Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Thread Starter
Like a duck
You know how graceful a duck looks on the water while underneath the feet are paddling madly.
This duck cant quack at the moment, sorry. But I am watching and will post soon. Not necessarily a lot to quack about right at this minute. It's a big lake but it's swimmable. I'm increasingly sure it is.
This duck cant quack at the moment, sorry. But I am watching and will post soon. Not necessarily a lot to quack about right at this minute. It's a big lake but it's swimmable. I'm increasingly sure it is.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA Operandi
I have long suspected that one of two things will happen in regards to Glen;
1. A CASA gag order and savage litigation attack against Glen will be initiated by the Governments heavily fortified legal battle line in an attempt to shut him up permanently.
2. Glen will just ‘disappear’ one day from the PPRuNe airwaves due to finally receiving a decent multimillion dollar settlement from CASA (naturally it will contain many clauses that gag Glen from making further comment). Again resulting in Glen’s sudden, overnight departure from PPRuNe.
My wish for Glen is option number 2. Either way, the game cannot continue indefinitely and
one can only poke the bear so much. I suspect there is a very good reason for Glen being so quiet of late, however we patiently wait for an update as the battle continues. Never stop fighting Glen. Never.
1. A CASA gag order and savage litigation attack against Glen will be initiated by the Governments heavily fortified legal battle line in an attempt to shut him up permanently.
2. Glen will just ‘disappear’ one day from the PPRuNe airwaves due to finally receiving a decent multimillion dollar settlement from CASA (naturally it will contain many clauses that gag Glen from making further comment). Again resulting in Glen’s sudden, overnight departure from PPRuNe.
My wish for Glen is option number 2. Either way, the game cannot continue indefinitely and
one can only poke the bear so much. I suspect there is a very good reason for Glen being so quiet of late, however we patiently wait for an update as the battle continues. Never stop fighting Glen. Never.
Thread Starter
Correspondence to Deputy PM and all members of National Party
PREAMBLE FOR THE ATTENTION OF DEPUTY PM, THE HONOURABLE MR MICHAEL MC CORMACK
14th April 2021
To the Honourable Mr Michael McCormack, Deputy Prime Minister, and the Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
My name is Glen Buckley, the past owner of a business that was closed by CASA. This action was not taken based on aviation safety concerns, nor was it done based on any regulatory breach.
The truth is that I was dealing with a “change of opinion” by CASA employees Mr. Crawford and Mr. Aleck. You will be aware of my matter, as I have also made allegations of misfeasance in public office against those two employees and one other CASA employee, those allegations made before the Senate RRAT Estimates Committee, have been followed up with a written submission, formalizing those valid claims of misfeasance in public office.
In correspondence to Mr Anthony Mathews, the Chair of the Board of CASA, dated 24/02/21 and included below, I requested a “Statement of Reasons” from CASA to explain how my business was determined by CASA to be classified as an “unauthorized operation” and forced into closure. The business had been operating safely and compliantly for over 10 years. This notification that my business was determined an “unauthorized operation” came as a complete and sudden shock. No concerns at all had been raised in the previous 12 years of operation.
That notification came on 23rd October 2018, and I had no prior indication at all that notification was to be issued. There was no prior attempt at all by CASA to raise their concerns with me about my school being an “unauthorized operation”. There had been no legislative change, and I can see no reason for that determination.
The notification that came from CASA did not state that it was a matter of safety. The CASA notification specifically identified the business as an “unauthorized operation”. There were no changes during the previous decade that I am aware of that would lead to this reversal of CASA authorization.
My family was dependent on this business to derive our livelihood, and like all small business owners, my business was intended to look after my family in retirement. The business that had a multimillion-dollar value was forced into closure by this determination by CASA that it was an unauthorized operation. The impact on the welfare of me and my family has been totally unacceptable, and most especially because there were no safety concerns and there were no regulatory breaches. To ensure that there is no misunderstanding; I have lost my business, my job, my security in retirement, my home, life savings, I have had a nervous breakdown, suffered depression, spent 8 months unemployed, and now been declared bankrupt.
This has all resulted from decisions and actions made by CASA employees, Mr. Crawford, Mr Aleck, and Mr. Martin. The effect on my family has been traumatic, and most particularly on my wife who has had a total of only 4 days free from work since October 2018, when CASA determined my business to be an “unauthorized operation”. To sit by and watch the impact of this situation on the health and wellbeing of not only myself, but so many people that I care about is totally unacceptable, unlawful, and totally unnecessary.
As you will see from the attached correspondence, I have several court cases pending, and I have already been involved in one.
My situation is difficult, as I am unable to defend myself because I do not know why CASA determined my business to be an unauthorized operation. Not only did this determination by CASA impact on me and my family, but many employees, suppliers, and staff were also impacted. Understandably these matters are now being pursued through the Courts.
If I am to appear in Court, I must have the opportunity to defend my position, and to do that, requires me to understand why CASA determined my business to be an unauthorized operation.
I advised the CASA Board that if they decided not to provide a Statement of Reason, I would be compelled to write to you in your role as the Minister responsible for CASA, as I am now doing.
At this stage I am requesting nothing from your Office apart from an acknowledgment of receipt of this correspondence, and to ensure you have the required awareness of this matter. Obviously, my hope is that some pressure can be applied from your office to ensure that CASA acts with good intent and in accordance with their own Regulatory Philosophy and most especially commitment 6 of that Philosophy.
Should Mr. Mathews choose not to provide an explanation, I will be compelled to write directly to your Office, seeking your intervention to direct CASA to provide a written explanation for their determination.
My reasonable assumption is that you have been fully briefed by Mr. Anthony Mathews, the Chair of the Board of CASA in accordance with his obligations in the Ministers Statement of Expectations of the Board of CASA. I refer specifically to Section 2 titled Governance where it states, “I expect the Board to keep the Secretary of my Department and me fully informed of CASA’s actions in relation to the requirements stated in this SOE, and promptly advise of any events or issues that may impact on the operations of CASA, including through quarterly progress reports from the Board against the Corporate Plan and this SOE”.
You will be aware that CASA took three separate and distinct actions against me and my family-owned business. Those actions lead to the closure of those businesses, and others, and impacted on students, customers, staff, and suppliers. The three stages were.
1. CASA with no warning, and never having raised any concerns at all about regulatory breaches or safety concerns, reversed their approval of my CASA-approved business APTA. CASA then promptly contacted all customers and forced them to leave.
2. CASA determined that my flying school of more than a decade was suddenly determined to be an “unauthorised” operation and was closed by CASA. The determination that it was an “unauthorised operation” leads me to believe CASA had concerns other than safety or compliance. i.e., CASA did not allege any breaches, but did determine for reasons that are not known to me, that the school of more than a decade had suddenly on October 23rd, 2018 become an “unauthorised operation”. It is this matter that I refer to in the following correspondence to Mr Mathews, the Chair of the Board of CASA.
3. After the loss of my businesses and then securing employment in the industry CASA wrote to my new Employer directing that my continuing employment “was no longer tenable”. Not on the basis of safety or compliance, but on the basis of statements that I was making publicly. CASA has not identified what those statements were, or in what forum despite my requests for them to do so. At that stage, with my reputation totally decimated by the conduct of these CASA personnel, I was left with no option but to leave the industry.
You will also be aware that:
· CASA has never put forward a safety case of any kind. The business was delivering industry-leading standards of safety nor has identified any regulatory breaches in support of their actions that lead to the closure of several businesses, and associated loss of jobs and investment. For clarity, there was no aircraft incident or accident, or any safety concerns ever raised at any stage.
· The Commonwealth Ombudsman supported my assertion that the CASA action had no lawful basis and that CASA had erred. Unfortunately, by the time the Ombudsman was able to complete his investigation the impact of CASAs action was irrecoverable, and the business had ceased.
· You will be aware that the Ombudsman found that CASA actions had “the potential to cause detriment” to occur, as it most obviously has i.e., closure of several Australian owned businesses including mine, and significant trauma to my family. That finding alone should compel the CASA Board to meet with me, and act with integrity and ethics.
· You will be aware that after this determination by the Ombudsman, I wrote to Mr Mathews requesting the opportunity to meet and resolve the matter. He refused that opportunity.
· You will be aware that I have made a fair and reasonable claim to CASA in the past to resolve this matter, and that offer has been rejected. You will be aware that at this stage, I am seeking compensation to restore all affected Parties to the position, they were in, when CASA acted unlawfully on 23/10/2021.
· You will be aware that I have made multiple requests to meet with any two Members of the CASA Board to present my allegations of misconduct and despite multiple requests over more than two years, Mr. Mathews, the Chair of the CASA Board has failed to facilitate that request. I extend the request to Mr. Mathews again in this correspondence and urge you in your position, as the responsible Minister to encourage him to demonstrate good intent and facilitate that meeting. Mr Mathews may advise you that he did facilitate such a meeting, however, the only meeting facilitated by Mr. Mathews was a meeting with himself and Mr. McHeyzer, the CASA Regional Manager. This was not a meeting with two Board Members, as I had requested. Only a few weeks after that meeting, that same Regional Manager attended that meeting directed my Employer that my continuing employment was no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly.
· You will be also aware that I have lodged a formal allegation of misfeasance in Parliament on 20/11/20 in my Presentation to the Senate Estimates Committee. Those allegations were followed up with a written submission to the Senate Estimates Committee and to the Chair of the CASA Board, Mr. Anthony Mathews. Those allegations are against the current acting CEO of CASA, Mr. Graeme Crawford. I have also raised allegations of misfeasance in public office against two other CASA employees, Mr. Aleck, and Mr. Martin. I do not make those claims vindictively or vexatiously. I understand the significance of those allegations and understand I am fully accountable for making those allegations if they are found to be unsubstantiated.
· You are aware, I have previously requested to meet with you, or your well-intentioned nominee to present my evidence of misfeasance in public office and I am again seeking that opportunity.
· You will be aware that allegations of a similar nature have been made against these individuals before and that was the subject of an ABC TV Investigative story. This story concerned a gentleman by the name of Bruce Rhoades who sadly died of cancer whilst trying to bring these same people to account for misconduct, and to clear his name.
· You will be aware that the CASA personnel involved in this matter were made fully aware, in writing on repeated occasions, of the commercial impact of their actions and decisions
· You will be aware that I have been approached by several people affected by the conduct of these same individuals and they have offered to come forward with evidence of their own experiences.
· You will be aware that Mr. Graeme Crawford, one of the CASA employees I have made allegations against now sits in the role of the Acting CEO of CASA and is being considered by both yourself and Mr. Anthony Mathews for an ongoing confirmed appointment.
· You are aware that I have made multiple requests to meet with yourself or a well-intentioned nominee and present my evidence in support of allegations of misfeasance against Mr. Crawford and two other CASA employees. You are aware that my preference would be to have CASA personnel present at that meeting to bring the greatest amount of expediency and transparency to the process.
· If my allegations of misfeasance in Public Office were to be upheld, Mr. Crawford would not be able to be permanently appointed to the role of CEO of Australia’s aviation safety regulator CASA. It seems only fair that this matter be resolved before you make your final determination as to the suitability of Mr. Crawford for the Position of CEO of CASA on an ongoing tenure. If my claims were to be substantiated you will concur that the impact of aviation safety could potentially be impacted, if Mr. Crawford were appointed permanently to that role.
I have included you in the following correspondence to Mr. Anthony Mathews in his role as the Chairperson of the Board of CASA and the person responsible for the Governance of CASA. In this correspondence, I am dealing with Item 2 mentioned in the introduction. i.e., the determination that came overnight, and without warning advising that my flying school of more than a decade was suddenly declared an “unauthorised operation” leading to its closure. I am simply seeking an explanation and expecting Mr. Mathews to comply with commitment 6 of CASAs Regulatory Philosophy.
My intentions going forward are to submit the following correspondence to Mr. Mathews. I am not asking your Office for any response other than acknowledgment of receipt of the correspondence.
I will wait 14 days to give the CASA Board, ample time to respond to my request for a Statement of Reasons.
Should CASA not provide an explanation for their actions, I will write directly to your Office requesting that you direct Mr. Mathews to provide that explanation for the reasons outlined in the attached correspondence.
My expectation is that you will concur that my request is fair and reasonable and in accordance with obligations given to industry by CASA in their Regulatory Philosophy, obligations under Administrative Law, Natural Justice, Procedural Fairness, The Ministers Statement of Expectations of the Board of CASA, ethics, and good governance by the Board.
Thank you for accepting my correspondence on this matter, and may I respectfully request an acknowledgment of receipt.
Yours respectfully
Glen Buckley.
CORRESPONDENCE TO MR ANTHONY MATHEWS CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF CASA 14/04/2021 (DEPUTY PM INCLUDED)
14/04/21
Dear Mr. Anthony Mathews, Chair of the Board of CASA.
I wrote to you on 24/02/21 (appendix one) requesting a Statement of Explanation in accordance with my rights under Administrative Law.
You responded on 03/03/21 and you exercised your right under Administrative Law, by choosing not to provide a Statement of Reasons. Your response is included in appendix two.
The purpose of this correspondence is to resubmit Appendix One again to the CASA Board requesting a Statement of Explanation, and calling on the Board to comply with commitment 6 of CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, accessed here Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
Failing that, I am also calling on you to comply with:
· Other commitments given to industry in CASAs Regulatory Philosophy
· CASAs Enforcement Manual Enforcement manual | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au) and the commitments given to industry in that manual, and most particularly sections:
o Preface by Mr. Carmody
o 2.4 High-Level Principles
o 4.4 Decision-Making Considerations
o Section 6 dealing with Variations to an Air Operator Certificate. Noting these procedures were completely bypassed by CASA. These procedures can be located at Appendix One
o Appendix Two- The legal basis of regulatory enforcement.
o Appendix Three dealing with a “Statement of Reasons”
· Administrative Law, Natural Justice, and Procedural Fairness.
