Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA [Archive] - Page 9

glenb

15th Mar 2022, 06:08

Of most concern as the person impacted is that CASA has been unable to provide any supporting safety case at all, and in fact made no allegations against any quality outcomes at all.

CASA took a legislative requirement from 1988 and applied it to my business of more than a decade and used that as the basis to shut my business down.

I had been highly critical of CASAs failed Part 61/141/142 regulatory program on the basis that the regulatory change was delivered a decade behind schedule, hundreds of millions of dollars over budget, and I was critical of the impact of the regulations and their impact on flight training organisations, particularly in the regional areas. I obtained some media coverage of my concerns and believe that was a contributing factor to why a single CASA employee changed his mind and declared my business unlawful in October 2018, 12 years after it commenced trading.

It concerns me that a single CASA employee, without drawing on any precedent, not seeking any external and independent legal advice, could take a rule from 1988, and apply it to my business of a decade. It does not seem reasonable that a single CASA Employee can have that much authority, and particularly so when there is no supporting safety case.

It is important to clarify that the CASA action was not based on safety concerns. The CASA Employee simply reversed my Company’s approval overnight, on the basis that it had suddenly become unlawful.

It was a ludicrous assertion, and that was confirmed when the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office investigation determined that in fact my business was not unlawful, and I quote directly from the Ombudsmans Phase One report issued in June 2020, approximately 1 year after the business was closed down by CASA, and the damage had already been caused.

“….as of October 2016, No Australian legislation prohibited “franchising of an Air Operator Certificate, and that remained the case as of 25th March 2020…”

“There would be no legal or regulatory impediment to Mr Buckley selling or licencing intellectual property in the form of its AOC exposition….”

“in my concluded view there was an administrative deficiency due to an absence of a direct relationship between the activity being regulated and the policy said to regulate it. This gave rise to ambiguity and uncertainty, with the potential to cause dertriment….”

I would like to take the opportunity to provide my story to the Senate Inquiry. I felt that I was too close to the matter, therefore engaged the services of a journalist to tell my experience with CASA, and that will follow. At the conclusion of my story, I would like to put forward some suggestions that I sincerely feel may enhance aviation safety, and improve CASA as an organisation.

What follows is the article written by the journalist. I would also encourage you to read the two attached magazine articles from Australian Flying, “APTA before CASA action” and “APTA after CASA action.”

I understand that the names may have to be removed prior to publication. My preference however, is to retain the names if permissible, as the actions taken by CASA were the actions of a single CASA employee, and I do not wish to harm the reputation of CASA generally, or the 900 employees that discharge their duties professionally, and are motivated by the safety of aviation.

I have published this submission on my “forum” where the entire story has been told. The link to that forum is attached. It has had almost 1,000,000 views and over 2000 comments. It contains the entire matter in detail. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa.html)

My Story written by a Journalist

It is an ill wind that blows nobody any good.

What happens when an industry regulator’s senior management has unchecked power over the industry’s participants?

Dear Senators,

‘The Canberra Bubble’ has emerged as the buzz term when it comes to describing Parliament House and the government’s apparent dysfunctional culture. Facing allegations of corruption, bullying and intimidatory behaviour, a barrage of sexual assault and harassment claims, and a growing public sentiment that Australia’s ruling bodies are ‘out of touch’ with the general population, the government stumbles along through scandal after scandal, often dragging the executive and judiciaries of our democracy with it.

This matter is particularly relevant with an approaching election, and many from the community calling on their elected leaders from both sides of Parliament to introduce an anti corruption body to deal with misfeasance in public office and misconduct. Matters that are particularly relevant to my story.

In amongst the turmoil, in November 2020, the Senate Standing Committee’s General Aviation Inquiry, heard allegations of malfeasance in public office against (principally three) long-standing public servants from senior management at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA); including Shane Carmody, the then Director of Aviation Safety, Jonathan Aleck, current Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Services, and Graeme Crawford, then Manager of CASA’s Aviation Group. The same individuals that presided over CASA’s response to Bruce Rhoades’s fatal air crash in January 2017; the subject of an investigation on ABC 7.30 Report (Adele Ferguson and Chris Gillett - October 2018).

The forty minutes of testimony that Mr Glen Buckley, former Director of APTA (Australian Pilot Training Alliance) and MFT (Melbourne Flight Training) provided to the Senate Committee, is a snapshot, he alleges, of the depth of wrongdoing and abject failure of the safety regulatory authority to discharge its obligations to his company, to the aviation industry, and the Australian public.

glenb

15th Mar 2022, 06:10

The link to that presentation can be accessed via the link provided above in the Appendices above.

Under the democratic principle of ‘trias politica’ - the separation of powers - each arm of democracy (the parliament, the executive, and the judiciary) should have the power to govern, but also be kept in check by the power of the other arms. The democratic principle is the purposeful dissolution of power to ensure the integrity of all.

This principle, as demonstrated by Glen’s story detailed below, is not the modus operandi of CASA. In effect, a law unto itself, it develops the regulations, often with no parliamentary oversight or control. It has absolute power to govern those regulations. It has the power to decide whether those regulations have been broken. And it has the power to decide the fate of those under its control. CASA, or more specifically, those in power within it, took a mere matter of months to destroy Glen’s 25-year career and his burgeoning businesses, and both his mental and physical health.

Aviation is weather dependent; and it is a brave aviator indeed that flies in ill weather. Glen’s story lays bare the actions of an industry regulator, primarily facilitated by those individuals at the helm, behaving like an ill wind to whomever it chooses. A regulator acting at personal whim, and without tangible accountability.

With recent change of leadership at CASA’s helm, perhaps now is the time for this story.

Aviation is one of the most regulated industries in the world. From the airline industry to general charter, sport, recreational, and even unmanned aviation, no pilot or flight organisation escapes the rules. Rule One is ‘Safety First’. Rule Two is see Rule One. Rule Three is comply with Rules One and Two at all cost.

With a pot of public money that pays no urgent heed of time, and a legal team to match, the regulator can gladly comply with Rules One and Two. It has the money and time to afford and protect its self-interests, and to take a far more measured and considered approach to its actions than the often cash-strapped, time-poor, tax-paying organisations that it oversees. Public perception that anyone involved in aviation is just a ‘rich dude with toys’, although occasionally true, is far from the front-line reality. General aviation in particular, maintenance providers, flight training schools, joy flight operators, private charter organisations, and the like, are, more truthfully, a labour of love and passion.

And in Australia, Glen Buckley was one of those front-line tax-paying organisations labouring away at what he loved. A key general aviation industry participant, his Moorabbin-based, registered flight training organisation, Melbourne Flight Training (RTO #22508) had an exemplary reputation, a team of 25 employees and instructors, and included the necessary approvals to train overseas students. The school also had a safety record the envy of industry for the duration of its operation under his tenure. Glen was living the aviation dream. Glen was also respected by industry as an advocate for general aviation, publicly opposing the regulator on occasion, sometimes passionately. He adopted a stance of raising his concerns about the introduction of the new regulations for flight training that were by now a decade behind schedule and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. He was concerned about the impact on flight training organisations and most particularly those operationg in regional areas.

In 2017, driven by CASA’s regulatory overhaul to the flight training organisation certification requirements, Glen restructured his businesses; Melbourne Flight Training and the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA). With assistance from CASA, he successfully created a business model that ultimately impressed the industry, and, evidently, many in the safety authority itself. The model addressed industry’s economic concerns regarding the significant administrative burden of the new regulations without compromising Rules One and Two.

But, it seems, not everyone in CASA was happy with Glen.

From September 2018 to October 2019, Glen believes that key senior personnel from CASA launched an attack on the new business – and it went from ‘all systems go’ to ‘dead in the water’ in twelve months. Glen’s dream had crashed and burned. The organisation’s demise was not due to mismanagement, maladministration, a series of unfortunate events, an industry crisis or a financial crisis (historically the usual suspects) or even a one-in-a-hundred-year pandemic. APTA’s unravelling was insidious and defied logic, beginning with a single, devastating blow from the regulator itself, and then an unrelenting series of strategically-placed cuts. The full story has more twists and turns than an entire season of Dynasty, and, if Glen’s testimony is to be believed, points to a very sour problem with some past and present senior management of Australia’s aviation safety authority - CASA.

glenb

15th Mar 2022, 06:11

Below is Glen’s story.

An ill wind blows nobody any good.

The first inklings of a catastrophic storm building over Glen Buckley’s fertile patch of the aviation industry began a long time ago. In the early 2000s, CASA began drafting regulatory changes that would significantly alter the flight training school landscape in Australia. However, after more than a decade of development, it became clear to industry that the proposed legislation, although widely accepted as necessary, would place significant and often prohibitive financial and regulatory burdens on Australia’s grassroots flight-training organisations. Many of the schools likely to be most affected would be the quintessential Aussie ‘mum-and-dad’ businesses, time-poor and financially ill-equipped to afford the implementation and sustainment of the proposed weighty changes. Many of them did not survive, and many of those operated from regional and rural areas; their demise accelerating an historical overall decline in the General Aviation ecosystem in Australia that continues to this day.

At smaller than airline-industry airfields, no flight school means less aeroplanes flying on a regular basis. No aeroplanes regularly in the sky means less work for a maintenance facility. No maintenance facility means private pilots are less likely to hangar their aircraft at the airfield. Less private aircraft in hangars means less income for regional airfields, accelerating a weakening in investment and upkeep. Reduced airfield income means less aviation industry organisations drawn to the field due to lack of available industry services and potentially greater safety risks to aircraft, pilots, and passengers. Not a good outcome by any measure.

These regional aero clubs also provide an important social role, bringing together people from regional areas to engage and share common interests and passions.

Further, a decline in the health of regional and rural airfields may mean private aircraft owners are forced onto metropolitan fields, where yes, facilities are available, but also increased hangarage demand. Flight training, too, would be forced to concentrate at metropolitan airfields. More flight-training and private aircraft owners at metropolitan airfields means more small aeroplanes and their (perceived) safety concerns, over dense suburbs. The changes proposed by CASA, according to Glen, held the potential to further degrade the aviation ecosystem and drive the system towards failures. To the viewing public, failure in aviation looks like aircraft accidents; prime-time viewing that the regulator, the government, and especially the industry, would rather avoid.

Glen had been in aviation for decades. He knew the general aviation system was a diaspora, a population geographically scattered, and that the whole was greater than the sum of its parts. Australia, the land of wide-open plains and rugged mountain ranges, relies on a web of remote, rural, regional, and metropolitan airfields. The health of the aviation ecosystem relies on the people that work at, and on, those airfields, and their businesses. The aviation industry relies on the regulator to govern that system; to ensure the safety of all the humans and the aircraft in it and the public that use it. But should the system allow that the regulator manages the business concerns of those within it? To the extent of its impact on air safety, perhaps. To the extent of deciding a business structure or model, perhaps not. Creating income in aviation is one thing, creating income safely, as is the foremost concern of all things aviation-regulated, is quite another, and the aviation industry is one of the most-regulated industries around.

Although Glen’s business, Melbourne Flight Training, was metropolitan-based, at Moorabbin, and as a standalone organisation stood to ultimately benefit from the demise of smaller, remote flight-training schools, Glen was never one to shy away from advocating for his beloved industry. He knew that, although at times factious and fractious, the entire industry relies on each part’s survival. He believed that many of the regional and more remote flight-training operators would not survive under the new regulations, and that a ripple of small failures held the potential to disrupt the entire industry, creating a less safe environment for all.

More administrative staff, more paperwork, more reporting, meant less time in the air for instructors; less time doing the one thing that a flight-training business needed to survive; creating income and doing so with safety, not paperwork, dictating the time frame.

The new regulations demanded an unacceptable diversion of already stretched resources to tasks unrelated to improving safety or quality outcomes. Glen saw the incoming administrative burden and associated costs looming darkly on his business’ horizon. He fought hard against the changes; his active and vocal opposition to the regulator’s legislative proposals is one of public record. Unfortunately for Glen, it seems, his record would come back to haunt him.

Not known for complacency, Glen began thinking outside the box. How to build a business that would weather the impending storm? One that, as required by CASA, focussed on safety first but was still financially viable? Also, never one to turn his back on others, Glen knew there could be strength in numbers, and it was from this premise that he turned his mind to creating an alliance of businesses with the following elements:

1. Improving aviation safety by bringing a number of operators together to cohesively share safety information, and to develop a large and well funded safety department.

2. Increase standards and regulatory compliance by bringing operators together under a single approval, headed up by a highly qualified team of industry leading professionals that an organisation operating alone could not access, using state of the art systems and procedures.

3. To draw on the Registered Training Organisation capability, the CRICOS approval to deliver training to overseas students, and the Part 142 capability (highest accreditation for a flying school), to pursue opportunities with large international contracts and to develop export markets.

4. To protect the Australian owned sector of the industry, as more than half of all pilot training in Australia is now delivered by foreign owned Companies with the majority of those being Chinese owned.

5. Getting instructors into the aircraft and focussed on teaching the student with improved quality outcomes.

6. Enlisting a team of specialists to perform the regulatory actions needed to fulfil CASA’s compliance requirements for all alliance members (a major expense), and,

7. Spreading the administrative expense of compliance across more than one organisation, significantly reducing the expense to each Alliance member.

.

glenb

15th Mar 2022, 06:12

The industry knew that the old system had its flaws; the ‘lending’ of Air Operator’s certificates, and the ‘borrowing’ of instructors from other off-site flight-training organisations in adhoc scenarios, that, in reality, afforded both companies no real safety oversight. Operators did this because their organisation simply couldn’t afford or attract, or didn’t have the amount of work for, a full-time Chief Instructor, a full-time Safety Officer, or a designated administrator.

The current rules for flying school operations and the control of flying schools were hopelessly outdated and written before the advent of mobile phones and the internet. Quite simply the rules were decades behind the advances in technology. It was, for the most part, why CASA was changing them. And, they were wielding a big stick. Change to the new rules before 1 September 2017 or be forced into closure after that date.

Glen understood that CASA was driving change to address what it saw as a failure of the system. But he also believed that CASA had adopted a safety-at-ALL-cost attitude; a cost many organisations would not be able to afford. Glen sensed that the situation, however, had a potential win-win for the regulator and for the industry; a chance for organisations to operate in a way that made the previously adhoc system safer, more transparent, stable, collaborative and more efficient without the consequences of business-failures and their inevitable detrimental effects on the aviation ecosystem. Glen’s vision included businesses working as a team, collectively able to access the largest safety department of any flying school in Australia, all operating under a single CASA issued Air Operator Certificate (AOC)

So, as the saying goes, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. Glen contacted CASA and put forward his concept in June of 2016. CASA welcomed Glen’s model with open arms, even so far as to allocate many hundreds of hours of employee time assisting in its development. Around ten CASA employees, over the course of two years, were meaningfully involved. Back and forth between Glen and CASA went the model; information, advice, revisions, amendments, and paperwork for around 600 requirements, carefully working towards the definitive document (the Exposition) that would allow his new business to operate. Every one of the procedures was assessed by CASA personnel, signed off by CASA personnel, and peer reviewed by CASA personnel. In fact Glen had been operating in the same structure for six years prior, this was a significant investment in improving and upgrading what he had been doing with full CASA approval prior.

Given the business model was not too different from the current practices of larger flight training organisations, and what he was doing was simply formalising what many in the industry were already doing that CASA had previously tacitly sanctioned, Glen trusted the governing authority to act in good faith. Even to the extent of providing the regulator with commercial-in-confidence documents such as the proposed business contracts for alliance members. Glen was incredibly grateful for the professional assistance and advice of CASA in developing his Exposition.

With CASA well and truly on board, and after an investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money, Glen (and CASA) had built APTA; The Australian Pilot Training Alliance. CASA hadn’t simply been consulted, APTA had been built on approved CASA material, on hundreds of hours’ discussion and oversight, on good faith and mutual aims.

It is also well known that CASA has an active and eager legal department; Legal, International & Regulatory Affairs. CASA employees do not make big decisions autonomously and without context; there are implications to be considered, processes and approvals. When CASA makes a decision, it makes an informed decision. A very well-informed decision. It would be remiss to not stress this enough. CASA is an organisation of educated, well-informed, aviation and legal personnel whose ultimate objective is to ensure the safety of pilots and public. The organisation takes its responsibility to oversee safety in the aviation industry very seriously, and at whatever cost.

But CASA didn’t simply advise and consult and provide quality information through its wide-angle legal-context lens to Glen over those two years of development; CASA also recommended a number of rural and regional flight training organisations that would benefit from being a part of APTA, to Glen. Alliances were forged, organisations joined the cause, and with CASA appearing to be smiling down upon it all; APTA was set to be a working model. Five organisations, one administrative setup, expensive expert personnel employed to fulfil CASA’s new compliance and safety requirements, and a software system that provided 360-degree oversight of flight safety, all using CASA-provided manuals and compliance systems. Of note, is that the system was set up so that CASA could, at any point, log onto and be an active part of the system. CASA could see exactly what APTA was doing, whenever it liked, in relation to flight training; from flight and aircraft records to staff training, communications, and instruction delivery. A first for the flight training industry, providing total transparency and full oversight. And all with CASA’s blessing.

Too good to be true comes to mind.

In April 2017, CASA approved APTA. Four months before CASA’s September deadline for transition to the new rules.

Glen thought he was on a winner. The new rules hadn’t come into force for the industry yet. He was ahead of the game. In a field of what had been around 350 organisations, he now had a mere 12 competitors that were also approved. Ready to roll it all out, he had CASA on side and, significantly, assurances from the authority that they wouldn’t extend any deadline. So far ahead of the game, who wouldn’t want to be that business? Glen, and his alliance organisations, stepped fully into the gold-standard APTA.

Then, just weeks after certifying APTA as a fully-fledged flight training organisation under the new rules, CASA moved the goal posts. The storm had begun to brew.

Whereas it is said that all is fair in love and war, the same is not said for business. There are rules by which businesses must abide or face consequences. Both federal and state laws exist; fair trading, insider trading, trading whilst insolvent. CASA’s remit, however, is not the business of business, it is not concerned with competitive economics. It needed flight training organisations able to safely comply with the new rules, and safety, as always, was paramount. Faced with a tsunami of flight training organisations potentially in breach of the Act, CASA extended the ‘big stick’ date by a year. Glen was dismayed.

To be fair, CASA really had little option. Rightly or wrongly, in August 2017, the vast majority of flight training organisations were simply not ready.

But, in striving to be ahead of the game, Glen had employed the experts, setup the software, invested hundreds of thousands of dollars, and was working his expensive gold-standard new system. The two training organisations that made the business an alliance, Melbourne Flight Training and TVSA Pilot Training at Bacchus Marsh, approved as APTA bases by CASA, were also heavily invested. Working the new rules and operating a flight training curriculum that wasn’t required for another 12 months, however, was costly. Very costly for all involved. Except CASA that is. But then CASA is also not in the business of making money – and rightly so. But Glen’s business, before the real game had even started, was now operating under financial pressures not of its own, or even force majeure, creation.

Being on the back foot is never a good position for a business. The aim was always to grow, to offer others the opportunities of safety and the efficiencies that APTA presented. They say there is always opportunity in a crisis, so Glen sucked up the cost, borrowing heavily from his family, and got on with funding the associated salaries and procedures for the next 12 months whilst waiting for the postponed legislation to be introduced. He figured it would only be a matter of time before everyone caught up, therefore, best to stay on the front foot.

glenb

15th Mar 2022, 06:13

In November 2017, APTA was due for its first big CASA audit, called a Level One. This meant a week-long review of APTA’s operations. Happily for Glen, it passed, along with the alliance’s bases, Melbourne Flight Training, TVSA at Bacchus Marsh, and, significantly, the two newest CASA approved bases, AVIA and Learn to Fly, both at Moorabbin. No concerns were raised about the business model or its operations. As far as APTA was concerned, CASA’s audit had further provided confirmation that the model had dotted all its i’s crossed all its t’s. Glen saw a future.

CASA had also suggested a number of other training organisations to Glen that might fit into his business model. Latrobe Valley Aero Club was one of those small, rural flight-training organisations struggling to fit into CASA’s new rules. It looked at Glen’s business model and saw a good option. After CASA raised a number of issues with Latrobe Valley operations that were subsequently rectified, the aero club began operating under APTA’s umbrella on 21 May 2018. This was made possible by CASA’s own ‘Temporary Base Procedure’; a procedure that allowed a flight-training organisation to be under the full operational control of another whilst an application was assessed. This was a procedure that had been recommended by CASA to Glen; a standard and well-utilised industry practice. Glen was confident that, in collaboration with CASA, Latrobe Valley could become another alliance member.

Those patches of grey cloud on the horizon, however, had begun to darken and coalesce.

May 2018 heralded the arrival of a new CASA Regional Manager for Glen’s business locale. At the time, CASA operated teams of personnel charged with overseeing a number of flight school training certificates. These teams were also to be reshuffled. Glen’s old team had been pivotal to the successful development of the APTA business model. The new Certificate Management Team, of eight inspectors and a manager, however, exhibited two concerning characteristics; the first being that a member of the new team had an established reputation within industry as being exceptionally difficult to work with. Glen formally raised his concerns with the Regional Manager at the time.

The second was that communication from the new team had began to dry up and had a very different ‘feel’. Glen found this more than a little worrisome. He began to wonder whether the new team either hadn’t received a substantive handover from the old team regarding APTA, or, because the model was ‘different’, they simply didn’t understand it. Or, perhaps that difficult team member was causing some friction?

Regardless, Glen, having no tangible evidence at that point to back up that niggling feeling of unease, proceeded with his business plan. He continued marketing the new business as a successful, working model and, moving amongst aviation circles, spread the word. By early 2018, aeroclubs and training facilities as far as Ballina, Brisbane, and even Darwin were either interested or already operating under APTA temporary base procedures. Although on the back foot financially and now with 60 approved competitors, things were still looking up for APTA in mid-2018 as the bulk of the industry played catch-up with the revised big-stick deadline looming.

In June 2018, APTA sent in the paperwork to CASA for Latrobe Valley and Ballarat Aero Clubs to be formalised as permanent operating bases of APTA (rather than temporary). CASA had already approved several schools to operate under APTA, so he was confident there would be no significant hurdles. Then, in August 2018, APTA also asked to add a new base for Learn to Fly at Moorabbin (where one already existed) and Whitestar Aviation in Ballina. The addition of permanent locations were considered by CASA to be significant changes to the Exposition – the document that CASA had helped Glen build.

The next big compliance hurdle, however, was for Latrobe Valley to undergo its Temporary Base audit, a stepping-stone to Permanent Base. APTA welcomed the CASA team to Latrobe Valley on 3rd September 2018 and the audit went well. An exit interview is required by the regulations and any concerns regarding the operation must be raised by the team at this onsite exit meeting; that is, on the day. None were raised, the team left, everyone was happy – or so it seemed. Latrobe Valley, with a clean bill of health, was left to continue to operate under the Temporary Base procedure, with an expectation of moving towards permanently joining the business, once CASA formally approved it.

But, that niggling unease? Those grey clouds on the horizon? On October 23rd 2018, they turned into a storm.

Without any sign, signal, or warning, the winds changed dramatically. CASA pivoted 180 degrees on its official position on APTA’s business model. APTA received a carefully considered and meticulously worded email from CASA, with the subject; “A Notice of Proposal Refusal to Approve Significant Changes to Exposition and Operations Manuals”. It was an extraordinary email by any account, with an eye-watering deadline.

The email declared that, unless Glen could prove otherwise within seven days, APTA was considered an unauthorised operation, and as a result five bases would be required to cease operations, one base would have its approval reversed, two new base applications would not be processed, and no new members would be allowed to join.

Glen was horrified. Not only did it seem was could lose his own flying school, but it seemed he may have inadvertently dragged many others down with him.

In support of the claims in the email, and despite historical support for the business model, CASA pointed to an Aviation Ruling (an advisory setting out CASA’s policy or position on a particular issue) from 2006, regarding the franchising of commercial operations, that purportedly disallowed APTA.

Interestingly, months after CASA took action against APTA, they withdrew the Aviation Ruling that they used, and it was not replaced.

Just like that. In October 2018. Not during all those discussions? Not three years before, during the development phase, when CASA was made aware of the model? Not before approving the model in April 2017 and granting the new-rule Part 141/142 Certificate? Now, after all was said and done and spent.

But it was not that the Ruling had escaped the painstakingly thorough consultative process, but that CASA was using a Ruling that, in 2014, had been amended specifically to exclude flight training organisations. Glen was stunned. This was a ruling that did not apply to Glen’s business but was going to be used to blow the doors shut.

The email also stated that the organisations or temporary bases operating flight-training from locations other than APTA’s head office at Moorabbin, were likely in contravention of the Act, and further, that as APTA had facilitated the contravention it may face ‘enforcement action’. These were the exact procedures that CASA had previously designed with Glen, and used to approve new members.

CASA had also contended, that their legal department had not, until now, been aware of the franchised structure of the business. An extraordinary claim given that, as one of the very first flight-training schools to be issued with the new certificate, APTA would hardly have been able to slide under the radar. If anything, it would have been the subject of much closer legal and regulatory scrutiny.

To all this APTA had a mere seven days to respond or face being stripped of its certification. And, if it did try to state its case, it had to provide the relevant contracts with alliance organisations that proved APTA was the official on-site operator of the flight-training organisation at each of those locations. Only Glen had already provided the regulator with the relevant master documents of alliance member’s contractual arrangements, on a number of occasions.

Ignoring for a moment the legal integrity or otherwise of CASA’s email, what this shift in direction really signified and where it bore the greatest immediate implication, having effectively placed APTA on one week’s notice of impending closure, was that Glen suddenly had nothing to sell. Without a legally operating business structure in a highly regulated industry, Glen effectively had nothing. The email, although it wasn’t expressly worded as such, was a death warrant for the business. The actual execution, however, was still nearly 12 months away. Glen, at this point, had simply been hung out to dry. Slowly. In a very ill wind.

The implications of CASA’s decision to reject the business model as ‘disallowed’, slammed into Glen. Those pesky laws that businesses need abide by to legally operate? With just seven-day’s notice of the possible termination of APTA, how could Glen legally, let alone morally, continue to take on, or allow his temporary bases to take on, new students? If students had no certainty of finishing their training, why on earth would they train with APTA? How could he legally, let alone morally, take new alliance members on board? With APTA potentially unable to continue operating, why would new members even look at his model? And how could he legally, let alone morally, continue to operate at a cost of more than $20,000 a week when income, already an issue, with potentially no new students moving through the system, was suddenly looking dire? What would the lawmakers have to say about that?

And Glen certainly couldn’t simply pretend to his members that he hadn’t received it, keep half a dozen bases operating under the pretence that everything was going to be OK, send the paperwork in again, and hope for the best. Aside from Glen’s personal expectation of integrity, aviation is a small industry. To threaten the closure of that number of flight-training bases, everyone would know within minutes, confidence in his business would be lost immediately, and his hard-earned reputation would be in tatters.

glenb

15th Mar 2022, 06:13

However, Glen immediately spoke to the bases and his employees and powered on. He advised CASA they already had the master contracts, but also provided copies with signatures. Glen also requested more information from CASA as to how to move forward and rectify the perceived issues. Then Glen rang and spoke to David Jones, the new Regional Manager. According to Glen, Mr Jones said he wasn’t really ‘all over the matter’, but strangely, he had signed the letter. Mr Jones said he would organise a team meeting to ‘bring him up to speed’. A seven-day notice of termination of a sizeable business had been delivered to an organisation but the person signing that letter of proposed termination, needed to be ‘brought up to speed’?

Glen pushed CASA to admit that the 2006 Aviation Ruling did not apply to flight-training organisations. For a full nine weeks, whilst CASA deliberated, Glen was allowed to operate, basically haemorrhaging cash. Eventually CASA admitted the Ruling didn’t apply, checked its wind and changed tack.

Temporary Base procedures became the new problem. CASA asserted that the procedure it had developed, and further, approved APTA to operate bases under, was not designed for flight training organisations. Again, Glen was gobsmacked. He replied that the Temporary Base procedure that CASA had recommended to him had been included in CASA’s very own ‘How-To-Set-Up-A-Flight-School Guide’. Again, CASA retired to deliberate, ‘permitting’ Glen to continue operating. But the delay, for Glen, just meant more haemorrhaging of cash. Finally, CASA admitted the Temporary Base procedure was not an issue. But it wasn’t done, it checked the wind and changed tack, again.

By now CASA was preventing Glen taking on any new customers, and wrote to existing customers advising them that they were operating illegally.

In December 2018, the new Certificate Management Team finally delivered the paperwork of the audit findings for Latrobe Valley after he made a Freedom of Information request. With the Act requiring CASA to provide these findings in writing within seven days of an audit, it had taken nearly three months. Remember that exit meeting? The exit interview, as required by the regulations, where any concerns regarding the operation are to be raised? The one where the auditing team had said there were none? Well, suddenly there were plenty. Glen was beginning to feel that this was more than a change of heart related to his business model. But he took a deep breath and leant into this new CASA-created headwind, asking what needed to be done to rectify the problems. More weeks passed whilst Glen waited for an answer. CASA was still ‘permitting’ APTA to operate, although exactly what Glen had to operate anymore, with no new clients and no new alliance members, and critically, no new income, was fast becoming uncertain.

Glen became increasingly frustrated. Time and again, in dozens of emails and phone calls, he had asked CASA what APTA needed to do to comply. Pleading for face-to-face meetings, clarification of any alleged breaches of the Act, he begged for direction. All through November, December, then January, February and March of 2019 Glen reached out to CASA, via email and phone. Time and again Glen received either no answer, a ‘you are required to fix this’ answer, or no constructive answer at all. Time, however, was something that CASA had plenty of and Glen had none. Infuriated by months of inaction, the dragging of bureaucratic feet, and a gut-wrenching fear of the corresponding explosion of debt, Glen’s grey skies got darker by the day.

With little apparent left to lose, Glen, feeling entirely cornered, began lashing out. His correspondences, perhaps understandably, became increasingly urgent, penned in ink the colour of frustration. Drying that ink was a whirlwind of Glen’s commitments, obligations, responsibilities, and liabilities. His exasperated requests for direction and guidance from CASA, over those five months, ever more frustratingly for Glen, continued to go unanswered. For those five months, APTA and its members were still ‘allowed to operate’, all the while Glen was desperately borrowing more and more money from family in the hope that all was not lost.

CASA, although unable, unwilling, or refusing to respond fruitfully to Glen’s increasingly frequent emails, had however, found time to contact the alliance members and temporary bases, advising them they were most likely operating in contravention of the Act, that the structure of the APTA business model was illegal. Under threat of losing their businesses entirely, APTA’s temporary bases and prospective members understandably began abandoning ship; the dismantling process had begun.

Finally, after nearly eight months of wholly unproductive to and fro, with APTA bleeding operating costs from every open wound, CASA delivered the fatal blow. In June 2019 it demanded that Glen’s original business, Melbourne Flight Training, be absorbed into the deconstructed APTA business. With nothing left operating as a franchised part of the business structure, nothing left in his bank account, and a huge bill of debt to his creditors and family, Glen lost all hope, selling APTA for a fraction of its previous value.

CASA’s actions, or inaction, had effectively destroyed the business model. And, by effectively relegating Glen to an employee, they had removed him from direct operational control of his beloved flight school.

Mere weeks later, CASA wrote to Melbourne Flight Training, directing that his continued employment was “no longer tenable based on comments that he was making publicly”. After over a quarter of a century in the flight-training industry and twelve months battling the storm, Glen was done - forced to leave the industry both a broke and broken man.

Just months later, the Commonwealth Ombudsman found that the business structure, as operated by APTA and approved by CASA, was not illegal.

Too late for Glen. Far too late. He had lost everything.

In February 2021, Glen was officially declared bankrupt. Forced to leave his beloved aviation industry at age 56, he knows he cannot recover. But he can fight. And, although, in the writer’s opinion, Glen is severely traumatised by the battle lost, he is determined to fight for justice, for his reputation, and for his peace of mind. In pursuit of the truth, Glen has exhaustively demanded answers from CASA, approached the then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport, Mr Michael McCormack, MP Barnaby Joyce, the CASA Board, and his local MP for Chsholm, Ms Gladys liu without success. Glen has also made Freedom of Information requests, returned almost entirely redacted. He has submitted his extensive list of complaints regarding CASA’s treatment of APTA to the Industry Complaints Commissioner.

Further, the initial CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner ICC report found CASA had a case to answer but the final report was a complete about-face, finding CASA had done nothing wrong. How can a preliminary report be completely different from a final? Does this bring into question the independence of the ICC? How is it that an office within CASA, that reports directly to CASA’s board, is charged with investigating CASA?

Glen has also tabled his story and answered questions at a fiery Senate Inquiry at which Shane Carmody alleged Glen, by constantly demanding answers and action, had ‘stalked’ his staff at CASA, claiming he was assaulting and harassing them. Notably, the Chair of the Inquiry, Senator Susan McDonald, made the observation to Mr Carmody that, ‘I hear all over Australia that individual little businesses don't have the capacity to go up against your legal team’.

CASA’s remit as a safety regulator is to regulate the industry for safety. Its mission is ‘to promote a positive and collaborative safety culture through a fair, effective and efficient aviation safety regulatory system, supporting our aviation community’. At no point has CASA been able to prove that Glen’s business model was deleterious to aviation safety. CASA has tabled no evidence to suggest that aviation safety had or has been compromised by operating in the manner of franchise as utilised by APTA.

In effect, several bases overseen by a Head office, with high levels of supervision. Exactly as would be found in the Military or in any Airline. A system designed with CASA, approved by CASA

. Which begs the question, why Glen?

Sunfish

15th Mar 2022, 21:16

How can anyone invest in aviation in Australia after reading this?

glenb

15th Mar 2022, 21:37

Please note that I am significantly rewriting the Part 8 that I had here, based on Pprune feedback.

I have reposted this further down as the new amended Part 8. The feedback is embedded in Part 9 which will follow

aroa

15th Mar 2022, 22:30

To your simple question Glen you may get a 3 page response of solid , turgid endless sentences that conflates and convolutes the issue from the Mad Monk Dr Discrepancy…and make yr head spin.!

When 3 AWIs made false sworn statements for something that never happened, that technically and physically could not have occurred, I received from him a 3 page email of verbal vomit propounding that the false statements were not so, just discrepancies in the wording.
Hence his moniker.
Any criminal penalties to those persons were sidelined by Aleck and Carbody. Justice was justarse and perverted away. ( AFP found they had breached sections of the Criminal Code)
CAsA is NOT a Model litigant by any stretch of imagination.

Your tenacity is legend.

Lead Balloon

15th Mar 2022, 22:51

Hi Glen

Not disputing the substantive merits of your complaint, but some confusion seems to arise from a misunderstanding of fundamental concepts of legal personality. This statement is a nonsense:

“CASA permits an Authorisation Holder to sell his Company and AOC together.”

If an AOC has been issued to a company, the authorisation holder is the company, not a ‘him’ or a ‘her’. If the shareholder/s of the company sell the share/s to someone else, there is no ‘transfer’ of the AOC held by the company. The same person – the company – continues to hold the same AOC.

CASA has zero control over what the shareholders of a company choose to do with their shares in the company. However, CASA does have a very keen interest in whether changes behind the corporate veil affect the company’s capacity to continue to comply with its obligations as an AOC holder, and CASA does have power to deal with consequential compliance risks.

I think you’ll find that CASA’s concern was about how a whole bunch of separate entities were operating under the authority of one ‘Authorisation’ held by one entity – the age old ‘borrowed AOC’ situation.

The term “borrowed AOC” is also a nonsense. Either an operation is authorised by an AOC held by someone or it isn’t. If I claim to be conducting flying training under the authority of an AOC you ‘lent’ me, and the claim is untrue, I have the regulatory problem, not you. If you claim that I’m conducting flying training under the authority of your AOC that you’ve ‘lent’ me, you have the regulatory problem because CASA’s going to want to know what you’ve done to ensure that my activities are in accordance with the regulatory requirements. You haven’t actually ‘lent’ me anything.

If you tell CASA that flying training activities are now being conducted at locations A, B, C, D, E and F under ‘your’ authorisation, CASA doesn’t treat that as an attempted transfer of your authorisation but rather a question as to whether ‘you’ are complying with your obligations in relation to all of those activities at all of those places. Where it went pear shaped from my perspective was when CASA concocted some law about Parts 141 and 142 contemplating that all activities of an authorisation holder are carried out only by people who are in all respects agents of the authorisation holder. Parts 141 and 142 expressly contemplate the opposite.

If anything I've said above does not make sense, please say so, so that I can try to explain it better. I perceive that part of the difficulty you're having in getting the message across about your plight is focussing on the essential regulatory issues rather than the almost endless factual complexities.

43Inches

16th Mar 2022, 04:13

Yes, I always had an issue with terms such as 'borrowed' AOC etc. You are never loaning or borrowing an AOC, you are using it's authority, you can't give back the authority once used, you used it, it's done. The simple fix is not preventing AOCs from being used by other entities, rather the AOC holder is held completely accountable for the actions of the entities using their accreditation. If the operations are run safely and within the law, who cares, if not, the AOC holder gets a red hot legal poker stuck up their arse.

I don't see what major difference between what was being set up has to large flying schools with multiple satellite training facilities. As long as each operation has appropriate oversight there is no issue. It really is not up to CASA to say what is appropriate oversight, rather the operator to prove the operation is compliant and safe. I think what CASA is worried about here is they have withdrawn so much of their own responsibility when someone comes up with a system that threatens to replace the regulator as it represents the industries needs more than the regulator seems to understand. They have already delegated to RAA and other sports activities, why not delegate GA training to an individual entity, oops, too far, we might become irrelevant.

Why does a flying school/club have to employ a full time HOFO or such just to shuffle CASA's paperwork, why can't an organisation prove it can be done by an in-between. What use is an on site CP when all they are doing is administration, it's not like they can have any input on what is being done in the air away from the company building. Most airlines have centralised management with many bases across the country, why can't a string of small flying schools do the same. Could you restart this venture as an RAA like setup for training, where a single entity does all the work of HOFO, 217 etc etc and the clubs/schools just provide a liason CFI who runs the daily operation?

Lead Balloon

16th Mar 2022, 06:16

There should be no regulatory prohibition on the holder of an authorisation to conduct flying training being permitted to conduct flying training at multiple geographical locations through contracted entities. On my reading of Parts 141 and 142, there is no regulatory prohibition to that effect. On my understanding of the Ombudsman’s findings so far, the Ombudsman’s found no regulatory prohibition to that effect either.

What killed APTA was the practically insurmountable hurdle that was put in APTA’s way at the 11th hour and 59th minute of the application process, based on what someone in CASA woke up one day and decided was required to get the authorisation, contrary to what APTA had been led to believe by other people in CASA was sufficient up to that point.

glenb

16th Mar 2022, 06:55

Thankyou, Lead Balloon and 43 inches. I understand your advice and am currently redrafting this component of my submission in a revised Part 8 which i intend to post tonight. Cheers. Glen.

glenb

16th Mar 2022, 08:17

Lead Balloon

16th Mar 2022, 08:27

Paragraph377

16th Mar 2022, 11:14

All of which makes sense in the real world.

But someone in CASA decided that, in the interests of the safety of air navigation, you had to produce a spreadsheet showing how your contracts with all the people involved would result in you effectively micromanaging every minute of training activity conducted anywhere and everywhere across the various locations. Alas, a requirement that was impossible for you satisfy.
Succinctly said. Spot on. Lead Balloon has described ‘bureaucratic nonsense 101’. Wankers in government operate by using spreadsheets, ticking boxes, doing the same thing 4 times, and of course micromanaging. A sheltered workshop filled with morons who have minimal real world experience. They are an embarrassment.

43Inches

17th Mar 2022, 00:34

The structure you suggest is in fact exactly what I had designed with CASA, and that is how our Exposition was written.

There was one AOC,.
There was one Exposition (Operations Manual .

There was one set of CASA approved Key Personnel..For redundancy there were two CASA approved Group CEOs, two CASA approved Group Head of Operations, and two CASA Approved Group Safety Managers.

The traditional CFI at each base stepped into the role of Senior Base Pilot.

One tailor made IT Learning Management System and Oversight system was developed covering every aspect of the business i.e. predictive maintaenace, safety bulletins, syllabi, profieciency checks, qualifications etc etc.

It was one "super school" with daily contact and weekly group meetings.

Cheers. Glen

And anyone who knows the operation of a typical flying school knows that the HOFO/CP is a CASA regulatory position with almost zero hands on in the practical operation of a facility. They manage the legality and document side of things, ensuring AOC matters are complied with, therefore being 'on-site' at a facility is redundant and not required, as long as they have communication with the facility which in the modern age is instantaneous via phone or internet. The CFI is the practical manager of the site, the maintainer of standards and curriculum, they need to be regularly present on site to promote the company standards. They conduct the instructor standards checks and ensure students are being taught to syllabus.

Other systems like student tests and staff checks and testing, OH&S and Safety department can all be managed off site with regular contact and inspections to ensure standards are upheld.

Whatever drug CASA was on while shooting this operation down really needs to be examined in court, as there is either gross mismanagement or some form of corruption that has occurred at the 11th hour to stop it.

Although I think CASA summed up all it's thoughts of GA when it closed the likes of Moorabbin office and sacked all those familiar with anything useful to GA. "We don't want to deal with real people, we just want to write rules that keep them as far away from talking to us as possible, write it so they end up in endless court sessions about nuances and semantics rather than working things out with us, get them to write expositions to us about what they want to do, then we can just say its right or wrong and not talk to them..."

glenb

17th Mar 2022, 01:26

Terms of reference

I have carefully reviewed the terms of reference, and I am fully satisfied that this submission attends to each one of them, and is relevant.

Drawing on my 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry, I can confidently state that:

· The current CASA legislation and regulatory structure is not fit for purpose, and at its worst point in 25 years. It is unnecessary complicated and too burdensome on business. It does nothing to improve the safety of aviation.

· The current CASA Organisational culture is also not fit for purpose, and is at its worst point in 25 years. The current leadership of CASA facilitate an unsafe culture, that impacts on the safety of aviation.

A poll of 1000 General Aviation (GA) participants found that well over 90 % of respondents believed that CASA had failed to provide “clear and concise aviation safety standards”, as is required of it in the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

The Civil Aviation Act 1988 stipulates specifically, that a core purpose of CASA is “developing and promulgating clear and concise aviation safety standards.”

If this were a road safety issue, action would have been taken, yet for some reason despite all the “Inquiries” over the years, no action is taken.

Let’s consider if we were discussing road rules rather than aviation rules. Can you imagine if road user feedback indicated that over 90% of road users, couldn’t understand the road rules? Can you imagine how much less safe the roads would be? It’s a concerning scenario. Action would be taken.

Yet a situation is permitted in the aviation industry where over 90% of pilots and other stakeholders are compelled to operate in that exact environment, an environment where the rules are not understood by over 90% of the intended users of those rules.

There is very clearly a greater safety risk if the intended users of those regulations cannot understand them. It is more likely that an accident or incident will occur.

The risk to road safety could be somewhat mitigated in the short term, while the road rules were made “clear and concise”. if the police force acted with good intent. If they ensured they were technically competent, well intentioned, aimed to build a relationship of confidence then trust, acted with integrity, and were good decision makers.

Imagine if the Deputy Commissioner or some other Key decision maker of Police Force was also the person that wrote and implemented those very same deficient road rules. If that employee also had none of the traits mentioned above and was able to build a small team of senior officers around him. That culture would fester throughout the organisation. The old “fish rots from the head” scenario.

That combination of poorly written rules and unsafe culture exists. Not in the Police, because the high levels of oversight, accountability and responsibility would make that entire scenario unrealistic.

It is this failure to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards and an unsafe culture that actually facilitated a single employ of CASA having the power and authority to shut down my business with no notification, and without any supporting safety case whatsoever.

In reading this, please understand that my business, my livelihood and my wellbeing were effectively destroyed when someone in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, a single CASA employee woke up one morning and decided to conjure up some law that does not exist. Up until that point, CASA was fully aware, and had formally approved of the operations of my safe and successful flying training organisation I had built and operated for over a decade and was continuing to build.

I lost everything, and many others including staff, customers and suppliers have been impacted. I was dealing with It was a change of mind, It was a complete reversal of my business by CASA, and the impact was significant.

The decision maker in my matter, being the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, took no external legal advice, and made a decision by applying his change of opinion only. That application of his “opinion” was the opposite of the precedent set by CASA during my 25-year involvement in the industry. He never raised or discussed his intended change of opinion with any Manager above him, or the CASA Board.

The truth is that CASA had always permitted a multi base, multi entity structure, and I had adopted that accepted structure for the last 6 years of my business, with full CASA knowledge and formal approval.

CASA denies this and has misrepresented the truth of the situation to the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.

To test the validity of my argument, this matter can be resolved promptly. May I resctfully request that the Seantors put these two questions directly to CASA for response.

“CASA claims that they do not permit, and have not ever permitted more than flying school to operate under a single authorisation, as Glen Buckley did. Is that statement the truth?

It requires only a “yes” or “no” response. In fact, the most truthful and accurate response at this stage, will best be achieved by requesting a single word response.

Could I also suggest that the response is signed by any two CASA employees? Obviously, Mr Aleck as the Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory affairs should be one signatory. I am confident that no other CASA employee from the most junior employee through to the current CASA CEO will be prepared to counter sign that statement. It will not be returned with two signatures.

