Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like you’ve taken another scalp!
Apparently Shane Carmody has fallen on his sword!
https://www.australianflying.com.au/...sa-at-year-end
Apparently Shane Carmody has fallen on his sword!
https://www.australianflying.com.au/...sa-at-year-end
Mr Carmody’s six figure pension, followed by the occasional short-term inquiry appointment, will probably take the sting out of being scalped and falling on a sword. (Well done with the metaphors, The Bullwinkle.)
Only one question is important: Who’s his replacement?
Only one question is important: Who’s his replacement?
Well done mate, despite what they will have you believe a clear admission of guilt.
Oh one day I’ll share my story, nowhere near as bad as yours but if I knew what I did now........
I know you need money and these people know that, I am sure you will not be low balled.
Oh one day I’ll share my story, nowhere near as bad as yours but if I knew what I did now........
I know you need money and these people know that, I am sure you will not be low balled.
Thread Starter
Letter sent to Mr Aleck, CASA Executive Manager
Dear Mr. Jonathan Hanton, CASA industry Complaints Commissioner and Mr. Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs.
Please note that I have included the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. McCormack in this correspondence in the hope that he will establish contact with CASA and require CASA that they act with integrity in their dealings with all parties, and most especially the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
I have also included the CASA Board in this correspondence as they are responsible for the good governance of CASA, and most especially, Mr Anthony Mathews in his role as the Chairperson of the Board of CASA.
Under Australian administrative law, persons affected or aggrieved by a decision may be able to apply to the decision-maker, being CASA, for a formal Statement of Reasons. A Statement of Reasons is available if the decision in question could be appealed to either the AAT155 or the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act)156 and can be obtained by requesting the Statement of Reasons in writing. While not an avenue of appeal as such, obtaining a Statement of Reasons can assist a person aggrieved by a decision to assess whether they have a case worth appealing, by fully explaining the reasons for a decision and the findings of fact and evidence considered by the decision-maker. The Administrative Review Council has identified a number of benefits flowing from formal use of Statements of Reasons, namely they: – provide fairness by enabling decisions to be properly explained and defended – assist the person affected to decide whether to exercise rights of appeal or review – improve the quality of decision making – promote public confidence in the administrative process – assist tribunals and courts to better perform an administrative or judicial review.
With that knowledge, I would like to make a formal request for a Statement of Reasons regarding CASAs' use of the Aviation Ruling and the concept of franchised AOCs.
As you are aware many flying schools throughout Australia operated under a "franchised AOC system", and this was done with CASAs' full knowledge and consent. If CASA refutes that they permitted flying schools to operate under a franchised AOC, could I request that you specifically state that in your response, and include the Ombudsmans office in that response. To support my claim, I would point out that the XXXXXXXXX was one such example, and that had been operating under the AOC of XXXXXXXXXXX. Similarly, and again with CASAs full knowledge and consent a flying school called XXXXX had been operating under the AOC of my own business, Melbourne Flight Training.
There are many more examples of this throughout Australia and I can provide further details if required. In the context of this correspondence, I will use only those two examples only, as they are pertinent to my case. For CASA to advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office that the Aviation Ruling applied to flying schools is both dishonest and misleading, and I implore you in your dealings with the Commonwealth Ombudsman to act with integrity and not to mislead him. This will assist in him arriving at a correct and fair determination. As you will appreciate he is dealing with a highly complicated matter. Honesty, good intention, and truthfulness will make his task significantly easier, and provide fairness to all parties.
Regarding this particular request can I have an explanation as to why CASA permitted XXXXXXXXX to operate under a franchised AOC with XXXXXXX, but when XXXXXXXXXX was concerned about their existing arrangement with XXXXXXXX and elected to operate under an arrangement with my business APTA, that was not permitted by CASA.
For clarity
CASA did permit many flying schools to operate under a franchised AOC system and continued to do so, even after they rejected my application. This practice had been in place throughout my 25 years of involvement in the industry.
If CASA has advised the Ombudsman's Office that in fact, the Aviation Ruling prohibited that arrangement then that is quite simply, not the truth and CASA has deliberately misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office. I request that CASA establish contact with the Ombudsman's Office and clarify that in fact, CASA has permitted flying schools to operate under a franchised AOC for more than a decade after the Aviation Ruling was issued. As you will be aware the Aviation Ruling was intended for a completely different industry sector and was written for the Charter sector, and not for the Flying Training sector.
On the introduction of the Aviation, Ruling CASA established contact with flying schools and notified them that the Aviation Ruling applied to the Charter sector only. I have verified this with a number of flying schools, and that is their recollection also. They have offered to provide a Statutory Declaration to that effect if required, or if CASA refutes that statement.
I am extremely concerned that CASA is deliberately misleading the Ombudsman's office to achieve their desired outcome.
I look forward to receiving a statement of reason that clearly and concisely outlines why CASA permitted other Flight Training Organisations to operate under a franchised AOC but not APTA.
Thanking you in anticipation of a well intentioned and truthful response.
Sincerely, Glen Buckley
Please note that I have included the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. McCormack in this correspondence in the hope that he will establish contact with CASA and require CASA that they act with integrity in their dealings with all parties, and most especially the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
I have also included the CASA Board in this correspondence as they are responsible for the good governance of CASA, and most especially, Mr Anthony Mathews in his role as the Chairperson of the Board of CASA.
Under Australian administrative law, persons affected or aggrieved by a decision may be able to apply to the decision-maker, being CASA, for a formal Statement of Reasons. A Statement of Reasons is available if the decision in question could be appealed to either the AAT155 or the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act)156 and can be obtained by requesting the Statement of Reasons in writing. While not an avenue of appeal as such, obtaining a Statement of Reasons can assist a person aggrieved by a decision to assess whether they have a case worth appealing, by fully explaining the reasons for a decision and the findings of fact and evidence considered by the decision-maker. The Administrative Review Council has identified a number of benefits flowing from formal use of Statements of Reasons, namely they: – provide fairness by enabling decisions to be properly explained and defended – assist the person affected to decide whether to exercise rights of appeal or review – improve the quality of decision making – promote public confidence in the administrative process – assist tribunals and courts to better perform an administrative or judicial review.
With that knowledge, I would like to make a formal request for a Statement of Reasons regarding CASAs' use of the Aviation Ruling and the concept of franchised AOCs.
As you are aware many flying schools throughout Australia operated under a "franchised AOC system", and this was done with CASAs' full knowledge and consent. If CASA refutes that they permitted flying schools to operate under a franchised AOC, could I request that you specifically state that in your response, and include the Ombudsmans office in that response. To support my claim, I would point out that the XXXXXXXXX was one such example, and that had been operating under the AOC of XXXXXXXXXXX. Similarly, and again with CASAs full knowledge and consent a flying school called XXXXX had been operating under the AOC of my own business, Melbourne Flight Training.
There are many more examples of this throughout Australia and I can provide further details if required. In the context of this correspondence, I will use only those two examples only, as they are pertinent to my case. For CASA to advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office that the Aviation Ruling applied to flying schools is both dishonest and misleading, and I implore you in your dealings with the Commonwealth Ombudsman to act with integrity and not to mislead him. This will assist in him arriving at a correct and fair determination. As you will appreciate he is dealing with a highly complicated matter. Honesty, good intention, and truthfulness will make his task significantly easier, and provide fairness to all parties.
Regarding this particular request can I have an explanation as to why CASA permitted XXXXXXXXX to operate under a franchised AOC with XXXXXXX, but when XXXXXXXXXX was concerned about their existing arrangement with XXXXXXXX and elected to operate under an arrangement with my business APTA, that was not permitted by CASA.
For clarity
CASA did permit many flying schools to operate under a franchised AOC system and continued to do so, even after they rejected my application. This practice had been in place throughout my 25 years of involvement in the industry.
If CASA has advised the Ombudsman's Office that in fact, the Aviation Ruling prohibited that arrangement then that is quite simply, not the truth and CASA has deliberately misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office. I request that CASA establish contact with the Ombudsman's Office and clarify that in fact, CASA has permitted flying schools to operate under a franchised AOC for more than a decade after the Aviation Ruling was issued. As you will be aware the Aviation Ruling was intended for a completely different industry sector and was written for the Charter sector, and not for the Flying Training sector.
On the introduction of the Aviation, Ruling CASA established contact with flying schools and notified them that the Aviation Ruling applied to the Charter sector only. I have verified this with a number of flying schools, and that is their recollection also. They have offered to provide a Statutory Declaration to that effect if required, or if CASA refutes that statement.
I am extremely concerned that CASA is deliberately misleading the Ombudsman's office to achieve their desired outcome.
I look forward to receiving a statement of reason that clearly and concisely outlines why CASA permitted other Flight Training Organisations to operate under a franchised AOC but not APTA.
Thanking you in anticipation of a well intentioned and truthful response.
Sincerely, Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
Letter to Jason McHeyzer
19/07/20
Dear Mr. Jason McHeyzer,
I have included the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Michael McCormack in on this correspondence, and am requesting that his Office advise me of receipt of that correspondence.
I have also forwarded this to Colin McLachlan the CASA Board Secretariat and ask that he distribute it to each individual that serves on the Board of CASA, as they are responsible for the good governance of CASA.
As you are aware you sent a direction to my Employer that my position was "untenable based on comments that I was making publicly". I have had a phone conversation with the Commonwealth Ombudsman today, and as you are aware his investigation is continuing into this matter. I am advised by the Ombudsman that his investigation into the matter does not prevent me from pursuing this matter with CASA.
In this correspondence, I am referring to your direction to my Employer that my position as a CASA approved Head of Operations was untenable based on comments that I was making publicly. As you are aware I do not feel your direction was lawful. Furthermore, it has bought significant reputational, financial, and emotional damage to me. After 25 years in the aviation industry, I have now been forced to leave the industry that meant so much to me.
I had served as a CASA approved Head of Operations for a period of 15 years, and during that entire period had demonstrated industry-leading standards of safety and regulatory compliance. My understanding is that your direction was not based on matters of safety or regulatory compliance. If my understanding is not correct could I ask that you specifically identify that in your response? You effectively directed that my employment as a CASA approved Head of Operations be terminated. I am considering pursuing legal action against you in your role as a CASA Region Manager- Southern Region, as compensation for harm caused to me and my family.
Under Australian administrative law, persons affected or aggrieved by a decision may be able to apply to the decision-maker, being CASA, for a formal Statement of Reasons. A Statement of Reasons is available if the decision in question could be appealed to either the AAT155 or the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act)156 and can be obtained by requesting the Statement of Reasons in writing. While not an avenue of appeal as such, obtaining a Statement of Reasons can assist a person aggrieved by a decision to assess whether they have a case worth appealing, by fully explaining the reasons for a decision and the findings of fact and evidence considered by the decision-maker. The Administrative Review Council has identified a number of benefits flowing from formal use of Statements of Reasons, namely they: – provide fairness by enabling decisions to be properly explained and defended – assist the person affected to decide whether to exercise rights of appeal or review – improve the quality of decision making – promote public confidence in the administrative process – assist tribunals and courts to better perform an administrative or judicial review.
CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy can be accessed via the attached link https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who...ory-philosophy
CASA makes commitments to Industry in this Regulatory Philosophy, and your conduct has breached multiple commitments given to industry in that Regulatory Philosophy.
As you were aware the ramifications of your direction have caused enormous financial and emotional distress to me and my family. I am looking at options available to me to initiate legal action against you based on that direction you made to my Employer, as I do not believe that you have the authority to make such directions to an Employer. An explanation from you will assist me in determining options available to me.
The purpose of this correspondence is to seek an explanation from you by requesting this "Statement of Reasons".
When you sent that direction to my Employer can you specifically identify if that direction was made on the basis of any matters that relate to Aviation Safety.
Can I also ask you to clarify if that direction was sent on the basis of any regulatory breaches?
My understanding is that your direction was not made on the basis of safety concerns or regulatory breaches. Therefore can I ask you to identify the specific comments that I made that compelled you to decide that my continuing employment was untenable? To the best of my knowledge, the only public comments that I made were on the pilot's forum PPRune. Could you identify the specific post that offended you, or caused you to send that direction? If it was not the Pprune forum comments then could you identify which comments and where they were posted. I have attached the link to the Pilots Forum to provide you the ease of access. https://www.pprune.org/australia-new...ss-v-casa.html
I am also asking you to explain the reasons that you felt the appropriate course of action was to contact my Employer rather than contact me directly.
Could I also ask you to identify if you considered any other course of action, or did you feel that direction was appropriate and proportionate?
Thanking you in anticipation of your prompt response.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley.
Dear Mr. Jason McHeyzer,
I have included the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Michael McCormack in on this correspondence, and am requesting that his Office advise me of receipt of that correspondence.
I have also forwarded this to Colin McLachlan the CASA Board Secretariat and ask that he distribute it to each individual that serves on the Board of CASA, as they are responsible for the good governance of CASA.
As you are aware you sent a direction to my Employer that my position was "untenable based on comments that I was making publicly". I have had a phone conversation with the Commonwealth Ombudsman today, and as you are aware his investigation is continuing into this matter. I am advised by the Ombudsman that his investigation into the matter does not prevent me from pursuing this matter with CASA.
In this correspondence, I am referring to your direction to my Employer that my position as a CASA approved Head of Operations was untenable based on comments that I was making publicly. As you are aware I do not feel your direction was lawful. Furthermore, it has bought significant reputational, financial, and emotional damage to me. After 25 years in the aviation industry, I have now been forced to leave the industry that meant so much to me.
I had served as a CASA approved Head of Operations for a period of 15 years, and during that entire period had demonstrated industry-leading standards of safety and regulatory compliance. My understanding is that your direction was not based on matters of safety or regulatory compliance. If my understanding is not correct could I ask that you specifically identify that in your response? You effectively directed that my employment as a CASA approved Head of Operations be terminated. I am considering pursuing legal action against you in your role as a CASA Region Manager- Southern Region, as compensation for harm caused to me and my family.
Under Australian administrative law, persons affected or aggrieved by a decision may be able to apply to the decision-maker, being CASA, for a formal Statement of Reasons. A Statement of Reasons is available if the decision in question could be appealed to either the AAT155 or the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act)156 and can be obtained by requesting the Statement of Reasons in writing. While not an avenue of appeal as such, obtaining a Statement of Reasons can assist a person aggrieved by a decision to assess whether they have a case worth appealing, by fully explaining the reasons for a decision and the findings of fact and evidence considered by the decision-maker. The Administrative Review Council has identified a number of benefits flowing from formal use of Statements of Reasons, namely they: – provide fairness by enabling decisions to be properly explained and defended – assist the person affected to decide whether to exercise rights of appeal or review – improve the quality of decision making – promote public confidence in the administrative process – assist tribunals and courts to better perform an administrative or judicial review.
CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy can be accessed via the attached link https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who...ory-philosophy
CASA makes commitments to Industry in this Regulatory Philosophy, and your conduct has breached multiple commitments given to industry in that Regulatory Philosophy.
As you were aware the ramifications of your direction have caused enormous financial and emotional distress to me and my family. I am looking at options available to me to initiate legal action against you based on that direction you made to my Employer, as I do not believe that you have the authority to make such directions to an Employer. An explanation from you will assist me in determining options available to me.
The purpose of this correspondence is to seek an explanation from you by requesting this "Statement of Reasons".
When you sent that direction to my Employer can you specifically identify if that direction was made on the basis of any matters that relate to Aviation Safety.
Can I also ask you to clarify if that direction was sent on the basis of any regulatory breaches?
My understanding is that your direction was not made on the basis of safety concerns or regulatory breaches. Therefore can I ask you to identify the specific comments that I made that compelled you to decide that my continuing employment was untenable? To the best of my knowledge, the only public comments that I made were on the pilot's forum PPRune. Could you identify the specific post that offended you, or caused you to send that direction? If it was not the Pprune forum comments then could you identify which comments and where they were posted. I have attached the link to the Pilots Forum to provide you the ease of access. https://www.pprune.org/australia-new...ss-v-casa.html
I am also asking you to explain the reasons that you felt the appropriate course of action was to contact my Employer rather than contact me directly.
Could I also ask you to identify if you considered any other course of action, or did you feel that direction was appropriate and proportionate?
Thanking you in anticipation of your prompt response.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley.
Hi Glen
I’ve been a bit busy, so sorry I haven’t responded sooner.
In order for you to be entitled to reasons for decision under s 13 of the ADJR Act (or s 28 of the AAT Act), there has to be a decision to which one of those sections applies. For example, if you have applied for but have been refused a certificate or licence or approval etc that CASA can grant you, you generally have a statutory entitlement to reasons for that decision.
As I’ve tried to explain before, a decision by someone in CASA to interpret the rules differently from someone else in CASA does not seem to me to be that kind of decision. It is, of course, a decision that can have disastrous practical consequences for people who’ve relied on one interpretation over the other, but that does not make the decision, of itself, an administrative decision to which the statutory reasons obligation applies. There are other potential causes of action in those circumstances.
So far as I can tell from your posts, you’ve just been ‘driven into the ground’ by CASA by a change in regulatory approach. You haven’t applied to CASA for something that CASA has refused to give you. If I were in your shoes, I’d be focussing my energy on matters other than reasons for decision. (That is unless you now want to apply for what you need to continue your flying training activities in the way you did before, or a lawyer with professional indemnity insurance has advised you that you are entitled to reasons in the circumstances, or a potentially futile request for reasons is an avenue that is therapeutic for you.)
As always: More power to your arm and I hope you get adequate compensation for what you have been and are being put through.
I’ve been a bit busy, so sorry I haven’t responded sooner.
In order for you to be entitled to reasons for decision under s 13 of the ADJR Act (or s 28 of the AAT Act), there has to be a decision to which one of those sections applies. For example, if you have applied for but have been refused a certificate or licence or approval etc that CASA can grant you, you generally have a statutory entitlement to reasons for that decision.
As I’ve tried to explain before, a decision by someone in CASA to interpret the rules differently from someone else in CASA does not seem to me to be that kind of decision. It is, of course, a decision that can have disastrous practical consequences for people who’ve relied on one interpretation over the other, but that does not make the decision, of itself, an administrative decision to which the statutory reasons obligation applies. There are other potential causes of action in those circumstances.
So far as I can tell from your posts, you’ve just been ‘driven into the ground’ by CASA by a change in regulatory approach. You haven’t applied to CASA for something that CASA has refused to give you. If I were in your shoes, I’d be focussing my energy on matters other than reasons for decision. (That is unless you now want to apply for what you need to continue your flying training activities in the way you did before, or a lawyer with professional indemnity insurance has advised you that you are entitled to reasons in the circumstances, or a potentially futile request for reasons is an avenue that is therapeutic for you.)
As always: More power to your arm and I hope you get adequate compensation for what you have been and are being put through.
Thread Starter
Lead Balloon
Dear Lead Balloon,
Great to have you back. Thank you!
On advice from here, I have familiarised myself with the ADJR Act. An interesting document, and it has made me change tact somewhat. In a previous post, I attached Stage One of the Ombudsman's report and had the opportunity for a follow-up telephone call. Clearly, Mr. Jonathan Aleck, CASAs Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory services will have a different perspective but i am assured by the Ombudsman that his determination is the significantly more substantive one. That indicates that CASA had no basis on which to reverse the approval. I would appreciate any valued feedback on that if you interpret it differently.
I do have legal firms looking at different aspects. I am awaiting the Ombudsman's determination from the latter stages of the investigation before finalizing my next course of action on this particular matter.
On the defamation case, I have advised the legal firm that the paltry and somewhat insulting offer is so far off the mark, that I cannot accept it. I will await the Ombudsman's report into Jason McHeyzers direction before proceeding, in the hope that further "ammunition" is provided.
I am now reviewing the "Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA Scheme) and also an Act of Grace payment. I hope to have correspondence on that matter finalized today, and will post that on here for feedback prior to submission.
I have an upcoming meeting with a legal firm that has expertise in such matters. I continue to do much of the legwork myself in an attempt to make my shots count and ensure that my funds from Gofundme go as far as possible.
I have had meetings regarding litigation funding, and am confident I will have a number of options available to me.
It's great to have you back, I was concerned that my posts may have become somewhat tedious and you were no longer following. Thanks for reaching out again. My battle will continue not only for me and my family but for the many other people also affected by this matter. Cheers. Glen
As a post note, i must say I am quite surprised by the CASA Boards' reluctance, and most particularly Mr. Anthony Mathews as the Chair of the CASA Board, to demonstrate any intent whatsoever to ensure the good governance of CASA. Aviation safety cannot possibly be enhanced by such poor stewardship. I can only hope that the departure of Mr Carmody coincides with a CASA Board changeover to enhance both aviation safety, good intent, ethics, and a commitment to a robust GA sector in what will be challenging times ahead for all.
Safe travels to you all, cheers. Glen and again, thankyou to you all.
Great to have you back. Thank you!
On advice from here, I have familiarised myself with the ADJR Act. An interesting document, and it has made me change tact somewhat. In a previous post, I attached Stage One of the Ombudsman's report and had the opportunity for a follow-up telephone call. Clearly, Mr. Jonathan Aleck, CASAs Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory services will have a different perspective but i am assured by the Ombudsman that his determination is the significantly more substantive one. That indicates that CASA had no basis on which to reverse the approval. I would appreciate any valued feedback on that if you interpret it differently.
I do have legal firms looking at different aspects. I am awaiting the Ombudsman's determination from the latter stages of the investigation before finalizing my next course of action on this particular matter.
On the defamation case, I have advised the legal firm that the paltry and somewhat insulting offer is so far off the mark, that I cannot accept it. I will await the Ombudsman's report into Jason McHeyzers direction before proceeding, in the hope that further "ammunition" is provided.
I am now reviewing the "Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA Scheme) and also an Act of Grace payment. I hope to have correspondence on that matter finalized today, and will post that on here for feedback prior to submission.
I have an upcoming meeting with a legal firm that has expertise in such matters. I continue to do much of the legwork myself in an attempt to make my shots count and ensure that my funds from Gofundme go as far as possible.
I have had meetings regarding litigation funding, and am confident I will have a number of options available to me.
It's great to have you back, I was concerned that my posts may have become somewhat tedious and you were no longer following. Thanks for reaching out again. My battle will continue not only for me and my family but for the many other people also affected by this matter. Cheers. Glen
As a post note, i must say I am quite surprised by the CASA Boards' reluctance, and most particularly Mr. Anthony Mathews as the Chair of the CASA Board, to demonstrate any intent whatsoever to ensure the good governance of CASA. Aviation safety cannot possibly be enhanced by such poor stewardship. I can only hope that the departure of Mr Carmody coincides with a CASA Board changeover to enhance both aviation safety, good intent, ethics, and a commitment to a robust GA sector in what will be challenging times ahead for all.
Safe travels to you all, cheers. Glen and again, thankyou to you all.
Thread Starter
Sttement of Reasons- Mr. Craig Martin
24/07/2020
Dear Mr Craig Martin,
Under Australian administrative law, persons affected or aggrieved by a decision may be able to apply to the decision-maker, being CASA, for a formal Statement of Reasons.
A Statement of Reasons is available if the decision in question could be appealed to either the AAT155 or the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act)156 and can be obtained by requesting the Statement of Reasons in writing.
While not an avenue of appeal as such, obtaining a Statement of Reasons can assist a person aggrieved by a decision to assess whether they have a case worth appealing, by fully explaining the reasons for a decision and the findings of fact and evidence considered by the decision-maker.
The Administrative Review Council has identified a number of benefits flowing from formal use of Statements of Reasons, namely they: – provide fairness by enabling decisions to be properly explained and defended – assist the person affected to decide whether to exercise rights of appeal or review – improve the quality of decision making – promote public confidence in the administrative process – assist tribunals and courts to better perform an administrative or judicial review.
In your role as CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance you made a decision/directive that I am seeking a Statement of Reasons to help me understand the lawfulness of that decision/directive.
As you are fully aware i operated a business operating in the flight training sector. You advised me that all employees had to draw their salary from the one Entity. For clarity, I operated a business called APTA which was the Authorisation Holder with the CASA Part 141 and Part 142 approvals that authorised me to deliver flight training, and under that authorisation i operated a flying school called Melbourne Flight Training (MFT).
CASA placed restrictions on APTAs ability to trade over a period of 8 months. As I advised CASA in writing on 10 occasions those restrictions on the businesses ability to trade would cost me in excess of $10,000 per week, as they did throughout the 8 months. Finally after 8 months the position of that business became untenable and APTA was sold for a fraction of its value to another Party.
You then directed that my flying school, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT), which I had retained, had to transfer its staff to the new owners of APTA.
I am not aware of any legislation that supports your contention. I complied with your direction, and reluctantly transferred my staff to the new owners of APTA. That obviously resulted in the failure of my second business, Melbourne Flight Training, as it no longer had any staff. With the transfer of the staff, obviously the students undertaking training were also transferred, and MFT was denied any revenue. This caused enormous harm to me as my second business had been decimated, as it was denied its revenue streams.
Unfortunately that business, MFT, had continuing obligations to Suppliers which were not transferred, as understandably the new owners of APTA elected to take the revenue, but not the expenses. It also left me with obligations to staff by way of annual leave, redundancy payments etc that i was unable to meet.
The ramifications of your decision has impacted me, and my family but of equal importance it has impacted on many of my past valued and professional employees.
I do not believe that CASA has made this direction to any other aviation business, and that I was specifically targeted. There can be no doubt that many businesses utilise staff that do not draw their salary directly from the Authorisation Holder.
So can you please direct me to any legislation that supports your determination. I am trying to ascertain if i am dealing with legislative requirements or if i am dealing with opinion masquerading as policy, which is what i believe.
Could you please provide a statement of reasons supporting your directive that my staff had to be transferred to another entity.
I hope you will act with good intention and fulfill my request at your soonest opportunity.
Please note that I have included Mr Buss from the Ombudsman's office in this correspondence, the Deputy Prime Minister's Office, and the CASA Board.
Yours respectfully, Glen Buckley
Dear Mr Craig Martin,
Under Australian administrative law, persons affected or aggrieved by a decision may be able to apply to the decision-maker, being CASA, for a formal Statement of Reasons.
A Statement of Reasons is available if the decision in question could be appealed to either the AAT155 or the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act)156 and can be obtained by requesting the Statement of Reasons in writing.
While not an avenue of appeal as such, obtaining a Statement of Reasons can assist a person aggrieved by a decision to assess whether they have a case worth appealing, by fully explaining the reasons for a decision and the findings of fact and evidence considered by the decision-maker.
The Administrative Review Council has identified a number of benefits flowing from formal use of Statements of Reasons, namely they: – provide fairness by enabling decisions to be properly explained and defended – assist the person affected to decide whether to exercise rights of appeal or review – improve the quality of decision making – promote public confidence in the administrative process – assist tribunals and courts to better perform an administrative or judicial review.
In your role as CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance you made a decision/directive that I am seeking a Statement of Reasons to help me understand the lawfulness of that decision/directive.
As you are fully aware i operated a business operating in the flight training sector. You advised me that all employees had to draw their salary from the one Entity. For clarity, I operated a business called APTA which was the Authorisation Holder with the CASA Part 141 and Part 142 approvals that authorised me to deliver flight training, and under that authorisation i operated a flying school called Melbourne Flight Training (MFT).
CASA placed restrictions on APTAs ability to trade over a period of 8 months. As I advised CASA in writing on 10 occasions those restrictions on the businesses ability to trade would cost me in excess of $10,000 per week, as they did throughout the 8 months. Finally after 8 months the position of that business became untenable and APTA was sold for a fraction of its value to another Party.
You then directed that my flying school, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT), which I had retained, had to transfer its staff to the new owners of APTA.
I am not aware of any legislation that supports your contention. I complied with your direction, and reluctantly transferred my staff to the new owners of APTA. That obviously resulted in the failure of my second business, Melbourne Flight Training, as it no longer had any staff. With the transfer of the staff, obviously the students undertaking training were also transferred, and MFT was denied any revenue. This caused enormous harm to me as my second business had been decimated, as it was denied its revenue streams.
Unfortunately that business, MFT, had continuing obligations to Suppliers which were not transferred, as understandably the new owners of APTA elected to take the revenue, but not the expenses. It also left me with obligations to staff by way of annual leave, redundancy payments etc that i was unable to meet.
The ramifications of your decision has impacted me, and my family but of equal importance it has impacted on many of my past valued and professional employees.
I do not believe that CASA has made this direction to any other aviation business, and that I was specifically targeted. There can be no doubt that many businesses utilise staff that do not draw their salary directly from the Authorisation Holder.
So can you please direct me to any legislation that supports your determination. I am trying to ascertain if i am dealing with legislative requirements or if i am dealing with opinion masquerading as policy, which is what i believe.
Could you please provide a statement of reasons supporting your directive that my staff had to be transferred to another entity.
I hope you will act with good intention and fulfill my request at your soonest opportunity.
Please note that I have included Mr Buss from the Ombudsman's office in this correspondence, the Deputy Prime Minister's Office, and the CASA Board.
Yours respectfully, Glen Buckley
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Peninsula
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glen, I've been through some battles in life, no doubt any of us with a few years under our belt have. But my battles pale to insignificance compared to yours. I don't know how you get through the day! Your strength of character is immense!
Thread Starter
Bodie 1
Very simple Bodie1
Trust me, I have been pushed into a very dark place over this, and lost absolutely everything. I have lost my home, my well-intentioned business of 15 years, my life savings, and my job. I have had to restart at 55 years of age with no chance of ever recovering. I can assure you that if I was a single bloke, quite simply I would have "checked out of life" about a year ago, but i have the worlds best wife and three ripper kids 100% behind me.
I mean this quite sincerely,
Empathy from people such as yourself carries far more weight and significance than you can possibly imagine. PPrune and the support and well intentioned criticism has been extremely valuable.
and i am quite convinced that if i stay the course, crooked, dishonest men of no integrity such as Mr Aleck, Mr Martin and Mr. Crawford at CASA will be held to account. I WILL get my day.
Cheers, and safe travels. All the best to you. Thankyou
Trust me, I have been pushed into a very dark place over this, and lost absolutely everything. I have lost my home, my well-intentioned business of 15 years, my life savings, and my job. I have had to restart at 55 years of age with no chance of ever recovering. I can assure you that if I was a single bloke, quite simply I would have "checked out of life" about a year ago, but i have the worlds best wife and three ripper kids 100% behind me.
I mean this quite sincerely,
Empathy from people such as yourself carries far more weight and significance than you can possibly imagine. PPrune and the support and well intentioned criticism has been extremely valuable.
and i am quite convinced that if i stay the course, crooked, dishonest men of no integrity such as Mr Aleck, Mr Martin and Mr. Crawford at CASA will be held to account. I WILL get my day.
Cheers, and safe travels. All the best to you. Thankyou
The offer from CASA is derisory. I am not a lawyer but I would have thought the mitigation steps CASA allegedly took are meaningless. However I stand to be corrected. Once the defamatory statement is “out there” it can go anywhere. The five grand is also derisory.
I suspect this offer is designed to be rejected as part of a broader strategy to portray CASA activity as fair and reasonable.
I wish you all the best.
On a general note, what sane individual would invest in Australian Aviation with this example fresh in their minds? How are jobs going to be created in this industry sector? THAT is the question backbenchers should be asking the Minister.
I suspect this offer is designed to be rejected as part of a broader strategy to portray CASA activity as fair and reasonable.
I wish you all the best.
On a general note, what sane individual would invest in Australian Aviation with this example fresh in their minds? How are jobs going to be created in this industry sector? THAT is the question backbenchers should be asking the Minister.
That offer needs a reply.
I will match it in my total donations ($7,500) to the Gofundme page if required.
The offer to you clearly shows how CAsA is SO OUT OF TOUCH with reality.
P.S hope you and family doing well - take care mate.
Thread Starter
Bendy
Cheers Bendalot, and thankyou for your strong and unwaivering support. I appreciate the gesture but with the support to date from many on here, and via the GoFundMe page, i am resourced to follow this through. Sit back, relax and enjoy the ride from here on in. Cheers. Glen.
Thread Starter
Letter to the CASA Board toi determine where to from here.
Dear Colin, could you please ensure this correspondence is distributed to each member of the CASA Board, hope you are traveling well, cheers. Glen
29/07/20
Dear CASA Board Members.
My name is Glen Buckley, you will be aware of who I am, and the nature of my concerns regarding the conduct of several employees of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and specifically
The impact of those actions by those CASA personnel has resulted in significant financial damage to me and significant emotional distress.
I am now in a situation where I intend to work towards a fair and reasonable resolution of this matter.
I have made repeated attempts to resolve this matter in the most cost-effective manner for CASA, but previously those personnel named above, have elected a more combative approach, that can only result in a degraded outcome.
I am now writing to the CASA Board and have included the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Michael McCormack in on this correspondence, as the CASA Board is accountable to him as the Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
The purpose of this correspondence is to seek a clear and concise determination from the CASA Board, their insurer, and the Deputy Prime Minister as to the direction that this matter will take from here on.
For clarity. Please advise if CASA is prepared to meet with me, without the need for me to engage a law firm to fairly resolve this matter.
If the CASA Board in conjunction with the Deputy Prime Ministers Department and CASAs insurer determines that they are not prepared to meet with me, then I will have no option but to engage a law firm to represent me going forward. A law firm has been briefed and is ready to take over this matter.
My hope is that CASA will act with good intent to seek the most effective resolution practical and avoid a far more costly and combative approach.
I have attached Stage One of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's findings to assist you to arrive at your determination and I look forward to a formal response representing the views of the CASA Board, the insurer, and the Deputy Prime Minister's office.
Thank you for your consideration of my request.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
29/07/20
Dear CASA Board Members.
My name is Glen Buckley, you will be aware of who I am, and the nature of my concerns regarding the conduct of several employees of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and specifically
- Mr. Jonathan Aleck in his role as CASA Executive Manager, Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs,
- Mr. Graeme Crawford in his role as CASA Executive Manager, Aviation Group,
- Mr. Craig Martin in his role as CASA Executive Manager, Regulatory Service, and Surveillance, and
- Jason McHeyzer in his role as CASA Region Manager of the Southern Region.
The impact of those actions by those CASA personnel has resulted in significant financial damage to me and significant emotional distress.
I am now in a situation where I intend to work towards a fair and reasonable resolution of this matter.
I have made repeated attempts to resolve this matter in the most cost-effective manner for CASA, but previously those personnel named above, have elected a more combative approach, that can only result in a degraded outcome.
I am now writing to the CASA Board and have included the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Michael McCormack in on this correspondence, as the CASA Board is accountable to him as the Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
The purpose of this correspondence is to seek a clear and concise determination from the CASA Board, their insurer, and the Deputy Prime Minister as to the direction that this matter will take from here on.
For clarity. Please advise if CASA is prepared to meet with me, without the need for me to engage a law firm to fairly resolve this matter.
If the CASA Board in conjunction with the Deputy Prime Ministers Department and CASAs insurer determines that they are not prepared to meet with me, then I will have no option but to engage a law firm to represent me going forward. A law firm has been briefed and is ready to take over this matter.
My hope is that CASA will act with good intent to seek the most effective resolution practical and avoid a far more costly and combative approach.
I have attached Stage One of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's findings to assist you to arrive at your determination and I look forward to a formal response representing the views of the CASA Board, the insurer, and the Deputy Prime Minister's office.
Thank you for your consideration of my request.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley