Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
The following users liked this post:
Quote Glen:- “CASAs argument was that you cannot have operational control over someone who is not also an employee.”
so how come they have been turning a blind eye to the disgraceful practice of sham contracting all these years?
so how come they have been turning a blind eye to the disgraceful practice of sham contracting all these years?
Quote Glen:- “CASAs argument was that you cannot have operational control over someone who is not also an employee.”
so how come they have been turning a blind eye to the disgraceful practice of sham contracting all these years?
so how come they have been turning a blind eye to the disgraceful practice of sham contracting all these years?
I'm told my previous employer wanted to go to all being on an individual contract, CASA apparently told them engineers signing out work had to be on their books as employees and not contractors, likewise pilots in position as division manager, CP or C&T. When that became a feature in the last 20 years I don't know, contractors were unknown in my time. Contractor labour is far easier to get rid of if some one gets a bee in their bonnet, also more likely to do what they're told, particularly operating at variance with regs.
This has been commonplace in GA and until reading this I didn't realise CASA cared if people were employed legally or not. Not just the senior staff, everyone should be as important in a workplace as safety doesn't just come from the top. Someone who is being exploited is probably more likely to be a safety risk. The tax office have been turning a blind eye to this for years.
You’re effectively arguing that there should be a civil aviation safety rule that says all people involved with any activity relevant to the safety of operations authorised by a certificate or approval must be employed under a contract of service with the holder of the certificate or approval and, therefore, not as independent contractors or any other kind of ‘non-employee’. Everyone must be on the payroll of the certificate or approval holder as an employee.
I don’t think the rules have ever said that and doubt they ever will.
I don’t think the rules have ever said that and doubt they ever will.
The following 3 users liked this post by Lead Balloon:
Exploited?
With respect Clare Prop as one who was mostly an employer in GA ops but also an employee I think in regard to:- “Someone who is being exploited is probably more likely to be a safety risk.” It’s not a one way street.
Our labour laws have become so hidebound that employers may have great difficulty in removing an employee who the employer regards as a “risk.”
In regard to value of remuneration there has to be an element that regards business reality and that is that a free market that actually gives us our high standard of living. Like human nature it’s far from perfect but there’s no alternative that’s shown to improve the lot of society. I think we’ve often said that the government should fix things, and surely they will but at what cost? I give you the (Un) Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Our labour laws have become so hidebound that employers may have great difficulty in removing an employee who the employer regards as a “risk.”
In regard to value of remuneration there has to be an element that regards business reality and that is that a free market that actually gives us our high standard of living. Like human nature it’s far from perfect but there’s no alternative that’s shown to improve the lot of society. I think we’ve often said that the government should fix things, and surely they will but at what cost? I give you the (Un) Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Wages shouldn't be used as a way of undercutting people. If the free market means that people are paying their pilots a pittance to be cheaper than the mob next door then there is a big problem with the way that business operates. If a company can't afford to pay the award as an absolute minimum then they shouldn't be operating.
I've been both an employee and, for the last 27 years, an employer in GA . I have always paid the award plus bonuses and all my staff have all the protections of being employed. I get what you are saying about getting rid of bad ones, so be careful who you employ; yes it can be a problem...unless they are casual. Give them the 25% loading they are entitled to and it is more flexible for both parties. The danger is when people think they are covered by things like third party lability and as a "Contractor" they aren't, and they can now toddle off to Fair Work and the boss can find themselves up for years of back pay including super, and quite rightly.
I believe CASA should insist that anyone employed to work in accordance with an ops Manual or equivalent should be employees. Not just the so-called key personnel but all the way to the newest most junior members of operational staff. They are all key personnel. We all know it only takes one bad apple to cause absolute havok. So treat them right.
CASA themselves have their Human Factors videos where one of the pilots is up all night driving taxis to make ends meet and the safety issues that raises.
I'm sorry to hijack your thread Glen
I've been both an employee and, for the last 27 years, an employer in GA . I have always paid the award plus bonuses and all my staff have all the protections of being employed. I get what you are saying about getting rid of bad ones, so be careful who you employ; yes it can be a problem...unless they are casual. Give them the 25% loading they are entitled to and it is more flexible for both parties. The danger is when people think they are covered by things like third party lability and as a "Contractor" they aren't, and they can now toddle off to Fair Work and the boss can find themselves up for years of back pay including super, and quite rightly.
I believe CASA should insist that anyone employed to work in accordance with an ops Manual or equivalent should be employees. Not just the so-called key personnel but all the way to the newest most junior members of operational staff. They are all key personnel. We all know it only takes one bad apple to cause absolute havok. So treat them right.
CASA themselves have their Human Factors videos where one of the pilots is up all night driving taxis to make ends meet and the safety issues that raises.
I'm sorry to hijack your thread Glen
Contractors etc
Clare Prop, bending back to the thread, CASA itself employs contractors.
Very importantly in this instance it was the outside lawyer’s advice that put CASA straight. Incredible when you think on the facts that CASA with its own expensive legal department couldn’t read their own regulations and have made such a muck up all over the place.
There are multitudes of other professions involving safety where contracting is commonplace where standards are acceptable.
