Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Glen,
You have certainly built a great case, well you’ve been bullied and smacked around the head so stating the obvious is a great case.
What really baffles me reading through all of this is the no issue with safety aspect. If there was then I would assume a show cause notice or immediate suspension of AOC, however no, a chosen dirty way was taken.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority is the biggest oxymoron out there. Civil Aviation Authority it should be.
If you and your wife do go to Canberra, go on book QF business class, I’ll throw a few more bucks into the fund.
It certainly feels like it’s coming to the part when we won’t hear from you on here (meaning nice settlement and gag order).
Keep fighting!
You have certainly built a great case, well you’ve been bullied and smacked around the head so stating the obvious is a great case.
What really baffles me reading through all of this is the no issue with safety aspect. If there was then I would assume a show cause notice or immediate suspension of AOC, however no, a chosen dirty way was taken.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority is the biggest oxymoron out there. Civil Aviation Authority it should be.
If you and your wife do go to Canberra, go on book QF business class, I’ll throw a few more bucks into the fund.
It certainly feels like it’s coming to the part when we won’t hear from you on here (meaning nice settlement and gag order).
Keep fighting!
Please, Glen...don't go to that meeting without a legal representative who can help you put your points forward in the best possible way.
It will be extremely difficult if not impossible for you or your wife to separate the emotion from the issues - and I don't mean that in a negative way - but going without a legal representative to help keep you composed and on point would be akin to representing yourself in court in your own defence. It's always a bad idea!
CASA will almost certainly have a legal representative there...
It will be extremely difficult if not impossible for you or your wife to separate the emotion from the issues - and I don't mean that in a negative way - but going without a legal representative to help keep you composed and on point would be akin to representing yourself in court in your own defence. It's always a bad idea!
CASA will almost certainly have a legal representative there...
The following users liked this post:
The YouTube broadcast is scheduled for 7pm EST tomorrow (Tuesday) 6 June:
but Why did CASA go to extraordinary lengths to close down APTA?
# Disclaimer: Not all of CASA are pricks. Although the organisation itself has a tendency to turn a non-prick into a prick if one is not careful.
Lawyer at meeting
Glen’s letter in response is cogent and well written to set the scene. I would agree for the Buckleys to retain a lawyer, preferably well briefed. And of course the GoFundme money would be well spent for this exercise but that is entirely at the Buckley’s discretion.
Nil reply from MP Carina Garland
I’ve had no response to my email to Glen Buckley’s federal MP about supporting his case. Sadly this is symptomatic of the way in which our democracy needs improvement. It seems from Glen’s information this MP has done nothing towards helping as promised to Glen prior to the election.
I believe the whole idea of single member electorates is to enhance the concept of personal representation in the Parliament.
It’s up to us all to keep contacting our MPs and State Senators because eventually with numbers the message will be noticed. Better still is to get really involved in politics for an improved democracy.
I believe the whole idea of single member electorates is to enhance the concept of personal representation in the Parliament.
It’s up to us all to keep contacting our MPs and State Senators because eventually with numbers the message will be noticed. Better still is to get really involved in politics for an improved democracy.
I’ve had no response to my email to Glen Buckley’s federal MP about supporting his case.
GLEN, GET A LAWYER!
For a start, your letter MUST state In its first sentence “I refer to my previous correspondence “ - which statement automatically means You are including ALL of your previous correspondence with CASA in your discussion. Without those words your claim can be limited very quickly by a skilled lawyer. Please, please, get a senior commercial lawyer on your team otherwise you and your wife are going to be ambushed at your meeting and chopped up.
Furthermore, and sorry for being sexist, but unless your wife is a lawyer with an encyclopedic knowledge of the regulations she is going to be out of her depth. No good can come of this meeting unless you have an experienced lawyer with you who is fully conversant with your case. You are going to be facing an experienced and fully briefed team with all the facts at their fingertips. They may have rehearsed their responses ( I would). They will already have expert legal advice on their potential liability and a game plan to minimise it. You on the other hand, won’t.
For a start, your letter MUST state In its first sentence “I refer to my previous correspondence “ - which statement automatically means You are including ALL of your previous correspondence with CASA in your discussion. Without those words your claim can be limited very quickly by a skilled lawyer. Please, please, get a senior commercial lawyer on your team otherwise you and your wife are going to be ambushed at your meeting and chopped up.
Furthermore, and sorry for being sexist, but unless your wife is a lawyer with an encyclopedic knowledge of the regulations she is going to be out of her depth. No good can come of this meeting unless you have an experienced lawyer with you who is fully conversant with your case. You are going to be facing an experienced and fully briefed team with all the facts at their fingertips. They may have rehearsed their responses ( I would). They will already have expert legal advice on their potential liability and a game plan to minimise it. You on the other hand, won’t.
The following 2 users liked this post by Sunfish:
In addition, when or if further revelations about Glen Buckley’s case become publicised then his MP, and others like mine who have been notified of this scandalous situation, cannot fall about saying they knew nothing.
Unfortunately politicians have become the ‘ whipping boys (or girls) for all of society’s ills while only a tiny minority actually engage with any political organisation let alone their constituent MP.
We need publicity and political action.
Thread Starter
Global Aviator
You are correct, there is no safety case at all or any deficiency ever identified by CASA, and that is what makes this entire matter so outrageous.
The only single argument that CASA put to me was that all personnel operating under my AOC needed to be my employees. It was made to clear to me that if I made them all my employees, there would be no concerns. That was the solution.
That is not what APTA was designed for. It was designed for 10 entities to join my approval to operate to one set of procedures, and in all matters regarding regulatory and safety, it was the one organization.
It is that structure that CASA determined to be unlawful in my organization despite it being completely standard CASA approved practice, throughout my 25 years in the industry.
CASA have craftily confirmed there position that CASA must be satisfied. This was different. This was CASA becoming unsatisfied, but with no explanation.
Every single comprehensive procedure was attended to in our CASA approved Exposition. We were not new to this; we had been doing it successfully for a decade. There were no identified quality issues. If so they would have been initiated through a process.
This was a totally unexpected notification, with no prior warning whatsoever. It was a legal determination from Mr Aleck, or someone within his department.
CASA were fully satisfied with every procedure that i had written, they had peer reviewed, approved, and audited on multiple occasions.
It is all so totally unnecessary. It was not a quality control issue.
CASAs argument was that you cannot have operational control over someone who is not also an employee. Obviously i disagrree.
Highly appreciative of your involvement and support. Cheers. Glen
The only single argument that CASA put to me was that all personnel operating under my AOC needed to be my employees. It was made to clear to me that if I made them all my employees, there would be no concerns. That was the solution.
That is not what APTA was designed for. It was designed for 10 entities to join my approval to operate to one set of procedures, and in all matters regarding regulatory and safety, it was the one organization.
It is that structure that CASA determined to be unlawful in my organization despite it being completely standard CASA approved practice, throughout my 25 years in the industry.
CASA have craftily confirmed there position that CASA must be satisfied. This was different. This was CASA becoming unsatisfied, but with no explanation.
Every single comprehensive procedure was attended to in our CASA approved Exposition. We were not new to this; we had been doing it successfully for a decade. There were no identified quality issues. If so they would have been initiated through a process.
This was a totally unexpected notification, with no prior warning whatsoever. It was a legal determination from Mr Aleck, or someone within his department.
CASA were fully satisfied with every procedure that i had written, they had peer reviewed, approved, and audited on multiple occasions.
It is all so totally unnecessary. It was not a quality control issue.
CASAs argument was that you cannot have operational control over someone who is not also an employee. Obviously i disagrree.
Highly appreciative of your involvement and support. Cheers. Glen
Thread Starter
Getting a lawyer
Wow folks, ive got everyone in my ear to get a lawyer, and I trully do ": get it".
I know that is the next step if it cannot be avoided.
It's a bit of a personal thing. The engagement of lawyers is the end of "good intent". The entire process moves to one of combat and no goodwill. My hope is that I can exhaust every single option that is available to me. Being let down by Local MP was indeed a big blow, but not all options are exhausted. There is the option of an Act of Grace Payment which may be an option to undo some of the harm caused.
Ms. Spences response regarding "attendees" from CASA will be very revealing and set the tone of that meeting. If lawyers are attending, then I will have lawyers, please be assured of that.
Ms Spence may choose to have Mr. Aleck present, but if that is the case I will have to clarify if he is present as one of the CASA employees i have made allegations against, of if he is present as legal counsel.
The nature of my allegations is substantial. Either way someone deserves to be held accountable.
Either one or more CASA employees have acted unlawfully, or I have. I have made many public allegations against Members of CASA senior executive. If my allegations are false, vindictive and vexatious, those CASA employees should initiate some legal action against me.
I was considering writing to Ms Garland my local MP, i note that Minister King has directed Ms Garland not to assist me in this matter. I am considering bypassing the Minister and writing to the PM directly requesting that a nominee from his department attend, as my allegations of misconduct are creeping into his MPs and Ministers. There can be no doubt that they are trying to cover up this matter. My correspondence and requests for meeting goes totally unacknowledged.
