Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
The realities of life.
“Should come as no surprise when pilots/operators elect to simply ignore casa.
Quite so, a partial system breakdown is the real result of the CASA modus operandi.
Quite so, a partial system breakdown is the real result of the CASA modus operandi.
Thread Starter
Attendees at meeting
In Post #2406 I was notified of a meeting between CASA and the Ombudsmans office.
Post #2413, I was notified that the meeting had occurred.
Post #2414 I wrote to the ICC asking who the atendees were.
I have today received this response. My expectation was that someone more senior to Mr Aleck would have attended.
28/10/22Good morning Glen
CASA’s participants at the meeting were myself and Dr Aleck. Dr Aleck attended given his greater familiarity with what material existed in relation to the exchanges between CASA and APTA in early 2019 in relation how APTA’s contracts with its affiliates could demonstrate operational control.
Thanks
Jonathan
Post #2413, I was notified that the meeting had occurred.
Post #2414 I wrote to the ICC asking who the atendees were.
I have today received this response. My expectation was that someone more senior to Mr Aleck would have attended.
28/10/22Good morning Glen
CASA’s participants at the meeting were myself and Dr Aleck. Dr Aleck attended given his greater familiarity with what material existed in relation to the exchanges between CASA and APTA in early 2019 in relation how APTA’s contracts with its affiliates could demonstrate operational control.
Thanks
Jonathan
I find the content of the ICC’s response to be disturbing (but sadly unsurprising) Glen. The essence of your complaint in relation to CASA’s interactions with the Ombudsman is that CASA was bull****ting when it told the Ombudsman that CASA didn’t become fully aware of the specific nature of APTA’s operations until 2018.
CASA knew that applications submitted by APTA prior to 2018 for variations to its AOC to cover flying training operations would involve, for example, instructors who weren’t APTA’s employees. CASA also knew that the contractual arrangements put in place between APTA and anyone else did not contain provisions to the effect demanded by CASA in March 2019. CASA nonetheless approved those variations. Doesn’t make any difference what Dr A knew about any of that.
I suppose ‘CASA’ could try to pretend that it ‘just assumed’ that the operations covered by the approved variations would involve only personnel employed by APTA, utilising only premises and aircraft owned by APTA. I suppose ‘CASA’ could also try to pretend that it ‘just assumed’ that to the extent that the operations covered by the approved variations would utilise personnel not employed by APTA and premises and aircraft not owned by APTA, the arrangements would be covered by detailed contract provisions ensuring effective operational control. And I suppose ‘CASA’ could also try to pretend that ‘CASA’ woke up in October 2018 and slapped a palm on its forehead when the truth finally dawned on it. But those would be bald-faced lies.
My experience with the CASA ICC and Ombudsman on matters CASA is that they are not good at dealing with circumstances in which CASA is caught with its pants down, having behaved unlawfully and tried unsuccessfully to bull**** its way out of it. That’s a sad manifestation of the steadily weakening fabric of government institutions.
CASA knew that applications submitted by APTA prior to 2018 for variations to its AOC to cover flying training operations would involve, for example, instructors who weren’t APTA’s employees. CASA also knew that the contractual arrangements put in place between APTA and anyone else did not contain provisions to the effect demanded by CASA in March 2019. CASA nonetheless approved those variations. Doesn’t make any difference what Dr A knew about any of that.
I suppose ‘CASA’ could try to pretend that it ‘just assumed’ that the operations covered by the approved variations would involve only personnel employed by APTA, utilising only premises and aircraft owned by APTA. I suppose ‘CASA’ could also try to pretend that it ‘just assumed’ that to the extent that the operations covered by the approved variations would utilise personnel not employed by APTA and premises and aircraft not owned by APTA, the arrangements would be covered by detailed contract provisions ensuring effective operational control. And I suppose ‘CASA’ could also try to pretend that ‘CASA’ woke up in October 2018 and slapped a palm on its forehead when the truth finally dawned on it. But those would be bald-faced lies.
My experience with the CASA ICC and Ombudsman on matters CASA is that they are not good at dealing with circumstances in which CASA is caught with its pants down, having behaved unlawfully and tried unsuccessfully to bull**** its way out of it. That’s a sad manifestation of the steadily weakening fabric of government institutions.
Agreed, that final sentence is very specific and specifically answers a question that you didn’t ask and as such, makes it clear as to where they are headed.