In another instance CASA contracted John King of King’s Schools to advise on training reforms. He stated that some 70% of USA pilots were taught by individual instructors, or groups of instructors in business together, outside of their Part 142/142 system. Of course this ‘free enterprise’ type of environment did not impress CASA and so more wasted time and money down the drain. CASA pressed on with its impossibly complex rules that are directly leading to CASA’s vicious treatment of Glen Buckley.
I think to support Glen and GA we should concentrate on persuading government to intervene with a fair compensation package.
And at the same time press for a Department of Aviation and CASA disbandment.
Very importantly in this instance it was the outside lawyer’s advice that put CASA straight. Incredible when you think on the facts that CASA with its own expensive legal department couldn’t read their own regulations and have made such a muck up all over the place.
There are multitudes of other professions involving safety where contracting is commonplace where standards are acceptable.
In another instance CASA contracted John King of King’s Schools to advise on training reforms. He stated that some 70% of USA pilots were taught by individual instructors, or groups of instructors in business together, outside of their Part 142/142 system. Of course this ‘free enterprise’ type of environment did not impress CASA and so more wasted time and money down the drain. CASA pressed on with its impossibly complex rules that are directly leading to CASA’s vicious treatment of Glen Buckley.
I think to support Glen and GA we should concentrate on persuading government to intervene with a fair compensation package.
And at the same time press for a Department of Aviation and CASA disbandment.
The following 2 users liked this post by Sandy Reith:
If I am claiming that I was the victim of targeted malice by a CASA Employee or Employees, and that CASA placed unnecessary restrictions on me compared to others, it is important that I can demonstrate there were “other” Flight Training Organisations that CASA permitted to operate, in order to allow a comparative assessment to be made.
Hi Glen.
You maybe have already looked through the statements regarding the new agency NACC and what it may investigate. There’s some interesting reading in there, examples which bring CAsA strongly to mind.
National Anti-Corruption Commission. Opens its door 1 July ‘23
Could this be a place whereby some stakes can be driven into the heart of that foul beast CAsA?
Time will tell.
After my post 2656 of June 10, that blew on some embers that are still warm.
Maybe my material is too historical, but any ‘code’ does not override the Law, and crimes unpunished remain so.
Very best regards.
You maybe have already looked through the statements regarding the new agency NACC and what it may investigate. There’s some interesting reading in there, examples which bring CAsA strongly to mind.
National Anti-Corruption Commission. Opens its door 1 July ‘23
Could this be a place whereby some stakes can be driven into the heart of that foul beast CAsA?
Time will tell.
After my post 2656 of June 10, that blew on some embers that are still warm.
Maybe my material is too historical, but any ‘code’ does not override the Law, and crimes unpunished remain so.
Very best regards.
The following users liked this post:
A short post script to last Tuesday's video has been scheduled for tomorrow (Wednesday 14 June) at 7 pm Sydney / Melbourne time:
The following 3 users liked this post by Clinton McKenzie:
Thread Starter
Cheers Clinton
Clinton, I must publicly thank you for your ongoing assistance in my matter throughout the four years. For those that don't know Clinton or his background, i will say that he would be considered one of Australia's Subject Matter Expertson this entire matter, and i will leave it at that.
Clinton is someone I had never met until our broadcast last week but has been involved in this thread. Invariably a supporter, but on occasion I have ruffled his feathers. His support has been sensational, as have so many others.
Clinton and I have arranged a fairly short broadcast tonight. I had hoped to do it last night to put some consistency into the Tuesdays, but unfortunately, I wasn't available.
Tonight, I believe we will be discussing the direction from CASA that my continuing employment was no longer tenable, and the completely outrageous allegation made by the CASA CEO to Senators that I had stalked and assaulted CASA employees.
Cheers all, and Mark, if you are seeing this, thanks so much for the email. We will have a beverage..
Clinton is someone I had never met until our broadcast last week but has been involved in this thread. Invariably a supporter, but on occasion I have ruffled his feathers. His support has been sensational, as have so many others.
Clinton and I have arranged a fairly short broadcast tonight. I had hoped to do it last night to put some consistency into the Tuesdays, but unfortunately, I wasn't available.
Tonight, I believe we will be discussing the direction from CASA that my continuing employment was no longer tenable, and the completely outrageous allegation made by the CASA CEO to Senators that I had stalked and assaulted CASA employees.
Cheers all, and Mark, if you are seeing this, thanks so much for the email. We will have a beverage..
The following 2 users liked this post by glenb:
Thread Starter
FOI Contracts email sent 14/06/23
Freedom of Information Request- (My reference- PPRUNE #2675 )
This Freedom of Information request is to attend to my allegation that CASA has provided false and misleading advice to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Investigation that led to the Ombudsman arriving at the following conclusion’.
“CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”
For complete clarity. As on multiple occasions, CASA has provided false and misleading information to that investigation.
Background to request
In October of 2018 with no prior indication at all, CASA placed restrictions on my CASA issued Air Operator Certificate (AOC) of ten years, which had an immediate and significant impact on the cash flow of my business.
Those restrictions remained in place for 8 months. CASA was notified on multiple occasions in writing throughout the 8 months of the impact of those restrictions, so there can be no pretence that CASA was not fully aware of the impact of those restrictions.
The only reason that those restrictions remained in place for 8 months was because I could not satisfy the sole CASA Employee, as to the wording in my “commercial agreements”. There were no safety issues ever identified by CASA. It was a simple wording issue in contracts.
This was unprecedented that CASA would ever have any involvement in commercial agreements of flight training operators.
The commercial agreement being the document outlining commercial/financial arrangements between my business APTA, and its members. Previously CASA had absolutely no involvement in commercial contracts and matters of operational control were not contained in commercial contracts.
Had I have been able to satisfy that sole CASA employee with regard to the wording in the commercial agreements between APTA and its Members, those restrictions placed on my business by CASA would have been immediately lifted by CASA, and I could have returned to Business as Usual, and minimise the harm caused.
These were the contracts that APTA had used for many years, and had been provided to CASA on multiple occasions throughout those three years.
In a Flight Training Organisation, the “Exposition” is the CASA legislated suite of documents that is required by CASA to outline matters of operational control, not the commercial agreement. CASA was not requesting any change to the Exposition, because CASA was fully satisfied with the Exposition and had approved it, many years prior.
The commercial agreement is a completely non related document, effectively being the contract between the AOC Holder being my business APTA, and its customers. This is in contrast to the CASA approved Operations Manual/Exposition which is effectively the contract between the AOC holder and CASA.
CASA retains copies of the Exposition and audits the Operators compliance with regards to matters of operational control against that CASA approved Exposition.
CASA does not get involved in any way, with commercial agreements, or retain copies of commercial agreements. That is, until it placed these unique and bizarre requirements on Glen Buckley. This is evidenced by the fact that CASA demanded I provide copies of agreements in October 2018, claiming that they didn’t have them. I advised CASA that I had provided them on multiple occasions. Initially CASA denied this but was forced to admit that they had received them, but they had been misplaced.
Until CASA placed the requirement on me to put additional matters of operational control into our commercial agreements, that were additional to, and not to be included in the Exposition, in order to lift the trading restrictions, these two documents had been totally unrelated documents. That was the case throughout the flight training industry, and always had been throughout my 25 years in the industry.
The unique requirement placed on my business by CASA, in order to have trading restrictions lifted, was that additional matters of “operational control” now needed to be outlined in the “commercial agreements”. CASA however refused to be a signatory to those commercial agreements, despite the wording being a requirement stipulated by CASA. The only signatories were APTA and its Members, although it was CASA who needed to be satisfied as to the wording. This was a highly unusual environment to be operating in.
Irrespective, I was always willing and eager to fully comply with CASAs unusual requirements placed on me. I simply needed to know “whose” responsibilities were to be outlined in the commercial arrangements, and “what” responsibilities were to be outlined in the commercial agreements, or in fact any aspect of operational control that CASA identified that I needed to attend to, that was not already attended to in my CASA approved Exposition. The truth is that everything was already in the Exposition.
The fact that CASA could not identify whose or what responsibilities I needed to attend to, made resolution of the situation impossible, hence the trading restrictions remained in place for a staggering 8 months with the matter unresolved. I could not address a problem that CASA could not identify to me.
Every single legislative requirement, procedure, responsibility, and accountability was already specified in that CASA approved Exposition and had been for many years. It had been designed in conjunction with CASA, to CASAs 600 specified requirements, peer reviewed within CASA, approved by CASA, and audited by CASA on multiple occasions over the previous decade.
CASA never identified any deficiencies in my operation, and never requested any changes at all to how we operated or any changes to our Exposition. The entire structure of the business was designed to do exactly what it was doing, and all procedures had been designed for the specific purpose of APTA. The purpose of APTA being to deliver flight training across multiple bases under the one and only authorisation that I held. I was doing what I had been doing for 10 years.
These were new requirements in addition to the legislation, in addition to standard industry practice, in addition to previous CASA requirements, in addition to my Exposition, and in addition to any industry precedent.
The reason for me making this FOI request is because the Ombudsman has advised me that:
“CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”
With 25 years industry experience, I am fully satisfied that that statement is not the truth, and the Ombudsman could only arrive at that deduction based on the provision of false and misleading information by an Employee of CASA. There is no other possible reason the Ombudsman would arrive at that finding.
if the Ombudsman Office has formed the view that CASA required any other operator in the flight training industry, ever, to outline matters of operational control in commercial contracts, as opposed to the Exposition, It is simply not truthful, and would in fact, I suggest be unlawful and in contravention of the regulations as those requirements are mandated to be in the Exposition, as they rightfully should be.
I have contacted a number of industry personnel that had adopted the same business model as I adopted, and they assure me that CASA is not being truthful on this fact, and drawing on my 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry, I am fully satisfied that CASA has never required commercial contracts to outline matters of operational control, as these requirements are contained within the Exposition/Operations Manual as per legislative requirements, and as approved by CASA.
Request under FOI
Under FOI I am requesting CASA provide me with copies of commercial contracts that CASA retains of any operator in the flight training industry.
Specifically, these would be the commercial contracts that CASA has required of other flight training operators, as evidence of operational control in support of the Ombudsman finding that;
“CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”
I am not interested in any of the financial information, signatories to the agreement, and matters of operational control that are already replicated in the CASA approved Exposition, any names, titles, positions, or any information of a sensitive nature.
My expectation is that these documents would be presented to me in a highly redacted state, to maintain appropriate levels of privacy. That will also suit my requirement, as I am only after matters of “operational control” that were addressing CASA requirements in those Agreements.
The information provided to me by CASA could be further redacted. Any information that is contained within the contracts, but replicated in the Exposition could also be redacted, as CASA requirements placed on me were over and above what was already in the Exposition.
The date range that I am requesting is from November 1938, being the date the Department of Civil Aviation was first established, until October 2018, when CASA placed that requirement on my business.
In the highly unlikely event that search by CASA results in more than 5 such documents being produced from the 80-year range, then I will limit my FOI request to only five documents, preferably the most recent five that CASA retain or have been involved in.
If CASA is able to produce those five documents that they have required of other Operators, I request that the 5 provided documents include.
· The Agreements that CASA would hold and have required for both Ballarat Aero Club, and Latrobe Valley Aero Club who had an existing arrangement with previous Flight Training Operators, until the day before they transferred to APTA, when the new and bizarre requirements were placed exclusively on my business. The Ombudsman mistakenly referred to Latrobe valley Aero Club and Ballarat Aero Clubs “authorisations”. It is important to avoid that error. Neither Latrobe Valley Aero Club nor Ballarat Aero Club, had any Authorisations issued by CASA. The Authorisations were mine, and mine only. (APTA)
Of the up to 5 contracts provided under FOI, could you please identify specifically which of those 5 documents have previously been provided to the Ombudsman’s Office as part of the investigation.
No doubt for the Ombudsman to arrive at his determination “CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.” the Ombudsman must have arrived at that determination by requesting CASA to provide evidence of this.
Of the five provided contracts, could CASA also provide a copy of the contract that CASA finally determined was acceptable to CASA. That would be athecontract between APTA and Latrobe Valley Aero Club, that was finalised almost immediately after I left the business, in June 2019.
The significance of the request, and what this information will demonstrate.
Point One- If CASA already held the information they required. Why wouldn’t they share that information with me to allow me to resolve the issue.
I very much doubt that CASA will be able to comply with this FOI request, and there will in fact be no contracts, because the truth is that CASA never required such contracts of any Operator.
However, CASA has maintained, and the Ombudsman has accepted that CASA did require such contracts previously, and the Ombudsman found “CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”
I made multiple requests of CASA throughout the 8 months the trading restrictions remained in place to provide me guidance on what they required as wording in the commercial agreements. CASA could not/or would not provide that guidance.
Inexplicably, with my 25 years flight training industry experience, I was unable to resolve this matter and derive the suitable wording. My task was more difficult, because CASA could not or would not provide me suitable guidance on their requirements.
If CASA is able to produce 5 documents under FOI, then the obvious question is. Why couldn’t CASA provide that same information to Glen Buckley to allow him to fully and immediately resolve the issue and return to Business as Usual and avoid the significant harm caused to so many? If CASA already held the information from previous operators, which was the solution, why wasn’t that made available to Mr Buckley?
If CASA does hold contracts outlining matters of operational control, the entire matter could have been fully resolved in four hours instead of taking 8 months, and still not being resolved.
This would support my allegation that a CASA Employee deliberately frustrated processes to cause harm to me personally.
I have always asserted that members of the CASA Executive management had no intention to resolve the contracts issue. I am fully satisfied that CASA deliberately delayed resolving the contracts issue, and particularly so if CASA claimed that they had previously required contracts of others, and that information was not provided to me.
Point Two- How could CASA hold contracts if they hadn’t previously permitted the structure.
CASA has led the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that what I was doing was an industry first, and that CASA had never previously permitted and approved the identical structure that I adopted, and had never done so. Those assertions are in the initial notification from CASA in October 2018. This is blatantly untrue.
If one accepts CASAs position that CASA had never previously permitted the identical structure, then the obvious question is. How could CASA previously have required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”
The point being that if CASA produces the five agreements that I have requested, then it clearly indicates CASA has previously mislead the Ombudsman Inquiry by leading the Ombudsman to form the view that what I was doing was new and unique and was not standard industry practice with formal CASA approval on every occasion.
Point Three- Was CASA required to provide evidence, or was CASAs “word” sufficient?
I am fully satisfied that throughout the four-year investigation CASA consistently provided false and misleading information to the investigation, and the Investigation placed significant “weighting” on the Agencies “word”, without seeking evidence to support CASAs position.
Considering the Ombudsman’s findings “CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”I would have expected the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office to have required evidence of such contracts by requesting copies of those contracts, rather than solely relying on the “word” of the agency representative.
For this reason, I have asked CASA under this FOI request to clearly identify, if any of the five contracts were provided to the Ombudsman in order for the Ombudsman to arrive at the conclusion that.“CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”
Point Four -Glen Buckley couldn't resolve the matter in 8 months but the new CEO could.
I had tried for 8 months to get the wording in the commercial contracts to the CASA employees satisfaction. That was despite me having 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry. Immediately after the new CEO took over, that CEO was able to provide CASA with an acceptable contract that allowed Latrobe Valley to continue operations.
The new CEO of the business was not a flying instructor and had no experience in the flight training industry. He did hold a pilot licence ,although most of his flying had been outside of Australia.
