Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Glen,
The most important question… Did you catch any fish?
It really is amazing what a digital detox can do, I’m not talking from experience!
Ready for the go fund me when required!
The most important question… Did you catch any fish?
It really is amazing what a digital detox can do, I’m not talking from experience!
Ready for the go fund me when required!
Glen, did you know anything about the goings on at SOAR? I am wondering why CASA seemed to be asleep at the wheel when it came to regulating that organisation (SOAR), yet they couldn't eliminate you and your high quality training product from the industry fast enough.
A comparison of treatment by CASA might be illuminating.
A comparison of treatment by CASA might be illuminating.
The following 3 users liked this post by Sunfish:
The following 4 users liked this post by Squawk7700:
What did CASA know about SOAR and when did they know it ?
Given what SOAR students have alleged about SOAR, as well as its public accident record, and given the microscopic surveillance of APTA by CASA, as demonstrated by the correspondence between Glen in his role at APTA as chronicled on PPRUNE, would it be unreasonable to assume that SOAR was subject to the same level of scrutiny as APTA?
If so, why wasn’t SOAR shut down by CASA like they did to Glen and APTA?
How does CASA’s apparent tolerance of the safety basket case that was SOAR and it’s demonstrated vendetta against a safety paragon like APTA measure up against CASA’S mission ?
Could the public be justified in thinking that what we have witnessed is at the very least, a massive and intolerable mis allocation of CASA resources in pursuing APTA while ignoring the real safety disaster that was SOAR?
…….and that might be is the most charitable interpretation of CASA actions.
Given what SOAR students have alleged about SOAR, as well as its public accident record, and given the microscopic surveillance of APTA by CASA, as demonstrated by the correspondence between Glen in his role at APTA as chronicled on PPRUNE, would it be unreasonable to assume that SOAR was subject to the same level of scrutiny as APTA?
If so, why wasn’t SOAR shut down by CASA like they did to Glen and APTA?
How does CASA’s apparent tolerance of the safety basket case that was SOAR and it’s demonstrated vendetta against a safety paragon like APTA measure up against CASA’S mission ?
Could the public be justified in thinking that what we have witnessed is at the very least, a massive and intolerable mis allocation of CASA resources in pursuing APTA while ignoring the real safety disaster that was SOAR?
…….and that might be is the most charitable interpretation of CASA actions.
The following 4 users liked this post by Sunfish:
The following 2 users liked this post by Alpha Whiskey Bravo:
Av perons should be aware that with CAsA it’s “different strokes” for different folks. It’s a recipe for corruption, and since CAsA protects its criminal own, what’s the problem. Some outfits are sunk, unfit others allowed to swim on.
CAsAs mantra that they do no wrong and not deal with the problems just means… this is how it is and always will be unless the rotten place can be dismantled and rebuilt.
CAsAs mantra that they do no wrong and not deal with the problems just means… this is how it is and always will be unless the rotten place can be dismantled and rebuilt.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Second Allegation to the Minister 1 of 2
Please note this is in drafty form. very close to finished, but I wanted to get it up here today. Im off air from now to midnight. keen on feedback.
Cheers. GlenTo the Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), the Honourable Ms. Catherine King MP.
I have included other recipients in this correspondence including the Honourable Ms. Carina Garland as my local MP, and who is assisting me and my family with this matter
I fully understand that I could be subject to prosecution if I was found to be raising these claims in a vindictive or vexatious manner.
The allegation against CASA Employees- Ms Spence and Mr Aleck
My name is Glen Buckley. Please accept the second of the five allegations, regarding the provision of false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation by two members of the senior management of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). Those employees are:
1. Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs who has provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office investigation on five occasions. These are not errors or omissions; these are considered and deliberate decisions. The false and misleading information has been provided to the Ombudsman investigation to pervert the findings of that investigation and presumably cover up Mr Alecks own misconduct/misfeasance.
2. Ms Pip Spence CEO of CASA who has facilitated the provision of that false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation on each of those five occasions, and I am fully satisfied that she is complicit in this matter. Ms. Spence, perhaps more than any other person in Australia has ready access to the truth. Some time ago, I provided her with the contact details of a current long serving CASA employee, who would be the Subject Matter Expert within CASA on this matter, and who offered to tell the truth if asked.
Assuming that Ms Spence availed herself of that opportunity, as would be reasonably expected of her, then she is also fully aware of the truth, has been for a significant period of time.
If the Ministers Office would like me to provide the contact details of the current CASA Employee, please advise me, and I will promptly facilitate that request, alternatively Ms Spence could also promptly provide that employees details.
The Ministers Office could establish direct contact with that Employee, promptly ascertain the truth, and act accordingly. The extent of the deceptive conduct/misfeasance will be promptly identified if the Ministers Office chooses this option.
Whilst making these allegations against Ms. Spence, I acknowledge that she is relatively new to the role having come from a completely different Government Department and could not reasonably be expected to have a comprehensive understanding of the flight training sector of the industry.
Ms Spence however is a Subject Matter Expert on Government Department operations, ethics, integrity, CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, community expectations, administrative procedures, governance etc. commensurate with her senior position within the Public Service. By choosing to mislead and frustrate fair processes she prolongs the harm caused to me and my family, and in my opinion is therefore complicit.
The false and misleading information has been provided on five occasions, on five different matters, and each is substantive in nature.
In this correspondence I will attend to the second of the five allegations only. I will send you the additional three allegations, as soon as is practical.
I apologize that there will be at least five pieces of correspondence, each raising a separate allegation. As I explained previously, I have adopted this approach for two reasons.
1. The first being that the impact of this matter has had a substantial impact on my health, and now my wife’s. A lengthier single piece of correspondence covering five or more allegations is not something that I am able to attend to at the moment.
2. Secondly, it should not be necessary. If you are able to promptly clarify this second allegation in conjunction with the first allegation sent to your office on 09/12/22, I feel you will be compelled to act. In your decision making I ask you to also consider the lawfulness or not of this entire matter, and that was attended to, in brief, in the correspondence that I sent to you on 29/12/22.
I feel you will be compelled to act, and most especially because of the seniority of each of their respective positions, and the responsibility of the Department that they lead, i.e., the Nations aviation safety regulator, CASA. No doubt you will also need to consider any potential impact on the safety of aviation if they were to remain in their respective roles, and my substantive allegations were later to be found true. i.e. misconduct/misfeasance.
These are not vindictive or vexatious allegations that I make, these are genuine concerns about the ethics and integrity of senior executives within CASA that has the potential to impact individuals, business and perhaps most importantly, the safety of aviation, as it has already done.
Summary of the first of five allegations, sent to your Office on 09/12/22
You will recall that the first allegation sent to your Office on 09/12/22 related to whether Mr Aleck had misled the Ombudsman’s office as to whether or not CASA had always, and on every occasion permitted and formally approved the exact same structure that I had adopted for over 8 years.
Mr Aleck initially asserted to the Ombudsman that CASA had NEVER permitted this identical structure that I had adopted for over eight years.
During the investigation, Mr Alecks deceptiveness became apparent. My understanding is that Mr Alecks representations to the Ombudsman may have adjusted from one of, ‘CASA never permitted this structure” to “On very rare occasions CASA may have permitted something similar to the structure that Glen adopted”. This representation is still very far from the truth, and I cannot emphasise how very far from the truth.
I had truthfully asserted by drawing on my 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry, that CASA had always and, on every occasion, permitted and formally approved the identical structure that I had adopted, and in fact CASA continues to approve that identical structure. I provided you with an example of the most recent approval to another operator at Moorabbin. This clearly demonstrates the level of deception perpetrated by the two named individuals to the Ombudsman investigation.
Quite clearly the named CASA Executives have misled the Ombudsman. If the Ombudsman is of the opinion that I was doing something unique, something that had not been done before, something not conventional, something not CASA approved, then the Ombudsman has clearly been misled, and substantially so.
The very clear and easily proven truth is that the identical structure that I had adopted was standard industry practice and was adopted on multiple occasions by multiple operators throughout my 25 years in the industry. On every occasion with full CASA knowledge and approval, as it was in my case.
The level of deception being perpetrated can easily be proven because quite simply, on every one of those occasions the additional base could not commence operations until CASA had done an onsite assessment and formally approved the base to commence operations. An extremely comprehensive process with CASA processing those applications prior to approval. On occasion those approvals could take up to 10 months for CASA to issue. For Mr Aleck to assert that CASA first became aware of the specific nature of my operation, only after 8 years, and having formally issued multiple base approvals throughout that period, would be laughable, had it not caused so much unnecessary harm and trauma.
The reality is that Mr Alecks conduct is more akin to “criminal” than “laughable.” I say that because he was not compelled to make any of the decisions that he made, and he was not compelled to take any of the actions that he did. He had no supporting safety case, there was no breach of any regulations. His conduct cannot be justified.
The level of deception being perpetrated is staggering, and I can think of no other appropriate word. It is blatant. It is deliberate, and it can only be intended to pervert the outcome of the Ombudsman investigation.
If the Ministers Office was to approach any CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) of more than 10 years’ experience, and ask them, I have no doubt at all that this matter would be instantly resolved and the truth revealed, that in fact I was not the first, I was one of many, and the truth is that it was, and continues to be, completely standard industry practice with full CASA approval, with the most recent approval being issued to another operator at Moorabbin over the last few weeks.
The point being that CASA, or rather Mr Aleck specifically, had led the Ombudsman Office to believe that I was doing something different and unique, when in fact what I was doing was completely standard industry practice, and continues to be so today. Importantly. This issue is black or white, there is no grey area, the truth can be promptly ascertained.
Either CASA never permitted the identical structure that I adopted as Ms Spence and Mr Aleck falsely assert, or CASA always and on every occasion regularly approved the identical structure that I utilised, and continues to do so as of today, as I assert, and as will any of the CASA Flight Operations Inspectors with expertise and experience in the Flight Training Sector.
It is critical to ascertain this core matter. If it had never been done before as Mr Aleck and Ms Spence assert, then obviously my claim that I was a victim of targeted malice would have little basis.
If it can be truthfully established that this was in fact standard industry practice, throughout my 25 years in the industry, was commonplace, and always fully approved by CASA amongst many operators, and I was the only Operator shut down, then my claim that I was the victim of targeted malice by Mr Aleck, covered up by Ms. Spence would be more likely to have a valid basis.
For that reason, it is essential that the Minister obtains a very clear determination on this from the CASA Board, or whoever you deem appropriate, and who is also prepared to be accountable for providing you with that information.