· Ethics and integrity.
In your correspondence dated 03/03/21 (appendix two) you referred me to correspondence on various dates. I have reviewed each of the documents that you refer to, and they do not relate to this matter. CASA has not provided any explanation as to how my business was determined to be an “unauthorised operation”.
For clarity. I am resubmitting my letter to you dated 24/02/21 requesting a response against each of the 6 dot points, I have raised. Noting those questions are drawn from CASAs own commitments in the Regulatory Philosophy.
If you truly believe that any documents that you previously referred me to in your correspondence dated 03/03/21 (appendix two), have addressed this query, could you please direct me to which particular piece of correspondence, and direct me to the part of the correspondence, doing so.
Thank you in anticipation of you complying with the obligations placed on you by CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness, Natural Justice, CASAs own Enforcement manual procedures, integrity and ethics, and potentially some direction from the Deputy Prime Ministers Office.
I refer you back to the correspondence seeking an explanation for the determination that MFT was an unauthorised operation sent to you on 24/02/21.
Respectfully,
Glen Buckley
APPENDIX ONE – LETTER SENT TO CASA BOARD REQUESTING A STATEMENT OF REASONS DATED 24/02/21
24/02/21
Request of CASA Board for a Statement of Reasons
Link: CASAs full Regulatory Philosophy. Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
Link: Pprune Post #1546.Correspondence to Ombudsman describing the matter. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 78 - PPRuNe Forums
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.
CASA will ensure that the information and advice it provides to the aviation community, generally and in individual cases, is:
· clear and concise, using plain language and concepts wherever possible
· correct and complete, authoritatively informed and fully informative
· responsive to the questions or issues to hand and
· timely.”
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
14th April 2021
To the Honourable Mr Michael McCormack, Deputy Prime Minister, and the Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
My name is Glen Buckley, the past owner of a business that was closed by CASA. This action was not taken based on aviation safety concerns, nor was it done based on any regulatory breach.
The truth is that I was dealing with a “change of opinion” by CASA employees Mr. Crawford and Mr. Aleck. You will be aware of my matter, as I have also made allegations of misfeasance in public office against those two employees and one other CASA employee, those allegations made before the Senate RRAT Estimates Committee, have been followed up with a written submission, formalizing those valid claims of misfeasance in public office.
In correspondence to Mr Anthony Mathews, the Chair of the Board of CASA, dated 24/02/21 and included below, I requested a “Statement of Reasons” from CASA to explain how my business was determined by CASA to be classified as an “unauthorized operation” and forced into closure. The business had been operating safely and compliantly for over 10 years. This notification that my business was determined an “unauthorized operation” came as a complete and sudden shock. No concerns at all had been raised in the previous 12 years of operation.
That notification came on 23rd October 2018, and I had no prior indication at all that notification was to be issued. There was no prior attempt at all by CASA to raise their concerns with me about my school being an “unauthorized operation”. There had been no legislative change, and I can see no reason for that determination.
The notification that came from CASA did not state that it was a matter of safety. The CASA notification specifically identified the business as an “unauthorized operation”. There were no changes during the previous decade that I am aware of that would lead to this reversal of CASA authorization.
My family was dependent on this business to derive our livelihood, and like all small business owners, my business was intended to look after my family in retirement. The business that had a multimillion-dollar value was forced into closure by this determination by CASA that it was an unauthorized operation. The impact on the welfare of me and my family has been totally unacceptable, and most especially because there were no safety concerns and there were no regulatory breaches. To ensure that there is no misunderstanding; I have lost my business, my job, my security in retirement, my home, life savings, I have had a nervous breakdown, suffered depression, spent 8 months unemployed, and now been declared bankrupt.
This has all resulted from decisions and actions made by CASA employees, Mr. Crawford, Mr Aleck, and Mr. Martin. The effect on my family has been traumatic, and most particularly on my wife who has had a total of only 4 days free from work since October 2018, when CASA determined my business to be an “unauthorized operation”. To sit by and watch the impact of this situation on the health and wellbeing of not only myself, but so many people that I care about is totally unacceptable, unlawful, and totally unnecessary.
As you will see from the attached correspondence, I have several court cases pending, and I have already been involved in one.
My situation is difficult, as I am unable to defend myself because I do not know why CASA determined my business to be an unauthorized operation. Not only did this determination by CASA impact on me and my family, but many employees, suppliers, and staff were also impacted. Understandably these matters are now being pursued through the Courts.
If I am to appear in Court, I must have the opportunity to defend my position, and to do that, requires me to understand why CASA determined my business to be an unauthorized operation.
I advised the CASA Board that if they decided not to provide a Statement of Reason, I would be compelled to write to you in your role as the Minister responsible for CASA, as I am now doing.
At this stage I am requesting nothing from your Office apart from an acknowledgment of receipt of this correspondence, and to ensure you have the required awareness of this matter. Obviously, my hope is that some pressure can be applied from your office to ensure that CASA acts with good intent and in accordance with their own Regulatory Philosophy and most especially commitment 6 of that Philosophy.
Should Mr. Mathews choose not to provide an explanation, I will be compelled to write directly to your Office, seeking your intervention to direct CASA to provide a written explanation for their determination.
My reasonable assumption is that you have been fully briefed by Mr. Anthony Mathews, the Chair of the Board of CASA in accordance with his obligations in the Ministers Statement of Expectations of the Board of CASA. I refer specifically to Section 2 titled Governance where it states, “I expect the Board to keep the Secretary of my Department and me fully informed of CASA’s actions in relation to the requirements stated in this SOE, and promptly advise of any events or issues that may impact on the operations of CASA, including through quarterly progress reports from the Board against the Corporate Plan and this SOE”.
You will be aware that CASA took three separate and distinct actions against me and my family-owned business. Those actions lead to the closure of those businesses, and others, and impacted on students, customers, staff, and suppliers. The three stages were.
1. CASA with no warning, and never having raised any concerns at all about regulatory breaches or safety concerns, reversed their approval of my CASA-approved business APTA. CASA then promptly contacted all customers and forced them to leave.
2. CASA determined that my flying school of more than a decade was suddenly determined to be an “unauthorised” operation and was closed by CASA. The determination that it was an “unauthorised operation” leads me to believe CASA had concerns other than safety or compliance. i.e., CASA did not allege any breaches, but did determine for reasons that are not known to me, that the school of more than a decade had suddenly on October 23rd, 2018 become an “unauthorised operation”. It is this matter that I refer to in the following correspondence to Mr Mathews, the Chair of the Board of CASA.