The second question would be

CASA has led the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office to be of the opinion that CASA first became aware of Glen Buckley’s structure just prior to October 2018, when they took action to close it down in October 2018. Mr Buckley claims that the truth is that CASA first became aware 2 ½ years prior and has provided us with emails (refer appendix) that support his contention. Mr Buckley claims that he worked with CASA personnel over many years attending to over CASA stipulated requirements 600 requirements to obtain revalidation in April 2017 in order to continue doing the exact same thing he had been doing for 6 years.

Does CASA still maintain that they first became aware of Mr Buckley’s structure just prior to October 2018?

Similarly, this requires only a yes or no.

If there is any doubt, as to the validity of my statement I direct you to the CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence, she will be compelled to tell you the truth on this matter, and she will have access to personnel that provide her with that information.

My assumption being that the CASA employee has provided that untruthful information to pervert the findings of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office to cover up both the error, and the misconduct.

Lead Balloon

17th Mar 2022, 01:58

Be careful. You're up against master sophists, Glen.

There's a difference between one flying school delivering flying training through facilities and personnel at multiple locations, on the one hand, and multiple flying schools delivering flying training at different locations on the other. An analogy: A university with multiple campuses isn't more than one university.

Each of APTA's 'franchisees' (gawd I hate that term and you would have done yourself a big favour if you'd never used it) is either a 'stand alone' flying school requiring its own authorisation, or is just part of 1 flying school operating under 1 authorisation. As I understand it, the APTA model was one authorisation held by APTA under which flying training was being delivered through facilities and personnel at multiple locations. i.e. the 'one university, multiple campuses' model.

If that's correct, your proposed question: "CASA claims that they do not permit, and have not ever permitted more than [one] flying school to operate under a single authorisation, as Glen Buckley did. Is that statement the truth?", is an irrelevant and therefore pointless question.

Even assuming it could be bothered, CASA's answer would be, I suggest, "NO", and I reckon correctly so. And what will you have achieved?

43Inches

17th Mar 2022, 02:07

Yes I think the basic premise is that you could have one AOC, not multiple AOC's with one HOFO and central administration. In reality what you have done is make one large flying school with multiple bases, as of course all bases follow one AOC administered by APTA. While each may operate independently they must all comply with guidance from 'mother'. You might be able to incorporate individual site variations within the OM package but it would be hard to get away with 'multiple' OMs for each site. Each base then becomes APTA trading as '(insert flying school here)'. There is nothing to say that each base facility can not be financially separate to the main central facility, such as club rooms, facilities and aircraft and even staff.

As an example I can only see it working this way;

'Sunday' flying group wants to start a flying school, they have a small fleet and 100 members with club facilities at X airport. Costs of establishing a working AOC, way too high, however lets contract APTA to run the school with its management staff and we provide the facilities and fleet. APTA charges for use of the AOC and provision of management such as HOFO and safety department, pays an on site CFI and instructors. 'Sunday' takes fees and hourly rates to pay for operations and passes the relevant funds to APTA for it's services.

Lead Balloon

17th Mar 2022, 02:36

...and CASA will want to know how APTA, as the certificate holder, is going to comply with APTA's obligations arising from flying training being conducted under the authority of APTA's AOC at X airport.

43Inches

17th Mar 2022, 02:42

I tried to make that example straight forward, as the CFI and instructors are still APTA employees, therefore the operation is technically 100% APTA, just trading as 'Sunday'. Aircraft, facilities and customers/income are provided by the Club. The situation would be no different to flying schools that use private aircraft online. Things like reception, accounting etc, club pokies, gambling den and bar don't have anything to do with the AOC so can be completely separate.

glenb

17th Mar 2022, 03:18

Lead Balloon, and 43 inches.

You are correct, the term franchises is something that I am particularly uncomfortable with. It doesn’t accurately represent what we built, it was so much more. Franchises is a term that CASA chose to use for obvious reasons, and the Ombudsman Office adopted. If you see me use it, then it is an inadvertent slip.

The point of the “did CASA ever permit it”, is important from the perspective of CASAs integrity. CASA maintain that they had never permitted it, and that the concept was something new that CASA not dealt with before, and the Ombudsmans office has accepted that. My point is CASA had always permitted it, and allowed other operators to operate in that manner. i.e. Latrobe valley aero Club operated with full CASA approval under Bairnsdale Air Charter. When they transferred to me, it suddenly became illegal.

43 inches, we operated exactly as you suggested. Rather than an hourly rate it was a quarterly flat fee. A lower rate for flying clubs in regional areas, and a higher rate for more commercially orientated operators.

Lead Balloon, you are correct. CASA will want to know how we managed oversight. That was the process that lead to the revalidation as a Part 141/142 organisation in April 2017. The system required a Head Office of 3 fulltime admin staff, two CASA approved HOOs, two CASA approved CEOs, and two CASA approved Safety managers. Supported by an IT and learning management system that provided 24/7 access to every aspect of the operation.

CASA had accepted the system and approved it in April 2017, audited it in November 2017, and then suddenly it became “unlawful” 18 months later. If CASA were opposed to it, they should have said something back in mid 2016 when I approached them and began developing it with them. i.e. negligent misstatement?

Cheers. Glen

Lead Balloon

17th Mar 2022, 04:04

I'm on your side, Glen, but again I reckon we have to be surgically accurate about what is meant by "it" when we say "CASA had always permitted it".

Let's take this example: "Latrobe valley aero Club operated with full CASA approval under Bairnsdale Air Charter. When they transferred to me, it suddenly became illegal."

I think it would be more accurate to say that CASA approved Bairnsdale Air Charter to conduct flying training, under the authority of its AOC, at the premises of the Latrobe Valley Aero Club. That approval would have entailed an assessment by CASA of the processes and procedures Bairnsdale Air Charter had in place to comply with the rules applicable to flying training based at that location. To put this another way, CASA didn't approve Latrobe Valley Aero Club to do anything.

Do you agree?

And in arrangements like that, if the flying training activities based at Latrobe Valley Aero Club are going to be conducted under the authority of APTA's AOC rather than Bairnsdale Air Charter's AOC, there will have to be an assessment by CASA of the processes and procedures APTA has put in place to comply with the rules applicable to flying training based at Latrobe Valley Aero Club, and an approval of APTA to do so.

In this model, the regulatory issues have nothing to do with what Latrobe Valley Aero Club wants or chooses. The regulatory issues are about the processes and procedures of the person holding the AOC under which the activities are going to occur.

Did CASA say that there was no way that APTA could ever be approved to carry out flying training activities based at the Latrobe Valley Aero Club?

(You were 'led up the garden path' alright. The last minute "in all respects agents of" the authorisation holder was a concoction. And the spreadsheet requirement was practically insurmountable. 43 nailed the question de jour.)

(And my apologies re the 'franchisee' word. I thought you'd used it.)

Arm out the window

17th Mar 2022, 08:45

A coordinated and standardised flying training system with multiple bases, a centralised safety system feeding into those bases, working to a shared exposition is an excellent idea. If supervision, accountability and ongoing improvement are factored in (as I'm sure they were in Glen's model) then it must be a win for Aussie flying training.

CASA were clearly aware of the model for years prior to the change of oversighting team, if Glen's documentation is correct - and I don't suggest it's not - so they were happy with the concept. In a common sense world, why wouldn't you be?

It seems to me the APTA model clearly demonstrated appropriate and sufficient means for the responsible manager/s in CASA's eyes - HOO and Safety Manager - to fulfil their responsibilities. The sticking point might be the CEO role, given that we're talking about a number of legal entities signing up, all with their own CEOs, so who wears the responsibility for ensuring adequate provision of facilities and equipment for each base? Don't get me wrong, I really like the concept, but that's possibly one factor they'll home in on as to why they flip-flopped and said they objected to it after apparently being fully happy for years.

Still, that's hardly a reason to lead someone to believe that all was great, only to pull the rug out without notice. As with so many of the 'explanations' issued by CASA, the legal double-speak is like a Gordian knot, kind of like gaslighting where you find yourself being sucked into trying to refute their legal argument rather than looking at what makes sense in terms of actual instructors and students in aeroplanes doing sensible flight training activities.

Best of luck, Glen - I hope Pip Spence and Mark Binskin take strong action to ensure that it's Australian aviation, not organisational face saving, that wins out. They are in a position to do it, if integrity means anything, and this case will I hope be a watershed in prying open the sorry managerial state of our regulator.

43Inches

17th Mar 2022, 08:51

The sticking point might be the CEO role, given that we're talking about a number of legal entities signing up, all with their own CEOs, so who wears the responsibility for ensuring adequate provision of facilities and equipment for each base? Don't get me wrong, I really like the concept, but that's possibly one factor they'll home in on as to why they flip-flopped and said they objected to it after apparently being fully happy for years.

That's the simplest answer, the HOFO/CP is responsible for ensuring each base has the required documentation and adequate facilities or the operation stops until such time there are. The CFI is responsible on location to see they are used and obeyed. The entities at the coal face of the other companies are not flying staff, they run the 'Club' let's say, not much to do with the compliance just financial and asset management. That's the way I see it anyway.

Arm out the window

17th Mar 2022, 09:00

Fair enough, and regular visits and standardisation checks would ensure that the HOO and SM were aware of the running status of the various bases and in a position to require improvements to be made where needed. If a base was clearly not providing the means to keep their part of the operation running properly, then the HOO would (I assume) have the power to require them to smarten up or lose accreditation within the organisational structure, and therefore the right to operate under it.

43Inches

17th Mar 2022, 09:21

My take on what Glen has said is that all the compliance related activities such as documentation and flying staff is run by APTA, the club would just provide the 'facade' around the flying side that looks like and independent club. However the Flying is purely done by APTA under their AOC. The club would have a location, building, aircraft and support staff such as reception and accounts. APTA would be responsible to ensure those parts met the requirements prior to operating, ie appropriate maintenance categories and condition, runways adequate for purpose, libraries... etc. The club would pay to ensure that standard was met.

Lead Balloon

17th Mar 2022, 09:27

Sunfish

17th Mar 2022, 10:25

Squawk7700

17th Mar 2022, 11:03

Are you suggesting Sunfish, that maybe a threatened competitor got into someone's ear?

Sunfish

17th Mar 2022, 11:18

Squawk, I'm merely suggesting that APTA's I. P. represents a very significant and valuable body of work. Glen has been deprived of the value of that work, by whom and to what purpose I know not.

43Inches

17th Mar 2022, 11:42

Thats why I said earlier this is either the work of someone grossly incompetant or an intentional corrupt action to what end we don't understand yet. There is no sound legal reasoning for what happened especially the time frame and accusations brought on.

Lead Balloon

17th Mar 2022, 21:10

I think there is something here that has been overlooked. I speak from the perspective of person involved in corporate start ups and venture capital...... people who don't play by Marquis of Queensberry rules.

What has been overlooked is that in the Australian context, APTAS business model, as made concrete in its exposition and other manuals and documents as well as its software is a unique creation embodying very valuable know - how that has cost a great deal of time and money to create and is a comprehensive solution to the requirements of flight training in Australia.

As such APTA's intellectual property is worth a very, very great deal of money in Australia because it is/was capable of dominating the flight training market. I suggest that the I.P. is still worth a great deal of money.

That raises a number of possibilities when one considers human nature. Those possibilities include fear among APTA's competitors as well as envy and greed in others. Who knows? Perhaps APTA by another name was going to be resurrected by others once it had been "abandoned" by Glen?

...You know, a new name and a few cosmetic changes to satisfy CASA and voila! A money printing machine.

To put that another way, is Australia to be denied access to APTAs comprehensive and valuable flight training solution? Might someone be waiting to resurrect the idea? Who owns the I.P.? Who has the manuals?Glen will correct me if I’m wrong, but the entity Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd (ACN 119 046 285), of which Glen used to be CEO, still exists. According to its website (https://www.auspta.edu.au/), the entity has CASA Part 141 and Part 142 approvals. Subject to individual contracts to the contrary, intellectual property created by that entity’s employees and officers (including ex-officers like Glen) would vest on its creation in that entity and continue to be owned by that entity. (This is one of the many reasons for the importance of understanding the nature of corporate entities. The property of the entity is just that: the property of the entity and not the property of its shareholders or officers or employees.)

glenb

18th Mar 2022, 00:40

I am digressing from my submission momentarily, as i wanted to post this drop box link. This is an article from Australian Flying. I call it "APTA before CASA action"

I hope the link works, I'm no IT guru. For those joining this saga late, it does provide a very good snapshot.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1akmm9gxrashpfy/APTA%20BEFORE%20CASA%20ACTION.pdf?dl=0

And this link should take you to the appendix I call "APTA after CASA action.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/70whbpuytap4i7h/APTA%20AFTER%20CASA%20ACTION.PDF?dl=0

glenb

18th Mar 2022, 01:47

Lead Balloon, as always, your advice is highly respected.

Regarding Post #2014 regarding the concepts of legal personality. Informative and understood. Cheers.

Regarding Post # 2016, regarding the legality of it. Your assessment is spot on. There is no impediment, never was, and still isnt. I think CASA are the only ones that still refuse to accept that. I understand why CASA would choose to publicly think that way if they are not acting with good intent.

Regarding paragraph two; I just want to clarify something. APTA was approved. My initial flying school APTA did this multi base, multi entity structure under my single approval, and had done for 6 years. In 2015, i took the imitative and began a very significant investment of many hundreds of thousands of dollars, to significantly improve what i was already doing with full CASA Approval. In preparation for the introduction of Part 141/142, I worked with CASA to improve on what i was already doing, and named it APTA. CASA worked with me, and added Members before Part 141/142. They fully revalidated my significantly improved operation in April 2017, and then approved further bases to be added. To demonstrate the ludicrous nature of it. One member had already been approved formally by CASA through a significant change process. A very thorough APTA and CASA procedure. This occurred prior to October 2018. They operated for approximately 1 year. They were moving into a significantly improved facility, and CASA rejected that application because it was now illegal. The identical operation they had approved 1 year earlier, although now, the concept became illegal and the application for the new base was rejected. Stranglely CASA permitted opetrations at the old base to continue.

This was a fully approved and well resourced and importantly well intentioned operation that was fully operating prior to an overnight reversal.

Post #2019. You are correct. I am fully satisfied that we achieved industry leading levels of oversight and operational control. I will be brief here. It will sound like chest beating but here i go. Please understand i was very proud of it.

We utilized and had our Flight school Management System completely tailored to a multi entity, multi base CASA approved concept. It can be found at Smartaviation.net. For example bases would not share "business" information i.e. customer personal details. training records etc. Bases would share Flight and Duty times, Safety matters etc. The system had scalable access i.e. senior management would require access to this information.

I provided CASA access to this system, so for the first time in Australian aviation, could CASA log into an operator and get a snapshot of pilot training records, safety matters, upcoming meetings, flight and duty times etc. CASA had never had such access with any other operator.

I supported this with what i believe to be the largest safety department of any flight training organizations. It had two CASA approved Group Safety Managers, and a budget of approximately $400,000 per annum.

I also had a team of CASA Approved Key Personnel 2x CEO, 2 X GHOO (Group Head of Operations) and 2 X GSM (group Safety Manager). A third HOO had been recruited from the Airlines and was coming toward of her formal (in our Exposition) induction process.

All new Members underwent a stringent induction process, which involved are staff being on site fulltime for as long as required. Typically approximately two months. Staff that had been with me for many years, and knew my operation well took on the Role of onsite Senior Base Pilot.

I appreciate that you were not suggesting that I did not have full operational control, but I am fully satisfied that I did. The assumption of many is that CASA had raised concerns of operational control. CASA never has and still hasnt identified any lack of operational control. CASA simply deemed it now illegal.

Post 2023 taken on board, and your post #2028 articulates it beautifully and i will adopt.

Regarding your query "Did CASA say that there was no way that APTA could ever be approved to carry out flying training activities based at the Latrobe Valley Aero Club?". Answer Yes. All schools were forced to leave APTA by CASA. The Meeting was held in our Head Office. CASA advised them that they had to leave.

43 inches. I do not know who you are, but you are obviously involved in or have been involved at a senior level within flight training. Your assessment in Post 2021 is absolutely 'on the money"

AOT Post 2029. The only thing I would like to point out which is significant. There is only one CEO. CASA now legislate the CEO as one of the three CASA required CEO. I was approved via a formal process as the CASA Approved CEO. I did also have a alternate CEO Approved, for additional redundancy. The responsibilities are significant, and can be found here. Its a sound concept. Years ago the many business owners put young guys up as the Chief Pilot, and dumped all the legal liability on them. in Subpart 142D Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (legislation.gov.au) (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021C01233/Html/Volume_4#_Toc89846359)

Not much of an opportunity to proof read this, Cheers. Glen

Lead Balloon

18th Mar 2022, 02:06

All makes sense, Glen.

I seek just 1 clarification. You said in your most recent post:

"One member had already been approved formally by CASA through a significant change process."

This is very important. Did CASA write a piece of paper that said "Member X is approved to conduct flying training" or something like that?

Or did CASA write a piece of paper that said APTA is approved to conduct flying training using Member X's resources at Member X's location" or something like that?

It is very important to understand who was "approved".

The way in which Member X is "approved" to conduct flying training is that it is issued an AOC/Part 12X certificate.

The way in which APTA is "approved" to conduct flying training using Member X's resources at Member X's location is that APTA gets the approval (maybe a variation to its certificate?).

There can't be a half pregnant world in which an entity has an "approval" to conduct flying training but not an AOC/Part 12X certificate authorising it.

(PS: You might be able to quickly clarify another issue, Glen.

ASIC shows the current entity with the name “Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd” is ACN 119 046 285. ASIC says that that entity’s former names include “Melbourne Flight Training Pty Ltd”.

ASIC also shows ACN 612 834 152 as named “Melbourne Flight Training Pty Ltd” with the former name “Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd”. However, that entity is shown as having been deregistered on 23 January 2021.

Looks like two different corporate entities swapping identical names. Nothing too unusual about that, but I want to make sure I understand who’s who in this zoo.

What was the ACN of the entity of which you were CEO called “Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd” while you were dealing with CASA? I’m guessing it was ACN 612 834 152 – the one that’s now been deregistered – and ACN 119 046 285 then grabbed the name. But I’d rather not guess.)

Paragraph377

18th Mar 2022, 05:42

I think there is something here that has been overlooked. I speak from the perspective of person involved in corporate start ups and venture capital...... people who don't play by Marquis of Queensberry rules.

What has been overlooked is that in the Australian context, APTAS business model, as made concrete in its exposition and other manuals and documents as well as its software is a unique creation embodying very valuable know - how that has cost a great deal of time and money to create and is a comprehensive solution to the requirements of flight training in Australia.

As such APTA's intellectual property is worth a very, very great deal of money in Australia because it is/was capable of dominating the flight training market. I suggest that the I.P. is still worth a great deal of money.

That raises a number of possibilities when one considers human nature. Those possibilities include fear among APTA's competitors as well as envy and greed in others. Who knows? Perhaps APTA by another name was going to be resurrected by others once it had been "abandoned" by Glen?

...You know, a new name and a few cosmetic changes to satisfy CASA and voila! A money printing machine.

To put that another way, is Australia to be denied access to APTAs comprehensive and valuable flight training solution? Might someone be waiting to resurrect the idea? Who owns the I.P.? Who has the manuals?
I said it somewhere earlier in this thread, but the day that Glen ‘called out CASA’ and told them they weren’t safe or called them unsafe, I forget the exact wording, is the day that Glen became a marked man. They put the crosshairs on Glen and delivered a fatal shot.
Out came all the archived TRIM files plus Glen’s business proposal and they went through it with a fine tooth comb, until they found their silver bullet. A ruthless, vindictive, disgusting bully of a department.

glenb

18th Mar 2022, 21:43

Lead Balloon, in regard to your question,

“I seek just 1 clarification. You said in your most recent post:

"One member had already been approved formally by CASA through a significant change process."

This is very important. Did CASA write a piece of paper that said "Member X is approved to conduct flying training" or something like that?

Or did CASA write a piece of paper that said APTA is approved to conduct flying training using Member X's resources at Member X's location" or something like that?

It is very important to understand who was "approved".

The way in which Member X is "approved" to conduct flying training is that it is issued an AOC/Part 12X certificate.

The way in which APTA is "approved" to conduct flying training using Member X's resources at Member X's location is that APTA gets the approval (maybe a variation to its certificate?).

There can't be a half pregnant world in which an entity has an "approval" to conduct flying training but not an AOC/Part 12X certificate authorising it.”

Lead Balloon, I understand the point of your question. I am trying to cast my mind back 5 years now, and I cannot be assured that my response is correct. I will make an FOI request for the certificate that CASA issued and on receipt I will be able to post it and answer correctly. My recollection is that it stated the Member could conduct training under the APTA approval, in accordance with our procedures. Please standby, and I will update upon receipt. Regarding your second query.

“ASIC shows the current entity with the name “Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd” is ACN 119 046 385. ASIC says that that entity’s former names include “Melbourne Flight Training Pty Ltd”.

ASIC also shows ACN 612 834 152 as named “Melbourne Flight Training Pty Ltd” with the former name “Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd”. However, that entity is shown as having been deregistered on 23 January 2021.

Looks like two different corporate entities swapping identical names. Nothing too unusual about that, but I want to make sure I understand who’s who in this zoo.

What was the ACN of the entity of which you were CEO called “Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd” while you were dealing with CASA? I’m guessing it was ACN 612 834 152 – the one that’s now been deregistered – and ACN 119 046 385 then grabbed the name. But I’d rather not guess.)”

Unfortunately this is somewhat confusing.

Company ending in “285” was the original Melbourne Flight Training that commenced operations as a flying school in 2006,

Company ending in “152” was established in 2016 and was called APTA. The intention being to set up APTA as a completely separate Entity, with its own separate AOC.

CASA advised that due to all resources being directed to Transitioning existing organisations, they would not be able to process any new applications for approximately 12 months. Therefore, the new Company “152” was effectively useless as those timelines were unacceptable.

In discussions with CASA, I elected to build the APTA model under the existing Melbourne Flight Training, Company “285” registered in 2006, with all of the existing approvals i.e. ARN 759217, RTO 22508, and CRICOS approval.

As the APTA concept, was an Australia wide concept, I preferred the Company name “Australian Pilot Training Alliance,” rather than Melbourne Flight Training.

I swapped the names only. No other changes were made. This was done through ASIC and CASA. The original Company from 2006 changed from “Melbourne Flight Training” to “Australian Pilot Training Alliance” to better represent the concept.

Therefore the original Company from 2006 changed from MFT to APTA, obviously retaining the original ACN ending in “152”

The newer Company from 2016, with no approvals changed from APTA to MFT.

There was only the one AOC ever issued back in 2006 to ACN “285” with ARN 759217. That is the business that CASA took action against. With the trading restrictions in place for ACN “285”, my funds were exhausted. CASA would not permit the multi base, multi entity structure, and would now only allow one entity to continue under the AOC.

I was unable to continue operating as all funds were by now exhausted, and approximately $200,000 of debts had been accrued, as the matter had dragged on far longer than anticipated.

I transferred the business with ACN “285”. The original business with the CASA approvals to one of the APTA members to facilitate their continuing operations in return for taking on the debt and paying it in full. The business now had minimal value as CASA was still “considering” if it would be permitted

I transferred the shares to the new owner in return for settling the debt. Not one cent ever went into my bank account.

I hope that goes someway to clarifying a very confusing situation. Please come back with any queries. I am about to go into a roll of 3 X 13 hour shifts with a hefty drive each side, so please be patient as I may not get back here till Tuesday midday ( a few Married at First Sight episodes to catch up on in the morning). Wow that Olivia looks like a real piece of work, and she was my favourite originally, as the family keeps reminding me.

Have a great weekend all, cheers. Glen

glenb

18th Mar 2022, 21:52

About youWho are you making this Freedom of Information (FOI) request for?
Myself

Your detailsGiven name(s)
Glen

Family name
Buckley

Do you hold an Aviation Reference Number (ARN)?
Yes

Your ARN
187047

Email
[email protected]

Phone
+61418772013 (tel:+61418772013)
Documents requestedI seek access, under the FOI Act, to the following documents:
I am requesting the original certificate issued by CASA to approve operations for AVIA and Learn to Fly when CASA approved them to operate under my Authorization. for ARN 759217 (Australian Pilot Training Alliance)

Date from
2016-01-01

Date to
2018-10-26

Do you agree to the removal of the names of any CASA officers from the documents you are seeking?
Yes

Do you agree to the removal of the names of any third parties from the documents you are seeking?
Yes
Consultation and charges Consultation with third partiesWhere consultation with a third party is necessary, do you agree to the disclosure of your identity for the purposes of third-party consultation?
Yes

Lead Balloon

19th Mar 2022, 04:39

Thanks Glen

The corporate stuff all makes sense. ACN 119 046 285 has effectively been the 'operational entity' throughout. The new entity you registered in 2016 became all too hard from a bureaucratic perspective, so it was deregistered in 2021.

I look forward to seeing the piece of paper issued by CASA 'relating to' the 'approved member'.

Try to take it easy.

glenb

21st Mar 2022, 01:00

21/03/22

To the CEO of CASA, Ms Pip Spence.

As you are fully aware, I have made substantive allegations against a CASA Employee, of Misfeasance in Public Office.

I have submitted that allegation on multiple occasions over the last three years to

The CASA Board under the previous Chair.
The previous CASA CEO,
The CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC)
My local MP Ms Gladys Liu the Member for Chisholm,
Publicly on a forum that I have drawn your attention to previously. This topic now has almost 1,000,00 views and over 2000 Posts and can be accessed here. The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/). My particular topic will most likely be on page one or two under “Normal Threads” its titled “Glen Buckley and Australian Small Business V CASA”
The Senate Inquiry into CASA

I am currently preparing my submission to the Senate Committee inquiry into CASA. It is in draft format at the moment. I am drawing on industry feedback but anticipate having it finalised over the next two weeks.

That draft submission can be accessed via that forum, at the link I provided above. Whilst I don’t expect you to review the entire thread again, I would like to draw your attention to Posts #2004 onwards where that draft submission can be found.

There are a number of posts clearly labelled Part 1, Part 2 etc. That is the draft submission. It is not complete at this stage although the components posted are effectively finalised.

I am currently at Part 9 and adding additional Parts, and will continue to do so over the next couple of weeks

To date, there has been no investigation into the conduct of this CASA Employee.

It seems unethical and lacking in transparency, that a CASA employee could have an allegation of misfeasance in public office made against him, over more than two years ago, and there be absolutely no CASA internal investigation against that misconduct, despite all the irrefutable evidence of the commercial harm caused.

These are all matters that I will attend to in that Submission. I am currently up to some “legal aspects” at Part 8 and 9 but intend to continue outlining in Parts 10 onwards.

How easily CASA could have avoided this entire matter, and the harm caused by those decisions made by the CASA employee.

I will divide the harm up into two different components.

The commercial harm to Employees, Customers, Students, Suppliers, other businesses dependent on me, etc and then in the second section, the more personal harm caused to me and my family i.e., financial, reputations, generational, emotional, etc.

The Submission will conclude with well-intentioned suggestions for consideration to improve the safety of aviation and improve General Aviation, most particularly within Regional Areas.

You are fully aware, that I am seeking a meeting with you at the earliest opportunity to raise my allegations before you personally, and, to seek the opportunity for a meeting to redress all parties that were impacted by this matter, with the exception specifically of myself.

I seek only to put every other affected person back in the same situation they were in before CASA so suddenly close my business in October 2018, and as if they had never met me.

With a Federal Election looming, the topic of Government integrity is crucial, and the topic of an anti-corruption body to ensure Government Department transparency is highly pertinent.

Whilst I appreciate that my local MP Ms Gladys Liu is opposed to such a watchdog, I personally will be endeavouring to bring this matter to the attention of my local community, of which I am a 55-year resident of that Community.

The purpose of this letter is to bring my proposed Submission to Senate to your attention.

Request a meeting with you at your earliest opportunity.

I have included all parties mentioned in this correspondence, as recipients.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

Sunfish

21st Mar 2022, 07:36

You are wasting your time Glen. because you subscribe to the very common fantasy that if you could only explain your case to the CEO or Board or Minister IN PERSON, that they could see the truth in you, wave their magic wand, instantly right all wrongs and everyone lives happily ever after. Glen, Mate, THIS NEVER HAPPENS.

Spence, the Board, the Minister, have to take advice. They are very very busy people. They don't know anything about you except what is written in a one A4 page brief handed to them twelve hours or less before the meeting. They don't want to know you, they just want to resolve things as fast as possible and get on to the next task. THEY DON'T KNOW YOU, DON'T WANT TO KNOW YOU,, DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU, DON'T HAVE TIME TO LISTEN. ALL THEY CARE ABOUT IS RESOLUTION.

In the highly unlikely event that you get a meeting, guess who will:

1. Brief Ms. Spence before the meeting.

2. Be seated one metre behind her and one metre to her left or right.

3. Take the minutes of the meeting.

4.Write the letter of offer you will receive after the meeting.

5. Write the brief to the Board and the Minister detailing the substance and outcome of the meeting.

That's right.......

IMHO you DO NOT MEET CASA unless and until there is agreement between you and CASA that you have been wronged and an acceptable offer to you IN WRITING is already on the table.

You cannot make your case any better than you already have by meeting in person. All you are doing is giving them another opportunity to paint you as an insane malcontent - which is what they will do.

They are expert at twisting words and will pounce on your slightest exaggeration and/or verbal misstep to destroy your case. Whatever you do, if you raise your voice, swear or threaten they have got you cold.

Once you have met Spence you can be labelled as "a nutter who won't take no for an answer" what follows shortly thereafter is an application to the nearest Magistrates court for an AVO (apprehended violence order) preventing you from approaching any CASA staff and its game over.

You cannot improve your case by meeting any of these people. The reverse is true. Spence cannot help you directly, she has to follow procedure. A direct appeal CANNOT produce the outcome you seek and could very easily destroy the work you have already done. An agreement arising out of a personal meeting instead of out of bureaucratic procedure can easily be painted in the media as corruption, collusion or worse. This is exactly what happened to Gladys in Sydney and countless other senior bureaucrats and politicians over the years - "I met so and so and we agreed that.....$$$$$" don't you understand what the iron ring will do to Spence if she doesn't follow procedure??????

To put it another way, CEO's Boards and Ministers only have power when they follow laid down laws and procedure. A personal meeting leading to a personal decision and a personal offer, even if totally justified, is NOT part of the Westminster tradition as many have found to their cost.

All the best..

havick

8th Apr 2022, 15:31

Hi Glen, hope you’re well.

Any latest updates with your progress?

glenb

11th Apr 2022, 06:13

Sorry "Havick", i couldnt edit the title after i posted. The truth is that I have been on some prescription medication, and I have since discontinued its use. Admittedly levelled some of the emotion, but thats not what I actually need right now. Back on the horse and ready to go.

I have a telephone call with the Ombudsman's Office on Thursday this week to receive an update, which i will get up here as soon as practical. In the interim i have made this following flyer and begun distributing it in the electorate of Chisholm. Its one of Australia's most marginal seats, and I will be active in distributing this via letterbox drop, train stations, and attending appearances in the community by Ms. Gladys Liu.A 55-year residents personal and unsatisfactory experience with Ms Gladys Liu, the Liberal Representative.

My name is Glen Buckley, I have no political allegiances whatsoever. The truth is that throughout my 55 years in this electorate, I have voted Liberal more often than any other Party. I voted for Ms. Gladys Liu at the last election, I will not be doing so this election, and I urge you to consider my matter in your decision making come election day. Ms Glady Liu has clearly failed me.

In October 2018, a single Government Employee decided that my business was operating illegally and shut it down, effective immediately.

That action resulted in me losing my two businesses, my home, and my health. It left me bankrupt. I still reside in the electorate, but now in a rental property. If either my wife or I were to stop work, we would be homeless. That is the truth, and it is inevitable that at some stage in the future we will be confronting that situation. I have been left destitute.

Despite all that, the greatest burden I carry is for all the people that were impacted by this. That includes other businesses dependant on me that were forced into closure, the staff who lost their jobs and entitlements, the Suppliers that were left unpaid, and the customers who were significantly impacted.

A subsequent investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman found that the Government Employee had no legal basis for that decision. I am unable to fund a legal case, so I am seeking an Act of Grace Payment from the Government for that wrongdoing.

I am not seeking any compensation for the impact on me, but I am seeking a payment to ensure that everyone impacted by this action i.e., staff, customers, and suppliers are paid what they are owed.

Since October 2018, I have been seeking a meeting with Ms Gladys Liu to seek her assistance in pursuing that Act of Grace Payment, and as my elected representative of Chisholm she is the appropriate person to approach.

For more than three years, Ms Gladys Liu the current Member for Chisholm has failed to even meet with me, despite multiple written requests.

Whilst I seek no assistance from you in my matter. I do want to inform you, that from my own personal experience I have found that Ms Gladys Liu has completely ignored my very reasonable pleas for assistance.

I urge you to consider that in your decision making come election day. You will be presented with many options. Please consider those carefully. You too, may need the support of your Local Member at some stage in the future. Please choose someone that you feel will clearly represent you.

The entire matter can be accessed via here, for those that are interested. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa.html) It has had almost 1,000,000 views and thousands of comments. For expediency I would direct you to Post #2039 on page 102 of that forum.

Thankyou for taking the time to read this, please choose carefully on election day. The Seat of Chisholm is one of Australia’s most marginal seats. Your vote is important.

Safe travels. Cheers. Glen. Email: [email protected]

glenb

11th Apr 2022, 22:30

Dear Mr Buckley

Thanks for your email and apologies for the delay in responding.

I appreciate the update on your intended submission to the Senate, and I will of course read it once it has been provided to the Senate and published.

As I have indicated to you previously, the Chair and I consider that the Ombudsman is best placed to independently review the issues that you have raised, and we are committed to working openly and constructively with the Ombudsman as they complete their review.

Pip

Lead Balloon

11th Apr 2022, 22:53

I don’t want to be the bearer of bad tidings, but there is no guarantee that the GA inquiry will continue under the new Parliament to be formed after the upcoming Federal election. As you can see from Odger’s here: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Odgers_Australian_Senate_Practice/Chapter_16#h15.5 Uncompleted inquiries and a new ParliamentReferences to the legislative and general purpose standing committees lapse at the commencement of a new Parliament, apart from references which are automatically made under the standing and other orders, such as the references of annual reports and the performance of departments and agencies. …That said, there is a pretty good chance that some of the Senators in the new Parliament will support the continuation of the reference of the now-technically defunct inquiry.

But as I and others have said many tines before, Glen: CASA doesn’t care. That’s because CASA doesn’t have to care. The only time CASA won’t yawn at more ‘incoming’ from you is if the ‘incoming’ is initiating process in court proceedings to which CASA is a party. Even then, CASA will bring its resources and scaremongering to bear, to drive you further into the ground. Focus your energy on the Ombudsman’s inquiry (the outcomes of which CASA will practically ignore, anyway).

aroa

12th Apr 2022, 21:51

Isn’t the problem with any Ombudsman outfit that they make … ‘recommendations’ ..for which there is no enforcement to make the agency right the wrongs.
Been there, had that. Interesting exercise …and CAsA just doesn’t give a sh*t, eh Jono?

Dr Discrepancy can do a verbal vomit to cover any eventuality

The most valuable thing in life is being Vertical and well..Is good.! Rest easy Glen , and stay that way.

glenb

18th Apr 2022, 00:18

Hi folks,

I had a phone call scheduled with the Ombudsmans Office on Thursday 14th April and had intended to provide an update here.

On the morning of the 14th, I was contacted by the Office and advised that the call had to be postponed. At this stage, I have offered some alternative dates, and understnadably with the Easter break have not herad back.
Once that call goes ahead, I will provide that update.

Cheers. Glen

glenb

18th Apr 2022, 00:30

Posting on every electoral poster i can find https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Untitled_Clipping_041522_074444_PM.jpg

Interestingly, my efforts have resulted in a number of local residents contcating me, and it seems that I am not alone. Appears that our local Liberal Representative has a habit of ignoring the electorate.

Arm out the window

18th Apr 2022, 07:25

Good luck to you Glen. Amazing how you are having to go through all these different approaches, when the issue has been clearly laid out for all to see as far as I can tell.

I think most people would agree you were doing something that would have enhanced flying training standards in Australia, been a model for others to aspire to, and a solid business model as well. Win-win, you would think.

Onlookers like us clearly haven't been through the wringer like you have, but it's still very disturbing to see a concept so reasonable be buried in 'wheels within wheels' of prattle and drawn out like this.

Naive of me to think this way, I suppose, but rather than have to chip away via direct approach, ombudsman, MPs etc, how much more in line with the so-called Australian fair go would it be that when a reasonable allegation of regulatory stuff-ups if made, it gets an honest examination and action to fix issues rather than the carpet treatment.

Good on you, and hope there's a few steps forward soon.

Sandy Reith

18th Apr 2022, 08:36

Maybe the Ombudsman will overcome timidity and understand what has happened here. Otherwise the only real hope is a Minister with a sense of what’s right.

CASA has not come forward with any rational, believable, safety related or plausible reason for the reversal of approval of Glen’s otherwise successful business model for a group of flying schools.

In my opinion CASA acted to preserve its regime of excessive fee garnering and as part of its extreme and counterproductive control mentality.

In Australia today flying schools, and General Aviation (GA) charter operators (the few remaining), are subjected to extraordinary and unnecessary paperwork and recurring fees for invented permissions. To start a flying school or charter operations is the stuff of nightmares and huge expenses. You couldn’t invent such disproportionate measures in a short time, CASA has had 34 years and its trajectory shows no sign of temperance.

For the outsider it will be difficult to comprehend the injustice and there will be people who won’t want to believe that an arm of government can behave so badly. Unfortunately it’s true, and it’s an old pattern but Glen’s case is an outstanding example of CASA’s callous disregard for the fair go and for the fortunes of Australia’s General Aviation.

Arm out the window

18th Apr 2022, 09:22

Fully agree, Sandy. The paperwork and admin burden is bloody ridiculous.

The real test of the CASRs is how they work in practice, and it's abundantly clear that the people responsible for them have not actually had to put them into practice and experience their effects (if indeed responsibility is the right term, implying as it does a requirement to answer for and rectify problems).

Sbaker

18th Apr 2022, 22:27

If this example is not abuse of office by a Commonwealth officer... What is?

Oh.. that's right, they hide behind the "negligence" wall...

And make a mockery of our laws, morals, principles and conduct that we uphold in Australian society (you know a modern western country)... And in doing so make a mockery of themselves as an "authority"..

You would expect third world country authorities to carry on like this... But not here...

Anyway, I think alot of the people in a position to do something about it - have the misconceived idea that the bar should be set very high to commence investigation / prosecutions of CASA staff - which is the opposite... The bar should be lower... For example, if a Police officer is caught speeding - they are held to a higher standard because they should know better.... Also, because it's a Commonwealth officer.. any misconduct or abuse of office is generally seen as aggravated for this reason...

But getting it taken seriously is the first step..

glenb

19th Apr 2022, 02:39

Two journalists from the Age have been contacting members of the electorate seeking any newsworthy stories from Gladys Lius electorate, so I have reached out.

To Whom it may concern,

I was forwarded your contact details by a concerned neighbour who was aware of my plight.

My story is long and detailed, and may be too cumbersome to be of interest, nevertheless here I go.

I am currently distributing these leaflets throughout the electorate of Chisholm (Glady Lius electorate). Untitled_Clipping_041522_074444_PM.jpg (1790×1265) (auntypru.com) (https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Untitled_Clipping_041522_074444_PM.jpg)

I have also attached two magazine articles that provide an overview of my situation, and they can be accessed here.

“APTA before CASA action” https://www.dropbox.com/s/znq4es7aoenll2k/APPENDIX%208B-APTA%20BEFORE%20CASA%20ACTION.pdf?dl=0

“APTA after CASA action” https://www.dropbox.com/s/k12d43vtnhek75l/APTA%20AFTER%20CASA%20ACTION.PDF?dl=0

In short, the second most senior employee of CASA, a man by the name of Jonathan Aleck decided that my business had suddenly become illegal after more than a decade of operations. The cost to me was significant and included the loss of my home, and my two businesses, my life savings. I have been left absolutely destitute. Sadly many others were affected by this and this included employees, businesses, customers and Suppliers.

A Commonwealth Ombudsman’s investigation found that in fact Mr Aleck had no legal basis for his decision. Unfortunately my current financial situation makes it impossible for me to pursue legal action. I would also direct you to the presentation that I made before Senate Estimates, which can be accessed here Senate Rural Regional Affairs & Transport Committee GA Inquiry - Mr Glen Buckley - YouTube

I have outlined the story in its entirety on a pilot’s forum referred to as Pprune and my thread has now had almost 1,000,000 views and over 2000 comments. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa.html)

I am not the first to make allegations against this CASA employee. The matter is relevant with the current election approaching and most especially with one of the hot topics being the Governments failure to establish an anti-corruption commission. Despite the substantive nature of allegations against Mr Aleck, there has been absolutely no investigation into his conduct. I am fully satisfied that this matter is being covered up, and that this coverup extends to the Office of the Deputy PM. The Deputy PM has been fully briefed on this matter by the previous Chair of the CASA Board.

I apologise for the rather brief nature of this correspondence but hope that I have provided enough initial information to allow your assessment.

I have a large body of well documented evidence in support of my allegations. Of particular concern is that for three years I have been trying to engage the support of Ms Gladys Liu, although she has chosen to completely ignore my please for assistance, and therefore I have decided to distribute the brochures throughout the electorate.

If you would like to discuss this matter further, I would encourage you to contact me via return email or my mobile on 0418772013.

Thankyou for your consideration, cheers. Glen Buckley

aroa

19th Apr 2022, 22:48

Hope you get serious investigative journalists that want to get their heads around complex issues.
Found in the past that ‘difficult’ stories can be too much for some journos.
The ‘fish and chips wrappers’, are quick and easy. Here today, wrapping the fish tomorrow and forgotten the next.

glenb

20th Apr 2022, 00:17

MAY DAY EVENT - SENATOR REX PATRICK

THE FUTURE OF AUSTRALIAN GENERAL AVIATION

Hosted by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia

Sunday, 1st May 2022: Commencing 11:00am – Bankstown Airport NSW.

Attention Australian Aviation Industry Participants,

I warmly invite you all to attend my MAY DAY EVENT hosted by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, kicking off from 11am on Sunday 1st May 2022, at:

AOPA Australia Headquarters

Hangar 120, 10 Stinson Crescent

Bankstown Airport NSW 2200

Australia.

General aviation is in crisis and is but a shadow of the aviation industry it once was. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is largely responsible for what has been a death by a thousand cuts.

Over the past 20 years the Parliament has held inquiry after inquiry, with the feedback from industry remaining consistent throughout. Despite the unified pleas for change, CASA have wrought havoc on the aviation industry, forcing a never-ending parade of regulatory change that has destroyed businesses, reduced industry competitiveness, and dramatically undermined the sustainability of small to medium sized aviation.

The Parliament reacted to the decline when it passed the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019. This Bill sought to ensure that in developing and promulgating aviation safety standards, CASA must consider the economic and cost impacts on individuals, businesses, and the community.

Sadly, little seems to have changed.

The Parliamentary ‘nutcracker’ doesn’t seem to have cracked the over-regulation walnut, so it is now time to reach for the Sledgehammer.

Having worked tirelessly with industry and having watched things go from a cautionary PAN PAN to an outright emergency MAYDAY, I am ready to answer the call on Sunday 1st May, where I will propose a powerful sledgehammer that can be used to finally sort things out so that general aviation may recover and thrive.

Come take part on Sunday 1st May (from 11am). I am very much looking forward to meeting as many of you as possible, with a lunch-time BBQ and refreshments for participants.

Sincerely,

REX PATRICK

South Australian Senator

BENJAMIN MORGAN

Chief Executive, AOPA Australia

Mobile: 0415 577 724

Email: [email protected]

--------------------------------

REGISTER YOUR ATTENDANCE

To assist with event catering and equipment hire, participants are encouraged to register their attendance, by emailing: [email protected]

--------------------------------

EVENT DATE AND LOCATION

Commencing 11am, Sunday 1st May 2022 - AOPA Australia Headquarters (FalconAir Hangar)

Hangar 120, 10 Stinson Crescent, Bankstown Airport NSW 22200, Australia.

--------------------------------

WHO SHOULD ATTEND THIS EVENT

• Recreational, Sport, General Aviation and Commercial Aircraft Owners

• Recreational, Private and Commercial Pilots

• Flight Training Businesses, Charter Operators, Maintenance Businesses

• Aviation Industry Associations, Peak Bodies, AeroClubs & Flying Groups

• Aviation Industry Supporters

--------------------------------

INVITED INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS

• Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia

• Aircraft Maintenance Repair Overhaul Business Association

• Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association of Australia

• Australian Federation of Air Pilots

• Sport Aircraft Association of Australia

• Australian Beechcraft Society

• Cessna 182 Association

• Australian Mooney Pilots Association

• Australian Piper Society

• Lancair Owner Builders Organisation

• Australian RV Aircraft Association

• AngelFlight Australia

• Wagga City Aero Club

• Central Coast Aero Club

• NSW Sport Aircraft Club

--------------------------------

INVITED MEDIA

• ABC Television

• ABC Radio National

• Channel 9 News

• Channel 7 News

• The Australian

• The Australian Financial Review

• Australian Flying Magazine

• Australian Aviation

--------------------------------

NOT A MEMBER? WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!

