Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even ‘the best’ PR company couldn’t paint CASA in a positive light! :rolleyes:
kmaviation1 (and Flaming galah)
For those of us who’ve been on PPRuNe for a while, lots of patterns of posting become evident. One pattern is the frequency with which posts defending CASA are submitted by first-time and low-time posters who quickly fade into history.
There is, of course, nothing wrong with posts defending CASA. And maybe the reason there are so few long-term posters defending CASA is that the vast majority (the ‘quiet Australians’ or the ‘silent majority’) in aviation in Australia are very happy with CASA and have better things to do with their time than post glowing references for CASA on PPRuNe.
What are your theories?
For those of us who’ve been on PPRuNe for a while, lots of patterns of posting become evident. One pattern is the frequency with which posts defending CASA are submitted by first-time and low-time posters who quickly fade into history.
There is, of course, nothing wrong with posts defending CASA. And maybe the reason there are so few long-term posters defending CASA is that the vast majority (the ‘quiet Australians’ or the ‘silent majority’) in aviation in Australia are very happy with CASA and have better things to do with their time than post glowing references for CASA on PPRuNe.
What are your theories?
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,965
Received 92 Likes
on
53 Posts
What are your theories?
The only posters here who appear to defend CASA (ie kmaviation and Flaming galah) are IMHO most likely CASA Employees.
Suspicious???? Who......me?????
Thread Starter
KM
KM, you claim that if I fail, CASA will have achieved a great PR opportunity.
I strongly disagree. I think that a strong message has been sent to the very few within CASA that choose to operate outside of CASA policies and procedures.
They now know, that if they choose to operate outside of those policies and procedures, and they take action that cannot be justified on safety or regulatory grounds. They will be held to account. Not by CASA, but by the recipients of that malpractice, and that will be done in the appropriate forum.
KM, go back to post 590, read my letter to the PM. The allegations against the personnel are probably the most substantive that could be levelled at someone. In any other organisation, and most certainly in the private sector, any Board would probably place the personnel on some sort of leave, eiher paid or not paid pending a sincere and genuine attempt to get to the bottom of the matter. You will recall, that if I am found to be incorrect, I would expect to be held fully accountable for any damage that I have unfairly bought to anyone's reputation.
Of the people that chose to get involved in this situation, 3 have already departed CASA, and I have taken them off my radar. I think you will see more leave the organisation prior to this getting to Court. As I said to Mr Crawford. I feel he will be left standing alone.
When this all comes out you will see how many hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars have been squandered trying to protect and cover up that malpractice.
The lack of accountability is something that I really didn't think could exist in a nations aviation safety regulator. To say I am shocked and in disbelief would be a significant understatement. Unfortunately we either have a CASA Board that has its head in the sand, or it is complicit. I fear the latter.
There can be no doubt that the vast majority of people within CASA are exceptional, but that small element causes so much damage to business and in fact compromises safety.
I do remind you that although it is I leading the charge. The CASA actions have resulted in two associated businesses closing, with the impact on those persons families as well.
So KM, please take that message back as you walk into work Monday morning wherever that may be, at whichever CASA office that is (perhaps)
I strongly disagree. I think that a strong message has been sent to the very few within CASA that choose to operate outside of CASA policies and procedures.
They now know, that if they choose to operate outside of those policies and procedures, and they take action that cannot be justified on safety or regulatory grounds. They will be held to account. Not by CASA, but by the recipients of that malpractice, and that will be done in the appropriate forum.
KM, go back to post 590, read my letter to the PM. The allegations against the personnel are probably the most substantive that could be levelled at someone. In any other organisation, and most certainly in the private sector, any Board would probably place the personnel on some sort of leave, eiher paid or not paid pending a sincere and genuine attempt to get to the bottom of the matter. You will recall, that if I am found to be incorrect, I would expect to be held fully accountable for any damage that I have unfairly bought to anyone's reputation.
Of the people that chose to get involved in this situation, 3 have already departed CASA, and I have taken them off my radar. I think you will see more leave the organisation prior to this getting to Court. As I said to Mr Crawford. I feel he will be left standing alone.
When this all comes out you will see how many hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars have been squandered trying to protect and cover up that malpractice.
The lack of accountability is something that I really didn't think could exist in a nations aviation safety regulator. To say I am shocked and in disbelief would be a significant understatement. Unfortunately we either have a CASA Board that has its head in the sand, or it is complicit. I fear the latter.
There can be no doubt that the vast majority of people within CASA are exceptional, but that small element causes so much damage to business and in fact compromises safety.
I do remind you that although it is I leading the charge. The CASA actions have resulted in two associated businesses closing, with the impact on those persons families as well.
So KM, please take that message back as you walk into work Monday morning wherever that may be, at whichever CASA office that is (perhaps)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may be helpful to look at the CASA Board's charter:
I doubt that the board was even aware of what was happening - CASA (the organisation) operates in a management environment where it's difficult for rogue administrators or faulty processes to be bought to account quickly. When they are, and the board does become aware of events, probably due to external factors, the damage has been done, and businesses can fail.
So, in the context of this case, technically, the Board may have failed in it's duties. At board level, ignorance is not a defence, and the expertise on the board should identify processes that lead to dysfunction. However, they would reasonably be entitled to rely on senior management for advice. In reality, it's a joint responsibility.
Just as in the industry as a whole, CASA is employing people who, relatively speaking, have less real world experience than counterparts generations ago. Personal relationships between regulator representatives and industry just don't exist at the same level as in times past, where many issues would have been sorted out away from the spotlight and never got to the level that we now see with Glen Buckley.
CASA's silo management processes, where individual regions make autonomous decisions, beggars belief. As an example, identical applications sent to separate capital city CASA offices receiving opposite decisions. Go figure.
This is an agency in crisis, understaffed, with a few personnel who should not be in the roles they hold, with structures that allegedly provide protection to the end user (Peer review and AAT etc) , but in reality have the opposite effect, where business can fold before restorative justice can take place.
The concern with any individual case is that there may well be adverse findings against CASA, but that will be countered with the very tired and worn argument that most of the individuals concerned have left the organisation.... etc etc. The overriding argument should be that CASA itself has no capacity for effective self monitoring and that internal review processes lack robustness, independence and fairness.
Where CASA is found to be at fault, financial penalties must apply to the regulator.
Cost recovery needs to work in both directions.
The Board is responsible for deciding the objectives, strategies and policies to be followed by CASA and for ensuring that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner
So, in the context of this case, technically, the Board may have failed in it's duties. At board level, ignorance is not a defence, and the expertise on the board should identify processes that lead to dysfunction. However, they would reasonably be entitled to rely on senior management for advice. In reality, it's a joint responsibility.
Just as in the industry as a whole, CASA is employing people who, relatively speaking, have less real world experience than counterparts generations ago. Personal relationships between regulator representatives and industry just don't exist at the same level as in times past, where many issues would have been sorted out away from the spotlight and never got to the level that we now see with Glen Buckley.
CASA's silo management processes, where individual regions make autonomous decisions, beggars belief. As an example, identical applications sent to separate capital city CASA offices receiving opposite decisions. Go figure.
This is an agency in crisis, understaffed, with a few personnel who should not be in the roles they hold, with structures that allegedly provide protection to the end user (Peer review and AAT etc) , but in reality have the opposite effect, where business can fold before restorative justice can take place.
The concern with any individual case is that there may well be adverse findings against CASA, but that will be countered with the very tired and worn argument that most of the individuals concerned have left the organisation.... etc etc. The overriding argument should be that CASA itself has no capacity for effective self monitoring and that internal review processes lack robustness, independence and fairness.
Where CASA is found to be at fault, financial penalties must apply to the regulator.
Cost recovery needs to work in both directions.
Last edited by Arctaurus; 13th Oct 2019 at 21:23.
Thread Starter
The CASA Board, Complicit or Head in the sand.
Letter from CASA 28/05/19
"Hello Mr BuckleyFollowing your previous correspondence, the Chair of the CASA Board, Tony Mathews, asked me to assure you the Board has been kept abreast of what has been done by CASA so far to address your concerns and has advised management they need to be kept informed going forward.Best regards"
"Hello Mr BuckleyFollowing your previous correspondence, the Chair of the CASA Board, Tony Mathews, asked me to assure you the Board has been kept abreast of what has been done by CASA so far to address your concerns and has advised management they need to be kept informed going forward.Best regards"
Thread Starter
The CASA Board, Complicit or Head in the sand.
THIS CORRESPONDENCE SENT 05/06/19
Dear Mr Anthony Matthews, Chairman of the Board, CASA.
I am writing to you in my role as the CEO of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance.
As you will be aware, I have made multiple requests to meet with the Board, none have been responded to by the Board..
Mr Graeme Crawford in his role as the Manager of the Aviation Group intervened and wrote to me advising he would not permit the meeting with the Board.
As the complaints were against his department, I feel that displayed inappropriate conduct on his behalf, and I have been denied procedural fairness, hence I am making one final appeal to the Board of CASA.
As you are aware, I advised the Board of my loss of trust and confidence in CASA, some time ago and I asked for direction. The Board chose not to respond to me. I did point out to the Board that my allegations were of a substantive nature and I drew the Boards attention to my expectation on them to ensure good governance. In my opinion that has not occurred, and hence this correspondence.
I am going public with this correspondence in order to compel you to respond.
For perfect clarity;
CASA has failed to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards as is required of CASA in the Civil Aviation Act. The General Aviation sector (Charter and Flying Training), will concur wholeheartedly with that statement. That failure to achieve that negatively impacts on safety and negatively impacts on business, and most particularly in regional areas.
Combine that with an environment where some personnel in CASA decide to act outside the requirements and obligations placed on them by The PGPA Act, CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy, The Ministers Statement of Expectations, CASAs enforcement manual, The requirements of Administrative Law and you have a “perfect storm”.
I am on the receiving end of that storm and it compromises flight safety to such an extent that I am compelled to act. Therefore, as I have requested on multiple occasions previously, may I meet with at least any two members of the Board, at any location within Australia within the next 7 days.
As this is a matter of Aviation Safety it is essential that timelines are not unnecessarily protracted.
Failing the Boards ability to facilitate that request, I will make an appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Mc Cormack, although multiple requests to him have previously been completely ignored,
I will try again, and give him 7 days to facilitate my request. Failing the Deputy Prime Ministers’ ability to facilitate a meeting, I will be forced to significantly escalate this matter, and will draw on the wider industry for guidance.
My matters are not only related to me, and the compromise to safety affects the GA industry at both the Charter and Flying training levels. The issues are critical, and they must be addressed. My businesses experience provides a perfect example of how CASA actions can negatively impact safety and I am well prepared to fully prosecute my case. I look forward to receiving a prompt response, safe skies for all, respectfully, Glen.
Dear Mr Anthony Matthews, Chairman of the Board, CASA.
I am writing to you in my role as the CEO of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance.
As you will be aware, I have made multiple requests to meet with the Board, none have been responded to by the Board..
Mr Graeme Crawford in his role as the Manager of the Aviation Group intervened and wrote to me advising he would not permit the meeting with the Board.
As the complaints were against his department, I feel that displayed inappropriate conduct on his behalf, and I have been denied procedural fairness, hence I am making one final appeal to the Board of CASA.
As you are aware, I advised the Board of my loss of trust and confidence in CASA, some time ago and I asked for direction. The Board chose not to respond to me. I did point out to the Board that my allegations were of a substantive nature and I drew the Boards attention to my expectation on them to ensure good governance. In my opinion that has not occurred, and hence this correspondence.
I am going public with this correspondence in order to compel you to respond.
For perfect clarity;
CASA has failed to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards as is required of CASA in the Civil Aviation Act. The General Aviation sector (Charter and Flying Training), will concur wholeheartedly with that statement. That failure to achieve that negatively impacts on safety and negatively impacts on business, and most particularly in regional areas.
Combine that with an environment where some personnel in CASA decide to act outside the requirements and obligations placed on them by The PGPA Act, CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy, The Ministers Statement of Expectations, CASAs enforcement manual, The requirements of Administrative Law and you have a “perfect storm”.
I am on the receiving end of that storm and it compromises flight safety to such an extent that I am compelled to act. Therefore, as I have requested on multiple occasions previously, may I meet with at least any two members of the Board, at any location within Australia within the next 7 days.