3. After the loss of my businesses and then securing employment in the industry CASA wrote to my new Employer directing that my continuing employment “was no longer tenable”. Not on the basis of safety or compliance, but on the basis of statements that I was making publicly. CASA has not identified what those statements were, or in what forum despite my requests for them to do so. At that stage, with my reputation totally decimated by the conduct of these CASA personnel, I was left with no option but to leave the industry.
You will also be aware that:
· CASA has never put forward a safety case of any kind. The business was delivering industry-leading standards of safety nor has identified any regulatory breaches in support of their actions that lead to the closure of several businesses, and associated loss of jobs and investment. For clarity, there was no aircraft incident or accident, or any safety concerns ever raised at any stage.
· The Commonwealth Ombudsman supported my assertion that the CASA action had no lawful basis and that CASA had erred. Unfortunately, by the time the Ombudsman was able to complete his investigation the impact of CASAs action was irrecoverable, and the business had ceased.
· You will be aware that the Ombudsman found that CASA actions had “the potential to cause detriment” to occur, as it most obviously has i.e., closure of several Australian owned businesses including mine, and significant trauma to my family. That finding alone should compel the CASA Board to meet with me, and act with integrity and ethics.
· You will be aware that after this determination by the Ombudsman, I wrote to Mr Mathews requesting the opportunity to meet and resolve the matter. He refused that opportunity.
· You will be aware that I have made a fair and reasonable claim to CASA in the past to resolve this matter, and that offer has been rejected. You will be aware that at this stage, I am seeking compensation to restore all affected Parties to the position, they were in, when CASA acted unlawfully on 23/10/2021.
· You will be aware that I have made multiple requests to meet with any two Members of the CASA Board to present my allegations of misconduct and despite multiple requests over more than two years, Mr. Mathews, the Chair of the CASA Board has failed to facilitate that request. I extend the request to Mr. Mathews again in this correspondence and urge you in your position, as the responsible Minister to encourage him to demonstrate good intent and facilitate that meeting. Mr Mathews may advise you that he did facilitate such a meeting, however, the only meeting facilitated by Mr. Mathews was a meeting with himself and Mr. McHeyzer, the CASA Regional Manager. This was not a meeting with two Board Members, as I had requested. Only a few weeks after that meeting, that same Regional Manager attended that meeting directed my Employer that my continuing employment was no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly.
· You will be also aware that I have lodged a formal allegation of misfeasance in Parliament on 20/11/20 in my Presentation to the Senate Estimates Committee. Those allegations were followed up with a written submission to the Senate Estimates Committee and to the Chair of the CASA Board, Mr. Anthony Mathews. Those allegations are against the current acting CEO of CASA, Mr. Graeme Crawford. I have also raised allegations of misfeasance in public office against two other CASA employees, Mr. Aleck, and Mr. Martin. I do not make those claims vindictively or vexatiously. I understand the significance of those allegations and understand I am fully accountable for making those allegations if they are found to be unsubstantiated.
· You are aware, I have previously requested to meet with you, or your well-intentioned nominee to present my evidence of misfeasance in public office and I am again seeking that opportunity.
· You will be aware that allegations of a similar nature have been made against these individuals before and that was the subject of an ABC TV Investigative story. This story concerned a gentleman by the name of Bruce Rhoades who sadly died of cancer whilst trying to bring these same people to account for misconduct, and to clear his name.
· You will be aware that the CASA personnel involved in this matter were made fully aware, in writing on repeated occasions, of the commercial impact of their actions and decisions
· You will be aware that I have been approached by several people affected by the conduct of these same individuals and they have offered to come forward with evidence of their own experiences.
· You will be aware that Mr. Graeme Crawford, one of the CASA employees I have made allegations against now sits in the role of the Acting CEO of CASA and is being considered by both yourself and Mr. Anthony Mathews for an ongoing confirmed appointment.
· You are aware that I have made multiple requests to meet with yourself or a well-intentioned nominee and present my evidence in support of allegations of misfeasance against Mr. Crawford and two other CASA employees. You are aware that my preference would be to have CASA personnel present at that meeting to bring the greatest amount of expediency and transparency to the process.
· If my allegations of misfeasance in Public Office were to be upheld, Mr. Crawford would not be able to be permanently appointed to the role of CEO of Australia’s aviation safety regulator CASA. It seems only fair that this matter be resolved before you make your final determination as to the suitability of Mr. Crawford for the Position of CEO of CASA on an ongoing tenure. If my claims were to be substantiated you will concur that the impact of aviation safety could potentially be impacted, if Mr. Crawford were appointed permanently to that role.
I have included you in the following correspondence to Mr. Anthony Mathews in his role as the Chairperson of the Board of CASA and the person responsible for the Governance of CASA. In this correspondence, I am dealing with Item 2 mentioned in the introduction. i.e., the determination that came overnight, and without warning advising that my flying school of more than a decade was suddenly declared an “unauthorised operation” leading to its closure. I am simply seeking an explanation and expecting Mr. Mathews to comply with commitment 6 of CASAs Regulatory Philosophy.
My intentions going forward are to submit the following correspondence to Mr. Mathews. I am not asking your Office for any response other than acknowledgment of receipt of the correspondence.
I will wait 14 days to give the CASA Board, ample time to respond to my request for a Statement of Reasons.
Should CASA not provide an explanation for their actions, I will write directly to your Office requesting that you direct Mr. Mathews to provide that explanation for the reasons outlined in the attached correspondence.
My expectation is that you will concur that my request is fair and reasonable and in accordance with obligations given to industry by CASA in their Regulatory Philosophy, obligations under Administrative Law, Natural Justice, Procedural Fairness, The Ministers Statement of Expectations of the Board of CASA, ethics, and good governance by the Board.
Thank you for accepting my correspondence on this matter, and may I respectfully request an acknowledgment of receipt.
Yours respectfully
Glen Buckley.
CORRESPONDENCE TO MR ANTHONY MATHEWS CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF CASA 14/04/2021 (DEPUTY PM INCLUDED)
14/04/21
Dear Mr. Anthony Mathews, Chair of the Board of CASA.
I wrote to you on 24/02/21 (appendix one) requesting a Statement of Explanation in accordance with my rights under Administrative Law.
You responded on 03/03/21 and you exercised your right under Administrative Law, by choosing not to provide a Statement of Reasons. Your response is included in appendix two.