Join today: www.aopa.com.au/membership (http://www.aopa.com.au/membership?fbclid=IwAR3iE2WuUQfRx58SkaKVptc8w5Q8fQdd-uJP1RZxSL5MRStW2jww7GeqK-U)

AOPA Australia | Your Freedom to Fly

glenb

20th Apr 2022, 03:23

Dear Ben Morgan,

Firstly let me thankyou for arranging the May Day Event with Senator Rex Patrick on May 1st at Bankstown Airport.

As you are aware, the industry established a Crowd Funding page which raised funds for me to pursue my matter. I have utilised some of those funds and purchased a Melbourne Sydney ticket and a car rental. I will most certainly be in attendance. Please consider this my RSVP.

I would like to make a request of you for consideration. I am not sure of the intended format, and I do not wish to bump anybody or compromise anyone else’s intended presentation.

As a business owner who had his business shut down by CASA with no supporting safety case whatsoever, I would very much appreciate the opportunity to present my story. I anticipate that would require approximately 30 minutes.

The contents of that presentation would directly address the terms of reference of the current Senate Inquiry. I would ask that AOPA record that presentation, and it would be the basis of my own submission to the Inquiry

If you determine that this would be appropriate, I would provide Senator Rex Patrick with a 30 minute read as a precursor to that presentation.

Thankyou for your consideration of my request,

Cheers , Glen Buckley

glenb

20th Apr 2022, 08:18

An update from the Ombudsman’s Office today via a 30 minute telephone call.

To cut straight to the chase it was grim. After 3 years of investigating, the Ombudsman’s Office is unable to investigate allegations against an individual, such as an allegation against a CASA employee, and that needs to be directed to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner. The Ombudsman Office has accepted CASAs view that not “everyone in CASA was aware of APTAs concept. This is despite the emails from 2 ½ years prior to that that date I had emails with CASA pitching the concept to them. Then what followed was an investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars in systems and personnel, to be fully approved by CASA in April 2017, then have CASA formally approve bases under it. We then underwent an audit and no concerns are raised, then CASA found about it and shut it all down.

All this without a supporting safety case. To those on here and in the industry you will appreciate that “not everyone knew about it”, doesn’t really cut it. They advised that they cant to anything with regard to "practical outcomes .Anyway, rant over.

I jumped into my car to go and feed a mates goldfish while he heads off to an Elvis festival interstate. To be honest I sat in the car having a bit of a sulk before turning the key.

Then the phone rings. It’s the Office of the Deputy PM, and someone very senior. They were aware of the leaflets I was distributing. Let anything let me say that what followed was the most encouraging conversation I have had in over three years. Whilst I don’t want to pre-empt anything, I do believe that Office will “get to the bottom of it”, and that the Deputy PM would be involved. It was extremely encouraging.

It left me feeling so good, I gave the Goldfish an extra pinch of flakes.

The dilemma I have now. Do I ramp up my matter in the local electorate by getting down to railway stations etc, or do I back off and give the Deputy PMs Office a week to digest it, and get back to me.

Ive been too nice today, I already gave the fish extra food, I reckon I keep going.

tossbag

20th Apr 2022, 08:38

It's not a dilemma, not in my reading of it. Never trust a politician under any circumstance. Ramp it up buddy.

Just one question though, I know the NATS are tied up with Libs, but why would the NATS get involved when it's a Liberal seat?

Chronic Snoozer

20th Apr 2022, 09:21

The Ombudsman Office has accepted CASAs view that not “everyone in CASA was aware of APTAs concept.

Jesus wept. Accountability in all its glory. Nothing but admiration Glen, for the cause you are fighting.

Sunfish

20th Apr 2022, 10:10

Glen, don't you dare stop doing what ever you are doing until you NOW get a meeting with CASA and a written plan of how CASA is going to resolve this matter. The difference between NOW and a few weeks ago is that the Board and DAS are NOW empowered by the Government to resolve the matter.

Please don't stop doing things just yet, The Ministers office can NOT fix your problem - that would be corrupt. However they can ask CASA for an explanation as to how your treatment squares with the SoE.

Do not accept personal undertakings etc. the Libs and Nats might not win. Barnaby may be given a different portfolio. Keep going until you have something in writing (an admission of wrongdoing no less) from CASA!

Sandy Reith

20th Apr 2022, 12:36

The Ombudsman concept was all the rage at a 1960s Liberal Party State Council, put to the meeting it passed with a handsome majority against the wishes of Premier Henry Bolte. Bolte argued that it was the job of MPs to intervene on behalf of constituents and ensure good governance throughout the Public Service.

How right he was, we spend umpteen $millions on these useless bodies, we have an Ombudsman for just about everything and they’ve become just another part of Government Industries and the Public Sector. The latter, that was once the Public Service, increasingly in unequal competition with the private sector.

But to the DPM, Minister Barnaby Joyce, and the possibility of action for Glen, firstly an apology from Gladys Liu and a promise to prosecute Glen’s case should be the first correction. After that it’s hard to disagree with the Sunfish advice:-

“Keep going until you have something in writing (an admission of wrongdoing no less) from CASA!”

Hopefully the caretaker protocols don’t inhibit BJ from directing the CASA Board to act now to compensate Glen

aroa

20th Apr 2022, 23:42

IMHO this country is coming to a dangerous impasse.

When we the people fund the diabolical outgrowth of BS agencies full of ‘managers’ and fat cats that deny all the obligations of transparency, accountability, natural justice and due process ,and from their positions of power and your money, set about squashing people, businesses, and in CAsAs case, a complete vital industry….we have aPROBLEM for this “democracy”.

Surely we don’t have to go down the Ukrainian path to ensure our freedom, that should be a given, not having to be taken back with violence.

We might have our little paper flutter on May 21, but over the decades what changes to the good for CASA has that done. SFA.?
As someone in CAsA once said.. ‘ ministers and politicians come and go, be we go on forever’.
For all that we have most surely paid the price.

I do hope for Glens sake and sanity the “ the phone call” for such a morale lift is not simply followed by a let-down. Sure he’s had more than enough of that.

Put in an application for a CarersPension, Glen, since you are now employed as carer for Mrs Goldfish and family.

Look forward to hearing about the outcome of May 1, Sic Em Rex and yourself.
Go well.

Sandy Reith

21st Apr 2022, 00:06

Aroa makes the point, that we’ve handed too much power to the Public Sector (used to be the Public Service).

Unfortunately we the citizenry are partly to blame, note the loud cries for an independent political watchdog with “teeth” which will detract from the safeguards of our hard fought for British legal system.

There’s a strong and naive belief that we can pass off problems within governing bodies by a mechanism that has no accountability back to the people (just like CASA).

And more unfortunately we’ve not had a politician with the oomph and inspiration to articulate the fact that it’s the duty of MPs to ensure proper, honest and fair governance throughout. We certainly should expect MPs to be far more involved, and fighting for individuals, like Glen Buckley. This would breathe new life into our democracy because the bureaucracy would become far more careful. Another benefit might accrue in that we might attract more candidates for political office who have the skills, knowledge and motivation to make democracy improve. We should pay them more and staff and equip their offices to cater for the problems that confront their constituents.

Henry Bolte was dead against the Ombudsman concept for exactly these same reasons.

Lead Balloon

21st Apr 2022, 01:34

The Ombudsman Office has accepted CASAs view that not “everyone in CASA was aware of APTAs concept.If that’s true and the Ombudsman’s Office considers that that finding has any relevance to Glen’s complaint, it would be a manifestation of the extent to which the competence of the Office has deteriorated. It would be laughable if it didn’t have such profound consequences. Google ‘constructive notice’.

Sadly, it’s not surprising, because these kinds of government ‘watch dogs’ have been steadily starved of resources. (An erstwhile Ombudsman – John Macmillan – who became Australian Information Commissioner was ‘starved out’ of the latter position, eventually working from home because the government had not funded an office for him.) The current government would love to starve the Auditor-General’s office in the same way.

Anyway, the message is clear: Make sure you cc the CASA CEO in on all correspondence with anyone else in CASA.

In any event, there’s nothing in Part 141 or 142 that says an operator can’t conduct flying training activities at more than one location.

[T]he Ombudsman’s Office is unable to investigate allegations against an individual, such as an allegation against a CASA employee…Here’s what the Ombudsman Act says: 3(6) For the purposes of this Act, action that is taken by an officer of a prescribed authority shall be deemed to be taken by the authority:

(a) if the officer takes, or purports to take, the action by virtue of his or her being an officer of the authority, whether or not:

(i) the action is taken for or in connexion with, or as incidental to, the performance of the functions of the prescribed authority; or

(ii) the taking of the action is within the duties of the officer; or

(b) if the officer takes, or purports to take, the action in the exercise of powers or the performance of functions conferred on him or her by an enactment.

…

officer means:

…
(b) in relation to a prescribed authority:

…

(iii) a person who is employed in the service of, or is a member of the staff of, the authority, whether or not he or she is employed by the authority; or

(iv) a person authorized by the authority to exercise any powers or perform any functions of the authority on behalf of the authority.CASA falls within the definition of “prescribed authority”.

A CASA employee’s actions in their capacity as a CASA employee are deemed, for the purposes of the Ombudsman Act, to be the actions of CASA. A complaint about the actions of an individual CASA employee in that capacity is complaint against CASA.

Chronic Snoozer

21st Apr 2022, 01:56

A CASA employee’s actions in their capacity as a CASA employee are deemed, for the purposes of the Ombudsman Act, to be the actions of CASA. A complaint about the actions of an individual CASA employee in that capacity is complaint against CASA.

What if the action is internal? i.e. one officer overriding another’s action, deeming it void, in effect undoing that particular decision.

Lead Balloon

21st Apr 2022, 02:13

An action is an action is an action.

The nonsense of the Ombudsman's position, as explained by Glen, is that everything 'done' by 'CASA' is done by individuals - either the CEO or employees or board members or whatever. An artificial person created by a sentence in a piece of legislation cannot magically take any 'action', except through human officers.

That's why the Ombudsman Act has the deeming provision I quoted.

Otherwise Pip Spence can just sit there saying that everyone in CASA, including her, is an individual, and therefore the Ombudsman can't investigate any complaint about any action any of them take.

VH-MLE

21st Apr 2022, 02:30

"It’s the Office of the Deputy PM, and someone very senior. They were aware of the leaflets I was distributing. Let anything let me say that what followed was the most encouraging conversation I have had in over three years. Whilst I don’t want to pre-empt anything, I do believe that Office will “get to the bottom of it”, and that the Deputy PM would be involved. It was extremely encouraging."

My take on that is that your flyers are causing stress within the LNP held seat of Chisolm & efforts are being made to placate you with the promise that they'll "get to the bottom of it". If the Office of Deputy PM were truly concerned about Glen's situation, something would have been done a long time ago. It's all too convenient with the election looming - particularly in a marginal seat.

Just my 2 lire's worth...

All the best Glen!!

glenb

21st Apr 2022, 03:15

Spot on i suggest MLE. That individual has contacted me today from the Deputy PMs department. They are waiting the Ombudsmans report. Therefore, I have elected to ramp up my efforts. Cheers. Glen.

I have advised that person from the Deputy PMs department that Mr aleck has clearly mislead the Ombudsmans Office and he has requested I send through my supporting material which I will do, and obviously post on here.

Cheers. Glen

Sandy Reith

21st Apr 2022, 05:02

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x926/2d0867fb_7366_4048_8b14_e133feb21949_ebe92aefbeb6a8e145f42ac 1767b609ccdeed3ea.png
Commonwealth Ombudsman’s 2020 annual report. No wonder they couldn’t find a problem with CASA’s treatment of Glen Buckley and because they don’t talk to each other! Gawd help us, certainly won’t get help from Government Industries.

Sandy Reith

21st Apr 2022, 05:16

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x926/374cf1d8_d4c0_4b0f_a742_2cc51cc79115_b324f5d2e7b8d4a4004f47b 584e8dc907eccef3c.png
We’d better send food parcels.

Lead Balloon

21st Apr 2022, 05:31

That's only part of the picture, Sandy. Another part of the picture is the volume of complaints - more accurately the growth in the volume of complaints - made, compared with the number and qualifications of staff over time. (John Macmillan was paid well as Information Commissioner but couldn't possibly do the job from his home office, so left for greener pastures.) That said, if Glen's summary of the conversation is accurate (and I don't doubt Glen is summary is based on his honest recollection) I reckon he's been consigned to the 'too hard' basket by the Ombudsman.

Sandy Reith

21st Apr 2022, 05:57

Quote LB:- “I reckon he's been consigned to the 'too hard' basket by the Ombudsman.”

Exactly, simply too political, which can only be solved by those dreaded politicians that Australians love to hate. If only we had strong leaders, then there’s no disPutin, and we will all live happily ever after.

Flaming galah

21st Apr 2022, 23:41

Quote LB:- “I reckon he's been consigned to the 'too hard' basket by the Ombudsman.”

So the tame ICC found CASA knew about the APTA model, didn’t treat Glen fairly, and breached its Regulatory Philosophy but then the Ombudsman says nothing to see here. How can that be?

Lead Balloon

22nd Apr 2022, 01:11

Who’d know.

Anyway, it’s caretaker time and the bureaucracy is kicking back and relaxing while watching the fur fly between tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber. Each agency and department will have its ‘Red Book’ and ‘Blue Book’ prepared, ready to feign dedication to the policies of whatever inspirational Minister is imposed on them for a couple of years.

glenb

22nd Apr 2022, 06:29

To those that are following this story. Tonight (by 9PM), I will publish a draft letter on this website. It will be a letter to both the Ombudsman Office and the Office of the Deputy PM, and specifically to the individual that is investigating this matter within the Office of the Deputy PM. I have confidence in this individual.

It will be in draft form, but will be within a whisker of completion. I will finalize it, based on feedback on the weekend for sending at 9AM on Monday morning. It is i believe a significant piece of correspondence in this matter. It deals very much with corruption in Government Departments, and is highly relevant at the moment with the failure by the liberal Government to establish an anti corruption commission. With an election only weeks away, I have been presented with a rare opportunity.

I will appreciate any guidance on content, but also on intended recipients. I will be seeking feedback on the distribution list. To only the Deputy PM, and Ombudsman, or other politicians i.e. Senator Rex Patrick, Gladys Liu, AOPA, media etc.

Cheers. Glen

Irrespective, it will be published on here and the other website "Aunty Pru".

glenb

22nd Apr 2022, 11:02

I appreciate that this may be a difficult read, and it is subject to more editing than I had hoped. The Office of the Deputy PM is aware that I am posting this at 9PM, on this forum. I will finalise this over the weekend and welcome your feedback, good or bad. Cheers. Glen25/04/22

To: Catherine, the Reviewing Officer from the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office

Mr. Ramzi Jabbour of the Office of the Deputy PM

Dear Catherine of the Ombudsman’s Office,

I am writing to ask you to place a hold on publishing your findings from the three-year investigation into my matter, until the Office of the Deputy PM has had an opportunity to meet with me over coming weeks.

If my understanding is correct from our telephone call. The Ombudsman’s Office initiated its own review of the investigation, and by taking that action, I forfeit any opportunity to initiate a review or respond to that investigation. An opportunity that would otherwise be available to me had the Ombudsman’s Office not initiated its own review. Hopefully you will appreciate my concerns.

I have raised allegations of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs previously to the Department of the Deputy PM and also before Parliament in the current Senate Inquiry into CASA, and that presentation can be accessed via the attached link. To date those allegations of misfeasance in public office have not been investigated. Mr Aleck is the individual responsible for providing you with all information. Mr Aleck was the sole decision maker regarding this matter. For complete clarity on this matter. I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck has provided substantially misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office. It is reasonable for me to assume that he has done so, to pervert the findings of your investigation. He would have been fully aware that he was providing misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office at the time he provided it. It was a conscious and considered decision. It was not an “error.”

From my interactions, there is no doubt this has been a challenging task for your Office. I believe those problems commenced immediately this matter was passed from the first Officer to the Second Officer. At that handover you will be aware that I was unable to discuss the matter with Officer Two at the handover stage. This was a critical point of the investigation. The reason provided to me was that the Ombudsman Office was unable to discuss the matter with me due to “COVID restrictions. It was a telephone call that I was requesting, and that ability for a one-on-one conversation should have been made available at the handover stage. It seems entirely unreasonable that I am unable to have a telephone call with the Ombudsman Office, and that COVID could possibly have created that requirement.

I do note however that irrespective of that, the matter was significantly interfered with by CASA providing clearly untruthful guidance to your Office. I had previously made allegations of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck in Parliament before the Senate and that presentation can be accessed later in this correspondence. I have submitted a small portion of my evidence. An example would be that Mr Aleck would have you believe that CASA was not aware of my business model, yet I have provided irrefutable evidence that in fact CASA was fully aware at least 2 ½ years before Mr Aleck would have you believe.

I have provided the contact details of two CASA employees, one current and one past employee who have an expert knowledge of this matter. Their testimony is essential to arriving at the truth, and the Ombudsman office has chosen not to avail themselves of that opportunity.

The Ombudsman’s Office advised me that they cannot investigate an allegation of misfeasance in public office against Mr Aleck the second most senior employee of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. If that is the Ombudsman’s Office position, then it seems unlikely that an investigation can actually be conducted into this matter.

My understanding was that the Ombudsman’s Office could investigate those matters, and that is why the complaint was submitted to your office in the first instance. If I quote directly from the Ombudsman’s Act.

3(6) For the purposes of this Act, action that is taken by an Officer of a prescribed authority shall be deemed to be taken by the Authority,

(a) If the officer takes, or purports to take, the action by virtue of his or her being an Officer of the authority, whether or not:

· The action is taken for in connexion with, or as incidental to, the performance of the functions of the prescribed authority; or

· The taking of the action is within the duties of the Officer; or

· If the officer takes, or purports to take, the action in the exercise powers or the performance of functions conferred on him or her by an enactment.

An officer is a person who is employed in the service of or is a member of the staff of a prescribed authority. CASA is a prescribed authority.

Irrespective of my understanding I must respect your position and I note your advice that an allegation of misfeasance in public office needs to be made to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner, and I concurrently with my submission to the office of the Deputy PM, I will lodge my allegations with the ICC.

The report will be substantive, and readers of that report will place significant weight on findings of the Ombudsman’s Office. I am fully satisfied that the gross technical errors have arisen as the result of disinformation provided by Mr Aleck could affect my ability to pursue this matter through litigation, and therefore ask for the delay in the release of that report.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

Dear Mr XXXXXXXXX of the Deputy PMs Office,

As you are aware, I have been seeking the assistance of my local MP for the Seat of Chisholm, Ms. Gladys Liu for three years on this matter, and she has chosen to completely ignore those requests for assistance by me.

Thankyou for the telephone call, the other day. It was significant, and for the first time in the last few years, I am confident that I have reached the person that I should be dealing with. I have had the opportunity to do some research.

From that research, I have developed a high level of confidence. As you will appreciate, trust takes time and experience to develop, my sincere hope is that I can have both trust and confidence in you. The next month will be telling.

In that call, you asked me to provide a summary of my matter, and I directed you to two magazine articles written about this matter. I titled them “APTA before CASA action” and “CASA after CASA action”. Both written by Steve Hitchen of Australian Flying magazine. I hope you have had an opportunity to read them. The links are attached here for quick reference

This matter is extremely complicated, and to be frank I am not the best person to explain it to you, because the truth is that I do not understand why CASA closed my business down.

From your background you will appreciate the importance of clear and concise communications. The value of those communications increases significantly, if they are “well intentioned”.

In my opinion, the most efficient approach now, would be for you to make a request of Pip Spence, the CASA CEO. This matter is best explained by CASA. I think it reasonable that CASA explain their perspective and that I respond to that.

The matter could be expedited if CASA provided you with a response to the following 12 questions within 7 days. These are all matters that CASA could reply to, within those timelines, and the information would be readily available to CASA.. By limiting the responses to one page per question, this his will ensure that the responses are clear and concise.

Question One:

Considering that the Ministers own Statement of Expectations Statement of Expectations for the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the period 31 January 2022 to 30 June 2023 (legislation.gov.au) (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2022L00061) requires CASA to demonstrate “risk based and evidence driven decision making by CASA (including well documented safety cases)”, could CASA provide a one page summary of the supporting safety case for the action they took against me and my business.

Question Two

In a one page response can CASA clearly identify in clear and concise language the regulations that CASA claim Mr Buckley breached, and how he breached them. Could CASA also confirm that there is precedent to the way these rules were applied.

Question Three

Is the CASA CEO and Board, fully satisfied that in its dealings with Mr Buckley, Mr Aleck has acted in accordance with the following obligations.

· The Ministers Statement of Expectations of CASA Statement of Expectations for the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the period 31 January 2022 to 30 June 2023 (legislation.gov.au) (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2022L00061)

· The PGPA Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (legislation.gov.au) (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013A00123)

· CASAs Regulatory Philosophy Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au) (https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/our-regulatory-philosophy)

· Administrative Law

· The Public Service Values and Code of Conduct APS Values, Code of Conduct and Employment Principles | Australian Public Service Commission (apsc.gov.au) (https://www.apsc.gov.au/working-aps/integrity/integrity-resources/aps-values-code-conduct-and-employment-principles)

Question Four

The Ombudsman’s Office has formed the opinion that CASA obtained legal advice. Could you identify the date that Mr Aleck first sought any external and independent legal advice, and what that legal advice stated. Who did Mr Aleck consult with to arrive at his determination that Mr Buckley was operating illegally and subject to regulatory action.

Question Five

Was Mr Aleck compelled to make the decisions that he did. Was there a more proportional approach available to him, and why was that not taken. Could CASA also identify how I could have resolved this matter

Question Six

Mr Buckley claims that this entire matter could have been avoided by a well-intentioned 4-hour discussion, without even sending the notification of October 2018, and that it was not necessary to drag this matter out for 8 months. Can CASA clearly outline in one page why this matter was unable to be resolved.

Question Seven.

Mr Buckley claims that your notification of October 2018, prevented him taking on any new customers, and that CASA also contacted all existing customers and directed them to leave his business. You also placed a freeze on processing all administrative tasks for his business. This continued for 8 months, with those trading restrictions in place. At the 8-month mark, CASA determined that the business was unlawful and forced all remaining customers leave the organisation. Is it true that on multiple occasions I made CASA fully aware of the commercial impact of their action, and that information w

Question Eight

Considering that the CASA action led to significant commercial losses, Mr Buckley claims that CASA never at any stage provided him with a “decision letter”, despite his repeated requests. That “decision letter was essential if he was to approach the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Could CASA provide a copy of that decision letter, if any that was provided to Mr Buckley. If it was not provided, that appears to be a breach of administrative law. Can you explain this?

Question Nine

After Mr Buckley lost his business, he secured employment in the industry as a CASA approved Head of Operations. CASA wrote to his Employer and directed that his continuing employment was not tenable based on comments that he was making publicly

Question Ten.

In Parliament to the Senate, the previous CASA CEO, Mr Carmody stated that I had stalked and assaulted CASA employees. I claim that is a blatant untruth put to the Senate, and in the public domain to damage my reputation and reduce the credibility of my allegations of “misfeasance in public office” by Mr Carmody to damage my reputation and Could CASA provide any police reports, any internal OHS reports to support Mr Carmody’s allegation that

“Mr Buckley assaulted CASA employees”

“Mr Buckley stalked CASA employees”

Does CASA stand by those allegations. If so, can CASA identify why no police report was ever made.?

Question Eleven

You advised Mr Buckley that his flying school of ten years that operated EXACTLY the same as every other flying school in Australia,. Was now operating in breach of the regulations, specifically ………..

Could CASA clearly explain the decision making and how it is feasible that overnight, his school, Melbourne Flight Training was now in breach of the regulations, after 10 years of operations. Noting that their had been no change to any legislation, and by referring to the initial notification of October 2018, it was a regulation from 1988 that CASA used to initiate the action.

Question Twelve

Considering that Mr Buckley has raised allegations of misfeasance in public office. No investigation at all by CASA into the conduct of Mr Aleck.has occurred. For such substantive allegations to be raised in such a formal process i.e. before Senate, it seems highly suspect, and not in accordance with expectations on either Private industry or the Public service. Has any investigation into the conduct of Mr Aleck been made, and if not can CASA explain that lack of action.

What are my expected outcomes?

Expected outcome One

I am seeking an investigation initiated by Office of the Deputy PM into the conduct of Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs. I am confident that Mr Aleck will appreciate that opportunity to defend his professional reputation. “The truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like to be challenged.”

Expected outcome Two

· That I have the opportunity to submit a request for an “Act of Grace payment.” That request would have two components.

(a) Reimbursement for the commercial harm caused to staff, customers, suppliers, and businesses impacted with the exclusion of mine, by Mr Alecks decisions. The intention would be to put all affected Parties in the position that they were in before Mr Aleck made his determination that my business was unlawful, and as if those people and entities had never met Glen Buckley.

(b) Consideration of reimbursement also to me and my family for the harm caused to us.

Expected outcome Three

That the Office of the Deputy PM give CASA 7 days to respond, and that 7 days after that time, the Office of the Deputy PM provide me the opportunity for a two hour meeting. My preference would be that the CASA CEO or her nominee attend that meeting.

Arm out the window

22nd Apr 2022, 11:26

Question Nine is a statement only, needs a question.

Best of luck with it.

Squawk7700

22nd Apr 2022, 13:29

Question 7 is missing a bit at the end.

Sunfish

22nd Apr 2022, 20:46

Watch the video. Especially the last few minutes on how these people react when challenged.

‘My guess CASA claims in private that you brought all this on yourself. You are being portrayed to the Ombudsman’s Office, Pip Spence and anyone else who will listen, as a vindictive psycho nutcase. You lost your business through your own stupidity. CASA and it’s well meaning staff did their absolute best to help you comply with regulations and keep your sinking ship afloat. Poor Doctor A. went out of his way to try to help and your baseless and vicious attacks on him are personally upsetting especially when you consider the help he gave. It’s a wonder the good doctor isn’t on stress leave…..

The DPM’s staff and all involved have been given that message and have accepted it. The Ombudsman’s report,according to what you have said and reading between the lines, sounds like an attempt to humor a child rather than a solid body of rational thought. You are the victim of a whispering campaign. Please be very, very careful not to say or do anything that could be construed as a threat to anyone or CASA will make their fake diagnosis stick.

‘’Stay civil and rational, good luck. My take on your letter: You ask for responses to 12 questions - they aren’t questions, they are allegations. You need to spell out in ONE SHORT Sentence in each, the impact on you of CASA action or inaction. We are all too close to the situation, your new contact may not know the implications of what was done to you and your business.

‘’eg question 1 add. My allegation is that CASA action were not risk based and evidence driven but was based on unknown and unauthorised personal motives that are are outside the scope of CASA Authority. - CASA has exceeded its authority.

question 5. This is tricky, it need a front end , “Assuming for one minute that APTA had broken regulations, which I dispute, …..

CASAs actions were draconian, disproportionate and increased the putative costs of remediation.

question 9: CASA drove you out of the aviation business and destroyed your livelihood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKxmFPmzzx4&t=16s

glenb

22nd Apr 2022, 22:09

Thankyou Sunfish. I saw you had posted and was expecting a well intentioned lambasting about how they dont care, and wont listen. A very valuable contribution, and you have absolutely nailed it, regards how CASA have "managed" the situation. Cheers. Glen.

glenb

22nd Apr 2022, 22:30

Dear Ms. Gladys Liu, elected MP for the Seat of Chisholm, and other recipients

I am a 56-year resident of this electorate, and I have contributed widely to the community during that time.

As you are fully aware, I have made allegations against the Civil Aviation Safety Authorities second most senior employee, Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal International and Regulatory Affairs. It was an allegation of “misfeasance in public office.” It wasa made before the Senate and can be acceded from the 12:40:00 point on the recording. 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 approached your office on several occasions over the last three years, and you have not been able to meet with me. Even though you have not provided me with a meeting, I have ensured that your Office is fully briefed by sending periodical updates.

Mr Jonathan Aleck was the sole decision maker within CASA that overnight changed CASAs “opinion” and determined that my business of more than a decade was now illegal, and placed restrictions on that businesses ability to trade.

It was a change of “opinion” by Mr Aleck, of a 1988 regulation. There were no allegations at all related to safety, operational control, or any quality outcomes. It was simply that I was operating in breach of that single regulation. For reasons that CASA would have to explain, of all the 300 flying schools in Australia it only applied to mine.

On my own legal advice and supported by the findings of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, Mr Aleck had no legal basis to make the decisions that he did. For complete clarity, His decision had no valid legal basis. Subsequently CASA sought external, and independent legal advice, and that also confirmed that CASA had no legal basis.

I had been highly critical of CASAs Regulatory reform program that was delivered a decade behind schedule, and many hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. I did gain some media attention of my views on this matter, and also on my views of the impact of the regultory change on the Australian Owned sector of the industry and most particularly in rural areas. In hindsight my views may have influenced Mr Alecks interactions with me, as he was the CASA Executive responsible for that regulatory program that I had been critical of in the media.

The consequences of Mr Jonathan Alecks change of opinion have been significant. Not only have I lost my two businesses, been forced out of the industry, lost my home, my savings,. My wife and I have total liquid assets of just under $6000. I have been bankrupted. Should my wife or I stop working due health or any other reason, we would be homeless. You can imagine the emotional trauma that this has bought to me and my family throughout this last three years.

As well as the financial and emotional trauma caused by this, staff lost jobs and entitlements, suppliers were left unpaid, customers had their training impacted, and businesses dependant on me were forced into closure. I carry this burden with me, every day. Please be assured that after three years it affects ones mental and physical health.

There has been no investigation at all into Mr Alecks conduct despite me raising these allegations at the highest level. The Ombudsman’s Office advises that they are unable to investigate my allegation of misfeasance in public office, and that I should now direct that allegation back to CASA. This matter has continued for over three years now, and with an upcoming election the time has come to resolve it.

The purpose of writing to you, is to seek a commitment from you, that if you are successful at the upcoming election, you will provide me with the opportunity to meet with your Office to seek assistance in pursuing:

An investigation specifically into my allegation of misfeasance in public office by Mr Jonathan Aleck. Based on the findings of that investigation, I would then be seeking.

An Act of Grace Payment from the Government of the day for an amount of less than $2,000,000. I will provide a detailed breakdown. That would be used to reimburse all affected Parties i.e., staff, suppliers, and customers.

I add that your Labor opponent at the upcoming election, Ms. Carina Garland has already met with me. I am confident that she will provide the assistance and support that I require, should she be successful at the upcoming election. I am hoping that you can match her commitment. As a Labor Candidate Ms Carina Garland obviously has strong views on ethics and integrity in Government and would be calling for an anti-corruption body, to be established to investigate allegations such as mine.

Thankyou for you consideration, and I await your response at the earliest opportunity,

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

Sandy Reith

23rd Apr 2022, 01:17

A very fair offer from Glen Buckley. Glen is an inspiration to keep on for what’s right, and an example to us all.

He has a measured way of expression and is sticking to the facts of his case.

To be tenacious in these circumstances takes courage and we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact we all stand to benefit from any improvements that are achieved.

There will be beneficial ramifications for GA irrespective of any particular outcomes for Glen and his family in the short term.

Exactly what will ensue might not be obvious but his case is gaining political notoriety that is sure to be of influence in favour of GA in the future.

Lead Balloon

23rd Apr 2022, 03:06

A couple of points, on the run:

- the current Statement of Expectations is largely irrelevant to your circumstances - perhaps link to both the previous and current one? (Though I can't find a copy of the old one, but only searched briefly.)

- the APS Code of Conduct is not relevant to CASA (and I can't find a copy of CASA's Code of Conduct on its website, but only searched briefly).

Will try to comment more when I can digest.

(I doubt whether too many recipients will be reading your corro on ANZAC Day. Perhaps send at 9AM on 26 April?)

Sandy Reith

23rd Apr 2022, 04:21

LB makes the point the the SoE has little relevance to Glen’s case.

Reading the SoE you will see that apart from the fact that it has little power, being this weak idea of a mechanism that’s not an instruction, but merely a hopeful wink and nod, it’s abundantly clear that it has more let outs than a large wire sieve.

Expectations, not Directions:-

“ Paragraph (a) — review its regulatory philosophy following industry consultation by the end of 2022.“

Industry consultation???….. For crying out loud why??? Is this joke??? Another inquiry??? Yes Minister, sure, we all want to dust off the ASSR and RRAT submissions, not to mention all the other forgotten useless inquiry excuses for doing nothing and do it all over again.

“ …to achieve appropriate mutual recognition and bilateral arrangements to support the recognition of Australian designs, innovation and certification in comparable jurisdictions, and minimise the red tape involved in moving between such jurisdictions …where possible,….”

Note ‘’appropriate” and “where possible.”
Not one “CASA shall…”, it’s all about “support, consult, investigate or examine.”

The SoE is shot through with such escape clauses.

The Minister has only set out some wobbly sign posts to desirable reforms that have been screaming necessities for years. Then the timing, not one real action this side of the election, apart from a (so far) temporary stop on the further alienation of irreplaceable airport property at MB.

I think BJ and the Coalition are a still better bet, but like war, politics is unpredictable. We, and Glen, battle on.

Lead Balloon

23rd Apr 2022, 07:50

The SOE is and always was just smoke and mirrors to fool people into believing the Minister has some substantial control over the performance of CASA’s functions and exercise of CASA’s powers. All you have to do is read it to work out that it’s practically meaningless.

Lead Balloon

23rd Apr 2022, 08:48

Glen

Are you able to identify, with precision, the terms of “the decision” that you say Dr Aleck made?

On my reading of the email of 13 March 2019, Dr Aleck could argue that it was Mr White’s decision as to what he did or didn’t do about Dr Aleck’s team’s ‘input’. It was Mr White who wrote to you and Mr White who said he “agreed with” the ‘input’ from Dr Aleck’s team cut and pasted in the email to you. (I use the word ‘input’ because it is not clear who was advising and who was deciding. But that lack of clarity is the point. Dr Aleck is rarely silly enough to make any decision for which he could be held accountable. Try finding his name mentioned in any AAT or Federal Court decision made in the last couple of decades.)

And the genius of the content of the email is that it appears to give you a pathway to certification (on the basis of an interpretation of Parts 141 and 142 that isn’t supported by the words of those Parts - but that’s a mere bagatelle). But it was a practically impossible path.

glenb

23rd Apr 2022, 09:40

Lhttps://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1440x900/initial_notication_to_apta_from_casa_pg_3_f8250ec49c33057708 f29619c547d53ef8730180.png
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1440x900/initial_notication_to_apta_from_casa_pg_2_961035bf79d076ba26 eb23a35e3a39766245b931.png
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1440x900/initial_notication_to_apta_from_casa_pg_1_e2182abc769d98471c 47a4c586982ba22aa62914.png

glenb

23rd Apr 2022, 09:53

Sandy Reith

23rd Apr 2022, 22:29

It should not be forgotten that, according to John King (USA flying school specialist and paid consultant to CASA), in letter to Dick Smith, that about 70% of USA pilots are trained outside the Part 141/142 system by independent instructors.

In addition, instructors do not need any medical certification to teach post solo students.

Also Mike Smith advised that to achieve P141/142 is a simple and low cost procedure with the FAA template. In complete contrast to the months and years of complex and hugely expensive negotiations with CASA leading more often to those applications giving up in disgust having lost $thousands in application fees.

Caretaker mode does not preclude Minister Joyce from taking action, judgement is advised but there’s no legal basis to alter or prevent the business of government. Better if the Opposition Is consulted but again depending on the creation of commitment to an incoming government. Political parties have no mention in our Constitution.

Avenues exist for Minister Joyce to call CASA to account about it’s treatment of Glen Buckley right now before the election irrespective of caretaker conventions.

tossbag

23rd Apr 2022, 23:36

Lead Balloon

24th Apr 2022, 00:39

Lead Balloon,

Apologies in that previous post. The notification is posted above, although in the incorrect order. My first time with an inline attachment.

This really is the issue. CASA never issued any formal decision letter. They simply advised that the concept was unlawful. Apparently a breach of the Aviation Ruling which CASA has since withdrawn, and an allegation of a breach of the Civil Aviation Act.

CASA had previously approved a number of bases under the "significant change" procedure i.e. MFT, AVIA and LTF. It was when we went to add on the new members that CASA advised of the regulatory breach.

After fighting the issue for 8 months, CASA stood by their original decision that it was illegal, and forced all pre-approved customers i.e. MFT, AVIA, and LTF to leave, and refused to process the applications for new Members.

I approached the AAT, but because CASA had not issued a decision letter, technically no decision had been made, and there was no decision that I could appeal.

I appreciate thats a bit brief, but Im about to head out and off air tomorrow. I will be monitoring and address any follow up queries late tomorrow night or first thing Monday morning.I think part of the problem is the blurb on the APTA website, quoted in CASA’s letter of 23 October 2018, about ‘Alliance’ ‘members’:[Y]ou maintain complete control over your business. Your business maintains its identity and individuality. Your administration function and procedures remain completely your own, independent of the Alliance.I don’t think APTA did itself any favours, at all, by not making clear in words of one syllable, that APTA would have complete control over and responsibility for the aviation-related operational activities of the ‘Alliance’ ‘members’. And if that is not what APTA intended, that, in short, is why APTA ground to halt.

The aviation-related operational activities of the ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ had to be authorised either by a certificate held each of the ‘members’ or a certificate held by APTA. There is no ‘half pregnant’ here. If those activities were going to be authorised by APTA’s certificate, APTA had to have complete control over and responsibility for them. That can be achieved through contracts between APTA and the Alliance members, and Parts 141 and 142 accommodate that as a means by which to demonstrate that control and means of discharging that responsibility.

When APTA was granted approvals to conduct flying training activities at different ‘bases’, it was still only APTA which was authorised to conduct those activities at those different ‘bases’ and those approvals were given on the basis of an assessment of APTA’s level of control over and means by which APTA would discharge its responsibilities arising from those activities. If CASA had gone to one of those locations and found that, for example, flying training aircraft were being utilised without required maintenance having been carried out, CASA would have taken action against APTA.

I’ll use the ‘one University; different campuses’ analogy again. If the University has no control over the academic standards and teaching activities of those campuses, they’re not really part of the university. Sure: Each campus can organise its own library facilities and photocopier maintenance and paper supplies, but the University has to have ultimate control over what and how things are taught and tested, and demonstrate how the responsibility for the maintenance of academic and teaching standards will be and is being discharged.

The problem with running a flying school business is that financial viability affects the business’s capacity to pay for things like aircraft maintenance. CASA has power to assess the financial viability of certificate holders. CASA was entitled to know, for example, how APTA was going to demonstrate the financial viability of and the means by which a ‘member’ was going to ensure that required aircraft maintenance could be paid for, despite what APTA said on its website about each member maintaining ‘complete control’ over its own ‘business’. CASA is entitled to know how APTA was going to monitor whether aircraft used by ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ for flying training under the authority of APTA’s certificate were being maintained properly.

CASA ‘rulings’ are just its opinion. But the kinds concepts and distinctions I’ve set out above are ‘Operator Certification 101’.

You must get crystal clear, in your own mind, what APTA meant by what it said on its website. If, for example, APTA was merely trying to draw a distinction between e.g. a ‘member’ buying and maintaining and feeding a photocopier and organising the cleaning of toilets and taking bookings for flying training - ‘administration function and procedures’ - on the hand, and aviation-related operational matters on the other, with ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ having complete control and autonomy only over the former and APTA having complete control over and responsibility for the latter, then that in my view wasn’t made very clear on APTA’s website. But you have to get it clear in your mind, first, otherwise you can’t write crystal clear stuff about it.

(Of course, as has already been said, the whole regulatory rigmarole is typical CASA over-kill. Bring on independent instructors.)

Sandy Reith

24th Apr 2022, 01:15

Tossbag makes the point with a heartfelt sarcastic statement.

“And yet, the safety outcomes are so horrendously worse in the US. (Sarcasm)”

For those who haven’t much to do with safety comparisons between the USA and Oz there’s no hard and fast variation as far as I know. Otherwise I’ve heard from respected sources that the record in the USA is better, in spite of a much less friendly flying environment in terms of weather and geography.

Then there’s all those USA trained pilots that fly regularly in our airspace.

Knowing how superior is our flying training, world beating** I heard on radio news one morning some 20 years ago, from a CASA media release (choking on Weeties), I think CASA should ban those non Part 141/142 trained pilots USA from tainting our pure and safe skies.

Let’s call for this necessary reform, in the interests of safety and conforming with the Government’s Act stating that Safety has the highest priority.

Wouldn’t this be all neat and tidy in the style of CASA’s legal department ? (real serious no joke)

** Competency based training!!!

glenb

27th Apr 2022, 01:34

Later tonight i will publish some correspondence that i have taken feedback on. My intention is to ask you to forward it on to your local member. The topic is relevant, as it relates to the issue of Governance of Government Departments and the need for an anti corruption commission. Something the Labor Part, Greens, and every Independent politician feel is needed. I could forward this on myself, but it carries significantly more weight if it comes from a constituent. Cheers. Glen

VH-MLE

27th Apr 2022, 02:52

Hi Glen, Celia Hammond is the (Liberal) Federal Member for Curtin, here in WA. I'm happy to forward your correspondence to her office as a local constituent. My email address is [email protected]

Cheers.

Sandy Reith

27th Apr 2022, 05:33

I support Glen in his battle for justice but with respect disagree with the notion of yet another independent taxpayer funded and experimental arm of the legal system which cuts across the the hard fought and tried means of the British system. The CASA is an example of an independent Commonwealth body outside of Ministerial control, a monumental failure by any measure.

I fully understand the frustration that precipitates looking around for a solution but unfortunately in the attempt to graft on some form of the European inquisitorial system is fraught with trouble.

Quite apart from the inherent problems of an ICAC type body, this move to such a solution reduces the responsibility of the police and MPs to investigate and uncover wrongdoing. Legal matters are defined in very ordered ways, meanings such as that for ‘corruption’ are not as wide as political measures of happenings so perceptions vary.

We should call for MPs to to look after the problems that individual constituents face from government instrumentalities. If they fix one problem for one person likely the bureaucrats will think twice in further dealings with the populace.

glenb

27th Apr 2022, 05:39

27/04/22

Ombudsman Office ref 2019-713834erence

To: Catherine, the Reviewing Officer from the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office

Mr. Ramzi Jabbour of the Office of the Deputy PM

Dear Catherine of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office,

I am writing to ask you to place a hold on publishing your findings from the three-year investigation into my matter, until the Office of the Deputy PM has had an opportunity to meet with me over coming weeks, to discuss this matter, and my allegations of misfeasance in public office against CASA employee, Mr Jonathan Aleck.

This matter is significant, and it is relevant.

This is effectively a situation where the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office is compelled to arrive at a decision and a final report on my matter.

Crucial to that determination is ascertaining the truth based on the information provided by both CASA employee, Mr Aleck and myself.

The truth can easily be ascertained, and it is fair and reasonable that I ask the Ombudsman’s office to make determinations made on truthful advice and accurate representations.

There is the CASA employee, “Mr Aleck version,” and the “Glen Buckley” version. Both differ substantially. Only one representation can possibly be truthful.

I have previously supplied the Ombudsman’s Office with the details of a current and past CASA employee who have offered to tell the truth on this matter. My understanding is that the Ombudsman’s office has chosen not to take advantage of this offer and relied upon the information provided by Mr Aleck only. Had the Office contacted those CASA employee’s significant clarity would have been bought to the investigation.

The two versions are, Mr Jonathan Aleck, an Executive Manager within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). The second most senior, and longest serving Executive Manager. A man with two decades of experience within that organisation, and at times during that two decades, acted, as CEO of CASA. A man with impeccable credentials, and despite his industry wide reputation, someone that appears to be a person of substance on a CV. Somebody that the Ombudsman’s Office should be able to depend on.for the provision of truthful information. Mr Aleck yields enormous power within CASA and has been responsible for providing the Ombudsman’s Office with information related to this investigation. Mr Aleck holds extremely high levels of power and authority including the ability to shut down businesses.as he did with mine. He was the decision maker in my matter.

and

Glen Buckley

The person impacted by Mr Alecks decision. Someone who had his two businesses of more than a decade closed down with no prior warning by Mr Alecks change of opinion. A person who lost his home, his savings, and was left destitute. Someone whose physical and mental health has been decimated. My wife and I, have liquid assets of less than $6000 in total. Should my wife or I stop working we would be homeless. Someone whose wife has had a total of four days free of work in over three years, as she desperately tries to save for an uncertain future. A family whose medical decisions are now driven by cost as the only consideration. Irrespective of that impact on me, businesses have closed, staff have lost jobs and entitlements, and suppliers have been left unpaid. The impact of Mr Alecks decision making has been significant.. It seems entirely reasonable that his decisions be subjected to rigorous scrutiny, and most particularly as they are not supported by and safety case.

One of these two individuals, either Mr aleck or myself is responsible for providing substantial and clearly misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office with the intention of perverting the finding of that investigation. This is not a matter that is reasonable for the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to accept. The information is critical to the investigation, and the findings. Providing ,misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office is a substantial matter, and not one that should be ignored.

The Ombudsman’s Office has the legal authority to request a “sworn statement or affirmation”. I will call on you to exercise those powers and ask that both I and Mr Aleck be prepared to produce a sworn statement. The request for a sworn statement will immediately identify that one individual is providing misleading information to your Office. If Mr aleck is not prepared to make a sworn statement, it would be reasonable that an approach is made to the CASA CEO, Ms Spence to provide that sworn statement.

The format of the statement or affirmation should include the following important elements.

Mr Aleck of CASA asserts that CASA first became aware of Mr Buckley’s business structure some time just prior to October 2018, shortly before they closed it down. Mr Buckley claims that he has a significant body of documented evidence, that in fact CASA first became aware of, and was fully aware of Mr Buckley’s business structure at least 6 years prior to the date that Mr Aleck asserts, and if they were not aware, which I dispute, CASA would have become aware throughout 2016 and 2017 when the business underwent a full revalidation with CASA.
Mr Aleck of CASA asserts that CASA had never permitted more than one flying school to operate under a single CASA issued authorisation... Mr Buckley claims that CASA had always permitted more than one flying school to operate under a single CASA issued authorisation.
Mr Aleck of CASA asserts that I have breached the “Aviation Ruling” and CAA Section 27(8) of 1988 which states “An AOC is not transferrable.’ Mr Buckley asserts that he has most definitely has not breached the Aviation Ruling or CAA 27(8) of 1988. I assert that I have not breached any regulations, and therefore Mr Aleck closing my business was unlawful.
Mr Aleck of asserts that he has followed all due CASA stipulated process. Mr Buckley asserts that Mr Aleck has completely bypassed all procedures that he was required to follow as stipulated in CASAs own manuals. Enforcement Manual (casa.gov.au) (https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-09/enforcement-manual.pdf)

It seems entirely reasonable as the person impacted by CASA Executive Manager Jonathan Alecks decision that these matters be addressed by the Ombudsman’s Office. The role of the Ombudsman’s Office is to inspect the use of departmental powers to ensure those agencies are using their powers as Parliament intended, and if not, to hold those agencies accountable. It is an important community safeguard, and I am asking you to exercise those powers. For complete clarity, my allegation against Mr Aleck is an allegation of misfeasance in public office, an allegation I raised before Parliament as far back as 23/11/20 and can be accessed here, Senate Rural Regional Affairs & Transport Committee GA Inquiry - Mr Glen Buckley - YouTube

To date, and after those allegations were first raised with the then Deputy PM, Mr Michael McCormack, there has been no investigation into Mr Alecks conduct. I note your advice in our recent telephone call, that the Ombudsman’s office is unable to investigate an allegation of misfeasance in public office. I accept your guidance on this matter, that I must refer this back to CASAs Industry Complaints Commissioner, and I will do so.

I am asking that the Ombudsman’s report can be withheld until I am availed the opportunity for an investigation into the conduct of Mr Aleck. Should my allegations be upheld, it is reasonable that the Ombudsman’s office would question the truthfulness of the information provided to the office by Mr Aleck, , and that could change the findings arrived at by the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office.

I note also that in previous communications, you have suggested that I also should avail myself of the opportunity to contact my Local MP, Ms Gladys Liu. I am a 56-year resident of the electorate of Chisholm and have made multiple requests to Ms Liu to meet with me over the last three years. For reasons not known to me, Ms Liu has been unwilling or unable to meet with me. That option does not appear to be available to me. The Labor candidate for Chisholm, Ms. Carina Garland has committed to meeting with me, but I am unable to move forward on this aspect, unless there is a change at the upcoming election.

Without access to my local MP for assistance, Ms Gladys Liu I am highly dependent on the accuracy of the findings of the Ombudsman’s Office

I am appreciative of the work done to date by your Office, however the findings of the Ombudsman’s Office will be an important document, that will be relied upon, should I not bring this matter to a conclusion by way of a well-intentioned discussion with CASA

Yours respectfully, Glen Buckley

Stickshift3000

29th Apr 2022, 01:02

The political incompetence of Gladys Liu is on full display here - it might cheer you up a bit Glen!

Edit: Seems I can't post a twitter link - also available here (from 1:42:00 to 1:43:25):
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/melbourne/programs/drive/drive/13850276

Her incredibly poor showing is being discussed in colourful terms on all social media.

Lead Balloon

29th Apr 2022, 01:22

"Let's get back to you on that one." Yeah; nah, Gladys.

We all know why Scotty doesn't want a Federal corruption investigation body with any independence and teeth. And we'll see about Labor's real intentions, if it wins power. Both have very smelly skeletons in the closet.

Chronic Snoozer

29th Apr 2022, 01:39

The political incompetence of Gladys Liu is on full display here - it might cheer you up a bit Glen!

Edit: Seems I can't post a twitter link - also available here (from 1:42:00 to 1:43:25):
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/melbourne/programs/drive/drive/13850276

But it's 350 pages long! By that measure the regs need to be beefed up a bit.

Sunfish

6th May 2022, 09:18

How are you keeping Glen?

Paragraph377

16th May 2022, 04:24

Here is a good example of some AAT shenanigans in SA. Although not linked to Glen’s case, it shows how Governments meddle with reviews and appeals when they don’t get things their way. The Westminster system is corrupt and has been manipulated into a tool of negligence, obsfucation and deceit by all Political parties. You don’t like the umpire? Fine, sideline him until you get an umpire that ensures any points scored are not scored against you! Glen is a brave man, balls the size of watermelons. But he is dealing with a Government and one of its bureaucratic agencies, and no politician, department CEO or Secretary is going to allow Glen to run a wrecking ball through their rice bowl.

https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/16/aat-member-says-he-was-benched-after-too-many-decisions-against-government

mission3

18th May 2022, 13:37

Hi Glen,

I'm in your electorate and I received your letter in my mailbox today. I read a decent chunk of this forum thread and watched one of the videos (the senate one).

What a huge miscarriage of justice. I hope you're holding up okay.

-M

glenb

19th May 2022, 06:49

Sunfish, I appreciate you asking how I was travelling and sorry for the delay, I've been off Pprune for a bit. Still fighting away but in the background. Paragraph, great to see you back.
Mission. Thanks for taking the time to post. With the support of friends and neighbors I have got thousands, and i mean many thousands of these brochures throughout the electorate of Chisholm. I hope its enough to hold Gladys Liu accountable and have a change of Local MP. The feedback from recipients of the email drop has been very encouraging.

I did also get up to the AOPO organized May Day in Sydney. I was a bit anxious getting back amongst an aviation crowd, but it was very rewarding to get the support. There is no doubt that Senator Rex Patrick is well intentioned, and an advocate of the industry.

I have been in communication with the Deputy PMs Department and believe that an appropriate person has been allocated to my matter by the Deputy PM. That gentleman has a background at the very highest levels of the Police. I am extremely confident that he will be able to expedite this matter, although his continuing role in the Deputy PMs department is depends on which Party governs after this Saturday.

Hope to get back ojn tomorrow or the day after, cheers. Glen.

tossbag

19th May 2022, 09:59

Well, I don't think there's a bigger dipsh!t MP than Glady's Liu. As thick as two planks.

barleyhi

22nd May 2022, 06:58

Good bye Gladys

Sbaker

22nd May 2022, 15:53

Hopefully the federal ICAC is implemented soon and this BS can be sorted once and for all, among other cases.

Hopefully it has teeth to put those found guilty of criminal corruption behind bars. But even so, that does not bring back years stolen by such misconduct.

I bet the paper shredder in the CASA offices are running flat out and the 'corruption' of computer files on cloud servers has begun already!

it may have been a long wait - but hopefully those few at CASA will finally have to answer for what they have done..

Sunfish

22nd May 2022, 20:55

Glen now probably has to start again with a new minister who will know nothing about his case but what CASA will tell her.

glenb

22nd May 2022, 21:10

I have been off air over the last month as i dedicated myself to raising awareness of my matter in the electorate of Chisholm, in the lead up to the election.

In the last week of the election, and with the assistance of neighbors and friends I managed to letterbox drop 14,700 brochures into letterboxes. The content is cut and pasted below.

I was at the train stations in the mornings handing out leaflets, on two humorous occasions right beside Gladys Liu at Glen Waverley train station.

Anyway, I'm pleased to say that I may have had some impact. Whilst i cant claim credit for her getting ousted, I can certainly say i played my part.

A bit immature really, but at about 4AM on Sunday morning, i sent her an email offering the services of my sons truck if she needs any assistance moving out.

Federally the change of Government is a mixed bag. I now have Ms. Carina Garland as my local MP, and i have had the opportunity to meet with her briefly. I am confident she will assist me going forward, and i hope to write to her soon.

The individual who contacted me from Barnaby Joyce's Office and was taking on the matter was actually a previous Deputy Commissioner of the Australian Federal police. I spoke to him on the phone, and was confident that I had finally got through to the correct person., Unfortunately with the change of Government his role will cease.

Regarding the community support i received it was overwhelming. I have been in the community for 55 years, so have had the opportunity to meet a lot of people. I had two people approach me, offering support while i was voting and didn't even know who they were..

At one stage Gladys was handing out brochures as voters came down the line. I crept in behind Gladys and piped up with "' A 55 year resident of Chisholm, please read my experience with Gladys Liu before you decide who to vote for today". well you should have seen her as she swung her head to see me right near her. Priceless.

I was then approached by the site manager from AEC and she asked me to move on. I assured her that I wouldn't be a problem, and that my material was my own experience rather than a political message. I gave her a copy which she took off to be decided upon. Ten minutes later she came back to advise that i could hand it out at the front of the school but not inside.

Set myself up the front and a Liberal guy came over and asked what my problem was, and I explained that I had been trying to get a meeting with Gladys for three years.

He advised me that she was there, and that he could get me a meeting now. I acted surprised. "nooo, you mean Gladys is here". He was so happy. to confirm that he could take me to her right now. "oh that would be awesome if you could do that" I responded.

So he proudly took me back to where Channel Nine were setting up to interview her. This second time her look was even more priceless than priceless, although she spoke in Chinese to a couple of her staff, and they moved me back out the front, for a while until I left to watch my sons footy game.

Cheers. Glen

Sunfish

22nd May 2022, 23:14

Cold comfort, but with what is likely to come for GA, you may one day reflect that you are lucky to be already out of it.

Sandy Reith

23rd May 2022, 00:26

Cold comfort, but with what is likely to come for GA, you may one day reflect that you are lucky to be already out of it.

Amen to that, although with hope springing in the first flush perhaps Glen will achieve some justice. Certainly there’s those of us that will be making very chastising statements about Glen’s case.

There’s no doubt that many MPs have not given sufficient weight to their duty of representing individual constituents. I’ve had personal experience from the Department of Immigration of bald faced lying which cost me $$, and even after the lie was exposed by incontrovertible evidence I’ve still not been recompensed.

This is Canberra I’m sorry to say and the solution is not yet another independent Commonwealth body, independent like CASA, some sort of commission to deal with ‘corruption.’

We need more people like Glen involved in the political process be it polling day, engaging with MPs, and joining political parties to push for a better and more accessible court system or funding and leadership in the AFP. Just spending the Commonwealth’s annual $45 million Ombudsman budget on our traditional justice system would do far more good than trying to graft the European inquisitorial system onto the British system.

Office Update

23rd May 2022, 01:50

Glen, a very generous offer indeed to help with her removal expenses :}

Of course she will have declined your offer; according to various print media, Gladys has a multi million $$ portfolio of very desirable properties in Queensland. I'm guessing she has minions, minor functionaries and assorted underlings to assist in moving house.

glenb

23rd May 2022, 02:42

A 55-year residents personal and unsatisfactory experience with Ms Gladys Liu, the Liberal Representative.

The Morrison Government has broken its promise on a Federal ICAC (Anti -corruption Commission). Leading into an election this is what can only be described as massive policy failure.

My name is Glen Buckley, I have no political allegiances whatsoever. The truth is that throughout my 55 years in this electorate, I have voted Liberal more often than any other Party. I voted for Ms. Gladys Liu at the last election, I will not be doing so this election, and I urge you to consider my matter in your decision making come election day. Ms Glady Liu has clearly failed to represent me.

In October 2018, a single Government Employee decided that my business was operating illegally and shut it down, effective immediately. The business had been operating for more than a decade.

That action resulted in me losing my two businesses, my home, and my health. It left me bankrupt. I still reside in the electorate, but now in a rental property. If either my wife or I were to stop work, we would be homeless. That is the truth, and it is inevitable that at some stage in the future we will be confronting that situation. I have been left destitute.

Despite all that, the greatest burden I carry is for all the people that were impacted by this. That includes other businesses dependant on me that were forced into closure, the staff who lost their jobs and entitlements, the Suppliers that were left unpaid, and the customers who were impacted.

A subsequent investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman found that the Government Employee had no legal basis for that decision. I am unable to fund a legal case, so I am seeking an Act of Grace Payment from the Government for that wrongdoing.

I am not seeking any compensation for the impact on me, but I am seeking a payment to ensure that everyone impacted by this action i.e., staff, customers, and suppliers are paid what they are owed.

Since October 2018, I have been seeking a meeting with Ms Gladys Liu to seek her assistance in pursuing that Act of Grace Payment, and as my elected representative of Chisholm she is the appropriate person to approach.

For more than three years, Ms Gladys Liu the current Member for Chisholm has failed to even meet with me, despite multiple written requests. She has been of absolutely no assistance at all. I was born in Chisholm and have spent my entire 56 years here. I plan to die here. I have pleaded for her assistance, and she has completely ignored me.

Whilst I seek no assistance from you directly in my matter. I do want to inform you, that from my own personal experience I have found that Ms Gladys Liu has completely ignored my very reasonable pleas for assistance. There have been multiple requests made to her. The truth is that had she met with me three years ago when I requested her assistance, this entire matter could have been avoided.

I urge you to consider that in your decision making come election day. You will be presented with many options. Please consider those carefully. You too, may need the support of your Local Member at some stage in the future, like I did. Please choose someone that you feel will clearly represent you. I would appreciate any support you can offer by making your neighbours and friends aware of my experience with Ms. Gladys Liu.

For transparency, and as evidence of my claims, the entire matter can be accessed via the following link.. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa.html) This forum has had almost 1,000,000 views and thousands of comments. For expediency I would direct you to Post #2039 on page 102 of that forum, where the two magazine articles, provide a 10-minute overview.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, please choose carefully on election day. The Seat of Chisholm is one of Australia’s most marginal seats. Your vote is important. Choose whichever candidate it is that you believe will best represent you. You are entitled to it, as I should have been.

Safe travels. Cheers. Glen. Email: [email protected]

glenb

23rd May 2022, 02:49

Whilst the level of support i received from my letterbox drop was overwhelming and I received many emails, it was inevitable that i would upset someone. Whilst i wont post all the emails on here, i will post two. The one negative that i received, and respectfully and apologetically responded to, and another one that showed just how effective an approach can be.

One of the positive emails.Hi Glen,

I got your letter in my mailbox recently.

And unlike many other election related junk mails, this one was particularly relatable.

I have read the summaries that you have provided on the PPRUNE forum, and I have to say that I am very disappointed in the way CASA managed this. The whole inconsistency between the different certificate management teams is just appalling.

As someone who is currently going through my early phases of my flight training (currently on RPL, then PPL), it really doesn't give me much confidence in CASA and the general aviation industry going forward.

I will definitely not vote for the liberal representative this time around.

I just want to thank you for raising awareness on this matter, and I really do hope that there are others who have read this and become more aware of the poor governing bodies we have elected into the system.

Regards XXXXXX

and to the one negative email i received

Glen,

I received your letter in my letter box today. Three things jumped out at me about it.

1. First, you actually had the courage to put your name on it. Well done!

2. I am continually surprised at people’s assumption that I could care less what they think. If I ever do, I would like the courtesy of them waiting for me to ask for their view.

3. More than anything, I am just plain staggered that so many people, you in this instance, believe they should share with me their view of what I should do (i.e. in your case “don’t vote for Gladys Liu”). Not only that, you took the time to type a whole page, print who knows how many copies and then walked around the streets delivering it. Seriously staggering!

I am happy for you to think whatever you like, and to do whatever you want (as long as it is legal and you don’t hurt people)………just stop telling me what I should do.

Vote for Gladys, don’t vote for Gladys, don’t vote at all…….I could seriously not care less. Just keep it to yourself, please.

I really gotta get a sign on my letterbox saying “no advertising material, no political material, no selfish diatribes telling me what to think or do, only letters personally addressed to me”…….and most times they are crap to.

Good luck with your crusade. I think you are going to get what you want, just please don’t think you need to share your joy with me.

Paragraph377

23rd May 2022, 04:08

mission3

24th May 2022, 11:09

Good luck with your crusade. I think you are going to get what you want, just please don’t think you need to share your joy with me.

Yet they took the time to read the whole letter, open their e-mail and write a response.

They could have just put it in the recycling.

Paragraph377

26th May 2022, 01:08

I believe that the election result will only lead to even more tautological nonsense for poor Glen. It’s a new elected zoo and new faces for Glen to focus his efforts on. However the downside of this election result is that none of the new mob campaigned on aviation matters. To be more blunt, the newly minted trough swillers are mostly impotent and uneducated on aviation matters. Well, Albo did win some praise for their useless and senseless ‘white paper’ which did nothing for the actual industry, but apart from that, nothing else has been achieved.

The Senate will be filled with a mash up of pot smokers, environmental zealots, and those whose only driver in life is pushing the barrow of transgender people and women. There will be no time for trivial aviation matters brought forth by a member of the community. Hell no, our newly elected ones will be busy consuming tea and scones at old peoples homes, having new business cards printed up, arranging family tours of their new offices and spending time thumbing through their ‘How to rort and reap rich rewards from the taxpayer’ handbook that they will have all received.

Labor will no doubt shaft some Departmental secretaries that were Liberal ‘mates rates’ appointments, however the CASA CEO will stay put. The fear of and mystique of aviation will remain strong through the halls of Parliament House, and our honourable ones will be too scared to even poke the CASA beast with a long handled broom. It will certainly be BAU with our Regulator. Don’t be surprised if you see a return of Mike Mrdak into a more senior and visible role.

As always Glen, best wishes and best of luck with your ongoing endeavours.

barleyhi

1st Jun 2022, 05:09

MagnumPI

1st Jun 2022, 06:16

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/civil-aviation-safety-authority-planning-and-conduct-surveillance-activities?utm_source=Swift%20Digital&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=CASABriefing%20newsletter

My favourite part from that ANAO report:

Internal review of CASA’s approach to surveillance

3.65 CASA commissioned an internal review of its surveillance approach in March 2020. The objective was:

To conduct a review that will comprehensively examine CASA’s surveillance philosophy, capabilities and practises and prepare recommendations for any reform. The review will consider how CASA uses its current resources and powers to deliver its statutory objectives and assess CASA’s ability to perform as a capable and transparent regulator. The review may examine and provide options on how CASA could evolve its surveillance capabilities to support its strategic objectives and business needs.

3.66 The final draft of the review was reported to the CASA executive in June 2020 and the Executive indicated in September 2021 that the report was ‘…a great piece of work’ that would be ‘taken forward’. In February 2022, CASA advised the ANAO that the draft report had not been ‘validated or endorsed by management’ although CASA’s records did not evidence why an internal review that it had commissioned had not been subject to appropriate management consideration and, as appropriate, action on the recommendations.

3.67 The report was not filed in CASA’s electronic record management system or circulated more widely in CASA and was not considered by the OEG, despite the OEG having responsibility to ‘provide strategic direction for the management of regulatory oversight’ and to manage and administer decision making on regulatory oversight activities.

In other words, CASA investigates the effectiveness of themselves, produces a report that is apparently "great work" according to the board, but does nothing, and doesn't even file it in their own record system or circulate it.

Paragraph377

2nd Jun 2022, 01:25

My favourite part from that ANAO report:

In other words, CASA investigates the effectiveness of themselves, produces a report that is apparently "great work" according to the board, but does nothing, and doesn't even file it in their own record system or circulate it.
That pretty much sums up CASA - a vacant space that is useful for nothing. And speaking of ‘surveillance philosophy’, an industry acquaintance recently showed me some written correspondence between himself and CASA about a matter, and CASA internally submitted that correspondence as ‘surveillance’. Ha. What a joke. Write a letter to CASA and that is classed as regulatory surveillance! Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good thing that their budget is tight and they want the inspectorate to stay In their offices so that financial budgets can be attained by having staff travel less. But to call letter writing ‘surveillance’ is laughable. Muppets.

Sandy Reith

2nd Jun 2022, 03:55

Time for a private member’s Bill to have CASA disbanded and its functions carried out in a Department of Government with a Minister in charge. This is the proven Westminster system which has responsibility for governance firmly with our elected representatives, the foundation of democracy

Until MPs face the facts that the current system, the independent Commonwealth corporate (an entity that can be sued) is a failed experimental form of governance, General Aviation will continue to languish.

Senator McDonald initiated the current drawn out two and a half years (!) ‘inquiry’ into GA, we should ask the Senators would you give over the Department of Defence to an unelected corporation like CASA?

The General Aviation (GA) sector cannot grow and strengthen in the National interest until our representatives in Parliament force change.

The ASRR inquiry (Forsyth) of 2014 produced some 35 government accepted recommendations, the Senate should demand action on those, the current RRAT Senate inquiry is a rehash, 74 submissions only, nearly all from the same cohort that contributed to the 269 ASRR Forsyth submissions.

Eight years after Forsyth all we have is a worsening situation with CASA’s relentless complexities and piling on of unnecessary and expensive procedures. These problems cannot be solved properly within the present structure which is not fit for purpose.

With respect, and acknowledging the efforts of individuals like Senator McDonald, sadly the previous government did not make the necessary decisions that only Parliament can deliver.

Those of us that have lived the great boom of GA, when one was hard pressed to find a parking spot at Moorabbin, and the skies were constantly plied with GA aircraft, know only too well the destruction that’s occurred in GA. For those that don’t have that experience we have the BITRE statistics that clearly show the decline of GA, and if plotted against population growth would look much worse.
We’ve lost hundreds of flying schools and charter operators even as Senator McDonald’s RRAT hearings have stretched out over more than two years.

Some exemplary reforms are desperately needed now, take the rules out of the criminal code, should be misdemeanours, remove the ASIC, reform medical certification, independent instructors outside Part 141/142, reform the aircraft maintenance regime and the alienation of irreplaceable airport land in favour of property developers must be halted.

All of this goes not only to our prosperity but also to our security and strength as a Nation where the mobility of aviation (and airports are crucial infrastructure) is an obvious necessity in a land mass with low population such as ours.

Ring, write contact your MP regularly and press for reform with USA rules for GA.

Paragraph377

2nd Jun 2022, 21:48

In reality, the ‘new’ Government has 23 ministers covering what I understand to be 16 departments. The appointment of a junior Minister to an aviation portfolio could be implemented. An aviation portfolio could potentially cover not only GA, but it could also realign CASA and have a measure of closer oversight of the big ‘R’ regulator including implementing either the USA or NZ regulatory suite. The Ministers department could oversee the develop of aviation infrastructure, seek out and bring in aviation business units such as manufacturing and training, cut red tape and actually foster and promote aviation and it could deliver on the recommendations from the 2014 Forsyth review. Australia could potentially tap into billions of international dollars, yet we sit here with our thumbs up our arses due to a lack of credible Government sponsored action.

The legacy of CASA since 1988 is like living through a fatal car crash over and over again. There has been countless shenanigans over the decades and the examples of people like Glen Buckley, and others before him, should be the catalyst to raise the alarm bells. Hell, the way Aleck threw the gullible MsSpence under the bus twice in spectacular fashion in front of a Senate committee highlights the endemic issues in aviation oversight.

1746

21st Jun 2022, 00:49

Thinking of you and yours Glen....trust you are well! Take care and look after yourself!

glenb

22nd Jun 2022, 03:06

Cheers 1746, you got me motivated.

I have been working away diligently in the background. I am about to submit a complaint to the CASA ICC about a CASA employee providing false and misleading advice to the current Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office investigation and calling on CASA to very clearly state there position on these three key points. The document is long, and has many attachments. It is however close to being finalized. By posting it up here it will keep me focused on finalizing it.

The finalised introduction follows, and i have the next two days off so will have the document in its entirety completed by then. Will kick off on the next post. My intention is to also submit this to the Senate as an accompanying document to my submission. I will also be communicating this to my new local Member etc. More on that later. Cheers. Glen

glenb

22nd Jun 2022, 03:08

This post has been removed.

It contained a draft letter, which has now been finalised, and that final correspondence sent to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner can be found at Post # 2235 and onwards.

glenb

22nd Jun 2022, 03:10

glenb

22nd Jun 2022, 03:12

Flaming galah

22nd Jun 2022, 05:06

I have been working away diligently in the background. I am about to submit a complaint to the CASA ICC

Why even bother with the ICC? Last time you complained you found that the ICC avoided the key issues, didn’t give an honest assessment, lacked integrity and was just a tool used by CASA to delay access to the Ombudsman.

If Pip Spence and the Board are getting rid of the current ICC as rumoured, if you insist on the ICC charade you could wait until the replacement is in situ and then maybe you’d get a fairer hearing?

Sunfish

22nd Jun 2022, 07:59

I don't like your chances Glen. My guess is that CASA will try and explain you away to the new Minister as a crank.

Nothing will save GA.

Dick Smith was right - 9 Mar 2016:

I’d like to re-emphasise what I’ve told many people and that is there is no light on the horizon and many tens of millions of dollars more is going to be lost in general aviation in this county before anything is done about it.

aroa

22nd Jun 2022, 08:13

Sorry. No such thing as a "fair hearing" in the CAsA lexicon.
While the ICC guy, in my case, was a good and conscienicous bloke, and came to talk with me due to his concerns of about what was happening..or not. He was over run / over ruled from higher up the food chain. They didnt like his result.
The "investigation" (sic) was then handed off to a women plucked from Human Resources or whatever the wanko name for that division was called then. ...Sheeple and Culture...some 'culture' !!
Result. "On the basis of probabilities, wasnt him." ( The CAsA perp)
A teenager, or a proper investigator could have worked it out. The available fact were overwhelming.
CAsA is all about covering its polished arse...and then some.
So they have criminals and perjurers working in the rotten place.....Who cares.?

Lead Balloon

29th Jun 2022, 00:23

Hi again, Glen

You will recall that CASA’s letter of 23 October 2018 quoted this statement on APTA’s website about ‘Alliance’ ‘members’:[Y]ou maintain complete control over your business. Your business maintains its identity and individuality. Your administration function and procedures remain completely your own, independent of the Alliance.I strongly suggest that you prepare a couple of paragraphs – no more than 1 page – that state, clearly and concisely, what you say APTA meant by that and how it was achieved as a matter of practicality.

If, for example, APTA was merely trying to draw a distinction on its website between e.g. a ‘member’ buying and maintaining and feeding a photocopier and organising the cleaning of toilets and taking bookings for flying training - ‘administration function and procedures’ - on the hand, and aviation-related operational matters on the other, with ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ having complete control and autonomy only over the former and APTA having complete control over and responsibility for the latter, then that in my view wasn’t made very clear on APTA’s website. And if that was what APTA meant, the next step is to write down, clearly and concisely, how APTA had the power to control the aviation-related aspects of a ‘member’s’ operations.

I will bet leftie that CASA will say that it has never authorised entity X to operate under the authority of entity Y’s certificate in circumstances in which entity Y has no power to control what entity X does. CASA will say that all authorisations were only ever on the basis of an assessment of entity Y’s powers and procedures for controlling entity X’s operations and thereby to practically discharge entity Y’s responsibilities arising from entity X’s operations. The 'vibe' of the statement on APTA's website is that 'members' were completely independent and, therefore, APTA had no control over them.

glenb

1st Jul 2022, 06:15

I have taken your suggestion on board. I have had a crack at putting together an overview into a single A4 page. A challenge. I try to write to multiple potential audiences with varying degrees of knowledge when i write something. Anyway, i did get it onto A4. The font size was 0.5, and quite impractical. Here it is in a larger font size, but over 5 X A4 pages. I thought this would be easier. Its a starting point, I look forward to feedback from you and others as time permits

Explanation of “structure”.

I need to ensure there is a clear understanding of the “structure” that I used. This was the identical structure that many operators utilised within the industry throughout my 25 years in the flight training industry, with full CASA approval.

It was the exact structure that I redesigned with 10 CASA personnel, over a 2 year period, culminating in CASA revalidating the exact structure in April of 2017. A full 18 months before Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman believe.

This revalidation was an exhaustive process requiring an investment of several hundred thousand dollars, and required CASA to assess, approve and peer review many thousands of pages of systems and procedures contained within our Exposition, interview and approve Key personnel before they formally approved them.

Eighteen months later, CASA would declare that exact structure that they revalidated 18 months earlier to be suddenly unlawful and shut the business down. That occurred in October 2018.

The business was a Registered Training Organisation RTO #22508 delivering training in the flight training sector, across multiple bases. This arrangement was accepted by the Australian Skills and qualifications Authority (ASQA), the overriding Authority for the RTO.

The structure I had adopted for many years was a one university multi campus approach. This exact structure had always been approved by CASA and was common practice for at least my 25 years in the industry.

CASA have led the Ombudsman to believe this was not the case. CASA has led the Ombudsman to be of the view that CASA had never permitted this structure. That is blatantly false and misleading. This exact model that I outline here, and that I adopted, had ALWAYS been approved by CASA, amongst many operators, and that had been the case for all time.

There is no doubt that I had been operating in this identical model for six years, other Operators for far longer than I.

Mr Aleck claims to the Ombudsman that CASA was not aware of anyone, including me, adopting the structure. In fact, Mr Aleck falsely claims CASA never permitted that exact structure. Concerningly, Mr Aleck has Ied the Ombudsman to be of the view that CASA never permitted it. Not with me and not with any other Operator, at any time. A blatant untruth that he knows to be untrue. CASA formally approved this exact structure for many operators over many years.

The new regulatory structure to be finalised by September 1st, 2017, would lead to the closure of my school and many others, as the new regulations removed access to approximately 90% of revenue. We would lose access to our core qualification being the 150 hour Commercial Pilot Licence, unless we met the CASA required revalidation process.

Many schools were confronted with ceasing operations.

In mid-2016, I had a number of meetings with CASA personnel with the proposal to expand on exactly what I had been doing for many years, and to redesign the entire system from the ground up in conjunction with CASA to meet the new regulatory structure that was being introduced.

The proposal I discussed with CASA in the meetings of mid-2016,was a collaborative approach amongst 10 Australian Owned flying schools. The purpose being to increase safety and compliance while pursuing group opportunities.

The APTA model as put forward by me, to CASA in those meetings of mid-2016, and as recollected to this day by the CASA personnel present at those meetings, was that the structure was as follows.

Let’s consider the Ballarat Aero Club, as they were an affected Member by the closure of APTA by CASA two and a half years after these meetings.

On our website we stated “you maintain complete control over your business. Your business maintains its identity and individuality. Your administration function and procedures remain completely your own, independent of the Alliance.”

“The Business and administration component”.

Like all regional aero clubs, Ballarat Aero Club are run by a committee of volunteers.

Those volunteers have a recreational interest in aviation. That Committee would be drawn from people in the local community from local farms and businesses and have an enormous depth of experience outside of aviation. Typically, they would have no specialist knowledge at all of flight training, but yet they want to continue deliver flight training to their members and the local regional community from the airport.

The Committee want to focus on growing Membership so that the aeroclub can thrive. They want to organise flying days and competitions, trivia nights, deciding what colour to paint the classroom, which photocopier to purchase, which internet provider to use, collecting revenue, renewing membership, choosing utilities providers, cleaning, choosing which beers to stock in the bar, sharing knowledge and experience, building companionship, bookkeeping, etc etc etc. That is why they volunteer for the role.

It is important to understand that the Ballarat Aero Club cannot deliver flight training on their own. They do not have the CASA Approval, and they do not have the CASA approved Key Personnel.

They are an aero club only; they are not a flying school. It is far more likely that they will have a liquor licence rather than a licence to run a flying school.

The Aero Club could approach CASA and make application to have their own Part 141/142 flying school. That would require a lengthy process costing many hundreds of thousands of dollars, and require employing Key Personnel, writing manuals etc. The committee would not have the expertise, nor the time and resources. Primarily, they want to run an aero club, not a flying school. Running a flying school requires high levels of responsibility and accountability in legislation, all of them with families that could potentially be impacted, if they were to attempt to take on such a project with such responsibility and expertise required.

Without that CASA approval, the Ballarat Aero Club are not handing over anything to me that they would normally have any operational control over, and I think that’s a significant point.

They are as stated, just an aero club, they are not permitted to deliver flight training. They do not have any operational control over a flying school because quite simply, they do not have a flying school. They are not qualified, and they do not have the approval. The Committee of that aero club are residents of the local community, employed fulltime outside of aviation.

The Committee Members want a flying school but realise the impracticality of it.The Committee recognises that the aero club does however, have underutilised facilities and access to aircraft, as well as a local population that wants to fly. There is a significant market available, it is a service that an aeroclub would like to provide.

Operational Control of the flying school.

The Aero Club approaches APTA and asks APTA to run take over full operational control of a flying school at the Ballarat Aerodrome. Not an unusual request because this is something that I have been doing for many years with full and formal CASA approval.

Its important to understand that there was only ever one CASA issued Certificate for flight training referred to as an Authorisation or Air Operator Certificate (AOC). It was issued by CASA to my Company in 2006 with CASA issued Aviation Reference Number 759217. The Company was also a Registered Training Organisation (#22508). All training at all bases was conducted under that single Approval. The respective aero clubs do not have their own approval, nor do they have the CASA required Key Personnel. They provide the facilities, and I run the school. Exactly as proposed to CASA, and recollected by those CASA personnel back in mid 2016.

In addition to the certificate the CASA legislation requires three Key Personnel, all employed by me. Those being the CASA approved CEO, the CASA approved Head of Operations (HOO) and the CASA approved Safety Manager. They are the three accountable Personnel in a Part 141/142 Flight Training Organisation. The aero club committee of volunteers are not in the legislation, they are not recognised, and in fact it is likely that CASA has never met with the Committee. Contrast that to the legislated responsibilities on me and my Key Personnel as the accountable persons. Those significant responsibilities can be found here in the legislation from CASR 142.75 onwards. Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (legislation.gov.au) (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017C00742/Html/Volume_4#_Toc493166657)

The Committee of the Ballalrat Aero Club, or Latrobe valley Aero Club, or any other entity, approaches me and after a thorough process I am satisfied, and I take over full operational control of a flying school for that aero club.

The Committee does not have, and has never had any legislated responsibilities for a flying school because they do not have one. CASA would have no interaction with the Aeroclub Committee. They are not accountable in legislation. CASA communicates only with me as the Authorisation Holder, and my CASA approved Key Personnel.

As the sole holder of the only CASA issued authorisation, and as the person employing the three Key Personnel my legislated responsibilities are comprehensive.

There can be no confusion. The Committee has no legislated responsibility. All responsibility in the legislation is on me and my Key Personnel.

A small sampling of the legislated responsibilities is below. While not exhaustive it clearly clarifies who is responsible for operational control. There can be no doubt as to who is responsible. It is clearly legislated.

The Committee has no operational control at all over any operational aspects of APTAs flying school operation. The relationship between the Committee and APTA is professional, and constant feedback is sought by APTA, but APTA runs the flying school. The Committee is welcome to provide feedback and suggestions but I maintain full operational control and responsibility. The authority is absolute, and I can cease operations at any base instantly if it were ever required.

The only decision that the committee of that Aero Club has to make is. Do they want APTA to continue operating a flying school at that location?

The Committee has absolutely no operational control over the flying school, and nor do they want it. I cannot think of any situation where any Member of an aero club committee would try to exert any operational control over a flying school operation. I have never experienced that

I have extended this offer to CASA before. Please provide a scenario that concerns CASA, whereby a Committee member could exert any attempt at any operational control over any aspect of the flying school operations, and allow me to address it. There are no realistic scenarios.

If it was something operational, I was fully responsible for it, as legislated. I am the Holder of the CASA Authorisation. Examples of this would be that I am responsible for making bookings,enrolling students, training students, authorising all flights, being responsible for fleet airworthiness, staff selection and induction, maintenance standards, pilot fatigue monitoring, investigations into accidents or incidents, staff training, staff promotion, all group communications, quality outcomes, pass rates, safety standards, training records, theory delivery, audit preparation, all documentation associated with all training, ensuring adequate resources., communicating with CASA etc.

The responsibilities of me and the three Key personnel are very clear and outlined in the legislation. A small sampling of the legislated responsibilities that I accept as the single Authorisation Holder are.

· Ensuring the safe conduct of the operator’s authorised Part 142 activities in accordance with the operator’s Part 142 authorisation, exposition, and civil aviation legislation.

· Has sufficient suitably experienced, qualified, and competent personnel.

· Has a suitable management structure.

· Is adequately financed and resourced.

· Sets and maintains standards for the activities in accordance with the operator’s Exposition.

· Complies with civil aviation legislation.

· Implements and manages the operator’s safety management system.

· Has procedures that ensure that all of the operator’s personnel understand the operator’s safety policy.

· Has an organisational structure that ensures that the safety manager is independent and not subject to undue influence.

· Tells CASA if the operator enters a leasing, financing, or other arrangement for the supply of a turbine‑engine aircraft for use in the activities.

· tells CASA if the operator becomes aware that any arrangement may affect the operator’s safe conduct of the activities.

· Manages the operator’s quality assurance management system.

· establishing and regularly reviewing the operator’s safety performance indicators and targets.

· Ensuring that the operator’s exposition is monitored and managed for continuous improvement.

· Ensuring that key personnel satisfactorily carry out the responsibilities of their positions in accordance with the operator’s exposition, and civil aviation legislation.

· Safely manage the authorised Part 142 activities of the operator.

· Monitoring and maintaining, and reporting to the chief executive officer on, the operator’s compliance with the provisions of civil aviation legislation and the operator’s exposition that apply to the activities.

· Setting and maintaining the operator’s standards for the activities in accordance with the operator’s exposition

· Ensuring that the training is conducted in accordance with the operator’s training management system.

· Ensuring that the activities are monitored effectively.

· Managing the maintenance and continuous improvement of the operator’s fatigue risk management system

· Ensuring the proper allocation and deployment of aircraft, flight simulation training devices and personnel for use in the activities.

· Ensuring that the operator’s personnel are provided with the information and documentation necessary to properly carry out their responsibilities.

· Ensuring that each examiner who conducts an activity for the operator has access to the parts of the operator’s exposition that relate to the examiner’s duties.

· Reporting to the chief executive officer on the operator’s compliance with the matters mentioned.

· Ensuring that each instructor or examiner who conducts contracted recurrent training or contracted checking for the operator has access to the contracting operator’s training and checking manual;

· Ensuring that the operator complies with section 28BH of the Act in relation to flight crew.

· Managing the operation of the safety management system including managing corrective, remedial and preventative action in relation to the system

· Regularly reporting to the chief executive officer on the effectiveness of the safety management system

· Managing the maintenance and continuous improvement of the safety management system and the fatigue risk management system.

I hope that this overview provides some clarity.

Lead Balloon

1st Jul 2022, 07:34

I take over full operational control of a flying school for that aero club.And what is the source of your authority and power to do that? How do you make people conducting the activities of aero club do what you require them to do? Are all the people conducting the activities of the ‘flying school’ in a contract with you?

glenb

1st Jul 2022, 08:36

The structure incorporated a Head office located at Moorabbin Airport. . Within that Head office was the CASA Approval by way of the one CASA issued certificate. Within that Head office were two CASA approved Group CEOs, two CASA approved Group HOOS (with a third completing a twelve month induction and awaiting CASA approval), and two CASA approved Group Safety Manangers. it apperas an unusually heavy Management structure, but it was essential that i naintained high levels of redundancy as I had many operators depending on me.

Additional Personnel within the Head office included the Internal Co-Ordinator (IC) responsible for liaison between the bases, Head office and CASA. There were also two fulltime admin staff, and a Technical writer. This is the exact structure that was designed into our Exposition with CASA.

The typical role of the CFI on the base became the role of Senior Base Pilot. Underneath them lay the instructors, or in the large schools a team of instructors under a Supervisor.

We had a system designed here in Australia and tailored specifically to control all aspects of a flying school. It was called Flight School Manager. This controlled every aspect of the flying school. This included all the sylllabi and training records. it contained all customer details, tracked instructor qualifications, proficiency checks, flight and duty times, predictive maintenance, ensured students were appropaitely qualified, etc etc.

Every flight was obviously required to be signed out by an instructor. We were a flying school only, and did not do private hires, charter etc. we foccussed only on flight training. An instructor or student could not be relaesed on a flight unless they met all the 'hurdles'.

The Senior base Pilots were all personnel who had spent many years with me, and were fully aware of all systems and procedures.. All abses and personnel completed a thourough induction in order to be able to comply with our exposition.

The system that we used that gave us full visibility over all bases was also shared with CASA and they had full access. In stead of getting in a car and driving to Ballarat, they could oversee every aspect of the Company.

We conducted a full audit of the system weekly.

We would have weekly group meetings to a CASA approved agenda that included all bases and covered a number of topics including safety, resources etc.

The truth is that it basically ran as any other school, to the CASA approved procedures.

I should point out here, that there were never any allegations by CASA that we did not have full operational control.. There were never any deficiencies highlighted nor any safety concerns. it was only an allegation that we were operating unlawfully. absolutely no allegations against any quality outcomes. CASA never requested or suggested any changes at all to any of our procedures.

CASA was making no requests regarding the CASA approved Exposition. CASA wanted to become involved in the commercial contracts but was not prepared to become a signatory to . those contacts. There was no resistance at all from me to incorporate anything that CASA wanted in the commercial contracts. After 8 months of being unable to resolve this issue, CASA determined it was unlawful. No allegation at all against any quality outcome.

Apologies for any typos. i have a dog jumping all over me and whining wanting to go for a walk. Cheers. Glen

i have included OM 1 being the manual that outlined the structure
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gmexjehesbeor5w/APTA%20OPERATIONS%20MANUAL%20-%20VOLUME%201%20-%20ED%203%20%20REV%200%20%281%29.pdf?dl=0

Lead Balloon

1st Jul 2022, 11:04

With respect, Glen, you didn’t answer the gist of my questionsThe typical role of the CFI on the base became the role of Senior Base Pilot. Underneath them lay the instructors, or in the large schools a team of instructors under a Supervisor.And who was the employer of the CFI and the instructors (and their Supervisor, when utilised) at each ‘base’?

To make the question clearer, did APTA write wage cheques to and make superannuation contributions for all those people each fortnight? If not, what was the source of APTA’s authority and power to control those people’s operational activities? Were they individually the subject of contracts with ‘someone’ which bound them to comply with APTA’s directions?

APTA may well have had visibility as to what was going on, but what could APTA do about detected problems? Let’s take hypothetical ‘Alliance’ base X that’s been approved and operating under APTA’s certificate for a while. APTA then finds out the instructors are in the habit of allowing students to ‘buzz’ their mother’s homes at 500’ AGL during dual training flights. APTA contacts the CFI / Senior Base Pilot at ‘Alliance’ base X and he says: “Get stuffed”. What does APTA do? Remember: APTA claims to bear responsibility for the operational activities at base X and now knows they are being conducted in breach of the regulations and APTA’s ops manual/exposition.

I’m not suggesting that ever happened in fact. But the important question is what could APTA do about it if it did. That was the gist of the White email regurgitating the LARP stuff.

glenb

2nd Jul 2022, 00:25

Good Morning Lead Balloon,

I fully appreciate that you have intentionally provided a fairly extreme example, but I appreciate the opportunity, and i apologise for what may seem a rather lengthy answer to your question. For a more direct response i would refer you direct to OM5 of our Exposition being the Safety Management System, which deals with this, and can be accessed via the following link.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tnxuwzu4ilwfyt6/APTA%20OPERATIONS%20MANUAL%20-%20VOLUME%205%20-%20ED%203%20%20REV%200.pdf?dl=0

I want to go right back to the first lines of defense against that situation ever arising.

First, I had run a flying school for over a decade. That flying school had delivered an industry leading record of safety and compliance, and it had a large well funded safety department a decade before it had any legislative requirement to do so. The business never advertised, and grew quickly to become the second busiest school in the southern Region. All of that on word of mouth. From day one, I had the most exceptional, well intentioned, professional team of instructors that any flying school could hope for. The organizational culture was exceptional. The team all shared my vision, and they more than delivered. That is the same company and culture that morphed from MFT to APTA. Quite simply, the Fwit that you describe in your scenario would not have existed within the organization, because it would never have got through the front door..

Second, the management team that i surrounded myself with. Quite simply, i went out and got the best. They came from miltary backgrounds, airlines, and CASA. They were well intentioned, risk averse and all complete personality testing to confirm that as part of the employment process. I knew them well, had worked with most of them previously. The management team was the same size as the big international flying schools delivering 10 times the amount of hours that our Group was. The levels of supervision were high and that team roamed constantly between the bases, sometimes for consecutive days. They had built strong relationships of trust and confidence with the team at all bases, and would have identified such personalities and addressed that attitude, and to be perfectly frank, on some occasions they did.

Third. our induction process. We had a very thorough induction process, and i addressed that i a very early post with an attachment. Not in a position to track it down now sorry. (typing in car waiting or sons footy to start). All staff were thoroughly inducted into our systems and procedures as for any pilot commencing operations under an AOC. Human Factors training and safety training formed a large part of this process, and all staff underwent thorough, and i mean thorough proficiency checks. It sounds flippant but such a culture of flagrant disregard for rules would not exist amongst our pilot group.

