead Balloon said, the only way to reform the mother of all Frankensteins, CASA, is to level it and rebuild. Nothing worth saving, start afresh.

I think I understand that you and many others have just cause to be cynical about the SOE and I can't blame you. I think you might change your view slightly if and when Glens matter is resolved especially if the activities of CASA as alleged are found to have occurred and Glen is justly made whole.

As for those "uni twerps at PMC", if any of them were to read that, they would have a good laugh. Sorting CASA would be in a (Sunday) mornings work for them.

The story behind what has just happened would, I suspect, make an entertaining episode of a TV series, but we will never know.

Yeah I know "Vision", "Mission Statements", corporate business plans, "its all BS innit?". Not if its properly done and carried through.

Do you think that the Minister, PMC, Department, Board and DAS don't know where resistance to change is going to come from?

If I was a senior manager at CASA, I would be applying for a new position, any position, right now because I suspect I know what is going to happen.

I think you may be pleasantly surprised by what happens, assuming of course we don't end up in a shooting war with Russia in the meantime.

[glenb]

Sunfish, i hope you are correct. Its interesting I've been contacted by a number of people, some of the view that the new Statement of Expectations is a positive move forward, and others more cynical.

From my own personal experience dealing with CASA on my matter over the last three years, I fall on the cynical side.

CASA has absolutely no accountability at all, and most especially at the Executive Level. Despite the Organizational chart and in the spirit of "Yes Minister", it is Mr Jonathan Aleck that runs CASA. Others come and go, but for almost two decades its Aleck that runs the show..

CASA already has a Regulatory Philosophy, but it means absolutely nothing. In my own matter they have shown a flagrant disregard for that Regulatory Philosophy, and most certainly 9 of the 10 items.

Its all up to the Minister of the day. Under the previous Deputy PM, Michael McCormack they got away with murder. The Statement of Expectations is a Ministerial Document that has no head of power or any accountability. Under weak leadership displayed by McCormack it means nothing to Aleck, who simply does whatever he wants, and plighs his narcissistic trade with complete disregard for any ethics. I fear it may be the same under Barnaby Joyce. CASA feeds the Minister the information and the minister .accepts it.

It really is just a document that has absolutely no value. Far less even than any legislation. The responsible Minister doesn't have the expertise to measure CASA against his expectations, he or she depends on CASA to make that assessment.

As the word count gets longer in the Sof E every time it is released, it simply becomes more offensive. Not until the responsible Minister acts, or old age catches up with Aleck will anything change.

[skinduptruk]

CASA decisions can be over-ruled by the AAT.

I'd be happy to FOI everything to do with APTA once my own FOIs are done! 🕵🏻‍♂️

The "independent" review will find that AAT reviews + FOI requests are "adequate and available means" to address the concerns of pilots. And will encourage you to utilise such. I think I read in Senate ctte Sub #70 that even Dr Aleck suggests taking Part 149 decisions that CASA makes to AAT to be over-ruled (as required).

The Board thinks in terms of generic risk aka can we claim "plausible deniability" yet.

🐍🪜🐍🪜🐍

[glenb]

[QUOTE=skinduptruk;11177350]CASA decisions can be over-ruled by the AAT.

I'd be happy to FOI everything to do with APTA once my own FOIs are done! 🕵🏻‍♂️

The "independent" review will find that AAT reviews + FOI requests are "adequate and available means" to address the concerns of pilots. And will encourage you to utilise such. I think I read in Senate ctte Sub #70 that even Dr Aleck suggests taking Part 149 decisions that CASA makes to AAT to be over-ruled (as required).

The Board thinks in terms of generic risk aka can we claim "plausible deniability" yet.

🐍🪜🐍🪜🐍[/QUOTE

Cheers Skinduptruk

Appreciate the support. Later today i intend to write directly to Mr Barnaby Joyce to clearly bring my allegation of misfeasance in public office and provide irrefutable evidence that Aleck has intentionally mislead the Ombudsman’s office.

I will await Mr Joyce response before my next action. Cheers

[skinduptruk]

Below is my first email of about 5x to the office of the Minister for Transport. It might give you some ideas. Ultimately the chief of staff made a few calls and got CASA to progress a little, but then things ground to a halt in mid-Jun 21. So I referred CASA to the AAT at that time. My thread is over on the "Pacific Q+A" forum here on PPRuNe as you know.

***

24 Sep 20

Good afternoon Minister Mccormack,

Please be advised that CASA (per attached) is consuming resources forcing paraglider pilots to join a monopoly sporting club known as SAFA / HGFA.

The SAFA company (LLC) does not follow due process so I cannot re-join them in clear conscience. I was formerly, and still am, an experienced SAFA rated PG4 pilot with 270 hrs experience.

CASA has my Part 149 paperwork which addresses the risks involved. Instead of reviewing and approving this paperwork, CASA sends letters which threaten me with excessive penalties (aimed at mechanical airplanes rather than sporting parachutes, which are silent, low momentum, and can land in almost any small clearing).

Ironically the alleged breach would be, and has been, addressed by this very same Part 149 paperwork which CASA is currently ignoring!

CASA Sport Aviation Team has a copy of the relevant email history, less than 6x emails cover the sad story to date.

I am hopeful that your quick look review will reset the CASA behaviour which currently benefits no one.

Cheers
Kurt

[Lead Balloon]

Yes - Some CASA decisions can be ‘over-ruled’ by the AAT. But CASA has to make that decision first.

CASA’s latest trick is to say an application is not complete because, for example, all the information required to “satisfy” CASA has not been submitted by the applicant, CASA does not have to make a decision until the application is complete, so there is no decision reviewable by the AAT. CASA played that trick on both you (Kurt) and you (Glen). It’s a very neat way to avoid external review (unless you can afford the money to risk an excursion to the Federal Court to get a deemed refusal).

[glenb]

01/02/2022



Appendix

- Hansards Report of my allegation of “misfeasance in public office” against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Services.

-Emails clearly indicating CASA awareness 2 ½ years before Mr Aleck has led the Ombudsmans Office to be aware.





Dear Mr Barnaby Joyce, Leader of the Nationals, Deputy PM, and the Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

My name is Glen Buckley, you will have some awareness of my matter, although I acknowledge that this matter was initiated under Mr Michael McCormack when he was acting in the role of Deputy PM and the Minister at the time responsible for CASA. Mr Michael McCormack would be the Subject Matter Expert (SME) within the Nationals and would be able to fully brief you.

Similarly, in accordance with the Ministers Statement of Expectations of CASA an obligation is placed on the Board to keep you fully informed, and that would be another resource available to you.

Senator McDonald, a highly regarded advocate of the General Aviation (GA) Industry also has knowledge of the matter, and in fact I raised my allegations of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs before her on 20/11/20, and that presentation can be accessed via here, as well as the copy of Hansard that I have provided. I followed those allegations up with written correspondence to Mr Michael McCormack.

GA Inquiry - 20/11/20: Glen Buckley - Part I - YouTube

GA Inquiry - 20/11/20: Glen Buckley - Part II - YouTube

GA Inquiry - 20/11/20: Glen Buckley - Part III - YouTube

A Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation of my matter has been ongoing over a period of the last three years and is still continuing. Commonwealth Ombudsman Reference 2019-713834-R

The purpose of this correspondence is to respectfully request the direct intervention of your Office

Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regultory Affairs has on multiple occasions provided clearly untruthful and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office , presumably for the purpose of covering up his misconduct, and perverting the outcome of the investigation. For complete clarity, I am fully satisfied that his action was deliberate, as he knew the information to be clearly false at the time he provided it.

Mr Jonathan Aleck has been responsible for leading the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that CASA did not become aware of the structure of my Organisation until just prior to October 2018 when they sent notification to me and advised that my business of more than ten years was operating illegally and shut it down.

I have previously written to both the CASA CEO and to the CASA Board on the matter of misleading information provided by Mr Aleck, and copies of that communication can be accessed via the following link. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 94 - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-94.html) The forum on my particular topic has currently had in excess of 900,000 views and has attracted wide industry interest and involvement because of the potential ramifications to the wider industry. My correspondence to the CASA CEO Ms Spence and subsequent correspondence to the Board can be found between Posts #1862 to #1884 on that forum, if you do not already have access to it.

I have attached emails dating back 2 ½ years before Mr Aleck claims that CASA” first became aware of APTA”. Mr Aleck asserts that CASA became aware just prior to October 2018, and that is clearly false.

I am able to submit an overwhelming body of evidence in support of my allegation, but for the sake of expediency I have attached only theemails dating back to June 2016 that clearly demonstrate that I intended to expand on the same activity that I had been doing for 6 years previously. For Mr Aleck to assert that CASA first became aware in October 2018 is clearly untruthful.

I am able to provide an overwhelming body of evidence in support of my allegation if those emails alone are not sufficient, and that includes directing you to current CASA Employees who have come forward and offered to tell the truth on this matter.

Whilst I appreciate that the CASA CEO and Board have elected not to correct the misinformation, it seems entirely unacceptable, and creates a waste of Government resources which is not in accordance with obligations placed on CASA by the PGPA Act.

By providing clearly false information, it only wastes governments resources. The Ombudsman’s Office should be presented with the facts and make a determination on truthful advice provided to it. In fact, the reason that this investigation has dragged on for three years is because CASA has directed significant resources to providing clearly untruthful information.

