Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
And what, in your expert opinion, is the time limit for making applications for reasons under s 13? I'll bet you folding money that any application by Glen for reasons under s 13 will receive a response to this effect:
Dear Mr Buckley, CASA reckons either that s 13 does not apply to the various decisions, actions and conduct to which your application relates and, even if s 13 did apply, your application is too late. Have a nice life.
Then Glen can try to crowd fund a couple of hundred thousand to take CASA to the Federal Court to prove s 13 applies and it was not too late to apply for reasons, and therefore CASA is obliged to provide reasons. Then CASA will provide reasons. Which will help, how, precisely?
Dear Mr Buckley, CASA reckons either that s 13 does not apply to the various decisions, actions and conduct to which your application relates and, even if s 13 did apply, your application is too late. Have a nice life.
Then Glen can try to crowd fund a couple of hundred thousand to take CASA to the Federal Court to prove s 13 applies and it was not too late to apply for reasons, and therefore CASA is obliged to provide reasons. Then CASA will provide reasons. Which will help, how, precisely?
Thread Starter
Need assistance to make a video
I have decided to make a video.
I am absolutely convinced that the senior executive within CASA have absolutely no good intent, and will not try and resolve this matter. It is a complicated matter and requires wading through a lot of documentation. The best way forward is to make a 15 minute video.
If anyone has a friend or relative in Melbourne that would be able to assist me with the production, could you please get them to establish contact with me via email [email protected]
I anticipate it will go for 15 minutes. It will predominantly be making a presentation, but i want to embed documents, pictures of Aleck, Martin, Crawford, Carmody etcin the video.
I am prepared to pay $1000 for the filming and required editing. Rather than approach a commercial organisation, i would like to benefit someone via pprune. I have the script and documents ready, and would like to put it together in approximately two weeks. As i am about to start work this week as a water meter reader, it would have to happen on a Saturday or Sunday.
Once finalised i will use it to submit to the Deputy PM, submit to the Senate inquiry, media outlets and post via youtube, where i will promote it. I will call on AOPA to make it available via their website to also make it available.
Quite simply, i am not going away, and will ensure that i gain greater attention to the toxic culture that exists within CASA and brings so much harm to businesses in the GA sector.
So, if you have a friend or relative with the appropriate skills (possibly a Uni student after a bit of an earn), please get them to establish contact.
It will provide an easier to understand overview of the issues facing me and in fact the entire GA industry.
I do want to have a fairly polished presentation, so ideally someone with some expertise in the area.
Cheers all, regards. Glen
I am absolutely convinced that the senior executive within CASA have absolutely no good intent, and will not try and resolve this matter. It is a complicated matter and requires wading through a lot of documentation. The best way forward is to make a 15 minute video.
If anyone has a friend or relative in Melbourne that would be able to assist me with the production, could you please get them to establish contact with me via email [email protected]
I anticipate it will go for 15 minutes. It will predominantly be making a presentation, but i want to embed documents, pictures of Aleck, Martin, Crawford, Carmody etcin the video.
I am prepared to pay $1000 for the filming and required editing. Rather than approach a commercial organisation, i would like to benefit someone via pprune. I have the script and documents ready, and would like to put it together in approximately two weeks. As i am about to start work this week as a water meter reader, it would have to happen on a Saturday or Sunday.
Once finalised i will use it to submit to the Deputy PM, submit to the Senate inquiry, media outlets and post via youtube, where i will promote it. I will call on AOPA to make it available via their website to also make it available.
Quite simply, i am not going away, and will ensure that i gain greater attention to the toxic culture that exists within CASA and brings so much harm to businesses in the GA sector.
So, if you have a friend or relative with the appropriate skills (possibly a Uni student after a bit of an earn), please get them to establish contact.
It will provide an easier to understand overview of the issues facing me and in fact the entire GA industry.
I do want to have a fairly polished presentation, so ideally someone with some expertise in the area.
Cheers all, regards. Glen
You will also need a website that contains supporting documentation and amplifies in more detail what you say in the video. The video directs viewers to the website.
Get someone with skills to vet your script. 15 minutes is too long unless the video contains big breasts.
Get someone with skills to vet your script. 15 minutes is too long unless the video contains big breasts.
Thread Starter
bendalot
well stocked up mate. i’ve got CASRs, CAA, CARs, AIPs, Aviation Rulings, ERSA, DAPS and lots of correspondence from Aleck, Martin and Crawford
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
16th March 2020
Dear Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Michael Mc Cormack,
By now you will be fully aware of my allegations of misconduct by some personnel within CASA. As you will also be aware my intention is to obtain your direct involvement, or a nominee from your Department. I have submitted previous correspondence to your office on these matters, which has not yet been acknowledged or responded to, and I eagerly await your response.
With regards to this correspondence, may I request an acknowledgement from your office that this correspondence has been received. I understand that in order to receive a response from your office, I am required to provide my contact details, please find them below.
Glen Buckley
6 Susan Court Mount Waverley 3149
E. [email protected] P. 0418772013
This matter has wide industry involvement, and I have attached a link that has had in excess of 500,000 visits. https://www.pprune.org/australia-new...ss-v-casa.html
My assertions are well substantiated, and the impact on aviation safety and small businesses operating in the aviation sector is unacceptable, and even more so at this current time when the viability of many small businesses is impacted by the health challenges that Australia is now facing.
You will be aware that several Australian owned businesses have been forced into closure, peoples livelihoods have been impacted, and several business owners have lost their significant investment in the industry as a result of actions and deliberate decisions made by a small group of personnel within CASA. CASA actions have not been based on safety concerns and you will be aware of that.
Below is correspondence that I am simultaneously submitting to Mr Hanton, the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner. I have included you to ensure that you are fully aware of the situation.
There are three components.
The first is my original complaint submitted to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner on 24/02/20.
The second is the Industry Complaints Commissioners preliminary report, and
the third correspondence is my response that I am providing prior to him finalising his report. Please note that this is only one issue amongst many.
Dear Mr Hanton,
I have included my initial complaint, your preliminary report, and the third piece of correspondence, I am submitting to you today (16/03/20) to assist you in arriving at your final report.
Thankyou for your assistance, respectfully, Glen Buckley
MY ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 24/02/20
24/02/20
Dear Mr Hanton,
Please accept my Complaint against Flight Operations Inspector, Mr XXXX XXXXX.
There can be no doubt that "Temporary Locations" have been a procedure in existence throughout my 25 years’ experience in the Industry. If CASA claim to refute that statement i draw your attention that;
1. CASA actually wrote the procedures on all AOCs for flying schools until 2017.
2. CASA mentioned Temporary locations in their own guidance material.
3. APTAs manuals had a Temporary locations procedure that was put into our manuals on the suggestion of CASA.
4. Those procedures were put into our manuals, approved by CASA, and in fact CASA approved those procedures for a number of our bases.
5. CASA actually audited us on those procedures and raised no concerns.
Please also refer to attached correspondence to Mr Craig Martin. I felt that my questions put to Mr Martin were fair and reasonable. I feel that by Mr Martin, choosing not to respond, he has clearly demonstrated a lack of integrity, and ethics. As he has consistently chosen not to respond, i have no option but to submit a complaint in the hope that it will force CASA to act with ethics and integrity by ensuring i am provided with a response.
I have attached previous correspondence that should provide all the information that you require. As this is a relatively minor request, my hope is that it could be attended to promptly.
The Complaint
In the meeting in CASA Offices (November 2018), Mr XXXX XXXXX clearly stated in front of me and two of my staff that;
"I’ve had legal advice that Temporary Locations were not intended for flying schools"
That is not a truthful statement, and coming from a background in the flight training industry, i feel he would have been aware of it at the time he made the statement. I feel he made the false statement to support his intended outcome of bringing harm to me and my business.
Expected Outcome
Therefore, can you please advise if;
CASA did provide legal advice to him that Temporary Locations were not intended for flying schools, or if the statement he made is not truthful.
If Mr XXXXX stands by his assertion, could you identify who it was within CASA that provided him the "legal advice".
If Mr XXXXX asserts that he did not make that statement, please advise if 3 Statutory Declarations by me and my staff would be of any assistance.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Please be aware that i have included Mr Anthony Mathews (CASA Board Chairman) in on this correspondence, and also the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. In doing so, my hope is that i can ensure transparency and accountability going forward.
Thank you, Glen Buckley
PRELIMINARY REPORT FROM CASA INDUSTRY COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER 11/03/20
Dear Glen
Complaint One: Untruthful statement complaint
I refer to your complaint about the conduct of CASA Flight Operations Inspector XXXX XXXXX in a meeting in November 2018.
You allege Mr XXXXX misrepresented that he’d received legal advice that the ‘temporary locations (procedure) was not intended for flying schools.’ You submit Mr XXXXX made this ‘false statement to support his intended outcome of bringing harm to you and your business.’
I can confirm legal advice on the applicability of ‘temporary locations’ to Part 141 and 142 operations was provided by CASA’s Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs branch to Southern Region Certificate Management Team 3 (‘CMT 3’) on 25 September 2018.
The summary of that advice noted:
The concept of a temporary location is not derived from Parts 141 or 142 of the CASR. It is only used in the guidance material and the sample operations manual/exposition for the use of a location rather than a training base for short term (or temporary) use.
The CASR does not permit Part 141 or 142 operators to describe a training base as a temporary location if they are using facilities at the base – if this involves the lack of approval of a significant change.
At this stage, I therefore propose to conclude your allegation against Mr Lacy is unsubstantiated and to take no further action. CMT 3 was in receipt of legal advice that the ‘temporary locations (procedure) was not intended for flying schools’ and therefore at this stage I am satisfied Mr Lacy made no misrepresentations.
Next steps
Please provide any additional submissions you’d like me to consider before I finalise my review of your complaint by 24 March 2020.
If at any stage in the complaints process you’re unhappy with the ICC investigation you’re able to ask the Commonwealth Ombudsman to review CASA’s actions or the ICC's consideration of your concerns. Information about how to make a complaint can be found at www.ombudsman.gov.au. Alternatively, the Ombudsman can be contacted on 1300 362 072.
Yours sincerely
Jonathan Hanton
Industry Complaints Commissioner
MY RESPONSE SUBMITTED TODAY 16/03/20
Dear Mr Hanton,
I recognise that this is your preliminary outcome, therefore can I respectfully request that you consider my response prior to you finalising your report.
I make no allegations that your conduct is less than professional, however I feel that you are being misled by personnel within CASA who may be attempting to achieve a desired outcome and cover up their misconduct. As Mr Jonathan Aleck is in fact one of the CASA personnel that I am making allegations against, and you are drawing on information from him in his role as the Executive Manager Legal and Regulatory Affairs, it could be reasonably assumed that he may be trying to protect his position, and in fact that has been my experience.
I appreciate these are strong statements, but as you will appreciate many millions of dollars of investment in a number of businesses have been lost as a result of decisions made by Mr Aleck and Mr Crawford. There is no proportionality in the decisions made by these gentlemen, as the affected business owners will concur.
Point One.
There are two distinct types of locations that training is delivered from. One being a CASA approved base, being a permanent location, and the other being a Temporary location, where operations are intended for a finite period. The procedure to activate and deactivate the temporary locations is done by the flying school using a procedure that has been previously approved by CASA but does not require specific CASA approval for each activation and deactivation.
Mr XXXX XXXXX specifically made the comment about a Temporary location, not the CASA approved permanent base. Approximately 12 months prior, it was CASA personnel that suggested we utilise a temporary location procedure, and provided the procedure, which we incorporated into our manuals, which were then approved by CASA and subsequently audited by CASA. We had used this procedure on a number of occasions.
In the preliminary finding, on advice, you state:
The CASR does not permit Part 141 or 142 operators to describe a training base as a temporary location if they are using facilities at the base – if this involves the lack of approval of a significant change.
I concur that an operator cannot describe a training base (permanent) as a temporary location, as the temporary location is temporary in nature and has a finite period of operations. Therefore, im not sure if I have missed your point, if so could you please clarify. The fact is that we activated and deactivated bases on finite timelines and issued notices (and included CASA ) to confirm that was our intention. My issues and concerns about CASA conduct relate to Temporary locations.
Point Two
In your response you state that “The concept of a temporary location is not derived from Parts 141 or 142 of the CASR”.
Similarly, im not sure of the pertinence of that statement. It is a procedure that most flying schools have used for decades. It was actually printed by CASA on AOCs. There can be no doubt that it is in fact a procedure. This is further evidenced by the fact that CASA provide the procedure in their own guidance material and the sample Exposition that CASA provide to the flight training industry. Could you clarify that Mr Alecks stance on this matter is that flying schools are not permitted to have a temporary location.
Point Three
We agree that a training base and a temporary location are different bases with different procedures. It appears you are suggesting that a temporary location must have MAXIMUM standards of safety attached to it. i.e. it must be an unprepared strip or similar, with no phone lines available, and has to be remote from assistance etc. If that is the CASA assertion which would be highly unusual, can you please provide further guidance on this matter. For clarity, are there maximum levels of safety attached to Temporary locations, and if so can you direct me to that information?
Point Four
My request is specifically about Temporary locations not training bases. Mr Brad Lacey made the comment that he had legal advice that Temporary locations are not intended for flying schools. As our bases were temporary in nature with nominated start and finish dates, the procedure was recommended by CASA personnel, the procedure had been in existence for decades, the procedure was in CASAs own guidance material, CASA was fully aware we were using Temporary locations, and senior CASA personnel at Executive Manager level had in fact previously been to those locations and commended us on them, my allegation stands.
How can Mr XXXX XXXXX truthfully state that he has had legal advice that Temporary locations are not intended for flying schools. Quite simply, that is a ludicrous statement to make.
Summary
My allegation fully stands that Mr XXXX XXXXX stated that temporary locations are not intended for flying schools. That statement is not truthful. Your preliminary report does not address my allegation. It only clarifies the distinction between permanent training bases and temporary locations.
He claimed he had legal advice, if that was the case, your response has not addressed that particular statement that he made.
You insinuate that temporary locations are not permitted in Part 141/142 and in fact that is not the case.
It is important that this report is finalised on factually correct information and in a truly independent manner. Hopefully my responses have made that task achievable. Please feel free to contact me in writing if you require any further information.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Dear Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Michael Mc Cormack,
By now you will be fully aware of my allegations of misconduct by some personnel within CASA. As you will also be aware my intention is to obtain your direct involvement, or a nominee from your Department. I have submitted previous correspondence to your office on these matters, which has not yet been acknowledged or responded to, and I eagerly await your response.
With regards to this correspondence, may I request an acknowledgement from your office that this correspondence has been received. I understand that in order to receive a response from your office, I am required to provide my contact details, please find them below.
Glen Buckley
6 Susan Court Mount Waverley 3149
E. [email protected] P. 0418772013
This matter has wide industry involvement, and I have attached a link that has had in excess of 500,000 visits. https://www.pprune.org/australia-new...ss-v-casa.html
My assertions are well substantiated, and the impact on aviation safety and small businesses operating in the aviation sector is unacceptable, and even more so at this current time when the viability of many small businesses is impacted by the health challenges that Australia is now facing.
You will be aware that several Australian owned businesses have been forced into closure, peoples livelihoods have been impacted, and several business owners have lost their significant investment in the industry as a result of actions and deliberate decisions made by a small group of personnel within CASA. CASA actions have not been based on safety concerns and you will be aware of that.
Below is correspondence that I am simultaneously submitting to Mr Hanton, the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner. I have included you to ensure that you are fully aware of the situation.
There are three components.
The first is my original complaint submitted to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner on 24/02/20.
The second is the Industry Complaints Commissioners preliminary report, and
the third correspondence is my response that I am providing prior to him finalising his report. Please note that this is only one issue amongst many.
Dear Mr Hanton,
I have included my initial complaint, your preliminary report, and the third piece of correspondence, I am submitting to you today (16/03/20) to assist you in arriving at your final report.
Thankyou for your assistance, respectfully, Glen Buckley
MY ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 24/02/20
24/02/20
Dear Mr Hanton,
Please accept my Complaint against Flight Operations Inspector, Mr XXXX XXXXX.
There can be no doubt that "Temporary Locations" have been a procedure in existence throughout my 25 years’ experience in the Industry. If CASA claim to refute that statement i draw your attention that;
1. CASA actually wrote the procedures on all AOCs for flying schools until 2017.
2. CASA mentioned Temporary locations in their own guidance material.
3. APTAs manuals had a Temporary locations procedure that was put into our manuals on the suggestion of CASA.
4. Those procedures were put into our manuals, approved by CASA, and in fact CASA approved those procedures for a number of our bases.
5. CASA actually audited us on those procedures and raised no concerns.
Please also refer to attached correspondence to Mr Craig Martin. I felt that my questions put to Mr Martin were fair and reasonable. I feel that by Mr Martin, choosing not to respond, he has clearly demonstrated a lack of integrity, and ethics. As he has consistently chosen not to respond, i have no option but to submit a complaint in the hope that it will force CASA to act with ethics and integrity by ensuring i am provided with a response.
I have attached previous correspondence that should provide all the information that you require. As this is a relatively minor request, my hope is that it could be attended to promptly.
The Complaint
In the meeting in CASA Offices (November 2018), Mr XXXX XXXXX clearly stated in front of me and two of my staff that;
"I’ve had legal advice that Temporary Locations were not intended for flying schools"
That is not a truthful statement, and coming from a background in the flight training industry, i feel he would have been aware of it at the time he made the statement. I feel he made the false statement to support his intended outcome of bringing harm to me and my business.
Expected Outcome
Therefore, can you please advise if;
CASA did provide legal advice to him that Temporary Locations were not intended for flying schools, or if the statement he made is not truthful.
If Mr XXXXX stands by his assertion, could you identify who it was within CASA that provided him the "legal advice".
If Mr XXXXX asserts that he did not make that statement, please advise if 3 Statutory Declarations by me and my staff would be of any assistance.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Please be aware that i have included Mr Anthony Mathews (CASA Board Chairman) in on this correspondence, and also the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. In doing so, my hope is that i can ensure transparency and accountability going forward.
Thank you, Glen Buckley
PRELIMINARY REPORT FROM CASA INDUSTRY COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER 11/03/20
Dear Glen
Complaint One: Untruthful statement complaint
I refer to your complaint about the conduct of CASA Flight Operations Inspector XXXX XXXXX in a meeting in November 2018.
You allege Mr XXXXX misrepresented that he’d received legal advice that the ‘temporary locations (procedure) was not intended for flying schools.’ You submit Mr XXXXX made this ‘false statement to support his intended outcome of bringing harm to you and your business.’
I can confirm legal advice on the applicability of ‘temporary locations’ to Part 141 and 142 operations was provided by CASA’s Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs branch to Southern Region Certificate Management Team 3 (‘CMT 3’) on 25 September 2018.
The summary of that advice noted:
The concept of a temporary location is not derived from Parts 141 or 142 of the CASR. It is only used in the guidance material and the sample operations manual/exposition for the use of a location rather than a training base for short term (or temporary) use.
The CASR does not permit Part 141 or 142 operators to describe a training base as a temporary location if they are using facilities at the base – if this involves the lack of approval of a significant change.
At this stage, I therefore propose to conclude your allegation against Mr Lacy is unsubstantiated and to take no further action. CMT 3 was in receipt of legal advice that the ‘temporary locations (procedure) was not intended for flying schools’ and therefore at this stage I am satisfied Mr Lacy made no misrepresentations.
Next steps
Please provide any additional submissions you’d like me to consider before I finalise my review of your complaint by 24 March 2020.
If at any stage in the complaints process you’re unhappy with the ICC investigation you’re able to ask the Commonwealth Ombudsman to review CASA’s actions or the ICC's consideration of your concerns. Information about how to make a complaint can be found at www.ombudsman.gov.au. Alternatively, the Ombudsman can be contacted on 1300 362 072.
Yours sincerely
Jonathan Hanton
Industry Complaints Commissioner
MY RESPONSE SUBMITTED TODAY 16/03/20
Dear Mr Hanton,
I recognise that this is your preliminary outcome, therefore can I respectfully request that you consider my response prior to you finalising your report.
I make no allegations that your conduct is less than professional, however I feel that you are being misled by personnel within CASA who may be attempting to achieve a desired outcome and cover up their misconduct. As Mr Jonathan Aleck is in fact one of the CASA personnel that I am making allegations against, and you are drawing on information from him in his role as the Executive Manager Legal and Regulatory Affairs, it could be reasonably assumed that he may be trying to protect his position, and in fact that has been my experience.
I appreciate these are strong statements, but as you will appreciate many millions of dollars of investment in a number of businesses have been lost as a result of decisions made by Mr Aleck and Mr Crawford. There is no proportionality in the decisions made by these gentlemen, as the affected business owners will concur.
Point One.
There are two distinct types of locations that training is delivered from. One being a CASA approved base, being a permanent location, and the other being a Temporary location, where operations are intended for a finite period. The procedure to activate and deactivate the temporary locations is done by the flying school using a procedure that has been previously approved by CASA but does not require specific CASA approval for each activation and deactivation.
Mr XXXX XXXXX specifically made the comment about a Temporary location, not the CASA approved permanent base. Approximately 12 months prior, it was CASA personnel that suggested we utilise a temporary location procedure, and provided the procedure, which we incorporated into our manuals, which were then approved by CASA and subsequently audited by CASA. We had used this procedure on a number of occasions.
In the preliminary finding, on advice, you state:
The CASR does not permit Part 141 or 142 operators to describe a training base as a temporary location if they are using facilities at the base – if this involves the lack of approval of a significant change.
I concur that an operator cannot describe a training base (permanent) as a temporary location, as the temporary location is temporary in nature and has a finite period of operations. Therefore, im not sure if I have missed your point, if so could you please clarify. The fact is that we activated and deactivated bases on finite timelines and issued notices (and included CASA ) to confirm that was our intention. My issues and concerns about CASA conduct relate to Temporary locations.
Point Two
In your response you state that “The concept of a temporary location is not derived from Parts 141 or 142 of the CASR”.
Similarly, im not sure of the pertinence of that statement. It is a procedure that most flying schools have used for decades. It was actually printed by CASA on AOCs. There can be no doubt that it is in fact a procedure. This is further evidenced by the fact that CASA provide the procedure in their own guidance material and the sample Exposition that CASA provide to the flight training industry. Could you clarify that Mr Alecks stance on this matter is that flying schools are not permitted to have a temporary location.
Point Three
We agree that a training base and a temporary location are different bases with different procedures. It appears you are suggesting that a temporary location must have MAXIMUM standards of safety attached to it. i.e. it must be an unprepared strip or similar, with no phone lines available, and has to be remote from assistance etc. If that is the CASA assertion which would be highly unusual, can you please provide further guidance on this matter. For clarity, are there maximum levels of safety attached to Temporary locations, and if so can you direct me to that information?
Point Four
My request is specifically about Temporary locations not training bases. Mr Brad Lacey made the comment that he had legal advice that Temporary locations are not intended for flying schools. As our bases were temporary in nature with nominated start and finish dates, the procedure was recommended by CASA personnel, the procedure had been in existence for decades, the procedure was in CASAs own guidance material, CASA was fully aware we were using Temporary locations, and senior CASA personnel at Executive Manager level had in fact previously been to those locations and commended us on them, my allegation stands.
How can Mr XXXX XXXXX truthfully state that he has had legal advice that Temporary locations are not intended for flying schools. Quite simply, that is a ludicrous statement to make.
Summary
My allegation fully stands that Mr XXXX XXXXX stated that temporary locations are not intended for flying schools. That statement is not truthful. Your preliminary report does not address my allegation. It only clarifies the distinction between permanent training bases and temporary locations.
He claimed he had legal advice, if that was the case, your response has not addressed that particular statement that he made.
You insinuate that temporary locations are not permitted in Part 141/142 and in fact that is not the case.
It is important that this report is finalised on factually correct information and in a truly independent manner. Hopefully my responses have made that task achievable. Please feel free to contact me in writing if you require any further information.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Last edited by glenb; 16th Mar 2020 at 07:26.
Thread Starter
CASAS direction that my continuing employment was "untenable"
For those of you that have been following this rather complicated story, you will be aware that after CASA placed restrictions on my businesses ability to trade, that were not based on any safety concerns, or on any regulatory breaches but for "other" reasons. Most likely in my opinion they allowed their prejudices to interfere with sound and professional decision making, but that is not the point of this particular post.
After selling the business at a fraction of its value to ensure i could meet the staff salaries, i also secured employment with the new owners of the business. That lasted until the CASA Region Manger directed my employer that my position was untenable based on comments that i was making publicly. In my opinion the Region manager way overstepped his authority, and that will be "tested".
Unfortunately when CASA choose to take such action it has significant damage on ones reputation and potentially makes it difficult to secure employment in the industry. I was talking to a "friend" about this, and i thought i might be interested in seeing if my situation is unique.
From my own experience i know of people who have had their reputation tarnished by CASA actions. I would be very "interested" to hear on here,
or by Private Message if this is widespread. I know when i have put names forward to CASA, i get a roll of the eyes or feedback that person isn't a CASA favorite. In fact on one occasion CASA made it quite obvious that someone i had selected shouldn't be considered. One of my senior personnel intervened and advised me that i should give that person a chance despite CASA reservations. I took his wise and well intentioned advice, because as he pointed out. If i didn't give him the opportunity he would never get the opportunity. Im pleased to say it was a good decision, and that person remains someone i trust and respect many years later.
So if you have had your career or reputation impacted by personnel making inappropriate comments to a third party that have damaged your reputation or employability i would very much value your input. I am exposing CASA here on this rumor network, but appreciate this may be best dealt with via a PM and will leave that to your discretion. Thankyou.
I would like to demonstrate to my friend that this is in fact very much part of the way CASA operate. Cheers. Glen
After selling the business at a fraction of its value to ensure i could meet the staff salaries, i also secured employment with the new owners of the business. That lasted until the CASA Region Manger directed my employer that my position was untenable based on comments that i was making publicly. In my opinion the Region manager way overstepped his authority, and that will be "tested".
Unfortunately when CASA choose to take such action it has significant damage on ones reputation and potentially makes it difficult to secure employment in the industry. I was talking to a "friend" about this, and i thought i might be interested in seeing if my situation is unique.
From my own experience i know of people who have had their reputation tarnished by CASA actions. I would be very "interested" to hear on here,
or by Private Message if this is widespread. I know when i have put names forward to CASA, i get a roll of the eyes or feedback that person isn't a CASA favorite. In fact on one occasion CASA made it quite obvious that someone i had selected shouldn't be considered. One of my senior personnel intervened and advised me that i should give that person a chance despite CASA reservations. I took his wise and well intentioned advice, because as he pointed out. If i didn't give him the opportunity he would never get the opportunity. Im pleased to say it was a good decision, and that person remains someone i trust and respect many years later.
So if you have had your career or reputation impacted by personnel making inappropriate comments to a third party that have damaged your reputation or employability i would very much value your input. I am exposing CASA here on this rumor network, but appreciate this may be best dealt with via a PM and will leave that to your discretion. Thankyou.
I would like to demonstrate to my friend that this is in fact very much part of the way CASA operate. Cheers. Glen
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glen, within the reg's is the old "Fit and Proper Person" clause, it's a sort of Catch 22 trap.
Who decides who is fit and proper?
From an industry perspective who in CAsA is fit and proper?
You may not know you have been branded "Not fit and proper" until suddenly you find approvals you have applied for suddenly take an inordinate amount of time to resolve or people in industry suddenly stop talking to you, as has been your experience. You may get hints that nefarious individuals within the regulator have been making clandestine phone calls, your lucky actually, you actually found written proof of such goings on. I know of people who have actually been pursued overseas by certain individuals within CAsA. Its very hard to prove, its a brave person who would give evidence of that lest they to get branded as not fit and proper.
Who decides who is fit and proper?
From an industry perspective who in CAsA is fit and proper?
You may not know you have been branded "Not fit and proper" until suddenly you find approvals you have applied for suddenly take an inordinate amount of time to resolve or people in industry suddenly stop talking to you, as has been your experience. You may get hints that nefarious individuals within the regulator have been making clandestine phone calls, your lucky actually, you actually found written proof of such goings on. I know of people who have actually been pursued overseas by certain individuals within CAsA. Its very hard to prove, its a brave person who would give evidence of that lest they to get branded as not fit and proper.
Last edited by thorn bird; 21st Mar 2020 at 21:09.
Thread Starter
The CASA engineered cover up. Its a tough battle
22/03/20
Dear Mr Hanton, CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner,
I have received your final findings regarding my compliant that CASA Flight Operations Inspector, Mr XXXX XXXX advised my Company that “He had legal advice that temporary locations are not intended for flying schools”.
You supported your findings with the following statement (my bolding)
“It is clear that CASR requires any facility from which the operator conducts flying training to be treated as a training base….., any place where there is a building or structure that the operator uses, no matter how briefly, in the provision of training must be treated as a training base.”
Mr Hanton, quite simply that statement is not factual/truthful. For clarity the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations do not state that, and I must insist that you direct me to that legislation if you maintain the position that the regulations do state that.
I have a fair and reasonable expectation that your office will arrive at decisions, based on fact. As an Industry stakeholder I am entitled to that level of integrity in the process. If your office claims that to be fact, it is more than reasonable that I require you to direct me to that legislation.
I further draw your attention to the following information. There can be no doubt that the procedure of a Temporary location is actually intended for flying schools, and clear evidence of that can be found in the Technical Assessors handbook at C 2.5b which can be found via the following link www.casa.gov.au/files/casr-part-141-teachnical-assess-guidpdf This is a publication written and intended for flying schools
Similarly the CASA provided Part 141 Sample Operations Manual addresses Temporary locations at A 1.6.4 https://www.casa.gov.au/files/casr-p...ons-manual-v30. This is a publication written by CASA and intended for flying schools
I also add that our manuals that were designed in conjunction with CASA, approved by CASA and subsequently audited by CASA had comprehensive procedures on Temporary locations, and our procedures were comprehensive and far exceeded the CASA minimum requirements.
Finally I add that most of Australia’s flying schools had approved procedures for Temporary locations, and in fact CASA printed the procedures on AOCs, prior to formalising the procedures in the above documents. I can provide a copy of my expired AOC if you dispute that fact.
For clarity, it is absurd that a CASA Flight Operations Inspector would advise that he has had “legal advice that Temporary locations are not intended for flying schools.”
For clarity, I stand by my assertion that the FOI was not being truthful and was not acting with good intent or integrity. If he did receive that advice, which is highly unlikely, you should be able to nominate the person within CASA that provided him with that advice. Mr Jonathan Aleck as the Executive Manager of Legal and Regulatory Affairs would be the person that most likely provided that advice or would be able to identify the individual within his Department that did.
You are aware that the CASA action has personally left me destitute, resulted in the loss of my own business, and the closure of several other businesses.
I am very much of the opinion that there is a “cover up” within CASA. I make no suggestion that you are complicit in that misconduct, but I do have a reasonable expectation that your office will act with integrity to achieve a fair outcome.
Please note, that I have included the Chairperson of the CASA Board in on this correspondence. I have also included the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael Mc Cormack in on this correspondence and as is his Departments requirements, I have included my name, address and contact details.
I look forward to advice on your intended course of action.
For clarity.
Did the CASA Flight Operations Inspector receive legal advice that Temporary locations were not intended for flying schools, and if he did, please nominate the person who provided that advice, and is prepared to “stand” behind that advice and be accountable for it.
I hope you appreciate my frustration, but CASA does operate under the Australian Coat of Arms, and that suggests to me that the highest standards will be upheld.
Respectfully
Glen Buckley
6 Susan Court, Mount Waverley
Phone 0418772013
Dear Mr Hanton, CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner,
I have received your final findings regarding my compliant that CASA Flight Operations Inspector, Mr XXXX XXXX advised my Company that “He had legal advice that temporary locations are not intended for flying schools”.
You supported your findings with the following statement (my bolding)
“It is clear that CASR requires any facility from which the operator conducts flying training to be treated as a training base….., any place where there is a building or structure that the operator uses, no matter how briefly, in the provision of training must be treated as a training base.”
Mr Hanton, quite simply that statement is not factual/truthful. For clarity the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations do not state that, and I must insist that you direct me to that legislation if you maintain the position that the regulations do state that.
I have a fair and reasonable expectation that your office will arrive at decisions, based on fact. As an Industry stakeholder I am entitled to that level of integrity in the process. If your office claims that to be fact, it is more than reasonable that I require you to direct me to that legislation.
I further draw your attention to the following information. There can be no doubt that the procedure of a Temporary location is actually intended for flying schools, and clear evidence of that can be found in the Technical Assessors handbook at C 2.5b which can be found via the following link www.casa.gov.au/files/casr-part-141-teachnical-assess-guidpdf This is a publication written and intended for flying schools
Similarly the CASA provided Part 141 Sample Operations Manual addresses Temporary locations at A 1.6.4 https://www.casa.gov.au/files/casr-p...ons-manual-v30. This is a publication written by CASA and intended for flying schools
I also add that our manuals that were designed in conjunction with CASA, approved by CASA and subsequently audited by CASA had comprehensive procedures on Temporary locations, and our procedures were comprehensive and far exceeded the CASA minimum requirements.
Finally I add that most of Australia’s flying schools had approved procedures for Temporary locations, and in fact CASA printed the procedures on AOCs, prior to formalising the procedures in the above documents. I can provide a copy of my expired AOC if you dispute that fact.
For clarity, it is absurd that a CASA Flight Operations Inspector would advise that he has had “legal advice that Temporary locations are not intended for flying schools.”
For clarity, I stand by my assertion that the FOI was not being truthful and was not acting with good intent or integrity. If he did receive that advice, which is highly unlikely, you should be able to nominate the person within CASA that provided him with that advice. Mr Jonathan Aleck as the Executive Manager of Legal and Regulatory Affairs would be the person that most likely provided that advice or would be able to identify the individual within his Department that did.
You are aware that the CASA action has personally left me destitute, resulted in the loss of my own business, and the closure of several other businesses.
I am very much of the opinion that there is a “cover up” within CASA. I make no suggestion that you are complicit in that misconduct, but I do have a reasonable expectation that your office will act with integrity to achieve a fair outcome.
Please note, that I have included the Chairperson of the CASA Board in on this correspondence. I have also included the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael Mc Cormack in on this correspondence and as is his Departments requirements, I have included my name, address and contact details.
I look forward to advice on your intended course of action.
For clarity.
Did the CASA Flight Operations Inspector receive legal advice that Temporary locations were not intended for flying schools, and if he did, please nominate the person who provided that advice, and is prepared to “stand” behind that advice and be accountable for it.
I hope you appreciate my frustration, but CASA does operate under the Australian Coat of Arms, and that suggests to me that the highest standards will be upheld.
Respectfully
Glen Buckley
6 Susan Court, Mount Waverley
Phone 0418772013
Glen, you are wasting your time. The whole coronavirus pandemic is going to drown out your complaints. GA as we know it and aviation in general is going to be very different in a few years, if it exists at all. The reason is that in what is going to be a depressed economy, no one will have the money to start up a new aviation business if it involves the current financial burden of compliance. In other words,
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glen, you are wasting your time. The whole coronavirus pandemic is going to drown out your complaints. GA as we know it and aviation in general is going to be very different in a few years, if it exists at all. The reason is that in what is going to be a depressed economy, no one will have the money to start up a new aviation business if it involves the current financial burden of compliance. In other words,
I’ve been through an ISO quality system approval as a general manager of a small OEM automotive manufacturing company. That was a huge task back in 1990. When I look at the CASA MOS of what is required to get an AOC or become an approved maintenance organisation in the way of paperwork and systems,
I assess that the task these days is ten times harder and more expensive today than I experienced.
From that, I don’t see how a greenfield organisation could set up without a huge amount of capital investment and manhours in paperwork.
Then add on the business risk associated with dealing with CASA, as evidenced by what allegedly happened to Glen Buckley and probably others, and it is not a very attractive new investment at all.
That suggests that as organizations go under, they won’t be replaced by new entrants.
I assess that the task these days is ten times harder and more expensive today than I experienced.
From that, I don’t see how a greenfield organisation could set up without a huge amount of capital investment and manhours in paperwork.
Then add on the business risk associated with dealing with CASA, as evidenced by what allegedly happened to Glen Buckley and probably others, and it is not a very attractive new investment at all.
That suggests that as organizations go under, they won’t be replaced by new entrants.
short flights long nights
With the present state of the world, Sunfish, we may not require any new companies. In fact., we may not have any old ones. CASA may have no reason to be shortly. They may have got their wish.. safe skies are empty skies.
Thread Starter
A quick update
There are a number of issues, but initially the Commonwealth Ombudsman was investigating Mr Jason Mc Heyzers (CASA Region Manager- Southern Region) direction that my continuing employment was unteanable based on comments that I was making publicly. My assumption is that those comments were made here on Pprune because that is the only place I was making any comments. As you are aware that lead to my employment being terminated. I had a significant issue with this because the impact on me and my family was obviously significant, and I now work as a water meter reader on a significantly less than Australian average income. Had his direction been made on safety grounds or regulatory breaches I may not have taken such exception. I felt that he had significantly overstepped his authority and abused his power. I submitted my complaint to the Ombudsman who appears to have uncovered other matters of concern. I wrote to him for an update and recently received this response. I will write further over the weekend, but for the time being I have to hit the road and get reading water meters. I would hate for any of you not to get your water bills on time.
"Dear Mr Buckley
Thank you for your email of this morning.
I have drafted a preliminary view on a number of issues and require higher-level sign-off before sending to CASA. It is a series of issues that do not address the alleged role in the termination of your employment but go to the matters leading up to it. Once sent to CASA, it will have 30 days to respond, although the COVID-19 issue may affect that.
Your case is at our “Category 4” which indicates a degree of complexity beyond what is normal.
In the circumstances I cannot give you an approximation as to when my inquiry will be finalised.
Yours sincerely
"Dear Mr Buckley
Thank you for your email of this morning.
I have drafted a preliminary view on a number of issues and require higher-level sign-off before sending to CASA. It is a series of issues that do not address the alleged role in the termination of your employment but go to the matters leading up to it. Once sent to CASA, it will have 30 days to respond, although the COVID-19 issue may affect that.
Your case is at our “Category 4” which indicates a degree of complexity beyond what is normal.
In the circumstances I cannot give you an approximation as to when my inquiry will be finalised.
Yours sincerely
There are a number of issues, but initially the Commonwealth Ombudsman was investigating Mr Jason Mc Heyzers (CASA Region Manager- Southern Region) direction that my continuing employment was unteanable based on comments that I was making publicly. My assumption is that those comments were made here on Pprune because that is the only place I was making any comments. As you are aware that lead to my employment being terminated. I had a significant issue with this because the impact on me and my family was obviously significant, and I now work as a water meter reader on a significantly less than Australian average income. Had his direction been made on safety grounds or regulatory breaches I may not have taken such exception. I felt that he had significantly overstepped his authority and abused his power. I submitted my complaint to the Ombudsman who appears to have uncovered other matters of concern. I wrote to him for an update and recently received this response. I will write further over the weekend, but for the time being I have to hit the road and get reading water meters. I would hate for any of you not to get your water bills on time.
"Dear Mr Buckley
Thank you for your email of this morning.
I have drafted a preliminary view on a number of issues and require higher-level sign-off before sending to CASA. It is a series of issues that do not address the alleged role in the termination of your employment but go to the matters leading up to it. Once sent to CASA, it will have 30 days to respond, although the COVID-19 issue may affect that.
Your case is at our “Category 4” which indicates a degree of complexity beyond what is normal.
In the circumstances I cannot give you an approximation as to when my inquiry will be finalised.
Yours sincerely
"Dear Mr Buckley
Thank you for your email of this morning.
I have drafted a preliminary view on a number of issues and require higher-level sign-off before sending to CASA. It is a series of issues that do not address the alleged role in the termination of your employment but go to the matters leading up to it. Once sent to CASA, it will have 30 days to respond, although the COVID-19 issue may affect that.
Your case is at our “Category 4” which indicates a degree of complexity beyond what is normal.
In the circumstances I cannot give you an approximation as to when my inquiry will be finalised.
Yours sincerely
stuck with it.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glen;
”I would hate for any of you not to get your water bills on time”.
I must admit, that put a huge smile on my face. You’ve got a great sense of humour Glen. Hang in there. You never know mate, with the Government under the pump and also giving away money hand over fist, they might slip you a few mil to see the back of you! It wouldn’t be Justice in the sense that you are seeking, but it may be a way for them to discard some excess bagggage that keeps sticking to them. Who knows, you could get an apology too and perhaps McShisen will resign! Oh the joy says Glen.
Anyway, even though I don’t live in your region I will have a silent giggle and sit on the deck with a beer and think of you when my next water bill arrives in the mail. Cheers
”I would hate for any of you not to get your water bills on time”.
I must admit, that put a huge smile on my face. You’ve got a great sense of humour Glen. Hang in there. You never know mate, with the Government under the pump and also giving away money hand over fist, they might slip you a few mil to see the back of you! It wouldn’t be Justice in the sense that you are seeking, but it may be a way for them to discard some excess bagggage that keeps sticking to them. Who knows, you could get an apology too and perhaps McShisen will resign! Oh the joy says Glen.
Anyway, even though I don’t live in your region I will have a silent giggle and sit on the deck with a beer and think of you when my next water bill arrives in the mail. Cheers