Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA

[Sunfish]

All you are doing Glen, is demonstrating that the Board is a fig leaf - one more layer of deliberate fire insulation between the Minister and responsibility in case of a major accident. The Department and the Minister run the show. The Board has no power.

[Flaming galah]

What’s happening with the legal review?

[Dangly Bits]

Imagine if the CASA FOI responsible for the downfall of APTA was the same person who oversees SOAR?

[glenb]

Interesting question Dangly Bits. I believe CASA FOI, MR Brad Lacey was the Flight Operations Inspector for my organisation APTA and also for SOAR.

Brad Lacey had previously called my operation "The Glen Buckley circus show" to somebody in industry and that feedback got back to me.

A passive aggressive little man he is!.

[Arctaurus]

CASA management has been sleepwalking while SOAR has been operating. The Stawell accident should have been the end of SOAR, but no, CASA prevaricates and allows the organisation to continue operating.

And surprise, surprise, yet another recent accident with serious injuries at Moorabbin, but CASA chose an easier target and ruined an operator who made every attempt at compliance.

It seems that this organisation has the capacity to defend the indefensible. Public accountability and responsibility indeed has fallen by the wayside.

[Sunfish]

Glen, did you “wine and dine” the CASA person? Did any other operator? Given the financial behavior of SOAR, is there anything they wouldn’t stoop,to?

Could someone have been PAID to take you down?

How was a shyte organization like SOAR allowed to prosper yet you were taken down?

[Mr Approach]

Glenn,
References to the "iron ring" are in my opinion no longer warranted.
I recall when the term was first used and I believe it was meant to indicate that the CASA CEO and Board were kept in the dark by the secretive group of bureaucrats who controlled the agenda(s). While the senior bureaucrats are very powerful and operate virtually unchecked, they all work towards one aim; to protect the minister. This also protects the public service and their own jobs because they are all contracted staff and serve at the whim of the minister and his departmental advisors. Also do not forget that the present head of CASA is himself a bureaucrat.
The iron ring the, if it could be said to exist I believe is at the very top of the organisation, not CASA, but the executive branch of government; the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities <https://www.infrastructure.gov.au>. Aviation is not mentioned however, I quote: "The Australian Government, through the department, contributes to the prosperity of the economy and the wellbeing of all Australians by fostering a viable, competitive and safe aviation industry.The department advises the Government on the policy and regulatory framework for Australian airports and the aviation industry, manages the administration of the Government's interests in privatised airports under the Airports Act 1996, and provides policy advice to the Minister on the efficient management of Australian airspace and on aircraft noise and emissions."
This is where policy is set, plans are made, and orders issued.

[thorn bird]

"The Australian Government, through the department, contributes to the prosperity of the economy and the wellbeing of all Australians by fostering a viable, competitive and safe aviation industry.The department advises the Government on the policy and regulatory framework for Australian airports and the aviation industry, manages the administration of the Government's interests in privatised airports under the Airports Act 1996, and provides policy advice to the Minister on the efficient management of Australian airspace and on aircraft noise and emissions."
This is where policy is set, plans are made, and orders issued."

That whole statement is an outright lie and fraudulent

[glenb]

Enough!!!!

To Mr Anthony Mathews, the Chairman of the Board of CASA
To Mr Shane Carmody the Chief Executive Officer of CASA
To Mr Graeme Crawford the CASA Group Executive Manager Aviation
Mr Jonathan Aleck the CASA Executive Manager Legal and Regulatory Affairs
Mr Craig Martin the CASA Executive Manager Regulatory Service and Surveillance
Mr Jason Mc Heyzer CASA Region Manager- Southern Region,

I am writing this to publicly expose each of you for your gross misconduct, Your misrepresentation, your lack of integrity, and,your breaches of administrative law, and for the enormous harm that you have bought to me and my family, the destruction of my business, and others, the clear breaches of CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy, and the negative impact that you have on aviation safety in this Country. You have bought me to the cusp of a mental breakdown, and you are acting dishonestly.

There it is!!!!!!

One of you, grow some balls and take me to Court for defamation. After more than 18 months of your bullying and intimidation, i will take it no more. Give me the opportunity to expose you publicly

I will continue to expose you, and i will bring about change. The damage you have caused to me mentally, emotionally, and financially is irrepairable and your conduct is reprehensible. In my opinion you should each be facing criminal charges. I call on each of you to step down from your positions, because your positions are untenable, they compromise aviation safety, and they damage the reputation of the many good people within CASA that act professionally, and act to improve aviation safety. The culture that you create in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is unacceptable.