I would like to refer to specific excerpts from your own Statement of Expectations of CASA, where you stipulate the following expectations. With all due respect, I feel you will be compelled to act.


“CASA should perform its functions in accordance with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013”
“CASA resources be used in an efficient,, effective, economical, and ethical way”
“conduct and values of CASAs staff should be consistent with those of the Australian Public Service.
“I expect the CASA Board to be transparent in carrying out its functions”
“ I expect CASA will implement its regulatory approach in accordance with its Regultory Philosophy” Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au) (https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/our-regulatory-philosophy)
“My expectation is that CASA will perform its functions in a manner consistent with the Act and has appropriate regard to the economic and cost impacts of its decisions and actions on individuals, businesses and the community”
“CASA will be transparent”



My intention is to write directly to you again comprehensively on this matter in 14 days, and my hope is that in the interim, you are able to send a very clear direction to the CASA Board that they are to ensure any information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office is truthful, and to correct any false information previously provided by Mr Jonathan Aleck immediately that they have doubts as to the accuracy of the information provided by Mr Aleck to the Ombudsman’s Office.

Please understand that Mr Aleck has bought enormous harm to me and my family, and his actions have cost me many millions of dollars and left me bankrupted and destitute. It has resulted in businesses dependant on me closing, staff losing employment, and both domestic and international students having their training impacted, and suppliers being unpaid.

Many individuals and Organisations have made allegations of misconduct against Mr Jonathan Aleck and the Legal, International and Regulatory branch over many years, and it is extremely concerning that the organisation has such negligible levels of accountability, and most especially from the Nations Aviation Safety Regulator CASA operating under Australia’s Coat of Arms. A symbol that suggests the very highest standards of ethics and integrity.

You will be aware that Mr Alecks conduct is increasingly coming under scrutiny due to industry being frustrated by his conduct over many years, and that includes Angel Flight, the family of Mr Bruce Rhoades which formed the basis of an ABC investigation, Bristelle, Jabiru, Shannon Baker, Kurt Pudniks, Polar, etc etc. The list is exhaustive.

You may also be aware that an industry wide petition is now being organised calling for a Royal Commission into CASA Royal Commission into CASA petition. - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/644305-royal-commission-into-casa-petition.html)

Please Mr Joyce, I urge you to demonstrate strong and ethical leadership and hold Mr Aleck to account, and direct CASA to be truthful in their dealings with the Ombudsman’s Office.

I would also ask that you request the CASA Board to provide you with CASAs safety case for closing down my business. My reasonable expectation is that Mr Alecks decision making would be supported by risk based and evidence driven decision making. You fill find that CASA is unable to provide any safety case whatsoever for closing down my business with no prior warning.

Thankyou for your consideration of my matter, and I will write to you comprehensively within 14 days.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

For Pprune members who are able to open attachments. Post #1814 on page 91 has the attachments of email correspondence with CASA. These emails are two and a half years before Aleck has led the Ombudsman to believe.

[skinduptruk]

Here is the post #1814 LINK (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa-91.html#post11138004)

Is there any chance Costa, Cheshire, and Fox (CASA) will simply say they didnt tell anyone?! Not really an excuse though. I hope you get to discuss with the Minister and/or his office staff asap.

Agree with LB the latest CASA trick is that they try to avoid making decisions. I may have luckily defeated that by stating that their decision to not make a decision - is a decision in itself! ;)

[Lead Balloon]

Yes. Not making a decision is a decision itself.

But not a reviewable decision.

There's law about that.

[skinduptruk]

imho not making a decision impacts on my rights. see link below.

ie. the unreasonable delay of *an otherwise reviewable* decision ought to be a reviewable decision too. must admit i will have to search AustLII high and low to find a case example of that. maybe CASA are brilliant legal innovators after all! :P

***

Kitto J continued to state that to ascertain the true character of the law, we examine what it does "in the way of changing or creating or destroying duties or rights or powers"

LINK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airlines_of_New_South_Wales_Pty_Ltd_v_New_South_Wales_(No_2) )

[Lead Balloon]

I agree, entirely.

So what do you do, next, after you're ignored despite the powerful judicial precedent you've quoted? Write to the Minister or the CASA CEO or the CASA Board?

Listen carefully: They couldn't give a ****.

Welcome to the party.

[skinduptruk]

Aus Constitution says only the courts shall decide how the law is applied.

High Court is only $4,000 and one can represent oneself.

[Paragraph377]

Aus Constitution says only the courts shall decide how the law is applied.

High Court is only $4,000 and one can represent oneself.

Maybe so, but CASA has at its disposal a bottomless pit of money and an endless line of Barristers. It can, does, and will use these resources to crush the little man on the street when required.

[skinduptruk]

In court only the quality of your argument should matter.

Angel Flight Submission #71 is worth a read on this page (https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/GeneralAviation/Submissions).

I have some highlights below.


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/4f9a59cc_4c99_4321_9f56_895f4662af91_10af70680a9b5a796923901 9c2fbd2745812b7fa.jpeg
Angel Flight page 1
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/76575e1d_db5f_420f_8b7e_0332334d828c_113162f863da10514cacf26 b599dba45e0375a48.jpeg
Angel Flight page 2

[Paragraph377]

In court only the quality of your argument should matter.

Angel Flight Submission #71 is worth a read on this page (https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/GeneralAviation/Submissions).

I have some highlights below.


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/4f9a59cc_4c99_4321_9f56_895f4662af91_10af70680a9b5a796923901 9c2fbd2745812b7fa.jpeg
Angel Flight page 1
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/76575e1d_db5f_420f_8b7e_0332334d828c_113162f863da10514cacf26 b599dba45e0375a48.jpeg
Angel Flight page 2

And how did things work out for Angel Flight?? They stopped fighting CASA in court because CASA had its endless bucket of Barrister money to keep dragging things out and Angel Flight would’ve gone broke. A familiar CASA story that many have experienced.

[skinduptruk]

And how did things work out for Angel Flight?? They stopped fighting CASA in court because...

Good question. I know that Angel Flight (AF) made sub #71 to the Senate committee (ctte) to prove CASA lied about their safety case (as shown in the snips). AF were interviewed by the Senators. I presume AF won their court case against CASA.

So if by "stopped fighting CASA in court" you mean "AF won" and went back to business as usual, then I would agree with you.

Do you have an alternative version of the story? I am only going off what I have read so far in the Senate ctte submissions page.

[Lead Balloon]

You presume wrongly. AF didn’t win their court case against CASA (or, more accurately, their challenge to the validity of the CSF instrument).

It’s about the safety of air navigation. And whatever someone in CASA wakes up each day and decides is in the interests of the safety of air navigation, is in the interests of the safety of air navigation.

[skinduptruk]

Thanks LB, I shall need to read the CSF case in full! :8 Nothing appears on AustLII so it does not appear to have gone ahead, as you wrote.

CASA may draft the laws but the courts shall decide how they are applied.

AF showed that CASA did not rely on any valid safety case when drafting the CSF instrument. I suppose the next step is for the Senate to decide whether to keep the CSF rules in place.

PS. Taken from the Angel Flight sub #71.



The ATSB also acknowledged that “as there was only one fatal accident involving an aircraft
conducting community service flights between 2014 and 2018 there is a high level of statistical
uncertainty associated with this rate”. Similarly, CASA acknowledged that the accident was
due to pilot error: during the Federal Court hearing it also (through Monahan) admitted that
there was no data or analysis to support the regulations, and nor would any of them have
prevented the accident . This is in direct contrast to the evidence of both Monahan and then
deputy DAS of CASA, Crawford, during the 2019 Senate RRAT Committee (ATSB and CASA).See
Table 1.

...

The court found, in summary, that the Civil Aviation Act allows CASA to make any rule in
aviation without any genuine data if they considered it a safety matter.

[Lead Balloon]

Now I get it: You’re a comedian! Thanks LB, I shall need to read the CSF case in full! Nothing appears on AustLII so it does not appear to have gone ahead, as you wrote.Champagne comedy!

Of course the case didn’t go ahead. Angel Flight’s submission to the Senate Committee refers to a Federal Court decision that didn’t happen. The Federal Court is in on the joke, too, by publishing a fake judgment cited as Angel Flight Australia v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2021/2021fca0469) [2021] FCA 469.
The court found, in summary, that the Civil Aviation Act allows CASA to make any rule in aviation without any genuine data if they considered it a safety matter.Where have I heard that before? Of course: It was in a post just before yours:[W]hatever someone in CASA wakes up each day and decides is in the interests of the safety of air navigation, is in the interests of the safety of air navigation.And then the punch line: I suppose the next step is for the Senate to decide whether to keep the CSF rules in place.Thanks for the belly laugh!

I have to hand it to you: You got me a beauty!

When and where’s your court appearance? I’m coming! It’ll be a laugh a minute.

[skinduptruk]

359 I do not accept this type of methodology was required. This is for two reasons. First, there is no indication in the text of the relevant statutory materials that such an assessment, which is largely based on the methods of applied natural science, is necessary. Second, the authorities provide no indication that such methods are required.

361 Having regard to those matters, I do not accept that the words “in relation to” in s 98(5A) of the CA Act required a connection between the Instrument and “matters affecting the safe navigation and operation, or the maintenance, of aircraft” that was supported by statistical significance or the methods of analysis which were advanced by Angel Flight. It was sufficient if there was “a relationship, whether direct or indirect, between” the two relevant “subject matters”. There was, in particular, no requirement to establish that there was a statistically significant difference between the relevant accident and incident rates of CSFs and the relevant rates of other operations. There was no requirement that the conditions in the Instrument be supported by methods that are coextensive with natural science.



TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS (https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=d928ca97-a625-43cc-9383-4e9e852d3d75&subId=717685)

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ANGEL FLIGHT AUSTRALIA
and
CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY

MELBOURNE

9.55 AM, TUESDAY, 16 MARCH 2021

MR WALKER appears with MR P. BONCARDO for the applicant
MR P.J. HANKS QC appears with DR L. HILLY for the respondent

...

MR HANKS: For example, your Honour’s not concerned with whether the director of air Safety
got it right, reached a conclusion as expressed in the instrument with which your
Honour agrees or which your Honour regards as fair and reasonable. Rather, the
question is whether the conclusion as expressed in the instrument is reasonably open
to the person who made the instrument.

...

MR HANKS: It is not necessary for the identification of the problem to be
scientifically supported, or statistically supported, it can be identified by an
experienced regulator. Where the problem would arise, in our submission, would be
if a solution was not connected to the problem.

Thanks for the link to the AF + CASA FCA judgement. I have extracted some quotes above from the FCA judgement, and the Angel Flight Sub #71 Attachment 1.

I can see what you mean now, CASA can speculate that A leads to B - and apparently there is no requirement for science or data to back it up.

I do not wish to repeat my information in Glen's thread, since it is already listed in my thread at the post here (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/644137-pudniks-casa-2021-5950-a-4.html#post11177354).

By the way I think Glen's case is quite different to Angel Flight (AF). With AF they dragged CASA to court to ask if the new CSF instrument was fair. With Glen's case, it was CASA who took actions against him, with CASA claiming they "did not know about" the arrangements proposed. Glen's letter to the Minister outlined this, by my understanding.

[Bend alot]

Dear Glen, If you need more funding, you can be sure I will be there.

But Mate, I can never use the Gofundme platform ever again. Can you consider another if needed?

Hope you are well. As for your family, I hope they love you more for your stand.

Regards Bendy.

[glenb]

Good to have you on the journey after 3 years. Whilst i dont anticipate anymore crowd funding at this stage, Im interested on your views on GoFundMe. My own personal experience with them was very good, have you got some feedback. Cheers. Glen

[glenb]

In Post 1912, i sent correspondence to the Office of Barnaby Joyce. It remained not acknowledged or responded to. That correspondence was sent on 01/02/22.

I sent follow up correspondence on 07/02/22 and again that was not acknowledged or responded to.

I have resent that correspondence again this morning.

Failing a response to that, my intention is to seek the assistance of Ms Gladys Liu, the member for Chisholm (my local electorate and Australia's most marginal seat), as well as Ms Helen Haines the Independent for the Victorian Seat of Indi and an advocate for an anti corruption body.

Cheers. Glen

[MJA Chaser]

Try registered post. Has to be signed to confirm delivery. I know it is last centruies technoogy but it does give you a confirmed delivery.

[Sandy Reith]

Try registered post. Has to be signed to confirm delivery. I know it is last centruies technoogy but it does give you a confirmed delivery.

Poor office management, an acknowledgment should be given to every serious item of correspondence.
Parcel post also a method which provides tracking information.
I hope Glen’s MP Gladys Liu takes up his case.

[Paragraph377]

Perhaps Glen should ‘text’ Mr Joyce. We all know that Tomato Head likes to send and receive text messages.

[glenb]

Thankyou Sandy for taking the time to send the following correspondence to my local Member of Parliament, Gladys Liu, Noting coincidentally that my electorate is the most marginal in Australia, and an electorate that i have resided in my entire life. My matter is one that clearly suggests a need for a body to investigate corruption in Government, something that the Liberals seem keen to avoid.

Perhaps i could reach out to Angel Flight, AOPA and affected industry participants and request an industry meeting with Ms. Gladys Lius office. I will put some thought into it. In the interim here is the letter to Gladys Liu. Thankyou again Sandy, and by the way I did meet you just once. About 25 years ago, at Philip Island one night when i came into pay a landing fee at Philip Island. It was one of my very first instructional flights as a Grade Three Instructor.

Dear Ms Liu,



I believe you have an opportunity to gain popularity by supporting the General Aviation (GA) community and assist government to reverse the bureaucratic strangling of of what should be a vibrant and growing GA industry.



You might be surprised at the numbers of people and their families and friends who have come across the very bad reputation of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) within the GA community including GA businesses and employees.



CASA is now a 34 year old independent monopoly inventor of ever more numerous permissions to which are attached swingeing fees. Its ever increasing and changing mountain of rules, inappropriately migrated to the criminal code, are so numerous that there are numbers of them that are contradictory and solid interpretations are impossible.



I’m making an appeal to you to give stronger and public support to your constituent Glen Buckley on the basis that his case is an example of CASA’s completely unjustifiable bureaucratic overkill, quite apart from the wrecking of Glen’s aviation businesses.



I have never met Glen and he has not asked for my support or intervention.



Because I am Peter Reith’s brother, have been involved in politics since the 1960s, plus having made a career out of General Aviation, I am uniquely placed to see the benefits to be gained by you and the Liberal Party by being vocal on this issue.



Barnaby Joyce has recently issued a new Statement of Expectations (not Directions), to the Board of CASA. Here is the basic problem, in this statement the Minister claims, rightly, that he and Parliament are responsible but that CASA is independent.



This is a straight up contradiction and the results are manifest across the 34 years of CASA’s operations. The losses of hundreds of flying schools, charter operators and maintenance facilities throughout Australia for no good reason.



This illustrates that you can’t have the Westminster system debased by hiving off responsibility to an unelected body and expecting the best governance with efficiency and low costs to business.



Should you take up this opportunity and declare for aviation to be governed through a regular Department of Government, and support Glen Buckley, you will gain much kudos. Glen being the underdog fighting an implacable Canberra bureaucracy, you will win much respect in your electorate, and right around Australia for the Liberal Party.



Sometimes you must take a stand to win, if I can help any further please be in touch, for example I can refer you to a number of respected GA people who will give you confidence to pursue this issue.



Kind Regards,



Sandy Reith

[Sandy Reith]

Like many words that describe the worst failings of us humans ‘corruption’ has many shades. In Glen’s case he has obvious reasons to make claim.

How to combat corruption in government is a vexed question but firstly I think it rational to go back to first principles and that is that our elected representatives must be accountable and responsible. We must expect this and foster this concept by, say, joining a political party, making frequent representations to our various MPs and helping to create that kind of political interest that is lacking in day to day life.

Henry Bolte was one of Victoria’s longest serving and most successful Premiers. I was at a meeting where the concept of an Ombudsman was presented and enthusiastically promoted. I thought what a great idea. Henry Bolte said this is a bad idea because this will cut across the work of MPs.

Now I see clearly he was right.

Yet another independent body or Commissioner to swell the bloated ranks of the Public Sector (was once Public Service) will not enhance the behaviour of government. We should pay our MPs more and fund their offices for extra duties that we should expect.

Question Time in Parliament should be returned to its true meaning and importance instead of its current party political theatre.

The courts should be more available, accessible and at lower cost. The police could be better organised.

We can’t do better than try to improve our democracy and that does not mean handing off functions to unelected people, see CASA. In my not so humble opinion.

[skinduptruk]

Re above post from SR. I suppose (regrettably for my stress levels) my contribution will be showing in Katoomba local court that CASA do not understand high school physics. Submission #72 to the current Senate ctte refers.

PS. GB try sending in hard copy with words "PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL" - this stops any staff opening the letter - you might be surprised. In my case, I called to confirm the email address, emailed it, then another call to ensure my email arrived. They got the message and emailed me back an acknowledgement.

[Valdiviano]

Why not start a signed petition?

[skinduptruk]

Why not start a signed petition?

Someone has already started a petition for a Royal Commission into CASA. Is that what you mean?

[havick]

Someone has already started a petition for a Royal Commission into CASA. Is that what you mean?

Do you mean yourself? If so, no one will take it seriously.

[Sandy Reith]

I had one back in 2016 that elicited 3000 signatures and some hundreds of comments, many of which have very detailed accounts of mistreatment and unnecessary bureaucratic intransigence etc.

We’ve had umpteen inquiries, what we need now is a very loud crying out, media if possible, for a Department of Aviation with a Minister in charge.
Support AOPA and ring write contact media and your MPs.

[skinduptruk]

ASRR Submission #107 by Pro Aviation (Phelan, 2014) says it all. (https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/migrated/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/107_p_phelan_pro_aviation_29_jan_2014_redacted.pdf)

And it would seem that CASA has only gotten worse... :ugh:

PS. ASRR Submission #192 is probably the best one-pager summary (https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/migrated/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/192_a_barlow_31_jan_2014_redacted.pdf) I have seen from both the current Senate review (2020-2022+) and the older ASRR review (2014) aka Forsyth review. I happened to only just read it now.

[Two_dogs]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVX1bfdjfGc&t=277s

Susan's pissed....

[Sandy Reith]

Another shameful exhibition of the amateurish running of CASA by a CEO who is completely out of her depth. One could be forgiven for believing that after Ms Spence’s last appearance at McDonald’s Senate RRAT hearing (not long ago, see video elsewhere) she might have been prepared.
But no we are paying her $650,000 pa and her senior managers c. $500,000+ and they can’t answer questions about any of the hot issues around GA. The lack of respect to the Senators, let alone to us criminals who fly planes is palpable.

Little will change until and unless it’s recognised that there are two fundamental contradictions stemming from the Act.

1/. As Barnaby J. says he and Parliament are responsible and CASA is independent.

2/. The Act requires that ‘safety’ is the highest consideration, but that costs should be weighed.

By giving CASA the power to interpret these irreconcilable elements, CASA, salary factory and make work specialist, will always default to the human nature position of looking after its own interests.

The model of governance is wrong, the democratic element of the Westminster system demands that the administration of government is overseen by elected officials, in this case a Minister responsible for a regular Department of Government. An independent corporate monopoly, provider of ever more permissions to which are attached swingeing fees, will never change into a group of wonderful individuals bent on providing the least impediment to free enterprise aviation at the lowest cost.
Rather everything can be directed to safety which trumps a healthy GA industry. Ring write contact media and your MPs and State Senators.

[Blueyonda]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVX1bfdjfGc&t=277s

Susan's pissed....

A bit of Theatre me thinks.

When it comes to seating positions, Dr Aleck unknowingly or knowingly positioned himself in a close up frontal camera blind spot.

[Sunfish]

A bit of Theatre me thinks.

When it comes to seating positions, Dr Aleck unknowingly or knowingly positioned himself in a close up frontal camera blind spot.

You are not the only one who picked up on the seating position.

What I've picked up on, twice now, is how poorly Pip Spence has been briefed before these sessions and how stone faced CASA senior management remained as she dug herself deeper and deeper into a hole each time in the face of what were perfectly legitimate questions from the honorable Senators. Why, one might almost begin to think they wanted her to fail.

"Normal" behaviour of senior executives preparing their boss for a grilling by Senators is to write up a stack of one page briefs on anything likely to be asked with the recommendation (every brief has to have a recommendation); "That you note this matter". The briefs for the most likely to be asked questions go into the bosses briefing pack (to which Pip Spence referred) and the rest get carried in by the minions just in case so they can be handed to the boss if needed.

The Senators and senior mandarins, by the way, would regard Pip Spences abysmal performance not only as her failure, but the failure of her entire management team to prepare her properly and that would be what is worrying them the most; not Spence but Aleck and the others.

I am also beginning to wonder if Spences problems might be caused by a male dominated misogynistic corporate culture but surely not! This is 2022.

[Blueyonda]

You are not the only one who picked up on the seating position.

What I've picked up on, twice now, is how poorly Pip Spence has been briefed before these sessions and how stone faced CASA senior management remained as she dug herself deeper and deeper into a hole each time in the face of what were perfectly legitimate questions from the honorable Senators. Why, one might almost begin to think they wanted her to fail.

"Normal" behaviour of senior executives preparing their boss for a grilling by Senators is to write up a stack of one page briefs on anything likely to be asked with the recommendation (every brief has to have a recommendation); "That you note this matter". The briefs for the most likely to be asked questions go into the bosses briefing pack (to which Pip Spence referred) and the rest get carried in by the minions just in case so they can be handed to the boss if needed.

The Senators and senior mandarins, by the way, would regard Pip Spences abysmal performance not only as her failure, but the failure of her entire management team to prepare her properly and that would be what is worrying them the most; not Spence but Aleck and the others.

I am also beginning to wonder if Spences problems might be caused by a male dominated misogynistic corporate culture but surely not! This is 2022.


I may have interpreted this incorrectly, under a line of questioning that Ms Spence could not answer, she did say someone might be able to rush in and provide the answer (my words,) as in someone in her immeadiate vicinity. But alas, silence.

[Vref+5]

Does Ms Spence realise that Teflon John, the one just out of camera view except for the occasional glimpse of his shoe, is throwing her under the bus? Not having any briefs prepared or available, not prepared to comment on anything, leaving her to solely take the blows?

[Sandy Reith]

Blueyonda “I may have interpreted this incorrectly, under a line of questioning that Ms Spence could not answer, she did say someone might be able to rush in and provide the answer (my words,) as in someone in her immeadiate vicinity. But alas, silence.”

I think your interpretation quite correct, more than that it’s common practice for the underlings to pass up helpful briefing papers or chime in with an offer of assistance without being asked.

Twice now we’ve been witness to the same extraordinary spectacle of the highly paid CEO of CASA coming to a public Senate hearing not being prepared. It truly beggars belief, imagine the US, NZ UK or Canadians looking at this disgraceful display of incompetence. And I’m sure they’d be thinking, as I do, your Parliament set up this corporate in the attempt to relinquish responsibility so what do you expect?

The fact that the CEO Ms Spence has failed to learn about the most pressing issues, and shies from responsibility by citing ‘that was before my time’ is exemplified by her treatment of Glen Buckley.

Instead of ascertaining the facts from her $500,000 pa Managers about Glen’s unjustifiable treatment and then making her own judgment Ms. Spence handballs to the Ombudsman, again.

Perfectly predictable; because this is how Government Industries works when Parliament reneges on its responsibility.

The aversion by Parliament, and many Members (2009 Albo rids his Ministry of the ATSB), to the responsibility conferred by our Constitution and the Westminster tradition is manifest in the arrogance of senior Public Sector managers. The current Estimates is such a good example and not just about CASA. The head of ASIO upbraids a Senator by accusing her of making an inappropriate question.

This whole trajectory, give all the tricky bits to ‘independent’ Ombudsman offices, Commissioners, ICACs and Commonwealth corporations like CASA, ATSB, ASA, Infrastructure Australia even Meat Australia, and many others, has become a major impediment to good governance and free enterprise.

The shift in power, the unseen revolving doors PS employment cross pollination and the many $billions in fat salaries and great working conditions are at stake and driving the body politic.

Finally, it is we the voters who elect representatives. If we sit back, don’t engage with them, don’t go to meetings, don’t write critiques, don’t talk to media but only throw brickbats and epithets then who is to blame?

[Sandy Reith]

Does Ms Spence realise that Teflon John, the one just out of camera view except for the occasional glimpse of his shoe, is throwing her under the bus? Not having any briefs prepared or available, not prepared to comment on anything, leaving her to solely take the blows?

Perhaps Ms. Spence is too nice a person and would probably have to have sacked a couple of her Managers shortly after taking up the CEO position on the 17th May last year.

For example had she demanded some answers to the Glen Buckley travesty she would have seen the ugly truth and sacked those responsible. This would have changed the scene completely, but it didn’t happen. Just as well, not for Glen, but because one or two pluses on the board for CASA would have only perpetuated this wrong model of governance.

In other words reducing the force of argument for the only solution for the good governance of Australia’s aviation industry; a Minister in charge of an Aviation Department. Video of session link :-
https://youtu.be/McrEoytpB6U

[Blueyonda]

Sandy,
The time frame I refer to earlier is the 19’50” mark. Dr Aleck would have known. He would have been present.

The 16’30” mark contains an “ouch!” moment at 16’40” mark.

I think Sunfish is right. There is a “misogynistic corporate culture” within CASA management. I feel sorry for Miss Spence. A lamb to the slaughter.

[aroa]

Sunny,
Politicians and Miniscules come and go and we go on forever. CAsA have proved that time and time again.

Hark ye back to the COOP / Classification Of Operations Policy of 1997 was it? The Minister and the Bored ADOPTED this Policy that with FAR type regs and many new freedoms. Looked like a brave new world.

Over the following months CAsA published change lists etc etc….BUT..the Miniister soon was no longer, the gutless Bored had changes probably, and the Iron Ring knows how to work out all

THEIR way… and all the good things which would have made such a difference to GA ops turned to dust and over the next couple of years of all that COOP proposal was no more. Gone like a puff of wind that never was.

And the rest is a most costly, disgusting, nauseating history.
And I concur . Until Non Aviation House is a heap of smoking rubble , nothing will change.

[Sandy Reith]

Aroa makes the point, the model must change otherwise the best efforts and real improvements will not last.

Is the real driver found in CASA’s remuneration tables?

How sorry for some CASA embarrassment in hearings compared to Glen Buckley losing his home, his businesses and having to terminate all his employees?

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x926/8d2a241c_e05f_471c_8f86_7b2b229abe8e_e520d9d074759ab6275fd48 cf25dee2e1216237b.png
It looks like Ms. Spence’s base salary was more than $100,000 for 6 weeks, presuming financial year ending June 30 ‘21 from her start date of 17 May. My calculator says this could be $900,000pa? Wonder if that’s right?

Mr. Carmody’s base was around $650,000.

We might ask what value from the Board too? They are now supposed to give us a communique.
Don’t expect much more than a public relations handout. We should have copies of their minutes, what have they to hide? This is supposed to be a public body.

[Sandy Reith]

Reading the fine print, very fine print, it makes the point that there’s a tribunal that recommends the salary of the CEO. Can you just imagine some of the jolly parties they have around Can’tberra where all the upper echelon types meet and have fun? I’m told by those who have lived and worked in our artificial capital that the PS social structure is a very stratified.

But back to the infamous Estimates, for the masochists here is Hansard of these latest procedures. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Festimate%2 F25617%2F0003;orderBy=date-eFirst;page=1;query=Dataset%3AcomSen,estimate;rec=10;resCoun t=Default

[tossbag]

I feel sorry for Miss Spence. A lamb to the slaughter.

No, she's been around those circles for quite some time. For her to think it will be different for her is naive.

Having said that, she should also know that the lot of it, CASA, ASA etc is a mysogynistic pig show. It's all documented. Margaret Staib copped the same sort of rubbish in the senate that Pip Spence is.

The thing about the senate RRAT that two dogs posted that got to me was the rambling, nonsensical rubbish that both she and the git with the American accent spoke about the Blackhawk. And the rubbish about the poor beggar (sarcasm) flying without the medical. She could have easily shut that down, you fly without a medical, even if it is only 'cost sharing' you're a clown. No correspondence entered into. For her to not know that the medical is what keeps your perpetual licence valid is extremely poor form.

She is being very poorly advised and undermined and will suffer the same fate as those before her who said 'f*** this, I'm out of this pigstye' I'm just wondering why the pack of a-holes behind her were there if they weren't going to advise and help her?

An interesting contrast to the rambling and bull**** was the fellow that answered the avmed questions. Short, sharp and on point.

[Arm out the window]

Piss poor work on both sides in certain areas, I would say. The question from Sen. Patrick about the capabilities of rescue helicopters was so vague as to be ridiculous, and the answer from Monahan was equally vague - they were talking about something they both clearly had little grasp of, so it was farcical. Patrick quoted the Bell 412 as a single engine machine - wrong in any case, and then waffled on without actually asking anything specific. His question boiled down to 'was there stuff some rescue helicopter or other could do before that it couldn't do now, or the other way round?' and Monahan came back with a similarly convoluted waffle. This is bull****. If neither the politicians nor CASA can get a list of questions and answers prepared in advance, or have a whole raft of so-called 'experts' from both sides who can actually pin issues down, then there's absolutely no point to having a hearing.

CASA can only be got at effectively by picking specific issues one by one, following them tenaciously until the buck is either shown to stop or be swept under the carpet, and by who. After a while a clear picture of who are the absolute rotten apples will emerge. This vague waffly crap with no end in sight can and should be approached with far more tenacity and specificity by the politicians, and Pip Spence must follow these issues up in the same way, and others proactively.

Grandstanding, shows of anger, vague references to cases like those shown here just waste time and money. If Senator McDonald actually wants to get to the bottom of real problems, she needs to make a clear plan, get staff on to particular matters and follow leads to their conclusions. I hope she does.

[Paragraph377]

Watching this round of senate estimates was in my opinion, perversely hilarious! Nothing has changed at CASA in decades and nothing will change into the future as long as CASA operates under its own steam. This was another accurate public display of what CASA truly is - a dysfunctional and failed department. Aleck is the bridesmaid who didn’t catch the bouquet. Overlooked as DAS on several occasions has made the little bearded weasel somewhat bitter, twisted and revengeful. In all reality, his allowing Pip to be thrown under the bus, again, is an embarrassment to CASA, it’s employees, it’s DAS and the Minister. How he hasn’t been walked out the building for pulling these stunts is beyond me. Either everyone above him is profoundly stupid, or he has Polaroids of politicians with goats. Aleck has crushed another DAS, and this one in record time. What an absolute **** show.

[Lead Balloon]

Ms Spence’s performances in front of the Committee remind me of the cringe-worthy performances of Ms Staib (ex CEO of Air Services) in front of the same Committee. Lowlights include 20 October 2014 (https://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=240671) (fast-forward to 22:05) and 28 November 2014 (https://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=244933).

But there the similarities end. Ms Staib came from a background of mutual trust and teamwork, and wasn’t used to being surrounded by rats. Once she realised what she’d gotten herself into, she bailed out. Ms Spence, on the other hand (and as tossbag has observed), is very used to the environment.

AOTW: Alas, it’s mostly pantomime. CASA doesn’t care how much these Senators huff and puff. No amount of huffing and puffing will blow the CASA house down.

The monster is a creation of the Parliament through legislation either made by the Parliament or not disallowed by the Parliament. Unless and until the Parliament changes that legislation, the monster will continue on its merry way. CASA knows that the major parties are too scared to make the religion of the safety of air navigation an issue to differentiate them in the minds of voters. As the shadow Minister (laughably) said: “There’s no margin of error in aviation.”

And no one should be surprised at the ‘safety’ standard being writ large in the example of the fire-fighting aircraft. CASA doesn’t know the design standard and ICA for e.g. Blackhawk helicopters, therefore CASA isn’t ‘satisfied’ and therefore CASA will sit with its arms folded until someone (at their expense) ‘satisfies’ CASA. Doesn’t matter how many towns and fire fighters are immolated on the ground in the interim. That’s someone else’s problem.

[Arm out the window]

And no one should be surprised at the ‘safety’ standard being writ large in the example of the fire-fighting aircraft. CASA doesn’t know the design standard and ICA for e.g. Blackhawk helicopters, therefore CASA isn’t ‘satisfied’ and therefore CASA will sit with its arms folded until someone (at their expense) ‘satisfies’ CASA. Doesn’t matter how many towns and fire fighters are immolated on the ground in the interim. That’s someone else’s problem.

Sadly true, LB. As the senators eventually got around to highlighting, the simple question of why a properly maintained aircraft can drop water, carry cargo and operate with 'task specialists' all day long but not carry firefighters from A to B should be easily answered, but is instead somehow incredibly tricky for CASA to quickly and effectively address, according to them.

This is not just about restricted category of airworthiness, it's bound up in the frankly stupid delineation between passenger transport and aerial work under Parts 133 and 138 respectively. Somehow a properly trained, briefed and current person who could legally be on board spotting fires suddenly turns into the equivalent of a first-time passenger who just walked in off the street for a scenic flight. We have the ridiculous situation of changing between rule sets not only on the same day, but the same flight sometimes for many helicopter operations, which can also make you jump between flight and duty appendices ... suddenly you had to have had a day off yesterday because now you're carrying passengers instead of task specialists!

This is the sort of rubbish the senators, via their staff if necessary, should be researching and then bringing to bear in these hearings, or require CASA to answer in detail by other means. When it comes down to it, just trying to read the CASRs and apply them to an actual operator's situation (what was formerly a charter / aerial work helicopter operation would be a good start point) quickly exposes many ambiguities and contradictions, which the reg writers have clearly not even considered. Just try and get a straight answer on a curly question out of CASA's guidance portal (supposedly the 'single source of truth') and you'll see what I mean. Same vagueness, different name.

[Lead Balloon]

There are a thousand other 'frankly stupid' examples, AOTW.

The practical standard these days is actually 'clear and concise': Whatever someone in CASA wakes up each day and reckons it is. That's what happened to Glen Buckley.

[mcoates]

Same answer to everything..... "I will take that on notice"

How about the senators say, your pay is frozen from today until you come back to us with properly researched answers and then you can get paid again. Make it flow down from the top to the bottom. Make them realise what it is like to be a small repair person who effectively has their income frozen without notification directly from the CASA.

Turn everything around and make CASA people jump through the hoops that these small maintainers also have to comply with.

As for sending thugs out to enforce different things and coerce witnesses is a real mess. Follow the foodchain back to whoever made that decision or gave that direction and put them on unemployment.

Working for CASA seems to me that you can be the biggest schoolyard bully who can never get in trouble for anything because you are hiding behind an almost impenetrable wall of secrecy, but I will take that on notice........ that is the lamest answer to anything

[Lead Balloon]

The senators don't have that power.

CASA hides behind the almost impenetrable wall called 'the mystique of aviation'. When the 'Authority' puts the phrase "safety of air navigation" in a sentence, whatever 'frankly stupid' assertion is made in the sentence becomes - as if by magic - an objective truth.

[Paragraph377]

Same answer to everything..... "I will take that on notice"

How about the senators say, your pay is frozen from today until you come back to us with properly researched answers and then you can get paid again. Make it flow down from the top to the bottom. Make them realise what it is like to be a small repair person who effectively has their income frozen without notification directly from the CASA.

Turn everything around and make CASA people jump through the hoops that these small maintainers also have to comply with.

As for sending thugs out to enforce different things and coerce witnesses is a real mess. Follow the foodchain back to whoever made that decision or gave that direction and put them on unemployment.

Working for CASA seems to me that you can be the biggest schoolyard bully who can never get in trouble for anything because you are hiding behind an almost impenetrable wall of secrecy, but I will take that on notice........ that is the lamest answer to anything

Perhaps the Senators could advise Spence in writing, at 16:59 pm on a Friday that they would like answers by C.O.B the following Monday? CASA understand that process very well.

[Sandy Reith]

Looks like Ms. Spence’s base salary with add-ons is well over $1,000,000pa with very generous super entitlements then perhaps there’s no real incentive to worry about the bothersome details affecting GA.

Is the public performance with CASA’s CEO and those few managers an agreed play on the basis that Ms. Spence takes the heat?

Oddly, Mr. Monahan is not listed in the remuneration table for financial year ‘21.

[mcoates]

Looks like Ms. Spence’s base salary with add-ons is well over $1,000,000pa with very generous super entitlements then perhaps there’s no real incentive to worry about the bothersome details affecting GA.

Is she single ? Just asking..... (for a friend)

[Lead Balloon]

Ms Spence won't be in it for the money. She'll be motivated by Australia's 'enviable aviation safety record' caused by CASA's efforts in the face of uninformed critics.

Just to get the focus back on Glen’s plight, but to reinforce the point I made about the ‘standard’ being whatever someone in CASA wakes up each day and decides it is, I remind everyone that Mr White’s email to Glen on 13 March 2019 was merely a regurgitation (a quote verbatim) of words spoon fed to Mr White by Dr Aleck’s team. Those words included: 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.If it were true that persons “employed by” an “authorisation holder” were “in all respects agents of” the authorisation holder, some very odd things could happen. If employed under a contract of service, the employed person could, as agent in all respects of the authorisation holder/employer, go off to the Fair Work Commission and agree, on behalf of the authorisation holder/employer, to vary the applicable EBA so as to double the wages of all employees. If employed under a contract for service, the contracted person could, as agent in all respects of the authorisation holder, enter contracts with third parties, which contracts would be binding on the authorisation holder.

That’s what an ‘agent in all respects’ is: A person who can do things that are legally binding between the principal and third parties.

As we know and CASA knows, there are plenty of operators out there who engage pilots as ‘independent contractors’ – that is, under contracts for service. Those contracts almost invariably include a clause that requires the pilot, as independent contractor, to acknowledge and agree that s/he is NOT an agent of the operator and to promise NOT to represent him or herself as being an agent of the operator.

Then there’s the mere bagatelle of what Parts 141 and 142 actually say. They actually include a definition that says: personnel, for a Part 141[/142] operator, includes any of the following persons who have duties or responsibilities that relate to the safe conduct of the operator’s authorised Part 141 flight training [Part 142 activities]:

(a) an employee of the operator;

(b) a person engaged by the operator (whether by contract or other arrangement) to provide services to the operator;

(c) an employee of a person mentioned in paragraph (b).The “operational and organisational arrangements contemplated by CASR 141 [and Part 142]” are opposite to the effect asserted in Mr White's email. There is no way that all of the people covered by (b) and (c) – that is, people who are not an employee of the operator – are “in all respects agents” of the operator.

Someone in CASA just woke up one day and decided that the rules don’t mean what they say. That becomes the practical standard because the only way in which Glen could get an authoritative decision to the contrary would result in him going broke and bankrupt quicker than he would in just giving up.

All in the interests of the safety of air navigation, of course.

[Flaming galah]

I remind everyone that Mr White’s email to Glen on 13 March 2019 was merely a regurgitation (a quote verbatim) of words spoon fed to Mr White by Dr Aleck’s team.

I’d go one further and suggest that the syntax bears the inimitable characteristics of the man himself.

[Chairmans Lounge]

Looks like Ms. Spence’s base salary with add-ons is well over $1,000,000pa with very generous super entitlements

So how does this remuneration package compare to former DAS’s?

The 2019-2020 annual report stated DAS total remuneration (including super) as $685,000 pa

[Lead Balloon]

I’d go one further and suggest that the syntax bears the inimitable characteristics of the man himself.You may be right. The text regurgitated by Mr White also 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).

[TTY]

Check out Coulson Aviation Australia's website news section . Interesting.

[Paragraph377]

So how does this remuneration package compare to former DAS’s?

The 2019-2020 annual report stated DAS total remuneration (including super) as $685,000 pa

Perhaps the additional pay is because of the emergence of the ‘great resignation movement’ and CASA desperately needs to retain the most qualified person for the top job. Ms Spence, with no aviation experience, but with years of experience kissing PMC ass and rising through the lofty ranks of the APS, is obviously the best choice to retain as the DASA/CEO. Anyway, it will be fun watching Aleck throw her under the bus and ‘slow roast’ her at Estimates every year for the next few years. Have fun Pip, they are going to make you earn your keep. Sleep with one eye open.

[Lead Balloon]

Check out Coulson Aviation Australia's website news section . Interesting.
How long do you reckon he'll last as COO? The private sector expects results.

[0ttoL]

Check out Coulson Aviation Australia's website news section . Interesting.
Not Aviation related: I'm currently watching the TV drama series:"Dopesick" about the opioid crisis in the USA.
Surprise, Surprise: Exec from the FDA who helped approve Oxycontin winds up working for Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer which helps the owners, the Sackler family, make billions

[aroa]

You could be onto something there, OttoL
I’m sure some people in CAsA, from the way they behave are definitively on something.

[jakessalvage]

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1884x1780/screen_shot_2022_02_22_at_6_54_38_am_70829d0acbe506756ae7f54 73146a92ec62f1ea3.png
Not likely that Mr White will be siding with Glen.

[Paragraph377]

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1884x1780/screen_shot_2022_02_22_at_6_54_38_am_70829d0acbe506756ae7f54 73146a92ec62f1ea3.png
Not likely that Mr White will be siding with Glen.

There was no mention within that glowing endorsement of Martin about him being pushed from CASA and then being pushed from LifeFlight after just a couple of months.

[Sandy Reith]

Government Industries, them and us.
They, increasingly, have the upper hand as we subjects of the Crown crave privileges, not rights, from Her Maj’s Government.
Government instrumentalities have become the monopoly providers of myriad permissions and we pay.

[Arm out the window]

Craig Martin gets around.

[glenb]

Or the fact that the ABC did an investigative piece into his conduct of an investigation into Bruce Rhoades, or my allegations of professional misconduct etc etc.

[skinduptruk]

Found some curious Hansard links ystdy. The flaws of CASA were predicted from day #1 here!

CIVIL AVIATION BILL 1988 - Second Reading (parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F1988-06-01%2F0134;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F1988-06-01%2F0133%22)

A brief mention that gliders are not aircraft (half-way down the page). I won't cross-post my topic content into Glen's thread, just wanted to show briefly the curious things are in Hansard when you go looking :)

28/06/2017 - Regulatory requirements and the safe use of remotely piloted aircraft and unmanned aerial systems (www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=committees/commsen/33a47bd4-b2ef-4703-95da-d7078f5d732a/&sid=0004)

I have watched the latest video once, I am yet to absorb the meaning of it. Maybe I can make a few comments next week :8

[Lead Balloon]

So how did things go in court on 21 Feb?

[Sunfish]

Pudnicks? Where are you?

[Flaming galah]

Pudnicks? Where are you?

Getting pretty strong mail that based on the strength of his submissions to the Magistrate, Michaelia’s made a captain’s pick and is seeking GG assent to parachute him into the HCA.

[MJA Chaser]

So how did things go in court on 21 Feb?
Looks like it was only a mention
https://onlineregistry.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/content/court-lists#/detail/20220001504723520919MentionCommonwealth/Kurt%20Pudniks

[Luce]

ABC did an investigative piece

Howdy Glen.I have followed your story from post 1 and learnt a lot from some informed contributors along your quest. I find your responses detailed, accurate and passionate. Some are emotional but understandable given the rough path your walking. I’ve seen you mention a fella in several posts, most recently of an ABC investigative piece. Being an ABC watcher curiosity led me google for this and I must say, this led down a rabbit hole of media information including newspapers and youtube, ATSB, QLD police, legal people and of course CASA.

After reading all sides I ask why you use this example to support your quest? The accident report has a seriously high number of issues with the operation. Shockingly many of the findings were repeats of what the fella lost his pilots licence for and even copped a criminal conviction for previously. The report says both his aircraft were overloaded, conducted aerobatics with people (in a 172!!!!), flew dangerously low, skimming maintenance hours and really hadn’t thought through some fundamental airmanship of where to go if the old donk quits. That photo in the report of where this happen is alarming. The pilot had almost no where to go. I even see the operator provided a submission on the accident report prior to its release so the fella had his say.

So why the difference in storys between the ABC piece and the accident report? Then there is the bit on missing passenger cameras and recording cards taken off the crash site and never found. Strange. Is this why QLD police charging the pilot over the crash. Would the fella be up on charges to if still with us. Lots of questions. I even found discussion here on Pprune post C172 down on Middle Island.

After reading all, I ask what you think if an GA operator with these issues approached APTA for inclusion.

I wish you best in your quest for justice.

[Sunfish]

Don’t answer Glen, instead allow me:

Luce, your question is irrelevant, insulting and misleading.

You might as well ask: “As a Catholic Diocese, what would you reply if a local brothel asked to be included in your congregation?”.

You are implying that APTA is/ was established as a deceitful umbrella organization to give cover to a variety of disreputable operators.

This is consistent with the apparent view of your employer that all pilots are “uncaught criminals”.

Nice try.

[glenb]

Good morning Sunfish, and I very much appreciate the spirited support, but took absolutely no offense at the question, and in fact, I think it’s a very legitimate question. It is something that my management team considered from very early on.

I'm heading off to "Fat Daddy’s Breakfast Club" shortly. A tradition of 15 years now where a group of elite athletes in their mid-50s gather every fortnight to have breakfast and take the piss out of each other. An important process to maintain ones mental health, and look in awe at the one member who has for his own reasons decided to buck the trend and remain under 100kg, yet still insist on maintaining his membership. His membership is tenuous, and he shows almost no resolve to “let himself ago” but we tolerate him.

The answer to your question is quite easy to be honest. Its all about “intent”. Is this a well-intentioned operator with something to bring to the group?

The Operator would be operating under my AOC to my procedures with me as the authorisation holder, and my CASA approved Key Personnel taking on full responsibility, in law for that operation. Not one of the management team would tolerate a “dodgy” operator, as potentially it was us that may have to stand before a coroners inquiry in the event of a tragedy and we needed to be able to justify every decision made.

I need to clarify that in the case of Bruce Rhoades, it was a charter business whereas we chose to operate in the flight training environment only, and had no short to medium term plan to incorporate charter, although I appreciate the point of your question.

Importantly however, the starting point was "intent". What type of operator are we dealing with. Is it someone with "good intent". Someone trying to do the right thing in the flight training industry, and somebody who “shares the vision”

In the case of Bruce Rhoades, my feeling is that he was well intentioned. It’s a highly complicated legislative environment we operate in, and often operators were somewhat stuck in the past. The good intent was there, although I cant speak to the quality of his product.

Once we ascertained that the Operator was of “good intent”, most likely we would proceed with the application. At this stage I would refer you all the way back to Post 46, and the attachment being the “induction checklist that was designed with CASA personnel, approved by CASA personnel, and utilised by CASA personnel as part of the CASA required approval process.

The process was rigid, and in my opinion the quality of the operation would improve substantially, and the operation was closely monitored and supervised.

From my experience, most people are well intentioned, and given the correct robust systems and procedures and extremely high levels of supervision, they will see the benefits of a well run operation.

In short, it is fair to say that had he have run a flying school, I’m confident that we could have transformed that operation to a demonstrably safer and highly compliant operation.

Regarding the attachment to the Bruce Rhoades matter, that’s a bit more personal and rather close to home. I spoke to Mr Rhoades before his passing. He was a man, in my opinion, who was a victim of a “reverse engineered process”, where CASA determines their desired outcome, and manufactures the process to achieve that desired outcome, exactly as they did with me.

Mr Rhoades was somebody dealing with the same three characters as I was. Graeme Crawford, Craig Martin and Jonathan Aleck, so there was a “bond” there if you like.

Mr Rhoades like me, was particularly critical of the conduct of Craig Martin in particular, and in fact made some YouTube videos that you may have seen of Craig Martin.

Sadly, Mr Rhoades died with his reputation in tatters, and I have no doubt that at his funeral, there would have been attendees who in the back of their mind had their own questions about his character, with the knowledge of the CASA attack on him.

In my own case, I am someone who had their business shut down overnight, with an impact on my own reputation. Something that I am fighting to restore while I am still alive. My greatest fear is that something happens to me, before I get to fully clear my name in front of my family, colleagues, past APTA members, employees etc.

I hope that goes someway to explaining in it, and I’m sorry I don’t have more time to address the question, but please feel free to come back to me if you have a follow up question, and with a breakfast in my belly, I will respond.

Cheers. Glen.

[Luce]

Howdy Glen

I am pleased you acknowledged my query as legitimate and of good faith. That’s truely how I intended to come across. No insult, no misleading, just a legitimate and I believe a relevant query. Albeit I do now see my error in lack of clarity about a GA operator and flight training. As I would expect, despite another chipping in, it was gracious of you to accept the premise of my query and pen a considered, unemotional and intelligent response. Fair play indeed.

You are in battle Glen and all great leaders in battle are wise to abide in the art of war. The words of Sun Tzu, “you can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended. You can ensure the safety of your defense if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked”.

So query, can your position be attacked.

Complete agreeance with your matter about intent and very well raised. A sound trait and a backbone of fine aviators from yesteryear. Though, here still lies my simple query for using this fella as support, an ally as such. I found interest to read your own management team considered possible danger here. There must have been concern similar.

Alas, back to the beginning of your mention to Aunty ABC investigative piece. That was on telly prior to the air crash report. I put it that would Aunty have run the story if that crash report was finished. Its in print, the fella has his say, the poor bloke flying had his say. All involved had there say and it still reads like a tragic novel. These media sods never come back to finish the story. Would their investigative piece stand up now. What would that tale tell to put part 2 on telly but I fear it will never see daylight.

Since my original query to you I’ve almost finished the port bottle taking in the long, long, crash report and it certainly peaked the thinning eyebrow to the utterly alarming number of elementry problems unturned that simply, quite basically boil down to pilot lessons 101. Things that disprove claims made in the Aunty story, overloading, low flying and turn backs after engine failure at low level. It’s all over internet videos too. Beggars belief to put yourself on camera doing this stuff. How the authorities didn’t find this sooner, well I’m stuffed to wonder that.

So at curtain call the show stops with the tragic death of one, the maiming of two, the shattered families, the old Bailey out to lock up the poor old pilot. There are no winners. Preventable just if there was basic sound airmanship and a couple of pondering chats over a cold brew about what ifs.

So, all the way back too intent. I stand with you on how you ascertain the matter but I ask you how is it possible in this case to say intent was good. One issue. Good intent remains. Two,three issues. The eyebrows rise but good intent still hanging on. Countless issues, serious issues that cannot be unseen. History repeats. What do wise men say, those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Surely most men would learn from criminal convictions. Well now is it reasonable to question if good intent is a fair leap of faith in this case. Can reputation be rebuilt from that.

Lets move on a bit. Alas the same CASA characters from your story are in this fellas too. You’ve chatted to the fella, shared a few yarns and there is a bond of sorts to use your words. Like a brotherhood of war. I understand the bond and the building emotion, the common cause, your both passionate about the enemy. But strongly beware the false consensus effect. But your story is the opposite ends of the paddock to the other story. It is here which I am puzzled to see how the two yarns can be used together to fight the battle.

Letting the old ticker settle for a spell, emotions aside, let’s ask a common man on the street, when presented the truth, all the facts as you have genuinely done so on this forum
1. Was it wrong to cut the wings off this fella’s operation.
2. Was it wrong to cut the wings of APTA.

Glen, in that horse race the common man would back you being the victim of injustice every day.

Going all the way back to your post No46 you spell out CASA never put forward a supporting safety case. Because there isn’t one in your case, not so hard to find thou in the other.

The fella’s words of breaches of administrative law, being denied natural justice and procedural fairness. They are on record but as I read were disproven. And don’t forget the old Bailey is taking action too from their own separate copper investigation. Let’s think about that for a minute, a magistrate, a trusted person of legal cloth is hearing charges against the pilot. This is outside of CASA and all other organizations.

Where there is smoke there is fire and here lies a smouldering wreck of lives and legal proceedings. If the fella was still with us would he be standing up next to the pilot. I wonder if Aunty have a ‘correcting the record’ to their halfway piece of work has come adrift and has sunk.

And so we finish at the start, I read from post 1 to here now and what a read. The tale portraits an intelligent man of courage with an untainted reputation in all eyes here. A genuinely wronged man and I applaud your will to fight. You have not lost your reputation Glen, your evidence stands up to question and investigation. But consider your allies wisely. The very people to whom you seek a listening ear and the hand of Justice can also read and I assure you they too have read this fella’s tragic novel.

Ponder the art of war, regroup, rethink and ask yourself honestly, are you ensuring your defense is safe and can your position be attacked.

Keep up the fight Glen. I wish you all the best in your quest for justice.

[Sunfish]

So you say it’s a foregone conclusion that Rhoades ran a dodgy operation?

I believe there might be some dissent on that.

https://amp.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/safety-investigators-face-evidence-allegations-over-crash-probe-20181023-p50bc3.html

[Sandy Reith]

Reminds me of the late Billy Vincent of Smithton Tassie who had in excess of 20,000 hrs as a private pilot, flying mostly single engine Cessnas.

His charter business included fish spotting, flying between the nearby islands and mostly around Tassie. He was always available to help those in need, landing on a west coast beach on one occasion to rescue a half drowned fisherman. Being so highly regarded by his community he was awarded an AO.

He used to say to me he must come to my school on Phillip Island and get his commercial licence but it was always put off, he was pretty busy. And of course from a practical standpoint it would have been a complete waste of time and money.

CASA caught up with him and made him employ a CPL who soon crashed Billy’s plane on one of the Bass Strait islands.

CASA eventually went for him again in court with a long list of illegal charter flights, the list was shortened to a minimum when the Judge was appraised of certain facts. Namely CASA had employed Billy to fly their investigators to a couple of other plane crash sites and were happy with his service.

He was fined the absolute minimum but I think the experience soured Billy’s interest in flying for a living.

Billy Vincent was a shining example of commonsense and skilful flying that was appreciated by his community. The people of North West Tassie didn’t need him to have licences of any sort, and his life and work in flying demonstrate that bits of paper and miles of complex regulations don’t make the public safe.
CASA should have invented a method of making him legal but of course that might have brought down the house of cards.

I am privileged to have known him as a friend.

[skinduptruk]

Luce harps on a single case, go read 10x more here...

www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/migrated/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/107_p_phelan_pro_aviation_29_jan_2014_redacted.pdf

[Arm out the window]

Is that heavily edited video on the smh site supposed to show a properly conducted commercial operation? What's going on between about 0.37 to 0,45 (when '... something goes wrong' flashes up)? Doesn't exactly look like a reasonable thing to be doing with paying pax on board now, does it?

Funny how nothing between rotate and that point is shown, either ... if we're going to be honest about what should and shouldn't be done with unsuspecting passengers on board, let's be honest, shall we?

[megan]

Sandy, I'm afraid the regulators view of holding the proper license goes back a long way, Len Diprose was the chief pilot of Australian National Airways during the '30's and the first pilot to get a rating on the DC-3 in Australia, prior to the war he became chief pilot of Associated Airlines which was BHP's executive transport flying the Lockheed 12, when they moved up to a Heron they had to get ATPL's, which some of the company pilots found a tough gig. Similarly a chap by the name of Johnny Robbins, he flew New Guinea for Guinea Airways during the '30's, during the war he captained the airlines DC-3's on routes around Australia, post war the department introduced the requirement for an ATPL, not having the education, having left school at about 12 years of age, he didn't have the necessary education and was relegated to the right hand seat until retirement flying the airlines South Australia routes, as a teenager he invited me up front on the CV440 and offered a piece of advice, make damn sure you get an education.

[Checkboard]

What's going on between about 0.37 to 0,45 (when '... something goes wrong' flashes up)? Doesn't exactly look like a reasonable thing to be doing with paying pax on board now, does it?

The operation was to land on the beach. A precautionary search and landing involves a low pass over the uncontrolled landing area to check for obstacles, like drift wood, and the suitability of the surface, which depends on the tide and weather. As part of the landing process, it is a permitted operation below 500 feet.

The prec search and landing is part of the PPL syllabus (or was when I was teaching 30 years ago), so every pilot should be aware of it.

[Sandy Reith]

Thank you Megan, probably somewhat off thread but with or without our highly stratified and ever more complex system of pilot qualifications one factor does play an important part.

Namely the insurance industry, who in effect regulate with their risk assessments. Pilot experience is a major consideration and insurance risk is based on finely tuned realities within changing circumstances through time. At complete contrast to CASA’s whatever it feels like in accordance with Sec 9a. of the Act.

[Arm out the window]

Hi Checkboard, fair enough to do a precautionary search, but why would you do it downwind at low level offset from the beach with very limited options in a power loss (as per what ended up happening?)

High recce followed by a pass along the strip into wind, offset enough to see but also able to get to it, would be how you would have taught it, or something along the lines of that, wouldn't it? It doesn't make any sense to be blasting along at low level with nowhere to go, which is why I don't think a strip assessment was the primary reason for having the aircraft in that position, although that's of course only my opinion.

The thing is, as Luce is I think getting at, Glen's arguments seem compelling and legitimate, and muddying the waters by drawing supposed parallels with others just because they too are in a stoush with CASA isn't likely to be particularly helpful to his cause. Everything I've seen of Glen's situation from what he's put up here and said on the record sounds fair dinkum. Some others making a lot of noise about being victimised do not appear to have the same credibility. Again, opinion only of course.

[Squawk7700]

Much quicker to do a downwind prec search, a quick u-bolt at the end to turn around, then land. Something you’d expect more from a crop duster.

[glenb]

Dear Luce and others,

Please be assured that I value your comments.

I understand your sentiment. My matter is unique, in that it has no safety element to it all. There has neve been any allegation of any safety concern with my operation at all. It was simply an allegation of a breach of the Civil Aviation Act that states “An Air Operator Certificate cannot be transferred. It is that fact that makes my matter unique, and I do run the risk of “muddying “my own case.

I have taken your advice on board, and it will be in my “considerations” going forward. Cheers.

As a final thought about the Bruce Rhoades matter. Drawing on 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry, I am fully satisfied that the young back packer in that incident would still be alive if:

The CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) adopted this approach.

He/she was allocated 20 businesses by CASA, and committed to popping into each of those businesses once a month, for morning or afternoon tea, on a mutually convenient date.

They sat together for an hour and discussed matters with good intent. They built a relationship of confidence and then trust. A natural part of that conversation could have been as simple as “Run me through how you conduct adventure flights Bruce?” or “can I come along on one of your adventure flights Bruce”, or "how would you handle XXXXX Bruce?"

Any CASA concerns or questions could be resolved right back at that stage. The accident and fatality would most likely never have occurred.

Its hard to digest, but it really is that simple.

If the FOI turned up for morning or afternoon tea, and was told to bugger off, that would be a justifiable CASA concern.

The Operator that invites them in, as almost all would, with welcome arms is the Operator that will work collaboratively with CASA to improve safety and quality outcomes.

Its all well and good to have thousands of pages of documentation, laws, rules, advisories, regulatory philosophies, statements of expectation, exemptions, etc etc, but if the good intent and professional approach isn’t there, then it just won’t work. It really all starts with intent. Intent from the operator and intent from CASA.

The intent exists with the vast majority of operators, and CASA will know, because they will be invited in.

Sadly, and tragically, and most especially at the GA level, there would be less accidents if CASA choose to act with good intent. No amount of legislation can solve this very real problem that is so critical to flight safety in GA

That is what will improve safety outcomes. Good intent. CASA just doesn’t have the intent. Its not in the Organizational culture, and that stems from leadership..

In my own matter, and far closer to home. I operated only a few hundred meters from SOAR aviation. The truth is that industry, including other Government Departments raised safety concerns about that organization on multiple occasions, and repeatedly so over a protracted period. The Company had more accidents, incidents, than most, and even a fatality. That business went on right under CASAs nose and they knew about it. They ignored it. It wasn’t CASA that shut SOAR down. It was the students going to the Australian Skills and Qualifications Authority (ASQA), Its mind boggling.

ASQA was taking action against SOAR, while CASA was shutting me down. Its simply inexplicable at least.

By the way Luce, an industry colleague gave me a copy of “the art of war”, when this matter started. A very informative read, and after your post, I have located it for a re-read.

Cheers. Glen.

[glenb]

Dear Mr Buckley Thank you for your email of 1 February 2022 regarding an allegation of misfeasance against an official of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). I understand the matter you raise has a long history, and as you suggest the matter had been raised with the Hon Michael McCormack MP as the then Deputy Prime Minister. Furthermore, I understand this matter is well known to CASA, and as you advise aspects of your complaint are subject to a current review by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. As a result, I do not intend to comment on the specific details of this matter. In general terms, I expect all officers of CASA to fully cooperate with official Australian Government processes and act with honesty and integrity. Under the provisions of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act), CASA is an independent authority. However, as provided for under the Act and as you identify in your email, I have recently issued a Statement of Expectations to the Board of CASA, setting out my views on how CASA should carry out its functions. It is my expectation that this statement will be adhered to. Thank you again for taking the time to write and inform me of your concerns on this matter. Yours sincerely Barnaby Joyce

[Paragraph377]

Dear Mr Buckley Thank you for your email of 1 February 2022 regarding an allegation of misfeasance against an official of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). I understand the matter you raise has a long history, and as you suggest the matter had been raised with the Hon Michael McCormack MP as the then Deputy Prime Minister. Furthermore, I understand this matter is well known to CASA, and as you advise aspects of your complaint are subject to a current review by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. As a result, I do not intend to comment on the specific details of this matter. In general terms, I expect all officers of CASA to fully cooperate with official Australian Government processes and act with honesty and integrity. Under the provisions of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act), CASA is an independent authority. However, as provided for under the Act and as you identify in your email, I have recently issued a Statement of Expectations to the Board of CASA, setting out my views on how CASA should carry out its functions. It is my expectation that this statement will be adhered to. Thank you again for taking the time to write and inform me of your concerns on this matter. Yours sincerely Barnaby Joyce

Tomato Head may as well have just not replied at all. That letter is an Easter Egg - crack it open and there is nothing inside. Typical bureaucratic response. But in all due respect, he is a Minister, therefor by nature of his role he really has no idea what happens in his Government agencies. Much the same with other Ministers and their portfolios, they wouldn’t have a clue what’s going on. They’ve got agency people such as CEO’s, Secretary’s and other assorted mandarin titles, plus some Boards thrown in for good measure. Those people are meant to know what’s happening. And most of the time they don’t. I guess at least Tomato Head put aside time to respond to you, in between lobster and truffle lunches, playing ‘duelling banjo’s’ on his and Scotty’s ukulele’s, and in between playing party politics and planning how to bull**** his way into another term come May this year.

[LAME2]

I thInk it appropriate he responded. So many don’t. Nothing earth shattering in his response, but would you expect there to be? I wouldn’t. Awaiting the Ombudsman’s response.

[Sunfish]

Para337, the Minister and the public service are consrained to act within the law and also to operate with fairness, Equity, Natural Justice and all that other good stuff. That means they have to follow procedure and assume everyone is acting in good faith.

In mu opinion Minister Joyce's letter is as good as it gets.

1. He has acknowledged the existence of Glens matter.

2. He explained that he has to follow procedure.

3. He has stated that he expects CASA to apply the terms of his SoE.

What more could you ask for?

If Joyce were to say "Too right Glenny! Those CASA B%^$$%^ have stitched you up!". Then its now Joyces problem, not CASA's, to negotiate a settlement and come up with a few million to make you whole.

[Paragraph377]

Para337, the Minister and the public service are consrained to act within the law and also to operate with fairness, Equity, Natural Justice and all that other good stuff. That means they have to follow procedure and assume everyone is acting in good faith.

In mu opinion Minister Joyce's letter is as good as it gets.

1. He has acknowledged the existence of Glens matter.

2. He explained that he has to follow procedure.

3. He has stated that he expects CASA to apply the terms of his SoE.

What more could you ask for?

If Joyce were to say "Too right Glenny! Those CASA B%^$$%^ have stitched you up!". Then its now Joyces problem, not CASA's, to negotiate a settlement and come up with a few million to make you whole.

Yeah yeah Sunny, I know how it all works mate, trust me, I’ve been a pilot, worked in business, the corporate world and for government. The art of deflection, obsfucation, denial, blame shifting and ‘not recalling’ is a well honed craft that has been perfected by our mandarins under the Westminster system of injustice. As I said, it is nice that Glen got a reply from Tomato Head. But in reality and in the big scheme of things, Joyce’s letter and the SOE mean SFA. It doesn’t compensate Glen, it doesn’t right a wrong and it doesn’t bring about accountability. The best use of the letter is wipe ones ass with it.