The purpose of this correspondence is to resubmit Appendix One again to the CASA Board requesting a Statement of Explanation, and calling on the Board to comply with commitment 6 of CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, accessed here Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
Failing that, I am also calling on you to comply with:
· Other commitments given to industry in CASAs Regulatory Philosophy
· CASAs Enforcement Manual Enforcement manual | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au) and the commitments given to industry in that manual, and most particularly sections:
o Preface by Mr. Carmody
o 2.4 High-Level Principles
o 4.4 Decision-Making Considerations
o Section 6 dealing with Variations to an Air Operator Certificate. Noting these procedures were completely bypassed by CASA. These procedures can be located at Appendix One
o Appendix Two- The legal basis of regulatory enforcement.
o Appendix Three dealing with a “Statement of Reasons”
· Administrative Law, Natural Justice, and Procedural Fairness.
· Ethics and integrity.
In your correspondence dated 03/03/21 (appendix two) you referred me to correspondence on various dates. I have reviewed each of the documents that you refer to, and they do not relate to this matter. CASA has not provided any explanation as to how my business was determined to be an “unauthorised operation”.
For clarity. I am resubmitting my letter to you dated 24/02/21 requesting a response against each of the 6 dot points, I have raised. Noting those questions are drawn from CASAs own commitments in the Regulatory Philosophy.
If you truly believe that any documents that you previously referred me to in your correspondence dated 03/03/21 (appendix two), have addressed this query, could you please direct me to which particular piece of correspondence, and direct me to the part of the correspondence, doing so.
Thank you in anticipation of you complying with the obligations placed on you by CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness, Natural Justice, CASAs own Enforcement manual procedures, integrity and ethics, and potentially some direction from the Deputy Prime Ministers Office.
I refer you back to the correspondence seeking an explanation for the determination that MFT was an unauthorised operation sent to you on 24/02/21.
Respectfully,
Glen Buckley
APPENDIX ONE – LETTER SENT TO CASA BOARD REQUESTING A STATEMENT OF REASONS DATED 24/02/21
24/02/21
Request of CASA Board for a Statement of Reasons
Link: CASAs full Regulatory Philosophy. Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
Link: Pprune Post #1546.Correspondence to Ombudsman describing the matter. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 78 - PPRuNe Forums
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.
CASA will ensure that the information and advice it provides to the aviation community, generally and in individual cases, is:
· clear and concise, using plain language and concepts wherever possible
· correct and complete, authoritatively informed and fully informative
· responsive to the questions or issues to hand and
· timely.”
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
Thread Starter
Continued from above
APPENDIXTWO- CASA BOARD RESPONSE DATED 03/03/21 TO MY REQUEST FOR A STATEMENT OF REASONS
“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.
This chronology is illustrative, but by no means exhaustive, of CASA’s repeated efforts to convey to you precisely how and why CASA was not satisfied that your organisation was operating, or contemplated operating, in a manner consistent with the fundamental operational control requirements specified in the legislation for flying training activities under CASR Parts 141 and 142.
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
“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.
This chronology is illustrative, but by no means exhaustive, of CASA’s repeated efforts to convey to you precisely how and why CASA was not satisfied that your organisation was operating, or contemplated operating, in a manner consistent with the fundamental operational control requirements specified in the legislation for flying training activities under CASR Parts 141 and 142.
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
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fliegensville, Gold Coast Australia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'm no Lawyer for sure,.....but is that last correspondence essentially trying to say 'we are not going to address specifically what you are requesting because we alluded to it in the past, but will not be drawn to saying anything specific?'
Confusing
What average Joe would be expected to understand this?
Confusing
What average Joe would be expected to understand this?
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
What average Joe would be expected to understand this?
CASA, in it's replies to Glen, refers to the Regulatory Philosophy. This is an artifact created by CASA to justify it's actions. The SOE from the MInister <https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00977> is more relevant. See 2 - Last para, 3 a, b and c, 5 (a) & (b).
Breaching their own aims is par for the course, breaching a ministerial directive should see heads roll.
Breaching their own aims is par for the course, breaching a ministerial directive should see heads roll.
CASA, in it's replies to Glen, refers to the Regulatory Philosophy. This is an artifact created by CASA to justify it's actions. The SOE from the MInister <https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00977> is more relevant. See 2 - Last para, 3 a, b and c, 5 (a) & (b).
Breaching their own aims is par for the course, breaching a ministerial directive should see heads roll.
Breaching their own aims is par for the course, breaching a ministerial directive should see heads roll.
Thread Starter
Reply from CASA Board to correspondence in Post#1583
14th April received approximately 3PM
Dear Mr Buckley
Thank you for your email dated 14 April 2021 addressed to Mr Mathews and the CASA Board in which you discuss your intent to pursue a ‘Statement of Explanation in accordance with (your) rights under Administrative Law.’ Mr Mathews has asked me to respond on his behalf.
With regard to each of the matters raised, you have provided no new evidence for consideration and CASA is satisfied your allegations fall within the scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation currently underway. The Ombudsman’s office has not yet concluded their investigation or finalised their report on that investigation.
We await the outcome of that process and the Ombudsman’s advice to discuss these matters further.
Your sincerely
Colin McLachlan
Dear Mr Buckley
Thank you for your email dated 14 April 2021 addressed to Mr Mathews and the CASA Board in which you discuss your intent to pursue a ‘Statement of Explanation in accordance with (your) rights under Administrative Law.’ Mr Mathews has asked me to respond on his behalf.
With regard to each of the matters raised, you have provided no new evidence for consideration and CASA is satisfied your allegations fall within the scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation currently underway. The Ombudsman’s office has not yet concluded their investigation or finalised their report on that investigation.
We await the outcome of that process and the Ombudsman’s advice to discuss these matters further.
Your sincerely
Colin McLachlan
Thread Starter
Yet a further attempt for integrity to prevail. My response to the CASA Board
Dear Mr. Michael McCormack the Honourable Deputy Prime Minister, and Mr. Anthony Mathews the Chair of the Board of CASA.
Mr. McCormack, I am calling on you to apply any pressure you can to encourage the CASA Board to act with integrity, in accordance with CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, and your own Statement of Expectations of the Board of CASA.
Mr. Mathews, you appear to have misunderstood my reasonable request.
I am not seeking to make any allegations, and this particular request has nothing to do with the Ombudsman's Office. I am not seeking a determination, I am merely seeking an explanation.
I am seeking an explanation from CASA as to how the flying school that I owned, with my own employees operating fully in accordance with all CASA approved procedures in place, operating from my building as it had for over a decade, is determined by CASA to be an "unauthorized operation", and forced into closure. This notification came with no prior notification or indication at all from CASA. It is inexplicable, from my perspective.
The Ombudsman's current investigation is not related to this matter and irrespective of this, the Ombudsman's Office has advised that an ongoing investigation does not prevent me from seeking an explanation from CASA, as I am doing now. It is not reasonable that CASA takes action against a business, fails to explain the basis of that action, and will not explain it to the individual affected, but will to the Ombudsman years later. Surely that can't be fair.
It is likely that CASA has provided that explanation to the Ombudsman's Office, so I can see no reason that the same explanation would not be provided to me, as I have been requesting for more than two years.
It is important that I am very clear.
I am fully satisfied that CASA has erred and that they have acted unlawfully. I believe that the CASA Board is aware of this. I believe that there is an attempt by the Board to cover up this matter.
I have firmly bought this matter to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister, and all members of the National Party. My reasonable expectation is that I will be provided with an explanation by CASA, or directed to a previously supplied copy of an explanation if one exists.
For clarity, I am asking CASA to provide an explanation of this particular determination i.e. that my flying school became an UNAUTHORISED OPERATION. This is a fair and reasonable request.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Mr. McCormack, I am calling on you to apply any pressure you can to encourage the CASA Board to act with integrity, in accordance with CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, and your own Statement of Expectations of the Board of CASA.
Mr. Mathews, you appear to have misunderstood my reasonable request.
I am not seeking to make any allegations, and this particular request has nothing to do with the Ombudsman's Office. I am not seeking a determination, I am merely seeking an explanation.
I am seeking an explanation from CASA as to how the flying school that I owned, with my own employees operating fully in accordance with all CASA approved procedures in place, operating from my building as it had for over a decade, is determined by CASA to be an "unauthorized operation", and forced into closure. This notification came with no prior notification or indication at all from CASA. It is inexplicable, from my perspective.
The Ombudsman's current investigation is not related to this matter and irrespective of this, the Ombudsman's Office has advised that an ongoing investigation does not prevent me from seeking an explanation from CASA, as I am doing now. It is not reasonable that CASA takes action against a business, fails to explain the basis of that action, and will not explain it to the individual affected, but will to the Ombudsman years later. Surely that can't be fair.
It is likely that CASA has provided that explanation to the Ombudsman's Office, so I can see no reason that the same explanation would not be provided to me, as I have been requesting for more than two years.
It is important that I am very clear.
- On 23rd October 2018, CASA wrote advising that my business, Melbourne Flight Training was deemed to be an "unauthorized operation."
- There was no significant change during the business's 12 years of operation that I am aware of that would deem it an "unauthorized operation" by CASA.
- CASA has never explained this action to me in any manner whatsoever. I have no understanding of how CASA arrived at that determination.
- I am not making an allegation, I am merely seeking an explanation
I am fully satisfied that CASA has erred and that they have acted unlawfully. I believe that the CASA Board is aware of this. I believe that there is an attempt by the Board to cover up this matter.
I have firmly bought this matter to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister, and all members of the National Party. My reasonable expectation is that I will be provided with an explanation by CASA, or directed to a previously supplied copy of an explanation if one exists.
For clarity, I am asking CASA to provide an explanation of this particular determination i.e. that my flying school became an UNAUTHORISED OPERATION. This is a fair and reasonable request.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Dear Mr. Michael McCormack the Honourable Deputy Prime Minister, and Mr. Anthony Mathews the Chair of the Board of CASA.
Mr. McCormack, I am calling on you to apply any pressure you can to encourage the CASA Board to act with integrity, in accordance with CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, and your own Statement of Expectations of the Board of CASA.
Mr. Mathews, you appear to have misunderstood my reasonable request.
I am not seeking to make any allegations, and this particular request has nothing to do with the Ombudsman's Office. I am not seeking a determination, I am merely seeking an explanation.
I am seeking an explanation from CASA as to how the flying school that I owned, with my own employees operating fully in accordance with all CASA approved procedures in place, operating from my building as it had for over a decade, is determined by CASA to be an "unauthorized operation", and forced into closure. This notification came with no prior notification or indication at all from CASA. It is inexplicable, from my perspective.
The Ombudsman's current investigation is not related to this matter and irrespective of this, the Ombudsman's Office has advised that an ongoing investigation does not prevent me from seeking an explanation from CASA, as I am doing now. It is not reasonable that CASA takes action against a business, fails to explain the basis of that action, and will not explain it to the individual affected, but will to the Ombudsman years later. Surely that can't be fair.
It is likely that CASA has provided that explanation to the Ombudsman's Office, so I can see no reason that the same explanation would not be provided to me, as I have been requesting for more than two years.
It is important that I am very clear.
I am fully satisfied that CASA has erred and that they have acted unlawfully. I believe that the CASA Board is aware of this. I believe that there is an attempt by the Board to cover up this matter.
I have firmly bought this matter to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister, and all members of the National Party. My reasonable expectation is that I will be provided with an explanation by CASA, or directed to a previously supplied copy of an explanation if one exists.
For clarity, I am asking CASA to provide an explanation of this particular determination i.e. that my flying school became an UNAUTHORISED OPERATION. This is a fair and reasonable request.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Mr. McCormack, I am calling on you to apply any pressure you can to encourage the CASA Board to act with integrity, in accordance with CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, and your own Statement of Expectations of the Board of CASA.
Mr. Mathews, you appear to have misunderstood my reasonable request.
I am not seeking to make any allegations, and this particular request has nothing to do with the Ombudsman's Office. I am not seeking a determination, I am merely seeking an explanation.
I am seeking an explanation from CASA as to how the flying school that I owned, with my own employees operating fully in accordance with all CASA approved procedures in place, operating from my building as it had for over a decade, is determined by CASA to be an "unauthorized operation", and forced into closure. This notification came with no prior notification or indication at all from CASA. It is inexplicable, from my perspective.
The Ombudsman's current investigation is not related to this matter and irrespective of this, the Ombudsman's Office has advised that an ongoing investigation does not prevent me from seeking an explanation from CASA, as I am doing now. It is not reasonable that CASA takes action against a business, fails to explain the basis of that action, and will not explain it to the individual affected, but will to the Ombudsman years later. Surely that can't be fair.
It is likely that CASA has provided that explanation to the Ombudsman's Office, so I can see no reason that the same explanation would not be provided to me, as I have been requesting for more than two years.
It is important that I am very clear.
- On 23rd October 2018, CASA wrote advising that my business, Melbourne Flight Training was deemed to be an "unauthorized operation."
- There was no significant change during the business's 12 years of operation that I am aware of that would deem it an "unauthorized operation" by CASA.
- CASA has never explained this action to me in any manner whatsoever. I have no understanding of how CASA arrived at that determination.
- I am not making an allegation, I am merely seeking an explanation
I am fully satisfied that CASA has erred and that they have acted unlawfully. I believe that the CASA Board is aware of this. I believe that there is an attempt by the Board to cover up this matter.
I have firmly bought this matter to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister, and all members of the National Party. My reasonable expectation is that I will be provided with an explanation by CASA, or directed to a previously supplied copy of an explanation if one exists.
For clarity, I am asking CASA to provide an explanation of this particular determination i.e. that my flying school became an UNAUTHORISED OPERATION. This is a fair and reasonable request.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
even if CASA does finally provide you an explanation, it is totally unreasonable to not provide that explanation when they deemed your operations unauthorized. They left you no way to respond or make acceptable changes.
That itself is simply a miscarriage of their authority or simply incompetence that is finally brought to light publicly.
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
And it is a response worthy of a John Clarke sketch!
Even when a company has a stack of ‘infringements’ a mile high it is still issued a ‘Show Cause’.
This then allows the company to well, show cause and defend the allegations or rectify.
Having read a good chunk of Glens issues even this did not happen?
This then allows the company to well, show cause and defend the allegations or rectify.
Having read a good chunk of Glens issues even this did not happen?
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Australian National Audit Office has commenced an audit into how CASA plans and conducts its surveillance operations, possibly open for public contributions soon:
https://www.anao.gov.au/work/perform...nce-activities
https://www.anao.gov.au/work/perform...nce-activities
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time to dust off the wet lettuce leaf.
The Australian National Audit Office has commenced an audit into how CASA plans and conducts its surveillance operations, possibly open for public contributions soon:
https://www.anao.gov.au/work/perform...nce-activities
https://www.anao.gov.au/work/perform...nce-activities
Oh there might be an “Observation” or three, but it will all be lightweight staff. You know, a page number in the enforcement manual written in the wrong font type, or perhaps some naughty Inspector is found to be working from Version 3 of the surveillance procedurals manual when version 4 is the current one. The ANAO will dust off its trusty wet lettuce leaf, give the Scotsman a gentle tap on the buttocks and then present a rosy report to the CASA Board and the impotent DPM McCormack. Next........
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: kennel
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tell the ANAO some war stories depictking the heroism of CASA and show them a broken thronomister with a tall story attached, maybe half an hour in a simulator plus drinks and nibbles and the job is done. Auditors know SFA about technology and risk.
Thread Starter
Carmodys blatant lies about assault and stalking
21/04/21
To the Honorable Mr. Michael McCormack, Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the Nationals and Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
I have included you in this correspondence to Mr. Graeme Crawford, the acting CEO of CASA. Should Mr. Crawford decide not to comply, my intention will be to write directly to you, requesting your assistance in the matter.
May I request an acknowledgement of receipt of this correspondence.
Respectfully,
Glen Buckley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21/04/21
Dear Mr. Graeme Crawford, acting CEO and Director of Aviation Safety (DAS),
On 20/1120 in Senate RRAT Estimates Committee, Mr. Shane Carmody (CASA CEO at the time), made allegations to Parliament that I had, “assaulted and stalked CASA staff”.
These comments can be located at the 6 minute 30 second mark, via the following link.
For complete clarity, I have never stalked or assaulted anybody, anywhere, at any time in my life. The allegation that I have stalked, and assaulted CASA employees is a blatant lie, made by Mr. Carmody in his presentation to the Senate Inquiry.
These are serious allegations of criminal misconduct with terms of imprisonment of up to ten years.
My reasonable assumption is that his allegations were an attempt to damage my reputation and discredit allegations that I have made against CASA personnel of misconduct. Irrespective of the motivation behind Mr Carmodys allegations they are a blatant lie.
In support of my allegations, I offer the following
· First and foremost, I am clearly stating that at no time, have I ever stalked or assaulted any CASA personnel. That is the truth.
· Second. I have made a Freedom of Information (FOI) request for any information in support of Mr. Carmody’s vindictive and vexatious allegations. Predictably, CASA could offer no document in support of the allegations of either stalking or assault.
· Thirdly, I would suggest that if a CASA Employee had been assaulted and/or stalked by me, that matter would have been reported to the Police by CASA. Prior to CASA closing my business, I had my own employees, and I am fully aware of the Employers “duty of care” to his or her Employees. The fact that no police report was ever made, would indicate that Mr. Carmody was being misleading in his statements to Parliament. Mr. Carmody has made several clearly untruthful statements about me and my situation, to the Senate Inquiry, and I have bought some those to the attention of the Senate Inquiry recently.
To the purpose of this correspondence.
If CASA stands by the assertion that I have assaulted and stalked CASA staff, I insist that CASA contact Police, assuming that they have not done so previously, submit the allegations, and let the Police determine if Mr. Carmody’s statements were truthful, and I have a case to answer. If the Police determine that I have potentially stalked or assaulted any CASA employees, that will provide me the opportunity to defend myself and steadfastly refute those allegations in a Court of Law and protect my reputation. If Mr. Carmody was blatantly lying in his presentation to the Senators, as I suggest, the matter will go nowhere.
If CASA elect not to pursue the allegations, I believe it entirely reasonable that CASA publicly fully retract those false allegations.
I do need this matter resolved by CASA either by CASA pursuing, or alternatively retracting the allegations.
I left the industry over 18 months ago, when CASA wrote to my Employer advising that my continuing employment was “not tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”
My hope is to return to the aviation industry one day, but that would require me to be deemed a “fit and proper,” person by CASA. Until this matter is resolved, these comments would preclude me from re-entering the aviation Industry, as it is reasonable to assume that CASA would not deem me a “fit and proper” person, if I have previously stalked and assaulted CASA employees.
Should CASA determine that they will not pursue the allegations, and refuse to publicly retract those comments, I will write directly to the Deputy Prime Minister requesting his intervention.
I am also aware that another option available to me is to write directly to the President of the Senate, submitting a formal response, and requesting that be incorporated into the Parliamentary record.
Mr. Carmody, referred to me by name, and I believe that his untruthful comments could adversely affect my reputation. After the direction by CASA to my Employer that my continuing employment was “no longer tenable”, I was forced to leave the aviation industry. In my current employment, those alleged charges would lead to the termination of my current employment.
I appreciate that Mr. Carmody was protected by Parliamentary privilege, and that I have no recourse in law against his blatant misrepresentation of the truth, nevertheless, my hope is that you will act with integrity and good intent, and pursue or retract the allegations.
Mr. Crawford, thankyou for consideration of my request.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copy of correspondence sent to Mr Carmody the day after he made the allegations against me in Parliament. This was also forwarded to the Deputy PM and the Senate RRAT Committee. No response has been received as of 21/04/21
21/11/20
Dear Mr Carmody, CEO of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority,
I refer to your attendance at the Senate RRAT Estimates Committee and associated comments that you made about me on 20/11/20.
I made my presentation between the 3-hour 50 minute mark through until 4 hours and 32 minutes. Immediately after my presentation, you were offered the right to reply and I have attached a link to your presentation at that inquiry. Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport - 20/11/2020 08:49:59 ? Parliament of Australia
I refer to comments that you made at the 4 hour and 38-minute mark where you claimed “He has assaulted my staff, he has stalked my staff”
Whilst I appreciate that in making such comments you are protected by Parliamentary privilege. That Parliamentary privilege is intended to allow full and frank disclosure of matters. It is not intended for the CEO of CASA to make false allegations against an individual or to blatantly lie and mislead Parliament, and more so considering your position as the CEO of CASA.
Whilst I do appreciate that you were somewhat “rattled” and may not have had the clarity of mind that would be ideal in such a situation, I would like to afford you the opportunity to correct that blatant untruth.
For clarity, I absolutely and totally refute that claim, and as you will appreciate that comment has bought angst to my family.
The purpose of this correspondence.
If you stand by that claim that I assaulted and stalked your staff, can I request the details of those allegations? Are you able to provide any supporting details of such incidents? Ideally, this would include details of the alleged incidents such as dates, times, and circumstances of the alleged assault or stalking matters.
My assumption is that such matters would be held by CASA on file, there would be Workcover documentation, a formal complaint lodged within CASA, or something similar.
If you are unable or unwilling to support those allegations my intention would be to make a Freedom of Information request to obtain any supporting documentation and fully refute that scurrilous allegation and a blatant untruth.
Respectfully Glen Buckley
To the Honorable Mr. Michael McCormack, Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the Nationals and Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
I have included you in this correspondence to Mr. Graeme Crawford, the acting CEO of CASA. Should Mr. Crawford decide not to comply, my intention will be to write directly to you, requesting your assistance in the matter.
May I request an acknowledgement of receipt of this correspondence.
Respectfully,
Glen Buckley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21/04/21
Dear Mr. Graeme Crawford, acting CEO and Director of Aviation Safety (DAS),
On 20/1120 in Senate RRAT Estimates Committee, Mr. Shane Carmody (CASA CEO at the time), made allegations to Parliament that I had, “assaulted and stalked CASA staff”.
These comments can be located at the 6 minute 30 second mark, via the following link.
For complete clarity, I have never stalked or assaulted anybody, anywhere, at any time in my life. The allegation that I have stalked, and assaulted CASA employees is a blatant lie, made by Mr. Carmody in his presentation to the Senate Inquiry.
These are serious allegations of criminal misconduct with terms of imprisonment of up to ten years.
My reasonable assumption is that his allegations were an attempt to damage my reputation and discredit allegations that I have made against CASA personnel of misconduct. Irrespective of the motivation behind Mr Carmodys allegations they are a blatant lie.
In support of my allegations, I offer the following
· First and foremost, I am clearly stating that at no time, have I ever stalked or assaulted any CASA personnel. That is the truth.
· Second. I have made a Freedom of Information (FOI) request for any information in support of Mr. Carmody’s vindictive and vexatious allegations. Predictably, CASA could offer no document in support of the allegations of either stalking or assault.
· Thirdly, I would suggest that if a CASA Employee had been assaulted and/or stalked by me, that matter would have been reported to the Police by CASA. Prior to CASA closing my business, I had my own employees, and I am fully aware of the Employers “duty of care” to his or her Employees. The fact that no police report was ever made, would indicate that Mr. Carmody was being misleading in his statements to Parliament. Mr. Carmody has made several clearly untruthful statements about me and my situation, to the Senate Inquiry, and I have bought some those to the attention of the Senate Inquiry recently.
To the purpose of this correspondence.
If CASA stands by the assertion that I have assaulted and stalked CASA staff, I insist that CASA contact Police, assuming that they have not done so previously, submit the allegations, and let the Police determine if Mr. Carmody’s statements were truthful, and I have a case to answer. If the Police determine that I have potentially stalked or assaulted any CASA employees, that will provide me the opportunity to defend myself and steadfastly refute those allegations in a Court of Law and protect my reputation. If Mr. Carmody was blatantly lying in his presentation to the Senators, as I suggest, the matter will go nowhere.
If CASA elect not to pursue the allegations, I believe it entirely reasonable that CASA publicly fully retract those false allegations.
I do need this matter resolved by CASA either by CASA pursuing, or alternatively retracting the allegations.
I left the industry over 18 months ago, when CASA wrote to my Employer advising that my continuing employment was “not tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”
My hope is to return to the aviation industry one day, but that would require me to be deemed a “fit and proper,” person by CASA. Until this matter is resolved, these comments would preclude me from re-entering the aviation Industry, as it is reasonable to assume that CASA would not deem me a “fit and proper” person, if I have previously stalked and assaulted CASA employees.
Should CASA determine that they will not pursue the allegations, and refuse to publicly retract those comments, I will write directly to the Deputy Prime Minister requesting his intervention.
I am also aware that another option available to me is to write directly to the President of the Senate, submitting a formal response, and requesting that be incorporated into the Parliamentary record.
Mr. Carmody, referred to me by name, and I believe that his untruthful comments could adversely affect my reputation. After the direction by CASA to my Employer that my continuing employment was “no longer tenable”, I was forced to leave the aviation industry. In my current employment, those alleged charges would lead to the termination of my current employment.
I appreciate that Mr. Carmody was protected by Parliamentary privilege, and that I have no recourse in law against his blatant misrepresentation of the truth, nevertheless, my hope is that you will act with integrity and good intent, and pursue or retract the allegations.
Mr. Crawford, thankyou for consideration of my request.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copy of correspondence sent to Mr Carmody the day after he made the allegations against me in Parliament. This was also forwarded to the Deputy PM and the Senate RRAT Committee. No response has been received as of 21/04/21
21/11/20
Dear Mr Carmody, CEO of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority,
I refer to your attendance at the Senate RRAT Estimates Committee and associated comments that you made about me on 20/11/20.
I made my presentation between the 3-hour 50 minute mark through until 4 hours and 32 minutes. Immediately after my presentation, you were offered the right to reply and I have attached a link to your presentation at that inquiry. Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport - 20/11/2020 08:49:59 ? Parliament of Australia
I refer to comments that you made at the 4 hour and 38-minute mark where you claimed “He has assaulted my staff, he has stalked my staff”
Whilst I appreciate that in making such comments you are protected by Parliamentary privilege. That Parliamentary privilege is intended to allow full and frank disclosure of matters. It is not intended for the CEO of CASA to make false allegations against an individual or to blatantly lie and mislead Parliament, and more so considering your position as the CEO of CASA.
Whilst I do appreciate that you were somewhat “rattled” and may not have had the clarity of mind that would be ideal in such a situation, I would like to afford you the opportunity to correct that blatant untruth.
For clarity, I absolutely and totally refute that claim, and as you will appreciate that comment has bought angst to my family.
The purpose of this correspondence.
If you stand by that claim that I assaulted and stalked your staff, can I request the details of those allegations? Are you able to provide any supporting details of such incidents? Ideally, this would include details of the alleged incidents such as dates, times, and circumstances of the alleged assault or stalking matters.
My assumption is that such matters would be held by CASA on file, there would be Workcover documentation, a formal complaint lodged within CASA, or something similar.
If you are unable or unwilling to support those allegations my intention would be to make a Freedom of Information request to obtain any supporting documentation and fully refute that scurrilous allegation and a blatant untruth.
Respectfully Glen Buckley