As a total aside, I'm sitting here in a 24-hour pancake parlor drinking far too much coffee.
Considering that the Ombudsman conducted a four-year investigation and found nothing at all wrong with the way CASA acted and no suggestions to any systematic improvements, Ms Spence would possibly not have met with me.
The only one that has found any potential "issues" is in fact the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner. A man I have had the good fortune to engage with on a number of occasions. While the ICC does come under criticism for its structure, the incumbent is exceptional. Not because he agreed with me on some issues, but because he is a man of integrity, and good intention..
In recent correspondence Ms Spence suggested that the ICC had been responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman. I do not believe that to be true, and that is not what I was informed by the Ombudsman's office.
Very clearly i want to restate that I do not believe that Mr Hanton, the CASA ICC would ever provide false and/or misleading information to the ombudsman. I believe that Ms Spence is attempting to bring additional credibility to CASA regarding the information that they provided.
I know that is the next step if it cannot be avoided.
It's a bit of a personal thing. The engagement of lawyers is the end of "good intent". The entire process moves to one of combat and no goodwill. My hope is that I can exhaust every single option that is available to me. Being let down by Local MP was indeed a big blow, but not all options are exhausted. There is the option of an Act of Grace Payment which may be an option to undo some of the harm caused.
Ms. Spences response regarding "attendees" from CASA will be very revealing and set the tone of that meeting. If lawyers are attending, then I will have lawyers, please be assured of that.
Ms Spence may choose to have Mr. Aleck present, but if that is the case I will have to clarify if he is present as one of the CASA employees i have made allegations against, of if he is present as legal counsel.
The nature of my allegations is substantial. Either way someone deserves to be held accountable.
Either one or more CASA employees have acted unlawfully, or I have. I have made many public allegations against Members of CASA senior executive. If my allegations are false, vindictive and vexatious, those CASA employees should initiate some legal action against me.
I was considering writing to Ms Garland my local MP, i note that Minister King has directed Ms Garland not to assist me in this matter. I am considering bypassing the Minister and writing to the PM directly requesting that a nominee from his department attend, as my allegations of misconduct are creeping into his MPs and Ministers. There can be no doubt that they are trying to cover up this matter. My correspondence and requests for meeting goes totally unacknowledged.
As a total aside, I'm sitting here in a 24-hour pancake parlor drinking far too much coffee.
Considering that the Ombudsman conducted a four-year investigation and found nothing at all wrong with the way CASA acted and no suggestions to any systematic improvements, Ms Spence would possibly not have met with me.
The only one that has found any potential "issues" is in fact the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner. A man I have had the good fortune to engage with on a number of occasions. While the ICC does come under criticism for its structure, the incumbent is exceptional. Not because he agreed with me on some issues, but because he is a man of integrity, and good intention..
In recent correspondence Ms Spence suggested that the ICC had been responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman. I do not believe that to be true, and that is not what I was informed by the Ombudsman's office.
Very clearly i want to restate that I do not believe that Mr Hanton, the CASA ICC would ever provide false and/or misleading information to the ombudsman. I believe that Ms Spence is attempting to bring additional credibility to CASA regarding the information that they provided.
The following users liked this post:
Operational control
Quote Glen:- “CASAs argument was that you cannot have operational control over someone who is not also an employee.”
This is a nonsense argument by CASA, it’s plain that to be a member of APTA the business must follow the APTA procedures, procedures that the business is paying to have in place.
But much stronger still is the fact that CASA has an arsenal of highly detailed rules. Rules that it inappropriately persuaded Parliament to migrate practically the lot (mostly were misdemeanours) into the criminal code.
Some of our ‘criminal acts’ don’t even get a mention at all in the USA, and where any instructor, or group of instructors, may teach without any form of Part 141/142 AOC type permission.
How much more control do you need? And what is the point of it? Training is statistically about the safest type of GA flying, and it’s the resulting standard by testing that’s the real issue.
One could liken Glen’s APTA organisation to gaining a Council building permit and the follow up by the building inspector. The owner and builder and sub contractors don’t have to be Council employees.
To satisfy CASA perhaps a real time surveillance camera and two way communication with a CASA ‘expert’ throughout every flight? Talk about control freaks, they have no bounds.
CASA is out of control, the Board and senior management have shown that they are incompetent and irresponsible.
The Board has buried its head in the sand and is incapable of facing the truth of their failure to rein in the Iron Ring or stop the colossal damage inflicted by CASA on GA as a whole.
As for Ms. Spence she has one chance left to make recompense and save her reputation by meeting with the Buckleys and quickly acting to compensate, then reset CASA and cauterise where necessary.
Highly unlikely that good, but worth a shot, good luck Glen.
This is a nonsense argument by CASA, it’s plain that to be a member of APTA the business must follow the APTA procedures, procedures that the business is paying to have in place.
But much stronger still is the fact that CASA has an arsenal of highly detailed rules. Rules that it inappropriately persuaded Parliament to migrate practically the lot (mostly were misdemeanours) into the criminal code.
Some of our ‘criminal acts’ don’t even get a mention at all in the USA, and where any instructor, or group of instructors, may teach without any form of Part 141/142 AOC type permission.
How much more control do you need? And what is the point of it? Training is statistically about the safest type of GA flying, and it’s the resulting standard by testing that’s the real issue.
One could liken Glen’s APTA organisation to gaining a Council building permit and the follow up by the building inspector. The owner and builder and sub contractors don’t have to be Council employees.
To satisfy CASA perhaps a real time surveillance camera and two way communication with a CASA ‘expert’ throughout every flight? Talk about control freaks, they have no bounds.
CASA is out of control, the Board and senior management have shown that they are incompetent and irresponsible.
The Board has buried its head in the sand and is incapable of facing the truth of their failure to rein in the Iron Ring or stop the colossal damage inflicted by CASA on GA as a whole.
As for Ms. Spence she has one chance left to make recompense and save her reputation by meeting with the Buckleys and quickly acting to compensate, then reset CASA and cauterise where necessary.
Highly unlikely that good, but worth a shot, good luck Glen.
Wow folks, ive got everyone in my ear to get a lawyer, and I trully do ": get it".
I know that is the next step if it cannot be avoided.
It's a bit of a personal thing. The engagement of lawyers is the end of "good intent". The entire process moves to one of combat and no goodwill. My hope is that I can exhaust every single option that is available to me. Being let down by Local MP was indeed a big blow, but not all options are exhausted. There is the option of an Act of Grace Payment which may be an option to undo some of the harm caused.
I know that is the next step if it cannot be avoided.
It's a bit of a personal thing. The engagement of lawyers is the end of "good intent". The entire process moves to one of combat and no goodwill. My hope is that I can exhaust every single option that is available to me. Being let down by Local MP was indeed a big blow, but not all options are exhausted. There is the option of an Act of Grace Payment which may be an option to undo some of the harm caused.
Let me flip my argument on its head and say you're right - that is, you meet with CASA that they are be so sorry and full of goodwill that they offer you an ex-gratia payment. I'd be nearly certain that it'll be a paltry amount as this is what they will have been advised to offer. You'll still need a legal representative to negotiate the best possible outcome for you if nothing else.
Fire up the GoFundMe, find a lawyer experienced in aviation law that is so aggressive that you don't even like them, and give 'em hell.
The following 6 users liked this post by MagnumPI:
Glen's knowledge and memory of what happened, if you haven't already noticed, is comprehensive, impeccable. These clowns won't be putting anything over him in this meeting.
The following users liked this post:
Forget the Truth - you need Proof.
The following users liked this post:
GoFundMe and ‘operational control.’
Quote MagnumPI:-
“Fire up the GoFundMe, find a lawyer experienced in aviation law that is so aggressive that you don't even like them, and give 'em hell.”
Agreed the GoFundMe needs a strong campaign looking for substantial donations, and not solely for the good of Glen and his family but as demonstration to all of government that we, as Australians, won’t tolerate such blatant injustice.
Not perhaps strongly relevant but thinking on ‘operational control’ DCA used to force operational control on aircraft in flight and during the flight planning stage, at least for IFR ops. This practice was then abandoned for what reason I’m not aware. Maybe because they directed an airliner to fly into a storm over Botany Bay which didn’t turn out too well.
“Fire up the GoFundMe, find a lawyer experienced in aviation law that is so aggressive that you don't even like them, and give 'em hell.”
Agreed the GoFundMe needs a strong campaign looking for substantial donations, and not solely for the good of Glen and his family but as demonstration to all of government that we, as Australians, won’t tolerate such blatant injustice.
Not perhaps strongly relevant but thinking on ‘operational control’ DCA used to force operational control on aircraft in flight and during the flight planning stage, at least for IFR ops. This practice was then abandoned for what reason I’m not aware. Maybe because they directed an airliner to fly into a storm over Botany Bay which didn’t turn out too well.
The following 2 users liked this post by tossbag: