Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The matter is only ‘closed’ from the correspondent’s point of view.
Charges from a court of law against the accused will very quickly ‘open’ matters. That’s where it counts...
Charges from a court of law against the accused will very quickly ‘open’ matters. That’s where it counts...
I reiterate my advice to you of 23 August 2019 that I will not enter into ongoing dialogue with you on the issues you have raised previously, as they have been dealt with and considered closed from CASA’s perspective.
That seems to amount to a statement by Carmody that communication between CASA and Glen has now irretrievably broken down. And by doing so, Carmody therefore seems to have firmly slammed the door shut on Alternative Dispute Resolution.
Under those circumstances, I think that Carmody's just shot himself in the foot (and I don't think it will be the last time, either), and that it will be really very interesting to see how his arrogant and intransigent stance will be taken into account by the Court when it finally gets around to addressing the matter of costs.
Re: link 778, CASA have said the matter is closed.
The PM will always support his Lieutenants and the there ends the saga.
If you want to change something, rally support in all minor held Liberal seats; you have to grab the bastards by the balls! That's the only language they understand!
The PM will always support his Lieutenants and the there ends the saga.
If you want to change something, rally support in all minor held Liberal seats; you have to grab the bastards by the balls! That's the only language they understand!
In order for "it" to go to court, "it" has to be a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator changing its mind is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator being incompetent is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator being stupid is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator being an arsehole is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator being a pompous prick is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
What you have to do, for example, is apply for a certificate and have it refused by the regulator, then seek judicial or merits review of that refusal. The refusal by a regulator to grant you something you've applied for and the regulator can grant you is a cause of action recognised by law. It may well be that in the course of the review some relevant matter about the lawfullness and the merits of the regulator's decision arises as a consequence of the regulator being incompetent, stupid, an arsehole or a pompous prick.
As another example, someone may have reasonably relied, to their detriment, on representations made on behalf of a regulator. Someone may make very important and expensive business decisions on the basis of representations by a regulator - which representations may include silence when the regulator should have said something - to the effect that the person's arrangements were in compliance with the law and would be certified. If it turns out the regulator led the person down an expensive 'garden path', the person may have an action in negligent misstatement. It is here that the prevaricators, the incompetents, the stupid, the arseholes and the pompous pricks occasionally get regulators into trouble.
Purely hypothetically of course.
A regulator changing its mind is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator being incompetent is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator being stupid is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator being an arsehole is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator being a pompous prick is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
What you have to do, for example, is apply for a certificate and have it refused by the regulator, then seek judicial or merits review of that refusal. The refusal by a regulator to grant you something you've applied for and the regulator can grant you is a cause of action recognised by law. It may well be that in the course of the review some relevant matter about the lawfullness and the merits of the regulator's decision arises as a consequence of the regulator being incompetent, stupid, an arsehole or a pompous prick.
As another example, someone may have reasonably relied, to their detriment, on representations made on behalf of a regulator. Someone may make very important and expensive business decisions on the basis of representations by a regulator - which representations may include silence when the regulator should have said something - to the effect that the person's arrangements were in compliance with the law and would be certified. If it turns out the regulator led the person down an expensive 'garden path', the person may have an action in negligent misstatement. It is here that the prevaricators, the incompetents, the stupid, the arseholes and the pompous pricks occasionally get regulators into trouble.
Purely hypothetically of course.
In order for "it" to go to court, "it" has to be a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator changing its mind is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator being incompetent is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator being stupid is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator being an arsehole is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator being a pompous prick is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
What you have to do, for example, is apply for a certificate and have it refused by the regulator, then seek judicial or merits review of that refusal. The refusal by a regulator to grant you something you've applied for and the regulator can grant you is a cause of action recognised by law. It may well be that in the course of the review some relevant matter about the lawfullness and the merits of the regulator's decision arises as a consequence of the regulator being incompetent, stupid, an arsehole or a pompous prick.
As another example, someone may have reasonably relied, to their detriment, on representations made on behalf of a regulator. Someone may make very important and expensive business decisions on the basis of representations by a regulator - which representations may include silence when the regulator should have said something - to the effect that the person's arrangements were in compliance with the law and would be certified. If it turns out the regulator led the person down an expensive 'garden path', the person may have an action in negligent misstatement. It is here that the prevaricators, the incompetents, the stupid, the arseholes and the pompous pricks occasionally get regulators into trouble.
Purely hypothetically of course.
A regulator changing its mind is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator being incompetent is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator being stupid is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator being an arsehole is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator being a pompous prick is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
What you have to do, for example, is apply for a certificate and have it refused by the regulator, then seek judicial or merits review of that refusal. The refusal by a regulator to grant you something you've applied for and the regulator can grant you is a cause of action recognised by law. It may well be that in the course of the review some relevant matter about the lawfullness and the merits of the regulator's decision arises as a consequence of the regulator being incompetent, stupid, an arsehole or a pompous prick.
As another example, someone may have reasonably relied, to their detriment, on representations made on behalf of a regulator. Someone may make very important and expensive business decisions on the basis of representations by a regulator - which representations may include silence when the regulator should have said something - to the effect that the person's arrangements were in compliance with the law and would be certified. If it turns out the regulator led the person down an expensive 'garden path', the person may have an action in negligent misstatement. It is here that the prevaricators, the incompetents, the stupid, the arseholes and the pompous pricks occasionally get regulators into trouble.
Purely hypothetically of course.
Thread Starter
Letter sent to Mr Carmody
03/11/19.
Dear Mr Carmody. I am making a direct appeal to you in your role as the CEO and Director of Aviation Safety (DAS), of Australia’s national aviation safety regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
I have a reasonable expectation that you will make decisions in a well-intentioned manner, and primarily in the interests of aviation safety.
My name is Glen Buckley, 6 Susan Court, Mount Waverley, 3149.
During my career of 25 years in pilot training, I have operated in the following roles, each requiring a CASA initial assessment, and CASA renewals.
· Grade One Instructor,
· Chief Flying Instructor (CFI),
· Chief Pilot (CP)
· Head of Operations (HOO)
· CEO
CASA records will demonstrate that throughout the last 15 years of operations, as a business owner, I have consistently demonstrated, industry leading standards of safety and compliance. Those operations were well intentioned.
I have also operated for 10 years as the Principle Executive Officer of a Registered Training Organisation. ASQA records will indicate an industry leading level of compliance. Those operations were well intentioned.
For 15 years I have been delivering training to international students under a CRICOS approval. There have been no complaints ever, by any of the hundreds of international students that I have had the pleasure to work with, and those operations were most certainly well intentioned.
I have employed over 50 pilots, and administrative staff, during the last 15 years of operation. I have treated them with fairness, and respect, and in a well-intentioned manner.
In my opinion, and by making those statements above. I believe that I have run a safe, compliant, well intentioned business for 15 years. That business was a flight training organisation.
Taking the above into account, I am qualified to make the statements that I am about to make. They are substantive:
I sincerely believe that there is a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety. I have written to you repeatedly on this matter, providing the basis for that assertion. You are also aware that I have made substantive allegations against four CASA personnel, and it is in fact, their conduct that has created this unsafe situation. They are;
1. Mr Graeme Crawford in his role as CASA Aviation Group Executive Manager.
2. Mr Craig Martin in his role as CASA Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance.
3. Mr Jason Mc Heyzer in his role as CASA Region Manager Southern Region.
4. Mr Brad Lacey in his role as a CASA Flight Operations Inspector.
In naming them, I do it to protect the reputation of the personnel within CASA that are not involved.
Regarding their conduct, and their decisions, and in plain English, I allege;
1. Decision making that compromises aviation safety, and in fact creates a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety
2. Improper, wrongful, and unlawful conduct.
3. Those personnel have made decisions that a well-intentioned person would not make, if they were making their decisions on considerations of safety and/or compliance.
4. Breaches of Administrative Law, and Procedural Fairness.
5. Breaches of CASAs Enforcement Manual. https://www.casa.gov.au/publications-and-resources/publication/enforcement-manual.
6. Breaches of the Ministers Statement of Expectations. ( https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00977 )
7. Breaches of CASAs Regulatory Philosophy ( https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who...ory-philosophy )
8. Those personnel have not acted with honesty, consistency, and integrity.
9. Those personnel have not acted with care and diligence.
10. Those personnel have not acted with impartiality, respect and courtesy.
11. Those personnel have acted in a bullying and intimidating manner.
12. They have mismanaged public resources in breach of their obligations under the PGPA Act and have consciously and deliberately used public resources in a manner that is not fiscally responsible ( https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013A00123 )
13. I allege those four personnel have made calculated decisions that have caused detriment to me and my family, my business, and other businesses and, that they have deliberately avoided attempts to work collaboratively and resolve those issues.
14. I allege that their considered decisions and actions potentially bring harm to the integrity and good reputation of their fellow Employees and CASA in general, which can only degrade safety.
15. I allege that one of those four personnel, has improperly used inside information.
16. Those personnel have provided misleading information.
17. Breached obligations under their respective Position Descriptions.
18. Abused their authority associated with their respective positions as CASA employees.
19. Are making decisions and choosing courses of action to avoid public scrutiny.
20. Are placing their respective personal interest above the public interest.
21. They are deliberately frustrating democratic principles.
22. They are deliberately not upholding the values, of the Australian Coat of arms, and in fact, their conduct is unbecoming to the Australian Coat of Arms and brings it into disrepute.
23. In contrast to the Prime Ministers Speech to the Institute of Public Administration 19/08/19 where he outlined his “guideposts.” https://www.pm.gov.au/media/speech-i...administration
24. In contrast to CASAs “values”. https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who...ion-and-values
Those are substantial allegations, I stand behind them, and understand I am fully accountable for them. They are truthful, and in the public interest.
Decisions have been made, and continue to be made, by those four “named” personnel in CASA, that cannot be justified on a safety, or regulatory basis. Their decisions have been, and continue to be, made on personal interest considerations ahead of aviation safety considerations, those decisions measurably, and unacceptably compromise aviation safety.
You personally, as the CEO hold “information” that would be “concerning”, and clearly supports my assertions. That information is;
1. From within your own organisation by way of “workplace feedback” and possibly suggests a culture “highly inappropriate”.
2. Statistical information your personnel have gathered.
3. Assertions made repeatedly by me, in writing over a 12-month period, alerting these staff to the safety ramifications of their decisions.
4. Feedback from industry.
You are compelled to make a decision. Those four personnel cannot remain operational, and certainly not in any safety sensitive activities. I have called for it repeatedly, it is reasonable. It makes no suggestion of innocence or guilt, it takes those personnel out of an operational role, in what may be a stressful situation for them, and shows appropriate respect to processes, and most importantly, maintains or improves safety.
At least one those named personnel has had substantial claims against his conduct previously. That is public knowledge, and was bought to light as result of a recent ABC TV investigative news piece. https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/dying-pi...fatal/10444124 of which he was integral to. I raise the same allegations against his conduct, that were previously bought against him. There is potentially a “pattern”, it cannot be reasonably ignored
.One other, of the four has been found by CASA ICC processes to have acted, at least “unreasonably and inappropriately”, If you choose not to stand these personnel aside, you will need to justify your decision making, as the CEO of CASA. It is negatively impacting on safety and clearly increases the likelihood of an aviation incident or accident.
If you choose an alternative course of action, and cannot reasonably justify it, I will bring a formal allegation of gross misconduct, unconscionable conduct, or malfeasance, as appropriate against you. I will be compelled to do so.
You would be choosing to compromise safety, ahead of personal interest.I will call on widespread industry support if I you require it of me.I am simultaneously including the CASA Board in on this correspondence, as they may be called upon to support your decision making and are responsible for the good governance of CASA.
I have insufficient trust or confidence that CASA will attend to my safety concerns in a well-intentioned manner, and in the required timelines, so I am publishing this letter to ensure public scrutiny over the decisions you as the CEO make, going forward. This will also expedite timelines in attending to important safety matters.
Quite simply, I will not accept those four personnel making operational decisions for other operators whilst my allegations have not been discredited. It potentially poses an unacceptable risk to aviation safety.
I respect that in your correspondence you clearly stated the matter is closed, however it is an aviation safety matter, so I steadfastly refuse to let it be closed, until it is resolved.
Can I offer one final alternative at a dispute resolutionI am a 54-year resident of Chisholm, and my representative is Ms Gladys Liu, from the Liberal Party. I have previously provided Ms Liu with information on my concerns. She understands the basics of them, and has demonstrated herself to be professional, and diligent.Could I meet with Mr Carmody and his nominated attendees at Ms Lius Canberra Office, at the soonest practical opportunity.
Both CASA, and I could present our respective safety cases, with Ms Liu as an independent observer.At the end of that meeting, she could confidentially provide feedback to the PM or Deputy PMs office for a final determination of the Governments position, going forward.
As I have stated repeatedly, these are significant matters of aviation safety, and must be addressed. An independent assessment by someone external to CASA, and acting with good intention, such as Ms Liu, could be invaluable.
I do not mean to come across as combative, but you must understand my determination, and resolve. My interests should be well and truly “in tune” with every CASA employee, as they are primarily about safety, and the integrity of CASA. My hope is you share those values. Glen Buckley.
Dear Mr Carmody. I am making a direct appeal to you in your role as the CEO and Director of Aviation Safety (DAS), of Australia’s national aviation safety regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
I have a reasonable expectation that you will make decisions in a well-intentioned manner, and primarily in the interests of aviation safety.
My name is Glen Buckley, 6 Susan Court, Mount Waverley, 3149.
During my career of 25 years in pilot training, I have operated in the following roles, each requiring a CASA initial assessment, and CASA renewals.
· Grade One Instructor,
· Chief Flying Instructor (CFI),
· Chief Pilot (CP)
· Head of Operations (HOO)
· CEO
CASA records will demonstrate that throughout the last 15 years of operations, as a business owner, I have consistently demonstrated, industry leading standards of safety and compliance. Those operations were well intentioned.
I have also operated for 10 years as the Principle Executive Officer of a Registered Training Organisation. ASQA records will indicate an industry leading level of compliance. Those operations were well intentioned.
For 15 years I have been delivering training to international students under a CRICOS approval. There have been no complaints ever, by any of the hundreds of international students that I have had the pleasure to work with, and those operations were most certainly well intentioned.
I have employed over 50 pilots, and administrative staff, during the last 15 years of operation. I have treated them with fairness, and respect, and in a well-intentioned manner.
In my opinion, and by making those statements above. I believe that I have run a safe, compliant, well intentioned business for 15 years. That business was a flight training organisation.
Taking the above into account, I am qualified to make the statements that I am about to make. They are substantive:
I sincerely believe that there is a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety. I have written to you repeatedly on this matter, providing the basis for that assertion. You are also aware that I have made substantive allegations against four CASA personnel, and it is in fact, their conduct that has created this unsafe situation. They are;
1. Mr Graeme Crawford in his role as CASA Aviation Group Executive Manager.
2. Mr Craig Martin in his role as CASA Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance.
3. Mr Jason Mc Heyzer in his role as CASA Region Manager Southern Region.
4. Mr Brad Lacey in his role as a CASA Flight Operations Inspector.
In naming them, I do it to protect the reputation of the personnel within CASA that are not involved.
Regarding their conduct, and their decisions, and in plain English, I allege;
1. Decision making that compromises aviation safety, and in fact creates a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety
2. Improper, wrongful, and unlawful conduct.
3. Those personnel have made decisions that a well-intentioned person would not make, if they were making their decisions on considerations of safety and/or compliance.
4. Breaches of Administrative Law, and Procedural Fairness.
5. Breaches of CASAs Enforcement Manual. https://www.casa.gov.au/publications-and-resources/publication/enforcement-manual.
6. Breaches of the Ministers Statement of Expectations. ( https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00977 )
7. Breaches of CASAs Regulatory Philosophy ( https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who...ory-philosophy )
8. Those personnel have not acted with honesty, consistency, and integrity.
9. Those personnel have not acted with care and diligence.
10. Those personnel have not acted with impartiality, respect and courtesy.
11. Those personnel have acted in a bullying and intimidating manner.
12. They have mismanaged public resources in breach of their obligations under the PGPA Act and have consciously and deliberately used public resources in a manner that is not fiscally responsible ( https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013A00123 )
13. I allege those four personnel have made calculated decisions that have caused detriment to me and my family, my business, and other businesses and, that they have deliberately avoided attempts to work collaboratively and resolve those issues.
14. I allege that their considered decisions and actions potentially bring harm to the integrity and good reputation of their fellow Employees and CASA in general, which can only degrade safety.
15. I allege that one of those four personnel, has improperly used inside information.
16. Those personnel have provided misleading information.
17. Breached obligations under their respective Position Descriptions.
18. Abused their authority associated with their respective positions as CASA employees.
19. Are making decisions and choosing courses of action to avoid public scrutiny.
20. Are placing their respective personal interest above the public interest.
21. They are deliberately frustrating democratic principles.
22. They are deliberately not upholding the values, of the Australian Coat of arms, and in fact, their conduct is unbecoming to the Australian Coat of Arms and brings it into disrepute.
23. In contrast to the Prime Ministers Speech to the Institute of Public Administration 19/08/19 where he outlined his “guideposts.” https://www.pm.gov.au/media/speech-i...administration
24. In contrast to CASAs “values”. https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who...ion-and-values
Those are substantial allegations, I stand behind them, and understand I am fully accountable for them. They are truthful, and in the public interest.
Decisions have been made, and continue to be made, by those four “named” personnel in CASA, that cannot be justified on a safety, or regulatory basis. Their decisions have been, and continue to be, made on personal interest considerations ahead of aviation safety considerations, those decisions measurably, and unacceptably compromise aviation safety.
You personally, as the CEO hold “information” that would be “concerning”, and clearly supports my assertions. That information is;
1. From within your own organisation by way of “workplace feedback” and possibly suggests a culture “highly inappropriate”.
2. Statistical information your personnel have gathered.
3. Assertions made repeatedly by me, in writing over a 12-month period, alerting these staff to the safety ramifications of their decisions.
4. Feedback from industry.
You are compelled to make a decision. Those four personnel cannot remain operational, and certainly not in any safety sensitive activities. I have called for it repeatedly, it is reasonable. It makes no suggestion of innocence or guilt, it takes those personnel out of an operational role, in what may be a stressful situation for them, and shows appropriate respect to processes, and most importantly, maintains or improves safety.
At least one those named personnel has had substantial claims against his conduct previously. That is public knowledge, and was bought to light as result of a recent ABC TV investigative news piece. https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/dying-pi...fatal/10444124 of which he was integral to. I raise the same allegations against his conduct, that were previously bought against him. There is potentially a “pattern”, it cannot be reasonably ignored
.One other, of the four has been found by CASA ICC processes to have acted, at least “unreasonably and inappropriately”, If you choose not to stand these personnel aside, you will need to justify your decision making, as the CEO of CASA. It is negatively impacting on safety and clearly increases the likelihood of an aviation incident or accident.
If you choose an alternative course of action, and cannot reasonably justify it, I will bring a formal allegation of gross misconduct, unconscionable conduct, or malfeasance, as appropriate against you. I will be compelled to do so.
You would be choosing to compromise safety, ahead of personal interest.I will call on widespread industry support if I you require it of me.I am simultaneously including the CASA Board in on this correspondence, as they may be called upon to support your decision making and are responsible for the good governance of CASA.
I have insufficient trust or confidence that CASA will attend to my safety concerns in a well-intentioned manner, and in the required timelines, so I am publishing this letter to ensure public scrutiny over the decisions you as the CEO make, going forward. This will also expedite timelines in attending to important safety matters.
Quite simply, I will not accept those four personnel making operational decisions for other operators whilst my allegations have not been discredited. It potentially poses an unacceptable risk to aviation safety.
I respect that in your correspondence you clearly stated the matter is closed, however it is an aviation safety matter, so I steadfastly refuse to let it be closed, until it is resolved.
Can I offer one final alternative at a dispute resolutionI am a 54-year resident of Chisholm, and my representative is Ms Gladys Liu, from the Liberal Party. I have previously provided Ms Liu with information on my concerns. She understands the basics of them, and has demonstrated herself to be professional, and diligent.Could I meet with Mr Carmody and his nominated attendees at Ms Lius Canberra Office, at the soonest practical opportunity.
Both CASA, and I could present our respective safety cases, with Ms Liu as an independent observer.At the end of that meeting, she could confidentially provide feedback to the PM or Deputy PMs office for a final determination of the Governments position, going forward.
As I have stated repeatedly, these are significant matters of aviation safety, and must be addressed. An independent assessment by someone external to CASA, and acting with good intention, such as Ms Liu, could be invaluable.
I do not mean to come across as combative, but you must understand my determination, and resolve. My interests should be well and truly “in tune” with every CASA employee, as they are primarily about safety, and the integrity of CASA. My hope is you share those values. Glen Buckley.
Lead Ballon - I would use the angle (letter) that forced him to stop "trading".
CASA regs do not overrule a persons rights to run legitimate businesses in Australia - pending legal outcomes.
You can not just take a Taxi Drivers licience away from them because you change your mind/interpretation of a rule/regulation.
CASA regs do not overrule a persons rights to run legitimate businesses in Australia - pending legal outcomes.
You can not just take a Taxi Drivers licience away from them because you change your mind/interpretation of a rule/regulation.
Working backwards:
1. Yes they can.
2. Yes they do.
Hopefully Glen’s legal advisors will have read the Federal Court’s decisions in the Polar Aviation/Clarke Butson matter.
1. Yes they can.
2. Yes they do.
Hopefully Glen’s legal advisors will have read the Federal Court’s decisions in the Polar Aviation/Clarke Butson matter.