CASA’s participants at the meeting were myself and Dr Aleck. Dr Aleck attended given his greater familiarity with what material existed in relation to the exchanges between CASA and APTA in early 2019 in relation how APTA’s contracts with its affiliates could demonstrate operational control.
To explain that last point, if the subject of "operational control" was central to the issue of an AOC, then straight forward written, legislated requirements would have to exist for what constitutes "operational control" that Glen Buckley could have complied with in a heartbeat. According to him, he pleaded with CASA for such direction but was fobbed off on each occasion. In effect he was sent off by CASA each time to search for a Unicorn or a perfect Shiraz, while CASA sat back in their overstuffed armchairs pontificating upon his efforts while idly watching the clock to see how long his business would last with no cashflow.
For the avoidance of doubt, If the regulator was genuine, this matter would have been fixed by the usual Australian device of : "This is how you do it mate, now write it up that way so I can sign it off and get rid of you!". Instead , Glen Buckley got the death of a thousand cuts.
I say again; by this action, the Ombusdman is giving permission to all bureaucrats to make highly subjective decisions that are normally only the province of judges and juries. This is utterly corrupt because what it means is that it is ultimately legal in the ombudsmans eyes for a bureaucrat to distinguish between for example, Avmed medical decisions, AOC applications or investigation outcomes as if they are distinguishing between two fine Shiraz wines instead of applying bjective criteria.
If this stands, then CASA and its regulations are corrupt in the full sense of the word in that it can do anything it likes on a whim. There is thus no way that potential investors in Australian aviation can manage regulatory risk and they will act accordingly.
Last edited by Sunfish; 29th Oct 2022 at 22:44.
The results of fraud and humbug.
Quoting Sunfish:- “There is thus no way that potential investors in Australian aviation can manage regulatory risk and they will act accordingly.”
It’s blindingly clear that this true because in two ways they have, and are, already acting in the manner described.
Firstly, the dearth of new General Aviation businesses is the more noticeable by those that have gone out of business, and Government’s deliberate airport policy of favouring non aviation uses compounds the disincentive to invest in GA.
Secondly, for those who are still picking over the bones of GA, some have developed the means to survive. Rather like the first hominid to make a spear was foiled by the maker of a shield.
As an added thought to the main topic of this thread, the CASA objection to operational control via the APTA model seems to completely overlook the stringencies and legal compulsion of its own colossal suite of criminal sanctions for even the most minor deviation from its practically impossible concept of GA training perfection, while it ignores the growing thousands learning to fly under RAAUS. This is extreme humbug, perpetrating a fraud on all of us.
All the arguments of CASA are really specious, and the Hanton advice about the meeting with the Ombudsman is beyond a polite response. The degradation of what is supposed to be the Public Service is patently obvious. They are in it for themselves, at our our expense, and against the National interest.
It’s blindingly clear that this true because in two ways they have, and are, already acting in the manner described.
Firstly, the dearth of new General Aviation businesses is the more noticeable by those that have gone out of business, and Government’s deliberate airport policy of favouring non aviation uses compounds the disincentive to invest in GA.
Secondly, for those who are still picking over the bones of GA, some have developed the means to survive. Rather like the first hominid to make a spear was foiled by the maker of a shield.
As an added thought to the main topic of this thread, the CASA objection to operational control via the APTA model seems to completely overlook the stringencies and legal compulsion of its own colossal suite of criminal sanctions for even the most minor deviation from its practically impossible concept of GA training perfection, while it ignores the growing thousands learning to fly under RAAUS. This is extreme humbug, perpetrating a fraud on all of us.
All the arguments of CASA are really specious, and the Hanton advice about the meeting with the Ombudsman is beyond a polite response. The degradation of what is supposed to be the Public Service is patently obvious. They are in it for themselves, at our our expense, and against the National interest.
If you want some insight into the extent to which the Ombudsman’s office has been compromised, you might recall its 2017 report into Centrelink’s automated debt raising and recovery system (commonly known as ‘RoboDebt’). At today’s hearing of the RoboDebt Royal Commission, internal legal advices provided to the agency were tendered. Those advices were to the effect that it was not lawful to use ‘averaged’ ATO income information as the sole and conclusive basis on which to calculate and pursue debts. But that’s precisely what the ‘online compliance intervention’ system did (unless the victim was able to battle the inadequate Centrelink communications system – the first witness today described having to send a 71 page fax of bank statements, twice (you remember faxes?) after conversations with ‘someone’ in Centrelink, which faxes were then ‘lost’ by Centrelink).