As this is a matter of Aviation Safety it is essential that timelines are not unnecessarily protracted.
Failing the Boards ability to facilitate that request, I will make an appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Mc Cormack, although multiple requests to him have previously been completely ignored,
I will try again, and give him 7 days to facilitate my request. Failing the Deputy Prime Ministers’ ability to facilitate a meeting, I will be forced to significantly escalate this matter, and will draw on the wider industry for guidance.
My matters are not only related to me, and the compromise to safety affects the GA industry at both the Charter and Flying training levels. The issues are critical, and they must be addressed. My businesses experience provides a perfect example of how CASA actions can negatively impact safety and I am well prepared to fully prosecute my case. I look forward to receiving a prompt response, safe skies for all, respectfully, Glen.
Thread Starter
The CASA Board, Complicit or Head in the sand.
Dear Mr Anthony Mathews,
Thank you for providing the opportunity to meet with you, in your role as the Chair of the CASA Board, and for facilitating the attendance of the Regional Manager, Mr Jason McHeyzer, in his role as the Regional Manager for the Southern Region, at Melbourne Airport from approximately 4PM to 6PM on Friday 19/07/19.
I attended with my father Derek Buckley, in his role, purely as my father, someone who has supported me throughout this experience, and is after all. My father.
As you are aware, I have made numerous requests over the last 8 months to meet with the Board of CASA. Those repeated requests were not responded to, or acknowledged, and this is a contributing factor to the delays in our meeting. I note that you are relatively new in the role, irrespective the delays in facilitating the meeting have had a significant impact, and due to the passage of time, unavoidably, the nature of the meeting has changed.
I asked you if you had the opportunity to view the final report from the Industry Complaints Commissioner, and you responded that you had viewed that, approximately one month prior to our meeting, which was approximately one month prior to its release to me.
My opinion of the ICC report is that it has been carefully written and it avoids most of the complaints. I will attend to that in separate correspondence.
During the meeting,
I had the opportunity to very clearly identify to you that CASA has not at any time made any allegations of anything related to safety. In fact, CASA actions can be demonstrated to have negatively impacted on safety.
I also had the opportunity to clearly identify to you that CASA has not at any time made any allegations of any regulatory breach.Very early in the meeting I asked if you aware of the commercial impact of the actions that CASA had taken, and I appreciate that in your role, you could not be expected to have a detailed knowledge of my issue.
I then asked the Regional Manager, Mr Mc Heyzer if he could perhaps outline the impact. As he has had been closely involved in this process since it began, he was better able to encapsulate the situation, as would be my expectation.
To recap, CASA;
• Placed a limited date of approval on my business that has been as short as, a minute by minute approval, but no longer than three months. That action alone would have an enormous and destabilising effect on any organisation, and the staff and suppliers associated with that organisation. That action has continued for a staggering 9 months and is still not resolved.
• CASA actions prevented me from marketing my product.
• CASA actions prevented me from taking on customers.
• CASA actions prevented me from adding courses and capabilities that I am fully entitled to.
• CASA actions prevented me from renewing capabilities as they came up for renewal.
When CASA initiated that action in October 2018, I clearly identified to CASA that the impact on my business would be significant, and conservatively it would cause my business to lose $10,000 per week. This matter has now dragged on for over 9 months, and lead to a situation where the business was no longer able to sustain itself. In fact, no business in Australia could sustain those restrictions to its trade.
I outlined to you that the APTA model required 10 members contributing $80,000 each, as the cost of operating APTA was $800,000 per annum. By preventing me signing up new members, you will appreciate my problem. I outlined that APTA was purpose built over many years, and is a significant investment.
With CASA actions placing such insecurity on the business, it had no value and was sold for a price of 5% its actual value. The business was sold under duress for no other reason than to protect the members and staff who depend on it for their livelihood.
Quite truthfully, I explained how I could no longer sustain the business and pay the staff salaries. If APTA were to discontinue operations at any time on CASA actions, it would directly impact on other operators depending on our continuing approval. I was carrying a significant burden as you will appreciate.
The associated impact on my own business, Melbourne Flight Training has been catastrophic, as it has been supporting the ongoing costs of running APTA. Its own certainty, now hangs in the balance.
My own flying school, Melbourne Flight Training is currently in a state of financial duress that is quite likely to be irreparable. The Company has incurred unacceptable debt levels as it has attempted to ensure continuity of operations for APTA and the members that have depended on it.
I identified two other business that have ceased operations as result of the CASA decisions made in relation to APTA. By restricting my revenue streams for 9 months, I could not be expected to survive. No business in any industry, could sustain that.
Personally, the process since CASA implemented Part 61/141 and 142, has also been catastrophic. I clearly identified that in fact I couldn’t even muster up the money for the car park fees if the meeting extended for one more than one hour. That is the truth. I have been left destitute and that includes the loss of my family home. That is the fact. There are no hidden accounts or trust funds. I have exhausted every fund I have available to me to defend the APTA model. I resolutely stand by the fact that it
o Was well intentioned.
o Improved safety.
o Improved regulatory compliance.
o Created jobs.
o Protected regional aviation and most particularly regional aero clubs.
o Protected the fast dwindling Australian Owned sector of the industry.
Importantly, it was a multi million dollar investment. It was designed with CASA. It was approved by CASA. It was audited by CASA. The fact is that Mr Crawford and four other CASA personnel operating under his direct operational control, and I include;
• Mr XXXX
• Mr XXXX
• Mr XXXX
• Mr XXXX
initiated a process in October 2018. That process was a complete reversal of previous CASA policy. It came instantly, and with absolutely no warning. The entire process could have been avoided had CASA decided to inform me or meet with me. The associated impact on my business and the gross waste of taxpayer funds achieving that objective, has been truly disgraceful and unacceptable.
My experiences may be shared by others in Industry, and if so, it requires a Royal Commission, it really does.
Those actions and decisions
• Were in clear breach of almost every element of CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy.
• In breach of the PGPA Act which requires these personnel to use public funds and resources responsibly.
• Breach the requirements of Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness, and Natural Justice.
• Were quite simply. Not well intentioned, and certainly not based on safety considerations.