NO they SHOULD not - but they do illegally.
Glen had all the legal valid requirements to operate (it appears), yet an official letter with no reason is produced to stop operations.
So a restriction of trade was placed on Glen for no valid reason - an abuse of power has been made.
You may think that CASA is above the law and played within their rights, I do not see it that way. However CASA will not admit they are wrong until the court informs them they are.
But the rot will still be in place and nothing will change - except a path will have been formed for action to be taken.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In order for "it" to go to court, "it" has to be a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator changing its mind is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator being incompetent is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator being stupid is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator being an arsehole is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator being a pompous prick is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
What you have to do, for example, is apply for a certificate and have it refused by the regulator, then seek judicial or merits review of that refusal. The refusal by a regulator to grant you something you've applied for and the regulator can grant you is a cause of action recognised by law. It may well be that in the course of the review some relevant matter about the lawfullness and the merits of the regulator's decision arises as a consequence of the regulator being incompetent, stupid, an arsehole or a pompous prick.
As another example, someone may have reasonably relied, to their detriment, on representations made on behalf of a regulator. Someone may make very important and expensive business decisions on the basis of representations by a regulator - which representations may include silence when the regulator should have said something - to the effect that the person's arrangements were in compliance with the law and would be certified. If it turns out the regulator led the person down an expensive 'garden path', the person may have an action in negligent misstatement. It is here that the prevaricators, the incompetents, the stupid, the arseholes and the pompous pricks occasionally get regulators into trouble.
Purely hypothetically of course.
A regulator changing its mind is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator being incompetent is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator being stupid is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator being an arsehole is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
A regulator being a pompous prick is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
What you have to do, for example, is apply for a certificate and have it refused by the regulator, then seek judicial or merits review of that refusal. The refusal by a regulator to grant you something you've applied for and the regulator can grant you is a cause of action recognised by law. It may well be that in the course of the review some relevant matter about the lawfullness and the merits of the regulator's decision arises as a consequence of the regulator being incompetent, stupid, an arsehole or a pompous prick.
As another example, someone may have reasonably relied, to their detriment, on representations made on behalf of a regulator. Someone may make very important and expensive business decisions on the basis of representations by a regulator - which representations may include silence when the regulator should have said something - to the effect that the person's arrangements were in compliance with the law and would be certified. If it turns out the regulator led the person down an expensive 'garden path', the person may have an action in negligent misstatement. It is here that the prevaricators, the incompetents, the stupid, the arseholes and the pompous pricks occasionally get regulators into trouble.
Purely hypothetically of course.
Interested observers to this point..
The trick for the clever beak is to assess the behaviours of the said pompous arrogant prick and note where there is divergence between the regulator's accepted/expected conduct and the current matter.
Having achieved a little beach head, the beak can peel the individual away from their cover; the cover provided by the said regulatory body.
Thread Starter
Ping Pong
Dear Mr Buckley,
Your email of Friday 1 November states that you have “identified a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety, and I am confident that I can substantiate that.”However, your email fails to state what that grave and imminent risk is that you have identified.
A serious risk is one where conduct has caused, or is reasonably likely to cause an aviation accident. Chapter 7 of the CASA Enforcement manual outlines a number of examples of such serious risks;
Nevertheless, if your concerns do not meet the threshold of a serious and imminent risk as outlined above, you are able to take those concerns to the Commonwealth Ombudsman or have them considered via the appropriate legal avenues as you have been advised on a number of previous occasions.
Your issues have also been considered by the ICC and I note that you have also have met with the Chairman of the CASA Board on a number of occasions to discuss them without resolution. As such I see no utility in a meeting with myself and I reiterate that the appropriate avenue for further consideration is via either the Commonwealth Ombudsman or determination via the legal system. Regards
ShaneShane CarmodyCEO and Director of Aviation Safety
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Your email of Friday 1 November states that you have “identified a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety, and I am confident that I can substantiate that.”However, your email fails to state what that grave and imminent risk is that you have identified.
A serious risk is one where conduct has caused, or is reasonably likely to cause an aviation accident. Chapter 7 of the CASA Enforcement manual outlines a number of examples of such serious risks;
- Conduct indicating the use of, or an intention to use, an aircraft that was unairworthy on passenger carrying operations
- The carrying out, or failure to carry out maintenance, in a manner that would result in that aircraft becoming unairworthy
- A pilot in command flying or indicating an intention to fly, when not authorised to do so due to lack of licence, rating, endorsement, medical certificate, or other necessary authorisation
- The occurrence of an accident or serious incident has occurred where evidence exists that a significant breach of CASA legislation, or a lack of competence, was a causal factor
- The carriage of passengers for hire or reward, or conduct indicating an intention to carry passengers for hire or reward, without the operator holding an AOC authorising such carriage
- A pilot in command engaging in conduct, or showing an intention to engage in conduct, that constitutes dangerous flying.
Nevertheless, if your concerns do not meet the threshold of a serious and imminent risk as outlined above, you are able to take those concerns to the Commonwealth Ombudsman or have them considered via the appropriate legal avenues as you have been advised on a number of previous occasions.
Your issues have also been considered by the ICC and I note that you have also have met with the Chairman of the CASA Board on a number of occasions to discuss them without resolution. As such I see no utility in a meeting with myself and I reiterate that the appropriate avenue for further consideration is via either the Commonwealth Ombudsman or determination via the legal system. Regards
ShaneShane CarmodyCEO and Director of Aviation Safety
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
If you’re engaging in the ‘ping pong’ match on the basis of legal advice that it has some point beneficial to you, my suggestion is that you sack your lawyers.
If you’ve yet to engage lawyers, please do so, soon, and heed their advice. $30K plus should be enough for competent lawyers to get fairly quickly to the point where they can advise you to save your energy rather than engage in pointless shadow boxing.
You’re not currently engaged in a ping pong match. You’re shadow boxing and wearing yourself out.
If you’ve yet to engage lawyers, please do so, soon, and heed their advice. $30K plus should be enough for competent lawyers to get fairly quickly to the point where they can advise you to save your energy rather than engage in pointless shadow boxing.
You’re not currently engaged in a ping pong match. You’re shadow boxing and wearing yourself out.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety first
Carmody’s response (I mean Aleck’s) is a response to the bear being poked. I don’t want to be the glass half empty guy but Lead Balloon is correct, all you are doing Glen is awakening a sleeping giant. Poke it enough and it will really hurt you. My concern is that they’ve already taken so much from you and if you keep going down this path, even with a small win and financial settlement, they will pursue you for harassment, defamation and whatever else they can throw at you. They will make sure that any ‘legal win and settlement you receive’ will be instantly eroded by them hitting you legally from a different angle.
You’ve been wronged Glen, I have no doubt that what you say is true. But there are others out there who have been where you are mate and lost absolutely everything. It’s a game where you are checkmated with every move. I’m worried for you mate and don’t want to see them crush your soul as well.
You’ve been wronged Glen, I have no doubt that what you say is true. But there are others out there who have been where you are mate and lost absolutely everything. It’s a game where you are checkmated with every move. I’m worried for you mate and don’t want to see them crush your soul as well.
Glen, I support you 100%
Not many Australians can fully understand the deep corruption that exists in all aspects of the Australian public service.
There are people who will prefer to live with the blinkers on and these issues will never touch their lives. Others will know the truth and accept it as part of life.
Very few will take a stand and try and beat them.
I once took a stand and refused to accept it. With a large amount of naivety I believed I could win. I didn’t and paid a huge price.
I hope you will win your fight. There are very few people in this world who are willing to stand up. But there is a risk to your long term wellbeing that Others have highlighted.
I don’t regret my fight as I prefer to have stood up for my belief in what’s right and wrong and still
suffer the consequences but I’m still fighting my way out of the hole they threw me in.
take care
Not many Australians can fully understand the deep corruption that exists in all aspects of the Australian public service.
There are people who will prefer to live with the blinkers on and these issues will never touch their lives. Others will know the truth and accept it as part of life.
Very few will take a stand and try and beat them.
I once took a stand and refused to accept it. With a large amount of naivety I believed I could win. I didn’t and paid a huge price.
I hope you will win your fight. There are very few people in this world who are willing to stand up. But there is a risk to your long term wellbeing that Others have highlighted.
I don’t regret my fight as I prefer to have stood up for my belief in what’s right and wrong and still
suffer the consequences but I’m still fighting my way out of the hole they threw me in.
take care
Thread Starter
The arguments
Woke up after a rather restless night and read the posts. Cheers folks, the encouragement, the reality checks, and the highly valued advice on these pages is very encouraging. I realise how many pages this now goes over, how many comments have been made and how many have visited the pages. It makes it an absolute pleasure to wake up, it really does. Good on each and every one of you for hanging in there.