The Ombudsman didn’t bother to ask whether Centrelink had sought and obtained legal advice about the lawfulness of the ‘online compliance intervention’ system. [But see my correction below.] The Ombudsman did say this in his report, though:
That’s some special genius, right there.
Maybe there should be some kind of government ‘watchdog’ with power to look into whether a government agency is pursuing powerless individuals for alleged debts that don’t exist. Let’s call that ‘watchdog’ the ‘Ombudsman’. And let’s appoint as ‘Ombudsman’ someone who understands that ‘over-recovering debts’ is a euphemism for taking money off people when they don’t actually owe it. After all, a drover’s dog knows that it’s unlawful and immoral to take money off people when they don’t actually owe it and hopefully there are candidates out there with the smarts and integrity of a drover’s dog.
Correction added 2 Nov 22: According to proceedings today at the Royal Commission, the Ombudsman did ask for legal advices about the use of 'averaged' income data as the sole basis for calculating and pursuing debts. There followed an internal Departmental discussion about whether to provide to the Ombudsman the late 2014 advice as well as a January 2017 advice that appeared to be inconsistent with the former, but the latter - according to the lawyer who provided the advice (today's witness) - was an answer to a different and specific and highly hypothetical scenario. The author of the 2017 advice did not know whether the 2014 advice - which had been 'second counselled' by the author of the 2017 advice, was ever given to the Ombudsman. I can't find any reference to that request or what the Ombudsman did about the response, in the Ombudsman's report. In any event, I stand by my overarching view that ‘over-recovering debts’ is a euphemism for taking money off people when they don’t actually owe it, and that should have rung alarm bells, long and loud, in the Ombudsman's Office.
The Ombudsman didn’t bother to ask whether Centrelink had sought and obtained legal advice about the lawfulness of the ‘online compliance intervention’ system. [But see my correction below.] The Ombudsman did say this in his report, though:
We asked DHS whether it had done modelling on how many debts were likely to be over-calculated as opposed to under-calculated. DHS advised no such modelling was done. In our view the risk of over-recovering debts from social security recipients should be the subject of more thorough research and analysis.
Maybe there should be some kind of government ‘watchdog’ with power to look into whether a government agency is pursuing powerless individuals for alleged debts that don’t exist. Let’s call that ‘watchdog’ the ‘Ombudsman’. And let’s appoint as ‘Ombudsman’ someone who understands that ‘over-recovering debts’ is a euphemism for taking money off people when they don’t actually owe it. After all, a drover’s dog knows that it’s unlawful and immoral to take money off people when they don’t actually owe it and hopefully there are candidates out there with the smarts and integrity of a drover’s dog.
Correction added 2 Nov 22: According to proceedings today at the Royal Commission, the Ombudsman did ask for legal advices about the use of 'averaged' income data as the sole basis for calculating and pursuing debts. There followed an internal Departmental discussion about whether to provide to the Ombudsman the late 2014 advice as well as a January 2017 advice that appeared to be inconsistent with the former, but the latter - according to the lawyer who provided the advice (today's witness) - was an answer to a different and specific and highly hypothetical scenario. The author of the 2017 advice did not know whether the 2014 advice - which had been 'second counselled' by the author of the 2017 advice, was ever given to the Ombudsman. I can't find any reference to that request or what the Ombudsman did about the response, in the Ombudsman's report. In any event, I stand by my overarching view that ‘over-recovering debts’ is a euphemism for taking money off people when they don’t actually owe it, and that should have rung alarm bells, long and loud, in the Ombudsman's Office.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 2nd Nov 2022 at 06:22.
Watchdogs
LB has illustrated the woeful inadequacies of yet another of our myriad ‘independent’ government agencies.
Undoubtably we could enhance our government with a new and accountable means of investigating and overseeing the machinations of the mighty juggernaut that’s known as the Public Sector (once was the Public Service).
Here’s a suggestion, we vote for representatives who will pursue our particular concerns on our behalf. We could have them come together in a place of speaking together and call it Parliament. They would have to understand that they not only made law but they were also responsible to their individual constituents.
Undoubtably we could enhance our government with a new and accountable means of investigating and overseeing the machinations of the mighty juggernaut that’s known as the Public Sector (once was the Public Service).
Here’s a suggestion, we vote for representatives who will pursue our particular concerns on our behalf. We could have them come together in a place of speaking together and call it Parliament. They would have to understand that they not only made law but they were also responsible to their individual constituents.
In fairness, I should say that I’ve had considerable success in complaining to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office about bureaucrats who were labouring under the misconception that their compliance with the law was optional. Strong and effective action by the Ombudsman’s Office recalibrated the bureaucrats and I was consequently paid money to which I was entitled. But that was over two decades ago.
Since then the Commonwealth Ombudsman has also become:
- the Postal Industry Ombudsman
- the Overseas Students Ombudsman
- the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman, and
- the VET Student Loans Ombudsman.
You (Sandy) have identified elsewhere the annual budget of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. My view is that the budget would have to be ten times that in order for the Ombudsman to do, properly, all of the jobs the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office is now supposed to do.
All of the phaffing around on Glen's matter indicate to me an organisation which is, at best, out of its depth. It's not that hard to work out what CASA knew - constructively if not actually - about APTA's legal relationship with and operational control of the people, premises and aircraft to be engaged in operations the subject of each application for a variation to APTA's AOC to cover those operations. As I've said before, that was (and remains) the very purpose of an AOC variation process.
Since then the Commonwealth Ombudsman has also become:
- the Postal Industry Ombudsman
- the Overseas Students Ombudsman
- the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman, and
- the VET Student Loans Ombudsman.
You (Sandy) have identified elsewhere the annual budget of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. My view is that the budget would have to be ten times that in order for the Ombudsman to do, properly, all of the jobs the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office is now supposed to do.
All of the phaffing around on Glen's matter indicate to me an organisation which is, at best, out of its depth. It's not that hard to work out what CASA knew - constructively if not actually - about APTA's legal relationship with and operational control of the people, premises and aircraft to be engaged in operations the subject of each application for a variation to APTA's AOC to cover those operations. As I've said before, that was (and remains) the very purpose of an AOC variation process.
Thread Starter
Letter to the Board
03/11/22
To the Board of CASA,
As you will be aware I believe some members of the most senior levels of CASAs management have been responsible for providing substantially false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s investigation into the closure of my business by CASA. The regulations and advisories that I was allegedly in breach of that were used by CASA as the basis to close my business were.
As you are aware I totally refute that I was in breach of any of those regulations, however that is not the specific purpose of this correspondence.
As you are also aware, I am fully satisfied that at least one CASA Executive has provided, or been responsible for providing, substantially false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation into the closure of my business, on multiple topics and on multiple occasions. My reasonable assumption is that it was provided by the CASA Executive to pervert the outcome of that investigation.
The reason that I am seeking to have this matter resolved is because of the two very different alternating narratives that are emanating from within CASA, that support my allegation of misconduct by Mr Aleck, by way of providing false and misleading information to the Ombudsman.
I made multiple requests of CASA over the last 18 months that Mr Aleck be removed as the primary and sole point of contact in dealings with the Ombudsman’s office because of my concerns with his integrity. The CASA CEO chose to leave him in that position for reasons known only to her. My concerns were that he would attempt to pervert the findings of the Ombudsman Office to cover up his misconduct. Mr Aleck was the decision maker that wrongfully declared it unlawful.
Evidence of Mr Alecks “influence” on perverting the findings of the Ombudsman investigation can be found in these two significantly different CASA narratives based on the same facts.
21st July 2021 Ombudsman writes to me advising that they will not be investigating the matter because CASA had provided us with a reasonable explanation for its view that it was not fully aware of the specific nature of APTA’s operations until just prior to issuing the notice in October 2018.”
However over two years prior on 12th April 2019, CASAs own Industry Complaints Commissioner had come to a completely different conclusion when he stated; “I don’t consider CASA treated APTA fairly when its approach changed on 23 October 2018. That’s because collectively as an organisation, CASA had an awareness of the APTA business model for a significant period of time prior to its compliance with regulation being called into question. In changing its position so drastically, the circumstances were such that CASA’s actions weren’t fair, given APTA’s likely to have relied on CASA’s failure to highlight any concerns when conducting its operations and planning.
When the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner says “a significant period of time prior” I assume that to be when CASA approved our second base in Darwin 8 years prior. As you are aware I have maintained that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of my business model and its structure for many years, and the ICC findings would seem to support that.
As you are aware, I wrote to the CASA CEO Ms. Spence requesting clarification as to the date that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation. A response to this question is fundamental to my entire matter. Despite my requests, Ms Spence has chosen not to reveal that date. My next step is to approach the CASA Board directly, in the hope that CASA is prepared to provide me with that information, hence this correspondence to the Board.
If the Board is not prepared to provide me with that information, my intention will be petitioning the Minister compelling CASA to reveal that date. My intention is to gather 5000 signatures from within the electorate of Chisholm and submit that petition to my local MP, Ms. Carina Garland seeking the assistance of the Minister. My hope is that additional step is not necessary, but I will continue to pursue this matter. I only advise you of that because my intention is not to “broadside” anybody, although it is important that there are clear expectations. I have included both respective offices in this correspondence to ensure there is awareness at Ministerial level.
Obviously, my strong preference and hope is that truthfulness and integrity prevail on this matter, and that I can obtain a response, therefore finalising this matter at Board Level.
Once the ICC made his determination on 12/04/19 that CASA had an awareness of my business model for a “significant time prior” that should then have become the official position that CASA adopts from the time of that finding and should have been the CASA position presented to the Ombudsman investigation.
I am concerned that two years later the Commonwealth Ombudsman produces a finding that contradicts the previous finding of the ICC. That can only occur if Mr Aleck is pursuing a narrative that differs substantially to that of the CASA ICC. For clarity, the Ombudsman has arrived at a finding based on based on false and misleading information provided by Mr Aleck to the Ombudsman.
As the family that has been significantly impacted by this matter, we think that it is fair and reasonable that CASA clearly nominate the date that they first became fully aware of the specific nature of the operation. As outlined in my correspondence previously, there by necessity, must be an occurrence that occurred on a specific date, in layman’s terms the date that CASA woke up and slapped a palm on its forehead.
This really is a very fair and reasonable request, and I think my family is fully entitled to that date, and most especially because of the discrepancy between the CASA ICC position and that of Mr Alecks.
If I can respectfully request a straightforward, well intentioned, and honest response. As you are aware I have a forum on this topic that has over 1,000,000 views. A copy of the correspondence previously sent to Ms Spence can be accessed via Posts #2376 and Post #2377 on that forum. It contains information that may be pertinent to the Boards response. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 119 - PPRuNe Forums
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
To the Board of CASA,
As you will be aware I believe some members of the most senior levels of CASAs management have been responsible for providing substantially false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s investigation into the closure of my business by CASA. The regulations and advisories that I was allegedly in breach of that were used by CASA as the basis to close my business were.
- CASR 141.050
- The Aviation Ruling
- CAA s29
As you are aware I totally refute that I was in breach of any of those regulations, however that is not the specific purpose of this correspondence.
As you are also aware, I am fully satisfied that at least one CASA Executive has provided, or been responsible for providing, substantially false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation into the closure of my business, on multiple topics and on multiple occasions. My reasonable assumption is that it was provided by the CASA Executive to pervert the outcome of that investigation.
The reason that I am seeking to have this matter resolved is because of the two very different alternating narratives that are emanating from within CASA, that support my allegation of misconduct by Mr Aleck, by way of providing false and misleading information to the Ombudsman.
I made multiple requests of CASA over the last 18 months that Mr Aleck be removed as the primary and sole point of contact in dealings with the Ombudsman’s office because of my concerns with his integrity. The CASA CEO chose to leave him in that position for reasons known only to her. My concerns were that he would attempt to pervert the findings of the Ombudsman Office to cover up his misconduct. Mr Aleck was the decision maker that wrongfully declared it unlawful.
Evidence of Mr Alecks “influence” on perverting the findings of the Ombudsman investigation can be found in these two significantly different CASA narratives based on the same facts.
21st July 2021 Ombudsman writes to me advising that they will not be investigating the matter because CASA had provided us with a reasonable explanation for its view that it was not fully aware of the specific nature of APTA’s operations until just prior to issuing the notice in October 2018.”