• Bullying and Intimidating in their nature.
• Cannot be supported by any clear or concise legislation, and that is a requirement placed on CASA.
I offered up to 20 examples of the negligent conduct of those personnel, and their associated decisions.
The examples I used were;
Example One
The inappropriateness of the use of the Aviation Ruling as the basis of the initial action in October 2018. As;
• On its release in 2006, CASA advised flying schools that it did not apply to them, it was intended for charter operators, and CASA has in fact facilitated “shared AOCs” in flying schools since my initial involvement in the industry in the early 1980s.
• It applies to “commercial purposes”. CASA removed flying training from “commercial purposes” in September 2014. How can it apply. Flying Training is not a “Commercial purpose.”
• It has no Head of Power.
• It refers to Key Personnel i.e. Chief Pilot that do not exist in flying training.
• CASA themselves acknowledged it was the incorrect document after 2 months.
• It is 13 years old, and written for an entirely different regulatory environment.
Example Two
CASA also initiated the action in October 2018 based on our Temporary locations’ procedure. Embarrassingly it was only later realised by CASA that it was in fact their own procedure, and that they had recommended it to us, approved it for our use, approved bases under that exact procedure, audited it, and even recommended it to flying schools. How can this happen? I simply cannot understand it, I really cant!
Example Three
The “contract issue”
CASA never required contracts of us. I had a contract with my members. I had provided copies of the contract to CASA on multiple occasions. CASA seemed disinterested. October 2018 was a complete change of policy application and CASA insisted on provision of contracts within 7 days. CASA was embarrassed when I demonstrated that contracts had previously been provided, including a copy to Mr Graeme Crawford more than 12 months prior. In fact, had CASA realised they already held the contract, they may not have made the decision to take action on a perceived “lack of contracts”.
CASA provided guidance material on the contracts which I fully adopted. CASA rejected that.
CASA provided a second lot of guidance material. Again, I fully adopted the guidance material. CASA provided written notification the new version was acceptable, and I could proceed.
Hours later, CASA reversed that decision and advised it was no longer acceptable.
After many months. CASA engaged legal advice external to CASA and came back with a third set of guidance material. CASA advised that I should not use it “word for word”. So, I didn’t. I am satisfied that my contracts and associated Exposition are industry leading and meet all CASA requirements. I have not heard the outcome.
I pointed out to you, that this requirement being placed on APTA is unique to APTA, and CASA is not applying it to other operators. I cannot understand how this issue can still be continuing on after 9 months.
Example Four
The impact of the CASA delay. I pointed out that the new CASA regulations i.e. Part 61/141 and 142 were implemented over a decade behind schedule, and they were underpinned by a grossly negligent Regulation Impact Statement (RIS). I advised I would provide a copy of that document and it is attached. I draw your attention to the effect on Businesses, identified on page 15 of the RIS.
I discussed how CASA placed a Transition Date of September 1st of 2018 for all of Australia’s 350 flying training organisations. After that date, if they had not completed the re-approval process under the new rules, they would not be permitted to continue operating. My Company made an enormous investment in time and money over a two-year period to achieve the deadline referred to as the Transition Date i.e. September 1st, 2017.
As the date approached it appeared to me that CASA was not ready for the Transition date. CASA assure me they were. I “flicked the switch” and Transitioned. That process resulted in a very substantial increase in operating costs.
Weeks later, as only a staggeringly low 5% of Industry had achieved Part 142 status, CASA was forced into reversing its decision, and postponed the Transition date by 12 months. CASA forced me to operate under the new regulatory structure while other operators remained in the far more cost effective “Civil Aviation Regulation 5” (CAR 5) for a further 12 months. That delay alone, cost me many hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Example Five
I talked to you about the commercially unviable turnaround times of CASA processing tasks, which are essential to running the business. I used the example of the addition of one of our “Temporary locations”. It was quoted by CASA as a five-hour task and took 10 months to complete. In fact, those timelines are indicative of my businesses experience. i.e. CASA process tasks at the rate of 30 minutes per month i.e. a 2-hour task will take 4 hours, a 5 hour task will take 10 months.
In fact, this was the subject of a formal complaint to the Industry Complaints Commissioner, but was not attended to in his final report, only just released 7 months later.
My point being, that these unacceptable timelines impact significantly on Industry and particularly so when industry is paying commercial rates for CASA services. The effects have been substantial on my business, and the members.
Example Six
The blatant and total disregard for CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy in its dealings with me since the change to CMT 3 headed up by Mr XXXXX which coincided with the commencement of the action initiated by CASA without any prior indication in October 2018.
Example Seven
I clearly outlined my frustration that as a Part 141 and 142 Organisation I have authorisation to conduct a number of courses including low level, Multi Crew courses, Type ratings etc. CASA applied an “Administrative Freeze” on those tasks, and that had a significant implication on one of my members, leading to the closure of his business. CASA should have substantial grounds for refusing to process those tasks, as they were within my Authorisation and not related to any other issue, including bases.
Due to time constraints I did not get to touch on the other feedback that I can offer, including;
the root cause of this entire issue being CASAs failure to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards as is required of it in the Civil Aviation Act, technical incompetence on behalf of some personnel i.e. the Regional Manager stating “Im new to the role, and not all over it. I will need to organise a meeting with my staff, yet his signature sits on the initial correspondence that he sent a day earlier.
Why sign it, if you’re not “all over it”! I did briefly touch on CASA consistently ignoring my requests for assistance in resolving CASA allegations of regulatory breaches, and how well over 30 emails have been completely ignored, clear breaches of CASAs Enforcement Manual, breaches etc.
We closed the meeting with me asking that I be provided with a final CASA position on this matter by 5PM on Friday August 2nd. I appreciate you currently have obligations that require you to be outside of Australia, and I respect that. I did reply to you that it only needed one well intentioned person, to make well considered and well-intentioned decision. That person did not have to be you, but I needed to know by August 2nd.
The impact of CASAs actions has been significant, they really have. That impact has extended to me, my wife, and my children, it will impact on their education, I have lost my home, other businesses have closed as a result of this, safety has been compromised, staff will lose employment, and the APTA model has been completely decimated by CASA. Businesses will be affected, and the entire process was so completely and totally unnecessary. It really could have been entirely avoided had CASA acted in a well-intentioned manner, in the interests of safety, and in accordance with the regulatory philosophy. Those personnel I have named decided that APTA would not be permitted to operate, and they worked diligently to achiever that outcome.
As a pilot with 25 years training experience, I cannot see how a less than ideal relationship between industry and CASA can possibly optimise safety outcomes. A relationship of confidence and trust is essential to achieve those optimal safety outcomes. In my opinion and drawing on my experience dealing with those five named individuals I sincerely believe they have demonstrated unconscionable conduct in their respective roles within CASA, and that is my only experience with those people. I can make no comment outside of my own perceived experience. Their actions and decisions have compromised safety. I can demonstrate that and am prepared to.
You are a Pilot, as I am. Our job is about nothing else than “good and sound decision making”. I call on CASA to deal with me in a fair and reasonable manner promptly. I do not want to involve lawyers. Two Parties acting in a well-intentioned and respectful manner and dealing only in the complete truth, can resolve anything. That has been my experience over the last 54 years, and I am hoping that common sense can prevail in this situation.
By meeting with you, I have truly exhausted EVERY option for an internal resolution with CASA, and I will need to seek legal support and guidance if we cannot resolve this matter. I am mentally, emotionally, and financially drained and exhausted after this 9 month and more, I am only wanting to get some closure on this unnecessarily traumatic period. I really am at the cusp. Please!
Irrespective of the outcome, I sincerely thank you for your time. I felt you genuinely did provide “a good ear”, and I respect that.
Yours respectfully
Glen Buckley
Thank you for providing the opportunity to meet with you, in your role as the Chair of the CASA Board, and for facilitating the attendance of the Regional Manager, Mr Jason McHeyzer, in his role as the Regional Manager for the Southern Region, at Melbourne Airport from approximately 4PM to 6PM on Friday 19/07/19.
I attended with my father Derek Buckley, in his role, purely as my father, someone who has supported me throughout this experience, and is after all. My father.
As you are aware, I have made numerous requests over the last 8 months to meet with the Board of CASA. Those repeated requests were not responded to, or acknowledged, and this is a contributing factor to the delays in our meeting. I note that you are relatively new in the role, irrespective the delays in facilitating the meeting have had a significant impact, and due to the passage of time, unavoidably, the nature of the meeting has changed.
I asked you if you had the opportunity to view the final report from the Industry Complaints Commissioner, and you responded that you had viewed that, approximately one month prior to our meeting, which was approximately one month prior to its release to me.
My opinion of the ICC report is that it has been carefully written and it avoids most of the complaints. I will attend to that in separate correspondence.
During the meeting,
I had the opportunity to very clearly identify to you that CASA has not at any time made any allegations of anything related to safety. In fact, CASA actions can be demonstrated to have negatively impacted on safety.
I also had the opportunity to clearly identify to you that CASA has not at any time made any allegations of any regulatory breach.Very early in the meeting I asked if you aware of the commercial impact of the actions that CASA had taken, and I appreciate that in your role, you could not be expected to have a detailed knowledge of my issue.
I then asked the Regional Manager, Mr Mc Heyzer if he could perhaps outline the impact. As he has had been closely involved in this process since it began, he was better able to encapsulate the situation, as would be my expectation.
To recap, CASA;
• Placed a limited date of approval on my business that has been as short as, a minute by minute approval, but no longer than three months. That action alone would have an enormous and destabilising effect on any organisation, and the staff and suppliers associated with that organisation. That action has continued for a staggering 9 months and is still not resolved.
• CASA actions prevented me from marketing my product.
• CASA actions prevented me from taking on customers.
• CASA actions prevented me from adding courses and capabilities that I am fully entitled to.
• CASA actions prevented me from renewing capabilities as they came up for renewal.
When CASA initiated that action in October 2018, I clearly identified to CASA that the impact on my business would be significant, and conservatively it would cause my business to lose $10,000 per week. This matter has now dragged on for over 9 months, and lead to a situation where the business was no longer able to sustain itself. In fact, no business in Australia could sustain those restrictions to its trade.
I outlined to you that the APTA model required 10 members contributing $80,000 each, as the cost of operating APTA was $800,000 per annum. By preventing me signing up new members, you will appreciate my problem. I outlined that APTA was purpose built over many years, and is a significant investment.
With CASA actions placing such insecurity on the business, it had no value and was sold for a price of 5% its actual value. The business was sold under duress for no other reason than to protect the members and staff who depend on it for their livelihood.
Quite truthfully, I explained how I could no longer sustain the business and pay the staff salaries. If APTA were to discontinue operations at any time on CASA actions, it would directly impact on other operators depending on our continuing approval. I was carrying a significant burden as you will appreciate.
The associated impact on my own business, Melbourne Flight Training has been catastrophic, as it has been supporting the ongoing costs of running APTA. Its own certainty, now hangs in the balance.
My own flying school, Melbourne Flight Training is currently in a state of financial duress that is quite likely to be irreparable. The Company has incurred unacceptable debt levels as it has attempted to ensure continuity of operations for APTA and the members that have depended on it.
I identified two other business that have ceased operations as result of the CASA decisions made in relation to APTA. By restricting my revenue streams for 9 months, I could not be expected to survive. No business in any industry, could sustain that.
Personally, the process since CASA implemented Part 61/141 and 142, has also been catastrophic. I clearly identified that in fact I couldn’t even muster up the money for the car park fees if the meeting extended for one more than one hour. That is the truth. I have been left destitute and that includes the loss of my family home. That is the fact. There are no hidden accounts or trust funds. I have exhausted every fund I have available to me to defend the APTA model. I resolutely stand by the fact that it
o Was well intentioned.
o Improved safety.
o Improved regulatory compliance.
o Created jobs.
o Protected regional aviation and most particularly regional aero clubs.
o Protected the fast dwindling Australian Owned sector of the industry.
Importantly, it was a multi million dollar investment. It was designed with CASA. It was approved by CASA. It was audited by CASA. The fact is that Mr Crawford and four other CASA personnel operating under his direct operational control, and I include;
• Mr XXXX
• Mr XXXX
• Mr XXXX
• Mr XXXX
initiated a process in October 2018. That process was a complete reversal of previous CASA policy. It came instantly, and with absolutely no warning. The entire process could have been avoided had CASA decided to inform me or meet with me. The associated impact on my business and the gross waste of taxpayer funds achieving that objective, has been truly disgraceful and unacceptable.
My experiences may be shared by others in Industry, and if so, it requires a Royal Commission, it really does.
Those actions and decisions
• Were in clear breach of almost every element of CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy.
• In breach of the PGPA Act which requires these personnel to use public funds and resources responsibly.
• Breach the requirements of Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness, and Natural Justice.
• Were quite simply. Not well intentioned, and certainly not based on safety considerations.
• Bullying and Intimidating in their nature.
• Cannot be supported by any clear or concise legislation, and that is a requirement placed on CASA.
I offered up to 20 examples of the negligent conduct of those personnel, and their associated decisions.
The examples I used were;
Example One
The inappropriateness of the use of the Aviation Ruling as the basis of the initial action in October 2018. As;
• On its release in 2006, CASA advised flying schools that it did not apply to them, it was intended for charter operators, and CASA has in fact facilitated “shared AOCs” in flying schools since my initial involvement in the industry in the early 1980s.
• It applies to “commercial purposes”. CASA removed flying training from “commercial purposes” in September 2014. How can it apply. Flying Training is not a “Commercial purpose.”
• It has no Head of Power.
• It refers to Key Personnel i.e. Chief Pilot that do not exist in flying training.
• CASA themselves acknowledged it was the incorrect document after 2 months.
• It is 13 years old, and written for an entirely different regulatory environment.
Example Two
CASA also initiated the action in October 2018 based on our Temporary locations’ procedure. Embarrassingly it was only later realised by CASA that it was in fact their own procedure, and that they had recommended it to us, approved it for our use, approved bases under that exact procedure, audited it, and even recommended it to flying schools. How can this happen? I simply cannot understand it, I really cant!
Example Three
The “contract issue”
CASA never required contracts of us. I had a contract with my members. I had provided copies of the contract to CASA on multiple occasions. CASA seemed disinterested. October 2018 was a complete change of policy application and CASA insisted on provision of contracts within 7 days. CASA was embarrassed when I demonstrated that contracts had previously been provided, including a copy to Mr Graeme Crawford more than 12 months prior. In fact, had CASA realised they already held the contract, they may not have made the decision to take action on a perceived “lack of contracts”.
CASA provided guidance material on the contracts which I fully adopted. CASA rejected that.
CASA provided a second lot of guidance material. Again, I fully adopted the guidance material. CASA provided written notification the new version was acceptable, and I could proceed.
Hours later, CASA reversed that decision and advised it was no longer acceptable.
After many months. CASA engaged legal advice external to CASA and came back with a third set of guidance material. CASA advised that I should not use it “word for word”. So, I didn’t. I am satisfied that my contracts and associated Exposition are industry leading and meet all CASA requirements. I have not heard the outcome.
I pointed out to you, that this requirement being placed on APTA is unique to APTA, and CASA is not applying it to other operators. I cannot understand how this issue can still be continuing on after 9 months.
Example Four
The impact of the CASA delay. I pointed out that the new CASA regulations i.e. Part 61/141 and 142 were implemented over a decade behind schedule, and they were underpinned by a grossly negligent Regulation Impact Statement (RIS). I advised I would provide a copy of that document and it is attached. I draw your attention to the effect on Businesses, identified on page 15 of the RIS.
I discussed how CASA placed a Transition Date of September 1st of 2018 for all of Australia’s 350 flying training organisations. After that date, if they had not completed the re-approval process under the new rules, they would not be permitted to continue operating. My Company made an enormous investment in time and money over a two-year period to achieve the deadline referred to as the Transition Date i.e. September 1st, 2017.
As the date approached it appeared to me that CASA was not ready for the Transition date. CASA assure me they were. I “flicked the switch” and Transitioned. That process resulted in a very substantial increase in operating costs.
Weeks later, as only a staggeringly low 5% of Industry had achieved Part 142 status, CASA was forced into reversing its decision, and postponed the Transition date by 12 months. CASA forced me to operate under the new regulatory structure while other operators remained in the far more cost effective “Civil Aviation Regulation 5” (CAR 5) for a further 12 months. That delay alone, cost me many hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Example Five
I talked to you about the commercially unviable turnaround times of CASA processing tasks, which are essential to running the business. I used the example of the addition of one of our “Temporary locations”. It was quoted by CASA as a five-hour task and took 10 months to complete. In fact, those timelines are indicative of my businesses experience. i.e. CASA process tasks at the rate of 30 minutes per month i.e. a 2-hour task will take 4 hours, a 5 hour task will take 10 months.
In fact, this was the subject of a formal complaint to the Industry Complaints Commissioner, but was not attended to in his final report, only just released 7 months later.
My point being, that these unacceptable timelines impact significantly on Industry and particularly so when industry is paying commercial rates for CASA services. The effects have been substantial on my business, and the members.
Example Six
The blatant and total disregard for CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy in its dealings with me since the change to CMT 3 headed up by Mr XXXXX which coincided with the commencement of the action initiated by CASA without any prior indication in October 2018.
Example Seven
I clearly outlined my frustration that as a Part 141 and 142 Organisation I have authorisation to conduct a number of courses including low level, Multi Crew courses, Type ratings etc. CASA applied an “Administrative Freeze” on those tasks, and that had a significant implication on one of my members, leading to the closure of his business. CASA should have substantial grounds for refusing to process those tasks, as they were within my Authorisation and not related to any other issue, including bases.
Due to time constraints I did not get to touch on the other feedback that I can offer, including;
the root cause of this entire issue being CASAs failure to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards as is required of it in the Civil Aviation Act, technical incompetence on behalf of some personnel i.e. the Regional Manager stating “Im new to the role, and not all over it. I will need to organise a meeting with my staff, yet his signature sits on the initial correspondence that he sent a day earlier.
Why sign it, if you’re not “all over it”! I did briefly touch on CASA consistently ignoring my requests for assistance in resolving CASA allegations of regulatory breaches, and how well over 30 emails have been completely ignored, clear breaches of CASAs Enforcement Manual, breaches etc.