Its important to understand that there are separate arguments. There is the legal fight for fair and reasonable compensation for those affected. Mr Carmody has clearly shown his hand on that. I fully expected it, and now with your support, we will find out. From my meeting with the legal firm, I have an appreciation of the strength of some of the posts. At this stage, and for probably another 6 weeks, I will not truly know, but I will certainly be finding out. That argument, understandably cannot continue by me addressing it on here. That is the legal argument. Trust me, I am the brokest person you know, I really am. I am a business owner with much of his life totally destroyed by malfeasance in public office. No-one from outside of the CASAs payroll has even looked at it, and that is what I am trying to achieve. Does it make me sad, probably sadder than you can imagine.
Completely separate, and of wider significance, is the aviation safety argument, which i will be compelled to outline publicly, as all of the information is already with Mr Carmody, and available to him as part of his decision making. I will certainly be publishing that on here. I am convinced that he also now making decisions placing his own interest ahead of aviation safety. The safety argument will not be stopped by anyone. Full stop.
Similarly, there is an ethics in Government, human decency, respect, bullying, intimidating, mental health etc argument. Admittedly that also is a safety argument, but im talking specifically about people acting reasonably with each other. Its just about being professional, well intentioned etc. That stems right from the top of an organisation, i know. Just like Mr Carmody, i was the CEO of an Organisation that was all about aviation safety. I diligently applied myself to my task, and acted with ethics. That argument will also continue on here. But it is the truth, it is in the public interest, and it does need people to really stand up and make a statement. Im no martyr, and i dont want to be "the one". I have an advantage over the rest of you. I have absolutely NOTHING left to lose. So that argument will continue, and i invite any media to contact me,
Have a lovely day Mr Carmody, i feel industry will lose confidence in you. I am on the cusp of formally writing to the PM, and accusing you of malfeasance in public office. Obviiously, you can initiate legal action on me, but that will only accelerate these matters being bought out in public
Im off to the coffee shop to sit with the Fat Daddy breakfast club, and surround myself by good people, of which there are many.
Its important to understand that there are separate arguments. There is the legal fight for fair and reasonable compensation for those affected. Mr Carmody has clearly shown his hand on that. I fully expected it, and now with your support, we will find out. From my meeting with the legal firm, I have an appreciation of the strength of some of the posts. At this stage, and for probably another 6 weeks, I will not truly know, but I will certainly be finding out. That argument, understandably cannot continue by me addressing it on here. That is the legal argument. Trust me, I am the brokest person you know, I really am. I am a business owner with much of his life totally destroyed by malfeasance in public office. No-one from outside of the CASAs payroll has even looked at it, and that is what I am trying to achieve. Does it make me sad, probably sadder than you can imagine.
Completely separate, and of wider significance, is the aviation safety argument, which i will be compelled to outline publicly, as all of the information is already with Mr Carmody, and available to him as part of his decision making. I will certainly be publishing that on here. I am convinced that he also now making decisions placing his own interest ahead of aviation safety. The safety argument will not be stopped by anyone. Full stop.
Similarly, there is an ethics in Government, human decency, respect, bullying, intimidating, mental health etc argument. Admittedly that also is a safety argument, but im talking specifically about people acting reasonably with each other. Its just about being professional, well intentioned etc. That stems right from the top of an organisation, i know. Just like Mr Carmody, i was the CEO of an Organisation that was all about aviation safety. I diligently applied myself to my task, and acted with ethics. That argument will also continue on here. But it is the truth, it is in the public interest, and it does need people to really stand up and make a statement. Im no martyr, and i dont want to be "the one". I have an advantage over the rest of you. I have absolutely NOTHING left to lose. So that argument will continue, and i invite any media to contact me,
Have a lovely day Mr Carmody, i feel industry will lose confidence in you. I am on the cusp of formally writing to the PM, and accusing you of malfeasance in public office. Obviiously, you can initiate legal action on me, but that will only accelerate these matters being bought out in public
Im off to the coffee shop to sit with the Fat Daddy breakfast club, and surround myself by good people, of which there are many.
We all feel your passion and pain.
What advice have the lawyers given you on any form of public posting? Have they advised they should check anything before you post (this will get expensive)?
You just don’t want to do something that will set you backwards even though it shouldn’t. The legal game is tough.
What advice have the lawyers given you on any form of public posting? Have they advised they should check anything before you post (this will get expensive)?
You just don’t want to do something that will set you backwards even though it shouldn’t. The legal game is tough.