You are each involved in a cover up and malpractice that is not acceptable to me, my family and many individuals that operate in this industry. Its illegal and immoral. The manner in which you have conducted yourselves has nothing to do with aviation safety or breaches of any regulations. Its quite simply disgusting. I am mentally, emotionally, financially destroyed by your conduct. I have a wife and three children that i am responsible for, and you have come into my life and destroyed me, you really have. This has continued on for far too long, and must stop, and it must stop now. Right now. I will take it no more.

Many small business owners would have taken their own life, after 18 months of this bullying and intimidation. You should each hang your heads in shame. I intend to publicly write to the Deputy Prime Minister, who has also failed in his role, and i will write to the PM, and publish it on here today. My hope is that he will have the ethics and principles to call for an investigation into your conduct.

Is this a "meltdown' Quite possibly, but i WILL hold each of you to account.

Glen Buckley.

[Jetman346]

Best of luck glen these people have a 0 care factor including politicians, most are in it for themselves and wont rock the boat

[tail wheel]

Never underestimate an attack by a desperate man.

And CASA also have a multi million dollar law suit for incompetence in surveillance of the C172 crash aircraft at Middle Island in Queensland.

[glenb]

Commonwealth Ombudsman

Dear Mr XXXXXXX XXXX,, Assistant Director of Investigations of the Commonwealth Ombudsmans Office.



Thankyou for investigating the matter whereby Mr Jason Mc Heyzer the CASA Region Manager, Southern Region directed my Employer, that my position was untenable, based on the comments that I was making publicly about CASA.



I claim that my employment was terminated as a result of his direction, and I stand by that statement.



You asked that I provide any further information on remarks I made in the press, or online about the situation with CASA.



The only public remarks I made about CASA were on a pilots forum referred to as PPRUNE, and the link is attached.



https://www.pprune.org/australia-new...ss-v-casa.html



In order to get the best overview of that forum, it would require you to register, and that can be done anonymously. Should that option not be available to you, then you could use my log in details. Username; Glenb and my password XXXXXX. You could then view any attachments that have potentially offended Mr Jason Mc Heyzer, and lead to his direction that my position was untenable.



No other public comments were made. I avoided more public options available to me, as I felt PPRUNE was the suitable forum to defend my reputation. I appreciate that CASA will belittle the validity of the forum. I can assure you that many industry personnel of note are regularly on the forum, and this includes persons with legal experience, ex CASA personnel, Mr Dick Smith, and a number of highly regarded industry personnel. There are also persons posting on there that have had there livelihoods destroyed by CASA actions and decisions, and you will see clear support of my perspective.



My particular issue has now had over 500,000 visits, and support on that forum clearly indicates the level of industry frustration, with the culture that exists within CASA.



I appreciate that there are a number of posts on there and reviewing it will take some time, although I implore you to visit the thread, and study it in detail.



The only other place that I can direct you to is a crowd funding page that was established on my behalf, in order to initiate a legal action to bring these personnel to account, of which I am extremely appreciative. That can be found via this link. https://www.gofundme.com/f/glen-buckley-v-casa



Regarding your other requests for supporting documentation I will attend to those as my health, and time permit.



Respectfully, Glen Buckley.

[Bend alot]

Hi Glen,

Hope the Christmas & New Year time was enjoyed with family - loved the Christmas gift idea! We all need to move back to that idea (a gift is from love not a $ thing).

I hope your New Year resolution included some self health checks mate, and you keep strong communication with your family.

If you ever need to just talk to a stranger and boil over - just call - anytime.

Best regards to you and family

Bendy.

[glenb]

Ministers Statement Of Expectations

28/01/20



Dear Mr Anthony Mathews, Chairperson of the CASA Board,



As you are aware the Minister issues a Statement of Expectations, with the link attached here for your reference. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00977



I am firmly of the opinion that the conduct of CASA has not been in accordance with



1. The Ministers Statement of Expectations,

2. The PGPA Act,

3. CASAs Regulatory Philosophy

4. The values of the Australian Public Service,



Further i believe that CASA have not "considered the economic and cost impact on individuals, and business", as required by the Statement of Expectations.



I do not believe that CASA have adopted a "pragmatic, practical, and proportionate approach to regulation" as required by the Statement of Expectations



I do not believe CASA have" undertaken effective and ongoing engagement with the aviation industry (specifically my business) to create a collaborative relationship based on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect."



I say that from my own personal experience with CASA, and because of the enormous harm that conduct has bought to me, my family, my business, and other businesses impacted by the conduct of certain personnel within CASA. I have specifically identified those individuals to you on numerous occasions.