With his limited experience he resolved the matter in hours, despite the fact that I could not resolve it for 8 months.
Could I also request a copy of the contract that was acceptable to CASA and permitted Latrobe Valley to continue operations?
By having a copy of the contract that was acceptable to CASA in July 2019, it will clearly identify the deficiencies that I could not attend to, or if indeed, they had already been attended to.
Point Five- CASAs alternating narrative
If CASA is to be believed on this fact, then one could logically conclude that CASA could not possibly hold commercial contracts for flight training operators outlining matters of operational control for a structure that apparently hadn’t previously existed, and according to CASA, CASA had not been permitted to exist. If CASA does produce 5 contracts, it will demonstrate that in fact the truth is that CASA had always permitted other Operators to adopt the identical structure that I did, and that would indicate that CASA has been deceptive in representing to the Ombudsman that CASA had never previously permitted the structure.
Point Six- Targeted malice
If I am claiming that I was the victim of targeted malice by a CASA Employee or Employees, and that CASA placed unnecessary restrictions on me, compared to others, it is important that I can demonstrate there were “other” Flight Training Organisations that CASA permitted to operate, in order to allow a comparative assessment to be made.
The fact that “CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA,” indicates that there were in fact other Operators, and will clarify the situation that the Ombudsman could not clarify during the four-year investigation. i.e., was my structure unique, or was it completely standard industry practice adopted throughout the industry with a full CASA approval. Two very different scenarios that until now , and after over four yeras of investigating hasbeen difficult for the Ombudsman to resolve.
Fees
I am requesting that CASA consider waiving any fees on this application for the following reasons.
· If the truth is that CASA has previously provided evidence of contracts to the Ombudsman that information has already been collated and the task is minor in nature.
· The manner in which CASA chose to act on this matter has caused significant commercial harm to me personally, so my financial means are limited, and I request consideration of a waiver.
· This has the potential to impact on the safety of aviation if the nation's safety regulator was found to have provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation, and my request has significance to the safety of aviation and the integrity of CASA, and is of national importance.
Other information
I understand that the important and significant nature of this request may involve the CASA Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Department for guidance, and specifically Mr Aleck, in his role as CASA Executive manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.
May I respectfully request that this request be prioritised. I have an upcoming meeting with the CEO of CASA, Ms Pip Spence, and I would very much like to have this information available to me, and also available to her at that meeting.
.
Yours respectfully
Glen Buckley
This Freedom of Information request is to attend to my allegation that CASA has provided false and misleading advice to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Investigation that led to the Ombudsman arriving at the following conclusion’.
“CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”
For complete clarity. As on multiple occasions, CASA has provided false and misleading information to that investigation.
Background to request
In October of 2018 with no prior indication at all, CASA placed restrictions on my CASA issued Air Operator Certificate (AOC) of ten years, which had an immediate and significant impact on the cash flow of my business.
Those restrictions remained in place for 8 months. CASA was notified on multiple occasions in writing throughout the 8 months of the impact of those restrictions, so there can be no pretence that CASA was not fully aware of the impact of those restrictions.
The only reason that those restrictions remained in place for 8 months was because I could not satisfy the sole CASA Employee, as to the wording in my “commercial agreements”. There were no safety issues ever identified by CASA. It was a simple wording issue in contracts.
This was unprecedented that CASA would ever have any involvement in commercial agreements of flight training operators.
The commercial agreement being the document outlining commercial/financial arrangements between my business APTA, and its members. Previously CASA had absolutely no involvement in commercial contracts and matters of operational control were not contained in commercial contracts.
Had I have been able to satisfy that sole CASA employee with regard to the wording in the commercial agreements between APTA and its Members, those restrictions placed on my business by CASA would have been immediately lifted by CASA, and I could have returned to Business as Usual, and minimise the harm caused.
These were the contracts that APTA had used for many years, and had been provided to CASA on multiple occasions throughout those three years.
In a Flight Training Organisation, the “Exposition” is the CASA legislated suite of documents that is required by CASA to outline matters of operational control, not the commercial agreement. CASA was not requesting any change to the Exposition, because CASA was fully satisfied with the Exposition and had approved it, many years prior.
The commercial agreement is a completely non related document, effectively being the contract between the AOC Holder being my business APTA, and its customers. This is in contrast to the CASA approved Operations Manual/Exposition which is effectively the contract between the AOC holder and CASA.
CASA retains copies of the Exposition and audits the Operators compliance with regards to matters of operational control against that CASA approved Exposition.
CASA does not get involved in any way, with commercial agreements, or retain copies of commercial agreements. That is, until it placed these unique and bizarre requirements on Glen Buckley. This is evidenced by the fact that CASA demanded I provide copies of agreements in October 2018, claiming that they didn’t have them. I advised CASA that I had provided them on multiple occasions. Initially CASA denied this but was forced to admit that they had received them, but they had been misplaced.
Until CASA placed the requirement on me to put additional matters of operational control into our commercial agreements, that were additional to, and not to be included in the Exposition, in order to lift the trading restrictions, these two documents had been totally unrelated documents. That was the case throughout the flight training industry, and always had been throughout my 25 years in the industry.
The unique requirement placed on my business by CASA, in order to have trading restrictions lifted, was that additional matters of “operational control” now needed to be outlined in the “commercial agreements”. CASA however refused to be a signatory to those commercial agreements, despite the wording being a requirement stipulated by CASA. The only signatories were APTA and its Members, although it was CASA who needed to be satisfied as to the wording. This was a highly unusual environment to be operating in.
Irrespective, I was always willing and eager to fully comply with CASAs unusual requirements placed on me. I simply needed to know “whose” responsibilities were to be outlined in the commercial arrangements, and “what” responsibilities were to be outlined in the commercial agreements, or in fact any aspect of operational control that CASA identified that I needed to attend to, that was not already attended to in my CASA approved Exposition. The truth is that everything was already in the Exposition.
The fact that CASA could not identify whose or what responsibilities I needed to attend to, made resolution of the situation impossible, hence the trading restrictions remained in place for a staggering 8 months with the matter unresolved. I could not address a problem that CASA could not identify to me.
Every single legislative requirement, procedure, responsibility, and accountability was already specified in that CASA approved Exposition and had been for many years. It had been designed in conjunction with CASA, to CASAs 600 specified requirements, peer reviewed within CASA, approved by CASA, and audited by CASA on multiple occasions over the previous decade.
CASA never identified any deficiencies in my operation, and never requested any changes at all to how we operated or any changes to our Exposition. The entire structure of the business was designed to do exactly what it was doing, and all procedures had been designed for the specific purpose of APTA. The purpose of APTA being to deliver flight training across multiple bases under the one and only authorisation that I held. I was doing what I had been doing for 10 years.
These were new requirements in addition to the legislation, in addition to standard industry practice, in addition to previous CASA requirements, in addition to my Exposition, and in addition to any industry precedent.
The reason for me making this FOI request is because the Ombudsman has advised me that:
“CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”
With 25 years industry experience, I am fully satisfied that that statement is not the truth, and the Ombudsman could only arrive at that deduction based on the provision of false and misleading information by an Employee of CASA. There is no other possible reason the Ombudsman would arrive at that finding.
if the Ombudsman Office has formed the view that CASA required any other operator in the flight training industry, ever, to outline matters of operational control in commercial contracts, as opposed to the Exposition, It is simply not truthful, and would in fact, I suggest be unlawful and in contravention of the regulations as those requirements are mandated to be in the Exposition, as they rightfully should be.
I have contacted a number of industry personnel that had adopted the same business model as I adopted, and they assure me that CASA is not being truthful on this fact, and drawing on my 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry, I am fully satisfied that CASA has never required commercial contracts to outline matters of operational control, as these requirements are contained within the Exposition/Operations Manual as per legislative requirements, and as approved by CASA.
Request under FOI
Under FOI I am requesting CASA provide me with copies of commercial contracts that CASA retains of any operator in the flight training industry.
Specifically, these would be the commercial contracts that CASA has required of other flight training operators, as evidence of operational control in support of the Ombudsman finding that;
“CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”
I am not interested in any of the financial information, signatories to the agreement, and matters of operational control that are already replicated in the CASA approved Exposition, any names, titles, positions, or any information of a sensitive nature.
My expectation is that these documents would be presented to me in a highly redacted state, to maintain appropriate levels of privacy. That will also suit my requirement, as I am only after matters of “operational control” that were addressing CASA requirements in those Agreements.
The information provided to me by CASA could be further redacted. Any information that is contained within the contracts, but replicated in the Exposition could also be redacted, as CASA requirements placed on me were over and above what was already in the Exposition.
The date range that I am requesting is from November 1938, being the date the Department of Civil Aviation was first established, until October 2018, when CASA placed that requirement on my business.
In the highly unlikely event that search by CASA results in more than 5 such documents being produced from the 80-year range, then I will limit my FOI request to only five documents, preferably the most recent five that CASA retain or have been involved in.
If CASA is able to produce those five documents that they have required of other Operators, I request that the 5 provided documents include.
· The Agreements that CASA would hold and have required for both Ballarat Aero Club, and Latrobe Valley Aero Club who had an existing arrangement with previous Flight Training Operators, until the day before they transferred to APTA, when the new and bizarre requirements were placed exclusively on my business. The Ombudsman mistakenly referred to Latrobe valley Aero Club and Ballarat Aero Clubs “authorisations”. It is important to avoid that error. Neither Latrobe Valley Aero Club nor Ballarat Aero Club, had any Authorisations issued by CASA. The Authorisations were mine, and mine only. (APTA)
Of the up to 5 contracts provided under FOI, could you please identify specifically which of those 5 documents have previously been provided to the Ombudsman’s Office as part of the investigation.
No doubt for the Ombudsman to arrive at his determination “CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.” the Ombudsman must have arrived at that determination by requesting CASA to provide evidence of this.
Of the five provided contracts, could CASA also provide a copy of the contract that CASA finally determined was acceptable to CASA. That would be athecontract between APTA and Latrobe Valley Aero Club, that was finalised almost immediately after I left the business, in June 2019.
The significance of the request, and what this information will demonstrate.
Point One- If CASA already held the information they required. Why wouldn’t they share that information with me to allow me to resolve the issue.
I very much doubt that CASA will be able to comply with this FOI request, and there will in fact be no contracts, because the truth is that CASA never required such contracts of any Operator.
However, CASA has maintained, and the Ombudsman has accepted that CASA did require such contracts previously, and the Ombudsman found “CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”
I made multiple requests of CASA throughout the 8 months the trading restrictions remained in place to provide me guidance on what they required as wording in the commercial agreements. CASA could not/or would not provide that guidance.
Inexplicably, with my 25 years flight training industry experience, I was unable to resolve this matter and derive the suitable wording. My task was more difficult, because CASA could not or would not provide me suitable guidance on their requirements.
If CASA is able to produce 5 documents under FOI, then the obvious question is. Why couldn’t CASA provide that same information to Glen Buckley to allow him to fully and immediately resolve the issue and return to Business as Usual and avoid the significant harm caused to so many? If CASA already held the information from previous operators, which was the solution, why wasn’t that made available to Mr Buckley?
If CASA does hold contracts outlining matters of operational control, the entire matter could have been fully resolved in four hours instead of taking 8 months, and still not being resolved.
This would support my allegation that a CASA Employee deliberately frustrated processes to cause harm to me personally.
I have always asserted that members of the CASA Executive management had no intention to resolve the contracts issue. I am fully satisfied that CASA deliberately delayed resolving the contracts issue, and particularly so if CASA claimed that they had previously required contracts of others, and that information was not provided to me.
Point Two- How could CASA hold contracts if they hadn’t previously permitted the structure.
CASA has led the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that what I was doing was an industry first, and that CASA had never previously permitted and approved the identical structure that I adopted, and had never done so. Those assertions are in the initial notification from CASA in October 2018. This is blatantly untrue.
If one accepts CASAs position that CASA had never previously permitted the identical structure, then the obvious question is. How could CASA previously have required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”
The point being that if CASA produces the five agreements that I have requested, then it clearly indicates CASA has previously mislead the Ombudsman Inquiry by leading the Ombudsman to form the view that what I was doing was new and unique and was not standard industry practice with formal CASA approval on every occasion.
Point Three- Was CASA required to provide evidence, or was CASAs “word” sufficient?
I am fully satisfied that throughout the four-year investigation CASA consistently provided false and misleading information to the investigation, and the Investigation placed significant “weighting” on the Agencies “word”, without seeking evidence to support CASAs position.
Considering the Ombudsman’s findings “CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”I would have expected the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office to have required evidence of such contracts by requesting copies of those contracts, rather than solely relying on the “word” of the agency representative.
For this reason, I have asked CASA under this FOI request to clearly identify, if any of the five contracts were provided to the Ombudsman in order for the Ombudsman to arrive at the conclusion that.“CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”
Point Four -Glen Buckley couldn't resolve the matter in 8 months but the new CEO could.
I had tried for 8 months to get the wording in the commercial contracts to the CASA employees satisfaction. That was despite me having 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry. Immediately after the new CEO took over, that CEO was able to provide CASA with an acceptable contract that allowed Latrobe Valley to continue operations.
The new CEO of the business was not a flying instructor and had no experience in the flight training industry. He did hold a pilot licence ,although most of his flying had been outside of Australia.
With his limited experience he resolved the matter in hours, despite the fact that I could not resolve it for 8 months.
Could I also request a copy of the contract that was acceptable to CASA and permitted Latrobe Valley to continue operations?
By having a copy of the contract that was acceptable to CASA in July 2019, it will clearly identify the deficiencies that I could not attend to, or if indeed, they had already been attended to.
Point Five- CASAs alternating narrative
If CASA is to be believed on this fact, then one could logically conclude that CASA could not possibly hold commercial contracts for flight training operators outlining matters of operational control for a structure that apparently hadn’t previously existed, and according to CASA, CASA had not been permitted to exist. If CASA does produce 5 contracts, it will demonstrate that in fact the truth is that CASA had always permitted other Operators to adopt the identical structure that I did, and that would indicate that CASA has been deceptive in representing to the Ombudsman that CASA had never previously permitted the structure.
Point Six- Targeted malice
If I am claiming that I was the victim of targeted malice by a CASA Employee or Employees, and that CASA placed unnecessary restrictions on me, compared to others, it is important that I can demonstrate there were “other” Flight Training Organisations that CASA permitted to operate, in order to allow a comparative assessment to be made.
The fact that “CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA,” indicates that there were in fact other Operators, and will clarify the situation that the Ombudsman could not clarify during the four-year investigation. i.e., was my structure unique, or was it completely standard industry practice adopted throughout the industry with a full CASA approval. Two very different scenarios that until now , and after over four yeras of investigating hasbeen difficult for the Ombudsman to resolve.
Fees
I am requesting that CASA consider waiving any fees on this application for the following reasons.
· If the truth is that CASA has previously provided evidence of contracts to the Ombudsman that information has already been collated and the task is minor in nature.
· The manner in which CASA chose to act on this matter has caused significant commercial harm to me personally, so my financial means are limited, and I request consideration of a waiver.
· This has the potential to impact on the safety of aviation if the nation's safety regulator was found to have provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation, and my request has significance to the safety of aviation and the integrity of CASA, and is of national importance.
Other information
I understand that the important and significant nature of this request may involve the CASA Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Department for guidance, and specifically Mr Aleck, in his role as CASA Executive manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.
May I respectfully request that this request be prioritised. I have an upcoming meeting with the CEO of CASA, Ms Pip Spence, and I would very much like to have this information available to me, and also available to her at that meeting.
.
Yours respectfully
Glen Buckley
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Reply re. FOI request above
CASA Ref: F23/21245
Dear Glen
I acknowledge receipt of your request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982.
CASA received your request on 14 June 2023 and the 30 day statutory period for processing your request commenced from the day after that date. You should therefore expect a decision from us by 14 July 2023. However, the period of 30 days may be extended if we need to consult third parties or for other reasons. We will advise you if this happens.
You will be notified of any charges in relation to your request as soon as possible, before we process any requested documents or impose a final charge.
When we have made a decision about your FOI request, we will send you a letter explaining our decision and your review and appeal rights.
We will contact you using the email address you provided. Please advise if you would prefer us to use an alternative means of contact.
I have summarised your request as follows – (please let me know if I have left anything out):
I am requesting CASA provide me with copies of commercial contracts that CASA retains of any operator in the flight training industry. If more than 5 located, the most recent five that CASA retain or have been involved in.
The Agreements that CASA would hold and have required for both Ballarat Aero Club, and Latrobe Valley Aero Club who had an existing arrangement with previous Flight Training Operators, until the day before they transferred to APTA.
A copy of the contract between APTA and Latrobe Valley Aero Club, that was finalised in or around June 2019.
I am not interested in any of the financial information, signatories to the agreement, and matters of operational control that are already replicated in the CASA approved Exposition, any names, titles, positions, or any information of a sensitive nature.
Date range: 1 November 1938 – 31 October 2018
I will liaise with the relevant CASA Officers to locate the documents in scope and will be in touch in due course.
Kind Regards,
Dear Glen
I acknowledge receipt of your request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982.
CASA received your request on 14 June 2023 and the 30 day statutory period for processing your request commenced from the day after that date. You should therefore expect a decision from us by 14 July 2023. However, the period of 30 days may be extended if we need to consult third parties or for other reasons. We will advise you if this happens.
You will be notified of any charges in relation to your request as soon as possible, before we process any requested documents or impose a final charge.
When we have made a decision about your FOI request, we will send you a letter explaining our decision and your review and appeal rights.
We will contact you using the email address you provided. Please advise if you would prefer us to use an alternative means of contact.
I have summarised your request as follows – (please let me know if I have left anything out):
I am requesting CASA provide me with copies of commercial contracts that CASA retains of any operator in the flight training industry. If more than 5 located, the most recent five that CASA retain or have been involved in.
The Agreements that CASA would hold and have required for both Ballarat Aero Club, and Latrobe Valley Aero Club who had an existing arrangement with previous Flight Training Operators, until the day before they transferred to APTA.
A copy of the contract between APTA and Latrobe Valley Aero Club, that was finalised in or around June 2019.
I am not interested in any of the financial information, signatories to the agreement, and matters of operational control that are already replicated in the CASA approved Exposition, any names, titles, positions, or any information of a sensitive nature.
Date range: 1 November 1938 – 31 October 2018
I will liaise with the relevant CASA Officers to locate the documents in scope and will be in touch in due course.
Kind Regards,
30 days plus and “Kind regards.”
I know it’s an Australian habit to correspond with informality but I find it very annoying, especially when an official government letter starts with ‘Dear Glen’ and ends with ‘Kind regards’.
It’s one thing to be on first name basis on the phone but in the circumstances of CASA’s intolerable, relentless and inexcusable attack on Glen Buckley the habit really grates.
in regard to the Glen Buckley and Clinton McKenzie follow up video the additional point of Shane Carmody’s unjustified attack on Glen Buckley was well made. This was another example of the CASA Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). Carmody’s accusations of assault and stalking were ludicrous considering that CASA presents no evidence or saw fit to institute its own procedures to protect or counter such “stalking” and “assault.”
How despicable can you get? Certainly the facts won’t stand in the way of CASA’s arrogant pursuit of anyone daring to probe or question the probity of its actions.
It’s one thing to be on first name basis on the phone but in the circumstances of CASA’s intolerable, relentless and inexcusable attack on Glen Buckley the habit really grates.
in regard to the Glen Buckley and Clinton McKenzie follow up video the additional point of Shane Carmody’s unjustified attack on Glen Buckley was well made. This was another example of the CASA Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). Carmody’s accusations of assault and stalking were ludicrous considering that CASA presents no evidence or saw fit to institute its own procedures to protect or counter such “stalking” and “assault.”
How despicable can you get? Certainly the facts won’t stand in the way of CASA’s arrogant pursuit of anyone daring to probe or question the probity of its actions.
Last edited by Sandy Reith; 15th Jun 2023 at 03:40. Reason: Contextual
Glen, did you really request FOI from 1938 to 2018?? That will keep them busy for quite a while methinks!
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used Glen’s company a few years ago to get my controlled airspace endorsement and to hire aircraft. I met Glen a few times. I am a former CASA employee. I support Glen. I wish I could help more - sign a petition or something? Cheers.
Last edited by FrankPilot; 15th Jun 2023 at 06:01.