We closed the meeting with me asking that I be provided with a final CASA position on this matter by 5PM on Friday August 2nd. I appreciate you currently have obligations that require you to be outside of Australia, and I respect that. I did reply to you that it only needed one well intentioned person, to make well considered and well-intentioned decision. That person did not have to be you, but I needed to know by August 2nd.
The impact of CASAs actions has been significant, they really have. That impact has extended to me, my wife, and my children, it will impact on their education, I have lost my home, other businesses have closed as a result of this, safety has been compromised, staff will lose employment, and the APTA model has been completely decimated by CASA. Businesses will be affected, and the entire process was so completely and totally unnecessary. It really could have been entirely avoided had CASA acted in a well-intentioned manner, in the interests of safety, and in accordance with the regulatory philosophy. Those personnel I have named decided that APTA would not be permitted to operate, and they worked diligently to achiever that outcome.
As a pilot with 25 years training experience, I cannot see how a less than ideal relationship between industry and CASA can possibly optimise safety outcomes. A relationship of confidence and trust is essential to achieve those optimal safety outcomes. In my opinion and drawing on my experience dealing with those five named individuals I sincerely believe they have demonstrated unconscionable conduct in their respective roles within CASA, and that is my only experience with those people. I can make no comment outside of my own perceived experience. Their actions and decisions have compromised safety. I can demonstrate that and am prepared to.
You are a Pilot, as I am. Our job is about nothing else than “good and sound decision making”. I call on CASA to deal with me in a fair and reasonable manner promptly. I do not want to involve lawyers. Two Parties acting in a well-intentioned and respectful manner and dealing only in the complete truth, can resolve anything. That has been my experience over the last 54 years, and I am hoping that common sense can prevail in this situation.
By meeting with you, I have truly exhausted EVERY option for an internal resolution with CASA, and I will need to seek legal support and guidance if we cannot resolve this matter. I am mentally, emotionally, and financially drained and exhausted after this 9 month and more, I am only wanting to get some closure on this unnecessarily traumatic period. I really am at the cusp. Please!
Irrespective of the outcome, I sincerely thank you for your time. I felt you genuinely did provide “a good ear”, and I respect that.
Yours respectfully
Glen Buckley
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the Board has been kept abreast of what has been done by CASA so far to address your concerns......
Thread Starter
The CASA Board
I can assure you that I have documented many other requests to the Board. All have been totally ignored. There is no doubt at all however that the Chair of the Board spent a good two hours with me, and I clearly and concisely outlined my concerns. I can only speak to the Chair, but I am fully satisfied that he is fully abreast of the situation. There can be no legitimate argument that he at least, is not fully aware of the circumstances.
I feel very much that the Board has elected to stand by the conduct of the named personnel.
My vote is strongly for complicit and not "head in the sand"
Cheers. Glen
I feel very much that the Board has elected to stand by the conduct of the named personnel.
My vote is strongly for complicit and not "head in the sand"
Cheers. Glen
Glen, you are asking the wrong questions of the Board. Their responsibilities are for the OVERALL running of CASA. To that end they are responsible for ensuring that CASA meets the statutory responsibilities under the Act and that the organization is following a coherent and achievable strategic plan.
Your question to the Board, in my opinion, should be : “in view of the serious allegations made by me against CASA and CASAs response to them to date, do you maintain confidence in the DAS and by implication, the ability of CASA senior management to resolve this situation?” That question goes to the heart of the Boards duties and puts them on record. If everything blows up, then they are going down with the DAS.
The Board doesn’t get involved in these cases. Their job is to have a DAS who can resolve these matters........or find a new DAS.
When I was a CEO, my Board used to get agitated at me when people tried to bypass channels and get at the Board. It’s not the Boards job to understand the regulations, it’s to make sure there is a DAS who does. People think that the Board can help them if they could only explain things to them in person. It doesn’t work that way. If the Board listens to you and intervenes it does two things 1. White ants the DAS. 2. Sets a dangerous precedent such that no good DAS will work there if they have to put up with an interfering micro managing Board.
Questions the Board can legitimately ask the DAS: “how did this situation arise, what do you propose to do about it now and how do you propose to prevent such situations in future? If the answers aren’t satisfactory to the Board (and by implication Department and Minister) then go looking for a new DAS.
Your question to the Board, in my opinion, should be : “in view of the serious allegations made by me against CASA and CASAs response to them to date, do you maintain confidence in the DAS and by implication, the ability of CASA senior management to resolve this situation?” That question goes to the heart of the Boards duties and puts them on record. If everything blows up, then they are going down with the DAS.
The Board doesn’t get involved in these cases. Their job is to have a DAS who can resolve these matters........or find a new DAS.
When I was a CEO, my Board used to get agitated at me when people tried to bypass channels and get at the Board. It’s not the Boards job to understand the regulations, it’s to make sure there is a DAS who does. People think that the Board can help them if they could only explain things to them in person. It doesn’t work that way. If the Board listens to you and intervenes it does two things 1. White ants the DAS. 2. Sets a dangerous precedent such that no good DAS will work there if they have to put up with an interfering micro managing Board.
Questions the Board can legitimately ask the DAS: “how did this situation arise, what do you propose to do about it now and how do you propose to prevent such situations in future? If the answers aren’t satisfactory to the Board (and by implication Department and Minister) then go looking for a new DAS.
Last edited by Sunfish; 14th Oct 2019 at 02:23.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My vote is strongly for complicit and not "head in the sand"
Either the Board has failed to act on executive advice (unlikely) or the Board has not received the full story from the executive (more likely), despite this statement:
"Hello Mr Buckley Following your previous correspondence, the Chair of the CASA Board, Tony Mathews, asked me to assure you the Board has been kept abreast of what has been done by CASA so far to address your concerns and has advised management they need to be kept informed going forward.Best regards"
Hopefully, it will all come out in an open forum.
Thread Starter
ICC response to my dismissal.
In posts 460,461,and 462 you can review the direction by the Regional Manager to my employer that my position was untenable. My employment ceased as a result of that email, and I lodged a complaint to the ICC. The report is attached. You will need to be a Member to open it. Membership is a straightforward process.
Thread Starter
ICC response to my dismissal.
Sorry folks, as best I can. Not very good with technology
INDUSTRY COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER
16 October 2019
Mr Glen Buckley
[email protected]
Dear Glen
Complaint — direction to APTA’s new owner
I refer to your complaint about the email sent by CASA Regional Manager Jason McHeyzer’s email to
APTA’s new owner at 2:14PM on 27 August 2019 (’the email’).
In particular, you are concerned at Mr McHeyzer’s comment that your status as APTA’s Deputy Head
of Operations was untenable given the statements you were making publicly. You state that as a
result of this email, APTA terminated your employment.
In resolution of your complaint, you initially advised you were seeking a public apology from CASA to
protect your professional reputation; and a statement as to whether the email breached any
stipulated procedures.
You’ve later clarified you want ‘…CASA to clearly outline the reason this action
was taken’ and that you only seek a view on the appropriateness of the email.
Because it’s not my role to apologise on behalf of CASA or outline its reasons for taking particular
actions, in this preliminary outcome I have only reviewed the reasonableness and appropriateness of
CASA’s email.
At this stage, I propose to conclude CASA’s email was unreasonable and inappropriate.
That’s because the email’s most natural meaning draws a correlation between the statements you may
have made publicly (presumably about CASA and in your capacity as an APTA office holder) and the
tenability of your employment when no such connection exists.
CASA has no proper role in censoring public debate or comment on its operations as the email may have inferred.
Mr McHeyzer states that the email was poorly worded and did not convey what he was attempting
to say to APTA’s new owner. Given the limited scope of my review imposed by your requests1 I don’t
consider it’s possible to continue my review any further than a finding of its appropriateness or
otherwise.
1. You declined my request to corroborate with APTA its understanding of CASA’s interactions, or its response. In addition,
you’ve stipulated that only the email of 2:14 on 27 August be reviewed. You believe that subsequent interactions, such as a
call later that day between Mr McHeyzer and APTA, and subsequent emails between APTA and Mr McHeyzer and Craig
Martin were ‘carefully crafted’ with input from CASA’s Legal Branch. On that basis you didn’t believe they were relevant to
your complaint.
That’s because I’m unable to make an assessment about the email in its broader context or test your claim it led to APTA terminating your employment. And as a result, I don’t believe I can make any assessment of CASA’s actions in all the circumstances.
Referral rights
When you submitted this complaint you noted: ‘I will provide CASA the “first right of refusal”. If the CASA ICC chooses not to deal with it, I will go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.’ In my reply of 4 September, I set out my opinion that given your concerns about my integrity and the ICC’s investigative processes ‘the best forum for (this complaint) to be considered is the Commonwealth Ombudsman’.
On 9 September I set out that it was my hope you’d already contacted the Ombudsman on this matter. But if you haven’t, information about how to make a complaint can be found at Home - Commonwealth Ombudsman. Alternatively, you can contact the Ombudsman on 1300 362 072.
Yours sincerely
Jonathan Hanton
Industry Complaints Commissioner
INDUSTRY COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER
16 October 2019
Mr Glen Buckley
[email protected]
Dear Glen
Complaint — direction to APTA’s new owner
I refer to your complaint about the email sent by CASA Regional Manager Jason McHeyzer’s email to
APTA’s new owner at 2:14PM on 27 August 2019 (’the email’).
In particular, you are concerned at Mr McHeyzer’s comment that your status as APTA’s Deputy Head
of Operations was untenable given the statements you were making publicly. You state that as a
result of this email, APTA terminated your employment.
In resolution of your complaint, you initially advised you were seeking a public apology from CASA to
protect your professional reputation; and a statement as to whether the email breached any
stipulated procedures.
You’ve later clarified you want ‘…CASA to clearly outline the reason this action
was taken’ and that you only seek a view on the appropriateness of the email.
Because it’s not my role to apologise on behalf of CASA or outline its reasons for taking particular
actions, in this preliminary outcome I have only reviewed the reasonableness and appropriateness of
CASA’s email.
At this stage, I propose to conclude CASA’s email was unreasonable and inappropriate.
That’s because the email’s most natural meaning draws a correlation between the statements you may
have made publicly (presumably about CASA and in your capacity as an APTA office holder) and the
tenability of your employment when no such connection exists.
CASA has no proper role in censoring public debate or comment on its operations as the email may have inferred.
Mr McHeyzer states that the email was poorly worded and did not convey what he was attempting
to say to APTA’s new owner. Given the limited scope of my review imposed by your requests1 I don’t
consider it’s possible to continue my review any further than a finding of its appropriateness or
otherwise.
1. You declined my request to corroborate with APTA its understanding of CASA’s interactions, or its response. In addition,
you’ve stipulated that only the email of 2:14 on 27 August be reviewed. You believe that subsequent interactions, such as a
call later that day between Mr McHeyzer and APTA, and subsequent emails between APTA and Mr McHeyzer and Craig
Martin were ‘carefully crafted’ with input from CASA’s Legal Branch. On that basis you didn’t believe they were relevant to
your complaint.
That’s because I’m unable to make an assessment about the email in its broader context or test your claim it led to APTA terminating your employment. And as a result, I don’t believe I can make any assessment of CASA’s actions in all the circumstances.
Referral rights
When you submitted this complaint you noted: ‘I will provide CASA the “first right of refusal”. If the CASA ICC chooses not to deal with it, I will go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.’ In my reply of 4 September, I set out my opinion that given your concerns about my integrity and the ICC’s investigative processes ‘the best forum for (this complaint) to be considered is the Commonwealth Ombudsman’.
On 9 September I set out that it was my hope you’d already contacted the Ombudsman on this matter. But if you haven’t, information about how to make a complaint can be found at Home - Commonwealth Ombudsman. Alternatively, you can contact the Ombudsman on 1300 362 072.
Yours sincerely
Jonathan Hanton
Industry Complaints Commissioner
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Victoria
Age: 59
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He should quit
Read the letter the CASA manager in Melbourne sent to your employer, since when does CASA have that right, mcheyzer should be sacked. That type of conduct beckons belief, so if we upset CASA now they can have us sacked. I never had any issues with them, talked them up mostly, always understood the important role they play, this bloke should go, it's bloody wrong. I hope you are pursuing it big time.