It is essential that you ascertain whether CASA always permitted the identical structure, or CASA never permitted the identical structure. The response from CASA to the Minister could be promptly attended to, as it requires only a very short response, and CASA has ready access to that information.
Regarding this correspondence may I respectfully request an acknowledgement of receipt.
Second submission to your Office regarding the lawfulness or not of Mr Alecks decision making.
The second piece of correspondence sent to your office on 29/12/22 was not an allegation of providing false and misleading information but attended to the lawfulness or not of CASAs actions. As you are aware, I allege that Mr Aleck abused his significant power to bring harm to me, my family, and my business, as he quite clearly has done, and he had no lawful basis to do so. You will recall that the Ombudsman had found that there was no regulatory breach, CASA had erred, and detriment could have been caused, as it most clearly has.
The purpose of this correspondence- The Second Allegation of providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.
Please accept this as the third piece of correspondence sent to your office on my matter, noting it is the second of the five, allegations of CASA Executives, specifically Ms Spence and Mr Aleck providing, or being complicit in, providing false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s investigation
This second allegation relates to the specific date, that CASA first became fully aware of the structure that I had adopted.
Mr Aleck, and Ms Spence falsely and absurdly assert that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation only in October of 2018, at which time Mr Aleck, without drawing on any external legal advice, and applying his opinion only, determined that my business of more than a decade was now operating unlawfully, and he acted promptly to close it down as soon as CASA became aware.
The truth is that CASA was fully aware of my structure for at least 8 years, and later in this correspondence I will introduce you to an Expert Witness, who has offered to come forward and tell the truth. I believe that his testimony alone will expose the misconduct/misfeasance of Mr Aleck, and call Ms Spences governance of this matter into question.
If this correspondence alone does not compel you to act, I have no doubt you will be compelled to act upon receipt of the Witness Statement. I anticipate you receiving that Witness Statement approximately 7 days prior to the submission of my third allegation, being my next allegation.
Of the almost 1000 CASA Employees within CASA, this witness, a senior ex CASA employee, during his period within CASA was inextricably involved with APTA from inception, through to design, peer review, and formal approval of APTA. He is without any doubt at all the single most qualified person to address this topic, and bring truthfulness to this entire matter.
That being whether or not Mr Aleck is being highly deceptive by representing to CASA that CASA first became fully aware of the exact structure of my business only in October of 2018.
For Ms Spence and Mr Aleck to assert that CASA first became aware of the specific nature of my organisation in October 2018, after I had operated for more than 8 years utilising that structure is truly absurd. It is so far removed from the truth that it can only indicate bad intent. For complete clarity. It is a blatant lie.
I have dealt with this extensively in other correspondence, so will attend to it only briefly here. There is an overwhelming body of evidence to support my contention that CASA was fully aware of my structure for many years prior, here I list only 10 dot points, of which there are literally hundreds.
This limited sampling will raise concerns as to the truthfulness or not of Mr Alecks and Ms Spences assertions that CASA first became fully aware of my structure in October 2018. Any remaining doubt will be completely dispelled once you receive correspondence from the expert witness.
1. CASA first formally approved me to adopt that identical structure over 8 years prior. This was an extensive and formal process. CASA will hold records. I refer you to ask CASA about our first base “AV8” in Darwin and the date that that was first approved, adopting the identical structure that I was using in October 2018.
2. CASA revalidated a significantly upgraded system in April 2017, (one and a half years before CASA supposedly first found out). The leadup to this CASA revalidation in April 2017 required an investment by me, of several hundred thousand dollars, as I worked literally across a desk from 10 CASA employees over a two-year period. I can provide the Ministers Office with the contact details of two current CASA employees who were involved in the APTA project 2 years before Ms Spence and Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman believe. This process over 2 years was to specifically design with CASA a Single Authorisation, multi base, multi entity model, exactly as we did, and that is what makes this matter so absurd and leaves me with no doubt that the reversal of CASA approval of my business was personal, and vindictive.
3. CASA audited my operation in November 2017. This was the scheduled Level One audit that was standard operating procedure and conducted routinely 6 months after the revalidation in April. This involved a team of CASA personnel onsite over a one-week period, including visits to each of our CASA approved bases. To seriously suggest that this audit occurred in November of 2017, and nobody from CASA was aware of the structure, or didn’t become aware of the structure for almost another year is just not at all plausible. Not at all. This single point alone with no other evidence at all is indicative of the level of deceit, hence my allegation of misfeasance in public office.
4. CASA formally approved bases under it and spent up to ten months considering and issuing those approvals. It was an extensive regulatory process, and CASA issued those approvals on multiple occasions, over may years, after lengthy well considered processes, that fees were paid for. This occurred on multiple occasions over many years before Mr Aleck falsely claims that CASA first became aware.
5. CASA personnel directed struggling schools to APTA 18 months before CASA supposedly first found out about my structure. Case in point are both the Ballarat Aero Club (within your own electorate) and the Latrobe Valley Aero Club. Quite simply, you could approach the Ballarat Aero Club, and ask them if they thought CASA was aware. I am very confident you will find that CASA actually directed them toward APTA. How could it possibly be that CASA employees were directing struggling schools to APTA in early 2017, shortly after CASA had approved the structure, yet somehow “CASA” weren’t fully aware of the structure, if Mr Aleck is to be believed, for another 18 months.
6. The Media were doing stories on the revalidation and expansion of APTA 18 months before CASA first supposedly found out. Another single point that must raise concerns about the truthfulness or not of any representations that CASA first became fully aware as late as October 2018, when Mr Aleck acted promptly to close the business.
7. I met at least weekly with CASA personnel throughout the 8 years leading up to when CASA first supposedly found out about it, in October 2018, the topic of those meetings was based around exactly what we were doing.
CASA utilised a team of specialists referred to as a “Certificate Management Team” or CMT. Within that team was a CASA specialist on Flying School Operations, a specialist on Safety, and a specialist on Maintenance and Airworthiness. Each CASA Team, and in my case CMT2, had responsibility for a group of I estimate to be 20 flying schools. These Teams were the first contact with CASA. Throughout the decade that I operated my business I was in daily communication via telephone, email, face to face meetings, audits, safety meetings etc etc. with my CASA team.
The very point of the CMT was that they needed to “know what was going on”, as they very clearly did. For Mr Aleck to suggest that I maintained an eight-year professional relationship with my same CMT, and that they were not fully aware of the structure that I had adopted throughout eight of the 10 years of operating is just not plausible. That single point alone must raise serious doubts as to the assertions made by Ms Spence and Mr Aleck.
8. I invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars investing in upgrading and revalidating all systems and procedures and personnel throughout 2015, 2016, and early 2017 as I worked literally across a desk with 10 CASA personnel, and my CMT attending to 600 CASA specified criteria, and in conjunction with my management team and technical writer submitted thousands of pages of associated documentation throughout that period. There is no reason that I would invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in my business and not be open with CASA. It makes no sense at all. That single issue alone must raise concerns as to the truthfulness of representations made to the Ombudsman Office.
9. I have irrefutable evidence and confirmation from CASA that they received my proposed contracts two years before they claim they first became aware of my structure. The ONLY reason I would even have a contract was if I was operating in the structure that I was operating in. Providing CASA with those contracts 2 years prior would have alerted CASA to the structure that I was adopting.
10. CASA personnel, past and present have offered to tell the truth on the matter, although the Ombudsman is unable to access those personnel as the Ombudsman is restricted to communications with the Agency Representative only, being Mr Aleck. The Ministers office will be able to access these personnel, that the Ombudsman cannot. I can provide you with names and contact details provided they are afforded appropriate protections regarding ongoing employment within CASA.
I could go on and on and on, I really could. By now it should be unnecessary.
I am fully satisfied Mr Aleck has provided, and Ms Spence has facilitated, the provision of false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation regarding the date that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation. The following timeline clearly demonstrates the level of deception being propagated by Ms. Spence and Mr. Aleck, and must raise serious concerns at Ministerial level.
On the 12th April 2019, CASAs own Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) made the following finding.
“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 the 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.
Importantly, on the 12th of April 2019 the CASA ICC has now identified that CASA was aware for a “significant period of time prior” to the 23rd of October of 2018 when Mr Aleck wrongfully declared my business unlawful.
I must draw attention to the integrity of the CASA ICC, Mr Hanton in making that finding. It is a very significant finding and speaks very much to his integrity and independence. Something that Mr Hanton, personally is acknowledged for throughout the industry, despite the structural challenges of his position.
Cheers. GlenTo the Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), the Honourable Ms. Catherine King MP.
I have included other recipients in this correspondence including the Honourable Ms. Carina Garland as my local MP, and who is assisting me and my family with this matter
I fully understand that I could be subject to prosecution if I was found to be raising these claims in a vindictive or vexatious manner.
The allegation against CASA Employees- Ms Spence and Mr Aleck
My name is Glen Buckley. Please accept the second of the five allegations, regarding the provision of false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation by two members of the senior management of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). Those employees are:
1. Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs who has provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office investigation on five occasions. These are not errors or omissions; these are considered and deliberate decisions. The false and misleading information has been provided to the Ombudsman investigation to pervert the findings of that investigation and presumably cover up Mr Alecks own misconduct/misfeasance.
2. Ms Pip Spence CEO of CASA who has facilitated the provision of that false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation on each of those five occasions, and I am fully satisfied that she is complicit in this matter. Ms. Spence, perhaps more than any other person in Australia has ready access to the truth. Some time ago, I provided her with the contact details of a current long serving CASA employee, who would be the Subject Matter Expert within CASA on this matter, and who offered to tell the truth if asked.
Assuming that Ms Spence availed herself of that opportunity, as would be reasonably expected of her, then she is also fully aware of the truth, has been for a significant period of time.
If the Ministers Office would like me to provide the contact details of the current CASA Employee, please advise me, and I will promptly facilitate that request, alternatively Ms Spence could also promptly provide that employees details.
The Ministers Office could establish direct contact with that Employee, promptly ascertain the truth, and act accordingly. The extent of the deceptive conduct/misfeasance will be promptly identified if the Ministers Office chooses this option.
Whilst making these allegations against Ms. Spence, I acknowledge that she is relatively new to the role having come from a completely different Government Department and could not reasonably be expected to have a comprehensive understanding of the flight training sector of the industry.
Ms Spence however is a Subject Matter Expert on Government Department operations, ethics, integrity, CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, community expectations, administrative procedures, governance etc. commensurate with her senior position within the Public Service. By choosing to mislead and frustrate fair processes she prolongs the harm caused to me and my family, and in my opinion is therefore complicit.
The false and misleading information has been provided on five occasions, on five different matters, and each is substantive in nature.
In this correspondence I will attend to the second of the five allegations only. I will send you the additional three allegations, as soon as is practical.
I apologize that there will be at least five pieces of correspondence, each raising a separate allegation. As I explained previously, I have adopted this approach for two reasons.
1. The first being that the impact of this matter has had a substantial impact on my health, and now my wife’s. A lengthier single piece of correspondence covering five or more allegations is not something that I am able to attend to at the moment.
2. Secondly, it should not be necessary. If you are able to promptly clarify this second allegation in conjunction with the first allegation sent to your office on 09/12/22, I feel you will be compelled to act. In your decision making I ask you to also consider the lawfulness or not of this entire matter, and that was attended to, in brief, in the correspondence that I sent to you on 29/12/22.
I feel you will be compelled to act, and most especially because of the seniority of each of their respective positions, and the responsibility of the Department that they lead, i.e., the Nations aviation safety regulator, CASA. No doubt you will also need to consider any potential impact on the safety of aviation if they were to remain in their respective roles, and my substantive allegations were later to be found true. i.e. misconduct/misfeasance.
These are not vindictive or vexatious allegations that I make, these are genuine concerns about the ethics and integrity of senior executives within CASA that has the potential to impact individuals, business and perhaps most importantly, the safety of aviation, as it has already done.
Summary of the first of five allegations, sent to your Office on 09/12/22
You will recall that the first allegation sent to your Office on 09/12/22 related to whether Mr Aleck had misled the Ombudsman’s office as to whether or not CASA had always, and on every occasion permitted and formally approved the exact same structure that I had adopted for over 8 years.
Mr Aleck initially asserted to the Ombudsman that CASA had NEVER permitted this identical structure that I had adopted for over eight years.
During the investigation, Mr Alecks deceptiveness became apparent. My understanding is that Mr Alecks representations to the Ombudsman may have adjusted from one of, ‘CASA never permitted this structure” to “On very rare occasions CASA may have permitted something similar to the structure that Glen adopted”. This representation is still very far from the truth, and I cannot emphasise how very far from the truth.
I had truthfully asserted by drawing on my 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry, that CASA had always and, on every occasion, permitted and formally approved the identical structure that I had adopted, and in fact CASA continues to approve that identical structure. I provided you with an example of the most recent approval to another operator at Moorabbin. This clearly demonstrates the level of deception perpetrated by the two named individuals to the Ombudsman investigation.
Quite clearly the named CASA Executives have misled the Ombudsman. If the Ombudsman is of the opinion that I was doing something unique, something that had not been done before, something not conventional, something not CASA approved, then the Ombudsman has clearly been misled, and substantially so.
The very clear and easily proven truth is that the identical structure that I had adopted was standard industry practice and was adopted on multiple occasions by multiple operators throughout my 25 years in the industry. On every occasion with full CASA knowledge and approval, as it was in my case.
The level of deception being perpetrated can easily be proven because quite simply, on every one of those occasions the additional base could not commence operations until CASA had done an onsite assessment and formally approved the base to commence operations. An extremely comprehensive process with CASA processing those applications prior to approval. On occasion those approvals could take up to 10 months for CASA to issue. For Mr Aleck to assert that CASA first became aware of the specific nature of my operation, only after 8 years, and having formally issued multiple base approvals throughout that period, would be laughable, had it not caused so much unnecessary harm and trauma.
The reality is that Mr Alecks conduct is more akin to “criminal” than “laughable.” I say that because he was not compelled to make any of the decisions that he made, and he was not compelled to take any of the actions that he did. He had no supporting safety case, there was no breach of any regulations. His conduct cannot be justified.
The level of deception being perpetrated is staggering, and I can think of no other appropriate word. It is blatant. It is deliberate, and it can only be intended to pervert the outcome of the Ombudsman investigation.
If the Ministers Office was to approach any CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) of more than 10 years’ experience, and ask them, I have no doubt at all that this matter would be instantly resolved and the truth revealed, that in fact I was not the first, I was one of many, and the truth is that it was, and continues to be, completely standard industry practice with full CASA approval, with the most recent approval being issued to another operator at Moorabbin over the last few weeks.
The point being that CASA, or rather Mr Aleck specifically, had led the Ombudsman Office to believe that I was doing something different and unique, when in fact what I was doing was completely standard industry practice, and continues to be so today. Importantly. This issue is black or white, there is no grey area, the truth can be promptly ascertained.
Either CASA never permitted the identical structure that I adopted as Ms Spence and Mr Aleck falsely assert, or CASA always and on every occasion regularly approved the identical structure that I utilised, and continues to do so as of today, as I assert, and as will any of the CASA Flight Operations Inspectors with expertise and experience in the Flight Training Sector.
It is critical to ascertain this core matter. If it had never been done before as Mr Aleck and Ms Spence assert, then obviously my claim that I was a victim of targeted malice would have little basis.
If it can be truthfully established that this was in fact standard industry practice, throughout my 25 years in the industry, was commonplace, and always fully approved by CASA amongst many operators, and I was the only Operator shut down, then my claim that I was the victim of targeted malice by Mr Aleck, covered up by Ms. Spence would be more likely to have a valid basis.
For that reason, it is essential that the Minister obtains a very clear determination on this from the CASA Board, or whoever you deem appropriate, and who is also prepared to be accountable for providing you with that information.
It is essential that you ascertain whether CASA always permitted the identical structure, or CASA never permitted the identical structure. The response from CASA to the Minister could be promptly attended to, as it requires only a very short response, and CASA has ready access to that information.
Regarding this correspondence may I respectfully request an acknowledgement of receipt.
Second submission to your Office regarding the lawfulness or not of Mr Alecks decision making.
The second piece of correspondence sent to your office on 29/12/22 was not an allegation of providing false and misleading information but attended to the lawfulness or not of CASAs actions. As you are aware, I allege that Mr Aleck abused his significant power to bring harm to me, my family, and my business, as he quite clearly has done, and he had no lawful basis to do so. You will recall that the Ombudsman had found that there was no regulatory breach, CASA had erred, and detriment could have been caused, as it most clearly has.
The purpose of this correspondence- The Second Allegation of providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.
Please accept this as the third piece of correspondence sent to your office on my matter, noting it is the second of the five, allegations of CASA Executives, specifically Ms Spence and Mr Aleck providing, or being complicit in, providing false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s investigation
This second allegation relates to the specific date, that CASA first became fully aware of the structure that I had adopted.
Mr Aleck, and Ms Spence falsely and absurdly assert that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation only in October of 2018, at which time Mr Aleck, without drawing on any external legal advice, and applying his opinion only, determined that my business of more than a decade was now operating unlawfully, and he acted promptly to close it down as soon as CASA became aware.
The truth is that CASA was fully aware of my structure for at least 8 years, and later in this correspondence I will introduce you to an Expert Witness, who has offered to come forward and tell the truth. I believe that his testimony alone will expose the misconduct/misfeasance of Mr Aleck, and call Ms Spences governance of this matter into question.
If this correspondence alone does not compel you to act, I have no doubt you will be compelled to act upon receipt of the Witness Statement. I anticipate you receiving that Witness Statement approximately 7 days prior to the submission of my third allegation, being my next allegation.
Of the almost 1000 CASA Employees within CASA, this witness, a senior ex CASA employee, during his period within CASA was inextricably involved with APTA from inception, through to design, peer review, and formal approval of APTA. He is without any doubt at all the single most qualified person to address this topic, and bring truthfulness to this entire matter.
That being whether or not Mr Aleck is being highly deceptive by representing to CASA that CASA first became fully aware of the exact structure of my business only in October of 2018.
For Ms Spence and Mr Aleck to assert that CASA first became aware of the specific nature of my organisation in October 2018, after I had operated for more than 8 years utilising that structure is truly absurd. It is so far removed from the truth that it can only indicate bad intent. For complete clarity. It is a blatant lie.
I have dealt with this extensively in other correspondence, so will attend to it only briefly here. There is an overwhelming body of evidence to support my contention that CASA was fully aware of my structure for many years prior, here I list only 10 dot points, of which there are literally hundreds.
This limited sampling will raise concerns as to the truthfulness or not of Mr Alecks and Ms Spences assertions that CASA first became fully aware of my structure in October 2018. Any remaining doubt will be completely dispelled once you receive correspondence from the expert witness.
1. CASA first formally approved me to adopt that identical structure over 8 years prior. This was an extensive and formal process. CASA will hold records. I refer you to ask CASA about our first base “AV8” in Darwin and the date that that was first approved, adopting the identical structure that I was using in October 2018.
2. CASA revalidated a significantly upgraded system in April 2017, (one and a half years before CASA supposedly first found out). The leadup to this CASA revalidation in April 2017 required an investment by me, of several hundred thousand dollars, as I worked literally across a desk from 10 CASA employees over a two-year period. I can provide the Ministers Office with the contact details of two current CASA employees who were involved in the APTA project 2 years before Ms Spence and Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman believe. This process over 2 years was to specifically design with CASA a Single Authorisation, multi base, multi entity model, exactly as we did, and that is what makes this matter so absurd and leaves me with no doubt that the reversal of CASA approval of my business was personal, and vindictive.
3. CASA audited my operation in November 2017. This was the scheduled Level One audit that was standard operating procedure and conducted routinely 6 months after the revalidation in April. This involved a team of CASA personnel onsite over a one-week period, including visits to each of our CASA approved bases. To seriously suggest that this audit occurred in November of 2017, and nobody from CASA was aware of the structure, or didn’t become aware of the structure for almost another year is just not at all plausible. Not at all. This single point alone with no other evidence at all is indicative of the level of deceit, hence my allegation of misfeasance in public office.
4. CASA formally approved bases under it and spent up to ten months considering and issuing those approvals. It was an extensive regulatory process, and CASA issued those approvals on multiple occasions, over may years, after lengthy well considered processes, that fees were paid for. This occurred on multiple occasions over many years before Mr Aleck falsely claims that CASA first became aware.
5. CASA personnel directed struggling schools to APTA 18 months before CASA supposedly first found out about my structure. Case in point are both the Ballarat Aero Club (within your own electorate) and the Latrobe Valley Aero Club. Quite simply, you could approach the Ballarat Aero Club, and ask them if they thought CASA was aware. I am very confident you will find that CASA actually directed them toward APTA. How could it possibly be that CASA employees were directing struggling schools to APTA in early 2017, shortly after CASA had approved the structure, yet somehow “CASA” weren’t fully aware of the structure, if Mr Aleck is to be believed, for another 18 months.
6. The Media were doing stories on the revalidation and expansion of APTA 18 months before CASA first supposedly found out. Another single point that must raise concerns about the truthfulness or not of any representations that CASA first became fully aware as late as October 2018, when Mr Aleck acted promptly to close the business.
7. I met at least weekly with CASA personnel throughout the 8 years leading up to when CASA first supposedly found out about it, in October 2018, the topic of those meetings was based around exactly what we were doing.
CASA utilised a team of specialists referred to as a “Certificate Management Team” or CMT. Within that team was a CASA specialist on Flying School Operations, a specialist on Safety, and a specialist on Maintenance and Airworthiness. Each CASA Team, and in my case CMT2, had responsibility for a group of I estimate to be 20 flying schools. These Teams were the first contact with CASA. Throughout the decade that I operated my business I was in daily communication via telephone, email, face to face meetings, audits, safety meetings etc etc. with my CASA team.
The very point of the CMT was that they needed to “know what was going on”, as they very clearly did. For Mr Aleck to suggest that I maintained an eight-year professional relationship with my same CMT, and that they were not fully aware of the structure that I had adopted throughout eight of the 10 years of operating is just not plausible. That single point alone must raise serious doubts as to the assertions made by Ms Spence and Mr Aleck.
8. I invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars investing in upgrading and revalidating all systems and procedures and personnel throughout 2015, 2016, and early 2017 as I worked literally across a desk with 10 CASA personnel, and my CMT attending to 600 CASA specified criteria, and in conjunction with my management team and technical writer submitted thousands of pages of associated documentation throughout that period. There is no reason that I would invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in my business and not be open with CASA. It makes no sense at all. That single issue alone must raise concerns as to the truthfulness of representations made to the Ombudsman Office.
9. I have irrefutable evidence and confirmation from CASA that they received my proposed contracts two years before they claim they first became aware of my structure. The ONLY reason I would even have a contract was if I was operating in the structure that I was operating in. Providing CASA with those contracts 2 years prior would have alerted CASA to the structure that I was adopting.
10. CASA personnel, past and present have offered to tell the truth on the matter, although the Ombudsman is unable to access those personnel as the Ombudsman is restricted to communications with the Agency Representative only, being Mr Aleck. The Ministers office will be able to access these personnel, that the Ombudsman cannot. I can provide you with names and contact details provided they are afforded appropriate protections regarding ongoing employment within CASA.
I could go on and on and on, I really could. By now it should be unnecessary.
I am fully satisfied Mr Aleck has provided, and Ms Spence has facilitated, the provision of false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation regarding the date that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation. The following timeline clearly demonstrates the level of deception being propagated by Ms. Spence and Mr. Aleck, and must raise serious concerns at Ministerial level.
On the 12th April 2019, CASAs own Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) made the following finding.
“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 the 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.
Importantly, on the 12th of April 2019 the CASA ICC has now identified that CASA was aware for a “significant period of time prior” to the 23rd of October of 2018 when Mr Aleck wrongfully declared my business unlawful.
I must draw attention to the integrity of the CASA ICC, Mr Hanton in making that finding. It is a very significant finding and speaks very much to his integrity and independence. Something that Mr Hanton, personally is acknowledged for throughout the industry, despite the structural challenges of his position.
Thread Starter
Previous post continuyed
My position has always been that CASA was fully aware of the exact nature of my business model since they approved my first satellite base in Darwin, and had literally hundreds, if not thousands of opportunities to become fully aware through the following eight years that I built my business with full and formal CASA approval.
It is important to reiterate that Mr Aleck, CASAs Executive Manager for Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs was the sole decision maker in my matter, he is the single person that closed down my business. He did not consult with anyone, including the CASA Board. He acted alone, and his decision making was not subjected to any scrutiny or any independent external legal advice. I had no right of review or appeal. Ms Spence will be fully aware of that and be in a position to promptly confirm or deny that directly with the Ministers Office.
Unfortunately for me, Mr Aleck is also the “Agency Representative” for CASA. He is the sole individual that communicates on behalf of CASA with any Ombudsman investigation. The Ombudsman communicates only with Mr Aleck. Mr Aleck manages the flow of information/disinformation and interpretation of that information to the Ombudsman investigation.
It is possible, and must be considered, that if a person whose decision making is under investigation, is also the same sole individual responsible for provision of information to a subsequent investigation, that person may be tempted to provide false and misleading information, in order to cover up their misconduct, and most especially so if they were confident that they would not subjected to any organisational scrutiny.
My fair and reasonable presumption is that at any date after the 12th of April 2019 the “CASA position” would be that of their own CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner findings that in fact CASA was, to use the CASA ICCs words, “aware for a significant period of time prior”.
It is this finding that makes the matter so absurd. How could something that CASA knew about for many years, approved for many years, and audited over many years, suddenly become unlawful.
Concerningly, the Ombudsman wrote to me on July 21st, 2021, two years after the CASA ICC released the CASA finding and states the complete opposite to the CASA ICC finding, advising that they will be discontinuing the investigation and not be investigating my matter because Mr Aleck had provided the Ombudsman’s Office with; “a reasonable explanation of CASAs 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.”
We have this concerning discrepancy, CASAs own ICC finds that in fact CASA knew for a significant time prior, yet the Ombudsman determines that the investigation will not be continuing because now, somehow CASA did not know for a significant period of time prior. The Ombudsman has arrived at this determination solely on advice provided by Mr Aleck, in his role as the Agency Representative for CASA.
This is absurd, CASAs own ICC makes a finding that CASA did know what I was doing yet subsequently, Mr Aleck, as the Agency representative for CASA convinces the Ombudsman Office to discontinue the investigation because apparently CASA now adopts the position that in fact didn’t become aware eight years prior, but they only became aware just prior to closing the business in October of 2018.
Surely that must raise concerns about the ethics and integrity of these CASA employees at Ministerial level. For Mr Aleck to purport to the Ombudsman Office that CASA first became aware of the structure that I had adopted only in October of 2018 must surely meet the threshold of misconduct.
Surely if CASAs own ICC finds that CASA knew of my operation for a significant period of time prior, that should be the official position presented to an Ombudsman investigation by the organisation being CASA, and not the complete opposite.
The single question that would fully resolve this matter.
If I could respectfully suggest to the Minister that the following question is put to CASA. A clear and concise response to this single question will immediately demonstrate the significant nature of the disinformation provided by CASA employees to the Ombudsman investigation.
Recall that Mr Aleck has led the Ombudsman Office to be of the view that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation, only in October 2018.
I claim that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of my operation for at least eight years prior, and CASA was afforded hundreds if not thousands of opportunities to become fully aware throughout those eight years before Mr Aleck falsely claims CASA first became fully aware.
By its very nature, there must be an occurrence that made CASA become aware. What is that occurrence, and most importantly what is the date that CASA concede that they first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation.
I have made multiple requests to have this date identified to me. Ms Spence steadfastly refuses to identify that date to me. It cannot be disputed that this is a fair and reasonable request. The only reason that Ms Spence would refuse to identify that date, is because a truthful response from CASA would expose this matter in its entirety.
For clarity.
If Mr Aleck/Ms Spence claim that CASA only first became aware of the exact nature of my business just prior to October 23rd 2018, yet I claim that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of my business over 8 years prior, then there is obviously a significant disparity, which is potentially indicative as to the level of deception being perpetrated by one Party or another.
CASA must have first become fully aware of the specific nature of my structure because of an occurrence. That may have been a comment, a meeting, documents, feedback, an approval. On some particular day because of some occurrence CASA must have first have become fully aware of the specific nature of my operation, and according to Mr Aleck that was just prior to the issuance of the notification on October 23rd 2018.
It would be reasonable that CASA advise the Ministers Office of the exact date and occurrence at which CASA concur that they first became fully aware of the specific nature of my structure.
The Ministers Office could also put the following question to the Ombudsman Office.
Has either Ms. Pip Spence as the CEO of CASA with expert knowledge on this matter, or Mr. Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, acting as the sole representative of CASA in communications with the Ombudsman, as part of that investigation, led the Ombudsman’s investigation to be of the view that the CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my business some time just prior to October 2018?
The expectation is that the date and event nominated by CASA would be a date and event just prior to October 23rd 2018.
I suggest to you that Ms Spence will have a strong preference not to nominate that date and occurrence, and will provide the Ministers Office a lengthy response as to why she cannot nominate the date and occurrence. In laymans terms, it would be the date and occurrence that CASA smacked itself in the forehead and said, “oops that’s what he’s doing.”
She will not provide the date and occurrence because by nominating the truthful date and occurrence when CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation, she will be presented with two options. Either,
· Nominate the truthful date and expose the entire matter or
· Deliberately mislead the Minister.
Why would CASA Executives choose to mislead the Ombudsman’s investigation as to the date that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation
It is essential that I address my perceived motivation for the conduct of Ms. Spence and Mr Aleck.
CASA closed me down because they determined that I was operating unlawfully. The Ombudsman subsequently found that I was not operating unlawfully.
CASA, and specifically Mr Aleck has made a substantial error.
My business was clearly not unlawful, and CASA had no basis to close it down, that has always been my view, and the Ombudsman findings in phase one support that contention very clearly. It was not unlawful.
Despite Ms Spences refusal to address this matter with me, I am fully satisfied that Ms Spence is fully aware that CASA acted unlawfully, and has known this throughout her tenure.
So it therefore becomes a central theme of how much did CASA really know, and for how long did CASA really know.
As impractical as it is, If CASA really had no idea of what I was doing for 8 years that would be indicative of gross systemic deficiencies within the regulator. Obviously, the levels of industry oversight would be dangerously deficient, and that alone would warrant significant internal review of procedures within CASA. If an Operator operated unlawfully for eight years without CASA becoming aware despite thousands of opportunities over the eight years, then the potential impact on safety of that deficiency in oversight would be alarming.
I’m not suggesting for one moment that the above scenario is what happened. That would be impossible.
What I am suggesting is that Mr Aleck acted unlawfully and vindictively, and his malice was targeted specifically towards, me and my family business.
I’m suggesting that CASA did know of the exact structure of my business for many years. What happened was Mr Aleck saw an opportunity to potentially manipulate the legislation and abuse his significant power to bring harm to me personally. He has done it before to others. He has done for many years and continhes to operate unchecked within the organisation which further empowers his misconduct.
Mr Alecks mistake was simply an error of judgement. He believed that he would get away with it, as he nearly has again. This time however his victim has pursued justice for four years and will continue to do so.
As soon as CASA became aware that they had erred, good intent should have prevailed, and well-intentioned discussion could have resolved this entire matter many years ago. Well intentioned discussion all those years ago would have eliminated, or at least significantly reduced the trauma and harm caused. Sadly, what followed was a culture of bullying, intimidation, and coverup that causes only greater trauma, as it most certainly has.
The Ombudsman did also go on in Phase one of the investigation to state that this error by CASA had the potential to cause detriment to me, and others as it most clearly has. There is no doubt in my mind, and as the person most affected, CASAs attempt to cover up this matter over the last four years have only compounded that harm.
Of significant concern is just how involved CASA was in the design and approval of that system that Mr Aleck determined to be unlawful in October 2018.
This is a significant matter. The reason being. Mr Aleck has led the Ombudsman Office to be of the view that CASA first became fully aware of my structure in the weeks prior to October 2018.
It is a ludicrous proposition that Mr Aleck has put to the Ombudsman’s Office. The truth is that CASA was fully aware of the structure that I had adopted for eight years, and that can easily be proven. It is a black and white matter.
Introduction of Witness to the Minister.
Dear Minister, I have been extremely reluctant to involve anybody else in this matter to date. Numerous witnesses, experts, current CASA employees, and ex CASA employees have contacted me over the last four years, offering to tell the truth on this matter.
I have avoided accepting any of those offers, because I am acutely aware of how vindictively some CASA employees can act, and of the significant power that they wield.
After 4 years, and being fully satisfied that both Ms Spence, and Mr Aleck have committed the offence of misfeasance in public office, and of providing false and misleading advice to an investigation, and being fully satisfied that those same individuals are abusing their significant power and authority to cover up this matter, I have made the decision from today, to begin accepting those offers, and the first “witness” that I am calling on is Mr XXXXXX. Mr XXXXX would be considered a Subject Matter Expert as to when CASA first became aware of the exact nature of the structure that I had adopted.
You will recall that Mr Aleck and Ms Spence claim that date to be “just prior to October 2018” when CASA wrongfully determined my business to be illegal.
I have attached a sampling of emails almost 2 ˝ years before Ms Spence and Mr Aleck claim that CASA first became aware of the structure. These emails should leave your office in no doubt that the Ombudsman Office has been misled, and CASA was at least fully aware of the structure many years prior.
The emails that will promptly identify the substantive level of disinformation can be accessed via Appendix Six.
· Email 20th June 2016 To CASA addressing the concept of an alliance of flight training organisations.
· Email 21 June 2016 To CASA advising my timeline for expanding operations and specifically visiting flying schools. In that correspondence I actually request that someone from CASA meet with me and potentially interested Members.
· Email 23rd June 2016. I attached and submitted a detailed proposal of the concept to CASA by way of an attachment to this email.
· Email 13 July 2016, I contact CASA to advise that I have got significant interest, and intend to add a further base, I also advise that it is likely we will be adding another base.
· Email 1st August 2016 Advising CASA that I am officially changing the name of the business from MFT to APTA to more accurately reflect what APTA is actually about i.e. a “collaborative approach’ between the schools that will be APTA Members.
· Email August 1st 2016 from CASA advising that they will meet with me 4 days later at Moorabbin Airport to discuss the details. The feedback from the meeting four days later was highly supportive and encouraging.
· Email 26th April 2017, Emails arranging for the CASA Regional Manager to come to the APTA Head Office to present our Approvals as a revalidated Part 141/142 Organisation approximately 4 months before the deadline of September 1st 2017 ( shortly after CASA will postpone this Transition date 12 months to September 1st 2018 due to the low uptake of flying schools that will be able to complete the process in time). Extensive conversations about APTA left no doubt in the mind of the attending CASA personnel of what APTA was all about.
· Email 7 October 2017, being one year prior to CASAs reversal of APTA in which I refer to my meeting in Canberra with Mr Graeme Crawford on 18th January 2017. This email refers to Mr Crawford querying me about the APTA project.
· Email 26 April 2017 from the CASA Executive Manager of the Aviation Group, and second in charge of CASA at the time, Mr Graeme Crawford congratulating me and my APTA team.
I claim that that CASA was aware for 8 years, prior to the date that they have led the Ombudsman to believe, and if they weren’t, they most certainly became aware at least 2 ˝ years prior to the date that Ms Spence and Mr Aleck falsely assert. It is this specific matter that the witness, Mr Derek Fox can attest to.
Please be assured that there are dozens of witnesses, and all prepared to tell the truth on this matter. My intention is to use a “drip feed” approach and introduce them to you one at a time, to minimise the number of people exposed to any potential vindictive action from a CASA employee.
My hope is that you will be compelled to act before I have exposed too many individuals, to too much potential harm.
Regarding Mr XXXXX as a witness,
Approximately 18 months to 2 years ago, I bumped into an ex-CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) by the name of Mr XXXXX.
Mr XXXXX has impeccable credentials with many years in the Airforce as a Pilot, and many years’ experience operating at the most senior level of some of the World’s leading airlines. I am told anecdotally that he was also a shortlisted candidate for the position of the CEO of CASA.
At our chance meeting at that regional petrol station, Mr XXXXX offered to come forward and tell the truth on this matter if that was required of him. Despite my reluctance to do so to date, I have now decided to accept his offer to tell the truth on this matter, and I am making an approach to him.
This is the first contact with him since our chance encounter over 18 months ago. I acknowledge that his situation may have changed, but in the following correspondence I am proceeding on the assumption that his offer to tell the truth still stands. Obviously, I will fully respect his position if the passage of time has affected that offer, and he would prefer to withdraw his offer.
Mr XXXXX is receiving this entire body correspondence for the first time, and he is receiving it at the same time as the Ministers Office. He has absolutely no prior expectation of receiving this correspondence. My intention is to maintain the integrity of the process.
Mr XXXXX was allocated to my APTA project over 2 years before Mr Aleck and Ms Spence have led the Ombudsman to believe that CASA first became aware of the structure of my organisation. He was one of the ten CASA employees that worked across a desk from me and my management team as my family invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars redesigning every system and procedure to fully comply with the new legislation.
Every single procedure was designed exactly for the purpose of providing a single authorisation, multi base multi entity approach to flight training. Every procedure was assessed by CASA against those criteria.
My point being that CASA was fully aware of the exact nature of my organisation for many years before October 2018 as Mr Aleck falsely claims.
My initial correspondence to Mr XXXXX follows
Dear Mr XXXXX,
I apologise that this is my initial contact with you.
The only contact I have had with you since CASA closed my business down in October of 2018, was that chance encounter at a regional petrol station, and I estimate that was over 18 months ago.
At that encounter, despite you having left the employ of CASA, you advised me that you would be prepared to tell the truth, and that you “retained extraneous notes on the matter”.
I am sorry to put you “on the spot”, and I do acknowledge that I have done that. I hope you understand that it is essential that I maintain the integrity of the process. I did not want to establish contact with you prior, to avoid any suggestion of collusion.
You extended an offer at that chance encounter, to come forward and simply tell the truth on this matter. The passage of time has been substantial, and I understand that circumstances may have changed.
I am writing to you as one of the CASA employees that was heavily involved in the revalidation of APTA from mid-2016, through to its formal approval in April of 2017.
My best recollection is that you were allocated to the APTA project, after I had met with the then second in charge of CASA, Mr Graeme Crawford. At that meeting with Mr Crawford, I had raised my concerns about lack of resources within CASA, and how we were waiting for CASA to catch up with our backlog of workload held up within CASA. Mr Crawford gave me a commitment, that CASA would direct more resources to my Project and you were tasked to the Project. That Project being the APTA Project.
Whilst I do not expect you to have detailed knowledge of my matter after you left the employ of CASA, you are aware that CASA closed my business down approximately four years ago. A Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation was initiated, and in phase one of that investigation found that CASA had erred and what I was doing was not illegal.
I believe that what happened was that once CASA realised they had no lawful basis to close my business down, CASA was in a position where they had to admit error or attempt to cover up this matter, and Mr Aleck opted for the latter.
From my perspective, the entire matter is quite absurd. I built that exact business from the ground up in conjunction with a team of CASA personnel over a 2 year period, of which you were a member of that team. CASA fully revalidated this structure in April 2017 after I had invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars to gain to meet all CASA requirements.
Mr Aleck claims that CASA didn’t first become aware of the structure until October 2018. I am of the opinion that CASA is trying to mislead the Ombudsman into believing that CASA didn’t know what I was doing, because if the truth was identified it would raise the question, “if CASA knew what I was doing for eight years, or at least the 2 ˝ that you can you can attest to, and fully approved my operation, what made CASA change their mind?
The purpose of this letter to you and the intended outcome.
Can I respectfully call on you to submit one piece of correspondence to the Minster and the CASA Board.
Can I ask that you simply tell the truth on this matter. Can I ask that you specifically address the likelihood that CASA first became fully aware of my structure in October 2018, considering that it was revalidated by CASA in April of 2017, and you were heavily involved in that revalidation process in the years leading up to that revalidation as one.
That correspondence would be addressed to both the Minister (insert email address) and the CASA Board, and specifically the CEO (insert email address)
I reiterate that I will respect your decision if you choose not to be involved in this matter. My allegations are substantial i.e. misfeasance in public office and misleading a commonwealth investigation. With regards to Ms. Spence, I am fully satisfied that Ms Spence has facoilitated that misconduct.
Your witness statement would be critical to this entire matter and may have significant ramifications with CASA, I appreciate that you need to consider your options carefully.
Thankyou in anticipation of your assistance.
Glen Buckley
It is important to reiterate that Mr Aleck, CASAs Executive Manager for Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs was the sole decision maker in my matter, he is the single person that closed down my business. He did not consult with anyone, including the CASA Board. He acted alone, and his decision making was not subjected to any scrutiny or any independent external legal advice. I had no right of review or appeal. Ms Spence will be fully aware of that and be in a position to promptly confirm or deny that directly with the Ministers Office.
Unfortunately for me, Mr Aleck is also the “Agency Representative” for CASA. He is the sole individual that communicates on behalf of CASA with any Ombudsman investigation. The Ombudsman communicates only with Mr Aleck. Mr Aleck manages the flow of information/disinformation and interpretation of that information to the Ombudsman investigation.
It is possible, and must be considered, that if a person whose decision making is under investigation, is also the same sole individual responsible for provision of information to a subsequent investigation, that person may be tempted to provide false and misleading information, in order to cover up their misconduct, and most especially so if they were confident that they would not subjected to any organisational scrutiny.
My fair and reasonable presumption is that at any date after the 12th of April 2019 the “CASA position” would be that of their own CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner findings that in fact CASA was, to use the CASA ICCs words, “aware for a significant period of time prior”.
It is this finding that makes the matter so absurd. How could something that CASA knew about for many years, approved for many years, and audited over many years, suddenly become unlawful.
Concerningly, the Ombudsman wrote to me on July 21st, 2021, two years after the CASA ICC released the CASA finding and states the complete opposite to the CASA ICC finding, advising that they will be discontinuing the investigation and not be investigating my matter because Mr Aleck had provided the Ombudsman’s Office with; “a reasonable explanation of CASAs 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.”
We have this concerning discrepancy, CASAs own ICC finds that in fact CASA knew for a significant time prior, yet the Ombudsman determines that the investigation will not be continuing because now, somehow CASA did not know for a significant period of time prior. The Ombudsman has arrived at this determination solely on advice provided by Mr Aleck, in his role as the Agency Representative for CASA.
This is absurd, CASAs own ICC makes a finding that CASA did know what I was doing yet subsequently, Mr Aleck, as the Agency representative for CASA convinces the Ombudsman Office to discontinue the investigation because apparently CASA now adopts the position that in fact didn’t become aware eight years prior, but they only became aware just prior to closing the business in October of 2018.
Surely that must raise concerns about the ethics and integrity of these CASA employees at Ministerial level. For Mr Aleck to purport to the Ombudsman Office that CASA first became aware of the structure that I had adopted only in October of 2018 must surely meet the threshold of misconduct.
Surely if CASAs own ICC finds that CASA knew of my operation for a significant period of time prior, that should be the official position presented to an Ombudsman investigation by the organisation being CASA, and not the complete opposite.
The single question that would fully resolve this matter.
If I could respectfully suggest to the Minister that the following question is put to CASA. A clear and concise response to this single question will immediately demonstrate the significant nature of the disinformation provided by CASA employees to the Ombudsman investigation.
Recall that Mr Aleck has led the Ombudsman Office to be of the view that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation, only in October 2018.
I claim that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of my operation for at least eight years prior, and CASA was afforded hundreds if not thousands of opportunities to become fully aware throughout those eight years before Mr Aleck falsely claims CASA first became fully aware.
By its very nature, there must be an occurrence that made CASA become aware. What is that occurrence, and most importantly what is the date that CASA concede that they first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation.
I have made multiple requests to have this date identified to me. Ms Spence steadfastly refuses to identify that date to me. It cannot be disputed that this is a fair and reasonable request. The only reason that Ms Spence would refuse to identify that date, is because a truthful response from CASA would expose this matter in its entirety.
For clarity.
If Mr Aleck/Ms Spence claim that CASA only first became aware of the exact nature of my business just prior to October 23rd 2018, yet I claim that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of my business over 8 years prior, then there is obviously a significant disparity, which is potentially indicative as to the level of deception being perpetrated by one Party or another.
CASA must have first become fully aware of the specific nature of my structure because of an occurrence. That may have been a comment, a meeting, documents, feedback, an approval. On some particular day because of some occurrence CASA must have first have become fully aware of the specific nature of my operation, and according to Mr Aleck that was just prior to the issuance of the notification on October 23rd 2018.
It would be reasonable that CASA advise the Ministers Office of the exact date and occurrence at which CASA concur that they first became fully aware of the specific nature of my structure.
The Ministers Office could also put the following question to the Ombudsman Office.
Has either Ms. Pip Spence as the CEO of CASA with expert knowledge on this matter, or Mr. Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, acting as the sole representative of CASA in communications with the Ombudsman, as part of that investigation, led the Ombudsman’s investigation to be of the view that the CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my business some time just prior to October 2018?
The expectation is that the date and event nominated by CASA would be a date and event just prior to October 23rd 2018.
I suggest to you that Ms Spence will have a strong preference not to nominate that date and occurrence, and will provide the Ministers Office a lengthy response as to why she cannot nominate the date and occurrence. In laymans terms, it would be the date and occurrence that CASA smacked itself in the forehead and said, “oops that’s what he’s doing.”
She will not provide the date and occurrence because by nominating the truthful date and occurrence when CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation, she will be presented with two options. Either,
· Nominate the truthful date and expose the entire matter or
· Deliberately mislead the Minister.
Why would CASA Executives choose to mislead the Ombudsman’s investigation as to the date that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation
It is essential that I address my perceived motivation for the conduct of Ms. Spence and Mr Aleck.
CASA closed me down because they determined that I was operating unlawfully. The Ombudsman subsequently found that I was not operating unlawfully.
CASA, and specifically Mr Aleck has made a substantial error.
My business was clearly not unlawful, and CASA had no basis to close it down, that has always been my view, and the Ombudsman findings in phase one support that contention very clearly. It was not unlawful.
Despite Ms Spences refusal to address this matter with me, I am fully satisfied that Ms Spence is fully aware that CASA acted unlawfully, and has known this throughout her tenure.
So it therefore becomes a central theme of how much did CASA really know, and for how long did CASA really know.
As impractical as it is, If CASA really had no idea of what I was doing for 8 years that would be indicative of gross systemic deficiencies within the regulator. Obviously, the levels of industry oversight would be dangerously deficient, and that alone would warrant significant internal review of procedures within CASA. If an Operator operated unlawfully for eight years without CASA becoming aware despite thousands of opportunities over the eight years, then the potential impact on safety of that deficiency in oversight would be alarming.
I’m not suggesting for one moment that the above scenario is what happened. That would be impossible.
What I am suggesting is that Mr Aleck acted unlawfully and vindictively, and his malice was targeted specifically towards, me and my family business.
I’m suggesting that CASA did know of the exact structure of my business for many years. What happened was Mr Aleck saw an opportunity to potentially manipulate the legislation and abuse his significant power to bring harm to me personally. He has done it before to others. He has done for many years and continhes to operate unchecked within the organisation which further empowers his misconduct.
Mr Alecks mistake was simply an error of judgement. He believed that he would get away with it, as he nearly has again. This time however his victim has pursued justice for four years and will continue to do so.
As soon as CASA became aware that they had erred, good intent should have prevailed, and well-intentioned discussion could have resolved this entire matter many years ago. Well intentioned discussion all those years ago would have eliminated, or at least significantly reduced the trauma and harm caused. Sadly, what followed was a culture of bullying, intimidation, and coverup that causes only greater trauma, as it most certainly has.
The Ombudsman did also go on in Phase one of the investigation to state that this error by CASA had the potential to cause detriment to me, and others as it most clearly has. There is no doubt in my mind, and as the person most affected, CASAs attempt to cover up this matter over the last four years have only compounded that harm.
Of significant concern is just how involved CASA was in the design and approval of that system that Mr Aleck determined to be unlawful in October 2018.
This is a significant matter. The reason being. Mr Aleck has led the Ombudsman Office to be of the view that CASA first became fully aware of my structure in the weeks prior to October 2018.
It is a ludicrous proposition that Mr Aleck has put to the Ombudsman’s Office. The truth is that CASA was fully aware of the structure that I had adopted for eight years, and that can easily be proven. It is a black and white matter.
Introduction of Witness to the Minister.
Dear Minister, I have been extremely reluctant to involve anybody else in this matter to date. Numerous witnesses, experts, current CASA employees, and ex CASA employees have contacted me over the last four years, offering to tell the truth on this matter.
I have avoided accepting any of those offers, because I am acutely aware of how vindictively some CASA employees can act, and of the significant power that they wield.
After 4 years, and being fully satisfied that both Ms Spence, and Mr Aleck have committed the offence of misfeasance in public office, and of providing false and misleading advice to an investigation, and being fully satisfied that those same individuals are abusing their significant power and authority to cover up this matter, I have made the decision from today, to begin accepting those offers, and the first “witness” that I am calling on is Mr XXXXXX. Mr XXXXX would be considered a Subject Matter Expert as to when CASA first became aware of the exact nature of the structure that I had adopted.
You will recall that Mr Aleck and Ms Spence claim that date to be “just prior to October 2018” when CASA wrongfully determined my business to be illegal.
I have attached a sampling of emails almost 2 ˝ years before Ms Spence and Mr Aleck claim that CASA first became aware of the structure. These emails should leave your office in no doubt that the Ombudsman Office has been misled, and CASA was at least fully aware of the structure many years prior.
The emails that will promptly identify the substantive level of disinformation can be accessed via Appendix Six.
· Email 20th June 2016 To CASA addressing the concept of an alliance of flight training organisations.
· Email 21 June 2016 To CASA advising my timeline for expanding operations and specifically visiting flying schools. In that correspondence I actually request that someone from CASA meet with me and potentially interested Members.
· Email 23rd June 2016. I attached and submitted a detailed proposal of the concept to CASA by way of an attachment to this email.
· Email 13 July 2016, I contact CASA to advise that I have got significant interest, and intend to add a further base, I also advise that it is likely we will be adding another base.
· Email 1st August 2016 Advising CASA that I am officially changing the name of the business from MFT to APTA to more accurately reflect what APTA is actually about i.e. a “collaborative approach’ between the schools that will be APTA Members.
· Email August 1st 2016 from CASA advising that they will meet with me 4 days later at Moorabbin Airport to discuss the details. The feedback from the meeting four days later was highly supportive and encouraging.
· Email 26th April 2017, Emails arranging for the CASA Regional Manager to come to the APTA Head Office to present our Approvals as a revalidated Part 141/142 Organisation approximately 4 months before the deadline of September 1st 2017 ( shortly after CASA will postpone this Transition date 12 months to September 1st 2018 due to the low uptake of flying schools that will be able to complete the process in time). Extensive conversations about APTA left no doubt in the mind of the attending CASA personnel of what APTA was all about.
· Email 7 October 2017, being one year prior to CASAs reversal of APTA in which I refer to my meeting in Canberra with Mr Graeme Crawford on 18th January 2017. This email refers to Mr Crawford querying me about the APTA project.
· Email 26 April 2017 from the CASA Executive Manager of the Aviation Group, and second in charge of CASA at the time, Mr Graeme Crawford congratulating me and my APTA team.
I claim that that CASA was aware for 8 years, prior to the date that they have led the Ombudsman to believe, and if they weren’t, they most certainly became aware at least 2 ˝ years prior to the date that Ms Spence and Mr Aleck falsely assert. It is this specific matter that the witness, Mr Derek Fox can attest to.
Please be assured that there are dozens of witnesses, and all prepared to tell the truth on this matter. My intention is to use a “drip feed” approach and introduce them to you one at a time, to minimise the number of people exposed to any potential vindictive action from a CASA employee.
My hope is that you will be compelled to act before I have exposed too many individuals, to too much potential harm.
Regarding Mr XXXXX as a witness,
Approximately 18 months to 2 years ago, I bumped into an ex-CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) by the name of Mr XXXXX.
Mr XXXXX has impeccable credentials with many years in the Airforce as a Pilot, and many years’ experience operating at the most senior level of some of the World’s leading airlines. I am told anecdotally that he was also a shortlisted candidate for the position of the CEO of CASA.
At our chance meeting at that regional petrol station, Mr XXXXX offered to come forward and tell the truth on this matter if that was required of him. Despite my reluctance to do so to date, I have now decided to accept his offer to tell the truth on this matter, and I am making an approach to him.
This is the first contact with him since our chance encounter over 18 months ago. I acknowledge that his situation may have changed, but in the following correspondence I am proceeding on the assumption that his offer to tell the truth still stands. Obviously, I will fully respect his position if the passage of time has affected that offer, and he would prefer to withdraw his offer.
Mr XXXXX is receiving this entire body correspondence for the first time, and he is receiving it at the same time as the Ministers Office. He has absolutely no prior expectation of receiving this correspondence. My intention is to maintain the integrity of the process.
Mr XXXXX was allocated to my APTA project over 2 years before Mr Aleck and Ms Spence have led the Ombudsman to believe that CASA first became aware of the structure of my organisation. He was one of the ten CASA employees that worked across a desk from me and my management team as my family invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars redesigning every system and procedure to fully comply with the new legislation.
Every single procedure was designed exactly for the purpose of providing a single authorisation, multi base multi entity approach to flight training. Every procedure was assessed by CASA against those criteria.
My point being that CASA was fully aware of the exact nature of my organisation for many years before October 2018 as Mr Aleck falsely claims.
My initial correspondence to Mr XXXXX follows
Dear Mr XXXXX,
I apologise that this is my initial contact with you.
The only contact I have had with you since CASA closed my business down in October of 2018, was that chance encounter at a regional petrol station, and I estimate that was over 18 months ago.
At that encounter, despite you having left the employ of CASA, you advised me that you would be prepared to tell the truth, and that you “retained extraneous notes on the matter”.
I am sorry to put you “on the spot”, and I do acknowledge that I have done that. I hope you understand that it is essential that I maintain the integrity of the process. I did not want to establish contact with you prior, to avoid any suggestion of collusion.
You extended an offer at that chance encounter, to come forward and simply tell the truth on this matter. The passage of time has been substantial, and I understand that circumstances may have changed.
I am writing to you as one of the CASA employees that was heavily involved in the revalidation of APTA from mid-2016, through to its formal approval in April of 2017.
My best recollection is that you were allocated to the APTA project, after I had met with the then second in charge of CASA, Mr Graeme Crawford. At that meeting with Mr Crawford, I had raised my concerns about lack of resources within CASA, and how we were waiting for CASA to catch up with our backlog of workload held up within CASA. Mr Crawford gave me a commitment, that CASA would direct more resources to my Project and you were tasked to the Project. That Project being the APTA Project.
Whilst I do not expect you to have detailed knowledge of my matter after you left the employ of CASA, you are aware that CASA closed my business down approximately four years ago. A Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation was initiated, and in phase one of that investigation found that CASA had erred and what I was doing was not illegal.
I believe that what happened was that once CASA realised they had no lawful basis to close my business down, CASA was in a position where they had to admit error or attempt to cover up this matter, and Mr Aleck opted for the latter.
From my perspective, the entire matter is quite absurd. I built that exact business from the ground up in conjunction with a team of CASA personnel over a 2 year period, of which you were a member of that team. CASA fully revalidated this structure in April 2017 after I had invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars to gain to meet all CASA requirements.
Mr Aleck claims that CASA didn’t first become aware of the structure until October 2018. I am of the opinion that CASA is trying to mislead the Ombudsman into believing that CASA didn’t know what I was doing, because if the truth was identified it would raise the question, “if CASA knew what I was doing for eight years, or at least the 2 ˝ that you can you can attest to, and fully approved my operation, what made CASA change their mind?
The purpose of this letter to you and the intended outcome.
Can I respectfully call on you to submit one piece of correspondence to the Minster and the CASA Board.
Can I ask that you simply tell the truth on this matter. Can I ask that you specifically address the likelihood that CASA first became fully aware of my structure in October 2018, considering that it was revalidated by CASA in April of 2017, and you were heavily involved in that revalidation process in the years leading up to that revalidation as one.
That correspondence would be addressed to both the Minister (insert email address) and the CASA Board, and specifically the CEO (insert email address)
I reiterate that I will respect your decision if you choose not to be involved in this matter. My allegations are substantial i.e. misfeasance in public office and misleading a commonwealth investigation. With regards to Ms. Spence, I am fully satisfied that Ms Spence has facoilitated that misconduct.
Your witness statement would be critical to this entire matter and may have significant ramifications with CASA, I appreciate that you need to consider your options carefully.
Thankyou in anticipation of your assistance.
Glen Buckley
As the unfolding evidence in the Royal Commission into Robo - Debt demonstrates, these people couldn't care less about what you think or what stakeholders think but their worst characteristic is that they cannot be trusted.
The primary conclusion of the Forsyth review, is that AsA, CASA and ATSB are not trusted by industry.
The treatment of Glen Buckley and others (for example the color blind pilot community) indicates that nothing has changed. Without trust, all the Hubs and information campaigns are worthless.
Welcome to the Third World. The long term trajectory of Australian Aviation, all of it, is now predictable.
The primary conclusion of the Forsyth review, is that AsA, CASA and ATSB are not trusted by industry.
The treatment of Glen Buckley and others (for example the color blind pilot community) indicates that nothing has changed. Without trust, all the Hubs and information campaigns are worthless.
Welcome to the Third World. The long term trajectory of Australian Aviation, all of it, is now predictable.
The following 3 users liked this post by Sunfish:
Having watched the hearings of the Robodebt Royal Commission so far, I have to agree with Sunfish. Google "Kathryn Campbell $900,000". The whole edifice is rotten at the top.
The following users liked this post:
Hi Glen,
I have been following your saga since the start. I've never met you, but I have been barracking for you in your quest for justice. I hope you're doing well.
As Lead and others have pointed out, the complete lack of integrity within senior ranks of the Public Service is alarming. Observing snippets of the 'Robodebt' hearings and watching these very senior bureaucrats and elected officials deny any real accountability for a monumental ****-up that drove some victims to the point of suicide makes me angry.
I digress. Back to you and your dogged pursuit of those in CASA who made decisions that led to the destruction of your business.
One of the things that I think your campaign would benefit from is a website that clearly summarises the chronology of what happened, articulates your major points, and has all the supporting material archived and available. This thread - with thousands of replies and over a million views - no doubt continues to be important, but it is difficult to navigate and is also largely unmoderated. Not all replies have bolstered your case.
It's also worth remembering that bulletin boards are dying. There's a reason this website looks like something from the early 2000s, because it is. There's a very real risk that the owners of this board may respond to a legal threat by removing the thread, and then you're pretty much cooked. After all, they're not necessarily on your side - and this website is just one in a portfolio of mishmash bulletin boards that they use to flog advertising - that's it.
My fear is that they are trying to label you as a sort of vexatious litigant. A crazy, or a nut whose correspondence can be wholly disregarded. This thread does read like a stream of consciousness, and that may not actually help your campaign.
A domain can be purchased for < $10 a year. Hosting is also very cheap. Wordpress (or similar) is available free and easily set up. I am sure that in amongst the thousands of replies and over a million views there'd be a web dev who could help you set this up and even get a nice free theme installed for you to get it looking fancy. From there, it would then simply be a case of adding content DIY, which is very straightforward to do through a WYSIWYG editor.
Once the website is done, you could also ramp up the social media pressure. I'm no PR Manager or expert in this field, but I do know that politicians (and, by extension, the senior bureaucrats they appoint) are very wary of a social media campaign.
I have been following your saga since the start. I've never met you, but I have been barracking for you in your quest for justice. I hope you're doing well.
As Lead and others have pointed out, the complete lack of integrity within senior ranks of the Public Service is alarming. Observing snippets of the 'Robodebt' hearings and watching these very senior bureaucrats and elected officials deny any real accountability for a monumental ****-up that drove some victims to the point of suicide makes me angry.
I digress. Back to you and your dogged pursuit of those in CASA who made decisions that led to the destruction of your business.
One of the things that I think your campaign would benefit from is a website that clearly summarises the chronology of what happened, articulates your major points, and has all the supporting material archived and available. This thread - with thousands of replies and over a million views - no doubt continues to be important, but it is difficult to navigate and is also largely unmoderated. Not all replies have bolstered your case.
It's also worth remembering that bulletin boards are dying. There's a reason this website looks like something from the early 2000s, because it is. There's a very real risk that the owners of this board may respond to a legal threat by removing the thread, and then you're pretty much cooked. After all, they're not necessarily on your side - and this website is just one in a portfolio of mishmash bulletin boards that they use to flog advertising - that's it.
My fear is that they are trying to label you as a sort of vexatious litigant. A crazy, or a nut whose correspondence can be wholly disregarded. This thread does read like a stream of consciousness, and that may not actually help your campaign.
A domain can be purchased for < $10 a year. Hosting is also very cheap. Wordpress (or similar) is available free and easily set up. I am sure that in amongst the thousands of replies and over a million views there'd be a web dev who could help you set this up and even get a nice free theme installed for you to get it looking fancy. From there, it would then simply be a case of adding content DIY, which is very straightforward to do through a WYSIWYG editor.
Once the website is done, you could also ramp up the social media pressure. I'm no PR Manager or expert in this field, but I do know that politicians (and, by extension, the senior bureaucrats they appoint) are very wary of a social media campaign.
The following 4 users liked this post by MagnumPI:
Mate, I don't know 100% but the owners of this board must have made a decision about Glen, his claims and whether Glen has agreed to have his details released in the event of CASA coming after him......
There's a very good reason why CASA, and anyone named by Glen is not coming after him. Have a think about it.
I hope, as most people do, that Glen's strategy works here.
There are quite a few people posting here that know exactly what happened. And they will dust off their suits to make the trip to whatever court this ends up in.
Egos being egos should see the good thing happen.
There's a very good reason why CASA, and anyone named by Glen is not coming after him. Have a think about it.
I hope, as most people do, that Glen's strategy works here.
There are quite a few people posting here that know exactly what happened. And they will dust off their suits to make the trip to whatever court this ends up in.
Egos being egos should see the good thing happen.
Thread Starter
Global Aviator,
I didn't catch a single fish I'm sheepishly proud to say. I've been a long-time camper chugging around the bush in my 50-year-old 4wd, with the swag on the top. I probably look somewhat like i would be a member of the Hunters, Shooters and Fishers party. Far from it.
Whilst away i bumped into 2 rather wasted fellas, who caught a fish. The dehooking was rather messy to put it mildly., and the fish was quite small. The eventual decision was made to release the fish, and "let it go".
My connotation of "let it go", is somewhat akin to "set it free", a somewhat uplifting experience.
I watched this young rainbow trout, half swim, half float with its innards somewhat like a teenager's sock coming out of the washing machine. That is to say, inside out.
Just prior to getting sucked downstream i did see it do a sort of flick as though it was trying to communicate something, which i interpreted as "cheers fellas nice bumping into you, have a nice day" and off he or she went to continue enjoying its youth with a hook sitting nicely inside the inverted stomach.
IInstead, I elected to practice casting and dealing with a rather nasty "birds' nest?", which became a bit frustrating, and i put the rod aside rather than stress myself. It was relaxing but I will be back. I'm finishing up my current employment in a couple of weeks and heading off solo camping for a week, with some revised fishing equipment including a proper "dehooked" and the knowledge of how to use it properly.
Not quite sure what I'll be up to after that.
I did also buy a pack of "barbless" hooks. I said, "are these any good", his response, "I've never used them, never would".
I will let you know how my next trip goes, but I will take supplies as though i don't catch a fish.
What i did get to have was a sensational detox, and breaking the laptop was probably a blessing. I sat for extended periods in what was initially freezing water flowing rapidly over rocks, with a backdrop of steep mountains, it was truly beautiful. The sounds of the water falling over the rocks was very therapeutic. At night i had the swag set up watching the campfire with the sounds of the river in the background. Uhhhhhhh
I didn't catch a single fish I'm sheepishly proud to say. I've been a long-time camper chugging around the bush in my 50-year-old 4wd, with the swag on the top. I probably look somewhat like i would be a member of the Hunters, Shooters and Fishers party. Far from it.
Whilst away i bumped into 2 rather wasted fellas, who caught a fish. The dehooking was rather messy to put it mildly., and the fish was quite small. The eventual decision was made to release the fish, and "let it go".
My connotation of "let it go", is somewhat akin to "set it free", a somewhat uplifting experience.
I watched this young rainbow trout, half swim, half float with its innards somewhat like a teenager's sock coming out of the washing machine. That is to say, inside out.
Just prior to getting sucked downstream i did see it do a sort of flick as though it was trying to communicate something, which i interpreted as "cheers fellas nice bumping into you, have a nice day" and off he or she went to continue enjoying its youth with a hook sitting nicely inside the inverted stomach.
IInstead, I elected to practice casting and dealing with a rather nasty "birds' nest?", which became a bit frustrating, and i put the rod aside rather than stress myself. It was relaxing but I will be back. I'm finishing up my current employment in a couple of weeks and heading off solo camping for a week, with some revised fishing equipment including a proper "dehooked" and the knowledge of how to use it properly.
Not quite sure what I'll be up to after that.
I did also buy a pack of "barbless" hooks. I said, "are these any good", his response, "I've never used them, never would".
I will let you know how my next trip goes, but I will take supplies as though i don't catch a fish.
What i did get to have was a sensational detox, and breaking the laptop was probably a blessing. I sat for extended periods in what was initially freezing water flowing rapidly over rocks, with a backdrop of steep mountains, it was truly beautiful. The sounds of the water falling over the rocks was very therapeutic. At night i had the swag set up watching the campfire with the sounds of the river in the background. Uhhhhhhh
Thread Starter
Toss Bag, appreciate the gesture on the GoFundMe. Still an option but not until i put that option to the CASA Board i.e., a clear direction as to whether it is communicate or litigate.
Regarding this bulletin board and accepting my posts. I agree. I am very appreciative of the forum. At risk of being a bit dramatic, some years ago I was in a pretty bad place over all of this, because I had impacted on so many. At that time, it was this forum that got me over the line. Having never had any mental trauma previously, and as anyone that suffers depression or anxiety knows, that RUOK cliche is spot on.
Expressions of support and empathy carry a lot of weight. I know the forum isn't too concerned about those aspects of it, but nevertheless, it's important to me personally, and I can attest to it.
I agree, Pprune most likely has considered this forum, and at this stage decide that it is permitted.
CASA have never asked me to stop or made any attempt to silence me. Without sounding too cocky, I never thought they would. If they took me to the Court, they would get to fund the case which would expose the misconduct. Similarly, if CASA were to approach PPrune, PPrune may only be compelled to act if a legal threat was made by CASA. I doubt that CASA would do that. It would only draw attention to the matter.
Consider this, Mr Aleck earns several hundred thousand dollars a year, and has done for many years. He is an older gentleman in what would be considered anyone's latter years. Its is highly likely that he is working for the enormous personal satisfaction that the job brings him rather than dire financial necessity. The reasonable assumption would be that he could comfortably retire at any stage.
If i was in his position, and these allegations were raised by someone against me, I would robustly defend those allegations. If my defense of those allegations was hamstrung by my employment, and I had no economic necessity to stay in that employment, I would leave it. I would then use two weeks of my significant salary to initiate legal action.
Assuming my moral compass didn't point me the right way, I might decide to hang around for another 5 years or so, earn another $1,500,000 to $2,000,000, and get another few hundred thousand into the Super for a rainy day, besides, if you love the job and enjoy it so much, why not stay on. Job satisfaction is very important.
I assume also that PPrune has considered the significance of the matter. If my allegations were found to true, there is the potential to impact on the safety of aviation. It is also a public interest matter. Absolutely everything i have said on here is the truth, and I accept absolute and total liability for every single statement that i have made on here.
Im heading off to Fat Daddys breakfast club, cheers folk
Regarding this bulletin board and accepting my posts. I agree. I am very appreciative of the forum. At risk of being a bit dramatic, some years ago I was in a pretty bad place over all of this, because I had impacted on so many. At that time, it was this forum that got me over the line. Having never had any mental trauma previously, and as anyone that suffers depression or anxiety knows, that RUOK cliche is spot on.
Expressions of support and empathy carry a lot of weight. I know the forum isn't too concerned about those aspects of it, but nevertheless, it's important to me personally, and I can attest to it.
I agree, Pprune most likely has considered this forum, and at this stage decide that it is permitted.
CASA have never asked me to stop or made any attempt to silence me. Without sounding too cocky, I never thought they would. If they took me to the Court, they would get to fund the case which would expose the misconduct. Similarly, if CASA were to approach PPrune, PPrune may only be compelled to act if a legal threat was made by CASA. I doubt that CASA would do that. It would only draw attention to the matter.
Consider this, Mr Aleck earns several hundred thousand dollars a year, and has done for many years. He is an older gentleman in what would be considered anyone's latter years. Its is highly likely that he is working for the enormous personal satisfaction that the job brings him rather than dire financial necessity. The reasonable assumption would be that he could comfortably retire at any stage.
If i was in his position, and these allegations were raised by someone against me, I would robustly defend those allegations. If my defense of those allegations was hamstrung by my employment, and I had no economic necessity to stay in that employment, I would leave it. I would then use two weeks of my significant salary to initiate legal action.
Assuming my moral compass didn't point me the right way, I might decide to hang around for another 5 years or so, earn another $1,500,000 to $2,000,000, and get another few hundred thousand into the Super for a rainy day, besides, if you love the job and enjoy it so much, why not stay on. Job satisfaction is very important.
I assume also that PPrune has considered the significance of the matter. If my allegations were found to true, there is the potential to impact on the safety of aviation. It is also a public interest matter. Absolutely everything i have said on here is the truth, and I accept absolute and total liability for every single statement that i have made on here.
Im heading off to Fat Daddys breakfast club, cheers folk
Thread Starter
Sunfish- SOAR
Sunfish, interesting you draw on SOAR. It will be in upcoming correspondence. This will be something that I can attend to in great detail. The PERSON behind the operation did so under my AOC with CASA knowledge and approval initially. Whilst not a direct employee, he did operate under my AOC.
In fact the CASA approved SOAR manuals were predominantly APTA manuals with striking similarities with the exception of Headers and footers, and some editing slips where MFT or APTA remained.
Whilst that individual was operating from my building, he did try and convince me to adapt my business model to his intended business model. Something that had no appeal to me, and It was immediately shut down, which led to him going his own way, and SOAR was born.
This is something I can speak to with detailed knowledge and will do so, soon. Cheers Glen
In fact the CASA approved SOAR manuals were predominantly APTA manuals with striking similarities with the exception of Headers and footers, and some editing slips where MFT or APTA remained.
Whilst that individual was operating from my building, he did try and convince me to adapt my business model to his intended business model. Something that had no appeal to me, and It was immediately shut down, which led to him going his own way, and SOAR was born.
This is something I can speak to with detailed knowledge and will do so, soon. Cheers Glen
The following users liked this post:
From my dealings with Dr Discrepancy aka J Aleck I believe he stays in CAsA because being such a legal wizard, the framework of the establishment would fall apart if he wasn’t there to continually hold it together with his vast knowledge.
He,s one of those people with the “I’m indispensable “mindset.
And what a fabulously rewarding trough it is.
Sad thing is if he popped his clogs tomorrow CAsA and the world would just roll on as always.
He,s one of those people with the “I’m indispensable “mindset.
And what a fabulously rewarding trough it is.
Sad thing is if he popped his clogs tomorrow CAsA and the world would just roll on as always.