Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA

Old 14th Feb 2021, 22:44
  #1541 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 55
Posts: 637
Cheers Sunfish

Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
Perhaps consider:

Copy to ICAO and FAA.

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

If you do,

Do it fast today before CASA responds.

People should consider saving this page in case it disappears.

BTW your PM box is full.
Working on this all day, currently working on letter to kids school to halt bankruptcy ( a big priority today),

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

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

Best contact [email protected]
glenb is online now  
Old 14th Feb 2021, 23:28
  #1542 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 68
Posts: 180
Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
Perhaps consider: Copy to ICAO and FAA.
The FAA couldn’t give a rats arse about what Australia does. Their level of incompetence and politics is even worse than ours. Look no further than the 737 MAX debacle. As for ICAO, another mob of toothless bastards that are way to busy sitting in their Montreal palace writing one sentence rules and then sending them to States like Australia and saying; “you work out how to do it and comply with what we want you to do” with minimal to no guidance. Their posturing and fence sitting over MH370 was and still is a disgrace.

You could take the FAA, ICAO, CASA and put them all through a trommel and what you get out the other side is only good for using on your garden patch.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2021, 02:05
  #1543 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 55
Posts: 637
Definition of an employee and Direct operational control

I will refer to this correspondence regarding CASAs definitions i.e. employees and direct operational control later once these attachments have been approved. Cheers. Glen
Attached Files
glenb is online now  
Old 19th Feb 2021, 07:05
  #1544 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,370
CASA just made it up, Glen. CASA's position is, in effect, that it's the 'vibe' of Parts 141 and 142 (backed up with an incorrect assertion about the law of agency).
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2021, 10:47
  #1545 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 0
Glen, if this is a true statement of affairs, then it is utter crap on CASA's part. What CASA are willfully ignoring is what is called in the military: "The Chain Of Command" - a series of interlocking delegated authorities codified in law.

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

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

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

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

I can see why CASA would do this being cynical. They don't get to bully individual schools under the APTA model. Either they argue with APTA - a bigger customer, or shut up. If they catch a school stuffing up, then they report it to APTA and APTA deals with it to CASAs satisfaction.. What could be simpler?
Sunfish is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2021, 12:14
  #1546 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 55
Posts: 637
Third correspondence to Ombudsman - Attachments in post 1543

19/02/21



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



Dear Mark, Complaints Resolution Officer, Commonwealth Ombudsman Office,

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



Relevant Information



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to Prune: A chat forum on my matter that has over 1500 comments, and ¾ million visits; Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums



Executive Summary



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Initial impact of the CASA action



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

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

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

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

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



Further Information



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

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

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



Ongoing Impact of CASA Action



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

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

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

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

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

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



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



Cheers. Glen Buckley

glenb is online now  
Old 19th Feb 2021, 20:01
  #1547 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,370
Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
Glen, if this is a true statement of affairs, then it is utter crap on CASA's part. ..
Here is the key passage from correspondence from CASA to Glen:
The operational and organisational arrangement contemplated by CASR 141 [and Part 142] are based on a conventional business model, under which all of the operational activities conducted by the authorisation holder are carried out, for and behalf of the authorisation holder by persons employed by, and in all respects as agents of, the authorisation holder.
I note, as I noted earlier, that, remarkably, not a single legislative provision is cited to support that assertion. It is, in effect, merely an assertion about the 'vibe' of Parts 141 and 142.

It is regulation conjured in the mind of a complicator.

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

Glen added a clause to the contracts with APTA members, to make clear that APTA had regulatory aviation safety responsibility for their activities. CASA then demanded:
[A] tabular legend, showing how and where the actions called up under each applicable provision of the civil aviation legislation germane to the conduct of operations under CASR Part 141 [and Part 142] are effectively addressed in the terms of the contractual agreement(s).
That was, as a matter of practicality, the death knell for the APTA model.

Last edited by Lead Balloon; 19th Feb 2021 at 20:14.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2021, 20:38
  #1548 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 55
Posts: 637
Lead Balloon

FYI, you are very much on my Christmas card list!
glenb is online now  
Old 19th Feb 2021, 20:42
  #1549 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 55
Posts: 637
Part 141 and 142

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

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

it’s all about intent

Last edited by glenb; 19th Feb 2021 at 21:12.
glenb is online now  
Old 19th Feb 2021, 21:40
  #1550 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 0
Quick question. I understand CASA is looking to recruit and appoint a new DAS/CEO...

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

What person would take the job with this steaming turd of a case hanging overhead?
Sunfish is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2021, 21:47
  #1551 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,370
The sort of person who will be able to say, with a straight face, that what was done to Glen was necessary in the interests of the safety of air navigation. Might even believe it (which would be scary).
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2021, 12:01
  #1552 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 0
My opinion, is that any appointee who does NOT have a plan to favorably resolve this dispute has automatically destroyed their credibility and what is left of CASA's credibility if Glen is to be believed..
Sunfish is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 01:45
  #1553 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 690
Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
My opinion, is that any appointee who does NOT have a plan to favorably resolve this dispute has automatically destroyed their credibility and what is left of CASA's credibility if Glen is to be believed..
Seriously, I don't think that they are overly worried about their credibility!
Chris2303 is online now  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 23:31
  #1554 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 55
Posts: 637
The APTA Agreement- What APTA was.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CASA. Its all about "intent"
Attached Files
File Type: pdf
glenb is online now  
Old 23rd Feb 2021, 21:43
  #1555 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 55
Posts: 637
CASAS AVIATION SAFETY COMMITTEE

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

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

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

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

Under Freedom of Information can you please advise

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

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

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



The ASC produced 11 sector safety risk profiles, which are in various stages of completion in accordance with the Sector Safety Risk Profile Program. The program further informs surveillance planning through the National Surveillance Selection Plan. The governance of aviation regulatory and safety risk is managed by the ASC. The ASC met 11 times during the reporting period. The ASC reviews civil aviation safety incidents and accidents and surveillance findings which can lead to the revision of the sector safety risk profiles and/or the launch of sector-specific education activities.
glenb is online now  
Old 25th Feb 2021, 00:25
  #1556 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 55
Posts: 637
My letter to CASA Board and receipt acknowledged.

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



Request of CASA Board for a Statement of Reasons




Link to CASAs full Regulatory Philosophy. Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)

Link to PPRuNe Post #1546.Correspondence to Ombudsman describing the matter. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 78 - PPRuNe Forums





24/02/21



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

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

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

At every stage of the regulatory activities in which CASA engages-from contemplating the need to make a rule or impose a requirement, to the application of a rule or requirement-and to the fullest extent possible in the circumstances, CASA will ensure that everyone whose rights, interests, and legitimate expectations will, or are likely to, be affected by CASA's contemplated actions has access to information and advice about:
  • what it is CASA proposes to do
  • why CASA is proposing to do so
  • what considerations CASA has taken into account in forming its view on the matter to hand
  • what alternatives (if any) had been considered and why those alternatives had been ruled out
  • what the effects of the proposed actions are expected to be and
  • what recourse is available to persons who are, or are likely to be, affected by the proposed action.
CASA will ensure that the information and advice it provides to the aviation community, generally and in individual cases, is:
  • clear and concise, using plain language and concepts wherever possible
  • correct and complete, authoritatively informed and fully informative
  • responsive to the questions or issues to hand and
  • timely.”
To the purpose of this correspondence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Why CASA made that determination?

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

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

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

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

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



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



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





Respectfully, Glen Buckley
glenb is online now  
Old 25th Feb 2021, 01:05
  #1557 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 55
Posts: 637
The media reccommendation

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

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

Thankyou and i have sent an email. Cheers.
glenb is online now  
Old 25th Feb 2021, 02:20
  #1558 (permalink)  
pcx
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 96
I'm wondering if it would be possible to subpoena some one from CASA to appear in one of your upcoming court cases to assist the court in understanding how this whole situation came about.
pcx is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2021, 21:00
  #1559 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 55
Posts: 637
PCX

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

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

Thanks for taking the time to post, cheers. Glen
glenb is online now  
Old 1st Mar 2021, 00:27
  #1560 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 55
Posts: 637
Subpoena a CASA Employee for the upcoming court case?

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


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




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



May I respectfully make a request for your consideration?



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



Respectfully, Glen Buckley












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



Request of CASA Board for a Statement of Reasons

Link to CASAs full Regulatory Philosophy. Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)

Link to PPRuNe Post #1546.Correspondence to Ombudsman describing the matter. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 78 - PPRuNe Forums


“24/02/21

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Why CASA made that determination?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully, Glen Buckley”
glenb is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.