However over two years prior on 12th April 2019, CASAs own Industry Complaints Commissioner had come to a completely different conclusion when he stated; “I don’t consider CASA treated APTA fairly when its approach changed on 23 October 2018. That’s because collectively as an organisation, CASA had an awareness of the APTA business model for a significant period of time prior to its compliance with regulation being called into question. In changing its position so drastically, the circumstances were such that CASA’s actions weren’t fair, given APTA’s likely to have relied on CASA’s failure to highlight any concerns when conducting its operations and planning.
When the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner says “a significant period of time prior” I assume that to be when CASA approved our second base in Darwin 8 years prior. As you are aware I have maintained that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of my business model and its structure for many years, and the ICC findings would seem to support that.
As you are aware, I wrote to the CASA CEO Ms. Spence requesting clarification as to the date that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation. A response to this question is fundamental to my entire matter. Despite my requests, Ms Spence has chosen not to reveal that date. My next step is to approach the CASA Board directly, in the hope that CASA is prepared to provide me with that information, hence this correspondence to the Board.
If the Board is not prepared to provide me with that information, my intention will be petitioning the Minister compelling CASA to reveal that date. My intention is to gather 5000 signatures from within the electorate of Chisholm and submit that petition to my local MP, Ms. Carina Garland seeking the assistance of the Minister. My hope is that additional step is not necessary, but I will continue to pursue this matter. I only advise you of that because my intention is not to “broadside” anybody, although it is important that there are clear expectations. I have included both respective offices in this correspondence to ensure there is awareness at Ministerial level.
Obviously, my strong preference and hope is that truthfulness and integrity prevail on this matter, and that I can obtain a response, therefore finalising this matter at Board Level.
Once the ICC made his determination on 12/04/19 that CASA had an awareness of my business model for a “significant time prior” that should then have become the official position that CASA adopts from the time of that finding and should have been the CASA position presented to the Ombudsman investigation.
I am concerned that two years later the Commonwealth Ombudsman produces a finding that contradicts the previous finding of the ICC. That can only occur if Mr Aleck is pursuing a narrative that differs substantially to that of the CASA ICC. For clarity, the Ombudsman has arrived at a finding based on based on false and misleading information provided by Mr Aleck to the Ombudsman.
As the family that has been significantly impacted by this matter, we think that it is fair and reasonable that CASA clearly nominate the date that they first became fully aware of the specific nature of the operation. As outlined in my correspondence previously, there by necessity, must be an occurrence that occurred on a specific date, in layman’s terms the date that CASA woke up and slapped a palm on its forehead.
This really is a very fair and reasonable request, and I think my family is fully entitled to that date, and most especially because of the discrepancy between the CASA ICC position and that of Mr Alecks.
If I can respectfully request a straightforward, well intentioned, and honest response. As you are aware I have a forum on this topic that has over 1,000,000 views. A copy of the correspondence previously sent to Ms Spence can be accessed via Posts #2376 and Post #2377 on that forum. It contains information that may be pertinent to the Boards response. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 119 - PPRuNe Forums
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Because you are relying on the forum and the number of views to put some weight on your case including all of the offers of support etc. I would try and find some way to download an archive of this subject within the Forum in case it just magically goes missing one day and you lose access to everything (unless you have already done this)
I lost something once and thought I could recover it from web archive but unfortunately it missed the back update and it was gone forever
I lost something once and thought I could recover it from web archive but unfortunately it missed the back update and it was gone forever
Thread Starter
Well this doesnt look good!
Good morning Mr Buckley,
I have taken your email below dated 28 October 2022 as a request for us to close our review file and take no further action in your matter. In line with this request, I will now finalise the review (2019-713831-R). We would usually advise both a complainant and an agency of our decision when finalising a complaint and the reasons for the decision under section 12 of the Ombudsman Act 1976. Please let me know whether you would like me to provide my review findings to you in writing, or not.
By way of update and an indication of next steps, I was intending to request some further limited information from CASA to be in a position to reach my final conclusions on a couple of issues raised in the course of your original complaint before finalising your matter, hopefully before the end of the year. I may still request the additional information from CASA for the purpose of bringing the final issues to conclusion for our internal records, even though I will finalise your review matter.
I would like to acknowledge the significant length of time I have held this complaint, and I am sorry I have not been able to provide my conclusions to you earlier. In this matter there has been a substantial amount of information received from both yourself and CASA, and it has taken me longer than anticipated to consider the conclusions reached by Mike and then Mark in your complaint against the information you provided to us both during the complaint process itself and during this review. In doing this, I have also considered a lot of information that CASA has given us about its engagement with you. In short, I do not agree with you that CASA has misled the Ombudsman’s Office. I intended to address this issue in more detail in my review decision to demonstrate why I do not think our office has been misled and can provide this information to you, if you’d like me to.
Finally, I would encourage you to reach out for support in relation to your mental health concerns. If you don’t have support in place already, I suggest you contact Lifeline (13 11 14 or https://www.lifeline.org.au/), Beyond Blue (1300 224 636 or https://www.beyondblue.org.au/) or your GP for assistance and support. You could also contact Financial Counselling Australia (FCA) if you would like to talk to a phone financial counsellor from anywhere in Australia. You can reach FCA by ringing 1800 007 007 (minimum opening hours are 9.30 am – 4.30 pm Monday to Friday). This number will automatically switch through to the service in the State or Territory closest to you.
While I acknowledge your request not to provide the findings of my review, if you would like them, please let me know.
Yours sincerely,
I have taken your email below dated 28 October 2022 as a request for us to close our review file and take no further action in your matter. In line with this request, I will now finalise the review (2019-713831-R). We would usually advise both a complainant and an agency of our decision when finalising a complaint and the reasons for the decision under section 12 of the Ombudsman Act 1976. Please let me know whether you would like me to provide my review findings to you in writing, or not.
By way of update and an indication of next steps, I was intending to request some further limited information from CASA to be in a position to reach my final conclusions on a couple of issues raised in the course of your original complaint before finalising your matter, hopefully before the end of the year. I may still request the additional information from CASA for the purpose of bringing the final issues to conclusion for our internal records, even though I will finalise your review matter.
I would like to acknowledge the significant length of time I have held this complaint, and I am sorry I have not been able to provide my conclusions to you earlier. In this matter there has been a substantial amount of information received from both yourself and CASA, and it has taken me longer than anticipated to consider the conclusions reached by Mike and then Mark in your complaint against the information you provided to us both during the complaint process itself and during this review. In doing this, I have also considered a lot of information that CASA has given us about its engagement with you. In short, I do not agree with you that CASA has misled the Ombudsman’s Office. I intended to address this issue in more detail in my review decision to demonstrate why I do not think our office has been misled and can provide this information to you, if you’d like me to.
Finally, I would encourage you to reach out for support in relation to your mental health concerns. If you don’t have support in place already, I suggest you contact Lifeline (13 11 14 or https://www.lifeline.org.au/), Beyond Blue (1300 224 636 or https://www.beyondblue.org.au/) or your GP for assistance and support. You could also contact Financial Counselling Australia (FCA) if you would like to talk to a phone financial counsellor from anywhere in Australia. You can reach FCA by ringing 1800 007 007 (minimum opening hours are 9.30 am – 4.30 pm Monday to Friday). This number will automatically switch through to the service in the State or Territory closest to you.
While I acknowledge your request not to provide the findings of my review, if you would like them, please let me know.
Yours sincerely,
Errrrm, did you send an email dated 28 Oct 22 to the Ombudsman’s Office? If you posted a copy in this thread, I must have missed it.
Glen, in my opinion, it’s over and you lost. Unless you have a knight in armor in reserve or can galvanize public support, there’s nothing you can do. You have been branded as a nutcase by CASA and the Ombudsman has accepted that. Do you need me or someone to spell it out ?
The response of the DAS and Board is now predictable and negative. Unless you can immediately generate considerable industry support or have a judges opinion in your favor it seems to me that you should cut your losses and look after your mental health. There is life after aviation. Get help.
The response of the DAS and Board is now predictable and negative. Unless you can immediately generate considerable industry support or have a judges opinion in your favor it seems to me that you should cut your losses and look after your mental health. There is life after aviation. Get help.
Thread Starter
Saying that......
I fully recognize that i am stumbling back in the ring uncontrollably, leaning backwards at about 45 degrees, each desperate step back trying to keep myself upright. Its hard to see out the two swollen eyes, with blood pooling in the sockets, the head is thumping, and i can feel the drool pooling and spilling out the right side of my mouth which seems to have a rather large gash. I can feel my white boxing shorts clinging to my bum, but still have enough awareness to hope it's only sweat, as i feel the camera flashes going off behind me, and the crowd gasping. It really doesn't look pretty, and ohhhh that smell.
Whilst the fight isnt completely over here, no. doubt it looks lost. Let the record state that boxer Buckley's fighting career dragged out over four years, and he only had the one fight, but it was against a couple of weight classes above him. He got well and truly whipped but my goodness. The man went down swinging.
There is only a short time to go on this match, but you've all invested so much in the front row seats. Please hang around until i crash down into the ring, obviously not to get back up again till the bell rings. If my eyes appear to be rolling in different directions whilst I'm down there don't be too concerned, I'm merely trying to look around and acknowledge you all. Whilst not the victor I will muster everything i can to raise my hand and acknowledge you all, when i stagger back up on my feet, and I'm going to make dam sure my butt is directed to the opponents' supporters.
Very very very appreciative of everyone's comments and support throughout the four-year boxing career. It is over. Hope you'll stay to the presentation at the end which isn't too much longer.
What "akido' you say, whats that all about? What color is the uniform?
Whilst the fight isnt completely over here, no. doubt it looks lost. Let the record state that boxer Buckley's fighting career dragged out over four years, and he only had the one fight, but it was against a couple of weight classes above him. He got well and truly whipped but my goodness. The man went down swinging.
There is only a short time to go on this match, but you've all invested so much in the front row seats. Please hang around until i crash down into the ring, obviously not to get back up again till the bell rings. If my eyes appear to be rolling in different directions whilst I'm down there don't be too concerned, I'm merely trying to look around and acknowledge you all. Whilst not the victor I will muster everything i can to raise my hand and acknowledge you all, when i stagger back up on my feet, and I'm going to make dam sure my butt is directed to the opponents' supporters.
Very very very appreciative of everyone's comments and support throughout the four-year boxing career. It is over. Hope you'll stay to the presentation at the end which isn't too much longer.
What "akido' you say, whats that all about? What color is the uniform?
Last edited by glenb; 3rd Nov 2022 at 19:49.
Glen, in my opinion, it’s over and you lost. Unless you have a knight in armor in reserve or can galvanize public support, there’s nothing you can do. You have been branded as a nutcase by CASA and the Ombudsman has accepted that. Do you need me or someone to spell it out ?
The response of the DAS and Board is now predictable and negative. Unless you can immediately generate considerable industry support or have a judges opinion in your favor it seems to me that you should cut your losses and look after your mental health. There is life after aviation. Get help.
The response of the DAS and Board is now predictable and negative. Unless you can immediately generate considerable industry support or have a judges opinion in your favor it seems to me that you should cut your losses and look after your mental health. There is life after aviation. Get help.
I have to consider the possibility that I have been taken in by a master storyteller. The question is which one of the protagonists is it? CASA or Glen?
The last. time I became mentally invested in a contest such as this it cost the company two hundred thousand and me about two years of hard work supporting a guy who told a good story.
‘I have had enough, let. me know what happens in the end.
……….and Sqwawk, it doesn’t take much to make a case in the public service that some client is a nutcase; it’s a common way of dealing with the very aggrieved. Now if Glen had complained of something important like sexual harassment for example, the Board and DAS would be moving heaven and earth to help him.
The last. time I became mentally invested in a contest such as this it cost the company two hundred thousand and me about two years of hard work supporting a guy who told a good story.
‘I have had enough, let. me know what happens in the end.
……….and Sqwawk, it doesn’t take much to make a case in the public service that some client is a nutcase; it’s a common way of dealing with the very aggrieved. Now if Glen had complained of something important like sexual harassment for example, the Board and DAS would be moving heaven and earth to help him.
Errrrm, did you send an email dated 28 Oct 22 to the Ombudsman’s Office, Glen? If you posted a copy in this thread, I must have missed it.
I have to consider the possibility that I have been taken in by a master storyteller. The question is which one of the protagonists is it? CASA or Glen?
CASA's involvement in this, as far as I can tell, has been a narrow application of so-called franchised AOC provisions, with the whole argument hinging on legal interpretation. But was the business plan going to work effectively and safely? I say yes, as a concept, so CASA should've been supportive, not the opposite.
I don't know anything about the inner workings of Glen's business dealings or his ambitions, but a multi-tiered flying training enterprise with sound standardisation, shared documentation and effective oversight procedures (as the plan definitely appears to have been) sounds bloody good! Whoever in CASA has roadblocked this idea should be publicly shamed, unless they have real, concrete, verifiable evidence of wrongdoing.