In the Ministers Statement Of Expectations, i note that you are required to "keep the Secretary of my Department and me fully informed of CASAs actions in relation to the requirements stated in this SOE, and promptly advise of any events or issues that may impact on the operations of CASA.



The purpose of this correspondence;



Can you please confirm to me that you have raised these issues with the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael Mc Cormack, in accordance with your obligations in the PGPA, and that he is conversant with the allegations and concerns that i have raised.



As this request is a fairly straightforward request, i am hoping that you can respond in a timely manner



Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Dear Dr Aleck

Dear Dr Aleck,



I refer back to the initial notification from CASA dated 23/10/18 CASA ref f14/9540 and attached.



In that correspondence, CASA proposed to reject the addition of Latrobe Valley Aero Club to be added.



Immediately prior to Latrobe Valley Aero Clubs application to join APTA, it had been operating under the Air Operator Certificate of another organisation for a protracted period of time. This was done with the full knowledge and support of CASA.



I felt that the APTA concept, provided a number of improvements over the other system provided by the previous Authorisation Holders where there was a poor relationship between the two organisations, no dedicated safety department, and as you would be aware we had designed a system referred to as Flight School Manager. This gave us high levels of oversight, and in fact I suggest that nothing in Australia to date had provided such levels of oversight. You will recall that we also provided CASA with access to the FSM system, so for the first time ever in Australia, CASA could access all aspects of operations immediately rather than conducting an onsight inspection. This included Flight and Duty records, predictive maintenance tracking, all maintenance issues, and in fact every aspect of flying school operations. Unlike the previous arrangement with the other authorisation holder, we also had staff on site that were under the direct employment of APTA.



For clarity, can you please outline why the other Authorisation Holders oversight had been permitted, although our system was not acceptable to CASA.





Thankyou in anticipation of a response, as requested by the Commonwealth Ombudsman,



Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Dear Dr Aleck

Dear Craig Martin,



I have a number of issues that I had submitted through to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, some being actioned, and some pending me approaching CASA to obtain a response. Therefore on the Ombudsmans advice I will be writing to you on a number of matters that require clarification. As I am after a strictly legal response rather than an “operational one”, I will be directing the inquiry to Dr Aleck in his role as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal and Regulatory Affairs. I will direct this email through you, and include Dr Aleck in on all emails as I have with this one.



I have also included Mr Anthony Mathews as the Chair of the CASA Board, and the person ultimately responsible for the governance obligations. I had previously raised these issues with him verbally at our meeting, but thought it best to put it in writing to ensure there was no confusion.



Dear Dr Aleck,



As you will be aware, the practice of sharing an AOC had been commonplace in the industry, and was done with CASAs full knowledge and consent. CASA had never required a contract between the entities previously, and CASA do not hold copies of any such contracts for any other flying training organisations in Australia. You may recall I raised this query on multiple occasions, and CASA chose not to respond.



I had advised CASA that we had contracts in place, and CASA had shown little interest, had not made it a requirement. The use of a contract was an initiative that APTA put in place. I point out that APTA even provided contracts to CASA prior to any members joining APTA, on multiple occasions.



Once the CASA action was initiated in October of 2018, CASA claimed that we did not have contracts in place, when in fact we did. I advised CASA that we had contracts, and they had been provided to CASA, but CASA refuted this, and I provided the evidence. I am of the opinion that had CASA realised they actually held the contracts they may not have initiated the action. I feel that the requirement to have contracts was a unique requirement placed on APTA, and not on other Organisations.



Are you able to clarify the regulations that require a contract, and are you able to explain why other operators continue to “share an AOC, with no requirement for a contract, yet this requirement was placed on APTA.



Thankyou in anticipation of your response



Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Dear Dr Aleck

A copy of the initial notification that CASA sent me, can be accessed here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/k3qn3qdgoa...ation.pdf?dl=0

In that initial notification used as the basis to close my business down, CASA made an interesting statement at the top of page two, in the paragraph that starts with "Paragraph 7..." That one paragraph should best be separated into two paragraphs. The first part of the paragraph deals with written words from the Aviation ruling, and the latter part is application of Mr Alecks opinion.

For clarity. The paragraph reads. "Paragraph 7 of the CASA Aviation states, "The AOC Holder at all times remains responsible for the actions of another person conducting operations under the AOC"

There is absolutely no disagreement between CASA and I on that matter,. As the AOC Holder i do remain responsible of any person operating under my AOC. Its a significant responsibility. That's "every person" irrespective of whether they are an employee or not. Irrespective of the nature of their employment whether they be fulltime, part time, casual or even if they are flying voluntarily. I am responsible for those persons. Even if the employees are employed by another Entity but operating under my AOC, I am responsible for them. Its a very wide net of responsibility. Consider the significance of that. I am responsible for EVERY person that operates under my AOC.

My concern arises where Mr Aleck takes a very clear and concise sentence in the Aviation Ruling that states The AOC Holder at all times remains responsible for the actions of another person conducting operations under the AOC"

and then applies his opinion and that sentence now means. "The Ruling does not permit an AOC Holder to authorize a third party body cooperate to operate under its AOC.

That is not what it says. In fact i interpret the Avuiation Ruling tpo say the opposite of Mr alecks assertion. The Aviation Ruling is effectively saying. You can let any person operate under your AOC if you want to, but be aware. If something goes wrong, you are not getting off the hook. You are responsible. for every single person, and will be held accountable for them. It doesnt matter if they are emplyed by you or someone else. That will not be a defence. I cannot ever try and say. "Hey, I wasnt paying him, so Im not responsible for



A copy of the Aviation Ruling and relevant information can be found here. The Aviation Ruling being the document that Mr Aleck used as the basis for his decision to close my business down.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a6rzw55yad...uling.pdf?dl=0

This link provides additional relevant information on the Aviation Ruling including correspondence to Mr Aleck.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lewmcp0nas...uling.pdf?dl=0



Dear Craig Martin,



I have a number of issues that I had submitted through to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, some being actioned, and some pending me approaching CASA to obtain a response. Therefore on the Ombudsman’s advice I will be writing to you on a number of matters that require clarification. As I am after a strictly legal response rather than an “operational one”, or opinion, I will be directing the inquiry to Dr Aleck in his role as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal and Regulatory Affairs. I will direct this email through you, and include Dr Aleck in on all emails as I have with this one.



I have also included Mr Anthony Mathews as the Chair of the CASA Board, and the person ultimately responsible for the governance obligations. I had previously raised these issues with him verbally at our meeting, but thought it best to put it in writing to ensure there was no confusion.



This query relates to the applicability of the Aviation Ruling. I point out that the previous Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance prior to Mr Craig Martin was Mr Peter White, and after 2 months of CASA initiating the action Mr Peter White advised that it was an error on CASAs behalf, and in fact it was the inappropriate document to be using. Noting that often policy application changes depending on the personnel involved I was seeking clarification on the use of the aviation ruling as the document used as the basis of the CASA action.



In seeking clarification on the use of the aviation ruling, I note;



On its release, Flying schools were advised that it did not apply to them, and that it applied to charter operators only. By applying it to APTA it was being applied to a flying school, in fact it was only being applied to my flying school, and not others. Are you able to explain why this would be the case.



The aviation ruling has no “head of power”. Can you confirm why that would be used.



The Aviation ruling was written for a completely different regulatory environment, i.e. CAR 5 legislation, which was replaced by the Part 61/141/142 legislation. Can you confirm that it does apply.



Refers to commercial operations, and in fact flying training is not classified as a commercial operation and has not been since 2014. I have attached the definition of “commercial purposes” although assume you would be fully aware of this in your role. Can you advise if my understanding is correct.



In 3.1 of the Aviation Ruling, at no stage did any entity advertise it could conduct commercial aviation operations, in fact we did not have any approvals for commercial operations.



In 3.2, only A, engaged the staff, looked after maintenance etc.



In 3.3, although flying schools do not have a Chief Pilot, they have a HOO. In the case of APTA we had two CASA approved HOOs, with a third in training, and the operations were more highly supervised than was the industry norm.



In 3.5, there was only one set of systems and they were the systems that CASA helped us write, approved, and audited, so I contend that they were reviewed by CASA





In 6.1, there was in fact only one set of systems and they were the CASA approved APTA systems. There were no other systems



In 6.2 all systems were clearly under the oversight of the Key Personnel of the AOC Holder, and in fact no other entities had any Key Personnel.



In 6.3, there was only one set of documentation and that was the APTA documentation that CASA helped us write, approved and audited.



In 7, as the Authorisation Holder, and AOC Holder, and with 15 years experience as a CASA approved HOO at all times I accepted full responsibility for the actions of all personnel and equipment being used under my AOC. This was never in any doubt, and I accepted that responsibility.



In 10, everything was done with far more than a reasonable degree of care and diligence, and all operations were conducted in accordance with the procedures that CASA developed with us, were approved by CASA, and had been audited by CASA.



For clarity, there was only one authorisation holder, the personnel were employed by APTA, the only systems used were the APTA systems.



To be frank, I think CASA erred, and CASA refused to admit their error.



I hope you can provide an extensive response to bring some clarity to the use of the aviation ruling.



Thanking you in anticipation of your co-operation and truthful responses, respectfully Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Dear Craig Martin

Dear Craig Martin,

I have a number of issues that I had submitted through to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, some being actioned, and some pending me approaching CASA to obtain a response. Therefore on the Ombudsman’s advice I will be writing to you on a number of matters that require clarification. As I am after a strictly legal response rather than an “operational one”, I will be directing the inquiry to Dr Aleck in his role as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal and Regulatory Affairs. I will direct this email through you, and include Dr Aleck in on all emails as I have with this one.

I have also included Mr Anthony Mathews as the Chair of the CASA Board, and the person ultimately responsible for the governance obligations. I had previously raised these issues with him verbally at our meeting, but thought it best to put it in writing to ensure there was no confusion.


Dear Dr Aleck,

In the initial notification to APTA (CASA reference F14/9540) attached CASA proposed to reject the addition of the XXXXX Base.

Interestingly, CASA had previously approved the existing XXXXX in Bundora Pde Moorabbin Airport. This approval process had required an onsite visit by CASA personnel and that approval had proceeded smoothly.

When we submitted the application for XXXXX to move into a significantly improved facility, CASA advised that they proposed to reject the new base. The new base was a significant investment running into many hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Can you specifically address why the initial base with lesser facilities was approved, whereas CASA proposed to reject the new and significantly improved facility. This seemed a very unusual approach, and despite repeated requests, CASA failed to respond.

For clarity, can you advise why the initial base was accepted by CASA whereas the significantly improved facility was rejected.

Thankyou in anticipation of your response, as it will assist in clearing up my confusion.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Dear Craig Martin

Dear Craig Martin,

I have a number of issues that I had submitted through to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, some being actioned, and some pending me approaching CASA to obtain a response. Therefore on the Ombudsman’s advice I will be writing to you on a number of matters that require clarification. As I am after a strictly legal response rather than an “operational one”, I will be directing the inquiry to Dr Aleck in his role as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal and Regulatory Affairs. I will direct this email through you, and include Dr Aleck in on all emails as I have with this one.

I have also included Mr Anthony Mathews as the Chair of the CASA Board, and the person ultimately responsible for the governance obligations. I had previously raised these issues with him verbally at our meeting, but thought it best to put it in writing to ensure there was no confusion.


Dear Dr Aleck,

I refer to the initial notification attached, CASA reference F14/9540, and specifically the section on Temporary locations.

APTAs intention had been to wait approval of any new location. We queried CASA as to how long it would take for a new base to be approved, and we were advised approximately 6 weeks. Although a less than ideal timeframe, we accepted that.

It was CASA personnel that suggested we should adopt a Temporary locations procedure, which CASA had helped us design, and approved in our manuals, and audited. We were satisfied with that suggestion as it would facilitate continuing operations and assist the new bases.

CASA then reversed that position in the “initial notification”.

My query; How is it that CASA can suggest a procedure, approve the procedure, audit the procedure, use the procedure, and then without any warning at all, change their mind overnight with no prior warning state that it is a procedure not authorised by our certificate when it was CASA personnel that suggested it. You effectively “lead me up the path” then crucify me for it.

I'm sure you will appreciate my confusion with this approach, and im hoping you can clarify the CASA thought processes.

Thank you in anticipation of your assistance.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Dear Craig Martin

Dear Craig Martin,

I have a number of issues that I had submitted through to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, some being actioned, and some pending me approaching CASA to obtain a response. Therefore on the Ombudsman’s advice I will be writing to you on a number of matters that require clarification. As I am after a strictly legal response rather than an “operational one”, or opinion, I will be directing the inquiry to Dr Aleck in his role as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal and Regulatory Affairs. I will direct this email through you, and include Dr Aleck in on all emails as I have with this one.

I have also included Mr Anthony Mathews as the Chair of the CASA Board, and the person ultimately responsible for the governance obligations. I had previously raised these issues with him verbally at our meeting, but thought it best to put it in writing to ensure there was no confusion.


Dear Dr Aleck, I refer to item 6 of CASAs regulatory philosophy below. In that statement CASA make a number of commitments to industry, which I have tried to have addressed previously but to no avail. In accordance with the Commonwealth Ombudsmans suggestion I will make one further approach to you, and hope that you can attend to it.

Regarding the action that CASA took against my business, which ultimately lead to me selling it under duress after trying to get these matters resolved for over 8 months. May I respectfully request that you outline your response to the commitments you made to industry, and specifically the points that I have underlined. Thankyou in anticipation of your prompt attention to my query, respectfully, Glen Buckley

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.