Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
I'm in, I'm sure everybody who has had anything to do with CASA will contribute
Thread Starter
A petition
Great to see a few of the old posters back, and a couple of new ones. The support on Pprune has been overwhelming. I will endeavor to get a couple of posts up here over the coming days.
One of those is a response from Mr. Mathews the Chair of the CASA Board. It's quite frustrating how CASA consistently say that I have not produced any evidence, yet it is CASA that denies me the opportunity to present the evidence. Therefore I will call for an investigation. It would be a brief and relatively straightforward matter provided it is an oral presentation, with CASA participating. It would take no more than one day for CASA and I to present the matter, with another day for questions and deliberation. At the end of the second day, there would be a very clear indication for the requirement or not, of a full investigation into the contact of these three CASA employees.
You will recall that over two years ago as this matter began to unfold, I kept quiet and tried to resolve it with CASA for 6 months before I went Public. You may recall that for 6 months I also wrote to the Board of CASA on multiple occasions seeking the opportunity to meet with any two members of the Board (to maintain integrity) and present my evidence. Those requests were consistently ignored, only exacerbating the commercial and emotional damage being caused.
You may recall that after 6 months of repeated requests, Mr. Anthony Mathews the Chair of the Board of CASA eventually facilitated a meeting. Not with two members of the CASA Board, as I had requested, but himself and the CASA Region Manager. That same individual only weeks later sent an email to my Employer that my employment was no longer tenable.
The fact is that both CASA and I want the same thing. The opportunity to present our stories in full. Submitting documents and playing email ping pong is unnecessarily complicated and highly ineffective. A face-to-face oral presentation will rapidly finalize this matter.
To those of you that have suggested the Go Fund Me again. Thankyou.
The existing fund has ample remaining funds to meet its intended purpose which was to build an investment prospectus. The next call will be for an investment opportunity and not a donation. Provided that "prospectus" put together by the large law firm indicates a high likelihood of success, the legal firm can arrange litigation funding at about 1/3 of the "win". My first option will be to go out to the industry and seek a group of investors seeking a potential return slightly lower than what the law firm is able to offer.
Thanks agin everyone, and copied below is a letter to my Local Member Ms Gladys Liu
"To the Honourable Ms. Gladys Liu, Member for the Electorate of Chisholm
My name is Glen Buckley, a 55 year resident of this electorate.
On 20th November 2020, I raised formal allegations of misfeasance in Public Office against three CASA employees, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Aleck. The link to that presentation can be found here
I intend to raise a petition and present it to the Deputy Prime Minister via your office, calling for an independent investigation into the conduct of these personnel. This will also allow me the opportunity to present my supporting evidence. That investigation would only require two days and would need to be conducted by an appropriate individual with expert knowledge of the flight training industry. A suitable individual could be selected from the CASA shortlist of applicants for the recently filled position of CASA CEO.
My intention would be to submit that to your Office once it has 20,000 signatures on it.
Can I respectfully request that your Office provide me any guidance on the best way to present a petition of this nature and the associated requirements.
As this is also a matter of aviation safety, my intention is to commence this as soon as practical.
The matter can be accessed in detail via the following link which today will reach 3/4 million views on this subject. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums
Respectfully, Glen Buckley 0418772013
One of those is a response from Mr. Mathews the Chair of the CASA Board. It's quite frustrating how CASA consistently say that I have not produced any evidence, yet it is CASA that denies me the opportunity to present the evidence. Therefore I will call for an investigation. It would be a brief and relatively straightforward matter provided it is an oral presentation, with CASA participating. It would take no more than one day for CASA and I to present the matter, with another day for questions and deliberation. At the end of the second day, there would be a very clear indication for the requirement or not, of a full investigation into the contact of these three CASA employees.
You will recall that over two years ago as this matter began to unfold, I kept quiet and tried to resolve it with CASA for 6 months before I went Public. You may recall that for 6 months I also wrote to the Board of CASA on multiple occasions seeking the opportunity to meet with any two members of the Board (to maintain integrity) and present my evidence. Those requests were consistently ignored, only exacerbating the commercial and emotional damage being caused.
You may recall that after 6 months of repeated requests, Mr. Anthony Mathews the Chair of the Board of CASA eventually facilitated a meeting. Not with two members of the CASA Board, as I had requested, but himself and the CASA Region Manager. That same individual only weeks later sent an email to my Employer that my employment was no longer tenable.
The fact is that both CASA and I want the same thing. The opportunity to present our stories in full. Submitting documents and playing email ping pong is unnecessarily complicated and highly ineffective. A face-to-face oral presentation will rapidly finalize this matter.
To those of you that have suggested the Go Fund Me again. Thankyou.
The existing fund has ample remaining funds to meet its intended purpose which was to build an investment prospectus. The next call will be for an investment opportunity and not a donation. Provided that "prospectus" put together by the large law firm indicates a high likelihood of success, the legal firm can arrange litigation funding at about 1/3 of the "win". My first option will be to go out to the industry and seek a group of investors seeking a potential return slightly lower than what the law firm is able to offer.
Thanks agin everyone, and copied below is a letter to my Local Member Ms Gladys Liu
"To the Honourable Ms. Gladys Liu, Member for the Electorate of Chisholm
My name is Glen Buckley, a 55 year resident of this electorate.
On 20th November 2020, I raised formal allegations of misfeasance in Public Office against three CASA employees, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Aleck. The link to that presentation can be found here
I intend to raise a petition and present it to the Deputy Prime Minister via your office, calling for an independent investigation into the conduct of these personnel. This will also allow me the opportunity to present my supporting evidence. That investigation would only require two days and would need to be conducted by an appropriate individual with expert knowledge of the flight training industry. A suitable individual could be selected from the CASA shortlist of applicants for the recently filled position of CASA CEO.
My intention would be to submit that to your Office once it has 20,000 signatures on it.
Can I respectfully request that your Office provide me any guidance on the best way to present a petition of this nature and the associated requirements.
As this is also a matter of aviation safety, my intention is to commence this as soon as practical.
The matter can be accessed in detail via the following link which today will reach 3/4 million views on this subject. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums
Respectfully, Glen Buckley 0418772013
Thread Starter
Response from the CASA Board
In Post #1556 above i sent a letter to the CASA Board. Not surprisingly, their response follows
Dear Mr Buckley
I refer to your email of 24 February 2021 addressed to the Chair of the CASA Board, Mr Tony Mathews, and to other members of the CASA Board. The Chair has asked me to respond on behalf of him and the other CASA Board members.
In keeping with the advice that has been provided previously in response to your requests of the Board, unless and until you have credible new and relevant evidence and information to offer in respect of your concerns, the Board is not inclined to consider the unsubstantiated allegations you have repeatedly made against CASA and certain individual CASA officials. Neither is the Board inclined to respond to questions clearly premised on the purported validity of claims and assertions of the same nature, regardless of the reasons for which you say you require such responses.
If, in the context of any legal proceedings in which you may be involved, there is a legitimate basis on which information might properly be sought and obtained from the CASA Board, there will be processes and procedures in accordance with which the provision of such information might be required. In this instance, as in any other, should a request or demand for the provision of certain information from CASA (or the CASA Board) be made formally, under the auspices of a judicial authority or as may otherwise be authorised by law, such a request or demand, duly served on CASA, would naturally be considered and dealt with accordingly.
In the meantime, the Board is satisfied that, insofar as CASA’s dealings with you have been concerned, and to the extent the principles of the Regulatory Philosophy have been germane to particular aspects of those dealings, CASA’s actions have been consistent with its commitments under the Regulatory Philosophy, including principle 6. On that basis, the Board is satisfied that, in substance, variants of the six (6) questions raised in your email of 24 February 2021 have previously been considered and effectively addressed by CASA on many occasions.
Responses were provided to your various related and repetitive questions on behalf of the Board previously. CASA’s Industry Complaints Commissioner also addressed your related concerns on occasions.
In addition to the advice offered to you by CASA’s Industry Complaints Commissioner, beyond this, CASA provided responsive information and advice to you on at least eight (8) occasions:
Challenging though the effective implementation of an alliance model of the kind you seem to have envisaged might be, recognition of the feasibility of such arrangements was implicit in CASA’s ongoing efforts to advise, guide and assist you to rectify the shortcomings and deficiencies in your attempt to execute your plan.
On this basis, the Board believes the concerns reflected in your questions have been fully and fairly addressed.
Yours sincerely
Colin McLachlan
Colin McLachlan| Board Secretary
Civil Aviation Safety Authority|16 Furzer Street, Philip ACT 2606
GPO Box 2005, Canberra ACT 2601
p (02) 6217 1318 | m0478 302 047 | *[email protected]
www.casa.gov.au
From: Glen Buckley <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, 24 February 2021 3:15 PM
To: McLachlan, Colin <[email protected]>
Subject: Correspondence to all Members of the CASA Board from Glen Buckley
Request of CASA Board for a Statement of Reasons
Link to CASAs full Regulatory Philosophy. Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
Link to Pprune Post #1546.Correspondence to Ombudsman describing the matter. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 78 - PPRuNe Forums
24/02/21
Dear Mr. Anthony Mathews, Chair of the Board of CASA, and the CASA Board,
In this correspondence I refer specifically to CASAs obligations in accordance with CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy and most particularly the sixth item of that Regulatory Philosophy, which I have copied below. I am calling on you, and the Board to ensure that CASA acts in accordance with that commitment given to Industry.
“6. CASA communicates fully and meaningfully with all relevant stakeholders.
At every stage of the regulatory activities in which CASA engages-from contemplating the need to make a rule or impose a requirement, to the application of a rule or requirement-and to the fullest extent possible in the circumstances, CASA will ensure that everyone whose rights, interests, and legitimate expectations will, or are likely to, be affected by CASA's contemplated actions has access to information and advice about:
To the purpose of this correspondence.
I have several upcoming court cases that have resulted from the closure of my business, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT) when CASA determined that it was an "unauthorized operation"
These court cases are based on my inability to meet ongoing financial commitments to Suppliers, Customers, and Employees. Whilst I am not necessarily disputing the amounts, the closure of my two businesses by CASA and then the direction by CASA to my Employer that my employment was no longer “tenable” has left me with no ability to meet those obligations. There are no hidden bank accounts or Trust Funds, my wife and I would have less than $1000 in life savings at the moment. I have no assets at all having lost my house, my flying school premises, my two businesses, my employment, reputation, and well-being. I have been left with no ability to meet those commitments, and it is reasonable to assume that one of those upcoming court cases will result in me being declared bankrupt.
The notice that Melbourne Flight Training was deemed by CASA to be an “unauthorized operation” with no prior notice at all, left the business in a position that it could not recover from. This is explained in more detail by accessing the link to PPrune above.
The first of these Court cases occur in early March. It is essential that I am able to attend those Court Cases and provide an explanation of what occurred. For me to appear in Court and state that CASA closed my business down, could lead the Court to believe I had not operated safely or in compliance with regulations. That would be a reasonable assumption in the circumstances, although it is not correct. You are aware that CASA is not alleging any concerns over any matters of safety, and there are no alleged Regulatory breaches. It was a “change of opinion” by an individual within CASA, that lead to the closure of MFT.
I feel any person making a determination over this matter may find my story “hard to believe”. i.e., determined to be an unauthorized operation based on opinion and not safety or regulatory breaches.
I am effectively requesting a Statement of Reasons, that fully explains to me the basis of CASAs decision that my flying school of over 10 years is deemed to be an “unauthorized operation” and is forced into closure.
Therefore in accordance with CASAs Regulatory Philosophy Item 6 could you please attend to each of the following queries. My intention is to produce it to the Court as support of my current situation.
Could I ask that you attend to each of the following dot points individually from CASAs Regulatory Philosophy with regards to how MFT was deemed to be an unauthorized operation an how I was required to transfer my staff, and customers to another flying school. I have encapsulated CASAs Regulatory Philosophy into the questions.
I truly do not understand the rationale behind CASAs' decision making, and in a Court, I will not be able to adequately explain the situation. Could CASA please provide a written explanation responding to the following questions about my business, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT)
1. What it is that CASA did? i.e. deeming MFT an unauthorized operation subject to closure in 7 days, and placing a requirement to transfer my staff and customers to another business not owned or affiliated with me in any way.
2. Why CASA made that determination?
3.What considerations did CASA take into account in forming its view on MFT being an unauthorized operation.
4. Did CASA consider any alternatives and why were those alternatives ruled out?
5. What were the expected effects of CASAs proposed actions?
6. What recourse is available to me as someone affected by the CASA action?
Could I also ask that in preparing your response that it be as clear and concise as practical and that CASA uses plain language and concepts where practical for my own benefit, but also mindful that my the intention would be to present it to a Court of Law. I call on the Board to ensure that document is correct, complete, authoritatively informed, fully informative, and responsive to the questions at hand, in accordance with commitments provided in CASAs Regulatory Philosophy.
Finally, as the Court Cases are soon to commence, may I respectfully request a timely response, to my fair and reasonable request. Please note I have made these requests to CASA previously, but no response has been forthcoming.
If you determine that CASA is not prepared to respond to my request, could you advise me as soon as you become aware of that decision, and I will forward a request directly to the Deputy Prime Minister as my expectation is that you have advised him off this matter.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
IMPORTANT:
Dear Mr Buckley
I refer to your email of 24 February 2021 addressed to the Chair of the CASA Board, Mr Tony Mathews, and to other members of the CASA Board. The Chair has asked me to respond on behalf of him and the other CASA Board members.
In keeping with the advice that has been provided previously in response to your requests of the Board, unless and until you have credible new and relevant evidence and information to offer in respect of your concerns, the Board is not inclined to consider the unsubstantiated allegations you have repeatedly made against CASA and certain individual CASA officials. Neither is the Board inclined to respond to questions clearly premised on the purported validity of claims and assertions of the same nature, regardless of the reasons for which you say you require such responses.
If, in the context of any legal proceedings in which you may be involved, there is a legitimate basis on which information might properly be sought and obtained from the CASA Board, there will be processes and procedures in accordance with which the provision of such information might be required. In this instance, as in any other, should a request or demand for the provision of certain information from CASA (or the CASA Board) be made formally, under the auspices of a judicial authority or as may otherwise be authorised by law, such a request or demand, duly served on CASA, would naturally be considered and dealt with accordingly.
In the meantime, the Board is satisfied that, insofar as CASA’s dealings with you have been concerned, and to the extent the principles of the Regulatory Philosophy have been germane to particular aspects of those dealings, CASA’s actions have been consistent with its commitments under the Regulatory Philosophy, including principle 6. On that basis, the Board is satisfied that, in substance, variants of the six (6) questions raised in your email of 24 February 2021 have previously been considered and effectively addressed by CASA on many occasions.
Responses were provided to your various related and repetitive questions on behalf of the Board previously. CASA’s Industry Complaints Commissioner also addressed your related concerns on occasions.
In addition to the advice offered to you by CASA’s Industry Complaints Commissioner, beyond this, CASA provided responsive information and advice to you on at least eight (8) occasions:
- 23 October 2018
- 21 December 2018
- 25 January 2019
- 12 February 2019
- 20 March 2019
- 24 March 2019
- 2 April 2019 and
- 21 May 2019.
Challenging though the effective implementation of an alliance model of the kind you seem to have envisaged might be, recognition of the feasibility of such arrangements was implicit in CASA’s ongoing efforts to advise, guide and assist you to rectify the shortcomings and deficiencies in your attempt to execute your plan.
On this basis, the Board believes the concerns reflected in your questions have been fully and fairly addressed.
Yours sincerely
Colin McLachlan
Colin McLachlan| Board Secretary
Civil Aviation Safety Authority|16 Furzer Street, Philip ACT 2606
GPO Box 2005, Canberra ACT 2601
p (02) 6217 1318 | m0478 302 047 | *[email protected]
www.casa.gov.au
From: Glen Buckley <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, 24 February 2021 3:15 PM
To: McLachlan, Colin <[email protected]>
Subject: Correspondence to all Members of the CASA Board from Glen Buckley
Request of CASA Board for a Statement of Reasons
Link to CASAs full Regulatory Philosophy. Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
Link to Pprune Post #1546.Correspondence to Ombudsman describing the matter. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 78 - PPRuNe Forums
24/02/21
Dear Mr. Anthony Mathews, Chair of the Board of CASA, and the CASA Board,
In this correspondence I refer specifically to CASAs obligations in accordance with CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy and most particularly the sixth item of that Regulatory Philosophy, which I have copied below. I am calling on you, and the Board to ensure that CASA acts in accordance with that commitment given to Industry.
“6. CASA communicates fully and meaningfully with all relevant stakeholders.
At every stage of the regulatory activities in which CASA engages-from contemplating the need to make a rule or impose a requirement, to the application of a rule or requirement-and to the fullest extent possible in the circumstances, CASA will ensure that everyone whose rights, interests, and legitimate expectations will, or are likely to, be affected by CASA's contemplated actions has access to information and advice about:
- what it is CASA proposes to do
- why CASA is proposing to do so
- what considerations CASA has taken into account in forming its view on the matter to hand
- what alternatives (if any) had been considered and why those alternatives had been ruled out
- what the effects of the proposed actions are expected to be and
- what recourse is available to persons who are, or are likely to be, affected by the proposed action.
- clear and concise, using plain language and concepts wherever possible
- correct and complete, authoritatively informed and fully informative
- responsive to the questions or issues to hand and
- timely.”
To the purpose of this correspondence.
I have several upcoming court cases that have resulted from the closure of my business, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT) when CASA determined that it was an "unauthorized operation"
These court cases are based on my inability to meet ongoing financial commitments to Suppliers, Customers, and Employees. Whilst I am not necessarily disputing the amounts, the closure of my two businesses by CASA and then the direction by CASA to my Employer that my employment was no longer “tenable” has left me with no ability to meet those obligations. There are no hidden bank accounts or Trust Funds, my wife and I would have less than $1000 in life savings at the moment. I have no assets at all having lost my house, my flying school premises, my two businesses, my employment, reputation, and well-being. I have been left with no ability to meet those commitments, and it is reasonable to assume that one of those upcoming court cases will result in me being declared bankrupt.
The notice that Melbourne Flight Training was deemed by CASA to be an “unauthorized operation” with no prior notice at all, left the business in a position that it could not recover from. This is explained in more detail by accessing the link to PPrune above.
The first of these Court cases occur in early March. It is essential that I am able to attend those Court Cases and provide an explanation of what occurred. For me to appear in Court and state that CASA closed my business down, could lead the Court to believe I had not operated safely or in compliance with regulations. That would be a reasonable assumption in the circumstances, although it is not correct. You are aware that CASA is not alleging any concerns over any matters of safety, and there are no alleged Regulatory breaches. It was a “change of opinion” by an individual within CASA, that lead to the closure of MFT.
I feel any person making a determination over this matter may find my story “hard to believe”. i.e., determined to be an unauthorized operation based on opinion and not safety or regulatory breaches.
I am effectively requesting a Statement of Reasons, that fully explains to me the basis of CASAs decision that my flying school of over 10 years is deemed to be an “unauthorized operation” and is forced into closure.
Therefore in accordance with CASAs Regulatory Philosophy Item 6 could you please attend to each of the following queries. My intention is to produce it to the Court as support of my current situation.
Could I ask that you attend to each of the following dot points individually from CASAs Regulatory Philosophy with regards to how MFT was deemed to be an unauthorized operation an how I was required to transfer my staff, and customers to another flying school. I have encapsulated CASAs Regulatory Philosophy into the questions.
I truly do not understand the rationale behind CASAs' decision making, and in a Court, I will not be able to adequately explain the situation. Could CASA please provide a written explanation responding to the following questions about my business, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT)
1. What it is that CASA did? i.e. deeming MFT an unauthorized operation subject to closure in 7 days, and placing a requirement to transfer my staff and customers to another business not owned or affiliated with me in any way.
2. Why CASA made that determination?
3.What considerations did CASA take into account in forming its view on MFT being an unauthorized operation.
4. Did CASA consider any alternatives and why were those alternatives ruled out?
5. What were the expected effects of CASAs proposed actions?
6. What recourse is available to me as someone affected by the CASA action?
Could I also ask that in preparing your response that it be as clear and concise as practical and that CASA uses plain language and concepts where practical for my own benefit, but also mindful that my the intention would be to present it to a Court of Law. I call on the Board to ensure that document is correct, complete, authoritatively informed, fully informative, and responsive to the questions at hand, in accordance with commitments provided in CASAs Regulatory Philosophy.
Finally, as the Court Cases are soon to commence, may I respectfully request a timely response, to my fair and reasonable request. Please note I have made these requests to CASA previously, but no response has been forthcoming.
If you determine that CASA is not prepared to respond to my request, could you advise me as soon as you become aware of that decision, and I will forward a request directly to the Deputy Prime Minister as my expectation is that you have advised him off this matter.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
IMPORTANT:
The heart of the issue can be reduced to a handful of sentences, Glen. It's not that complex. And, with the greatest respect, continued voluminous correspondence with CASA or anyone else (other than a judge or tribunal member) will not change the heart of the issue.
CASA's position
CASA's current position is that, on its (recently conjured up) interpretation of Part 141 (and Part 142), APTA had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy CASA that APTA had sufficient operational control over its members. CASA's position is that CASA was justified in demanding from APTA "a tabular legend, showing how and where the actions called up under each applicable provision of the civil aviation legislation germane to the conduct of operations under CASR Part 141 [and Part 142] are effectively addressed in the terms of the contractual agreement(s) [between APTA and its members]", before CASA would be satisfied.
(You should note that "CASA" here just means the subjective opinion of an individual, the identity of whom you can safely guess.)
APTA's position
APTA's position is that what APTA provided was sufficient to demontrate compliance with the legislation, noting that this assertion from 'CASA' is a fiction: "The operational and organisational arrangement contemplated by CASR 141 [and Part 142] are based on a conventional business model, under which all of the operational activities conducted by the authorisation holder are carried out, for and behalf of the authorisation holder by persons employed by, and in all respects as agents of, the authorisation holder.")
The practical problem
To get an authoritative statement of what Parts 141 and Part 142 actually require, APTA would have to spend years and hundreds of thousands, in a court or tribunal, battling master sophists wielding the 'safety' card. CASA will say that, absent evidence of how and where the actions called up under each applicable provision of the civil aviation legislation germane to the conduct of operations under CASR Part 141 [and Part 142] are effectively addressed in the terms of the contractual agreements between APTA and its members, those members could be out of control and creating high risks to the safety of air navigation.
If it makes you feel better to continue writing to CASA, what you should be asking for is specific authority for this proposition: "The operational and organisational arrangement contemplated by CASR 141 [and Part 142] are based on a conventional business model, under which all of the operational activities conducted by the authorisation holder are carried out, for and behalf of the authorisation holder by persons employed by, and in all respects as agents of, the authorisation holder." Ask CASA to cite a specific regulation, or a specific statement in an explanatory memorandum for Part 141 or 142, or the specific reasons of a judge or tribunal member who's considered the legislation, as authority for the proposition.
As I've said, the above is in my view regulation conjured in the mind of a complicator. The 'authority' for the proposition will, I reckon, boil down to 'the vibe' but expressed in enormously impressive but ultimately vacuous motherhood statements, assuming you don't receive the usual crickets chirping as a response. They don't care, because they don't have to.
CASA's position
CASA's current position is that, on its (recently conjured up) interpretation of Part 141 (and Part 142), APTA had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy CASA that APTA had sufficient operational control over its members. CASA's position is that CASA was justified in demanding from APTA "a tabular legend, showing how and where the actions called up under each applicable provision of the civil aviation legislation germane to the conduct of operations under CASR Part 141 [and Part 142] are effectively addressed in the terms of the contractual agreement(s) [between APTA and its members]", before CASA would be satisfied.
(You should note that "CASA" here just means the subjective opinion of an individual, the identity of whom you can safely guess.)
APTA's position
APTA's position is that what APTA provided was sufficient to demontrate compliance with the legislation, noting that this assertion from 'CASA' is a fiction: "The operational and organisational arrangement contemplated by CASR 141 [and Part 142] are based on a conventional business model, under which all of the operational activities conducted by the authorisation holder are carried out, for and behalf of the authorisation holder by persons employed by, and in all respects as agents of, the authorisation holder.")
The practical problem
To get an authoritative statement of what Parts 141 and Part 142 actually require, APTA would have to spend years and hundreds of thousands, in a court or tribunal, battling master sophists wielding the 'safety' card. CASA will say that, absent evidence of how and where the actions called up under each applicable provision of the civil aviation legislation germane to the conduct of operations under CASR Part 141 [and Part 142] are effectively addressed in the terms of the contractual agreements between APTA and its members, those members could be out of control and creating high risks to the safety of air navigation.
If it makes you feel better to continue writing to CASA, what you should be asking for is specific authority for this proposition: "The operational and organisational arrangement contemplated by CASR 141 [and Part 142] are based on a conventional business model, under which all of the operational activities conducted by the authorisation holder are carried out, for and behalf of the authorisation holder by persons employed by, and in all respects as agents of, the authorisation holder." Ask CASA to cite a specific regulation, or a specific statement in an explanatory memorandum for Part 141 or 142, or the specific reasons of a judge or tribunal member who's considered the legislation, as authority for the proposition.
As I've said, the above is in my view regulation conjured in the mind of a complicator. The 'authority' for the proposition will, I reckon, boil down to 'the vibe' but expressed in enormously impressive but ultimately vacuous motherhood statements, assuming you don't receive the usual crickets chirping as a response. They don't care, because they don't have to.
I think I have written this before.
Glen, CASA does not need to respond to you because their do nothing option leaves matters in limbo forever. They do not need to negotiate.
You will need to instigate legal action to recover lost funds. Only when a court date is set might you be able to negotiate an outcome. Even then they will estimate how little might buy you off and make absurd offers. You must be firm and ready to outlay for a court case, then an appeal etc. See for example the battle Peter Ridd (an individual) is having with James Cook University (large organisation with deep pockets). That one is going to the High Court.
Good luck fighting city hall.
Glen, CASA does not need to respond to you because their do nothing option leaves matters in limbo forever. They do not need to negotiate.
You will need to instigate legal action to recover lost funds. Only when a court date is set might you be able to negotiate an outcome. Even then they will estimate how little might buy you off and make absurd offers. You must be firm and ready to outlay for a court case, then an appeal etc. See for example the battle Peter Ridd (an individual) is having with James Cook University (large organisation with deep pockets). That one is going to the High Court.
Good luck fighting city hall.
Nice summary LB.
No one should ever forget that it is the taxpayer and not the culprits that foot the bill for negligence (or worse) in a Govt Dept. There is no personal penalty in all but a very very few cases - Depts have spent decades protecting themselves.
There is a fascinating case between Grollo and the NSW Govt currently being fought over Barangaroo. Here is one example in a log of issues.
'
A common theme in Govt Depts.
No one should ever forget that it is the taxpayer and not the culprits that foot the bill for negligence (or worse) in a Govt Dept. There is no personal penalty in all but a very very few cases - Depts have spent decades protecting themselves.
There is a fascinating case between Grollo and the NSW Govt currently being fought over Barangaroo. Here is one example in a log of issues.
'
On July 12, 2016, Grollo attended a meeting with Van der Laan at which he stated words to the effect of: “We have an obligation to consult reasonably, but after that we have the right to terminate the consultation and move forward with what we want"
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Glen & others
Below is a current job opening released at CASA (and another 2 similar positions that came through on my subscribed CASA emails). It's ironic that about your post, because they must be aware of the change that is required that you speak of. This job is for a Business Transformation Specialist. And other similar jobs on the CASA site too.... IF YOU CAN'T BEAT THEM - JOIN THEM .... Is that how the saying goes?
Nice summary LB.
No one should ever forget that it is the taxpayer and not the culprits that foot the bill for negligence (or worse) in a Govt Dept. There is no personal penalty in all but a very very few cases - Depts have spent decades protecting themselves.
There is a fascinating case between Grollo and the NSW Govt currently being fought over Barangaroo. Here is one example in a log of issues.
'
A common theme in Govt Depts.
No one should ever forget that it is the taxpayer and not the culprits that foot the bill for negligence (or worse) in a Govt Dept. There is no personal penalty in all but a very very few cases - Depts have spent decades protecting themselves.
There is a fascinating case between Grollo and the NSW Govt currently being fought over Barangaroo. Here is one example in a log of issues.
'
A common theme in Govt Depts.
Pretty accurate seeing as the government departments don’t even know or follow their own rules.
Thread Starter
Feedback on APTA from Ballarat Aero Club
Prior to Mr. Craig Martin taking on the role of CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance, the position was held by Mr Peter White. A person of impeccable credentials and a strong commitment to ethics. He traveled from Canberra to visit the Ballarat Aero Club. The Aero Club facilitated the visit and sent the attached correspondence as a follow-up in support of the APTA concept.
The letter was written by Mr. Warwick Kinscher the Secretary of the Ballarat Aero Club. This letter was prepared off his own initiative with no input whatsoever from APTA management. The letter encapsulates many of the demonstrated benefits of APTA and most particularly to the Regional sector.
Mr. White the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance responded to the aero club with the following
"Dear Warwick, I thank you, fellow Board Members and staff from BAC for your briefings on Saturday 12th January. My observations and the feedback provided provides strong support for the APTA model, and more importantly, evidence of a model that can assist ongoing flight training by regional and/or smaller aviation providers in a contemporary regulatory environment. My appreciation to you all, safe flying, kind regards, Peter White.
Unfortunately, he left CASA shortly after and Mr. Craig Martin stepped into the role.
The letter was written by Mr. Warwick Kinscher the Secretary of the Ballarat Aero Club. This letter was prepared off his own initiative with no input whatsoever from APTA management. The letter encapsulates many of the demonstrated benefits of APTA and most particularly to the Regional sector.
Mr. White the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance responded to the aero club with the following
"Dear Warwick, I thank you, fellow Board Members and staff from BAC for your briefings on Saturday 12th January. My observations and the feedback provided provides strong support for the APTA model, and more importantly, evidence of a model that can assist ongoing flight training by regional and/or smaller aviation providers in a contemporary regulatory environment. My appreciation to you all, safe flying, kind regards, Peter White.
Unfortunately, he left CASA shortly after and Mr. Craig Martin stepped into the role.
Thread Starter
Providing evidence to Senate Estimates Committee that they were substantially misled.
I will attend to this in a post later today but I am keen to get the ball rolling regarding the PPrune "pending approval process". The post that follows later will be my correspondence to Senator Susan McDonald, the RRAT Committee and the Deputy PM with the evidence attached. Cheers and thanks all.
Thread Starter
Submission to Senate- Allegations of blatant untruths
Letter sent today. Attachments are in the post above for those interested. Cheers. Glen.11th March 2021.
To the Chair of the Senate RRAT Committee, Senator Susan McDonald, and Members of the RRAT Committee.
My name is Glen Buckley, the past owner of a business that was shut down by CASA. I had the opportunity to present before Senate Estimates on 20//11/20.
This is an allegation that the CEO of CASA at the time, Mr. Carmody substantially mislead the Senate Estimates Committee, and specifically in his additional submission to the inquiry. I will provide supporting evidence.
You are aware that I have raised allegations of misfeasance in public office against CASA employees, Mr. Carmody, Mr. Aleck, and Mr. Crawford in Senate Estimates on 20/11/20 and followed that up with a written submission.
In my follow up written allegations submitted to the Senate Estimates I had withdrawn allegations of misfeasance against Mr. Carmody. My rationale in that decision making was that he had retired from CASA, and I was of the opinion that any associated safety risk was therefore reduced. Whilst I have withdrawn the formal allegation of misfeasance against Mr. Carmody, I am compelled to bring this matter to your attention.
Please note that I have included the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Mr Michael McCormack, as the Minister responsible for CASA on this correspondence for his information only. I do not require a formal response from his Office, at this stage. I anticipate submitting substantial separate correspondence to him on this matter shortly.
I have also included the Commonwealth Ombudsman as that office is currently investigating this matter. I have included the Ombudsman as it is reasonable for me to assume that if Mr. Carmody in his role as the CEO of CASA has misled the Senate Estimates Committee, it is feasible that he or one of his employees may also have provided that same misleading information to the Ombudsman's Office.
I have also included Mr. Anthony Mathews as the Chair of the Board of CASA, and the person responsible for the governance of CASA.
In the supplementary submission to the Committee dated 29/12/20, Mr. Shane Carmody made the following statement to the Committee, note my bolding.
“During that time, CASA provided Mr. Buckley with substantial guidance, advice, and individual support to assist him to satisfy CASA that organizational arrangements of the kind required were, as he claimed, effectively in place. This, as said, was something he was persistently unable or unwilling to do”
Mr. Carmody’s comments may lead the Committee to believe that I was “persistently unable or unwilling” to produce contracts that satisfied CASA, when that is most definitely not the truth, and is in fact very far from the truth. Evidence to support my contention will follow later in this correspondence, and by way of the attachments.
Mr. Carmody would have been fully aware that he was misleading the Committee when making that statement and I am fully satisfied that he mislead the Committee with the intention of deflecting the Committee from obtaining the truth. The Chair of the Senates Committee has already admonished Mr. Carmody for “less than fulsome answers” and I have made several subsequent submissions drawing your attention to those matters.
The clarification of this matter is in fact integral to my entire matter, and perhaps the single most important issue.
Several businesses have been forced into closure, many employees have lost their job, and many millions of dollars have been lost. If I am alleging misfeasance in public office, then the question of “intent” is fundamental.
At all times I needed the CASA required contracts issuer fully resolved by CASA in as short a timeline as practical. It was in fact the CASA employees that I have raised allegations against, who were frustrating the entire matter. Mr. Carmody's inaccurate statement creates the impression that the resistance was coming from my end when that is clearly not the case. It was in fact a small group of CASA personnel who were frustrating and unnecessarily delaying matters.
To the purpose of this correspondence:
Regarding Mr. Carmody’s untruthful submission to Senate Estimates, and for complete clarity.
Mr. Carmody in his role as the CASA CEO stated that my approach to the resolution of the contracts “was something he was persistently unable or unwilling to do”
The truth is that at ALL times I and my management team was ready to immediately implement any changes that CASA required from the date of 23rd October 2018 when CASA placed initially placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade. I was persistently willing to comply with any CASA requirements in the contracts. That was APTA's position from October 2018 until it could no longer continue operating with the trading restrictions in place, in June 2019.
For CASA to suggest that I was “persistently unable or unwilling” is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
You will recall that other operators doing the same thing as I, were not required to have contracts. It was a new and unique requirement placed on my business only, that I was fully prepared to comply with, despite the fact that I thought it grossly unfair that CASA placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade at the same time they made the request. on my business only.
It was essential for the business that the matter was resolved expeditiously. Consider that CASA had placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade that cost me in excess of $10,000 per week. I fully understood my responsibilities, as they were the same responsibilities, I had been exercising for over a decade as the Authorisation Holder over multiple entities.
There is absolutely no reason either commercially or for safety and compliance reasons that I would demonstrate any reluctance at all to fully comply with CASA requirements of anything at all in the contracts that they required. ALL current legislative requirements were already met. On this matter, both CASA and I had exactly the same interest. There was absolutely no reason for me not to comply. Any suggested CASA changes would have been embedded into the contract and returned within 24 hours. i.e. at any time this matter could have been resolved within 24 hours.
If Mr. Carmody the recently retired CASA CEO, or Mr. Crawford the current CASA CEO, as someone heavily involved in this matter from the onset seriously contends that I was persistently unable or unwilling to comply then I call on the Committee to ask for one single piece of evidence in support of that contention. Can CASA produce an email, a phone conversation, a handwritten note, or anything at all to support their statement? They will not be able to do it. I can do nothing else than call it out for what it is. A blatant lie and a blatant lie made directly to the Senators and most likely to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office. It also clearly demonstrates the complete lack of integrity that the CASA Senior Executive are prepared to demonstrate in pursuit of their objectives.
Evidence that at all times I was in fact, eager to comply can be found in the following emails that are attached. Please note that I have numerous other emails that can be provided that express the same willingness and ability to comply with whatever CASA wanted in the contracts. For Mr Carmody or CASA to assert anything else, is not truthful.
It is critical that this misleading information is clarified. For complete clarity. Mr. Carmody the CASA CEO stated that the finalization of the contracts was something that I was "persistently unable or unwilling" to comply with. That is so far from a truthful representation of the facts that it must be challenged.
Below are excerpts from the full body of the emails which are attached for your reference. If you require further emails supporting my contention, please advise.
Email from Glen Buckley to CASA Executive Manager Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs dated 4th March 2019
“Thank you for the opportunity to meet last Friday, As you will appreciate I was extremely disappointed as I had hoped the suggested changes would suffice. My hope is that by CASAs lawyers meeting with my Barrister that we can arrive at a solution that fully satisfies CASA and that will be my intention. As this matter has now continued on for well over four months, it is now time to bring this matter to a close”.
“APTA wants to ensure that CASA is fully satisfied”
Email from Glen Buckley to CASA Executive Manager Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs dated 15th March 2019
“I am and have been from the onset of the process prepared to write absolutely anything into the contract that CASA requires. As the Authorisation Holder, I accept full responsibility for all operations under my Part 141 and 142 Approval. I am fully aware of that responsibility, and welcome anything that clarifies my responsibilities.”
“I assure you, that if CASA have a clear idea of what they require, they will meet no resistance from me.
Email from Glen Buckley to CASA Executive Manager Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs dated 26th March 2019
…………..“For clarity, I remain committed to a resolution, CASA has advised dissatisfaction with the current APTA contract. I am willing to place any CASA-required text into the contracts that will fully satisfy CASA.. If CASA is of the opinion that the contracts are deficient, it is incumbent upon CASA to advise what they require. A fundamental principle of determining that something is wrong, is that must know what is in fact “right”………… “simply tell me what you want, and it will happen”
Email from my father to CASA Executive Manager Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs 28th March 2019
“Glen has made it abundantly clear that he will include anything you require in his contracts. CASA wrote the regulations, is it really impossible for you to write a suitable proforma contract…?
Email from Glen Buckley CASA Executive Manager Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs dated 28th March
“I remain open to any additional text that CASA prefer or require”
Email from myself to Peter White 9th April 2019
“no need to respond, but my frustration is not all about CASA wanting to satisfy themselves with contracts, my frustration comes from the severity of the action taken by CASA to resolve this matter, the many and still unsubstantiated allegations that CASA threw at APTA, the freeze on processing regulatory tasks, the wasted weeks arguing about the aviation ruling, and the disregard for the Regulatory Philosophy”
Additional information
CASA initiated the restrictions on the APTA's ability to trade in October 2018. With those restrictions costing me in excess of $10,000 per week. That fact was highlighted to CASA in writing repeatedly. i.e. CASA personnel were acutely aware of the commercial impact of their actions and decisions. The CASA action was also significantly damaging the business's reputation in the wider aviation community and with any potential students.
It took a totally unacceptable timeframe of almost 6 months until 9th April 2019 for CASA in an email (attached) from the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and surveillance to write, ……… “I can confirm the content is acceptable to CASA. Finally, CASA had worked out what they wanted in the contracts, and I had fully embedded CASAs requirements that had only been provided days earlier. With the business now almost beyond repair I finally believed that this matter was over. CASA had finally resolved their confusion. I could now focus the business's attention on rebuilding and repairing.
Then approximately 5 hours later I get another email from the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and surveillance reversing his previous email only hours earlier and stating “Can I ask that you hold off.” That email is in the attachments. The entire matter then started up all over again.
Importantly at the time of CASA placing the restrictions on the businesses ability to trade, in October 2018 and CASA demanding contracts, CASA later realized that they already held the contracts that had been supplied to CASA on multiple occasions before they made their demand and placed trading restrictions on the business.
As a side note, could I respectfully request clarity as to whether CASAs additional submission to Senate Estimates, dated 29th December 2018, is signed by Mr. Carmody in his position as the CASA CEO at the time, or were those his personal views. Noting that Mr. Carmody advised Senator Susan McDonald that he was “retiring from CASA no later than the 24th December, Senator”.
Thank you for your consideration of the matter regarding clarification of my business and I, being “persistently unwilling or unable” to comply with CASA requirements. This matter clearly highlights that CASA has not been well-intentioned in their dealings with the Committee or I.
Respectfully Glen Buckley
To the Chair of the Senate RRAT Committee, Senator Susan McDonald, and Members of the RRAT Committee.
My name is Glen Buckley, the past owner of a business that was shut down by CASA. I had the opportunity to present before Senate Estimates on 20//11/20.
This is an allegation that the CEO of CASA at the time, Mr. Carmody substantially mislead the Senate Estimates Committee, and specifically in his additional submission to the inquiry. I will provide supporting evidence.
You are aware that I have raised allegations of misfeasance in public office against CASA employees, Mr. Carmody, Mr. Aleck, and Mr. Crawford in Senate Estimates on 20/11/20 and followed that up with a written submission.
In my follow up written allegations submitted to the Senate Estimates I had withdrawn allegations of misfeasance against Mr. Carmody. My rationale in that decision making was that he had retired from CASA, and I was of the opinion that any associated safety risk was therefore reduced. Whilst I have withdrawn the formal allegation of misfeasance against Mr. Carmody, I am compelled to bring this matter to your attention.
Please note that I have included the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Mr Michael McCormack, as the Minister responsible for CASA on this correspondence for his information only. I do not require a formal response from his Office, at this stage. I anticipate submitting substantial separate correspondence to him on this matter shortly.
I have also included the Commonwealth Ombudsman as that office is currently investigating this matter. I have included the Ombudsman as it is reasonable for me to assume that if Mr. Carmody in his role as the CEO of CASA has misled the Senate Estimates Committee, it is feasible that he or one of his employees may also have provided that same misleading information to the Ombudsman's Office.
I have also included Mr. Anthony Mathews as the Chair of the Board of CASA, and the person responsible for the governance of CASA.
In the supplementary submission to the Committee dated 29/12/20, Mr. Shane Carmody made the following statement to the Committee, note my bolding.
“During that time, CASA provided Mr. Buckley with substantial guidance, advice, and individual support to assist him to satisfy CASA that organizational arrangements of the kind required were, as he claimed, effectively in place. This, as said, was something he was persistently unable or unwilling to do”
Mr. Carmody’s comments may lead the Committee to believe that I was “persistently unable or unwilling” to produce contracts that satisfied CASA, when that is most definitely not the truth, and is in fact very far from the truth. Evidence to support my contention will follow later in this correspondence, and by way of the attachments.
Mr. Carmody would have been fully aware that he was misleading the Committee when making that statement and I am fully satisfied that he mislead the Committee with the intention of deflecting the Committee from obtaining the truth. The Chair of the Senates Committee has already admonished Mr. Carmody for “less than fulsome answers” and I have made several subsequent submissions drawing your attention to those matters.
The clarification of this matter is in fact integral to my entire matter, and perhaps the single most important issue.
Several businesses have been forced into closure, many employees have lost their job, and many millions of dollars have been lost. If I am alleging misfeasance in public office, then the question of “intent” is fundamental.
At all times I needed the CASA required contracts issuer fully resolved by CASA in as short a timeline as practical. It was in fact the CASA employees that I have raised allegations against, who were frustrating the entire matter. Mr. Carmody's inaccurate statement creates the impression that the resistance was coming from my end when that is clearly not the case. It was in fact a small group of CASA personnel who were frustrating and unnecessarily delaying matters.
To the purpose of this correspondence:
Regarding Mr. Carmody’s untruthful submission to Senate Estimates, and for complete clarity.
Mr. Carmody in his role as the CASA CEO stated that my approach to the resolution of the contracts “was something he was persistently unable or unwilling to do”
The truth is that at ALL times I and my management team was ready to immediately implement any changes that CASA required from the date of 23rd October 2018 when CASA placed initially placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade. I was persistently willing to comply with any CASA requirements in the contracts. That was APTA's position from October 2018 until it could no longer continue operating with the trading restrictions in place, in June 2019.
For CASA to suggest that I was “persistently unable or unwilling” is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
You will recall that other operators doing the same thing as I, were not required to have contracts. It was a new and unique requirement placed on my business only, that I was fully prepared to comply with, despite the fact that I thought it grossly unfair that CASA placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade at the same time they made the request. on my business only.
It was essential for the business that the matter was resolved expeditiously. Consider that CASA had placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade that cost me in excess of $10,000 per week. I fully understood my responsibilities, as they were the same responsibilities, I had been exercising for over a decade as the Authorisation Holder over multiple entities.
There is absolutely no reason either commercially or for safety and compliance reasons that I would demonstrate any reluctance at all to fully comply with CASA requirements of anything at all in the contracts that they required. ALL current legislative requirements were already met. On this matter, both CASA and I had exactly the same interest. There was absolutely no reason for me not to comply. Any suggested CASA changes would have been embedded into the contract and returned within 24 hours. i.e. at any time this matter could have been resolved within 24 hours.
If Mr. Carmody the recently retired CASA CEO, or Mr. Crawford the current CASA CEO, as someone heavily involved in this matter from the onset seriously contends that I was persistently unable or unwilling to comply then I call on the Committee to ask for one single piece of evidence in support of that contention. Can CASA produce an email, a phone conversation, a handwritten note, or anything at all to support their statement? They will not be able to do it. I can do nothing else than call it out for what it is. A blatant lie and a blatant lie made directly to the Senators and most likely to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office. It also clearly demonstrates the complete lack of integrity that the CASA Senior Executive are prepared to demonstrate in pursuit of their objectives.
Evidence that at all times I was in fact, eager to comply can be found in the following emails that are attached. Please note that I have numerous other emails that can be provided that express the same willingness and ability to comply with whatever CASA wanted in the contracts. For Mr Carmody or CASA to assert anything else, is not truthful.
It is critical that this misleading information is clarified. For complete clarity. Mr. Carmody the CASA CEO stated that the finalization of the contracts was something that I was "persistently unable or unwilling" to comply with. That is so far from a truthful representation of the facts that it must be challenged.
Below are excerpts from the full body of the emails which are attached for your reference. If you require further emails supporting my contention, please advise.
Email from Glen Buckley to CASA Executive Manager Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs dated 4th March 2019
“Thank you for the opportunity to meet last Friday, As you will appreciate I was extremely disappointed as I had hoped the suggested changes would suffice. My hope is that by CASAs lawyers meeting with my Barrister that we can arrive at a solution that fully satisfies CASA and that will be my intention. As this matter has now continued on for well over four months, it is now time to bring this matter to a close”.
“APTA wants to ensure that CASA is fully satisfied”
Email from Glen Buckley to CASA Executive Manager Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs dated 15th March 2019
“I am and have been from the onset of the process prepared to write absolutely anything into the contract that CASA requires. As the Authorisation Holder, I accept full responsibility for all operations under my Part 141 and 142 Approval. I am fully aware of that responsibility, and welcome anything that clarifies my responsibilities.”
“I assure you, that if CASA have a clear idea of what they require, they will meet no resistance from me.
Email from Glen Buckley to CASA Executive Manager Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs dated 26th March 2019
…………..“For clarity, I remain committed to a resolution, CASA has advised dissatisfaction with the current APTA contract. I am willing to place any CASA-required text into the contracts that will fully satisfy CASA.. If CASA is of the opinion that the contracts are deficient, it is incumbent upon CASA to advise what they require. A fundamental principle of determining that something is wrong, is that must know what is in fact “right”………… “simply tell me what you want, and it will happen”
Email from my father to CASA Executive Manager Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs 28th March 2019
“Glen has made it abundantly clear that he will include anything you require in his contracts. CASA wrote the regulations, is it really impossible for you to write a suitable proforma contract…?
Email from Glen Buckley CASA Executive Manager Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs dated 28th March
“I remain open to any additional text that CASA prefer or require”
Email from myself to Peter White 9th April 2019
“no need to respond, but my frustration is not all about CASA wanting to satisfy themselves with contracts, my frustration comes from the severity of the action taken by CASA to resolve this matter, the many and still unsubstantiated allegations that CASA threw at APTA, the freeze on processing regulatory tasks, the wasted weeks arguing about the aviation ruling, and the disregard for the Regulatory Philosophy”
Additional information
CASA initiated the restrictions on the APTA's ability to trade in October 2018. With those restrictions costing me in excess of $10,000 per week. That fact was highlighted to CASA in writing repeatedly. i.e. CASA personnel were acutely aware of the commercial impact of their actions and decisions. The CASA action was also significantly damaging the business's reputation in the wider aviation community and with any potential students.
It took a totally unacceptable timeframe of almost 6 months until 9th April 2019 for CASA in an email (attached) from the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and surveillance to write, ……… “I can confirm the content is acceptable to CASA. Finally, CASA had worked out what they wanted in the contracts, and I had fully embedded CASAs requirements that had only been provided days earlier. With the business now almost beyond repair I finally believed that this matter was over. CASA had finally resolved their confusion. I could now focus the business's attention on rebuilding and repairing.
Then approximately 5 hours later I get another email from the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and surveillance reversing his previous email only hours earlier and stating “Can I ask that you hold off.” That email is in the attachments. The entire matter then started up all over again.
Importantly at the time of CASA placing the restrictions on the businesses ability to trade, in October 2018 and CASA demanding contracts, CASA later realized that they already held the contracts that had been supplied to CASA on multiple occasions before they made their demand and placed trading restrictions on the business.
As a side note, could I respectfully request clarity as to whether CASAs additional submission to Senate Estimates, dated 29th December 2018, is signed by Mr. Carmody in his position as the CASA CEO at the time, or were those his personal views. Noting that Mr. Carmody advised Senator Susan McDonald that he was “retiring from CASA no later than the 24th December, Senator”.
Thank you for your consideration of the matter regarding clarification of my business and I, being “persistently unwilling or unable” to comply with CASA requirements. This matter clearly highlights that CASA has not been well-intentioned in their dealings with the Committee or I.
Respectfully Glen Buckley
Last edited by glenb; 11th Mar 2021 at 07:20.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I don't agree with your description of Mr White, I'm surprised there isn't more information on this topic available under FOI to support your position. It's possible Mr White not only responded to the Ballarat Aero Club but also challenged the status quo daring to suggest CASAs legal boffins had erred in their interpretation of the legislation. Believe it or not outcome based legislation is intended to allow organisations to develop systems and processes to operate effectively in manner that demonstrates safety standards are upheld, even if the method you do this is not prescribed by the legislation. The inability of CASA staff with bipolar views on compliance to grasp outcome based legislation is a root cause of the plethora of regulations that are contrary to the intent of the philosophy. Add in biases that arise when someone like yourself creates an operating model that CASA experts hadn't thought of and the outcome is very emotional. I'm not sure what the correct term for organisational emotional intellect is but I would guess someone could write a thesis on CASAs shortcomings in this area.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Believe it or not outcome based legislation is intended to allow organisations to develop systems and processes to operate effectively in manner that demonstrates safety standards are upheld, even if the method you do this is not prescribed by the legislation. The inability of CASA staff with bipolar views on compliance to grasp outcome based legislation is a root cause of the plethora of regulations that are contrary to the intent of the philosophy.
I think Glen's problem is far simpler: an incompetent officer at CASA has stuffed up, the organisation is too embarrassed to back down and will fight tooth and claw to bury the issue/s.
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Montreal
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA has advertised for national managers across 5 states within their regulatory oversight division. Is that a spill of the current roles or are they new positions? I’ve also heard that the acting DAS, the arrogant Scottish git, has been earmarked for the permanent DAS role. The guvmint is allegedly giving him time to settle in and learn the role before making his appointment official towards the end of this year.