Fourth- The Senior Base Pilots were all people who had worked with me for between 5 to 10 years, before taking on the role of SBP.. In the case of aero clubs, i paid the SBP salary, and in the case of commercial business i.e. MFT, LTF the SBP was paid by that entity. A bit more to it than that, but that pretty much summarizes it. APTA provided additional services to aero clubs without the expertise, and delivered at cost price via substantially subsidized rates.

Fifth- The fellow instructors. The instructors were all highly professional, and if such a person existed within the organisation, it would have been addressed way before the flights you mention.

The siren has gone, and i do want to sit in the car and watch my son, but i will finish with this.

I now work outside of aviation, I work with Victoria's most challenging men aged 18 to 21, and i work side by side with them, In Victoria's most dangerous workplace according to Worksafe. Everything in life is about intent. Its not what people say its what is the intent of what they say. Its all about intent.

Truth be told, despite all the procedures above, and the protections in place.

If I "found out" that instructors were low flying, and buzzing their families. The first principle i would go back to is "intent". If a team of instructors were deliberately disregarding the rules i know I am not dealing with good intent. I would place a cessation of all opaertions immediately, and i mean within 5 minutes of finding out. It is likely that such information would have gone to the Group Safety Mananger, or Group Head of Operations, and they would have acted the same before it got to me.

The due processes would follow, and i would leave that to the Safety Department, and Group HOO initially. CASA would be communicated with, and we would fully assist CASA.

Sorry folks, not prrofread at all, will do so at half time

Lead Balloon

2nd Jul 2022, 01:04

How do you make all operations cease?

I infer, from you not giving a one word answer to my simple question, that the CFI and instructors at ‘base X’ are not your employees. So, not APTA’s employees (and not APTA’s aircraft).

In response to APTA notifying ‘base’ X that APTA has decided to immediately cease all operations at ‘base’ X, the CFI and instructors there invite APTA to take a long walk off a short plank. Flying training activities continue at ‘base’ X (so far as the world including CASA is concerned, under the authority of APTA’s certificate).

What does APTA do? Clock’s ticking.

Sorry to be blunt, but the point I’m making is what CASA’s going to continue to use to shoot you down.

It’s all well and good APTA saying it has control and is responsible and whatever, but what is the source of APTA’s authority and power of control over people with whom APTA has no relationship as employees or contractors or subcontractors?

In principle, all of this can be dealt with from a regulatory perspective but, so far as I can tell, it wasn’t. The CASA people with whom you were dealing when everything was being set up were probably completely clueless as to the exact nature of the LEGAL relationship - probably more accurately, the absence of any legal relationship - between APTA and many if not all of the ‘base’ personnel.

glenb

2nd Jul 2022, 01:51

Appreciate the point.

The problem would then be the same as for any school, in any format. If the Authorization Holder prohibits a pilot to conduct operations under his/her AOC, and the pilot continues to operate, he is operating unlawfully, and liable to prosecution. I think i see your point but i cant see how there would be any difference in any school. It would be handled exactly the same way.

If the pilot is getting paid my me, someone else, or is flying for free i.e. scouts, airforce cadets it makes no practical difference. If its under my AOC, Im the accountable person. I either choose to let it happen or I put a stop to it..

Will be off air most of the day, as i want to get back to my allegation of misleading information, but will respond tonight to any follow up, cheers. Glen.

I emphasise again that this was the system CASA built with me and approved in April 2017. CASA never expressed any concerns about a lack of opearational control, never requested any changes to any of our approved procedures.

It was simply a determination by CASA that it was unlawful. CASA may try to intrduce new arguments of control, but will find thenselves without any supporting evidence, and my assumption is that is why they have never raised that allegation

Lead Balloon

2nd Jul 2022, 22:54

Again, Glen, I’m just trying to fore-warn you so that you can be fore-armed.

Yes - The scenario I set out - a ‘rogue’ instructor or CFI - could arise at any ‘school’. But the available solutions differ, depending on structure.

I’d ask you to consider the example of a ‘school’ that comprises an entity that holds a flying training AOC, employs a CFI and instructors, leases its ground training premises and is the registered operator of the aircraft it utilises. An instructor is in the habit of breaching regulations and ignoring the directions of the AOC holder. In this structure the AOC holder’s options include:

dismissing the instructor (so no more wages and any reference for the instructor won’t be good), given that the AOC holder is the instructor’s employer,
arranging for the instructor to be escorted off the training premises and be expressly prohibited from returning (so any return would be trespass and a local police matter), given that the AOC holder has a lease of and therefore control over the premises,
expressly prohibiting the instructor from using any of the aircraft (even assuming the instructor could get access to the keys and MR, with any further use thus becoming a local police matter), given that the AOC holder is the registered operator of the aircraft and controls access to keys and MRs, and
arranging for the students who would otherwise be trained by that instructor to be instructed by a different instructor (given that the AOC holder directly controls this and receives direct payments from the students).

What options did APTA have to deal with a ‘rogue’ ‘base’ X with whose personnel APTA had no contract or other binding agreement, operating out of premises over which APTA had no legal control and using aircraft of which APTA was not the registered operator, while ‘base’ X is receiving payments direct from students (all under the authority of APTA’s AOC)?

When you say “you would put a stop to it”, I ask: How?

Please complete this sentence: “In the ‘base’ X scenario Lead Balloon provided, APTA’s options to put a stop to it included:

[…INSERT LIST…]
…, and
…”.

(Baseball bats, cement shoes and APTA holding its breath and stamping its feet until its face turns blue do not count as lawful and effective options.)

And if you can’t state, in one sentence, lawful and effective means to “put a stop to it”: Hold that thought! That is the gist of the concern that resulted in the CASA email of 19 March 2019 following the letter highlighting the content of APTA’s website.

So far as I can tell, APTA’s only lawful and effective option in the scenario I provided would have been to contact CASA and request revocation of the approval for APTA to conduct flying training at ‘base’ X, then inform the personnel at ‘base’ X that any further flying training conducted at ‘base’ X would not be conducted under the authority of anyone’s AOC and CASA’s aware of what’s happened. But that would raise questions for CASA as to how and why APTA was approved to conduct flying training at ‘base’ X. CASA’s preference is to work that out before approval.

I think that when you say CASA never expressed any concerns about a lack of operational control nor requested changes to any of APTA’s approved procedures, you mean to say: “Up until date Y CASA never…”. As I said, the central concern of CASA’s email of 19 March 2019 was APTA’s control over the personnel of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ and other factors like premises and aircraft they utilised.

I anticipate that you will say nothing had changed throughout, but I’ll bet leftie that CASA will say that, as a consequences of stuff like the content of APTA’s website quoted in CASA’s letter, it finally dawned on CASA that APTA had no legally binding relationship with ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel, had no legal control over the training premises used by ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ and no legal control over the aircraft they used. APTA claiming responsibility and visibility does not magically confer power and authority on APTA to control the personnel of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’.

The real tragedy in my mind is that I reckon all of this could have been sorted by a well-drafted deed which APTA could have required all personnel of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ to execute as part of the induction process.

(And I should reiterate that the overarching issue is the unnecessary complexity of the regulatory regime, but neither of us has any control over that at the moment. Further, I reckon the statements made in CASA’s 19 March 2019 email about Parts 141 and 142 and agency matters are bunkum. However, the overarching point about APTA’s lawful and effective control over ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel and premises and aircraft remains in my view a valid strategic regulatory point, FWIW.)

glenb

3rd Jul 2022, 01:52

Cheers Lead Balloon,
out for coffee with the kids, but noted and appreciated

glenb

6th Jul 2022, 03:40

glenb

6th Jul 2022, 03:42

glenb

6th Jul 2022, 03:43

Squawk7700

6th Jul 2022, 06:21

Typo here:

If Mr Aleck, the claims that he was not fully aware of the structure that CASA had revalidated, and I had adopted for 6 years.

Sunfish

6th Jul 2022, 10:42

Free up some mailbox space please.....

glenb

6th Jul 2022, 12:34

Mailbox should be good to go, cheers. Glen

mcoates

6th Jul 2022, 21:42

Several double commas for some reason eg ,,

You need the document to be as professional as you are. Just do a find and replace and its fixed.

Lead Balloon

7th Jul 2022, 01:24

APTA’s short point: CASA was well aware, for years, of APTA’s structure.

That’s undeniable.

CASA’s short point: CASA adults weren’t aware, until around 2018, that APTA’s structure did not include legally binding agreements between APTA and ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel and others, giving APTA effective control over the operational activities of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’.

That claimed ignorance is probably true, because CASA is a governance basket case. But it does not mean CASA had no duty to make clear to APTA, very early in the protracted and detailed interactions between APTA and CASA personnel, the important CASA requirements which were instead sprung upon APTA in 2018 and beyond. CASA should have made those requirements clear to APTA, from the outset.

I’m guessing that the various CASA personnel dealing with ATPA from day to day were blissfully unaware of the nature of the legal relationship - or, more accurately - the absence of any binding legal relationship, between APTA and the personnel of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’. But again, that does not mean CASA had no duty to take reasonable care not to make misleading statements to APTA. And silence can constitute a statement: saying nothing about an important subject can mislead someone into believing the subject is of no importance. Why would APTA have dedicated time and energy and money to formulating effective binding agreements with ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel and others, when the CASA personnel with whom APTA was interacting didn’t say those agreements were among the many requirements against which CASA was already assessing and approving additional ‘bases’?

But CASA’s not going to admit negligence misstatement. CASA never makes mistakes.

Chronic Snoozer

7th Jul 2022, 03:31

CASA never makes mistakes.
Except when they do something right.

glenb

7th Jul 2022, 03:53

A very poorly proof read document, but a response nevertheless. Apologies but about to get a flat battery on the laptop.CASA’s short point: CASA adults weren’t aware, until around 2018, that APTA’s structure did not include legally binding agreements between APTA and ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel and others, giving APTA effective control over the operational activities of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’.

My response needs to be based on a truthful appreciation of the industry, not as misrepresented to the Ombudsman by CASA. The plain and simple truth is that CASA ALWAYS approved more than one flying school to operate under a single CASA approval, with the single Authorisation Holder of the “master” school taking on full responsibility for both operations.

I did it myself at no charge on occasions for flying schools. When a regional flying school was unable to attract the required personnel to continue operations, I assisted with full CASA approval, to take on responsibility for those operations until they could resume operations on their own

Admittedly it used to be a lot easier. The respective school syllabi blended easier with probably only about 10% of the box ticking that is required nowadays, and I mean that. We used to regularly accept students from other schools. A one hour records assessment by me as the CFI would give me a pretty reasonable “handle” on a new student. That was in 2006. Less than 10 years later, that same student record transfer had become at least a 10 hour exercise with approximately 8 hours of that as an admin task at $40 an hour, and two hours at a more Senior level @ $100 an hour, and the same task becomes well in excess of a $500 task. When a flying schools hoping to make about $50 an hour, that’s a lot of flying to pay for that predominantly admin task. Its no wonder no smaller regional flying schools can continue.

The point is that CASA always and frequently approved this single authorisation, multiple base multiple entity approach. At this stage its not a discussion about the merits or not of it. Its just a truthful overview. Did CASA always know that this CASA approved structure was adopted by industry? Yes they did, and that was the case throughout my 25 years in the industry. CASA always knew this structure was adopted and CASA approved it, and

CASA never required contracts of any other Operator despite being fully aware that this structure was adopted throughout the industry. This was the case throughout my 25 years in the industry. This was a unique requirement placed on me. That alone makes me question the motivation.

CASA therefore have no records on file of any contracts required of any other Operator.

Also recall that as a courtesy, and as part of the process of I did provide multiple copies of our contact back in 2016. CASA initially denied this, but after I showed them the emails they concurred, and looked rather “awkward”. Had they have realised they had held the contracts for over two years, they may well have not sent that that ‘initial notification” of October 2018. A copy of the contract provided in 2016 is attached. Although it is fairly dry but the last few pages are the :”spirit of APTA”. This document was provided to the second in charge of CASA years earlier, as well as my CASA CMT. At any time I would have welcomed any changes CASA required. There was no resistance at all from me, in fact if it was really only about the wording in the contract the entire matter could have been fully resolved in a day. Regarding that contract provided to multiple CASA personnel in 2016, those last pages alone would have made CASA fully aware that they were dealing with a multi entity multi base single approval operation.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tdhss2mpf9t0oah/APPENDIX%20E-%20Original%20contract.pdf?dl=0

Just to clarify, this entire matter is about his is the “commercial contracts”. Operational Matters are all contained within the CASA approved Exposition. CASA never suggested any changes at all to the way we operated, as there were no concerns against any quality outcomes, and no changes required of our Exposition.

CASA only wanted terminology in the commercial contracts, although they did not want to be a signatory to those commercial contracts. Rather bizarre, but nevertheless, CASA met no resistance from me. Why would they?

Understand that CASAs initial position was. “We are shutting you down, and placing immediate restrictions on your business. Your structure is illegal.”

My argument was “Ummm, no its not, could you lift the restrictions on my business.”

CASA refused to lift the restrictions for 8 months, until they decided. Yep, we still think its illegal.

CASA used the 8 months to play a game of “ping pong” over the contracts while keeping the trading restrictions in place, to achieve their original purpose.
Im very interested in others take on my perspective. No-one ever handed over any operational control, because they didn’t have it to hand over and they were fully aware of that. That is in fact the reason an aero club or similar would approach me. Without me, they have nothing. Wow, that sounds a bit self opinionated. Hopefully you get he gist of what I am saying. The aero club pulls beers, because that’s all they can do. They have Members with predominantly a recreational interest.

Lead Balloon

7th Jul 2022, 06:06

The contract at the link in your post does not give APTA any power of control over the operational activities of 'member' personnel.

If CASA has been 'approving' flying training (or any other operation) by a 'school' under an AOC held by someone who does not have legal power to control the activities of the personnel engaged in the flying training or other operations at the 'school', CASA is incompetent.

Once approval is granted for flying training to be conducted at 'club' X or 'base' X under APTA's AOC, 'club' X / 'base' X has everything. APTA is 'responsible' for flying training activities at 'club' X / 'base' X but has no control over them. If something goes wrong, CASA goes APTA, not the 'club' or 'base.

glenb

7th Jul 2022, 07:54

As it should be.
The legislation stipulate the Authorisation Holder and the Key Personnel. Every responsibility is already in the legislation for the Key personnel. There was never any intention by me to deflect any responsibility from where it rightfully belongs. With me and the Key Personnel.

Squawk7700

7th Jul 2022, 09:15

Were there any crashes or incidents around or before the time of the issues coming to light?

Arm out the window

7th Jul 2022, 09:15

CASA should not interfere in the legal, financial or commercial arrangements of an aviation business. It doesn't have the legal right to do so, and in Glen's case or any other, it has no business asking for copies of contracts and the like. If they are unsatisfied that adequate resources, key personnel or supervision are in place, they have the ability to require those aspects to be addressed appropriately, and to take action if they're not, but it's gross overreach for them to be perusing anything else except for manuals required under the regulations, and conducting proper audits by visits, interviews and so on.

With the ombudsman's finding that there was no legal grounds for preventing the 'franchising' of flying school operations, we should welcome multi-layer organisations that can provide good standardised flying training, not put ever-increasing hurdles up in front of them. That's a telling point by Glen about the massive job just to transfer a student between schools - that's all been CASA's doing since 2014, and it sucks. Aeroplanes fly much the same and students learn in similar ways to how they always have (or better, with modern training aids), so why is it ten times harder to complete the paperwork? Those in CASA responsible for pushing us to this point should be ashamed.

With regard to responsibilities under Parts 141 and 142, CASA needs to be satisfied there is proper oversight by key personnel - fair enough. The flip side is that to restrict or stop anyone's operations, they need to be able to clearly demonstrate that that oversight is ineffective. I see no evidence in any of this lengthy saga that there was any suggestion of a lack of proper authority and oversight, so their flimsy case rests on the 'no franchising' argument, which as we know has already been debunked. If Glen has proven CASA knew about the structure and approved it way back, and then there's been no safety-based reason to interfere, then surely Blind Freddy could see who was in the wrong.

Good luck Glen, hope the process is wending its way to some positive conclusion for you.

Lead Balloon

7th Jul 2022, 10:28

CASA doesn’t have the right to ‘interfere’ in the ‘legal, financial and commercial arrangements of an aviation business’, but it certainly has the right to ‘know’ how those arrangements may affect the business’s capacity to discharge its regulatory obligations and, if the business is not inclined to provide information relevant to that assessment, CASA has a right to refuse to issue a certificate etc. (The CA Act provisions relating to financial viability of AOC applicants have been in there for decades, and CASA has been prying into the financial arrangements of AOC holders - to the extent those arrangements are relevant to financial viability - for that long.)

In order to discharge regulatory obligations, a certificate holder must have control over the moving parts that determine compliance. If the holder of e.g. a flying training AOC has no legally binding relationship with e.g. the flying instructors proposed to be utilised to deliver flying training, the AOC holder does not have control over a moving part that is essential to regulatory compliance. Doesn’t matter how many high sounding positions there are and how good the ops manual and procedures are in the organisation, if the AOC holder has no legal way of effectively controlling the (in this example) instructors.

I suspect that’s why Glen hasn’t finished the sentence I invited him to complete in the context of the scenario I gave a few posts ago,

(Don’t get me wrong: I’m on Glen’s side as I believe he was ‘led up the garden path’ by CASA and deserves to be compensated. But I can see a mile away what he’s up against.)

glenb

7th Jul 2022, 10:53

No, no incidents and no accidents. Absolutely no allegations at any stage against any quality outcomes.

It was simply a decision that the structure was “unlawful”.

Arm out the window

7th Jul 2022, 11:10

Doesn’t matter how many high sounding positions there are and how good the ops manual and procedures are in the organisation, if the AOC holder has no legal way of effectively controlling the (in this example) instructors.

If a Head of Operations is named in the exposition under which the entities operate, and there are suitable descriptions of the HOO's duties and responsibilities, and also of what things other personnel must do under direction of the HOO, and what the HOO will do when standards are not met, then he's got all the legal and effective power he needs.

Paragraph377

7th Jul 2022, 11:16

CASA doesn’t have the right to ‘interfere’ in the ‘legal, financial and commercial arrangements of an aviation business’, but it certainly has the right to ‘know’ how those arrangements may affect the business’s capacity to discharge its regulatory obligations and, if the business is not inclined to provide information relevant to that assessment, CASA has a right to refuse to issue a certificate etc. (The CA Act provisions relating to financial viability of AOC applicants have been in there for decades, and CASA has been prying into the financial arrangements of AOC holders - to the extent those arrangements are relevant to financial viability - for that long.)
Very true. Among the many ‘risks’ that CASA consider to be relevant to the industry, CASA consider an operators lack of financial stability as being of a safety risk. A genuine lack of financial stability is often met with the cutting of corners and the committing of other shonky practises. I’m not suggesting that Glen’s business was in any way, shape, or form enduring financial distress, but if it was and CASA got wind of it, they would certainly start poking around the fringes to see what popped up.

I’ve mentioned it several times throughout this thread, but the issue with Glen had nothing to do with his actual business. Glen chucked a hissy fit when CASA was dicking about and he publicly called out CASA as being unsafe. By doing that Glen basically poked the bear in the eye with a bayonet and the end result was a Friday 16:59 pm email from CASA. From that point on it was game over. I like Glen as he is tenacious, logical and is a justice seeker. All respectable qualities in their own right, but those qualities don’t mean a thing to a conscienceless Frankenstein like CASA. Glen has a moral compass, CASA doesn’t .

Lead Balloon

7th Jul 2022, 11:23

No he (or she) doesn’t, AOTW, if the HOO is the HOO of an organisation which has no legally binding relationship with (in my example) the instructors delivering flying training at one of APTA’s ‘Alliance’ ‘members. Please read what I’ve posted a few posts ago.

You can give it a go. Explain to me how APTA gets a ‘rogue’ instructor or CFI under control at ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ X, when APTA has no legally binding agreement with either the instructor or CFI. And I reiterate: Baseball bats and cement shoes and holding one’s breath and stamping one’s feet until one’s face turns blue don’t count as legal or effective means of control.

glenb

7th Jul 2022, 11:55

I know you are a supporter, and appreciate the sentiment and intent of your comments.

Every instructor at every base had to go through an online process of checks and balances before any flight could depart, and it was all done in real time including face to face briefings with each base on daily basis.

At any stage, any pilot could be immediately locked out of the system and unable to dispatch. They could be very clearly grounded on the spot. If the instructor chose to bypass the system and deliver training independently, he/she would be leaving themself exposed.

Most AOCs have people from different entities operating under their AOC.

Whilst i see your point, i cant see how there would be any difference between my arrangement and any other flying school putting a stop to an instructor.

As you will appreciate the example of the instructor continuing to deliver flying training when advised that he cannot would be highly unlikely, and not easy for anyone to stop without resorting to physical intervention.

Whilst the extreme examples to often demonstarte a point, I would be keen on any other scenarios that you can put forward.

I suggest that if anyone apart from the CASA Key personnel tried to stop someone flying under the AOC, they would be on shaky ground and subject to recourse i.e. a member of the aero club committee most likely isnt in a position to ground someone. The Key personnel are.

Arm out the window

7th Jul 2022, 12:45

Lead Balloon, a Part 142 certificate holder only has one Head of Operations. Duties can be devolved, but not responsibilities, so you could have a Senior Base Instructor or similar who might handle the day to day operations at a remote base, but the HOO of the whole structure will certainly have the ability to ground a 'rogue instructor'. There cannot be a rogue CFI, because the HOO is what we used to know as a CFI, and that person sits at the top of the operational structure of the organisation as a whole. This will all be laid down in the exposition in detail.

If I'm telling you how to suck eggs please let me know and I'll stop, but I stress that the operation works by the procedures in the exposition, which must include how flights are authorised, how instructors are checked and supervised, and how that all ultimately flows down from the HOO. If a multi-layer organisation has an exposition accepted by CASA (as it must to operate), then that becomes the legal document with which it and its personnel must comply. If the HOO finds out someone in the operational structure isn't doing the right thing, he or she absolutely can stop that person flying.

I don't know what you're envisioning, but the HOO would be in breach of his or her responsibilities if systems weren't in place to stay informed about what was going on at remote bases and to ensure standards were being met. Of course, systems are only any good if they're used properly, but someone's only going to be able to 'go rogue' if they're left alone without proper supervision. I'd hazard a guess that robust systems would have been specified in the APTA manual suite, and would have been working effectively too. This is where the HOO's operational control lies, not in the financial or other arrangements between the parent and subordinate entities.

Squawk7700

7th Jul 2022, 12:56

No, no incidents and no accidents. Absolutely no allegations at any stage against any quality outcomes.

It was simply a decision that the structure was “unlawful”.

What about 20th March 2016, VH-PCO, was that not an aircraft operated by your organisation?

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2016/aair/ao-2016-023/

glenb

7th Jul 2022, 16:33

This was a private hire, 2 1/2 years earlier.

Not a flight training flight requiring an AOC.

Squawk7700

7th Jul 2022, 21:41

This was a private hire, 2 1/2 years earlier.

Not a flight training flight requiring an AOC.

Was the pilot trained by your organisation, hired from your organisation / “endorsed” for the hire and subsequently re-trained after the event by your organisation?

I’m genuinely interested as I was very close to that event, having personally dragged pax from the wreckage with avgas pouring all over me.

Sandy Reith

7th Jul 2022, 21:52

Quote LB “CA Act provisions relating to financial viability of AOC applicants have been in there for decades, and CASA has been prying into the financial arrangements of AOC holders - to the extent those arrangements are relevant to financial viability - for that long.”

In my recollection maybe that was the position for quite a few years but for most of my career in training and charter that interference was resisted and not legal. Whatever that timeline of that particular concept, that government should make judgement about the viability of a business, is of course completely at odds with our freedoms and against free enterprise which confers our high standard of living. It is also unintelligent by virtue of the undeniable fact that a government instrumentality will never be in possession of all of the facts leading to business decisions, nor have the driving incentives to discover those facts.

Ultimately do you want government to have this power to control our lives and if we confer this power who will decide the limits? Who’s to say that give away your rights you will ever get them back again?

And we should never lose sight of the fact that CASA’s extreme regulatory regime is inimical to a healthy GA sector and makes poor contrast to the rational regulations of the USA, where, according to John King of highly respected King’s Schools (also John was brought to Australia by CASA as consultant) some 70% of USA pilots are trained outside the Part 141/142 flying schools and with no formal syllabus. Shock horror! No syllabus! no hundreds of tick off signatures? Correct, the system allows innovation and individual tailored training followed by a rigorous testing regime before licence issue. Their safety record is arguably better than ours.

Lastly, CASA by its very name, and by its legislated obligation, claims that “safety” is its overriding purpose,
but we know that that is a total nonsense because it makes no rational risk assessments for any of its extraordinary rule changes or administrative actions. In judgment against Angel Flight it’s now clear that the Act doesn’t require any such reality to restrain CASA in any way shape or form. No Ministerial or obvious legal restraint as Glen Buckley has learned.

What a disastrous outcome for Australia, having to import airline pilots! Let alone the loss of hundreds of flying schools, charter operators and maintenance businesses. Huge loss of jobs, loss of airports, a continuing disgrace and blot on our democracy where the notion of giving away government responsibility for aviation to an unelected ‘independent’ corporate monopoly has yet to be recognised by government as a monumental failure of policy.

Cleary an example of failure; by not following the principle of responsible government.

Instead it tried on what seemed to be an expedient way of taking aviation off the books and away from Ministerial responsibility, conceived and executed by the Hawke Labor government with Gareth Evans as Minister. 1988, year of shame. To its credit at the time the Liberal Opposition opposed the creation of the statutory body for aviation but seems to have washed its hands ever since.

Lead Balloon

7th Jul 2022, 22:47

Glen and AOTW: Please read my post at #2144 again, twice.

The fact that you are unable to write a single sentence explaining HOW APTA would bring ‘rogue’ ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel under control, legally and effectively, highlights the core regulatory issue. I explained HOW it works in a ‘standard’ structure where the AOC holder is the employer of the personnel. Can you identify any flaw in my explanation?

Yes Glen: APTA is ‘responsible’. Yes AOTW: The HOO is ‘responsible’. That’s precisely why CASA took action against APTA’s certificate. It finally dawned, on the adults in CASA, that CASA had been authorising flying training activities under the authority of APTA’s AOC when APTA had no legal and effective means of controlling the personnel delivering the training. It’s that simple.

And that’s the last time I’ll say it.

And, again for the last time, CASA could and should have put the issue of legal and effective control of ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel front and centre at the start of APTA’s Part 142/142 regulatory journey. The issue could and should have dealt with years ago. APTA’s demise was another sacrifice to CASA’s incompetence and complex regulatory system.

aroa

7th Jul 2022, 22:59

Excellent statement, Sandy., from your long life at the sharp and practical end of GA.
A copy should go to very politician in the country, with a footnote writ large. …
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT ?

glenb

7th Jul 2022, 23:23

Regarding the financial viability test by CASA, it was i believe only applicable to Charter Organizations and not applied to flight training. Nevertheless, i never underwent a financial viability assessment.

The business once approved in April 2017 was modelled very roughly on 10 members participating to meet the costs of operating. APTA was not intended to be a profit making Centre, as opposed to my flying school of a decade. APTA was the vehicle to permit my school and others continue in an environment where the legislation would remove access to the 150 hour CPL. The salary structure for APTA cost over $800,000 per annum. Two CASA approved Group CEOs, Two CASA approved Group HOOs ( at third undertaking a one year induction program, ), two CASA approved Group Safety Managers, a Technical Writer and three admin/auditing staff.t

The CASA Transition date was September 1st 2017, you may recall that CASA advised schools that had not completed the process would not be able to continue operations after September 1st 2017.

In February of 2017 (one month before i "flicked the switch on the new procedures), i sought multiple assurances from CASA that the legislation was proceeding. At this time school could operate under CAR 5 regulations until September1st, after which date they had to Transition to the new rules.

CASA assured me that the regulatory change was proceeding as planned on September 1st 2017. Based on those assurances i elected to flick the switch, anticipating strong demand for APTA services. I advised CASA that based on their advice i would activate the new and more expensive procedures, noting that I was already operating in the multi base multi entity formula.

The 141/142 was activated. Weeks later with less than 10% of schools transitioned, CASA delayed the new legislation by 12 months, which gave the wider industry a chance to catch up. My recollection is that the only schools in Victoria and Tasmania that had finalized the process were Oxford and ourselves.

I asked CASA if i could return to the less expensive CAR 5 procedures in the interim, until the delayed legislation was re-introduced but i was not permitted to do so. There was no going back.

That 12 months was tough, as i was funding a business with little demand. As the delayed implementation approached, demand picked up, and we were well on our way to securing the 10 members required. The new regulations came in on September 1st 2018, and CASA declared my operation illegal in October 2018, which effectively halted all new customers and made it impossible to recruit students ethically with only 7 days surety of operations. CASA for the first two months maintained the position that it was illegal and that it was being shut down ( a position they maintained 8 months later when they forced all schools to leave, including my own school.

From September 1st 2018 with the restrictions on trade, and all confidence lost in APTA, my family and my parents funded staff salaries until CASA decalred it illegal and shut it down. After September 1st 2018, financially it was very tough with my parents contributing $10,000 per week to assist with salaries. CASA was advised regularly throughout the process of the commercial harm being caused.

SQUAWK

The accident. I myself got to that scene approximately 1 hour later. Possibly one of the most miraculous survival story with no-one spending the night in hospital. It is a long time ago, it was a private hire. After the accident we did play a role in significant retraining, and I was involved in that, although i dont think the pilot continued flying at the completion of the training.

We had no involvement in the investigation as CASA dealt direct with the pilot. The pilot had his family on board and was a very risk averse fella. I believe it was put down to pilot mishandling although the ATSB report may exist for further details.

This was not the pilots first flight with our Organization.and he did hold a PPL.

Cheers. Glen

Arm out the window

7th Jul 2022, 23:37

Lead Balloon, the legal means of control is the exposition. Regulations require organisations and personnel to comply with expositions, which provides the head of power.

Please complete this sentence: “In the ‘base’ X scenario Lead Balloon provided, APTA’s options to put a stop to it included:
- following the procedures in the exposition covering unauthorised activities, or activities that do not meet organisational standards.

Happy days.

Sunfish

7th Jul 2022, 23:40

The fact that you are unable to write a single sentence explaining HOW APTA would bring ‘rogue’ ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel under control, legally and effectively, highlights the core regulatory issue. I explained HOW it works in a ‘standard’ structure where the AOC holder is the employer of the personnel. Can you identify any flaw in my explanation?

WTF? If an instructor is not complying with the terms of an organisations AOC / Operations manual / whatever, isn't that an offence under the regulations?

If the answer is "Yes" then provided you have taken steps to ensure that the instructor is aware of their responsibilities and has been given legal instructions, which they choose to ignore, isn't it up to reporting to CASA and let them investigate and prosecute?

WTF are the regulations for if not to compel compliance by individuals? It isn't up to you to discipline staff if they break the regs. Furthermore, if an employee breaks your administrative regs that have nothing to do with flying, then its not CASAs business.

Lead Balloon

8th Jul 2022, 00:13

I do apologise for not making my points clearly.

Yes: Breaches of regs are just that. And that’s naughty and it’s an offence. In both of the scenarios I provided earlier - APTA ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ instructor going ‘rogue’ and a ‘standard structure’ AOC holder’s instructor employee going ‘rogue’ - the instructors are breaching regulations. Yes: Both instructors are naughty and committing offences. I get it. But…

Both instructors are committing offences in the course of delivering flying training under APTA’s AOC and the ‘standard structure’ AOC holder’s AOC, respectively. The AOC holders are also being naughty in allowing that to happen.

I set out, above, some of the legal and effective steps that a ‘standard structure’ AOC holder can take to stop the rogue employee instructor continuing to offend in the course of flying training under the AOC, hopefully before CASA takes action against both the AOC holder and the instructor. Absent a legally binding agreement between APTA and the personnel of its ‘Alliance’ ‘members’, those steps are not available to APTA. If I haven’t made this fundamental distinction clear, I again apologise.

Lead Balloon

8th Jul 2022, 00:33

Lead Balloon, the legal means of control is the exposition. Regulations require organisations and personnel to comply with expositions, which provides the head of power.

- following the procedures in the exposition covering unauthorised activities, or activities that do not meet organisational standards.

Happy days.Yet the ‘rogue’ flying training activities are still being conducted by ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel at ‘base’ X. Students happily stumping up and paying money to the ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ for the training. APTA can’t sack the ‘Alliance’ ‘member’s’ personnel, has no control of the ‘Alliance’ ‘member’s’ premises and is not the registered operator of the aircraft being used by the ‘Alliance’ ‘member’s personnel to continue to deliver flying training.

What does APTA do next?

Tell me who, precisely, does what, precisely.

I’ve explained what an AOC holder does in the ‘standard structure’ in which the CFI and instructors are the AOC holder’s employees, the training premises are owned or leased by the AOC holder and the AOC holder is the registered operator of the aircraft used for flying training under the authority of the AOC.

Slippery_Pete

8th Jul 2022, 00:42

By doing that Glen basically poked the bear in the eye with a bayonet and the end result was a Friday 16:59 pm email from CASA. From that point on it was game over.

Are you suggesting the 16:59pm Friday email is a deliberate tactic used by CASA?

Flaming galah

8th Jul 2022, 01:07

Paragraph never lets details like it being sent on a Tuesday impede on an otherwise ripping narrative.

Rather than searching for the non-existent collateral weaknesses in the cogent, well reasoned questions C-Mac is helpfully posing that get to the very heart of this saga, does anyone have anything that would assist Glen other than 'the exposition' takes?

glenb

8th Jul 2022, 01:47

Lead Balloon, '
your input, although on rare occasion not so encouraging, is valuable. I dont need to know what im going to say. I already know that. The suggestions regarding Mr Alecks "take" are important, because i need to know how to counter them, so please keep firing away as time and motivation permit you to.

I understand your argument, although i am probably too close to the argument to understand the counter argument.

Where a pilot draws his income is in my opinion, (with absolutely no legal background.) not relevant.

Over the years i permitted a number of Organizations to operate under my AOC after a robust induction. These included Airforce cadets out of Darwin and Scouts down here in Melbourne. My own pilots would often volunteer for charity events that we provided. We had a Company Policy of assisting every Organization that contacted us for a "donation" provided they weren't a commission based contact.

I considered my responsibility and accountability exactly the same. It made no difference if they were volunteers, paid by me, or in fact paid by someone else. There is no distinction in the law that I am aware of. Many thousands of pages of CASA rules and regulations state very clearly the responsibility and accountability of the Authorization Holder and the Key personnel. In fact no-one else is mentioned in the legislation.

Every professional, qualified Commercial Pilot is fully aware that they are obligated and in fact electronically sign to say such, that they will operate in accordance with the Exposition. They do , on every single flight that they depart on under my AOC..

My Key Personnel and i could lock any pilot fully out of the system, from anywhere in the world at any time. From start to finish probably a 3 minute exercise. I doubt any Aeroclub Committeee Member could achieve that. If the pilot departs on a flight he has clearly demonstrated bad intent. He knows that his flight is unauthorized, and that he is committing an offence. Imagine the poor car rental Company when someone steals the keys to a car and crashes it. How much liability does the rental company owner have, assuming the keys were secured and not in the vehicle.

I know its intended as the extreme example, but in my 25 years in the industry its a scenario, i.e. refusing to stop flying, that i haven't encountered.

If the pilot is fully and properly inducted into the one Authorization, with the one Exposition, he is my responsibility, and its a serious one.

If something goes wrong, the simple fact is that the CASA Employees keep working 9 to 5.

Its me as the Authorization Holder that has to be prepared to appear before a Coroners Court, and justify the robustness and quality of my Systems and Procedures. I know that in such an environment my systems have to be watertight and substantially ahead of the industry standard. I have to be honest and act with integrity, and seek ways to prevent it ever happening again. But i really have to be able to get up on that stand and know that me and my Organization had done more than could be reasonably expected . I had to walk out of there affected but not feeling guilty. Thats the way i would hang on to my business.

Of course, i never factored in the Aleck factor

Sandy Reith

8th Jul 2022, 02:01

LB has dissected carefully, in detail, the CASA’s grinding of Glen Buckley in its perverted course of imperial perfection in all things aviation. All of which does not go to the safety of flight. The reverse being true.

No obvious answer for Glen, but individually we can try for political awareness. Keep on keeping on. Ring write contact your local federal MPs and State Senators.

Paragraph377

8th Jul 2022, 10:55

Are you suggesting the 16:59pm Friday email is a deliberate tactic used by CASA?
It most certainly is a tactic. Especially when they give you a ‘show cause’ and just a few days to respond. By sending it at 16:59 on a Friday it’s difficult for you to pull the management team together over the weekend, so you lose 2 days straight away. Despicable creatures.

Sunfish

8th Jul 2022, 14:23

It most certainly is a tactic. Especially when they give you a ‘show cause’ and just a few days to respond. By sending it at 16:59 on a Friday it’s difficult for you to pull the management team together over the weekend, so you lose 2 days straight away. Despicable creatures.

It's designed to ruin your weekend because you cannot respond for two days. Its a very old and childish lawyers trick - akin to putting a turd in a persons letterbox. I've had it done to me by a supposedly reputable Australian Merchant Bank years ago.

Checkboard

8th Jul 2022, 18:50

Was the pilot trained by your organisation, hired from your organisation / “endorsed” for the hire and subsequently re-trained after the event by your organisation?
That's a bit raw - one accident does not a systemic problem make, and a pilot trained and released into the wild is no longer the responsibility of the AOC holder, unless you can show negligence in both training AND testing.

Explain to me how APTA gets a ‘rogue’ instructor or CFI under control at ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ X, when APTA has no legally binding agreement with either the instructor or CFI.
I honestly don't understand this argument of yours, LB. What if a directly employed instructor was told to stop training, and they "went rogue" and simply continued training a student without telling their boss. Logged it under a private flight and took cash for the instruction?

A rogue operator is always a possibility and a problem. I don't see any problem with Glen's setup. On detecting the error, the instructor is directed to correct it, or stop training. If they don't (detected under the same system that detected the problem in the first place), then Glen would contact the business owner and state that ALL AOC approval for that business will be withdrawn - and if that happens (and the whole business is rogue and training continues) then the CAA is contacted explaining that there is a business with no AOC conducting "training" which is legally invalid.

If that doesn't work - then no business in Australia needs an AOC. I could buy an old warrior and train people (I was a Grade two 25 years ago), and if the CAA won't stop me training without an AOC then it doesn't matter if I am the holder, or Glen was the holder, and I "went rogue". So I really don't get your argument.

Seem pretty obvious and simple to me. There's no need for a direct financial involvement to meet regulatory requirements.

Sunfish

8th Jul 2022, 20:09

glenb

8th Jul 2022, 20:47

Regarding post #2183, which bank was it? that’s why i only give them a Post Office Box. Better that stuff be someone else’s problem

glenb

8th Jul 2022, 21:09

Sunfish< i received your email asking about any fees paid to CASA. I hope you don't mind me posting up here, as if you are asking the question, there is a fair chance that others may be thinking the same thing as well.

I had been operating in the multi base multi entity, single Authorization with CASAs full knowledge and formal approval for approximately 6 years. The upcoming regulations being Part 141 and 142, was a CASA mandated Transition process, rather than a Regultory task, therefore the entire Transition process was assessed by CASA on a no fee basis. On my rough estimates sitting in the car here, i estimate that my Management Team and I would have put in excess of 2000 hours into the process, and i estimate that CASA probably formally diarized/logged well in excess of 500 hours. The investment in personnel, management, Head Office facility, IT systems, Learning management etc ran into several hundred thousand dollars. The answer to your question is that no fees were paid to CASA for the overhaul of the entire Organization to be compliant to the new Regulatory Structure. CASA also inteviewed and assesses all Key personnel at no charge. This was the same situation for all of Australias 350 flight training organisations.

Fees were paid however for Regulatory Tasks, and these included the addition of bases. As the Darwin base, TVSA, and my own school were operating under the old system (with Darwin not operating), no charge were paid for these bases.

I did pay fees for the addition of
Learn to Fly (first base)
AVIA
Latrobe Valley Aero Club
Ballarat Aero Club
White Star Aviation.

Fees were also paid for the addition of courses and simulators at bases.

My recollection is that each base was assessed as approximately a 5 hour Regulatory task, and the associated fee was paid. My estimate probably a $1000 process in fees.

Sandy Reith

8th Jul 2022, 21:19

Does anyone not see the irony of CASA, which presides over a suite of elastic regulations guaranteed to criminalize any and all aviation activity when it suites them, backed up by the resources of the Commonwealth Prosecutors and the AFP, that strike fear into the hearts of all right thinking pilots.............and they are asking you how you will enforce your management instructions????????

“Ironic” is putting it mildly.

Consider the thousands of GA jobs foregone, hundreds of flying schools and charter operators shut down or put off, loss of manufacturing, educational potentials and total losses in terms of the flow on prosperity then “disastrous” is a far more realistic description. In the context of National
security then not less than a scandalous lack of responsibility is on display, such as building warehouses on irreplaceable airport land.

The irresponsible part of Parliament, the Ministers, CASA Board and CEO is now in full view after all of those much vaunted “consultations” and “inquiries” which have resulted in almost nothing more than a massive increase in the CASA CEO’s salary.

Who approved that and why necessary? Reasons? CASA Board? Ms. Spence received $253,089 for the first six weeks of her employment from the 17th May ‘21 to the 30th June ‘21 (CASA annual report). Virtually no action, certainly no shame and even more ludicrous Work Plans and Consultations. Don’t answer letters no matter how polite and considered.

What do they take us for?

When “follow the money” takes on us on an even more breathtaking journey.

And some politicians are asking why Australians are not giving their voting first preferences to the major Parties. Rubbish democratic norms, natural justice and fairness, exclude commonsense and the “journey” is heading towards a precipice.

glenb

8th Jul 2022, 21:34

Lead Balloon,
I didnt mean to avoid your question regarding who paid salaries, and will address it here more clearly to ensure i get the best feedback.

The MFT Base, the Senior Base Pilot was paid directly by me.
The AVIA base, a 10 year employee of mine took up that position with his salary paid for by the Owner of that business..
The White Star Base, an EX CASA Flight Operations Inspector was the Senior Base Pilot. He was the designer of our Flight School Management and Learning Management System. Salary paid by his business.
The Vortex Base, a 5 year employee of mine took up that position with his salary paid by the Owner of that Business.
The TVSA base, a 10 year employee of mine took up that position, with her salary paid by the Owner of that business.
LTF Base the SBP was a past student of our school, with salary paid by that business.
The Ballarat Aero Club had ceased operations as it did not have the required Key Personnel. As it was an aero club rather than a more commercial venture, I paid the salary for the Base Pilot.
The Latrobe Valley Aero Club was treated as per the Ballarat Aero Club.
Simjet being the 737 Sim Centre in Brisbane, the Senior Base Pilot was an ex-Airforce/Airline Pilot with a background in training. Salary paid by that business. Noting that being a Sim only facility it needed a Quality assurance Manager rather than a SBP. There is no SBP in the legislation, that was an internally specified position in our Ops manual/Exposition to increase supervision levels. The Legislated position at this facility was a Quality Assurance Manager

What was known as the CFI or Head of Operations was a roaming position. There were two CASA approved HOOs (CFI), with a third that had completed her twelve month induction and was ready for the CASA interview. This administrative task was placed on hold by CASA throughout the 8 months as part of the "administrative freeze" CASA placed on all operations i.e. no regulatory tasks were processed, this included approving personnel, simulators, and new courses. All legislated Key Personnel 2x Group HOO, 2 X Group CEO, and 2 X Group Safety Manager were paid by me.

I hope that clears it up. Cheers. Glen

glenb

8th Jul 2022, 22:14

Lead Balloon

8th Jul 2022, 22:47

No, no incidents and no accidents. Absolutely no allegations at any stage against any quality outcomes.

It was simply a decision that the structure was “unlawful”.The decision was that the structure was unlawful absent legally binding and effective means for APTA to control the operational activities of personnel who were not APTA’s employees.

APTA’s structure was lawful in principle because Parts 141 and Part 142 make express provision for certificate holders to conduct operations through people who are not employees of the certificate holder. But the certificate holder in that case has to demonstrate how it has legal and effective control over the non-employees. That should have been made clear by CASA from day one and, as I’ve said, the tragedy is that the issue could have been dealt with through a deed signed by ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel (and their employer if they had one) on ‘induction’ to APTA operations. I’ve put these kinds of ‘short circuiting’ deed obligations in many (many) legal structures.

1746

9th Jul 2022, 01:12

The decision was that the structure was unlawful absent legally binding and effective means for APTA to control the operational activities of personnel who were not APTA’s employees.

APTA’s structure was lawful in principle because Parts 141 and Part 142 make express provision for certificate holders to conduct operations through people who are not employees of the certificate holder. But the certificate holder in that case has to demonstrate how it has legal and effective control over the non-employees. That should have been made clear by CASA from day one and, as I’ve said, the tragedy is that the issue could have been dealt with through a deed signed by ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel (and their employer if they had one) on ‘induction’ to APTA operations. I’ve put these kinds of ‘short circuiting’ deed obligations in many (many) legal structures.

Gents a question if I may....should these questions and articulate answers actually be on a public forum? I rightly or wrong feel that it could harm Glen B's case!

Squawk7700

9th Jul 2022, 02:20

Gents a question if I may....should these questions and articulate answers actually be on a public forum? I rightly or wrong feel that it could harm Glen B's case!

They already have harmed his case as CASA have already stated this publicly.

Sandy Reith

9th Jul 2022, 03:14

Title of comment quoting Squawk 7700.

I doubt anyone can think of any such case being so publicly aired, so openly detailed by Glen and so thoroughly canvassed by so many interested parties.

There’s certainly been much advice, and some from those with specialist knowledge such as the contributions from LB. The great majority of us have deep sympathy towards Glen and the whole saga leaves no doubt about CASA’s unconscionable treatment of Glen’s business and subsequent treatment of him personally by preventing his further employment in GA.

In regard to reputation and self harm CASA couldn’t have done a better job on itself if it tried. Unless you figure that CASA’s harm to the Nation trumps everything else.

Lead Balloon

9th Jul 2022, 03:53

I honestly don't understand this argument of yours, LB. What if a directly employed instructor was told to stop training, and they "went rogue" and simply continued training a student without telling their boss. Logged it under a private flight and took cash for the instruction?I’ll try to explain it this way.

ABC Pty Ltd is the holder of a flying training AOC.

ABC Pty Ltd’s CEO, Mary, is having her morning cup of coffee, looking out on the apron at the C152 and C172 of which ABC is the registered operator. It is a sombre morning, as the previous day Mary had to sack one of her instructors, Bob, for repeatedly failing to comply with the company’s Ops manual. Bob had not responded well. Mary had eventually directed Bob to vacate the premises and prohibited him from returning, otherwise Mary would inform the police that Bob was trespassing. Mary also told Bob that he was no longer permitted to use ABC Pty Ltd’s aircraft for any purpose.

Mary was therefore extraordinarily surprised to see Bob ambling out onto the apron, accompanied by one of ABC’s students and heading for the C152. “Oh well”, thought Mary, “there’s absolutely nothing I can do. I’ll just sit here and finish my coffee then read the newspaper.”

Methinks Mary might not be so sanguine and inactive. Methinks Mary may have some very stern things to say to Bob and the student on the apron. I don’t imagine the student would be keen to jump into the C152 after Mary has explained that Bob has been sacked and prohibited from using the C152 and will therefore be in breach of numerous criminal laws if the flight proceeds as planned by Bob.

Of course anyone can ‘go rogue’. Bob could start purporting to deliver flying training the next afternoon, in a different aircraft, after putting up a sign saying “ABC Flying School” at some different airfield to the one at which ABC is based. But in that scenario all of Bob’s sins will be visited on Bob because ABC can legitimately say that none of what Bob did after he was sacked was done with the knowledge or authority of ABC. Even CASA does not expect AOC holders to have procedures in place to deal with the endless things that employees could conceivably do after being sacked.

The scenario I’m talking about is one in which one of APTA’s ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ fails to take action to ‘reign in’ ‘rogue’ personnel and APTA knows about it. The ‘member’ is perfectly happy to continue taking money from students for training them under the authority of APTA’s AOC. Remember: ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ are separate entities from APTA and making their own money from delivering flying training under the authority of APTA’s AOC. APTA’s key personnel are located 100nms away.

All CASA eventually asked for - and should have asked for years earlier - is that APTA put in place legal and effective means of bringing the ‘rogue’ under control in these kinds of circumstances. A bunch of shelf ware and high sounding organisational personnel located hours away ain’t enough to deal with the lack of any direct legal relationship between APTA and the personnel of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’, no legal control over the premises of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ and no legal control over aircraft of which APTA is not the registered operator.

I’ve posted earlier, a couple of times, the solution to this from a regulatory and practical perspective.

Lead Balloon

9th Jul 2022, 04:20

Gents a question if I may....should these questions and articulate answers actually be on a public forum? I rightly or wrong feel that it could harm Glen B's case!CASA says Glen has no case. CASA won’t bother paying any attention to Glen until he comes up with a case that has merit.

Let’s think it through.

Let’s assume that the arguments and position of CASA put in the email of 19 March 2019 are supported from a regulatory perspective. It would follow, therefore, that the arguments and position were valid back when APTA and CASA personnel were putting in so much time and energy and cost to implement the APTA structure. It would also follow that, because APTA was relying on CASA to explain all of the hoops through which APTA had to jump from CASA’s perspective - that was precisely the purposes of the ongoing and detailed interactions between APTA and CASA personnel - that CASA should have explained years earlier that which was instead explained in 2019. At the earlier time, APTA reasonably assumed that CASA’s silence on the issue meant it was not an issue from a regulatory perspective. But then CASA made it an issue.

Of course CASA has to try to dress the circumstances up as if ‘things had changed’, so as to try to cover up the failure of its own staff to recognise the implications of APTA’s proposed structure - which structure I hasten to add, again, is lawful in principle under Parts 141 and Parts 142 - and to consequently explain, early in the process, the extra ‘hoop’ that would have to be jumped through as a consequence of the lack of direct employer/employee relationship between APTA and ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel in that structure.

And as each day goes by, the limitation period on any potential negligent misstatement and equitable estoppel action against CASA ticks closer to expiry…

Flaming galah

9th Jul 2022, 06:22

And as each day goes by, the limitation period on any potential negligent misstatement and equitable estoppel action against CASA ticks closer to expiry…

Given $52,455 was raised on Glen's behalf solely for legal expenses, there can be no doubt that his lawyers will be alive to the deadline getting closer and closer and are biding their time in the wings to commence proceedings while Glen explores these other seemingly futile but free avenues with no readily apparent remedy: successive Ministers and their Offices, other Federal MPs and Senators, CASA, its Board, its ICC, the Ombudsman, the ANAO etc etc etc.

Sandy Reith

9th Jul 2022, 07:58

Flaming Gala detailed some of the “free” options but all of those require political leadership.

Leadership of the calibre required is no where to be seen and the possibility of its appearance is very remote. Surely there’s a case that can go to Court to deliver a measure of justice.

Checkboard

9th Jul 2022, 09:04

The scenario I’m talking about is one in which one of APTA’s ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ fails to take action to ‘reign in’ ‘rogue’ personnel and APTA knows about it. The ‘member’ is perfectly happy to continue taking money from students for training them under the authority of APTA’s AOC.
... and my scenario was, if APTA kows about it, they issue a direction to the instructor, and if that instructor fails to follow it (perhaps with the *wink* *wink* nod of the business owner), then APTA would withraw their AOC cover from the business.

Same effect, n'est pas?

Lead Balloon

9th Jul 2022, 10:11

And how does “APTA withdraw their AOC cover from the business”? Again, explain to me who, precisely, does what, precisely.

I set out at #2144 what I consider to be the only practical way in which APTA could avoid further responsibility for flying training being conducted by the ‘rogue’ ‘Alliance’ ‘member’. Do you have another way?

I don’t think APTA picking up the phone and telling the ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ that ‘AOC cover’ has been ‘withdrawn’ would in itself be enough. So far as the world and CASA are concerned, the flying training being conducted by the ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ is being conducted under the authority of APTA’s AOC, unless and until CASA revokes the approval ‘covering’ that ‘base’.

Remember: It’s APTA’s AOC and it’s APTA delivering the flying training, just through ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ rather than its own employees.

glenb

9th Jul 2022, 22:49

I welcome the questions, as they are most likely the same arguments CASA will put forward, and I need to have robust and well considered responses. Whilst I don't mean to engage in "ping pong", I would like to follow this through, with a couple of points.

First, let me set the background. The previous legislation governing such matters as flying schools and supervision was written before we had mobile phones. When the CFI was on a day off, he was only contactable whenever he was at home via a phone connected to the wall. If a clunky old answering machine was connected to it, he might even be able to retrieve his messages when he/she gets to it. Training records were on paper and kept in a file, only accessible when on site,and probably every instructor experienced the "lost file" at least once. All meetings required face to face methods as quite literally, there was no other way. Pilots flight and duties were recorded on paper, and pilots often missed limitations through human error. There's a good chance that student records were not up to date, but the flight could depart anyway. Similarly, a pilot could either deliberately or inadvertently "sign out" for a flight with an unserviceability, and the opportunity to "fudge " paperwork existed as there was no electronic cross checking. Communications were slow, and ineffective.

Move forward to the more modern environment. The HOO or in fact anyone can establish contact with every base every day via effective face to face style communications on his/her phone. Promptly and accurately view pertinent weather information and send video footage of the loose screw on the cowl or the flat spot on the tyre. Computers can prevent flights dispatching after checking syllabi, maintenance, flight and duty. The system can prevent a flight departing if the syllabus hours for that flight exceed the hours remaining plus an applicable margin. So much of the previous human error has been removed. Weekly meetings of all senior personnel can easily be arranged. The point is that Supervision has come a very very long way. The challenges of geographical distance have been largely addressed.

Regarding the HOO sitting in an office 100s of km away, that is largely addressed. Irrespective of that, the HOO isn't sitting in an Office. All positions are roving. The two CASA approved HOOS would be at each base at least once a week, in addition to the meetings etc. We had a third HOO completing her 12 month induction. These are not HOO and Deputy HOO positions. There is no such position as a Deputy HOO. It does not exist in the legislation, although an Operator may choose to create that position. We did not. We had two HOOS, with a third shortly to be CASA approved. These are all CASA approved HOOs to provide high levels of redundancy and supervision. The Managing structure was the size of a very large school on the Airport, also delivering across multiple bases but doing well over 10 times the volume of training our Group was doing.

An entire audit could however be done from that Head Office, as it was on a weekly basis. We had access via the Flight school Manager System, as did CASA because i provided access to CASA, to every aspect of the operations. This included all training records, syllabus progress, pilot qualifications and recency., predictive maintenance, test results, theory courses, briefings, examination delivery etc etc.

Multiple flying schools operating under a single Authorization was a CASA approved practice throughout my 25 years in the industry. Previously when two schools amalgamated, there were deficiencies, nevertheless it was permitted. by CASA.

During 2015, i commenced the first ever attempt to address those deficiencies. That was an entire system system designed from the ground up with CASA to deliver exactly that. Every single procedure, form, personnel appointment was based on that structure. Every system and procedure was designed in close consultation with CASA, and in fact the majority of the procedures including our Temporary base induction procedure were put forward by CASA. The supervision system was approved by CASA in April 2017. It was audited in November 2017, and CASA formally approved bases by way of a Significant Change process. There is no doubt CASA had been "satisfied". Why Mr Aleck became dissatisfied many years later will be interesting.

Regarding ceasing operations at a base.. I don’t know who else could shut down the operation apart from the CASA Key Personnel within the Organization. The Committee Member of the Aero Club, who possibly sells farming equipment fulltime, probably cant.

Regarding contacting CASA. Not required. I do not need CASA approval to stop anybody, or any entity operating from any base. Its my AOC, I am the one clearly accountable in legislation. If I say its stopping. It is stopping and that could include fully locking out a base, instantly. No flights would be able to be legally depatched. It has stopped.

As I don’t depend on flights departing or not for my revenue. Unlike many flying school owners, I have no commercial pressure at all to depart any flight that I am not 100% satisfied with, and prepared to be 100% accountable for.
Obviously CASA would be promptly notified, but that would not be part of my decision making process..

Off air the rest of the day due working.Finishing 11PM tonight, hopefully back on before work tomorrow. Cheers. Glen

glenb

9th Jul 2022, 22:52

Thanks everyone. Looks like this thread will hit a million views over the next 24 hours. Your input and comments are all appreciated. Bendalot. You still there?

Cheers all have a great day, travel safe. Cheers. Glen

Sunfish

9th Jul 2022, 23:19

alphacentauri

10th Jul 2022, 02:32

LB will correct me if I am wrong....but after 2 pages of people trying to answer his question. Nobody has mentioned who it is that is responsible for notifying CASA.

I would argue, that is what CASA want to know. And if they want to take matters into their own hands, whom is it that they contact to achieve the same outcome? Thats why CASA wanted the contract details....

Is that your point LB?

Alpha

Lead Balloon

10th Jul 2022, 10:07

Lead Balloon, you are over complicating matters.

Q: How does an employer maintain control of an employee?

A: By the simple operation of firing them if they do not comply with the employers instructions.

Q: How does the employer enforce the firing?

A: By physical measures:

-1) All aircraft are secured per CASA/Whatever instructions - throttle lock, wheel clamp, padlock. etc.

-2) The keys to all the aircraft are securely held by the owner/manager and are not released without a valid booking to a valid instructor.

-3) The instructor may have a swipe card that can be deactivated on firing. In addition, company email access is normally terminated within microseconds of firing. The students must also be advised.

….The rogue now has no legal access to the schools aircraft or facilities.

As for the school “going rogue”, I would have thought a simple termination clause in the agreement with APTA to the effect that AOC coverage can be withdrawn and what will happen if it is should be enough.

‘’The power to terminate activities is the ultimate power to enforce compliance.You made my points for me, albeit I suspect inadvertently, Sunfish.

It seems I continue to be failing to make what seems to me to be (and was clearly for CASA) a fundamentally important structural distinction.

In the APTA model, most if not all of the ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel are NOT APTA’s employees. APTA is NOT the owner or lessee of the premises the ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ utilises for ground training. APTA is NOT the registered operator of the aircraft utilised by ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ to deliver flying training. Absent some form of binding legal agreement that ‘bridges’ these gaps, APTA has no legal and effective control over a bunch of moving parts in flying training being conducted under APTA’s AOC. CASA (eventually) asked for APTA to provide evidence of how those ‘gaps’ would be ‘bridged’.

A clause in a contract giving APTA a right to ‘withdraw’ ‘AOC coverage’ does not make that ‘coverage’ ‘disappear’ just because APTA says so. CASA decides what AOCs ‘cover’ and do not ‘cover’. Unless and until CASA varies the AOC (or suspends or cancels it) flying training at the ‘rogue’ ‘base’ continues to be authorised by APTA’s AOC.

No Alpha: My point is not about who notifies whom of what.

Sunfish

10th Jul 2022, 15:07

LB: [A clause in a contract giving APTA a right to ‘withdraw’ ‘AOC coverage’ does not make that ‘coverage’ ‘disappear’ just because APTA says so. CASA decides what AOCs ‘cover’ and do not ‘cover’. Unless and until CASA varies the AOC (or suspends or cancels it) flying training at the ‘rogue’ ‘base’ continues to be authorised by APTA’s AOC.

If that is the case, then how is it APTA’’S responsibility to enforce compliance? It’s CASAs responsibility. You cannot have responsibility for an action without authority to control the action.

An employee is under the control of the employer. That is settled. If an employer stands to lose access to APTA resources if they transgress, surely that is enough?

This argument is tautological BS.

Paragraph377

10th Jul 2022, 21:42

This argument is tautological BS.

Tautological bull**** is actually CASA’s method of operation.

It is somewhat difficult to apply any sense of logic to most of CASA’s decisions or methods. CASA is a regulatory authority that has morphed into some kind of Frankenstein. Many of the regulations aren’t fit for purpose and the Act is outdated and convoluted. In many ways Glen is the victim of a failed system.

Checkboard

10th Jul 2022, 22:21

CASA decides what AOCs ‘cover’ and do not ‘cover’.
So, APTA (Glen if you want an actual person) rings up CASA and says "Joe Bloggs at Joe Bloggs Flying School" no longer meets requirements, and should not be covered under the AOC.

Then it's CASA's problem, and I'm sure they would handle that with alacrity.

Lead Balloon

11th Jul 2022, 00:13

So, APTA (Glen if you want an actual person) rings up CASA and says "Joe Bloggs at Joe Bloggs Flying School" no longer meets requirements, and should not be covered under the AOC.

Then it's CASA's problem, and I'm sure they would handle that with alacrity.
Is the correct answer (so far as I can tell). I actually dealt with this at post #2143 (which used to be #2144, so I assume someone’s deleted an earlier post). I’d commend that post to those still struggling to understand my (evidently poorly-made) points.

But ‘handling it with alacrity’ does not involve CASA taking regulatory action against Joe Bloggs alone. And thanks Sunfish, once again, for making my points for me.

Compliance is, indeed, CASA’s responsibility. And how does CASA secure compliance?

Let’s consider Sunfish Pty Ltd’s application for a flying training AOC…

CASA Question 1. Please set out the legal effective means through which the Applicant will control the activities of personnel engaged to deliver flying training, to ensure their compliance with regulatory requirements.

Sunfish Pty Ltd’s Answer: Compliance is CASA’s responsibility. I’ll leave CASA to secure compliance of those personnel with those requirements.

Does CASA issue Sunfish Pty Ltd a flying training AOC? I think not.

CASA doesn’t issue AOC’s authorising flying training to an entity that does not demonstrate how it will exercise legal and effective control over the activities of the personnel who will be delivering training under the authority of that AOC. At least CASA shouldn’t…

CASA had a bit of a ‘whoops moment’ back in 2018 when the adults realised the worker bees had been busy helping APTA build a structure that turned out to have some flaws: Gaps between the AOC holding entity on the one hand and the people and premises and aircraft of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ on the other, such that the AOC holding entity could not take the equivalent of the legal and effective steps set out in Sunfish’s post #2202 (and mine of #2143). However, those gaps could be filled. That was the point of CASA’s email of March 2019. (Of course CASA didn’t admit it had f*cked up in not making the necessity to fill that gap clear, much earlier in the process. CASA was always on notice that the APTA model involved the engagement of personnel that weren’t APTA’s employees, the utilisation of premises of which APTA was neither owner nor lessee and the utilisation of aircraft of which APTA was not the registered operator. And that failure to admit the f*ck up is the typically sleazy behaviour that’s earned CASA its reputation.)

glenb

11th Jul 2022, 00:16

As I alluded to in an earlier post, its all about intent. At work on occasions I get abused in one day, more than most people would get in a lifetime. Often those comments are threatening and personal, and on occasion very "close to home."

Its water off a ducks back because i think about the intent. The comment is usually motivated by something totally unrelated. Drilling down to the root cause and addressing it is what makes the job so challenging, and satisfying.

This matter is really all about "intent". What was trying to be achieved and by whom. There is no doubt that Mr. Aleck decided prior to October 2018 that he was closing down my operation, hence the formal allegations of misfeasance in public office that i have raised with the previous Deputy PM, The CASA Board, as well as before the Senate.

I somewhat agree with Lead Balloons point. It was in fact quite easy to fix, and should not have remained unresolved after a staggering 8 months, with those trading restrictions in place. Quite simply, Mr Aleck knew that the restrictions on trade were damaging the Business. That was made very clear on multiple occasions in writing, with the first being sent within 24 hours of CASAs notification that i was suddenly operating unlawfully.

Please be assured that the early efforts resisting the closure of the business were very strong. I believe my first post was approximately 6 months after this entire matter started. It was only CASA realized they were on shaky ground about it being unalwful that the topic changed to contracts as being a possible "lifeline". for the business.

I have a recording from my Accountants Office assuring me that after more than 6 months if I put the suggested CASA wording into the Contracts that CASA only provided 24 hours earlier that the restrictions would be lifted.

CASA had those contracts within 48 hours. CASA advised that they were acceptable and we could return to business as usual. Hours later they reversed that opinion, stuck by the original determination, and forced all customers to leave including my own flying school of more than a decade.

I desperately wanted to resolve it. By now I had lost my home, and my parents who were funding staff salaries had put in $300,000. They also had run out of money. I would have had this entire matter finalized within 24 hours if that is what Mr Aleck wanted. I, like many others who have had their lives impacted by this man, were a victim of a reverse engineered process, by which Mr. Aleck achieves his desired outcome. I have been contacted by many of those victims..

I have two documents underway at the moment. The complaint regarding the false and misleading information provided to the Ombudsman's Office. That will be submitted on Monday.

Shortly after will be an allegation of misfeasnace depending on the response to my complaint. The recipients of that are yet to be confirmed. I have put a fair bit of work into that already so hope to have that the week after. I think that will bring some further clarity to this matter

Once those two documents are complete, I intend to correspond with every Government politician, and most particularly to our new Labor Member, Ms Carina Garland.

As the Owner of the Business and the person most impacted, please be assured that Mr aleck was never going to let this matter be resolved. Never

Cheers. Glen

Lead Balloon

11th Jul 2022, 00:46

glenb

11th Jul 2022, 00:54

"So am I correct in saying that none of the Senior Base Pilots or instructors at any of the 'Bases' were APTA employees, except for the Senior Base Pilot at the MFT Base (and the Ballarat Base when it was operating)? (I'm not sure what 'treated as per the Ballarat Aero Club' means with respect to LTV - does that mean the Senior Base Pilot at LTV was an APTA employee until LTV stopped operating?"

Correct. Ballarat was operating fulltime and growing very quickly. Delivered its first ever Instrument Rating, purchased a sim etc. The Latrobe Valley Senior Base Pilot was also paid by me. All other Senior Base Pilots were paid by their business.

All instructors were inducted to the one system and could operate from any base as they frequently did. The base that the service was delivered from would pay the salary. Example, and aerobatic specialist from the Latrobe valley base would also deliver training at Moorabbin and get paid by the Moorabbin base, similarly an IFR specialist would be deployed to Ballarat to develop Instrument rating training. etc

Heading into work now, and off air until tomorrow. Cheers. Glen

glenb

11th Jul 2022, 00:57

Lead Balloon

11th Jul 2022, 02:47

Gosh. He's probably the only person on the planet that understands Australia's aviation 'safety' regulatory system. Who's going to run CASA if he leaves?

Paragraph377

11th Jul 2022, 06:59

I have just taken a telephone call informing me that Aleck is departing CASA. Apparently good source but caller was reluctant to reveal much more than that. Anybody got any info? I mean he is well into his late 70s, presumably well off, and its probably about time.
If it’s true, it is good news. But sadly the damage has been done. He is a multi millionaire who hasn’t needed to work for some time. He has used his love of law to create his own personal experiment and play thing called CASA. The Loyola loser has done more damage to CASA than anybody else has in the past 30 years. Sadly he will leave on his terms rather than having his arse handed to him and getting frog-marched out the door. He has been a hinderance to aviation and it’s been a dammed disgrace that he has been allowed to run amok for so long.

But don’t pop the celebration corks too soon,
his padwan ANUStasi has been groomed by Aleck for over 20 years so you can expect more of the same foolishness from the CASA legal department. He is another sheltered workshop bureaucrap who wouldn’t be able work in the real world, a world far different than the retarded fantasy land of CASA.

glenb

12th Jul 2022, 02:23

Apparently here, and it certainly seems that he has some good attributes. About (luamair.com) (https://luamair.com/about/)

Paragraph377

12th Jul 2022, 02:52

Apparently here, and it certainly seems that he has some good attributes. About (luamair.com) (https://luamair.com/about/)
Jesus, did the arrogant Scot design and make his own website, it is complete sh#t. It’s a shrine to himself. I guess he hasn’t been able to find a job with a two-bit third world operator yet. Poor diddums.

glenb

12th Jul 2022, 12:50

With regard to the applications for bases. These applications were substantial. They included,

A cover letter that very clearly identified the exact nature of the structure.

A Significant Change application. A very comprehensive CASA form requiring high levels of detailed information.

The BPM or Base Procedures Manual. These manuals did not control Company Procedures. That information was in the Group Exposition. The BPM was a “differences manual”. These included such “unique” information geographical dependent information including;

· The ERP. Emergency Response Plan tailored for that location.

· Drug and Alcohol testing procedures after an accident or incident, with local testing centres and contacts.

· Aerodrome procedures for that aerodrome.

· Fuelling procedures tailored to the nature of fuel delivery at the base.

· Any pertinent safety information to that base.

· Etc

Importantly, and perhaps relevant. A comprehensive risk assessment and supporting safety case. These were comprehensive submissions, and to a very high quality. I make that Statement because that was the exact wording that CASA used. They were very impressed. These risk assessments included attending to scenarios that Lead Balloon has put forward and also the more mundane risks.

Tomorrow morning, I intend to make a Freedom of Information Request for those submissions. Noting that CASA has 30 days to respond, I suggest CASA will make me wait 30 days. Once I receive that application and the risk assessment, I will post it up here. The scenario that Lead Balloon put forward was discussed as part of our risk assessment, and discussed at length with CASA.

We had applied for bases earlier and they had been approved by CASA. In August and October of 2017, I submitted two further applications. These applications were far more comprehensive applications that the earlier ones. These two applications are slightly over one year before CASA “first became aware” of my structure, but they are our first applications as a Part 141 and 142 Organisation. The legislation required far more comprehensive applications than in the CAR 5 regulations.

I appreciate that it will have no legal point to posting that document. What it will do is demonstrate that due consideration was put into these risks and they were considered and addressed.

glenb

12th Jul 2022, 13:10

I had posted this in a much ealier thread but here is the form and procedure that CASA approved 18 months before they first became aware of APTAs structure. This was the procedure for all bases after we were approved To part 141 and 142 in April 2017. I include it because it demonstrates somewhat the "effort" that was being put into doing something actually pretty good. Not perfect and subject to continuous improvement but a good starting point nevertheless. I include it also because it refers to the contents of the BPM or "differences" manual.https://www.dropbox.com/t/Urpcsm3SB9BKJx8Y

Lead Balloon

13th Jul 2022, 01:56

The APTA structure was fine in principle from a regulatory perspective, because Parts 141 and 142 make express provision for personnel who are not the employees of the certificate holder to nonetheless be utilised in the conduct of activities under the authority of the certificate. Here is the definition from Part 141 and there’s an equivalent one in Part 142:personnel, for a Part 141 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:

(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).There it is in ‘black and white’: Paras (b) and (c) cover people who are not the certificate holder’s employees. (Which is also why the stuff about the Parts being constructed on the basis that certificate holder personnel are assumed to be ‘in all respects agents of’ the certificate holder in CASA’s March 19 email is bull****.)

Unsurprisingly, one of the conditions of a Part 141 and Part 142 certificate is that: “each of the operator’s personnel must comply with each provision of civil aviation legislation that applies to the operator’s authorised Part 141 flight training”. But don’t make the ‘rooky error’ of thinking that that confers some power on the certificate holder or imposes some obligation on the personnel. It is neither. It is just a condition on the certificate. But…

A contravention of that (or any other) condition of the certificate is an offence by certificate holder giving CASA grounds to take action in relation to the certificate. To make this clear, if one of APTA’s ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ instructors ‘goes rogue’ at a ‘base’ 100nm away from APTA HQ and key personnel by, for example, being in the habit of letting students buzz their Mum’s house at 500’ AGL, APTA commits an offence (as does the instructor against CAR 157). So for all those folk who reckon the ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ rogue is a compliance issue for CASA: You’re right. But CASA takes the compliance action against the certificate holder as well as the rogue.

Back to basics: When someone applies for an AOC, or an extension to the scope of an AOC, CASA requires the applicant to demonstrate how he, she or it will legally and effectively comply with the rules applicable to the scope of the activities that will be authorised by the new/expanded AOC. Those rules include the condition on the AOC that “each of the operator’s personnel must comply with each provision of civil aviation legislation that applies to the operator’s authorised Part 141 flight training”.

I have little doubt that APTA carried out comprehensive risk assessments and produced corresponding manuals and expositions comprising a rain forest or two. Given that the greatest aviation nation in the world permits the training of pilots by instructors without the rigmarole of an operator certification system, all of the extra stuff required of a Part 141 or 142 certificate holder ‘must’ make their operations ‘safer’.

But as is so often the case when regulatory requirements are so voluminous and complex, people lost sight of the bigger picture which required better initial attention. (Cue story of CFIT while the pilots were focussing on a blown instrument light bulb.) How does the certificate holder exercise legal and effective control over the operational activities of personnel that are not employees of the certificate holder, utilising premises of which the certificate holder is neither owner nor lessee and utilising aircraft of which the certificate holder is not the registered operator, at locations many nautical miles distant from the certificate holder’s ‘head office’ and organisational key personnel?

I’m confident that the worker bees in CASA with whom APTA was initially dealing were mightily impressed with the rain forests of manuals and expositions and risk assessments. But they are not the answer to the question. They merely expose why the answer to the question is important. It’s all well and good to point out that some manual requires someone do something, but unless you can identify, with precision, the basis upon which the person is obliged to comply with that manual and, more importantly, what you can practicably do if the person fails to comply, the manual is no answer. The person sitting in a room and being ‘inducted’ is no answer. The person crossing their heart and hoping to die if they fail to comply with the manual is no answer.

The answer is, first, the creation of a direct legal relationship between APTA on the one hand and ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel and anyone who had legal control over premises and aircraft utilised by those personnel for activities under APTA’s certificate on the other, giving APTA and its employed key personnel legal control and, secondly, the demonstration of practical means of exercising that control. That was what CASA was trying to say in so many (unnecessary) words in its email of March 19 and which should have been said in words of one syllable by the CASA worker bees when APTA’s ‘membership’ was expanding.

AerialPerspective

13th Jul 2022, 06:13

LB:

If that is the case, then how is it APTA’’S responsibility to enforce compliance? It’s CASAs responsibility. You cannot have responsibility for an action without authority to control the action.

An employee is under the control of the employer. That is settled. If an employer stands to lose access to APTA resources if they transgress, surely that is enough?

This argument is tautological BS.

Not only that, but the entire question begs the next question - what the hell does this say about the internal systems and processes of CASA that one group actively encouraged this business model, even, allegedly, suggesting smaller schools talk to APTA about joining and saving themselves the cost of obtaining a Part 142 approval - I believe it's clear based on this entire thread, that this actually happened.

What does it say about the integrity of CASA surveillance and assessment processes that this was not addressed in the initial approval - in fact, I believe this thread explains several times at the beginning that not only did CASA endorse the APTA model but actively encouraged it and provided input into the contracts that were in place, only later to say they were inadequate and not realise the previous CASA personnel had suggested them.

This rests at CASA's feet. An organisation responsible for regulation and oversight of aviation safety that either; a) did a u-turn on it's own decision v.v. APTA for reasons unknown; or b) has such poor assessment and surveillance procedures that what they basically were saying was a 'huge' problem sailed past the keeper at the initial approval stage.

It's either one or the other and I believe this thread contains multiple examples of CASA throwing up reasons for their actions and each one was effectively refuted by Glen using CASA's own instruments and determinations, of which the surveillance team were not aware or did not understand - but Glen did. Again, what does that say about CASA??

It is difficult to read the above mentioned and not conclude that each time Glen neutralised one argument, CASA just moved on to another argument until they found one that they thought might 'fly' so to speak. How is that not a determined effort to shut someone down for any reason they can find, followed by apparently utilising the overwhelming bureaucratic heft of the Commonwealth to effectively squash any complaint or call for recompense.

In a country that has in the last ten years; raided journalists and news organisations for evidence of whistleblower sources when a reporter wrote a story accusing instruments of the government of alleged murder (the alleged Afghanistan incidents), exposing allegedly corrupt practices in the ATO, someone in Defence whistleblowing details about Afghanistan and of course, the most prominent case; Witness K and his lawyer Bernard Collaery being subject to a 'secret trial' - the sort that belongs in Soviet era spy novels, not modern Australia - I have no direct information about CASA's intentions but in this country right now, although logic and decency has prevailed and the Collaery trial has been abandoned, I would not put it past government to be vindictive and merciless in destroying someones life and career - if the foregoing doesn't convince people, look at what the High Court said about Robodebt.

Paragraph377

13th Jul 2022, 07:31

Not only that, but the entire question begs the next question - what the hell does this say about the internal systems and processes of CASA that one group actively encouraged this business model, even, allegedly, suggesting smaller schools talk to APTA about joining and saving themselves the cost of obtaining a Part 142 approval - I believe it's clear based on this entire thread, that this actually happened.

What does it say about the integrity of CASA surveillance and assessment processes that this was not addressed in the initial approval - in fact, I believe this thread explains several times at the beginning that not only did CASA endorse the APTA model but actively encouraged it and provided input into the contracts that were in place, only later to say they were inadequate and not realise the previous CASA personnel had suggested them.

This rests at CASA's feet. An organisation responsible for regulation and oversight of aviation safety that either; a) did a u-turn on it's own decision v.v. APTA for reasons unknown; or b) has such poor assessment and surveillance procedures that what they basically were saying was a 'huge' problem sailed past the keeper at the initial approval stage.

It's either one or the other and I believe this thread contains multiple examples of CASA throwing up reasons for their actions and each one was effectively refuted by Glen using CASA's own instruments and determinations, of which the surveillance team were not aware or did not understand - but Glen did. Again, what does that say about CASA??

It is difficult to read the above mentioned and not conclude that each time Glen neutralised one argument, CASA just moved on to another argument until they found one that they thought might 'fly' so to speak. How is that not a determined effort to shut someone down for any reason they can find, followed by apparently utilising the overwhelming bureaucratic heft of the Commonwealth to effectively squash any complaint or call for recompense.

In a country that has in the last ten years; raided journalists and news organisations for evidence of whistleblower sources when a reporter wrote a story accusing instruments of the government of alleged murder (the alleged Afghanistan incidents), exposing allegedly corrupt practices in the ATO, someone in Defence whistleblowing details about Afghanistan and of course, the most prominent case; Witness K and his lawyer Bernard Collaery being subject to a 'secret trial' - the sort that belongs in Soviet era spy novels, not modern Australia - I have no direct information about CASA's intentions but in this country right now, although logic and decency has prevailed and the Collaery trial has been abandoned, I would not put it past government to be vindictive and merciless in destroying someones life and career - if the foregoing doesn't convince people, look at what the High Court said about Robodebt.
Just look at the John Barilaro (Porkbarilaro) New York job saga. A crooked State Government caught out acting corruptly for one of the ‘club members’. Politicians and Bureaucraps exist solely to feather the nests of themselves and their mates. They don’t give a **** about transparency, ethics, honesty or accountability. That’s how they feel about Glen, there is no personal gain or money in it for the rule makers so they couldn’t give a dollop of piss about Glen. Sad, but true.

glenb

13th Jul 2022, 09:34

Lead Balloon, thankyou for the time and consideration that you put into your responses, and especially that last one.

Whilst the overall post was insightful, I feel I must pull you up on one particular reference, and that was your reference to the ‘worker bees”. I appreciate it wasn’t intended literally, although it must be addressed.

These were not worker bees. From the commencement of the revalidation between June 2016 through until April 2017, when we were approved, I dealt on every occasion with the most Senior of CASA personnel, from as high up as the second in charge of CASA. For day-to-day communications I had my CASA Certificate Management Team (CMT), a CASA team containing a small group of Subject Matter Experts on Flight School Operations, Maintenance and Safety. They worked with me on my Exposition and designing all systems and procedures for 18 months. On occasion CASA also tasked additional highly experienced CASA employees to the Project. These are senior personnel from within the Public Service/CASA, and their salaries are indicative of just how senior those roles are.

I was very dependent on those contacts within CASA that were allocated to me by CASA for the project of revalidating APTA to the new regulations using the same multi base multi entity structure that I had been using for many years.

Surely CASA has a Duty of Care I these circumstances.

There was a “special relationship” if you like. This Part 141/142 Transition to the new regulations was not something that I requested. It was something imposed on me, and in fact all flying schools in Australia by the Regulator.

The advice or information provided by CASA concerned a business and professional transaction. CASA being the Regulator and the authority that stipulated the requirements that I had to meet to continue operating my business after September 1st, 2017. I submitted my Exposition to CASA for assessment and approval. CASA was fully aware of the importance and influence attached to the answer and the information that they provided me.

In my dealings with the CASA personnel, I reasonably depended on CASAs special skill or ability to assess and approve all of my 600 requirements that CASA had stipulated for me, in order to continue doing what I was doing after September 1st, 2017. This was much more than me being reasonably reliant on CASA personnel, I was fully reliant. CASA had to assess and formally review all my procedures by way of the Exposition. CASA then formally approved them. This was a requirement if I was to continue operating after September 1st, 2017.

When CASA changed their mind and reversed the approval of my businesses and shut the operation down I, and others suffered significant loss. I had reasonably relied on the advice and information provided by CASA in obtaining my revalidation 18 months earlier and suffered loss as a result of that reliance on CASAs earlier advice when CASA reversed their opinion.

The entire application and Exposition went for a peer review within CASA. I submitted my Exposition and had it approved by CASA 18 months earlier. If the CASA team that had been dealing with my application over the previous 18 months had not identified that CASA would later deem my structure illegal, I had a reasonable expectation that such a deficiency would have been identified at the “Peer Review” stage 18 months earlier when a second team of CASA personnel assess the entire application and Exposition. In my opinion, both the CASA team that worked with me for eighteen months, and the CASA team that conducted the Peer Review failed to exercise a standard of care sufficient to discharge the duty of care arising from the very close relationship between me and the Regulator on this matter.

As it was CASA that introduced the new regulations and provided the guidance material that I followed closely, and also stipulated the more than 600 requirements that I would have to attend to. Then those same people would assess each of my procedures against the CASA stipulated requirements, the circumstances of the communications were so formal that the CASA personnel realised that they were being trusted by me fully as the recipient of that information. These personnel assessed my procedures and approved them by way of a formal process, I fully trusted them and was fully dependent on them for that advice.

The nature of the information or advice was very much of both a serious and a business nature. CASA had advised that flying schools could not operate after September 1st, 2017, if they did not comply with the new regulations. The matter was very serious and in fact essential to business continuity.

The CASA personnel that worked with me in the design of the structure, assessed it, approved it. The CASA personnel must have been fully aware that I intended to act on their information and advice. The communications were between CASA as the regulator and my Organisation. There were no other Parties involved in this Project to gain approval in September 2017. It was very much a bilateral relationship that was established by this reciprocity.

This was far more than a Preliminary review or a considered opinion that CASA gave me. It was a set of requirements that they stipulated. I met them. They were assessed and approved fully by CASA 18 months before CASA deemed the operation that they had approved illegal.

If there was a requirement for contacts, there were many opportunities over the 6 years that I was operating with this structure for CASA to identify that requirement, and most especially at throughout the 18 months that they worked with me leading up to the revalidation in April of 2017. Basically, information was not provided to me when it should have been by those CASA personnel. Once CASA realised that they had erred, that should have been the starting point for well intentioned discussion working towards resolution, rather than an engineered process to shut down the business.

Lead Balloon

13th Jul 2022, 10:20

AerialPerspective

13th Jul 2022, 17:38

I agree with the gist of your argument, Glen. In the circumstances it was reasonable for you to rely on the CASA personnel to explain all of the hoops through which CASA expected APTA to jump in order to satisfy applicable regulatory requirements. That was precisely the point of the interactions. Doesn’t matter whether the CASA personnel with whom you were dealing were ‘ordinary’ staff or the CEO. Whoever they were, CASA let them loose on APTA to work through what CASA considered to be the applicable regulatory requirements. You were entitled to assume they knew what they were talking about and would tell APTA the whole requirements story. If one of them happened to be a ‘head office’ adult, so much the better from your perspective.

As I’ve said before, if CASA’s requirements set out in its email of March 19 were applicable then, they were always applicable (at least from the point at which CASA was on notice that APTA’s structure included personnel who were not APTA employees operating out of premises of which APTA was not owner or lessee and using aircraft of which APTA was not registered operator). As I’ve also said before, I’m guessing CASA will continue with the story that it wasn’t on notice of the details of the APTA ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ structure until late 2018, to try to avoid potential liability. After all, CASA never makes mistakes.

I would just observe in relation to what you've written, which I'm sure is legally sound (not the manner of CASA's actions though), just close your eyes for a moment and imagine if this was the Qantas CASR Part 121 Exposition. Does anyone think CASA would walk into Bourke Road in Mascot and tell Qantas they were putting them on a week-to-week approval because they had detected something that they had previously extensively approved to now not be acceptable. For that matter, would they walk into Virgin Australia's HO and state the same thing??

Of course not. To paraphrase something Gough once said "they wouldn't have the guts comrade!!".

It is because Glen, a thoroughly decent person who exudes integrity and trust and has acted in good faith, does not pose enough of a threat to this organisation. Those of us who know Glen, know the quality of person we are dealing with here and we also know the sort of people/cabals we are dealing with in the Commonwealth Government who orchestrated robodebt and the active suppression of investigative journalism by utilising the organs of the State and obscenely over-the-top 'national security' laws to carry out actions aimed at covering the a-ses of former Ministers and Department Heads for authorising something that at least one senior, experienced jurist has deemed illegal, and instead persecuting a lawyer and his client. Presumably so the truth would never completely come out and those responsible never be brought to justice.

I say that to echo Paragraph's response, it's because they are only interested in the acquisition and maintenance of power and don't give a **** about decent people who get hurt along the way.

I just hope, not least for Glen's peace of mind, that the new government, which has made a good start by withdrawing the charges against Collaery, will follow through in other areas and make sure this bureaucratic bull**** is both eradicated and those it has harmed are given just compensation.

AerialPerspective

13th Jul 2022, 17:42

Just look at the John Barilaro (Porkbarilaro) New York job saga. A crooked State Government caught out acting corruptly for one of the ‘club members’. Politicians and Bureaucraps exist solely to feather the nests of themselves and their mates. They don’t give a **** about transparency, ethics, honesty or accountability. That’s how they feel about Glen, there is no personal gain or money in it for the rule makers so they couldn’t give a dollop of piss about Glen. Sad, but true.

I would have said a bucket of warm piss, but that's style differences. We could add stacking of review panels such as the AAT and FWC to ensure their mates produce the type of judgements they want, not those that are just.

Lead Balloon

13th Jul 2022, 23:43

I agree, AP. CASA, along with many government agencies, has got the beasting of practically defenceless individuals down pat. CASA Avmed, in particular, does a brisk trade in unlawful, inhumane bastardry.

What you may not realise - though it adds weight to your point - is that the ‘Robodebt’ litigation was settled in the Federal Court (not in the High Court) after which politicians and officials could and did claim that no court had ever made a finding of unlawfulness. These were the same people who rejected any suggestion that some of Robdebt’s victims had been driven to suicide.

No shame. No integrity. The senior ranks of the public sector are awash with them.

Sunfish

14th Jul 2022, 00:42

LB: I agree, AP. CASA, along with many government agencies, has got the beasting of practically defenceless individuals down pat. CASA Avmed, in particular, does a brisk trade in unlawful, inhumane bastardry.

What you may not realise - though it adds weight to your point - is that the ‘Robodebt’ litigation was settled in the Federal Court (not in the High Court) after which politicians and officials could and did claim that no court had ever made a finding of unlawfulness. These were the same people who rejected any suggestion that some of Robdebt’s victims had been driven to suicide.

No shame. No integrity. The senior ranks of the public sector are awash with them.

Yes, quite correct Technically and legally no findings were made about Robodebt, just as CASA can probably claim that technically and legally its dealings with Glen Buckley are faultless. However there is an important "But" needed as a qualification;

There is an underlying presumption of "Good Faith" in negotiations and I don't mean it in the narrow commercial contract law sense, I mean it in the widest possible sense of being able to trust the other party. Without that ingredient from both parties, it is impossible to arrive at any meaningful long term agreement about anything because each party has to devote too much energy trying to protect themselves from the potential depredations of the other.

The entire Buckley saga once again demonstrates, sadly, that CASA, none of it, from top to bottom, can be trusted, period. if CASA was trustworthy and it had a genuine concern about APTA's organisation, it would have worked with him and fixed it come hell or high water instead of primly sitting on its hands. That's what someone working in good faith would do, it's the Australian expected community standard.

I say "once again" because the primary finding of the Forsyth review was just that; industry doesnt trust CASA although the committee didn't say it globally. The review mentioned 'trust' 25 times and not in a positive way for CASA. (see section 2.8.2 and the whole of section 4).

This is not to suggest that anyone is dishonest. However clearly, no matter what the well meaning Board, DAS and some individuals try to do, without a foundation of mutual trust, which is clearly lacking, CASA, the organisation, is building on sand.

In my opinion, in the knowledge that lack of trust is a managerial death sentence for football coaches and upwards, the question now is whether it is either possible or efficient to try and repair CASA's reputation or whether it would be easier to start again from a clean sheet of paper.

Sbaker

17th Jul 2022, 15:18

Maybe it's time for an industry vote of no-confidence in particular CASA staff / departments (IE: the LIRA department).

aroa

17th Jul 2022, 22:33

Even if very aviation type person in Oz sent a vote of No Confidence to Miss Spent and copies went to the PM, who do you think might do anything to rectify the situation.?
CAsA is the fisherman’s creel with last weeks forgotten trout stinking in it. Nobody wants to clean it out.

Bloody silver tail malcontents, who the hell do they think they are.!
We have a world beating safety agency , the most safety regulations and the worlds best accident record all as a result of experts in our very expensive corporate agency,, the Civil Aviation SAFETY Authority, and they do nothing but complain.!

Sandy Reith

23rd Jul 2022, 05:58

Maybe it's time for an industry vote of no-confidence in particular CASA staff / departments (IE: the LIRA department).

As my friend Paul Phelan wrote many years ago the aviation industry has lost trust in CASA.

The reasons are its intransigence, inconsistencies, extraordinarily complex and costly regulations and too many instances of straight up dishonesty.

There’s only one appropriate overall remedy and that is to revert to the Westminster system of responsible government. CASA must be disbanded and its functions given to a Department of government with Minister at its head.

The experiment of the independent corporate has failed, always was a muddle headed concept which was, initially all the rage, the creation of what was the idiotic and contradictory notion of a Government Business Enterprise (GBE). This term you may note has fallen out of use, having a government sponsored monopoly and trying to give it a semblance of a “business,” and the word “enterprise” in keeping with the free market idea, was never more than a dishonest confidence truck.

We must approach our MPs and ask them to support this fundamental reform.

Breedapart

23rd Jul 2022, 07:22

That is the last thing we need, a politician at the helm. No corruption in politics right. The minister signs off on everything they do now. I listen to the inspectors we deal with then i look at CASA, there is obviously a major internal disconnect, the regulator has obviously lacked leadership and direction.

Sandy Reith

23rd Jul 2022, 10:49

Dear Breedapart, sounds like you lack faith in democracy because logically if the directives of government, I’ll presume you can see that laws are important, are enforced by unelected bodies who take power by any means available other than being voted into power, then ask what alternatives are going to be viable?
Yes it’s true that Parliament rubber stamps what CASA puts up as new regulations, but that doesn’t mean that having much more direct Ministerial involvement wouldn’t be better. It seems that Australians have a most jaundiced view of politicians, in my experience this is not justified and we have one of the best records in the world, but people love to hate the system.
Part of the answer is to get involved in political institutions because democracy only works with participation and the more the better.

Breedapart

23rd Jul 2022, 11:35

I'll respect your opinion, hopefully you will respect mine, a case of we will have to agree to not agree

AerialPerspective

28th Jul 2022, 12:36

As my friend Paul Phelan wrote many years ago the aviation industry has lost trust in CASA.

The reasons are its intransigence, inconsistencies, extraordinarily complex and costly regulations and too many instances of straight up dishonesty.

There’s only one appropriate overall remedy and that is to revert to the Westminster system of responsible government. CASA must be disbanded and its functions given to a Department of government with Minister at its head.

The experiment of the independent corporate has failed, always was a muddle headed concept which was, initially all the rage, the creation of what was the idiotic and contradictory notion of a Government Business Enterprise (GBE). This term you may note has fallen out of use, having a government sponsored monopoly and trying to give it a semblance of a “business,” and the word “enterprise” in keeping with the free market idea, was never more than a dishonest confidence truck.

We must approach our MPs and ask them to support this fundamental reform.

After the blatant corruption of the previous government in the areas of grants, etc. and well, just about everything else they did stinking to high heaven, I'm not sure anyone believes that the 'Westminster system of responsible government' actually works.

Besides, Australia has a blend of US and UK systems but interestingly, during the early attempts to draft a constitution, ultimately resulting in us practically plagiarising large tracts of text from the US Constitution, the British Advisors at the time actually stated words to the effect "if you can come up with a better system than 'responsible government' then go ahead as it simply does not work.'

You can't be 'responsible' to parliament if you're only in a position of responsibility because your party has a majority and as we've seen during Morrison's reign, will do anything up to and including manipulation of the language to get out of actually making a Minister responsible to parliament. That's how we ended up with an AG, the most senior law officer of the Commonwealth, refusing to step down and his PM refusing to ask him to, when he was accused of rape.

Responsible to no one is what the system should be called.

There are virtually no checks and balances like the US system and others. Even the GG serves at the pleasure of the PM in reality.

Unfortunately that means there is no restraint on the executive or very, very little and what there is usually drives someone to 'do the right thing' because of an eye on the next election.

Nearly all ... (people) can stand adversity, but if you want to test a .... (person's) character, give .... (them) power.

Abraham Lincoln

glenb

28th Jul 2022, 14:14

For those that have been following in some recent posts I had a draft of my allegation of a CASA employee providing false and misleading information to the current Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation. That document has been rejigged and edited, and was sent to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner today, with a copy also forwarded to the Board of CASA. That document follows over this post and those that follow. Cheers. Glen.28th July 2022.

Useful Links

Civil Aviation Act Civil Aviation Act 1988 (legislation.gov.au) (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2021C00060)

Civil Aviation Regulations Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (legislation.gov.au) (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021C01179)

CASRs Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (legislation.gov.au) (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2022C00697)

COMPLAINT TO THE CASA INDUSTRY COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER (ICC) OF A CASA EMPLOYEE CHOOSING TO PROVIDE CLEARLY FALSE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION TO THE COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMANS OFFICE INVESTIGATION, WITH THE INTENTION TO PERVERT THE FINDINGS OF THAT INVESTIGATION.

Dear Mr Hanton,

I write to you in your dual roles within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), as both the Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC), and as the CASA Ethics and Integrity Officer (E&IO).

The purpose of this correspondence is to formally submit a complaint to your office of a CASA employee deliberately providing false and misleading information to an investigation currently being conducted by the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office. That investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman’s Office is into the closure of my two businesses and the subsequent direction from CASA to my Employer at the time, that my continuing employment was “no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”.

The person responsible for providing that false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office is Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.

Perhaps not coincidentally, Mr Aleck is also the sole decision maker within CASA that determined my business of more than a decade was suddenly operating unlawfully and forced it into closure on 23rd October 2018 when CASA sent the following notification to me.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/k3qn3qdgoa2uavx/App%20A%20initial%20notification.pdf?dl=0

As the investigation by the Ombudsman’s Office is about the processes and consequences associated with Mr Alecks decision making, it is a possibility that Mr Aleck may be tempted to provide false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office to coverup his alleged misconduct.

Importantly, this correspondence is not a complaint about Mr Alecks conduct. This is a complaint about the truthfulness and accuracy of information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office, and a further opportunity for CASA to act professionally and with integrity and simply tell the clear and concise truth to the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

As you are aware the ramifications of Mr Alecks “change of opinion” and determination to close down my businesses in October 2018 and with no prior warning, caused significant harm, as could be expected. The notification that my business was now operating illegally, caught me completely off guard, and was not expected.

My family has been significantly impacted by this matter. I have lost my home, and I have been bankrupted. After CASA closed my businesses, and I obtained employment within the industry, CASA withdrew their approval of me to operate in the role of CASA approved Head of Operations, and directed my employer that my “continuing employment was no longer tenable”, there can be no doubt that I was forced out of the industry that I had spent the last 25 years in.

My wife and I have been left with total assets of $6000. We now rent, and if my wife or I were to stop working for more than 6 weeks, we would be facing homelessness. That is the plain and simple truth, and the inevitability of that situation is traumatic. My physical and mental health has been impacted and my poor wife has had a total of 6 days free of work in the last 1500 days, since CASA did this in October of 2018, as she tries desperately to claw back some level of meagre financial security for our future.

Like most small business owners in Australia, that business that CASA closed, was in fact my Superannuation. The future of my wife and I is bleak, and our latter years will be dependent on social housing. Our life changed significantly on receipt of the notification that the business I had operated for over a decade was suddenly illegal. We have been left destitute.

As the person impacted, by the conduct and decision making of the single CASA employee, Mr Jonathan Aleck, at the very minimum I believe I am entitled to a thorough and well-intentioned investigation, and a written explanation of why CASA took such disproportionate, unnecessary, unlawful, and totally avoidable action against my business. My reasonable expectation of CASA is that they will act professionally and honestly in providing information to the Ombudsman’s Office to facilitate a fair determination.

As you are aware there are three primary issues in that investigation.

1. The sudden reversal of CASA approval for my business, the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA).

2. The decision that my flying school of more than a decade, Melbourne Flight Training, was now suddenly operating unlawfully and shut down.

3. The direction by CASA to my Employer that I was not a fit and proper person to hold the CASA approved position as the Head of Operations (HOO), based on comments that I was making publicly, yet CASA refuses to identify the alleged comments that I made publicly to justify that direction from CASA.

As you are aware, CASA never made any allegations against any safety matter, CASA never stated that we did not have full operational control, never raised any concerns at all about any quality outcomes at all. It was simply a determination by Mr Aleck that my business had suddenly become unlawful against a regulation from 30 years prior. The very same business that had been operating for more than a decade with an industry leading level of safety and compliance.

For complete clarity, I am fully satisfied that Mr Alecks decision making, and actions may not have been primarily motivated by the safety of aviation, but that they were in fact made for other less altruistic reasons, and his decision making may not have had the clarity that it should have had. There are reasons I say this, but they do not need to be attended to in this correspondence. This may be a contributing factor as to why he chose to bypass clearly stipulated procedures in CASAs own manuals, when CASA decide to

A) Close a business down by cancelling, varying or suspending an AOC, or

B) CASA determine that a person is no longer a “fit and proper” person to hold a position as a CASA approved Head of Operations.

By choosing to bypass these stipulated procedures in designed to protect individuals such as myself from abuses of power by public officials, Mr Aleck was able to operate unchecked, and I was left with no appeal available to be to dispute his change of opinion.

It is important, not only for me, but also for the wider industry, for the purposes of investigating if improvements in procedures can be adopted within CASA to ensure that this can never happen again to any other person. It does not seem reasonable that in any industry, the Regulator should be able to shut down a business, effective immediately without a sound supporting case, and particularly so when that owner of the business impacted, has no appeal process available to them against the Regulators determination, and always has shown a complete willingness to comply with any new requirements stipulated by the Regulator.

As you are aware on 23rd October 2018, and without any warning Mr Aleck determined that my business of more than ten years was somehow suddenly unlawful, and advised it was most likely I was to be prosecuted as a result.

Three years later, as the person impacted the entire matter remains inexplicable, in fact probably more so now than before.

There were never any allegations against by CASA against any safety matters, or any quality outcomes, just a determination that it was unlawful against a regulation from 30 years prior. The business had been operating for twelve years and was established almost two decades after that regulation was even written.

It was ludicrous and made absolutely no sense at all. Of more concern, it was totally unnecessary and totally avoidable. A well-intentioned discussion could have fully resolved this matter in less than half a day, and that is the plain and simple truth.

Had CASA intended to resolve this matter, there is no reason that it could not have been totally resolved and all the associated harm and trauma avoided. There is no reason that the entire matter could not have been resolved at any time by way of a 4 hour well intentioned discussion between CASA and me. Quite simply, someone in CASA did not want this matter resolved. They wanted my business shut down. It was personal. Whilst I appreciate the difficulty in proving that Mr Aleck acted vindictively and vexatiously against me is most likely not feasible, a genuine assessment of his decision making would have to raise some concerns.

Mr Aleck immediately implemented restrictions on my businesses ability to trade, from that first notification on 23rd October 2018. Those restrictions created an impossible environment to operate a business and deprived me of almost all revenue throughout the next 6-month period, until CASA confirmed their original position in the original document of 23rd October 2018, determined my business unlawful, and forced any remaining customers to leave, leading to the inevitable closure of the business, and significant material harm and trauma.

That trauma was most significant on me and my family but also extended to staff that lost employment and entitlements, to the foreign and domestic students who had their training impacted, to suppliers left unpaid, and businesses dependant on me that were forced into closure as a result.

I appreciate that Mr Aleck will likely try and contend that CASA took no action against my business. As the Owner of that business, and the individual directly affected, please let me be very clear that the restrictions on my businesses were devastating. On multiple occasions, in writing, CASA was made fully aware of the impact of Mr Alecks determination. Throughout the 8 months between the restrictions on trade being applied, and CASA shutting down the business, CASA was repeatedly advised of the commercial impact. In fact within 24 hours of CASA reversing their approval and placing restrictions on my ability to trade, I had contacted CASA.

That initial notification sent by CASA can be accessed here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/k3qn3qdgoa2uavx/App%20A%20initial%20notification.pdf?dl=0

My initial response to that CASA notification can be accessed here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ke7rl708n9vrc2m/Initial%20response.pdf?dl=0

The impacts of that notification were significant. All restrictions remained in place for 8 months until CASA stood by their original determination and forced all my remaining customers to leave, despite that not being the customers preferred option.

· CASA advised I was operating unlawfully and subject to prosecution.

· CASA prevented me from accepting any new customers.

· CASA contacted all my existing customers within 30 days and advised them that I was operating unlawfully, and that their continuing involvement with my business would subject them also to regulatory action.

· CASA restrictions prevented me from marketing my business at a critical time for the business i.e., end of the school year.

· CASA placed several short terms “interim approvals to operate” of as little as 7 days. With 7 days surety of operations, it was impossible and unlawful for me to enrol students into our 15-month courses with those 7 days surety of operations. These short-term interim approvals to operate made business difficult and created anxiety on employees, suppliers, and customers over the lack of certainty regarding continuing operations.

· Placed an “administrative freeze” on the business whereby CASA refused to process any regulatory tasks including approving personnel, renewing flight simulators, adding on any new courses etc.

· Caused enormous reputational damage to the business and to me personally

· Bought enormous organisational instability.

· Starved the business of income.

· CASA allowed the business to remain open, but it was unable to access new customers or retain existing customers. By acting in this way, CASA had not formally “decided”, but rather they were “thinking about it”. As no decision was ever made, the restrictions were never lifted, and I had no appeal process open to me. I was at the complete mercy of Mr Aleck, who may not have been acting with good intent.

With those restrictions being in place for over 6 months, Mr Aleck then stood by his initial determination and closed the business down when he forced all remaining customers to leave, despite that not being the customers preferred option.

The business was obviously forced into closure by CASA. On that matter there is no question.

All of this was done without CASA ever providing any supporting safety case.

It was a reversal of CASAs previously issued approvals, that had been held by me for over a decade.

CASA never issued any documentation throughout this entire process that gave me the right to appeal or challenge the change of opinion by Mr Aleck. I was completely denied procedural fairness and natural justice. These are clear breaches of CASAs obligations in administrative law, as outlined in CASAs own procedures. These include thespecified procedures to be followed when CASA close down a business by “suspending, cancelling, or varying an AOC’ as they did with mine. CASA completely bypassed these stipulated procedures. These procedures can be accessed via CASAs Enforcement Manual located here.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/960oiyktzvgqi99/Appendix%20E%20CASA%20Enforcement%20Manual.pdf?dl=0

Similarly, CASA also completely bypassed all of their own procedures in that same Manual, when they determined that I was not a “fit and proper person” to hold the formally CASA approved position of Head of Operations (HOO) and directed my Employer that my continuing employment as the HOO was “no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”, although CASA fails to identify to me what those “ comments that I was making publicly” were, despite CASA using those “comments” as the basis to force me out of the industry. Once CASA had declared that I was not a “fit and proper person”, I was effectively unemployable in the flight training industry where I had worked for over 25 years. Having lost my two businesses, I was now forced to exit the industry I loved.

The entire matter of closing down my business is absurd. I had been operating in that same structure for the last six years, until Mr Aleck suddenly declared it unlawful in October 2018. I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck was the sole decision maker throughout this entire matter, and that he was abusing his significant power.

What made this even more absurd is that two and a half years earlier, CASA had worked side by side with me, for hundreds of hours, as I invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars in systems, procedures and personnel to become one of Australia’s first schools to get CASA accreditation as both a Part 141 and 142 organisation in April 2017, and we were operating in the same multi base structure that CASA would later, suddenly determine to be illegal in October 2018, and deceptively claim that they were not aware of. It is such a ludicrous assertion, and so clearly false and misleading.

As you are aware, I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck, the sole decision maker in closing my business. drew on no supporting safety case, no regulatory breach, no identified concern against any quality outcome whatsoever. You simply need to ask him, to put forward his arguments clearly and concisely. The tenuous nature of Mr Alecks opinion will become immediately obvious. Despite my repeated requests for an explanation, none has been forthcoming. CASA is extremely evasive in providing an explanation for Mr Alecks decisions and actions, and this has been my experience throughout the last three years. To be frank, I believe that there is an attempt to cover up this matter, at the highest levels of CASA.

It is important to understand that I was not disputing CASAs safety case because there was never any safety case put forward by CASA to dispute. CASA have never put forward any safety case at all in support of Mr Alecks decision making. Surely one would expect that such substantial decision making within CASA, such as the decision to shut down a business of more than a decade would be driven by decisions on based on safety with supporting safety cases and evidence-based data. Surely that failure to have any supporting safety case at all, must raise concerns as to the quality of his decision making, and more so when I have made formal allegations before the Senate that he was acting vindictively and vexatiously against me. That presentation to Senate on 23rd November 2020 where I raised these allegations of misfeasance in Public Office against Mr Aleck, can be accessed here.

https://youtu.be/b_VZCixKm3c

This entire and exact structure that I had been using for 6 years and that that Mr Aleck suddenly declared unlawful in October 2018, had been re-designed from the ground up and formally revalidated 18 months earlier by CASA in April of 2017. Yet inexplicably,18 months later, in October 2018, CASA declare it unlawful and shut it down, then assert to the Ombudsman that they weren’t fully aware of my structure. The level of deception being propagated by Mr Alecks Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Department is substantive, and easily proven to be so.

Mr Hanton, please note that I have also included by new Local Member for Chisholm in this correspondence, as I anticipate seeking her assistance on this matter.

For Ms Carina Garland my local MP, and other relevant recipients. At this stage it may be worth reviewing two magazine articles from the Australian Flying magazine. One written when APTA was revalidated by CASA and the other after APTA was closed down by CASA. They provide a fairly plain English overview of the background to this matter. The first article was published in early 2018. This is 10 months before Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman’s office believe that CASA “first became aware of APTA”, and further indicates that perhaps Mr Aleck is being deceptive. It is highly unlikely that a respected industry magazine is publishing a story a year before CASA claim that they first became aware of my business that CASA had themselves approved through a revalidation 6 months earlier.

glenb

28th Jul 2022, 14:15

Those two magazine articles can be accessed here

· APTA before CASA action https://www.dropbox.com/s/5xdbzhba4l4v93j/APTA%20BEFORE%20CASA%20ACTION.pdf?dl=0

· APTA after CASA action

https://www.dropbox.com/s/k12d43vtnhek75l/APTA%20AFTER%20CASA%20ACTION.PDF?dl=0

For reference for Ms Carina Garland. This matter has attracted widespread industry interest on a discrete pilots forum referred to as Pprune. My particular thread has had over 1,000,000 views and encouraged robust discussion. My particular thread can be accessed via this link. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa.html)

When CASA acted to shut down my business, the industry established a crowd funding page, and that can be accessed here. The comments associated with donations make interesting reading. Fundraiser for Glen Buckley by Cale Johnston : Glen Buckley vs. CASA (gofundme.com) (https://www.gofundme.com/f/glen-buckley-v-casa?qid=f920e50d30e42a79e16acf660a03834e)

I provide the above information as background information to the lodgement of formal complaints that follow.

The response to the three complaints in this correspondence is simple and really only requires the very briefest of responses, and possibly as short as a yes or a no from CASA.

It requires only statements of fact and requires no judgement applied to it. It is not a complaint against a person, it is a complaint against truthfulness, and requiring only clarification of clear statements of fact. There is only one truthful response to each complaint.

To the “trigger” for these three complaints.

I recently had the opportunity to receive a telephone update from the Ombudsman’s Office on progress of the three-year investigation into the closure of my two businesses by CASA in October 2018, and the subsequent written direction to my Employer from CASA that my “continuing employment was no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”, and my subsequent termination of employment as a result of that directive.

That telephone call with the Ombudsman’s office left me in no doubt, that a CASA employee has been responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman Office as part of the investigation that is “false and misleading”, substantially so, and is integral to this entire matter.

Furthermore, that recent communication with the Ombudsman’s office has left me in no doubt that the false and misleading information provided by the CASA Employee has had the effect that the CASA Employee intended when he knowingly provided that false and misleading information. That being to pervert the findings of the investigation.

There is an overwhelming body of well documented evidence to support my allegation, and I look forward to presenting that evidence in full to you, if the evidence provided here is insufficient.

In this correspondence I will limit myself to only the most pertinent supporting information to assist you in an initial assessment of the validity or not of my complaint, and whether you are able to investigate my allegations.

There can be no doubt that the single CASA employee responsible for providing that information, Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASAs second most senior employee, was fully aware that the information was false and misleading at the time of providing that information to the Ombudsman’s Office. It was a considered decision and deliberate.

Mr Aleck has also chosen to omit providing pertinent information highly relevant to the investigation to the Ombudsman’s Office. I am fully satisfied that this was also a considered decision and deliberate.

I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck acted in this way to pervert the findings of the Ombudsman’s Office investigation, and most likely, in part, to coverup his own misconduct, and his sub optimal decision making.

These are not “matters of opinion” or “grey areas” that I am referring to. These are gross misrepresentation of facts that have been presented to the Ombudsman’s Office. The complaints that I will put forward will only require short but truthful responses. The answers are either black or white. There are no grey areas.

Truthful responses will clearly indicate that the information previously provided by CASA to the Ombudsman’s Office was false and misleading.

Any CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) with more than 10 years’ experience with CASA will be able to assist you in arriving at the truth, alternatively the CASA CEO Ms Spence would have prompt access to truthful information, should she choose to obtain it.

These are matters where the truth can be readily obtained. The matters can be easily clarified so that there can be no doubt. I urge you in this investigation to cross check any information that is provided to you by Mr Aleck. Unlike the Ombudsman’s Office you have the advantage of access to more than one point of contact, so accessing truthful information and fact checking will be more easily achieved by your office, rather than the Ombudsman Office, which is dependant only on information that Mr Aleck is responsible for providing.

Due to the substantive nature of the false and misleading information, I have been compelled to request that the Ombudsman hold off releasing any final report until these matters can be clarified by CASA. At this stage the Ombudsman Office is holding off finalising the report, based on my request, and to provide CASA the opportunity to be truthful.

It is not reasonable or fair for the many people impacted by Mr Alecks alleged misconduct, that the Ombudsman’s office arrives at a determinations or findings based on significantly false and misleading information, provided by that same CASA employee, and potentially to cover up his own misconduct.

Understandably the Ombudsman’s Office is likely to have trust and confidence in information provided to it by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and particularly so when one the most senior and highly experienced CASA Executive Managers is providing that information.

It would be a reasonable expectation that the Ombudsman’s Office should be able to depend on the truthfulness and good intent of any information provided by CASA. The Office is likely to receive that information, reasonably believing it to have those qualities. The perceived “trustworthiness” of CASA may require a lesser amount of supporting evidence. i.e., CASA may be trusted on their word, and that has been my experience.

The CASA employee would be fully aware of that credibility imbalance between an individual such as myself, and information provided by himself as the second most senior executive at CASA. If the senior CASA Executive was aware of that credibility imbalance, he could potentially use it to his advantage, and most especially when providing information to the Ombudsman’s Office that is false or misleading. It could not reasonably be expected that the Ombudsman’s Office would be able to easily identify the truthfulness or not of the information provided, and more so when it is provided by someone of Mr Alecks senior position as the second in charge of CASA.

My only reasonable assumption is that this grossly false and misleading information has been provided with the intention to alter the findings of that investigation The information provided is substantially and materially misleading and false. I am fully satisfied that I have an overwhelming body of evidence to support that allegation.

I have personally witnessed this same CASA Employee be responsible for providing false and misleading information to the current Senate Inquiry, and now also to the Ombudsman. This employee has had allegations made against him previously. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. As I have witnessed it previously, as others have, it is reasonable that I have concerns about the intent to with which information is provided to the Ombudsman’s office, and most especially when it is provided by the same person that I raise allegations of misfeasance in public office against.

I appreciate the seriousness and substantive nature of my allegation. I stand fully behind it, and I understand that I am fully liable if my allegations are found to be false or vexatious. An investigation would clarify the situation one way or another.

I have approached the CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence directly bringing this complaint of false and misleading information to her attention and calling on her to act and correct any substantial misunderstandings that the Ombudsman’s Office may have developed based on false and misleading information that CASA has previously provided.

Ms. Spence, the CASA CEO has chosen not to correct the misleading information provided; this is despite her having ready access to the truthful information. Some of that correspondence with the CASA CEO on this topic be found via the following link.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1wkdinj8avsyl8j/APPENDIX%20TWO-%20SPENCE%20EMAILS.docx?dl=0

If the CASA employee that I make allegations against is prepared to mislead the Ombudsman’s Office, and the Senate Inquiry, it is possible that they would also be prepared to mislead the CASA CEO. Ms Spence also may be acting on disinformation, although she does have access to other personnel that can promptly advise her on the tenuous nature of CASAs information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office to date, and I again refer her to any CASA Flight Operations Inspector with more than 10 years’ experience, as they will be able to confirm that previously provided advice is false and misleading and provide her the opportunity to intervene, and act appropriate to her senior role within Government.

For that reason, I once again make the same offer I have since Ms. Spence commenced in the role over 12 months ago. I have requested a meeting with Ms. Spence to brief her on the facts and have a well-intentioned discussion. Ms Spence has chosen not to take advantage of that opportunity. That invitation remains in place. I have no doubt that if Ms. Spence were to provide me that opportunity, the truth could be promptly ascertained, and Ms Spence would be compelled to act. If the CEO of CASA is unable to meet with me, my only option is to submit my complaint via your Office for assessment.

It is not possible for me to proceed with costly litigation in pursuit of the truth and a determination if I have legitimate concerns as to whether CASA will act truthfully and as a model litigant. By CASA demonstrating that it is prepared to mislead both the Senate Inquiry and the Ombudsman’s Office it must be reasonably assumed, that the CASA employee would be likely to repeat that behaviour in a courtroom scenario, in fact it is more likely that the individual would further propagate that disinformation, rather than act honestly and risk highlighting the falsehoods previously propagated. It is this very misconduct that denies me an opportunity for procedural fairness, and natural justice. I trust you can appreciate my position.

CASA has an obligation to act as a model litigant and whilst I certainly don’t intend to go through the entire charter here, I would like to highlight some of the relevant commitments given. The first of these being particularly salient in this matter, as that is in fact the crux of the three formal complaints that follow later in this correspondence.

· “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.”

Quite simply I am asking the CASA to tell the truth. CASA knows the truth of the three complaints that I submit. If CASA acts honestly, I can avoid any further ongoing stress and pressure on myself trying to prove matters true, which CASA already knows to be true, yet claims to the Ombudsman’s Office that they are not. This matter has dragged on for three years. The cumulative stress has taken a toll not only financially, but mentally and physically. It is in fact CASAs continuing deceptiveness on this entire matter and attempts to frustrate any investigation that have caused so much unnecessary and additional cumulative trauma. This is an opportunity for CASA under the CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence to bring it to a well-intentioned conclusion by simply being truthful and well intentioned.

This complaint, however, is specifically about that second most Senior Executive at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority choosing to provide, and being responsible for, the provision of false and misleading information to an Ombudsman Office investigation into this matter, and particularly in relation to Phase Two of the ongoing Ombudsman investigation, into the closure of my business, and the direction from CASA to my Employer that my continuing employment was no longer tenable.

On the release of Phase One of the Ombudsman investigation where the Ombudsman advised that CASAs position that I was operating unlawfully was not correct, the Ombudsman advised that he now move on to Phase two of the investigation.

Phase Two of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s investigation includes” proposing to continue this investigation in order to consider issues giving rise to, and subsequent to CASAs notice of 23rd October 2018 to you to cease all operations in 7 days, and matters leading up to 27th August 2019 intervention by Mr Jason McHeyzer in your workplace.”

Phase One of the Ombudsman’s investigation can be accessed via here. Phase Two being the final phase is currently on hold at my request, pending truthful information being provided by CASA.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/41fkyjy9sdv4l9x/Phase%201%20report%20%281%29.pdf?dl=0

False and misleading information has been provided on multiple occasions, but in this correspondence, I will limit myself to three core topics, and specifically to the following issues. These three topics are in fact the cornerstone of this entire matter. If these three complaints can be truthfully addressed publicly, and with the Ombudsman’s Office I would have trust and confidence in the findings of the Ombudsman’s Office.

glenb

28th Jul 2022, 14:16

The CASA employee has provided clearly false and misleading advice about

1. Whether CASA had in fact always and on every occasion permitted the identical structure that I had adopted throughout the industry. CASA falsely claims to the Commonwealth Ombudsman that they did not and did not ever permit it. This is not truthful. CASA always previously permitted it.

2. Clearly misled the Ombudsman as to the level of involvement by CASA in the design, assessment, peer review, approval, and subsequent auditing of my structure. I underwent a full CASA revalidation in that multi base structure, and CASA fully revalidated it 18 months before CASA claim that they “first became aware” that I was using this CASA accepted and approved structure. For CASA to suggest that they were not aware of my exact structure is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. It is false and misleading.

3.Whether I had followed all procedures required by CASA during the design and approval of APTA in April 2017. CASA have misled the Ombudsman to believe that some notification, application, or communication was not done correctly by me, and that I am in some way responsible for that. The truth is that every single procedure and communication and submission was rigidly followed. For CASA to suggest otherwise is false and misleading.

A fair outcome of this investigation is reliant on well-intentioned and truthful information being provided to the Ombudsman’s Office by all Parties.

That information should not be false, and it should not be misleading, and if it is known to be false and misleading it should not be provided to the Ombudsman’s Office.

It is not the role of the Ombudsman’s Office to sift through false and misleading information and then attempt to uncover the truth. It is incumbent on CASA, as it is on me, to provide truthful information that is not false or misleading in its nature.

Furthermore, every CASA employee from the CEO down has an obligation, morally, ethically, and professionally to correct false and misleading information as soon as they become aware that false and misleading information has been provided to the Ombudsman’s Office by an employee of CASA, or they themselves risk being complicit in that misconduct.

I will address the specifics of the three complaints.

Complaint One - CASA Executive Manager, Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, Mr Jonathan Aleck employee has been responsible for providing false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office investigation

A CASA Employee has falsely and misleadingly led the Ombudsman’s Office to believe CASA did not, and had not ever, permitted more than one flying school to operate under a single CASA Authorisation using the identical structure that I used, and that I was the first person to adopt the structure that I did. i.e., that CASA had never previously permitted that structure.

That representation by CASA to the Ombudsman’s Office is blatantly false and misleading.

The irrefutable truth is CASA had always and, on every occasion, permitted and approved, the identical structure to mine in the flight training industry, and that was the case throughout my 25 years in the industry. It was commonplace and done on every occasion with full CASA approval. For CASA to assert to the Ombudsman’s Office that was not the case is a blatant untruth, and CASA would be fully aware that the information provided is false and misleading.

This exact structure was standard industry practice and required CASA approval. CASA would be fully aware of this. It is ludicrous to assert that CASA would not be fully aware.

The simple truth is that CASA had always permitted that more than one Operator to operate under a single CASA authorisation referred to as an AOC, or Air Operator Certificate, and in the identical structure that I also used, with the person who is the holder of the single AOC taking on full liability for all operations at all bases, operating under that single AOC as required in the legislation.

If CASA claims to the Ombudsman’s Office that this is not the case, then the Ombudsman’s office is being blatantly and deliberately misled. It is commonplace not only in the flight training industry but also in the military and airlines. It was standard industry practice throughout the aviation industry.

This is fundamentally what makes my matter so concerningly inexplicable. CASA always permitted and formally approved the same structure as mine, yet they would lead the Ombudsman’s Office to believe that they had not.

Why would a CASA employee close my business down specifically against a regulation from 3 decades prior, and then lead the Ombudsman to believe that my structure was unique? Why was it only Glen Buckley’s operation that was suddenly declared unlawful against that 1988 regulation? Noting that the Ombudsman report was to find later that there was no valid legal basis for CASAs action. CASA acted unlawfully.

Whilst there are multiple examples that can be cited to highlight the level of deception in CASAs representation to the Ombudsman’s Office, let me put a single scenario to you.

How was Latrobe Valley Aero Club permitted by CASA with full CASA approval to operate under Bairnsdale Air Charters AOC until the very day that they changed to my organisation, and it was my structure that was suddenly deemed to be illegal, and my business shut down, despite Latrobe Valley previously operating under that same structure.

If CASA claim that they never permitted the multi base, multi entity structure, how do they explain how the Latrobe Valley aero Club was operating for the period prior to joining APTA. The truthful answer to the question is because CASA had always permitted one AOC Holder to take on responsibility and accountability for multiple entities. There are multiple examples of this structure throughout the industry, that I can put forward to you if required, although the issue regarding Latrobe Valley Aero club is particularly pertinent, and that one example should suffice. It clearly indicates that CASA has been deceptive and provided false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office investigation.

To assert to the Ombudsman that my structure was unique to me and not others is a blatant untruth.

To assert that CASA had not regularly fully approved such operations throughout the previous 25 years is a blatant untruth.

This matter is black and white. There are only two options, and only one of those options is the truth. Either CASA always permitted this identical structure that I adopted, or CASA never permitted this structure that I adopted. It seems entirely reasonable that CASA clearly and publicly state the truth on this matter.

If CASA now forced to admit that CASA had always permitted more than one flying school to operate, under a single authorisation, and that my structure was somehow different to anybody else’s, CASA should be able to identify clearly and concisely what those differences were. There were none.

For clarity, Compliant One is that CASA has been responsible for providing false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office that CASA had never previously and routinely fully approved more than one entity operating under a single CASA issued authorisation in the same structure as mine, with the single authorisation holder taking on full responsibility.

A truthful response to this compliant is critical.

If in fact CASA had never permitted such operations, then that potentially could go some way to explaining CASAs action against me. If, however, CASA had always permitted such operations, then it must raise the question as to why I was targeted. It makes the matter inexplicable.

To ensure there is no confusion, my complaint is that a CASA employee has misled the Ombudsman’s Office as to whether CASA had always permitted and approved the same structure that I adopted and had done so on every occasion over the last 25 years at least.

If the ICC determines that in fact CASA had always permitted the identical structure to mine, I feel that it is incumbent upon the CASA CEO to ensure that the Ombudsman’s Office is fully aware that the information previously supplied to the Ombudsman’s Office by CASA was not technically accurate. CASA is compelled to ensure that the Ombudsman’s Office is fully and clearly aware that CASA had always and, on every occasion, permitted that exact same structure that I had used, despite CASA previously claiming this was not the case.

What am I expecting as an outcome from this complaint?

That on finalisation of investigation of this complaint, CASA, should very clearly and concisely state CASAs position. There should be no doubt of CASAs public position on this matter.

A. Either CASA never permitted more than one flying school to operate under a single AOC with the holder of the AOC taking on full responsibility for all operations, in the same structure that I adopted or

B. CASA always permitted more than one flying school to operate under a single AOC with the holder of the AOC taking on full responsibility for all operations in the same structure that I adopted.

A truthful and honest response from CASA will ensure that there is no doubt in the Ombudsman’s Office that CASA always permitted the identical structure that I used, yet CASA deemed my operation to be unlawful.

glenb

28th Jul 2022, 14:18

Complaint Two of a CASA employee being responsible for providing false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office.

The CASA Employee has misled the Ombudsman. Specifically, regarding the date that CASA “first became fully aware,” of the CASA approved training structure that I had adopted.

If Mr Aleck, the second most senior CASA Executive, maintains to the Ombudsman’s Office that; “CASA,” Australia’s aviation safety regulator, did not become fully aware I had adopted the CASA approved structure until just prior to October 2018, when CASA unlawfully closed my businesses, I claim that to be a blatantly false and misleading statement provided to the Ombudsman’s Office by CASA.

The suggestion by Mr Aleck is that somehow my flying school structure “crept up on CASA” and CASA only became aware in October 2018, when they acted promptly to close it down.

CASA was fully aware of my exact structure for at least 6 years prior to October 2018, and an overwhelming body of evidence supports that assertion. I say that because I was completely dependant on CASA approving those additional bases over the previous 6 years.

If Mr Aleck is truthful and advises that CASA was in truthfully fully aware of the exact structure , and formally approved that structure, and was fully aware I had adopted the multi base multi entity one approval structure for at least 6 years, but the truth is that Mr Aleck in his role, maybe wasn’t personally aware until October 2018, that would indicate a substantial flaw within CASAs own systems, and something that I had no control over, although obviously I was impacted substantially. Such a significant breakdown on such a substantial matter would indicate gross deficiencies within CASA, and no deficiency on my behalf.

Irrespective, the irrefutable truth is “CASA,” was fully aware for at least 6 years that I had adopted the single approval, multi base, multi entity structure, because I required their formal assessment and approval to do it throughout the previous 6 years.

Importantly that is not the position that CASA currently asserts.

The “CASA” position is that CASA only found about my structure just prior to October 2018, when they acted promptly to close me down.

October 2018, being 6 years after I commenced multi base multi entity operations with CASA approval, and two and a half years after I formally met with CASA personnel about the structure on multiple occasions, two years after CASA allocated 10 CASA personnel to work with me on all aspects of the redesign of all structures, systems and procedures, and eighteen months after CASA fully revalidated all those systems, and twelve months after CASA conducted a routine Level One audit over a one-week period

To seriously assert to the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation that CASA first found about my structure in October 2018, is blatantly false and misleading, and the basis of this complaint.

Such grossly false and misleading information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office investigation by CASA cannot be permitted to go unchallenged, and most especially when the person providing that information does so, fully aware that the information is false and misleading, and would most likely have provided that false and misleading information to the investigation to pervert the outcome of an investigation by the Ombudsman’s Office.

This matter is significant. If CASA suddenly found out about my flying school structure in October 2018 and acted promptly to shut it down, that would be unfair, but if CASA knew about it for many years, and changed their opinion overnight, that would have to raise much more serious concerns about Mr Alecks conduct.

For clarity. I cannot confirm when Mr Aleck personally first found out that I had adopted the same structure that many other operators had adopted throughout the industry. I can categorically state that CASA was fully aware I had adopted that same structure for at least 6 years, and CASA had always permitted Operators to operate in the multi base, multi entity structure.

If CASA is truthful on this matter, as CASA is compelled to be, it may well impact on this matter, as it raises the question of why CASA clearly permitted, encouraged, and formally approved me, and others to operate in that structure for 6 years. After having adopted that same structure for 6 years with full and formal CASA approval, I as the business owner had a reasonable expectation that I had been operating lawfully throughout those 6 years.

Then on October 23rd, 2018, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal International and Regulatory Affairs, without drawing on any external or independent advice, declares my business unlawful by using a regulation from 30 years prior in a manner that has no precedent, and he can provide absolutely no allegations against any quality outcomes or put forward any supporting safety case.

He does that happen with no prior notification at all. I was completely unaware of any CASA concerns. In fact, there were never concerns. CASA never raised any concerns against any quality outcomes at all, simply a determination that I was now operating unlawfully, and a reversal of a previous issued approval.

Mr Hanton, it is just not feasible that I could operate for over 6 years in a multi base multi entity structure, under one CASA issued AOC, and then go through a two-year process with CASA designing the entire structure exactly in the multi base structure and have it revalidated in April 2017, audited by CASA in November 2017, and then CASA claims it only finds out about it 18 months later in October 2018, and after they have formally approved additional bases.

To be frank, I think this gets to the very heart of the matter. CASA permitted me to do something for many years, as they did with many operators i.e., deliver multi base multi entity training, under the one approval. It was done formally and with full CASA knowledge and formal CASA approval. It seems absurd that overnight CASA deem my operation, and my operation only, illegal against a regulation from 30 years prior, and without any supporting safety case at all. It is a change of opinion only by Mr Aleck, and a reversal of a previously given approval by CASA. It not only lacks ethics and integrity. It is unlawful.

There can be no doubt that I had been operating in the multi base multi entity structure with CASAs full knowledge, consent, and full approval for many years. For CASA to assert otherwise is a blatant untruth. Consider the highly regulated industry that flight schools operate in. It would just not be possible that I ran a flying school in Darwin 6 years earlier with formal CASA approval, and over the next 6 years CASA formally approve additional bases, and fully revalidate the structure in April 2017. Six months after that in November of 2017, CASA attend the CASA approved bases as part of a routine Level one audit. This is twelve months before Mr Aleck claims that “CASA” first became aware of my structure.

For CASA to assert to the Ombudsman’s Office that they “first became aware of my structure” in October 2018 is such a blatant misrepresentation of the truth that it cannot go unchallenged. It clearly demonstrates the depth of deception that the CASA employee is prepared to perpetrate to cover up his misconduct.

It is important to understand here, that after the closure of the business by CASA, the Ombudsman found that CASA had erred and in fact the structure was not illegal, but by then the significant damage had been caused. This complaint is not related to the legality or not of CASAs decision. This complaint relates only to how long CASA was fully aware of the structure that I had adopted, and the depth of knowledge and level of involvement CASA had of the exact structure that I adopted.

It is feasible that once Mr Aleck realised that he had acted unlawfully and in fact CASA had no legal basis to close down my business after the release of Phase One of the Ombudsman’s investigation that he then tried to misrepresent that CASA were not fully aware of my multi base multi entity structure, and CASA tried to “distance” themselves from any involvement in the process from inception, through to design and approval in April of 2017. A full 18 months before Mr Aleck claims that CASA “first became aware”.

The Phase One report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman can be accessed here.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0nyon53qllhuvyh/Phase%201%20report.pdf?dl=0

I appreciate that this matter is best “swept under the carpet” and that would be CASAs more convenient option.

I understand that it would be hard for CASA to justify its conduct if the truth was revealed, and in fact CASA had approved my exact structure 6 years earlier than they have led the Ombudsman to believe. Then ten CASA employees had worked side by side, across a desk from me and my team over a two-year period redesigning and upgrading every policy and procedure to operate in this exact structure, requiring an investment by me of several hundred thousand dollars.

Then as part of a CASA mandated process for all flying schools in Australia, CASA assesses every one of those more than 600 procedures designed exactly for the structure that I had designed with those 10 CASA employees.

That body of work is contained within a large suite of operations manuals referred to as the Exposition. That Exposition is then sent up the chain within CASA for a Peer Review. Then after passing that peer review, CASA formally approve that system, in fact we are one of the first schools in Australia to be accredited to the new Part 141/142 legislation in April of 2017 whilst operating in the same structure that I adopted many years prior.

Imagine if the truth was to come out and it was found that CASA had audited the entire system in November 2017 including visiting those bases. Consider also that CASA has formally approved several bases to operate under the structure, almost 2 years prior to the date that CASA claim that “CASA first became aware”, and this was done by way of formal CASA procedures.

Then one day in October 2018, a single CASA employee, Mr Aleck suddenly declares it unlawful, and shuts it down. He draws on no precedent, no safety case, no external independent legal advice. My assumption is that he did not discuss it with his direct report (Mr Carmody CASA CEO at the time, although I cannot confirm that), and there is no discussion at all with me. CASA raises no concerns or does not contact me on any matter to discuss any concerns prior. To do that Mr Aleck can identify no safety concerns or any concerns about any quality outcomes. He simply inappropriately uses a regulation from 30 years prior in a way that it has never been used before, to shut down a well-established, well intentioned, safe and compliant business.

That alone is bizarre that it would become unlawful after so long. Hopefully you can appreciate why the entire matter appears inexplicable. Hopefully you will understand that after 6 years of operating in that structure with full CASA knowledge, I assumed that I was operating lawfully.

The situation I portray above may go some way to explaining why Mr Aleck may try to provide misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office, and why the CASA CEO may be reluctant to clarify the truth with the Ombudsman’s Office

If CASA were to truthfully admit that they really became aware of the structure many years before they claim that they became aware, that would lead to the question that I have been seeking a response to for over three years, and CASA steadfastly refuse to address. If you were fully aware of my business structure for many years, how did it suddenly become illegal against a 1988 regulation, only in October 2018. Why was it not illegal prior to that date? What changed? what was the “trigger”, and why were no concerns ever raised with me. Why couldn’t a well-intentioned discussion resolve the entire matter. Why did CASA just spend two years working with me to revalidate the entire structure over 18 months prior, then suddenly determine that it is illegal. CASA had literally hundreds of opportunities over the 6 years to raise any concerns. Why did CASA target me, and not other Operators? Why would CASA try and lead the Ombudsman to believe that they weren’t fully aware of my structure for at least 6 years?

The truth is that CASA had been fully involved in the very substantial project to design every policy and procedure of that exact structure with me, years earlier. CASA assessed all of those 600 requirements provided by CASA, approved my systems and procedures, peer reviewed it, approved it, audited it, and approved bases under it for many years prior. To assert anything contrary is a blatant untruth.

The checklist that CASA used to assess my structure over the two years leading up to revalidation in the multi base multi entity structure in April 2017, was obtained by me under Freedom of Information and is attached.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xy5etr9253bk7ej/APPENDIX%20FOUR-%20CASA%20ASESSMENT%20WORKSHEET.pdf?dl=0

In fact, I was fully reliant on CASA to provide me with their requirements as they did. CASA provided me with guidance material and that 600-point checklist above. Using that checklist, I designed our Operations Manuals referred to as the Exposition. CASA would then use that checklist to assess my manuals, as they did. I was then compelled to address all those criteria designed exactly for continuation of my multi base multi entity structure. This involved many thousands of pages of correspondence between CASA and my Internal Co-ordinator, Management Team, and Technical Writer throughout 2016 and 2017.

The contents of that CASA checklist are comprehensive and goes some way to demonstrating the full dependence on CASA for full approval of my multi base, multi entity, single Authorisation structure, years before CASA claim they first became aware. Consider that this worksheet was the checklist CASA used against our Exposition to assess and approve it. Our Exposition was a substantial document covering all aspects of our operation and outlining all policies and procedures. It was designed from the ground up to do exactly what it did: multi base, multi entity training.

An example of those manuals is provided here in Volume 1, which outlines the General Operating Procedures. This manual was approved by CASA almost two years before Mr Aleck claims that CASA first became fully aware of the structure I had adopted.

APTA OPERATIONS MANUAL - VOLUME 1 - ED 3 REV 0 (1).pdf (file:///C:/Users/61418/Dropbox/My%20PC%20(LAPTOP-O536QJTE)/Downloads/APTA%20OPERATIONS%20MANUAL%20-%20VOLUME%201%20-%20ED%203%20%20REV%200%20(1).pdf)

If CASA claim that they were still not aware of my structure after they approved the first base in Darwin six years earlier, or when they met with me in mid-2016, then fully revalidated my business and structure in April of 2017, then CASA most certainly would have become fully aware in November of 2017, (almost a year before CASA claim that they first became aware), when they visited all our bases and spent an entire week with me and my management team during the routine Level One Audit that is standard procedure 6 months after revalidation as a Part 141/142 Organisation. The entire audit was based around this exact structure, and CASA went to the bases.

I believe that this point is significant to this matter. You will recall from your own findings as CASAs Industry Complaints Commissioner on 12/04/19 where you stated.

“I don’t consider CASA treated APTA fairly when its approach changed on 23 October. That’s because collectively as an organisation, 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.

That full correspondence from you on 12/04/19 can be accessed here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kes5jaml22ujeyi/APTA%20ICC%20180719.pdf?dl=0

I obviously concur with your finding in your role as the Industry Complaints Commissioner finding, although obviously CASA does not agree, in fact CASA continues to promote what is clearly a false and misleading position to the Ombudsman’s Office.

Specifically, this complaint relates to the date that CASA first became fully aware of my business structure. i.e. being more than one flying school operating under a single CASA issued authorisation with the holder of the single CASA authorisation taking on full responsibility for all operations.

What was the occurrence or situation that first alerted CASA to my structure, and on what date did that occur? CASA asserts to the Ombudsman’s office that they first became aware of my structure in approximately October 2018. I claim that is grossly false and misleading and that CASA was fully aware many years prior because CASA worked with me over many years designing it.

I think it entirely reasonable that CASA clearly state the specific date and occurrence that CASA claims that they first became aware of the multi base multi entity structure that I was using.

At some stage and on some specific date, CASA must have become aware of the structure that I had adopted. If it was not 6 years prior when CASA approved that first base in Darwin, or mid 2016 when I met with CASA regarding the proposal, or not in or in April 2017 when CASA fully revalidated the structure, or not in November 2017 when CASA spent one week conducting a routine level one audit, or on the dates that they formally approved bases, then what was the date or occurrence?

The truth is that CASA was heavily involved in the design and approval of my exact structure many years before CASA claim that they “first became aware”, and that is what in fact makes this entire situation so absurd.

Then entire system was formally revalidated by CASA and that required me submitting many thousands of pages of documentation to CASA, regular meetings, onsite visits, formal CASA approval of bases etc, years before October 2018, when CASA claim that they “first became aware”. In fact, CASA fully revalidated the structure in April 2017, so CASA were fully aware of the structure by that date that is eighteen months earlier, that cannot be denied.

It seems entirely reasonable that CASA should be able to nominate the date that they first became aware that I was adopting the multi base multi entity structure. I put forward this following timeline to assist with CASA nominating the date that they will admit that they first became fully aware I was using the multi base multi entity structure.

I claim CASA first became fully aware by 2012 when they formally approved my first base.

Mr Aleck claims that CASA first became aware just prior to October 2018 when he incorrectly determined my operation unlawful.

Mr Alecks claims are clearly false as it is just not possible that CASA did not become aware until October 2018.

My hope is that CASA can nominate that date or occurrence. This is important. If CASA reversed their approval shortly after issuing the approval, the damage is potentially far less. If CASA permit someone to operate for 6 years, and then change their mind, the damage will obviously be far more significant.

It seems very reasonable that as the person impacted by this matter, I should be entitled to the same information that CASA is providing to the Ombudsman. I can see no reason why CASA would be reluctant to advise me of that date. It seems only fair that I know what CASA is advising the Ombudsman on this matter, and most especially because I believe CASA has been deceptive on this matter. If CASA is acting in good faith, there is no reason that I, as the person impacted should not be advised of the date that CASA claims they first became aware that I had adopted that structure.

Therefore, I feel that CASA should publicly confirm the date that CASA claims they first became aware that I was operating under a multi base multi entity structure with me as the Holder of the single CASA Authorisation, drawing on the timeline below for some key opportunities.

If CASA is acted truthfully and with integrity, then there would be no reason that they would not identify that date.

glenb

28th Jul 2022, 14:21

Mr Aleck asserts that CASA first became aware of my structure in October 2018. There are some currently serving CASA employees that attended those meetings with me 2 ½ years prior to October 2018 as I was developing the concept. I have no doubt they will act with integrity and professionally and tell you the truth on this matter i.e., as to when CASA first became fully aware of my structure that I had been using for many years with full and formal CASA approval. For expediency, I can direct you to those current CASA employees, should you require. The timeline below provides a sampling of some of the opportunities for “CASA” to become aware of my structure.

· 2006, My business commenced CASA approved flight training operations from Moorabbin Airport, at the time of opening called Melbourne Flight Training.

· 2012 CASA formally approved me to conduct multi base multi entity operations with the second school being our “AV8” base in Darwin. This was an extensive process requiring submission of formal documentation to CASA, including a CASA visit to the site, and a CASA audit of the site, fees paid to CASA etc. CASA will have access to substantial records that confirm this. (This is 6 years before CASA claim to the Ombudsman that they first became aware of my multi base multi entity structure).

CASA also claims that they have never permitted this structure in the industry. That is false and misleading. CASA obviously permitted it, or they would not have let me proceed with this first additional base, as they did with many other Operators around the Country.

The fact that this was the first time that we adopted this structure, it is highly probable that I would have fully involved the Regulator in the process, and particularly so, as I could not commence operations in Darwin until they were approved by CASA.

If CASA claim that structure has changed in anyway during those 6 years, they should be expected to explain what those changes are. There were no changes. Quite simply, that second base could not have commenced operations without CASA being fully aware, and more importantly, formally approving me to commence operations at that base. Only once CASA had approved us to operate at that base, did we commence operations. Had I have commenced operating a flying school in Darwin without approaching CASA, it is highly likely that at some stage CASA would have realised and approached me, and no doubt prosecuted me, as would be expected of CASA.

I can see no valid reason that CASA would assert that they were not fully aware of my exact structure by 2012. The Company had been operating as a single school single entity from its opening in 2006, but by 2012, CASA had formally approved me to operate in the multi base multi entity, single CASA approval, structure, as many other Operators throughout the industry did, and had always done.

If CASA had overlooked this approval being given, it is likely that they would have become aware during their onsite visits to that Darwin base, and the regular communications with CASA on operation of that base.

· 2015 when CASA formally approved me to add an additional base using our multi base multi entity one approval structure at “TVSA” Bacchus Marsh. Also requiring an extensive formal CASA approval process, as above. (This is over 3 years before CASA claim they first became aware of my “structure”). Honestly Mr Hanton, CASA cannot surely be contending that they didn’t know about my structure at least 3, if not 6 years before they claim to the Ombudsman that they first became aware of this structure, and surely CASA cannot be leading the Ombudsman to believe that this was not standard industry practice and fully approved by CASA with many flight training organisations throughout the industry. This entity TVSA was very clearly operating under my CASA approval. This was done with full CASA knowledge and formal approval. It is just not feasible that I would have gone rogue, bypassed all legal requirements, and now have opened two additional bases without CASA being fully aware. Anybody with industry experience, or any CASA employee apart from CASA CEO Ms. Spence and CASA Executive Manager, Mr Aleck will confirm to you, that it is just not feasible.

· May 18th, 2016- Met with CASA Flight Operations Inspectors (FOI) XXXXX XXX and XXXXXX XXXXXXXX for initial discussions regarding expanding on the multi base multi entity structure that we were already utilising and approved by CASA to do so. For the first time in Australia, rather than the rather loose arrangements in industry to date, we would redesign every single system and procedure from the ground up, from day one for exactly the purpose of bringing 10 flying schools under my single CASA issued authorisation. The entire system would be designed to fully comply with the new regultory structure scheduled for implementation on September 1st, 2017, being 18 months away. This was to be a significant project requiring substantial investment of several hundred thousand dollars by me. It was the largest project undertaken by a flying school in Australia to date. CASA attendees at that meeting on May 18th, 2016, will confirm the contents of that meeting. By mid-2016, CASA were fully briefed on my intentions, and CASA was fully aware. For CASA to lead the Ombudsman to believe that they were not fully involved in every aspect of design and approval is obscene.

By May 2016, these formal meetings with CASA must by now have made CASA fully aware of the exact structure if inexplicably they had not become aware four years earlier when the second base was approved, or twelve months earlier when the third base was approved.

In fact, this was a prime opportunity for CASA to stop me, and in fact they should have stopped me. Instead, what I found was that CASA were very encouraging of the concept and encouraged me to proceed with the expansion and development of the concept

Considering that CASA had been fully aware that I had been operating in this structure for many years, my CASA Certificate Management Team (CMT) team were fully aware that I intended continuing and expanding on what I was doing. In fact, CASA assured me that I could “keep doing everything I was already doing” in the new regulatory structure. Two of the attendees at these meetings are still CASA employees. You could ask them directly. I know they will both be professional and truthful.

· May 27th, 2016- Met with CASA Flight Operations Inspectors (FOI) XXXXX XXX and CASA Team Leader, Mr XXXX XXXXX for further discussions on expanding on the multi base multi entity structure that I had already been doing for many years and ensuring it would meet the new regultory requirements of part 141/142. Both attendees at the meeting recollect those meetings, and Statutory declarations can be obtained on your request.

CASA had the opportunity to raise any concerns at these meetings. In fact, CASA attendees were extremely encouraging on expanding the concept to the new regulations, and that is the recollection of attendees from CASA and my own Management team.

· June 2016- Emails clearly indicating significant discussion with CASA around the proposal to expand significantly on what I was already doing i.e. The multi base multi entity, one approval structure. If Mr Aleck claims that CASA was not aware of my structure by now, it is a blatant untruth.

These were emails to my “direct reports” within CASA. Those CASA personnel clearly recollect the meetings that followed. They are prepared to confirm this, and to use the words of one of those CASA employees, “I still retain extraneous notes on these meetings and discussions”.

I refer you to those emails attached

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e2kcuci2ik4oo68/APPENDIX%20SIX-%20Emails%20with%20CASA%20two%20and%20ahalf%20years%20before %20CASA%20claim%20they%20became%20awre.pdf?dl=0

Those emails are 2 ½ years before CASA claim to the Ombudsman that CASA first became aware of my structure. I particularly refer you to the email of 20th June 2016 where I wrote to the senior CASA management. The content of these emails clearly indicate that CASA was by now fully aware. The appendix contains the emails in full, but I refer you here to two pertinent excerpts.

“As you are aware, I am in the process of putting together an alliance of flight 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.”

and….

“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.”

There are several emails in this attachment, but they can leave the reader in no doubt that CASA was fully aware of my structure many years before they have led the Ombudsman’s office to believe. For Mr Aleck to suggest to the Ombudsman that CASA were not fully aware of the structure by mid-2016 is not reasonable. I was about to embark on a very significant investment. To put that in some perspective, the investment required exceeded the entire profit of the Company of the previous decade. It is highly unlikely that I would not have been fully upfront with CASA prior to embarking on the significant investment required.

Importantly, this was a CASA mandated process. After September 1st, 2017, all schools had to be fully compliant with the new legislation or cease trading. The project that I was about to undertake, was something required of me by CASA. All of Australia’s more than 300 flight training organisations was required to undertake a revalidation into the new school categories that were being introduced.

I would point out that I made repeated written offers to CASA. In that correspondence I offered to fund a secondment of a CASA employee to my organisation for a twelve-month period, that I would fully fund to the value of $150,000. The intention was that we would redesign all the systems and procedures with CASA to ensure there were no misunderstandings. The suggestion was that we would then make those manuals and procedures available to the wider industry at no charge. My hope being that other flying schools could come together in a similar alliance across the Country with the intention to increase safety, compliance and protect the Australian owned sector of the industry,

Please consider that this is two and a half years before Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman believe that CASA first became aware of my structure. The same structure I had been using for the previous six years, only now I wanted to invest in it and expand on it to encompass ten schools. That was the exact proposal that I put to CASA in meetings in mid-2016. The senior CASA personnel present at those meetings were extremely supportive of the concept, advised that “it is not a concept we are unfamiliar with, the military and airlines use it all the time” and “we encourage you and will work with you”. These are the recollections of both the CASA personnel present at those 2016 meetings and my own.

· The 2 years lead up to that revalidation in April 2017 by CASA required an investment of many hundreds of thousands of dollars by me and was most likely the largest project ever undertaken by any flight training organisation in Australia. It required full CASA involvement, assessment, peer review, formal approval, and revalidation. Every single system and procedure were formally approved by CASA years before CASA have led the Ombudsman to believe. Each of those procedures revalidated by CASA in April 2016 was designed specifically for the purpose of encompassing 10 schools, exactly as discussed with CASA 2 ½ years prior, and exactly as I had been doing for at least six years, albeit on a larger scale but with an associated investment in systems, procedures, facilities, personnel etc.

The Worksheet is evidence of the size of the project and the high level of detail that CASA considered in granting that revalidation. In fact, much of the checklist is against the structure of the Organisation. As you will appreciate, it is ludicrous that CASA would assert to the Ombudsman that they were not fully aware of the structure when they ticked off on those assessment criteria, two years prior to October 2018, when CASA falsely claims that CASA “first became aware”

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xy5etr9253bk7ej/APPENDIX%20FOUR-%20CASA%20ASESSMENT%20WORKSHEET.pdf?dl=0

· Mid-2016. From this date on I was highly reliant on CASA. There was a special relationship between the parties being CASA and myself. CASA provided the Regulatory structure and the guidance material; I was required to write manuals and procedures to those CASA stipulated requirements. If, like all schools in Australia I did not complete that process by September 1st, 2017, I would have to cease operations as would any school in Australia that had not completed the Transition process to the new regulations. CASA assessed each of those procedures contained within our Exposition. CASA then sent them internally for a “peer review”.

CASA was encouraging of the concept and provided me with two comprehensive documents that I needed to attend to. They were the Worksheet containing CASAs 600 assessment items which I referred to previously.

CASA also provided me with a guidance document called the Technical Assessor Workbook. This was the primary document, in conjunction with the 600-point checklist, previously referred to, that CASA used as part of that process leading to a full revalidation in April of 2017, being 18 months before CASA determined the business structure unlawful. One only has to look at CASA Handbook below, to realise that CASA was fully involved in every aspect of design and later approval of the exact structure.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ody0wjgw29xbnk3/APPENDIX%20THREE-%20Technical%20Assessor%20Handbook.pdf?dl=0

If I attended to all of those more than 600 requirements, I would be able to keep doing what I was already doing i.e., delivering multi base multi entity flight training under the single CASA issued Authorisation after CASA conducted their review and audit process.

I was required to rewrite my entire manual suite referred to as the Exposition, and in writing those manuals and deciding I had to attend to over 600 specified CASA requirements. CASA responses and answers were important and influential, in fact CASA had to assess, peer review and then approve each of those 600 procedures.

It was in fact the CASA personnel that I was fully dependent on. As the Regulator and the body that would approve my structure, it was reasonable that I depended on those CASA employees. As the recipient, I trusted them and should have been able to depend on CASA to assess and approve my policies and procedures and approve them as they did. If there were any concerns at all by now, it was incumbent on CASA to identify those by now.

Surely when CASA provided me with their requirements by way of the technical assessor worksheet, the Technical Assessor Workbook they had some duty of care when providing me with their requirements. It was in fact much more than a mere reliance on CASA, it was a total dependence. If I intended doing what I was already doing i.e., the multi base structure after September 1st, 2017, then I had to rewrite every policy and procedure, and have CASA assess them and approve them exactly as they did.

There was clear assumption and responsibility, and CASA was fully aware that I relied heavily on the information provided. Those representations were directly between my business and CASA, there were no third parties, nor any reliance on anyone else. CASA gave me their requirements, I fully attended to them, CASA assessed them and approved them. They formally revalidated and approved my business in April of 2017 to operate in accordance with the new regulations being introduced on September 1st of 2017 in the multi base multi entity format. Had CASA not spent two years assessing all of my procedures, and revalidated them in April 2017, my business would not have been permitted, as was the case with all flying schools in Australia after September 1st, 2017.

I was 100% reliant on CASA for guidance and advice. Had CASA said “No”, I would not have proceeded with the significant investment of time, money and resources that would follow. These were the correct CASA employees to be raising this proposal with, they were encouraging, that is their recollection. The contents of those meetings were “fed back up all appropriate CASA channels, and throughout the entire Southern Region CASA Head Office, I am assured of that.

My reasonable judgement was that the CASA employees that worked with me and assessed every one of my policies and procedures possessed the skills necessary to

assess my manuals, after all they had been allocated by CASA to do that exact task i.e. assess my proposed procedures against CASAs new regulatory requirements.

My reasonable assumption was that those same CASA personnel were suitably trained and experienced to be able to exercise their judgement when they approved those 600 policies and procedures, approved the entire system after sending it for Peer review within CASA in early 2017, almost two years before CASA claim they “first became aware of the structure” of the business.

Surely CASA has some duty of care. I actively sought information and advice on a substantial matter. That being the revalidation of my entire business to continue operations after September 1st, 2017 (later postponed 12 months by CASA). CASA issued that approval in April 2017, and then in October 2018, they declare my operation unlawful, and me subject to regulatory action, although it is the identical business, they approved 18 months earlier.

· August of 2016, At the meetings two months earlier with CASA, I had advised CASA that I intended to make an application for an additional Air Operator Certificate. The original concept being to have two separate AOCs. The original one for MFT my flying school of a decade, and a new AOC for APTA.

CASA advised that they were unable to process any new applications due to stretched resources. All of Australia’s 350 flight training organisations had to complete their Transition to the new Part 141/142 regulatory structure in 12 months’ time, or they would not be able to continue trading after September 1st, 2017.

It was in fact CASA suggested that I continue doing what I was already doing, with my single current Approval, i.e., expand the multi base structure on my current Approval rather than apply for another one. The CASA attendee at that meeting will provide a Statutory Declaration if required confirming that was CASAs advice at the time.

The point of this is that these meetings would have very clearly identified what I was doing. It is highly improbable that these matters would not have been very clear. I was not proposing to scale back my operation to a single flying school. The concept was very clearly an expansion of what I was already doing. The very topic of the meeting would have centred around the Multi base, multi entity structure. The name changes alone from Melbourne Flight Training to Australian Pilot Training Alliance and was clearly discussed with CASA at the time.

The very name change alone would have probably raised a query from CASA if as Mr Aleck claims CASA was still not aware.

I advised CASA that the Company would have a change of name only from MFT PTY LTD to APTA PTY LTD. The flying school that I had owned that traded as MFT would continue with the same name, although the parent company would become known as Australian Pilot Training Alliance to better represent the intention of the business going forward. The reason being that the word “Australian” better represented the concept rather than the more geographically restricting title using the word “Melbourne”. There were no changes to directors, structure, shares etc. It was a simple change of name only. If I had a meeting with CASA regarding the change of name and how to best handle it

I began an 18-month intensive project employing several fulltime staff including technical writers, educators, safety experts, management etc to refine and develop all my existing procedures to ensure that they were industry leading, and ready for the new legislation

Understand this. At those meetings in mid-2016 with CASA I had already been operating in that multi base, multi entity structure. The meetings were about how we intended to Transition to the new regulatory structure. It is not feasible that I would have mislead CASA to believe that I intended to move away from the multi base multi entity structure and proceed in the new regulatory environment as a single flying school. There would be no reason for me to be deceptive. It would serve no purpose and quite simply I would have been “found out” at some stage and no doubt been prosecuted.

The truth is that I was very clear, and the CASA personnel involved in the process will confirm that.

I worked side by side, across the desk with ten CASA employees throughout the next year and a half developing all our systems and procedures.

· July 2016 to January 2017, as CASA reviewed, assessed, and accepted every single proposed policy and procedure to be contained within our Exposition. In fact, CASA will confirm that their employees spent more hours allocated to our project compared to any of the other 350 schools across Australia, and that is information you could readily access, as all hours will be tracked. For CASA to suggest that by the time of submission of our completed Exposition to CASA in early 2017, that they were not fully aware of the structure of my Organisation is implausible, and to further mislead the Ombudsman’s Office that CASA wasn’t aware to absolve CASA is immoral and causes only further unnecessary trauma to me and my family. I draw your attention to the CASA Worksheet. Assuming that I was not trying to hide what I was doing from CASA, which would be impossible, and there is absolutely no reason that I would do that, consider the contents. CASA assessed and signed off on organisational structure, corporate structure, key personnel, Base Procedures Manuals (BPMs), facilities etc. These items were all signed off by CASA almost two years before CASA claim that they first became aware.

It really makes no sense that CASA would mislead the Ombudsman to be of the view that they only first became aware of APTA just prior to October of 2018. It is such a gross misrepresentation of the truth, that it is indicative of the “intent: of Mr Aleck.

This was the largest project ever undertaken by a flight training organisation in Australia. The investment extended into many hundreds of thousands of dollars. We were already delivering multi base multi entity training, we used this opportunity to both attend to the new regulatory structure and invest significantly in systems, and procedures.

· 18th January 2017, just prior to CASA issuing our new revalidation as one of Australia’s first Part 141/142 operators, when I travelled to Canberra to meet with the second in charge of CASA at the time, Mr Graeme Crawford, where Mr Crawford’s was obviously fully aware of the concept, and we discussed it. Emails confirm the contents of that meeting and can be accessed here.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xiba0wynkwuzmjz/APPENDIX%20FIVE-%20Crawford%20Emails.pdf?dl=0

This is more than eighteen months before CASA claim they first became aware of the structure, yet only 3 months before CASA formally fully revalidate the entire structure as Australia’s first multi base multi operation to meet the new CASA Part 141 and 142 regulatory structures. There can be no doubt that in January 2017, 18 months before CASA claim they first became aware of my structure that the second in charge of CASA and the Executive Manager of the Aviation Group within CASA was aware that I continued to expand on the structure that I had adopted and done so with full CASA approval for many years.

As a courtesy, and not by way of any regultory obligation, I provided Mr Crawford with a copy of our intended commercial agreement. CASA had no requirement to hold a copy of the commercial agreement, and never required previous operators to provide one. It was provided as a courtesy. Emails referring to that meeting with the second in charge of CASA and providing a copy of our contract to CASA can be found via this link. Noting that this is over 18 months before Mr aleck would lead the Ombudsman to believe that CASA first became aware.If I was operating as a single standalone school, it is unlikely that I would have this contract and provided it to Mr Crawford, and others within CASA on multiple occasions. In fact the provision of that contract would have raised a query as to why it was being provide, if I was operating as a single school. While much of the contracts of the commercial agreement is “dry”, I would refer you to the latter pages where it discusses the “spirit” of APTA. This section alone would have raised queries if CASA were not already fully aware.

Provided CASA with copy of this contract

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tdhss2mpf9t0oah/APPENDIX%20E-%20Original%20contract.pdf?dl=0

· February 2017- consisted of approximately a dozen very substantial meetings with CASA personnel sitting across a desk finalising all procedures, and formally assessing them. During these meetings formal applications and interviews were made of all Key Personnel as required by the legislation. Those interviews were based around our systems and procedures designed for the structure that we used. It is simply ludicrous to suggest that CASA were not fully aware of our structure by now, if not many years earlier.

· February 1st 2017-Meeting with CASA Team Leader John Costa and a CASA Flight Operations Inspector to finalise assessment of our substantial submission for our revalidation of our fully overhauled systems and procedures designed specifically for the purpose of multi base, multi entity training under the single approval in the new regulatory environment that was at that time scheduled to come into force on September 1st 2017.

· February 23rd, 2017- Meeting between CASA Flight Operations Inspector and our Technical Writer Wes Mason finalising our submission of our Exposition for approval by CASA. The final stage in a very significant process over many years as I worked side by side with CASA to update all systems and procedures to meet the new regulatory requirements by CASAs deadline of September 1st, 2017.

· February 2017- CASA conduct an internal peer review of our entire suite of manuals and procedures referred to as the Exposition, that have been fully redesigned to meet the new legislation and that we had developed throughout 2015, 2016, and 2017 with CASA.

These manuals have been designed throughout the process to deliver the multi base- multi entity structure. We were already operating in this identical structure, but we used this opportunity to significantly upgrade all our systems procedures, personnel etc in anticipation of This is the final stage in the issue of our new Part 141/142 Approval process. This is 18 months before CASA claim they first became aware of my “structure”

The manuals and procedures submitted as a part of this peer review are referred to as the Exposition. They are extensive covering several thousand pages when all printed out would be entirely unsuitable for a single entity single base school. They are far too large for such an operation. It would have been immediately apparent to CASA at this peer review and particularly, as we were already operating in the multi base-multi entity format that we had for many years. For clarity, our submitted Exposition would be completely unsuitable for a single base single entity school. If by some inexplicable reason “CASA” was not aware by this time, which I suggest by now is obviously unlikely, CASA most certainly would have become aware at this stage. Our Exposition was specifically written with CASA to attend to exactly that multi base multi entity structure. If CASA had any doubts, they should have raised them at this stage. By working side by side developing and assessing and fully accepting our manuals, and CASA satisfying themselves that everything was attended to, they then approved them.

glenb

28th Jul 2022, 14:22

· April 28th, 2017- . This was perhaps the most significant milestone for my business over the last decade. We were one of less than 10% of Australia’s flying schools that was approved to the new regultory structure now less than 6 months away.

CASA attends APTA Head Office to present us with a full revalidation of our entire system to the new regulations. Our entire Exposition covering every aspect of our operation that have been designed from the ground up to deliver multi base, multi entity training as we had been for many years. This was an industry leading This is eighteen months before CASA would have the Ombudsman’s office believe that CASA first became aware of the structure, and further highlights the level of false and misleading information provided.

All of Australia’s flying schools must cease trading on September 1st, 2017, if they have not complied with the new rules scheduled for implementation. We are one of only about 10% of Australia’s flying schools to have reached this deadline. The deadline date or Transition Date is September 1st, 2017.

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

If Mr Aleck still claims that he was not fully aware of the structure that CASA had revalidated, and I had adopted for 6 years. The exact same structure that CASA had permitted and approved multiple operators to utilise, then the deficiency in communications is entirely a deficiency within CASA, and a very significant one. One that has had totally unacceptable consequences to so many. That error needs to be acknowledged.

· 27th August 2017 submitted a comprehensive formal application that clearly identified to CASA the structure, supporting risk assessments, significant change request all supporting documentation for “AVIA”. (More than one year before CASA claim they first became aware of the structure). If the ICC was to call for the application that I submitted to CASA for this application, you will quickly identify that we were very very clear in the application as to the exact structure. I simply cannot believe that CASA would still contend that they were not fully aware of my structure that they had formally approved several months earlier. I emphasise that if you request that initial application submitted to CASA for the addition of this base, it is crystal clear that AVIA was its own entity and applying to join APTA, as were all the previous applications. CASA attended the base and met with me and my management team.

· 5th October 2017 submitted a comprehensive formal application for Learn to Fly (LTF) that clearly identified to CASA the structure, supporting risk assessments, significant change request and all supporting documentation for “LTF”. (One year before CASA claim they first became aware of the structure) In this highly regulated environment, it is not credible that CASA claim they were still not aware of my structure. Again, the ICC could call on CASA to provide the initial application/significant change request that we submitted. It clearly indicates the structure. Learn to fly had been approved approximately one year prior to operate under my AOC. This was an application to continue with the arrangement but Learn to Fly was moving into a far improved facility. The application was for a move from the CASA approved facility that they were into the improved facility. Once again CASA met with me and my management team at that facility. Again, this emphasises how ludicrous it is that a CASA employee would lead the Ombudsman’s Office to believe that

· November 2017, CASA personnel approach both Latrobe Valley Aero Club and Ballarat Aero club and advise them that by joining APTA they would be able to maintain operations in the new regulatory environment. Those bases have a clear recollection of this and will provide sworn statements to that effect. The point being that it is highly likely that CASA knew about my structure at least one year before they claim that they first became aware because they were in fact recommending the structure to schools that were struggling to get the qualified required Key personnel in order to continue operating. For CASA employees to be identifying my business structure of the last 6 years to operators struggling to continue operations in the new burdensome regulatory environment, CASA was obviously aware of it. For a CASA employee to suggest otherwise is clearly false and misleading.

· November 2017- A team of CASA personnel spend one week conducting a Level One audit. The highest-level audit possible. This is a routine, but intensive audit conducted on all Operators 6 months after they have completed the Transition to operate under the new regulatory structure. This included visiting our approved bases at MFT Moorabbin, AVIA Moorabbin, LTF Moorabbin, Latrobe Valley Aero Club and the Ballarat Aero Club, assessing compliance with all CASA legislative and safety requirements. It’s an extremely robust procedure, and highly likely that the CASA team would have noticed the structure at this stage, particularly as they mwt with the same Key Personnel at each of those bases, rather than different Key Personnel at each of the bases as would be expected. This CASA audit was conducted against the many thousands of pages of policies and procedures that I had designed with CASA between mid-2016 to early, and CASA were liaising with only one team of Key Personnel. If the bases had of been operating outside of the APTA structure, the CASA personnel would have been meeting with five different teams of Key Personnel. It is simply ludicrous for CASA to contend that they were not fully aware of the exact structure that I had adopted. In fact, I don’t believe CASA is asserting this. It is only Mr Aleck, a single employee of CASA that would trry and contend that CASA were not fully aware of the exact structure by now. I point out here that the only person that I disagree with here is Mr Aleck. All CASA personnel past and current have the same recollection of events that I put forward here. It is only Mr Aleck and the CASA CEO that would have the Ombudsman believe otherwise.

· 14th December 2017, CASA formally approve AVIA to operate under my structure. This was as a result of the formal application lodged with CASA on 27th August 2017. CASA spent three months processing this application. It was a very thorough process. To suggest that CASA was not fully aware of the structure by now, is just not feasible.

Although we were already operating in the multi base, multi entity structure, for many years this was the first application for an additional base to be submitted to the new regulatory structure that CASA introduced, and approved us to operate to, on April 28th, 2017. CASA charged us a fee for this regulatory task. It included CASA conducting an inspection of the base and meeting with me and my Key Personnel. CASA conducted an inspection, a consideration and issued an approval, which we paid it, and CASA completed the regulatory task. The nature of these regulations required a far higher standard of application and significantly more detail than had been required under the previous regulations. It is just not possible that CASA were not fully awre of the structure that I had adopted.

· This formal CASA approval of this most recent base, the first to the new regulatory structure is almost 12 months prior to the date that CASA claims to the Ombudsman that they first became aware of my structure. This approval was to be reversed by CASA in CASAs initial notification of October 2018. CASA have now formally approved by way of a formal “Significant Change Request” the addition of a further base. This is almost twelve months before CASA claim that they became aware of the structure of my business. Mr Hanton, may I suggest you request the application that I submitted to CASA for this base in August 2017. The application was significant and was in fact all CASA required documents, and an associated fee paid to CASA. Importantly the application, and accompanying risk assessment very clearly indicate the nature of the multi base multi entity structure, and in fact the accompanying risk assessment attends to it in detail. Already, it is ludicrous for CASA to maintain that they were not fully aware, and I cannot emphasise that enough. CASA were fully aware by now. If CASA maintain that they were not aware previously, surely by now there can be no argument that CASA is not by now fully aware. If CASAs assertion is to be believed, CASA would still not become aware of my structure for almost another year.

· January 2018, Australian Flying writes an article about APTA. If CASAs own internal procedures had not alerted them to my structure by now even though I had been doing it for many years, it is probable that a CASA employee would have read that article and been alerted to my structure. The structure of my operation is known to the wider aviation community, it is likely that CASA were aware of it. In January 2018, if CASA was still not fully aware of the structure that they had fully revalidated almost 12 months earlier, it is likely that several of CASAs 1000 employees would have read that article and been alerted to the structure. The article I refer to has been provided previously, although can be found again here for ease of reference.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1akmm9gxrashpfy/APTA%20BEFORE%20CASA%20ACTION.pdf?dl=0

· May 2018 commenced operations at Latrobe Valley Aero Club utilising the “Temporary Locations procedure that CASA suggested, helped us design, approved and audited and formally notified CASA of such (6 months before CASA have led the Ombudsman’s Office to first became aware of the structure I had adopted) This operation would not have commenced at Latrobe Valley without CASA being fully aware, and in fact CASA had met with both myself and the aero club committee. It cannot be disputed that by now CASA is fully aware. Committee Members could provide Statutory Declarations that they had previously had discussions with CASA on this very structure, in fact it was CASA personnel that directed the Latrobe Valley Aero Club towards my structure, and that is the recollection of that Committee. To suggest that CASA is not fully aware, when I have been operating in that structure for 6 years, been formally revalidated over 12 months earlier by CASA on April 28th, 2017 and audited 6 months earlier in November 2017. If CASA were not fully aware of the exact structure of my business, they would not have suggested my structure to continue operations instead of ceasing operations. Quite simply CASA was fully aware of the exact structure many years before they would have the Ombudsman believe.

· 7th August 2018 formally approved the LTF application submitted to CASA ten months prior on October 5th of 2017. CASA took a staggering 10 months to process and formally approve this base. This was obviously a thorough and comprehensive assessment that CASA undertook prior to approval. To suggest that during this ten-month application process CASA was not fully aware of my exact structure by way of that application is not feasible and considering that it was me submitting all documentation and meeting with the CASA personnel at that base.

· This was a substantial application that we submitted. The submission was according to CASA to a very high standard, and CASA required no changes at all to our proposed operation. Despite that, this application took CASA 10 months to assess. This seemed an unusual length of time for CASA to process the application, and my assumption was that it had been looked at it very detail. It is improbable that after operating for 6 years in the multi base multi entity single Authorisation Holder with full and formal approval that CASA have issued this formal notification for the addition of yet another base, and CASA is not by now fully aware. Similarly, this approval was reversed in the notification of October 2018,

CASA has now formally approved the following bases to operate under my own structure, MFT, AV8, TVSA, LTF, and AVIA. MFT and TVSA have been under the CASA approved structure for several years, and now CASA has formally approved AVIA and LTF to operate under the structure. Over recent years, CASA has now formally approved, several bases.

For anyone at CASA from the CEO down to suggest that CASA were not fully aware of the exact structure of my organisation for many years prior, is simply not reasonable. Such erroneous information is not a slip or an error. It is a conscious and deliberate decision to provide clearly false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office investigation.

The very same regulator that permitted me to do what I was doing for at least 6 years, formally several bases throughout that time, fully revalidated in April 2017 after a two-year CASA approval process, audited in November 2016, then formally added more bases, would try and assert to the Ombudsman that they only became aware of my structure years later. It is so deceptive, that it is not only offensive, but also most likely criminal.

It is bizarre. The entire business has been operating for 10 years, at least the last 6 years in a multi base multi entity structure, and then suddenly it becomes illegal against a regulation from 1988. Surely someone in CASA could have advised me many years earlier if they believed the structure was illegal, before they revalidated me in April 2017, and before they had formally approved multiple bases.

If after considering the above timeline, it has not become obvious that CASA was in fact fully aware of the exact structure of the flight training model that I had adopted, then I ask you to consider the following additional considerations.

· CASA advised me that they had spent more time working with me on my procedures than any other Company, of the 350 flight training operators in Australia, as part of the Transition process that led to our revalidation as a Part 141/142 organisation already operating in the multi base multi entity structure.

It is likely that CASA would have become fully aware during that exhaustive process throughout 2015,2016 and 2017. I have no doubt that as part of this process i.e., all schools having to undergo a full revalidation to comply with the legislation, CASA would have tracked the hours allocated to each operator. CASA have previously advised me that due to the nature of my application and the fact that I was one of Australia’s first operators to undergo the process, CASA allocated more hours to my revalidation than any other operator. As I was already operating in the multi base muti entity structure it is highly unlikely that they were not fully aware.

· CASA personnel had a standing invitation to turn up at any of our weekly Group meetings held in our Head Office Board room, and CASA did frequently attend both Group Safety Meetings and Group Management meetings with all members present, throughout 2017, and 2018, and formal records of attendees at those meetings held. if they were not already aware of my structure it is likely that the CASA attendees at that meeting would have become immediately aware by the very nature of the meetings.

· We were also one of the first of Australia’s 350 flying schools to meet the new regulatory requirements ahead of the deadline. As one of the first operators in Australia to gain the 141/142 approval, it is likely that CASA legal would have been heavily involved, and certainly aware of the structure that they were helping me to design and subsequently approved.

· Past and present CASA employees have offered to come forward and tell the truth on this matter and I can provide you with their contact details. I have their permission. These CASA personnel were heavily involved in the design and subsequent approval of the multi base multi entity years before Mr Aleck claims that CASA first became aware of the structure. These contacts have previously been provided to the Ombudsman’s Office, I do not know whether the Ombudsman’s office has established contact, although I would request that you do as part of your investigation into my complaint.

· The structure of our systems as outlined in our Exposition was entirely unsuitable for a single school single entity structure. To suggest that the entire Exposition could be fully approved by CASA without CASA noticing is ludicrous. Why on earth would I try and be at all deceptive with CASA. It makes absolutely no sense at all. As the person investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in the project, it makes no sense that I would not be fully open with CASA. Even if I had for some reason and not been fully open with CASA, CASA would have become immediately aware once they started assessing our proposed new procedures for the new regulations, and approving our Exposition.

· The very structure that CASA adopted would make it impossible that CASA were not fully aware. CASA was broken up into regions, with my region being the Southern Region. In each Region was a CASA Regional Manager, and several teams referred to as CMTs or Certificate Management Teams. These teams consisted of a Team Leader and a small team of Subject Matter Experts with experience in the respective areas of Safety, Flying School Operations, and Maintenance and Airworthiness. Each team would oversight a number of flying schools. I was in regular contact on multiple occasions each week with my CASA CMT, which was CMT 2. It is implausible to suggest that they were not aware, although they are not claiming otherwise. I have contacted the members of that CMT Team, and their recollection is accurate and truthful. It is only Mr Aleck that suggests CASA was not aware. It is important to clarify that point. The CASA personnel that I was dealing with at the time, know the truth of the matter. Mr Aleck, the person I make allegations of misconduct against, is the same person responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman’s office, he and perhaps Ms Spence, the CASA CEO are the only two employees that will maintain that CASA was not fully aware of the exact structure. Any CASA employee at the coal face, and certainly any of the ten CASA employees that worked with me during the two years prior to our revalidation have clear and truthful recollections that CASA was fully aware of the exact structure of my training organisation.

Throughout my 10 years of operating in the business, I had been allocated to CASA CMT2. They were my primary contact for all matters regarding my operation. We would meet and communicate frequently, and that is in fact how CASA provided oversight. The same CMT team looked after APTA, MFT, TVSA, AVIA, and LTF bases, all APTA Members operating under that one CASA approval that belonged to me, and my team of legislated Key Personnel. CASA would have been fully aware, and I have absolutely no doubt that if any member of that CMT were approached by the CASA ICC they would provide truthful information, i.e., that it is simply not possible that CASA was fully aware of my exact structure for many years before Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman’s Office believe.

My expected outcome for this complaint, is that it is reasonable that CASA identify to me, the specific date that CASA claim they first became aware that I had adopted the multi base, multi entity, under the one approval. Obviously that date could be early as 6 years prior when the first Darwin base was approved, or as late as October 2018 when CASA closed the business. Quite simply, there must be a date that CASA will publicly state that they first became aware. Both the Ombudsman’s Office and I should be entitled to that date.

glenb

28th Jul 2022, 14:23

Complaint Three of a CASA employee being responsible for providing false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office.

A CASA Employee falsely and misleadingly led the Ombudsman to be of the opinion that I failed to inform CASA of what I was doing or that I missed some formal procedure or required notification and that is the basis for CASAs clearly false claim that they only became aware of my structure some time just prior to October 2018 when they unlawfully closed the business down. The suggestion by CASA

After discussion with the Ombudsman’s office, it has become abundantly clear that Mr Aleck, an employee of CASA has led the Ombudsman’s office to be of the view that CASA was not fully aware of my business structure, until just prior to October 2018, when CASA incorrectly decided that I was operating unlawfully, issued the notification, and closed my business down.

The Ombudsman’s Office suggested that I may have “failed to let everyone know within CASA”.

Whilst I accept that the Ombudsman did not mean literally that I had to advise everyone in CASA, the insinuation was that I had bypassed some procedure, or not advised someone within CASA of what I was doing i.e., that there was an omission on my behalf.

Quite simply. I was doing this for 6 years with full CASA formal approval. I met with CASA in mid-2016 to outline the proposal for expanding on the exact same structure that I had adopted for many years but this time doing it to a much higher standard and in accordance with the new upcoming regulations. Many thousands of pages of documentation, risk assessments, interviews, Significant Change applications etc were done, fees paid, and even a meeting with the second in charge of CASA. The truth is that I provided all information, and there is nothing that I believe I could have done to communicate my exact intentions i.e., to expand on what I was already doing.

If CASA have led the Ombudsman to believe that I missed some procedure, or some form was not completed, or I was deficient in any way at all in communicating fully and completely with CASA, then CASA should be able to clearly identify what step or procedure that I missed was.

This is important, not only for me, but for other business owners. If CASA close a business down and try to claim that a contributing factor is that the Owner was deficient in communicating the exact nature of his or her business, and that Business Owner maintains robustly that he did not miss any steps, procedures, notifications, communications, etc, CASA should be able to clearly what form or procedure was missed, and especially so when those CASA personnel are working side by side with the business owner in a full revalidation of the business two years prior. It is highly unlikely that bases would have been approved formally by CASA if a procedure had been missed.

I am fully satisfied that no steps, procedures, notifications or communications were missed. I met or exceeded every obligation that I had placed on me. The correct people were spoken to within CASA. I worked with the correct CASA employees. I submitted the correct documentation including all applications, Significant Change requests, met on site with the correct CASA employees, developed the manuals with CASA years earlier, paid all fees, etc etc

I accept that perhaps Mr Aleck as the Executive Manager of Legal, International, and regulatory Affairs did not know, although his department was responsible for the final approval of our revalidation issued 18 months before Mr Aleck claims that CASA first became aware. In my 25 years in the industry, I had never had any contact with Mr Aleck at all and would not be expected to have contact.

I absolutely cannot accept that CASA did not know, or that I missed some obligation or opportunity. If Mr Aleck claims that he was not aware then that is indicative of major deficiencies within CASA that need to be addressed, not a deficiency on my part.

Every correct contact was made with every person and department in CASA that I was required to communicate with. Mr Aleck is in Canberra and to the best of my knowledge had not even been to the Airport where our Head office was based. He has never been to any of my bases. I would not be expected to ever have any communication with him. Any communication with Mr Aleck on my structure would be an internal communication within CASA, after I complete all my procedures with the front-line staff i.e., my CASA Certificate Management Team (CMT)

My complaint is that CASA has mislead the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that I may have missed some notification, application, procedure, communication, documentation etc.

If CASA claim this to be the truth. Then CASA should be able to clearly identify what procedure was missed by me. If CASA now concur that every single procedure was attended to, and that there were absolutely no errors at all on my behalf, CASA should be able to explain at least, what I could have done to better inform CASA of my structure.

A response to this will assist me but is also important for the wider industry. A business owner must be confident in CASAs procedures. The reasonable expectation is that once a CASA approval has been issued to a person or a business, and that business has operated safely and compliantly for over a decade, that CASA has well and truly done their due diligence, and that is exactly the basis for the issue.

To come back many years later, reverse a previously issued approval, close businesses down and contend that those approvals were issued in error because the holder failed to properly notify the issuing authority all of the details is absurd, and more so if the authority is unable to identify what was missed or the procedures that were omitted.

A response to this is important because my compliant concerns CASA misleading and providing false information to the Ombudsman that I had failed or was deficient in some way in communicating the same structure that other flight training organisations had adopted throughout my 25 years in the industry. CASA should be able to identify those omissions clearly and concisely on my behalf, if in fact there were any.

My expected outcome from this complaint is that if CASA contend that I was deficient in any way in fully and formally communicating the exact structure that I had adopted for 6 years, then CASA should be able to identify that omission on my behalf. CASA should also be able to identify how I could have avoided this entire matter by explaining what I should have done better.

Conclusion

I trust that you can appreciate the significance of the Ombudsman’s Office being very clear on the outcome of these three complaints, but may I put the importance of truthful responses into context.

If CASA always permitted on every occasion, and had done since the inception of CASA, more than one flying school to operate under a single CASA authorisation, exactly as I did,

and;

If CASA was fully aware that I had adopted that exact CASA approved structure for at least 6 years,

and;

If CASA has no supporting safety case at all to support their decision to close my businesses.

and;

If CASA can identify no regulatory breach to support their decision to close my businesses

and;

If CASA claim that their regulatory approach is outcome based yet cannot identify any concerns against any quality outcomes at all to support their decision to close my business

and;

if CASA have shown a flagrant disregard for their own procedures and obligations under Administrative Law in their Enforcement Manual , and shown total disregard for their 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)

and;

if the Owner of the business closed down by CASA maintains that all of the harm caused by CASAs decision to close the business could have been avoided by a well intentioned 4 hour discussion, and CASA is unable to challenge that assertion.

and;

If you consider the enormity of the trauma caused to me and my family, not only financially but also the impact on our mental and physical health,

Then you will appreciate that responses to my complaints are essential in any determination by a third party such as the Ombudsman or some other forum. I look forward to hearing from you.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley