Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Allegations against GlenB. Nothig new here. Its the CAsA way. If there is any heat , deflect that by a "story"
Doesnt matter if its not true, what can cbe done about it. In this case ...maybe something
The way of Carbody Dr Discrepancy, Anasnasti, Gobsome, and many others...any old BS will do.
Whatever it takes to denigrate the victim and make a counter 'safety' issue out of nothing.
Hello Good Senators...keep plugging away...and for a Royal Commision as well.
Doesnt matter if its not true, what can cbe done about it. In this case ...maybe something
The way of Carbody Dr Discrepancy, Anasnasti, Gobsome, and many others...any old BS will do.
Whatever it takes to denigrate the victim and make a counter 'safety' issue out of nothing.
Hello Good Senators...keep plugging away...and for a Royal Commision as well.
Last programmed sitting day for HoR and Senate for 2020 is Thursday 10 December.
There’s a Senate Committee hearing programmed for Friday 11 December, but not of the RRAT Committee.
Nothing else programmed yet, and not likely to be.
There’s a Senate Committee hearing programmed for Friday 11 December, but not of the RRAT Committee.
Nothing else programmed yet, and not likely to be.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So they can let their mate Carmody walk off into the distance, then next year when/if any findings are made, he can simply say “everything was fine when I was there, totally compliant when I left, what went wrong??”
Thread Starter
Senate Estimates
I had a number of people wanting access to the Senate Estimates. If interested AOPA have it well presented. Cheers. Glen.
Senate RRAT General Aviation Inquiry Commences – AOPA Australia
Senate RRAT General Aviation Inquiry Commences – AOPA Australia
The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. The past behaviour of Senate Committees is bi-partisan abdication of responsibility to the ‘independent regulator’.
Still, it’s been a weird period in our history. It is remotely possible that the majority of the Committee will step up and take responsibility.
Glen it sounds to me that the CASA strategy is to wait you out. Delay, delay and delay. After all, there is a chance after the next election that there will be a new government that will know nothing about your case and all the ministerial letters and advice will be gone - locked up for twenty years as usual. All that will exist is the official file (held by CASA), Hansard and nothing else. There will be a new minister who is not bound by his predecessors actions.
This is why we ned an Australian aviation lobby group focussed on electoral politics.
This is why we ned an Australian aviation lobby group focussed on electoral politics.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sharpening of the wet lettuce leaf
Well, with the senate inquiry technically still ongoing and an interim report still due on the last parlimentary sitting day of 2020 which is 10 December 2020, I do not expect there to be any outcomes that are any different to the results of previous senate inquiries - a slap with a wet lettuce leaf. The Government politicians will enjoy their 4 month Xmas break commencing 11 December, the report will be bound in chains and left to gather dust in TRIM, and the emotionally challenged Canberra bubble boy Carmody will scamper off into the sunset with his millions of dollars in superannuation, sailing the globe in a 56 foot yacht called ‘Safe Seas For All’. Next year - rinse, wash, dry, repeat. Groundhog Day starts over, CASA’s tautological nonsense will continue and the aviation industry shall keep sliding into the abyss. Cue the merry-go-round music......
Thread Starter
No response from CASA Chair Mr Anthony Mathews
Regarding the letter sent to the Chair of the CASA Board and posted in Post 1373 on here regarding allegations of assault and stalking made by Mr. Carmody in Senate Estimates against me.
I asked Mr. Mathews the Chair of the CASA Board to respond by 5 PM on Tuesday 8th December.
Unsurprisingly. The time passed with no response.
Its all about "intent'
I asked Mr. Mathews the Chair of the CASA Board to respond by 5 PM on Tuesday 8th December.
Unsurprisingly. The time passed with no response.
Its all about "intent'
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the letter sent to the Chair of the CASA Board and posted in Post 1373 on here regarding allegations of assault and stalking made by Mr. Carmody in Senate Estimates against me.
I asked Mr. Mathews the Chair of the CASA Board to respond by 5 PM on Tuesday 8th December.
Unsurprisingly. The time passed with no response.
Its all about "intent'
I asked Mr. Mathews the Chair of the CASA Board to respond by 5 PM on Tuesday 8th December.
Unsurprisingly. The time passed with no response.
Its all about "intent'
CASA’s use of ‘intent’ goes back decades and has been used heavily in most of the regulatory punishments dishes out upon industry folk, such as Glen. The legal boffins purposefully write many of the rules so that they appear ‘grey’, they can be used in whatever way CASA feels like using at the time. If they like you, you are classed as compliant. If they don’t like you, they will say you are non-compliant and then pursue you to bankruptcy such as in the case of Glen. These ‘rules’ are then followed up by a loosely constructed and poorly designed ‘Act’ which can also be massaged to suit the outcome that CASA is seeking.
History is littered with victims like Glen, people like Bruce Rhoades (R.I.P), Paul Phelan (R.I.P), Karen Casey, Gerald Repacholi (R.I.P) and Shane Urquhart and many more.
I’m surprised CASA doesn’t use ‘intent’ in their statement of expectations, mission statement and perhaps WHS statement? Something like; “Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority, where intentions are what dreams are made of”.
Glen, wishing nothing but the very best for you, your family and friends over Xmas mate.
Last edited by Paragraph377; 9th Dec 2020 at 01:11.
Thread Starter
Letter to Senate to have allegations of stalking and assault considered.
Dear Secretary
During a hearing of the Rural Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on 20 November 2020, Mr. Shane Carmody the Director of Aviation Safety (DAS) and Chief Executive Officer of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority said this, among other things, about me:
“Mr. Buckley … has assaulted my staff, he has stalked my staff in the Melbourne office and, frankly, we've had enough of him.”
I completely reject those allegations.
I respectfully submit that on any interpretation of the term “adverse reflection”, Mr. Carmody’s allegations are an adverse reflection on me.
As you will be aware, the Parliamentary privilege resolutions agreed to by the Senate on 25 February 1988 relevantly include the following:
“1 Procedures to be observed by Senate committees for the protection of witnesses
In their dealings with witnesses, all committees of the Senate shall observe the following procedures:
…
(11) Where a committee has reason to believe that evidence about to be given may reflect adversely on a person, the committee shall give consideration to hearing that evidence in a private session.
(12) Where a witness gives evidence reflecting adversely on a person and the committee is not satisfied that that evidence is relevant to the committee's inquiry, the committee shall give consideration to expunging that evidence from the transcript of evidence, and to forbidding the publication of that evidence.
(13) Where evidence is given which reflects adversely on a person and action of the kind referred to in paragraph (12) is not taken in respect of the evidence, the committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity for that person to have access to that evidence and to respond to that evidence by written submission and appearance before the committee.
…”
Mr. Carmody’s allegations against me were broadcast and now appear in Hansard. I consider that I am entitled to a reasonable opportunity to respond by written submission and appearance before the Committee. It cannot reasonably be the case that Mr. Carmody is free to make such serious allegations against me under Parliamentary privilege, unsupported by any evidence submitted to the Committee or made available to me, and the matter is resolved by a mere written denial by me.
I, therefore, request that you let me know if the Committee will give me an opportunity to appear again to respond to Mr. Carmody’s allegations.
Ideally, I would appreciate the opportunity to present before you with Mr. Carmody and any nominated CASA support personnel present.
If both perspectives can be presented simultaneously, it will streamline the process and provide the Committee the opportunity to more effectively consider the matter.
Absent a reasonable opportunity to respond, I will consider making a submission in writing to the President of the Senate, requesting the submission be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
Please understand, this matter is important to me.
(To the PPrune reader, I have edited a paragraph here outlining my current employment position. I'm not permitted to broadcast that position. What I will say is that I'm not a water meter reader any more. I got tired of having my arms ripped to shreds by all the residents of Camberwell, Canterbury and Mont Albert who had one bloody rose bush in their entire massive front lawn, and decide to plant it right above the water meter. I could feel them staring at me from their loungerooms as they chuckled with delight)
I underwent an extremely thorough security check prior to being offered the position. If those allegations by Mr. Carmody of criminal offenses were upheld, my employment would be untenable. The fact that I passed the security screening process to obtain the position, further suggests to me that Mr. Carmody's allegations are untruthful and misleading.
Thank you in anticipation of your assistance in bringing transparency to the process.
Please note that I had extended a request to Mr. Anthony Mathews the Chair of the Board of CASA. I had requested that he respond by 5 PM on Tuesday 9th December 2020. Mr. Mathews chose not to respond, therefore I am submitting this request for your consideration. A copy of that correspondence has previously been submitted to you, but have copied it below for your reference.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
COPY OF PREVIOUS LETTER SENT TO MR MATHEWS (CHAIR OF THE CASA BOARD)
Dear Mr. Colin MacLachlan, Chair of the Board of CASA, and all Board Members. Please note that I have included other Parties in this email.
In Senate Estimates on 20/11/20, Mr. Carmody, the CEO of CASA raised allegations of criminal conduct against me, when he said the following.“He has assaulted my staff, he has stalked my staff.”
I absolutely refute those allegations. These are significant allegations and impact on my reputation. I would like to provide Mr. Carmody the opportunity to fully retract his statement and unreservedly apologize for it.
If Mr. Carmody refuses to fully retract that statement and publicly apologize, I will refer this matter to the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges. There are rules associated with adverse reflections on a person, and I feel Mr. Carmody's comments have clearly breached these.
As this matter should be easily attended to, I request that this matter be finalized by way of a retraction and published apology by 5 PM on Tuesday 8th December 2020.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
During a hearing of the Rural Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on 20 November 2020, Mr. Shane Carmody the Director of Aviation Safety (DAS) and Chief Executive Officer of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority said this, among other things, about me:
“Mr. Buckley … has assaulted my staff, he has stalked my staff in the Melbourne office and, frankly, we've had enough of him.”
I completely reject those allegations.
I respectfully submit that on any interpretation of the term “adverse reflection”, Mr. Carmody’s allegations are an adverse reflection on me.
As you will be aware, the Parliamentary privilege resolutions agreed to by the Senate on 25 February 1988 relevantly include the following:
“1 Procedures to be observed by Senate committees for the protection of witnesses
In their dealings with witnesses, all committees of the Senate shall observe the following procedures:
…
(11) Where a committee has reason to believe that evidence about to be given may reflect adversely on a person, the committee shall give consideration to hearing that evidence in a private session.
(12) Where a witness gives evidence reflecting adversely on a person and the committee is not satisfied that that evidence is relevant to the committee's inquiry, the committee shall give consideration to expunging that evidence from the transcript of evidence, and to forbidding the publication of that evidence.
(13) Where evidence is given which reflects adversely on a person and action of the kind referred to in paragraph (12) is not taken in respect of the evidence, the committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity for that person to have access to that evidence and to respond to that evidence by written submission and appearance before the committee.
…”
Mr. Carmody’s allegations against me were broadcast and now appear in Hansard. I consider that I am entitled to a reasonable opportunity to respond by written submission and appearance before the Committee. It cannot reasonably be the case that Mr. Carmody is free to make such serious allegations against me under Parliamentary privilege, unsupported by any evidence submitted to the Committee or made available to me, and the matter is resolved by a mere written denial by me.
I, therefore, request that you let me know if the Committee will give me an opportunity to appear again to respond to Mr. Carmody’s allegations.
Ideally, I would appreciate the opportunity to present before you with Mr. Carmody and any nominated CASA support personnel present.
If both perspectives can be presented simultaneously, it will streamline the process and provide the Committee the opportunity to more effectively consider the matter.
Absent a reasonable opportunity to respond, I will consider making a submission in writing to the President of the Senate, requesting the submission be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
Please understand, this matter is important to me.
(To the PPrune reader, I have edited a paragraph here outlining my current employment position. I'm not permitted to broadcast that position. What I will say is that I'm not a water meter reader any more. I got tired of having my arms ripped to shreds by all the residents of Camberwell, Canterbury and Mont Albert who had one bloody rose bush in their entire massive front lawn, and decide to plant it right above the water meter. I could feel them staring at me from their loungerooms as they chuckled with delight)
I underwent an extremely thorough security check prior to being offered the position. If those allegations by Mr. Carmody of criminal offenses were upheld, my employment would be untenable. The fact that I passed the security screening process to obtain the position, further suggests to me that Mr. Carmody's allegations are untruthful and misleading.
Thank you in anticipation of your assistance in bringing transparency to the process.
Please note that I had extended a request to Mr. Anthony Mathews the Chair of the Board of CASA. I had requested that he respond by 5 PM on Tuesday 9th December 2020. Mr. Mathews chose not to respond, therefore I am submitting this request for your consideration. A copy of that correspondence has previously been submitted to you, but have copied it below for your reference.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
COPY OF PREVIOUS LETTER SENT TO MR MATHEWS (CHAIR OF THE CASA BOARD)
Dear Mr. Colin MacLachlan, Chair of the Board of CASA, and all Board Members. Please note that I have included other Parties in this email.
In Senate Estimates on 20/11/20, Mr. Carmody, the CEO of CASA raised allegations of criminal conduct against me, when he said the following.“He has assaulted my staff, he has stalked my staff.”
I absolutely refute those allegations. These are significant allegations and impact on my reputation. I would like to provide Mr. Carmody the opportunity to fully retract his statement and unreservedly apologize for it.
If Mr. Carmody refuses to fully retract that statement and publicly apologize, I will refer this matter to the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges. There are rules associated with adverse reflections on a person, and I feel Mr. Carmody's comments have clearly breached these.
As this matter should be easily attended to, I request that this matter be finalized by way of a retraction and published apology by 5 PM on Tuesday 8th December 2020.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
Senator Sterle provided me the opportunity to put questions to CASA
11/12/20
To the Committee Secretary,
In response to Senator Sterle's offer to submit questions to CASA seeking a response. Please find attached my correspondence on this matter. Thank you, Glen Buckley.
11/12/20
To Members of the RRAT Senate Estimates Committee,
My name is Glen Buckley the previous owner of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA) and Melbourne Flight Training (MFT). I had the opportunity to present before you at Senate Estimates on 20/11/20.
I am appreciative of the opportunity Senator Sterle provided to me, by offering to submit my questions to CASA via the Committee. Many of these questions have been put to CASA before, but CASA has chosen not to respond.
Noting the time of year, I would be highly appreciative of these questions being put forward to CASA at the earliest practical opportunity in 2021.
I have been attempting to resolve this matter with CASA for over two years. Your assistance in bringing transparency to the process is sincerely appreciated by me, my family, by the staff who lost their employment, the students affected, the suppliers impacted, and the owners of several small businesses forced into closure by the decisions and actions, of the personnel I have alleged misfeasance against in this matter.
CASAs decision making is not supported by regulations, and they have no supporting safety case. I am dealing with matters of opinion only, within the senior CASA Executive, and those opinions are not well-intentioned, and importantly they have demonstrably reduced aviation safety.
I raised those allegations of misfeasance in public office against those CASA personnel during my presentation on 20/11/20. I standby those allegations without the protection of any parliamentary privilege. Shortly I will publicly raise those allegations against the named individuals plus one other CASA Employee.
I am confident that if CASA provides truthful and well-intentioned answers to the following questions, this matter can be bought to a satisfactory resolution. That will allow all those affected to move on with their lives and allow CASA to redirect valuable resources back to areas more pertinent to aviation safety. This matter can be resolved if good intent is permitted to prevail.
Mr. Shane Carmody will shortly depart CASA and his accountability will end. His responsibility will not.
Mr. Graeme Crawford the CASA Executive Manager for the Aviation Group would be the Subject Matter Expert (SME) on my matter and would be my recommended point of contact after the departure of Mr. Carmody.
Alternatively, Mr. Craig Martin, the CASA Executive Manager for Regulatory Services and Surveillance has been the CASA nominated point of contact, and also has expert knowledge of this subject.
Mr. Jonathan Aleck is the CASA Executive Manager, Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs, and the individual responsible and accountable for the industry’s regulatory structure. He has been in the role for many years and would be able to provide any legislative justification for CASAs' actions and decisions.
Ideally, I would appreciate a specific response to each question rather than a grouped response. From my experience with CASA, grouped responses tend to overlook important criteria and allow CASA the opportunity to provide a more “engineered” response that may not reflect all considerations with their appropriate “weighting”.
Before presenting the questions, it is important that I clarify the required underpinning knowledge. Should CASA challenge any statements made in the underpinning knowledge, could they clearly identify that in their response. Whilst some of the statements are my perspective, I would ask CASA to highlight any errors on my behalf.
Could I also clarify that I am seeking a response that can be considered also by the Committee? My expectation would be that responses consider that many of the readers, understandably, will not be Subject Matter Experts on aviation training and safety matters, therefore as clear and concise explanation as practical would be appropriate and appreciated.
Underpinning knowledge
1. CASA commenced a legislative reform program called Part 61 (pilot licensing) and Part 141/142 (Flying School operations) in March 2002. Part 141 being the less complex Flight Training Organisation (FTO) and Part 142 the significantly more complex option. CASA scheduled this program for completion in 2005. The legislation was subsequently postponed by CASA on multiple occasions. The final of many postponements being from December 2013 until September 1st, 2014. when it was finally introduced (10 years behind the intended schedule. and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget), This legislation gave flying schools 3 years to comply i.e. until September 1st, 2017. After that 3 year timeline, they had to cease trading if the process of Transition to the new regulatory structure i.e. Part 141/142, was not completed. If I wanted to continue operating my business after September 1st, 2017, I was required to comply with the new CASA requirements.
2. In the CASA Regulation Impact Statement (RIS), dated December 2012, that preceded this legislative change, it stated on page 15 regarding the impact on business; "Businesses: The existing flight crew training businesses will be required to meet new standards, however, again whilst these represent a deviation from existing standards the changes are relatively minor, which is supported by the feedback that CASA obtained from the consultation process."
3. The truth is that it was in fact the most significant change that Australia's flight training sector had ever experienced. That is evidenced by the fact that within the first 12 months no existing flying schools had completed the process, and CASA was forced into extending the deadline date referred to as the "Transition date” by a further 12 months. All 350 flying schools in Australia would support the contention that the changes were clearly not, "relatively minor", it was in fact, a complete overhaul of every aspect of flying school operations. The industry depended on CASA for an accurate RIS, but it was grossly inaccurate. This was a contributing factor to the resourcing issues CASA faced during implementation.
4. The size and nature of my school suited the less costly Part 141 option.
5. The Part 141 option would however remove access to over 90% of my revenue by removing access to my "150 flying hour commercial pilot license course'. The mainstay of my business. This is a significant point. I would lose access to over 90% of existing revenue streams for courses that I had been delivering since the commencement of the business more than a decade earlier.
6. If I wanted to continue trading after September 1st, 2017, and retain my revenue streams, I needed to revalidate as the higher category Part 142 school, as that was now the only classification of school that could deliver the "150-hour commercial pilot license course", being the course that my business depended on.
7. CASA asked all schools to schedule their implementation program to ensure they met the deadline of September 1st, 2017.
8. CASA requested that I advise my scheduled Transition date. I scheduled to complete as close to the deadline as practical to delay the significant cost increases associated with the new legislation for as long as practical. Although the associated work required would commence in the background. I would not activate the new structure until as late as practical.
9. Twelve months into the three-year Transition period no schools had completed the Transition.
10. CASA asked me to "take a lead" on this matter, and bring my intended Transition date forward, and committed to giving me significant support if I agreed. They were keen to “get the ball rolling” amongst the industry.
11. I agreed and began working with 10 CASA personnel for the next 18 months on a proposal that would transition my own organization and eventually nine other organizations.
12. CASA put forward over 600 new procedural requirements that needed to be incorporated into our systems and procedures. APTA complied with every item. Each item adhered to all CASA guidance material. CASA Personnel assessed each individual procedure by way of face to face meetings with CASA personnel. All suggestions, requests and recommendations made by CASA personnel, were willingly adopted in the design of APTA. CASA was intertwined in the design of APTA. Every single procedure was fully approved by CASA.
13. CASA records will support my contention that CASA allocated more hours to my Transition than any other operator. Ten CASA personnel were heavily involved in my revalidation. CASA expressed this fact to APTA, and it is supported via emails from CASA.
14. I acknowledge that I did put significant pressure on CASA to allocate more resources to APTA as CASA timelines were exceedingly slow. For example, CASA apply an hourly rate to job requests. A job request that was quoted by CASA as a 7-hour task, and paid for by APTA, took 10 months for CASA to process. This was typical, and I wrote to CASA on many occasions about this. We were working towards a very tight deadline, if CASA was unable to resource the project it would potentially lead to significant difficulties for the business after September 1st, 2017, as it would not be able to continue trading.
15. As the deadline or Transition date of September 1st 2017 approached it became apparent to CASA that the vast majority of Australia's Flight Training Organisations were not going to be ready.
16. In March 2017 I sought confirmation from CASA that there would be no extension to the September 1st, 2017 deadline (Transition Date). CASA advised no extensions.
17. Based on that assurance above, I proceeded with the Transition. In April 2017, CASA activated my new Part 141 and 142 Approval. CASA approved APTA with two Flight Training Organisations (FTO) operating under the procedure that CASA had approved i.e. MFT and TVSA. This arrangement had been approved by CASA before the Transition which makes CASAs reversal of opinion more confusing.
18. CASA subsequently approved other FTOs to operate under the APTA model i.e. LTF and AVIA
19. Less than 4 weeks later in May 2017, with less than 20 of Australia's 350 FTOs were approved as a Part 142 Organisation, CASA postponed the deadline 12 months to September 1st, 2018. This was in contrast to the advice they had given me previously, and I depended upon.
20. I immediately asked CASA if I could revert to the previously less costly structure that the majority of schools could operate under for the next 12 months. CASA advised no.
21. In September 2018, the Transition date was finally implemented and a further short-term extension was provided to FTOs that had not met the date.
22. CASA conducted the highest level of audit available to CASA being a Level 1 audit. This was completed in November 2017 (6 months after Transition to the new regulations). No concerns were raised at all by CASA about the structure, in fact it was quite the opposite. CASA had now assisted in the design of APTA, approved it, audited it, recommended it, and approved bases to operate under it. I was confident that the concept was going to be successful, and that it was fully CASA sanctioned.
23. In May 2018 I was advised of a change of oversight by CASA personnel. On receipt of that notification, I immediately requested a one on one meeting with the Region Manager to raise concerns that one of the CASA employees may not be an appropriate person to oversight my organisation. This was based on comments he had made publicly, and information from other operators who had dealings with him. I specifically requested that the meeting be “on the record”. CASA will have that on file.
24. My concerns were not acted upon, the change of CASA oversighting personnel proceeded, and shortly afterwards the CASA employee that I had raised concerns about was integral in initiating the CASA process that was to follow. I was obviously dealing with a completely polarised view by personnel within the Melbourne office of CASA. My previous oversighting team CMT2 had been supportive, whereas the new team CMT 3 appeared aggressive, and to be actively working to bring harm to me and my business.
25. At the initial meeting between the new CASA oversighting team referred to as CMT 3, I had emailed suggesting that the new team give me an oversight on APTA, so that I could “fill in any gaps” and ensure we have a clear understanding to ensure a professional relationship going forward. At the start of the meeting the Region Manager advised that they would not be doing that. This raised my concerns about “intent”.
26. On October 23rd 2018 with absolutely no prior notification at and absolutely no concerns having been raised in any way I received notification that
a. My business had only 7 days surety of operations.
b. The businesses depending on me had only 7 days surety of operations.
c. We had been operating unlawfully.
d. Enforcement action was most likely.
27. On those restrictions being placed on the business, I immediately bought the commercial implications to the notice of CASA. The business was now derived of its opportunity to enrol new customers. The expenses remained and I estimated them to be in excess of $10,000 per week in order to meet staff salaries. I wrote to CASA on the following dates advising them of the commercial impact on my business. 24/10/18, 29/10/18, 2/11/18, 7/11/18, 9/11/18, 12/11/18, 4/12/18, 5/12/18, 21/12/18, 8/1/19, and 13/03/19 and CASA will hold that correspondence
28. Shortly afterwards and before I had an opportunity to resolve the matter, CASA had written to my customers advising them that their operations were operating unlawfully.
29. CASA also applied a freeze on all administrative tasks for 8 months until the forced sale of the business. Applications for renewals of simulators were not processed. An application for a new simulator was halted. The organisation had an application in for courses, and they were not processed. There was no reason those administrative tasks should not proceed. APTA as a fully approved CASA Part 141 and 142 operator was entitled to have those applications processed. Applications to add Key personnel to the management structure also ground to a halt. I believe that this was a breach of Administrative Law and CASA should have processed those tasks.
30. CASA identified that they had not written up audit results for Latrobe Valley Aero Club months after the audit was completed. CASA gave me an undertaking to complete the audit results over the weekend. Completely new allegations of regulatory breaches appeared in those audit results. I made repeated requests for supporting information i.e. evidence. CASA ignored my requests. I refute entirely those false allegations of regulatory breaches that were raised many months later and differed entirely to the Exit Meeting at the time the audit was conducted. CASA is required to raise all anomalies at the exit meeting, and the audit results are expected to replicate that meeting.
31. CASA directed that "franchised AOCs" were not permitted and directed that my business, Melbourne Flight Training, had to be handed over to APTA.
32. APTA had maintained an Industry-leading record of safety and compliance throughout its 15 years, and that is the feedback that CASA provided to APTA. No action by CASA has ever been based on safety, and no safety concerns at all have been raised by CASA. Similarly CASA is unable to identify any regulatory breaches.
I would be very appreciative if CASA could answer the following questions.
Question One – CASA previously permitted multiple entities to operate under a single Air Operators Certificate (AOC)
Throughout my 25 years in the aviation industry, CASA had approved more than one flying school to operate under a single Air Operator Certificate (AOC). This was CASA accepted practice. The AOC holder taking on full accountability and responsibility in the regulations and for safety, for all operations, across all bases operating under the AOC.
Evidence of this is that my own business, Melbourne Flight Training business shared its AOC with another flying school, with me remaining fully accountable in CASA legislation for all operations across both bases. This was approved by CASA.
Latrobe Valley Aero Club was also doing exactly that with another AOC Holder immediately prior to joining APTA. They joined APTA because it was designed with CASA and CASA approved. In fact, it was the first time that CASA and a flying school had worked collaboratively to design a system that addressed the deficiencies that existed with the existing CASA sanctioned arrangements that were in place for multiple entities operating under a single AOC.
Can CASA clearly and concisely explain why it was that Latrobe valley Aero Club was previously permitted to operate under another operators AOC but when they operated under mine, it was not acceptable and they were potentially subjected to regulatory action?
Question Two- (CASA was integral in the design and approval of APTA. I depended highly on CASA for guidance)
CASA was integral in the design of every aspect of APTA, and that at least 10 CASA personnel assessed and approved over 600 procedures that were incorporated into a suite of operational manuals, over a two year development period. The entire application underwent a Peer Review by senior CASA personnel prior to approval and was fully approved by CASA in April 2017. At the time of approving APTA in April 2017,there were already two bases operating under the system, being MFT and TVSA. CASA did go on to approve other bases under the system i.e. LTF and AVIA. CASA did also suggest to both the Ballart Aero Club and Latrobe Valley Aero Club that they should consider joining APTA as an alternative to ceasing operations.
Does CASA agree that they were heavily involved in the design and approval of APTA and in fact CASA personnel spent more time working with APTAs application than most other applications? APTA was fully approved and by CASA. The notification of October 2018 was a complete reversal of opinion.
Question Three- Was CASAs initial contact appropriate, lawful, proportionate and in line with industry precedent
On October 23rd 2018, you provided Glen Buckley a letter.
That letter gave Mr Buckleys business only 7 days surety of operations. It advised that CASA then provided a number of short-term interim approvals to operate over the next 8 months. You also wrote to all his customers advising them that they were potentially in breach of the regulations, and subject to regulatory action.
The impact of this action is substantial, and more so because Mr Buckley had several businesses depending on him in order to conduct their business.
With only 7 days of surety, followed over the next 8 months by subsequent short term approvals, it left the organisations future in doubt. It was impossible to enrol students in the courses, it was impossible to market the business, enormous instability was created amongst suppliers, cusomers and staff. APTA was fundamentally about providing smaller Australian Owned businesses and aero clubs the opportunity to continue in the new and more costly regulatory environment. The CASA actions including CASA contacting customers significantly eroded confidence in APTA
Mr Buckley claims that this notification came with absolutely no prior warning at all. Until receipt of that correspondence, Mr Buckley was confident that CASA fully supported his business.
Giving an aviation business potentially only 7 days to operate is a significant burden to place on any business in any industry. Such action would be rarely used by CASA and only in instances where there was a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety
Generally if CASA were to take such action there would be a process to vary a business owners Air operator Certificate, and those procedures are outlined in the Enforcement manual which can be found here. Enforcement Manual (casa.gov.au). Bypassing those stipulated procedures breached Mr Buckleys rights.
In my case these procedures were completely bypassed, and the first notification was that initial notification.
How often would CASA take such heavy handed action against a business. Was it appropriate in the circumstances. Mr Buckley advises that this notification came completely out of the blue with no prior notification. Were there any less combative actions considered, such as picking up the phone and raising any concerns, or scheduling a meeting.
Questions Four (Contracts)
When CASA initially issued the restrictions on the businesses ability to trade, they simultaneously requested that we provide contracts between the entities. This was a new requirement, and had not been placed on other operators previously. I have written to CASA on numerous occasions asking if they held such “contracts” for other operators. They have chosen not to respond. I assert that CASA will hold no contracts as the requirement was a new requirement unique to my organisation.
Interestingly, we had pre-empted any CASA requirement and we did have contracts that we were satisfied with. Once CASA realised this it created a somewhat awkward situation. They were making a demand for contracts, when they already held them.
I believe that once CASA identified that they already held contracts they should have immediately lifted the trading restrictions placed on the business.
A comprehensive email trail can be provided on this matter. CASA were not satisfied with the contracts but could not advise what they required. This matter was to drag on for a staggering 8 months with the trading restrictions in place.
It was incumbent in my view that CASA identified any deficiency in the legislation that needed to be attended to in the contracts. If CASA were not satisfied with the contracts they had to identify what they needed.
CASA did provide suggested text which I embedded and returned to CASA. CASA approved this new format contract then hours later reversed that approval and advised that it was not up to them to tell me what was required in the contracts. The situation was impossible for me to resolve.
Had CASA ever required other operators to hold a contract? Does CASA acknowledge that at the time they made a demand for contracts, CASA actually did hold the contracts.?
Question Five (Why did the Board choose not to facilitate a meeting when serious allegations were raised by Glen Buckley)
I wrote to the CASA Board on 02/01/19, 02/04/19, 22/5/19, 28/5/19, 6/6/19, 11/6/19 and finally obtained the opportunity to meet with Mr Mathews, the Chair of the Board of CASA on 20/07/19, which was 9 months after CASA initiated the restrictions on the business ability to trade, and 6 months after my first correspondence to the Board raising the most significant allegations of misconduct by CASA personnel.
Had the Board responded in a more timely and appropriate manner, it may well be that the situation could have been resolved. As we now know, multiple businesses have been forced into closure.
Can the Board explain why they chose not to respond and facilitate a meeting as requested. My request was merely to meet with any two members of the Board at any location in Australia. I have made multiple requests over the last two years to meet with any two Members, and that request has not been met. I still make myself available for that meeting if it can be facilitated.
Question Six (Transferring MFT )
After restricting APTAs ability to derive revenue, Mr Buckley’s parents stepped in and covered the staff salaries to avoid redundancies.
They contributed approximately $300,000 over the 8-month period. With interim approvals to operate placed on the business, and the business deprived of revenue, Mr Buckley was forced to sell APTA for approximately 5% of its previous value. Mr Buckley had to walk away from that business without one cent benefitting him or his family. He did however retain his flying school called Melbourne Flight Training. (MFT)
CASA however directed that his staff and customers at MFT had to transfer to the new owners of APTA. This resulted in Mr Buckley losing his second business of 15 years, Melbourne Flight training being handed over to another entity. The financial obligations on Mr Buckley remained to suppliers for leases etc. Deprived of revenue from his business but recurring contractual obligations in place, he was placed in an impossible situation.
Is there any legislative basis at all for CASA directing Mr Buckley to transfer his flying school to another entity. This action alone resulted in Mr Buckley losing his business of 15 years, and being deprived of his livelihood.
Question Seven (direction to Employer that my position was untenable)
After CASA had placed restrictions on APTAs ability to trade, and after CASA directed that Mr Buckleys remaining flying school had to transfer all staff and students to another entity, Mr Buckley secured employment with the new owners of APTA. CASA then sent a notice to his Employer that his “position was untenable based on comments that he was making publicly”, and he was terminated.
This is a highly unusual direction, and normally a CASA approved Head of Operations would be afforded the protection of the CASA Enforcement manual to ensure his rights in accordance with Administrative Law, Natural Justice and procedural fairness.
I believe Mr Buckley has made multiple requests to have his offending comments identified. The only place Mr Buckley has made any public comments, is on PPRUne. It seems entirely reasonable that if CASA sent that direction to his Employer that CASA identify the particular comments from the forum that lead to that direction. The forum can be accessed here. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums
Could CASA please identify the specific comments that lead to the direction to my Employer that my employment was untenable based on comments that I was making publicly?
Question Eight ( CASA directing significant resources to secure their objective)
Mr Buckley claims that the impact of the CASA actions and decisions has been significant. Many millions of dollars has been lost, several businesses have closed, customers have had their training impacted, staff have lost employment, he has lost his home and is now destitute. He has robustly defended his position. Putting all of that to one side for the moment, I assume that CASA have directed a significant amount of resources to this matter.
Could CASA provide an indication to the committee as to how many resources have been redirected to CASA achieving their objective. For example how many man hours would have been allocated to the project, how much money has been spent on legal fees etc.
Question Nine (supporting safety case)
I assume that prior to initiating the action against Glen Buckley’s business, CASA would have prepared their case. Mr Buckley claims that CASA actions have reduced aviation safety.
This would be a routine procedure in any organisation dealing with safety matters.
Can you advise if CASA prepared any risk assessment or safety case prior to initiating the action, and would CASA be prepared to provide that to the Committee, and to Mr Buckley.
Question Ten CASAs Regulatory Philiosophy
CASA has a commitment to industry, and part of that is contained within CASAs Regulatory Philosophy which can be found here. Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
Mr Buckley contends that had CASA acted in accordance with the Regulatory Philosophy this entire situation could have been avoided.
After careful consideration of the Philosophy and considering each point, is CASA fully satisfied that it has complied with each of those commitments given to industry in the Regulatory Philosophy in their dealings with APTA, MFT and Glen Buckley
Thankyou for your consideration, respectfully
Glen Buckley
To the Committee Secretary,
In response to Senator Sterle's offer to submit questions to CASA seeking a response. Please find attached my correspondence on this matter. Thank you, Glen Buckley.
11/12/20
To Members of the RRAT Senate Estimates Committee,
My name is Glen Buckley the previous owner of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA) and Melbourne Flight Training (MFT). I had the opportunity to present before you at Senate Estimates on 20/11/20.
I am appreciative of the opportunity Senator Sterle provided to me, by offering to submit my questions to CASA via the Committee. Many of these questions have been put to CASA before, but CASA has chosen not to respond.
Noting the time of year, I would be highly appreciative of these questions being put forward to CASA at the earliest practical opportunity in 2021.
I have been attempting to resolve this matter with CASA for over two years. Your assistance in bringing transparency to the process is sincerely appreciated by me, my family, by the staff who lost their employment, the students affected, the suppliers impacted, and the owners of several small businesses forced into closure by the decisions and actions, of the personnel I have alleged misfeasance against in this matter.
CASAs decision making is not supported by regulations, and they have no supporting safety case. I am dealing with matters of opinion only, within the senior CASA Executive, and those opinions are not well-intentioned, and importantly they have demonstrably reduced aviation safety.
I raised those allegations of misfeasance in public office against those CASA personnel during my presentation on 20/11/20. I standby those allegations without the protection of any parliamentary privilege. Shortly I will publicly raise those allegations against the named individuals plus one other CASA Employee.
I am confident that if CASA provides truthful and well-intentioned answers to the following questions, this matter can be bought to a satisfactory resolution. That will allow all those affected to move on with their lives and allow CASA to redirect valuable resources back to areas more pertinent to aviation safety. This matter can be resolved if good intent is permitted to prevail.
Mr. Shane Carmody will shortly depart CASA and his accountability will end. His responsibility will not.
Mr. Graeme Crawford the CASA Executive Manager for the Aviation Group would be the Subject Matter Expert (SME) on my matter and would be my recommended point of contact after the departure of Mr. Carmody.
Alternatively, Mr. Craig Martin, the CASA Executive Manager for Regulatory Services and Surveillance has been the CASA nominated point of contact, and also has expert knowledge of this subject.
Mr. Jonathan Aleck is the CASA Executive Manager, Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs, and the individual responsible and accountable for the industry’s regulatory structure. He has been in the role for many years and would be able to provide any legislative justification for CASAs' actions and decisions.
Ideally, I would appreciate a specific response to each question rather than a grouped response. From my experience with CASA, grouped responses tend to overlook important criteria and allow CASA the opportunity to provide a more “engineered” response that may not reflect all considerations with their appropriate “weighting”.
Before presenting the questions, it is important that I clarify the required underpinning knowledge. Should CASA challenge any statements made in the underpinning knowledge, could they clearly identify that in their response. Whilst some of the statements are my perspective, I would ask CASA to highlight any errors on my behalf.
Could I also clarify that I am seeking a response that can be considered also by the Committee? My expectation would be that responses consider that many of the readers, understandably, will not be Subject Matter Experts on aviation training and safety matters, therefore as clear and concise explanation as practical would be appropriate and appreciated.
Underpinning knowledge
1. CASA commenced a legislative reform program called Part 61 (pilot licensing) and Part 141/142 (Flying School operations) in March 2002. Part 141 being the less complex Flight Training Organisation (FTO) and Part 142 the significantly more complex option. CASA scheduled this program for completion in 2005. The legislation was subsequently postponed by CASA on multiple occasions. The final of many postponements being from December 2013 until September 1st, 2014. when it was finally introduced (10 years behind the intended schedule. and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget), This legislation gave flying schools 3 years to comply i.e. until September 1st, 2017. After that 3 year timeline, they had to cease trading if the process of Transition to the new regulatory structure i.e. Part 141/142, was not completed. If I wanted to continue operating my business after September 1st, 2017, I was required to comply with the new CASA requirements.
2. In the CASA Regulation Impact Statement (RIS), dated December 2012, that preceded this legislative change, it stated on page 15 regarding the impact on business; "Businesses: The existing flight crew training businesses will be required to meet new standards, however, again whilst these represent a deviation from existing standards the changes are relatively minor, which is supported by the feedback that CASA obtained from the consultation process."
3. The truth is that it was in fact the most significant change that Australia's flight training sector had ever experienced. That is evidenced by the fact that within the first 12 months no existing flying schools had completed the process, and CASA was forced into extending the deadline date referred to as the "Transition date” by a further 12 months. All 350 flying schools in Australia would support the contention that the changes were clearly not, "relatively minor", it was in fact, a complete overhaul of every aspect of flying school operations. The industry depended on CASA for an accurate RIS, but it was grossly inaccurate. This was a contributing factor to the resourcing issues CASA faced during implementation.
4. The size and nature of my school suited the less costly Part 141 option.
5. The Part 141 option would however remove access to over 90% of my revenue by removing access to my "150 flying hour commercial pilot license course'. The mainstay of my business. This is a significant point. I would lose access to over 90% of existing revenue streams for courses that I had been delivering since the commencement of the business more than a decade earlier.
6. If I wanted to continue trading after September 1st, 2017, and retain my revenue streams, I needed to revalidate as the higher category Part 142 school, as that was now the only classification of school that could deliver the "150-hour commercial pilot license course", being the course that my business depended on.
7. CASA asked all schools to schedule their implementation program to ensure they met the deadline of September 1st, 2017.
8. CASA requested that I advise my scheduled Transition date. I scheduled to complete as close to the deadline as practical to delay the significant cost increases associated with the new legislation for as long as practical. Although the associated work required would commence in the background. I would not activate the new structure until as late as practical.
9. Twelve months into the three-year Transition period no schools had completed the Transition.
10. CASA asked me to "take a lead" on this matter, and bring my intended Transition date forward, and committed to giving me significant support if I agreed. They were keen to “get the ball rolling” amongst the industry.
11. I agreed and began working with 10 CASA personnel for the next 18 months on a proposal that would transition my own organization and eventually nine other organizations.
12. CASA put forward over 600 new procedural requirements that needed to be incorporated into our systems and procedures. APTA complied with every item. Each item adhered to all CASA guidance material. CASA Personnel assessed each individual procedure by way of face to face meetings with CASA personnel. All suggestions, requests and recommendations made by CASA personnel, were willingly adopted in the design of APTA. CASA was intertwined in the design of APTA. Every single procedure was fully approved by CASA.
13. CASA records will support my contention that CASA allocated more hours to my Transition than any other operator. Ten CASA personnel were heavily involved in my revalidation. CASA expressed this fact to APTA, and it is supported via emails from CASA.
14. I acknowledge that I did put significant pressure on CASA to allocate more resources to APTA as CASA timelines were exceedingly slow. For example, CASA apply an hourly rate to job requests. A job request that was quoted by CASA as a 7-hour task, and paid for by APTA, took 10 months for CASA to process. This was typical, and I wrote to CASA on many occasions about this. We were working towards a very tight deadline, if CASA was unable to resource the project it would potentially lead to significant difficulties for the business after September 1st, 2017, as it would not be able to continue trading.
15. As the deadline or Transition date of September 1st 2017 approached it became apparent to CASA that the vast majority of Australia's Flight Training Organisations were not going to be ready.
16. In March 2017 I sought confirmation from CASA that there would be no extension to the September 1st, 2017 deadline (Transition Date). CASA advised no extensions.
17. Based on that assurance above, I proceeded with the Transition. In April 2017, CASA activated my new Part 141 and 142 Approval. CASA approved APTA with two Flight Training Organisations (FTO) operating under the procedure that CASA had approved i.e. MFT and TVSA. This arrangement had been approved by CASA before the Transition which makes CASAs reversal of opinion more confusing.
18. CASA subsequently approved other FTOs to operate under the APTA model i.e. LTF and AVIA
19. Less than 4 weeks later in May 2017, with less than 20 of Australia's 350 FTOs were approved as a Part 142 Organisation, CASA postponed the deadline 12 months to September 1st, 2018. This was in contrast to the advice they had given me previously, and I depended upon.
20. I immediately asked CASA if I could revert to the previously less costly structure that the majority of schools could operate under for the next 12 months. CASA advised no.
21. In September 2018, the Transition date was finally implemented and a further short-term extension was provided to FTOs that had not met the date.
22. CASA conducted the highest level of audit available to CASA being a Level 1 audit. This was completed in November 2017 (6 months after Transition to the new regulations). No concerns were raised at all by CASA about the structure, in fact it was quite the opposite. CASA had now assisted in the design of APTA, approved it, audited it, recommended it, and approved bases to operate under it. I was confident that the concept was going to be successful, and that it was fully CASA sanctioned.
23. In May 2018 I was advised of a change of oversight by CASA personnel. On receipt of that notification, I immediately requested a one on one meeting with the Region Manager to raise concerns that one of the CASA employees may not be an appropriate person to oversight my organisation. This was based on comments he had made publicly, and information from other operators who had dealings with him. I specifically requested that the meeting be “on the record”. CASA will have that on file.
24. My concerns were not acted upon, the change of CASA oversighting personnel proceeded, and shortly afterwards the CASA employee that I had raised concerns about was integral in initiating the CASA process that was to follow. I was obviously dealing with a completely polarised view by personnel within the Melbourne office of CASA. My previous oversighting team CMT2 had been supportive, whereas the new team CMT 3 appeared aggressive, and to be actively working to bring harm to me and my business.
25. At the initial meeting between the new CASA oversighting team referred to as CMT 3, I had emailed suggesting that the new team give me an oversight on APTA, so that I could “fill in any gaps” and ensure we have a clear understanding to ensure a professional relationship going forward. At the start of the meeting the Region Manager advised that they would not be doing that. This raised my concerns about “intent”.
26. On October 23rd 2018 with absolutely no prior notification at and absolutely no concerns having been raised in any way I received notification that
a. My business had only 7 days surety of operations.
b. The businesses depending on me had only 7 days surety of operations.
c. We had been operating unlawfully.
d. Enforcement action was most likely.
27. On those restrictions being placed on the business, I immediately bought the commercial implications to the notice of CASA. The business was now derived of its opportunity to enrol new customers. The expenses remained and I estimated them to be in excess of $10,000 per week in order to meet staff salaries. I wrote to CASA on the following dates advising them of the commercial impact on my business. 24/10/18, 29/10/18, 2/11/18, 7/11/18, 9/11/18, 12/11/18, 4/12/18, 5/12/18, 21/12/18, 8/1/19, and 13/03/19 and CASA will hold that correspondence
28. Shortly afterwards and before I had an opportunity to resolve the matter, CASA had written to my customers advising them that their operations were operating unlawfully.
29. CASA also applied a freeze on all administrative tasks for 8 months until the forced sale of the business. Applications for renewals of simulators were not processed. An application for a new simulator was halted. The organisation had an application in for courses, and they were not processed. There was no reason those administrative tasks should not proceed. APTA as a fully approved CASA Part 141 and 142 operator was entitled to have those applications processed. Applications to add Key personnel to the management structure also ground to a halt. I believe that this was a breach of Administrative Law and CASA should have processed those tasks.
30. CASA identified that they had not written up audit results for Latrobe Valley Aero Club months after the audit was completed. CASA gave me an undertaking to complete the audit results over the weekend. Completely new allegations of regulatory breaches appeared in those audit results. I made repeated requests for supporting information i.e. evidence. CASA ignored my requests. I refute entirely those false allegations of regulatory breaches that were raised many months later and differed entirely to the Exit Meeting at the time the audit was conducted. CASA is required to raise all anomalies at the exit meeting, and the audit results are expected to replicate that meeting.
31. CASA directed that "franchised AOCs" were not permitted and directed that my business, Melbourne Flight Training, had to be handed over to APTA.
32. APTA had maintained an Industry-leading record of safety and compliance throughout its 15 years, and that is the feedback that CASA provided to APTA. No action by CASA has ever been based on safety, and no safety concerns at all have been raised by CASA. Similarly CASA is unable to identify any regulatory breaches.
I would be very appreciative if CASA could answer the following questions.
Question One – CASA previously permitted multiple entities to operate under a single Air Operators Certificate (AOC)
Throughout my 25 years in the aviation industry, CASA had approved more than one flying school to operate under a single Air Operator Certificate (AOC). This was CASA accepted practice. The AOC holder taking on full accountability and responsibility in the regulations and for safety, for all operations, across all bases operating under the AOC.
Evidence of this is that my own business, Melbourne Flight Training business shared its AOC with another flying school, with me remaining fully accountable in CASA legislation for all operations across both bases. This was approved by CASA.
Latrobe Valley Aero Club was also doing exactly that with another AOC Holder immediately prior to joining APTA. They joined APTA because it was designed with CASA and CASA approved. In fact, it was the first time that CASA and a flying school had worked collaboratively to design a system that addressed the deficiencies that existed with the existing CASA sanctioned arrangements that were in place for multiple entities operating under a single AOC.
Can CASA clearly and concisely explain why it was that Latrobe valley Aero Club was previously permitted to operate under another operators AOC but when they operated under mine, it was not acceptable and they were potentially subjected to regulatory action?
Question Two- (CASA was integral in the design and approval of APTA. I depended highly on CASA for guidance)
CASA was integral in the design of every aspect of APTA, and that at least 10 CASA personnel assessed and approved over 600 procedures that were incorporated into a suite of operational manuals, over a two year development period. The entire application underwent a Peer Review by senior CASA personnel prior to approval and was fully approved by CASA in April 2017. At the time of approving APTA in April 2017,there were already two bases operating under the system, being MFT and TVSA. CASA did go on to approve other bases under the system i.e. LTF and AVIA. CASA did also suggest to both the Ballart Aero Club and Latrobe Valley Aero Club that they should consider joining APTA as an alternative to ceasing operations.
Does CASA agree that they were heavily involved in the design and approval of APTA and in fact CASA personnel spent more time working with APTAs application than most other applications? APTA was fully approved and by CASA. The notification of October 2018 was a complete reversal of opinion.
Question Three- Was CASAs initial contact appropriate, lawful, proportionate and in line with industry precedent
On October 23rd 2018, you provided Glen Buckley a letter.
That letter gave Mr Buckleys business only 7 days surety of operations. It advised that CASA then provided a number of short-term interim approvals to operate over the next 8 months. You also wrote to all his customers advising them that they were potentially in breach of the regulations, and subject to regulatory action.
The impact of this action is substantial, and more so because Mr Buckley had several businesses depending on him in order to conduct their business.
With only 7 days of surety, followed over the next 8 months by subsequent short term approvals, it left the organisations future in doubt. It was impossible to enrol students in the courses, it was impossible to market the business, enormous instability was created amongst suppliers, cusomers and staff. APTA was fundamentally about providing smaller Australian Owned businesses and aero clubs the opportunity to continue in the new and more costly regulatory environment. The CASA actions including CASA contacting customers significantly eroded confidence in APTA
Mr Buckley claims that this notification came with absolutely no prior warning at all. Until receipt of that correspondence, Mr Buckley was confident that CASA fully supported his business.
Giving an aviation business potentially only 7 days to operate is a significant burden to place on any business in any industry. Such action would be rarely used by CASA and only in instances where there was a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety
Generally if CASA were to take such action there would be a process to vary a business owners Air operator Certificate, and those procedures are outlined in the Enforcement manual which can be found here. Enforcement Manual (casa.gov.au). Bypassing those stipulated procedures breached Mr Buckleys rights.
In my case these procedures were completely bypassed, and the first notification was that initial notification.
How often would CASA take such heavy handed action against a business. Was it appropriate in the circumstances. Mr Buckley advises that this notification came completely out of the blue with no prior notification. Were there any less combative actions considered, such as picking up the phone and raising any concerns, or scheduling a meeting.
Questions Four (Contracts)
When CASA initially issued the restrictions on the businesses ability to trade, they simultaneously requested that we provide contracts between the entities. This was a new requirement, and had not been placed on other operators previously. I have written to CASA on numerous occasions asking if they held such “contracts” for other operators. They have chosen not to respond. I assert that CASA will hold no contracts as the requirement was a new requirement unique to my organisation.
Interestingly, we had pre-empted any CASA requirement and we did have contracts that we were satisfied with. Once CASA realised this it created a somewhat awkward situation. They were making a demand for contracts, when they already held them.
I believe that once CASA identified that they already held contracts they should have immediately lifted the trading restrictions placed on the business.
A comprehensive email trail can be provided on this matter. CASA were not satisfied with the contracts but could not advise what they required. This matter was to drag on for a staggering 8 months with the trading restrictions in place.
It was incumbent in my view that CASA identified any deficiency in the legislation that needed to be attended to in the contracts. If CASA were not satisfied with the contracts they had to identify what they needed.
CASA did provide suggested text which I embedded and returned to CASA. CASA approved this new format contract then hours later reversed that approval and advised that it was not up to them to tell me what was required in the contracts. The situation was impossible for me to resolve.
Had CASA ever required other operators to hold a contract? Does CASA acknowledge that at the time they made a demand for contracts, CASA actually did hold the contracts.?
Question Five (Why did the Board choose not to facilitate a meeting when serious allegations were raised by Glen Buckley)
I wrote to the CASA Board on 02/01/19, 02/04/19, 22/5/19, 28/5/19, 6/6/19, 11/6/19 and finally obtained the opportunity to meet with Mr Mathews, the Chair of the Board of CASA on 20/07/19, which was 9 months after CASA initiated the restrictions on the business ability to trade, and 6 months after my first correspondence to the Board raising the most significant allegations of misconduct by CASA personnel.
Had the Board responded in a more timely and appropriate manner, it may well be that the situation could have been resolved. As we now know, multiple businesses have been forced into closure.
Can the Board explain why they chose not to respond and facilitate a meeting as requested. My request was merely to meet with any two members of the Board at any location in Australia. I have made multiple requests over the last two years to meet with any two Members, and that request has not been met. I still make myself available for that meeting if it can be facilitated.
Question Six (Transferring MFT )
After restricting APTAs ability to derive revenue, Mr Buckley’s parents stepped in and covered the staff salaries to avoid redundancies.
They contributed approximately $300,000 over the 8-month period. With interim approvals to operate placed on the business, and the business deprived of revenue, Mr Buckley was forced to sell APTA for approximately 5% of its previous value. Mr Buckley had to walk away from that business without one cent benefitting him or his family. He did however retain his flying school called Melbourne Flight Training. (MFT)
CASA however directed that his staff and customers at MFT had to transfer to the new owners of APTA. This resulted in Mr Buckley losing his second business of 15 years, Melbourne Flight training being handed over to another entity. The financial obligations on Mr Buckley remained to suppliers for leases etc. Deprived of revenue from his business but recurring contractual obligations in place, he was placed in an impossible situation.
Is there any legislative basis at all for CASA directing Mr Buckley to transfer his flying school to another entity. This action alone resulted in Mr Buckley losing his business of 15 years, and being deprived of his livelihood.
Question Seven (direction to Employer that my position was untenable)
After CASA had placed restrictions on APTAs ability to trade, and after CASA directed that Mr Buckleys remaining flying school had to transfer all staff and students to another entity, Mr Buckley secured employment with the new owners of APTA. CASA then sent a notice to his Employer that his “position was untenable based on comments that he was making publicly”, and he was terminated.
This is a highly unusual direction, and normally a CASA approved Head of Operations would be afforded the protection of the CASA Enforcement manual to ensure his rights in accordance with Administrative Law, Natural Justice and procedural fairness.
I believe Mr Buckley has made multiple requests to have his offending comments identified. The only place Mr Buckley has made any public comments, is on PPRUne. It seems entirely reasonable that if CASA sent that direction to his Employer that CASA identify the particular comments from the forum that lead to that direction. The forum can be accessed here. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums
Could CASA please identify the specific comments that lead to the direction to my Employer that my employment was untenable based on comments that I was making publicly?
Question Eight ( CASA directing significant resources to secure their objective)
Mr Buckley claims that the impact of the CASA actions and decisions has been significant. Many millions of dollars has been lost, several businesses have closed, customers have had their training impacted, staff have lost employment, he has lost his home and is now destitute. He has robustly defended his position. Putting all of that to one side for the moment, I assume that CASA have directed a significant amount of resources to this matter.
Could CASA provide an indication to the committee as to how many resources have been redirected to CASA achieving their objective. For example how many man hours would have been allocated to the project, how much money has been spent on legal fees etc.
Question Nine (supporting safety case)
I assume that prior to initiating the action against Glen Buckley’s business, CASA would have prepared their case. Mr Buckley claims that CASA actions have reduced aviation safety.
This would be a routine procedure in any organisation dealing with safety matters.
Can you advise if CASA prepared any risk assessment or safety case prior to initiating the action, and would CASA be prepared to provide that to the Committee, and to Mr Buckley.
Question Ten CASAs Regulatory Philiosophy
CASA has a commitment to industry, and part of that is contained within CASAs Regulatory Philosophy which can be found here. Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
Mr Buckley contends that had CASA acted in accordance with the Regulatory Philosophy this entire situation could have been avoided.
After careful consideration of the Philosophy and considering each point, is CASA fully satisfied that it has complied with each of those commitments given to industry in the Regulatory Philosophy in their dealings with APTA, MFT and Glen Buckley
Thankyou for your consideration, respectfully
Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
Freedom of Information request for allegations of assault and stalking
To Whom it may concern.
On 20/11/20 the CASA CEO Mr. Shane Carmody made allegations that i had stalked and assaulted CASA personnel. This statement was made to the RRAt Senate inquiry.
Prior to him raising that allegation of criminal conduct in the Senate, I had no idea of these allegations which I vigorously deny.
Could I make a Freedom of Information Request for any information that CASA has on file about me regarding stalking or assaulting CASA personnel?
Thank you in anticipation of your assistance. Could that information be forwarded to me at the return email address?
Regards. Glen Buckley
On 20/11/20 the CASA CEO Mr. Shane Carmody made allegations that i had stalked and assaulted CASA personnel. This statement was made to the RRAt Senate inquiry.
Prior to him raising that allegation of criminal conduct in the Senate, I had no idea of these allegations which I vigorously deny.
Could I make a Freedom of Information Request for any information that CASA has on file about me regarding stalking or assaulting CASA personnel?
Thank you in anticipation of your assistance. Could that information be forwarded to me at the return email address?
Regards. Glen Buckley
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Boring Point
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Gold coast
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is unbelievable, I really hope justice prevails as this is not acceptable and CASA needs to be held accountable, I am sure there are some great people in CASA but sounds like a few egotistical elite have set a very bad culture and the worst part is they probably know bugger all about aviation, hang in there Glen
That unsigned letter from Susan McDonald is the clearest example I've seen of the contempt politicians have for their constituents. Furthermore, it epitomises why politicians are despised by so many...
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,966
Received 92 Likes
on
53 Posts
Furthermore, it epitomises why politicians are despised by so many...
Further comment could possibly be viewed as seditious.
