Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA

Old 23rd Nov 2023, 07:00
  #2901 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,234
Received 385 Likes on 194 Posts
Originally Posted by Squawk7700
Is that not what they call in the court “guilty with no conviction” ?
Before a court discharges someone without conviction, the court first finds that the elements of the offence were proved to the requisite standard.

No court has found Glen committed any offence to the requisite standard. The only people who consider him guilty are those who have an opinion that's interesting but not authoritatively conclusive.
Lead Balloon is offline  
The following 4 users liked this post by Lead Balloon:
Old 17th Dec 2023, 02:34
  #2902 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 176
Received 24 Likes on 12 Posts
Wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas Glen. My hope is that 2024 brings this saga to an acceptable end for you and your family. Enjoy your family time and a cold beer.
LAME2 is offline  
The following 8 users liked this post by LAME2:
Old 19th Dec 2023, 19:38
  #2903 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 58
Posts: 1,066
Received 47 Likes on 22 Posts
LAME2 and others

Cheers, very much appreciate the gesture (and the timely bump). A 5 year saga that will obviously continue well into next year i suggest. Refer following post. all the best to everyome on here that has, and continues to support me. Cheers to Sandy, i received your message and will get back to you over the next couple of days. Cheers all, safe trip home at the end of day and throughout the festive season, cheers.
glenb is online now  
Old 19th Dec 2023, 19:40
  #2904 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 58
Posts: 1,066
Received 47 Likes on 22 Posts
Cofrresp[ondence from CASA CEO Pip Spence

Dear Glen



Thank you for your emails of 11, 15 and 17 October and 1 November 2023. I appreciate you taking the time to set out in detail your response to the action points arising from our meeting on 3 October 2023 to discuss the outcome of the Ombudsman’s review.



As we discussed at the outset of our meeting, we stand by our commitment to accept and support the Ombudsman’s findings. While the Ombudsman made no recommendations that would lead to any change of our legal decisions, it found the manner in which we went about communicating and engaging with APTA around a significant change application to add additional temporary bases to its approvals was unfair and not in accordance with our Regulatory Philosophy. We remain committed to accepting the Ombudsman’s conclusions, and that is the context that informs my advice below.
  • I can confirm that consistent with the undertaking I gave you, I have discussed Flight Operations Inspector XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX, his observations from his time in the Melbourne office as part of the Certificate Management Team that had responsibility for oversight of your operations, as well as his view on the prevalence of APTA-like arrangements in the flight training sector of the industry. There is nothing that Nishi said that would change what we discussed with you in October. In particular, it appears that the scale and complexity of the APTA model created significant implementation issues. Bearing in mind that complexity and scale, I am comfortable that the advice CASA provided the Ombudsman prior was accurate. In summary, that advice was that ‘CASA may have been aware of other operators using the types of arrangements being proposed and had taken a more permissive attitude than the relevant law allowed’ and that ‘it appears in hindsight that the relationship between Bairnsdale and LVAC bore similarities to the arrangement proposed between Bairnsdale and APTA.’
  • I have been advised by CASA’s Freedom of Information team that two agreements between APTA and LVAC (one undated, and the other dated 26 November 2019) were released to you on 24 August 2023.
  • You have indicated that you intend to approach the Ombudsman’s office with new evidence. On confirmation from you that this has been submitted, I remain willing to contact the Ombudsman and request it review the new information you have provided.
  • CASA’s position remains that APTA’s exposition alone was insufficient for it to demonstrate operational control over its affiliates. As CASA advised the Ombudsman: CASA may be satisfied that the fundamental operational requirements specified in CASR 141.060 are met by (a) ensuring that relevant arrangements are clearly set out in the contract or agreement; and (b) ensuring that relevant provisions in the contract are not operationally inconsistent with those arrangements. While the arrangements proposed by APTA for its Part 141 operations were unconventional, they are common in AOC operations. APTA held an AOC given it conducted flying training operations under CASR Part 142. There is no legislation that expressly requires AOC holders to provide CASA with copies of contracts where it arranges for some operational functions to be undertaken by a third party. However, the contracts provide the best evidence for CASA to consider whether it can be satisfied that key operational requirements being carried out by the third party are in place and comply with the relevant regulations. In the case of an AOC, CASA may require an applicant for an AOC to provide CASA with documents—including contracts— that are reasonably required by CASA to properly consider an application. Where an AOC is not involved (for instance, CASR Part 141 certificates), a corresponding requirement is contained in Civil Aviation Safety Regulation 11.040.
  • While CASA remains committed to supporting any Act of Grace payment application you elect to pursue, it is a process that you must initiate with the Department of Finance (rather than CASA). Only after an application has been made can your ability to access the Act of Grace mechanism be conclusively determined by the Department of Finance. As I indicated in my email to you, if it would assist, we can follow up with the Department of Finance and get back to you with any guidance they can provide around submitting an application.
  • With respect to our without prejudice and ex gratia basis offer to revisit the offer we made in 2020 in response to a Concerns Notice received following Mr McHeyzer’s email to APTA’s new owner, it is a matter for you whether you wish to obtain legal representation. CASA does not require you to do so. Based on the advice we have received, the maximum offer we are able to make you is $20,000. We have no basis by which we could offer more than this amount, meaning it is CASA’s best and final offer. If you wish to accept $20,000 please let me know and I will have the necessary documents prepared for your review.


Thanks



Pip
glenb is online now  
The following users liked this post:
Old 19th Dec 2023, 22:13
  #2905 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 341
Received 12 Likes on 8 Posts
If you wish to accept $20,000 please let me know and I will have the necessary documents prepared for your review.

they are kidding - right ?
mcoates is offline  
The following 3 users liked this post by mcoates:
Old 19th Dec 2023, 23:02
  #2906 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,559
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Add another three zeros to that and this will be closer to the truth and pain and suffering caused.
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by OZBUSDRIVER:
Old 19th Dec 2023, 23:12
  #2907 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 1,264
Received 287 Likes on 110 Posts
Must be a typo. CASA known for it.
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by Chronic Snoozer:
Old 19th Dec 2023, 23:23
  #2908 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Straya
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by OZBUSDRIVER
Add another three zeros to that and this will be closer to the truth and pain and suffering caused.
CASA undoubtedly sucks. But in post 2873 there is context to this ‘offer’:

Any compensation would relate only to Mr McHeyzer’s 27 August 2019 email and would be wholly separate from any the Act of Grace process.”

So this is only about one small part of Glen’s plight with CASA.
Flaming galah is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 20th Dec 2023, 00:57
  #2909 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Equatorial
Age: 50
Posts: 1,039
Received 106 Likes on 52 Posts
GOFUNDME and lawyers now!
Global Aviator is online now  
The following 2 users liked this post by Global Aviator:
Old 20th Dec 2023, 09:53
  #2910 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: The Rio
Posts: 207
Received 42 Likes on 31 Posts
Reading the Bonza thread on the other forum with CASA approving them using Flair Canadian acft/crew/maintenance and perplexed that that is ok but Glen's things weren't.

Last edited by 10JQKA; 21st Dec 2023 at 05:24.
10JQKA is offline  
The following 3 users liked this post by 10JQKA:
Old 7th Jan 2024, 12:00
  #2911 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 916
Received 19 Likes on 12 Posts
I hope this is your year Glen - I had a beer for you (and a few of your ancestors) over this festive season.

We are still with you Mate.
Bend alot is offline  
The following 5 users liked this post by Bend alot:
Old 14th Jan 2024, 20:32
  #2912 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 58
Posts: 1,066
Received 47 Likes on 22 Posts
Draft correspondence to Ombudsman

Draft removed, finlaised and sent copy in Post # 2915





Last edited by glenb; 15th Jan 2024 at 20:26.
glenb is online now  
Old 14th Jan 2024, 22:38
  #2913 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Equatorial
Age: 50
Posts: 1,039
Received 106 Likes on 52 Posts
Glen, honestly mate why not just get the best lawyers in the country, get the GoFundMe fired up. I’ll defo throw more $$$ into it.

The more I read the more I understand you, it’s personal, you want to beat them on your own terms and get what is rightly yours. I get it I’m the same tenacious prick.

However there also comes a time when ya gotta let dogs out.

I’m sure everyone on these pages would love to see your full legal assault on the institution. Individuals in an organisation destroyed you (yes I’m living vicariously through you as 20 years ago I had my own issues but was not wise enough to know what to do, now it would be different).

I have no doubt through your tenacity and detail that you will eventually win, but at what cost? Plus prob another 5+ years.

The pathetic action of grace offer even fired me up!
Global Aviator is online now  
The following 2 users liked this post by Global Aviator:
Old 14th Jan 2024, 22:56
  #2914 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 176
Received 24 Likes on 12 Posts
I’m with Global Aviator. Hunt down, someone will have a recommendation they can PM you, a decent law firm that understands your plight. Get the ball rolling, it’s been too long.
LAME2 is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by LAME2:
Old 15th Jan 2024, 20:24
  #2915 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 58
Posts: 1,066
Received 47 Likes on 22 Posts
Letter to Ombudsman- finalised and sent

Post #2912 was a draft, which i have now removed, and finalised and the sent copy is below. Only the most minor of changes to the drafty that was in # 291216/01/24



· Commonwealth Ombudsman Reference- 2019-713834

· My Reference- PPRUNE # 2915



To the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.



The Commonwealth Ombudsman Office conducted a 5-year investigation into matter 2019-713834 involving action by CASA that led to the closure of my business with associated significant harm caused

Presumably, at 5 years duration it is one of the lengthiest and most comprehensive investigations ever undertaken by the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.

As the person whose family has been significantly impacted by this matter, it is concerning that after five years, the Ombudsman Office remains unable to resolve the simplest of issues, and the misunderstandings within the Ombudsman’s Office are highly evident.

Those misunderstandings impact substantially on me and my family.

In the latter part of the investigation, once I became aware that significant misunderstandings had developed within the Ombudsman Office, I made multiple requests/pleas to completely withdraw my complaint. You will have those requests on record.

The Ombudsman Office made its own decision to continue with the investigation despite those formal requests by me to fully withdraw my complaint.

Those misunderstandings within the Ombudsman Office that initially raised my concerns, have compounded, and as I had anticipated, they impact my ability to pursue justice and finalise this matter.

Having reviewed the Robodebt Report and most particularly regarding the comments and recommendations that apply to the Ombudsman Office, I have no doubt that there are systemic issues within the Ombudsman Office, and those very same issues have impacted on my matter.

I continue to ask that my complaint be withdrawn and that the findings of the Ombudsman Office be completely withdrawn, so that they cannot be provided to any other Entity or Government Department and used to prevent me seeking justice or an Act of Grace payment.

If the Ombudsman Office will not withdraw the findings, it is essential that where there are gross technical misunderstandings within the Ombudsman Office, that they are acknowledged and publicly corrected, and most especially, because they are so easily corrected, and the impact of those misunderstandings is significant.

Brief summation of the investigation.

The investigation was based around the CASA action that led to the closure of my business of more than a decade, the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA) and my flying school, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT)

The closure was forced by a new and unique requirement that was imposed on me and my business only, by a single CASA Employee. That requirement was not and has never been placed on any other Organisations that operated in an identical structure to me and my business.

I was in effect “targeted” by that single CASA Employee. I am fully satisfied that his decision making was intended to bring harm to me personally, based on existing acrimony between him within CASA, and myself.

That new and unique requirement imposed on my business only, being the requirement that all Personnel operating under my CASA issued Part 141 and part 142 Flying Training Approval must now also be directly employed by the same Company that holds that Approval. I was not permitted to utilise personnel that were employed by another Entity, even in cases where I owned the ‘other’ Entity.

I cannot overemphasize how bizarre and damaging both commercially and reputationally this new and targeted interpretation was.

This application of this new and unique requirement was applied only to my Organisation. It is not a legislative requirement, in fact quite the opposite. The legislation clearly and for obvious reasons does permit a Flying School to utilise personnel that are not Employees of the same Company that holds the CASA issued approval. It always has, and it always will, and that is exactly how the Part 141 and part 142 legislation is written. In fact, the Part 142 legislation is referred to as the “contracted training legislation”.

Not only was this new and unique requirement that was placed on me, not supported in any way, by any legislation, it completely contravenes precedent set by CASA during the previous 25 years of my involvement in the industry in its dealings with all other Operators, with the notable sole exception of mine.

CASA applied that interpretation to my business only and continues to permit all other operators to operate in the same structure that I was not permitted to operate with.

The matter in its entirety is truly outrageous. Unfortunately, during the five-year investigation the Ombudsman Office was also completely unable to clarify whether the structure that I adopted was “new and unusual” or if in fact it was commonplace throughout the industry, and continues to be, only after a CASA approval process.

A truly staggering inability to arrive at clear determinations on the most basic and fundamental facts, and particularly where there is readily available irrefutable evidence to make a determination.

I note that in correspondence from the Ombudsman the use of the terminology, “CASA advised….”, indicating that supporting evidence was not required, and CASA assertions were accepted at face value, even in situations they were clearly controversial.

At this stage, I am not seeking any comment against the “background” information provided above, as that is not the purpose of this correspondence. It is provided merely as background information.

I have included my Local MP, Carina Garland in this correspondence, and the information above will ensure that she remains fully briefed on this matter, as she has been throughout.

Minister King has specifically directed my Local MP, Carina Garland not to assist me with this matter, and that direction by a Government Minister further heightens my concerns.

As a constituent of the Electorate of Chisholm, and with concerns as to why the Minister responsible for CASA would direct an MP not to assist a Constituent in such a significant matter, I have included other recipients in this correspondence.

I seek to clarify a simple single issue that is critical to this matter. A matter that the Ombudsman office has been unable to clarify throughout the five years. A matter that I have made multiple requests of the Ombudsman Office to address, yet the Office seems resistant to address this simple to resolve, but critical matter.

My reasonable assumption is that the Ombudsman office is affording the Agency a level of “protection” that is more than the public should reasonably expect of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office.

Many of the findings from the Robodebt investigation are relevant to my matter and particularly the recommendation that a statutory obligation be placed on Government employees to use their best endeavours in assisting an Ombudsman investigation.

In my own matter that has been the subject of a five-year investigation, I am fully satisfied that a senior executive within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has repeatedly and deliberately provided false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.

The Robodebt investigation also identified that despite the Ombudsman Office having significant power to look behind the assertions being made by the Government Department, there was a tendency to not use those powers, and to accept assertions made by the Agency at face value, without the requirement to call on evidence in support of those assertions.

This was very much my experience with the Ombudsman office and to be perfectly frank, I felt that at times there was very little appetite to arrive at the truth, and an aversion to seeking evidence where it was readily available, and that leads me to the purpose of this correspondence.

I feel that the significance of this request may be somewhat lost on the Ombudsman office, nevertheless this request is critical to this matter in its entirety, and I believe that I am fully entitled to have this significant misunderstanding fully and clearly resolved, to allow me to progress this matter.

Throughout the five-year investigation my position was that there was only ever one flying school. That being APTA, the flying school that I owned and operated. That flying school was a Registered Training Organisation and a CASA approved flying school holding both categories of flight training i.e. both a Part 141 Approval and a Part 142 Approval.

There were no other ‘flying schools” involved in this matter.

The Ombudsman Office in correspondence has obviously formed the opinion that there are multiple flying schools, when in fact there is only one flying school and that being APTA. In correspondence received from the Ombudsman office it mentions the other Entities approvals and authorisations, as though they held a flying school approval, when in fact there were none.

This is a significant misunderstanding within the Ombudsman’s office. Whether it is based on false and misleading information, or whether it is based on significant but wildly inaccurate assumptions within the Ombudsman Office, I do not know, and that determination is best left to the Ombudsman office.

The purpose of this correspondence is not to find out how the inaccuracy developed but the purpose of this correspondence is to have it clearly, concisely and finally fully resolved, so that there can be no misunderstanding.

The Ombudsman office accepted that there were multiple flying schools each with their own Authorisations, and the Ombudsman refers to those other Entities training ability and the other Entities CASA issued Authorisations and Approvals.

A gross technical error on behalf of the Ombudsman, because quite simply. There are none.

Of the Entities involved in this matter only APTA was a flying school. Only APTA held Approvals or flying school Authorisations to deliver Flight Training. There were no others. There was only one flying school, only one CASA issued Part 141/142 Approval. There was only APTAs legislative required Key Personnel, only APTAs Approval, only APTAs Authorisation, only APTA courses and syllabi, only APTAs Registered Training Organisation, only APTAs Safety department, only APTA had the qualified personnel, only APTA had all aircraft inducted into its system there were only APTa policies, procedures and safety systems etc etc etc

Those other “Entities” were no more a flying school, than you as the reader of this correspondence, are a flying school. It is a “black and white matter”, and there should be no confusion. With all due respect to them, they literally would be unwilling and totally unable to operate a flying school, as CASA well knows.

If the Ombudsman Office is of the opinion that there were other Approvals and Authorisations in order for any of the other entities to operate as a flying school, and I maintain that in fact there were no other approvals or Authorisations, I call on the Ombudsman Office to nominate those Approvals held.

An entirely reasonable request, as I am sure you will concur.

The only holder of any approvals or Authorisations was APTA alone with CASA ARN 759217 and a CASA issued Part 141 and 142 .

It is not and should not be a matter that causes any confusion whatsoever within the Ombudsman Office.

The Entities that were not flying schools and who approached me to deliver flight training under my CASA issued Part 141/142 flying training approval at their respective airports, were not ‘flying schools. The Entities that approached me to deliver flying training on their behalf were”

· Melbourne Flight Training

· Learn to Fly

· AVIA

· AV8

· Latrobe Valley aeroclub

· Whitestar aviation

· Simjet

· Ballarat Aero Club

· ARC Aviation

I should point out at this stage that I have already made an FOI request of CASA, and received the required information. I know the clear and correct answer and cannot comprehend how so many of these “misunderstandings” developed in this investigation. If the Ombudsman remains unable to address this issue, please advise me and I will provide you with my FOI response that brings clarity to this matter, although my hope is that the Ombudsman can initiate their own well-intentioned process rather than rely on me.

From my own experience the Ombudsman office demonstrated a resistance to seeking evidence where evidence was readily available. This occurred frequently on matters where a request for evidence would bring clarity to a matter which in turn could potentially cause harm to the Government Agency.

There were no active Part 141 or Part 142 Authorisations, for any of those Organisations. I have put far too much time in trying to correct information that CASA feeds to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman accepts at face value.

For complete clarity. These Entities approached me to deliver flight training because they couldn’t deliver flying training. If they could deliver flying training, they would be a flying school in their own right,, and therefore a business competitor to APTA

None of these Entities were a Flying School. None could deliver flight training because they did not have a CASA Part 141 or 142 Approval. Each of those Entities was no more a flying school than you, as the reader, and as CASA well knows.

As CASA only issues those Part 141/142 Approvals after a lengthy and complex process, CASA would be fully aware that there is only one flying school involved in this matter. Please be assured that the confusion exists only within the Ombudsman Office on this fundamental matter.

For an entity to become a Flying School it’s a complicated, costly, and burdensome process. The school would have to make an application to CASA in order to be approved.

There are a number of ways that the Ombudsman office could almost immediately fully resolve this matter, as it requires any one of these very simple questions.

If CASA, or the Ombudsman asserts that there were any other Flight Training Organisations with any active approvals then , CASA would be able to immediately provide:

· The Aviation Reference Number (ARN) for the Organisation, and the associated active Part 141 or 142 Approvals

· The flying school would have a CASA issued certificate to verify those active Authorisations and Approvals.

· The flying school would have the CASA mandated Key Personnel for the Flying School i.e. Chief Flying instructor/ Head of Operations. Safety Manager, CASA approved CEO, and CASA would be able to name those Key personnel.

· They would be required to have a CASA Approved Operations Manual/ Exposition that CASA would hold on file, containing procedures, syllabi, safety management etc.

· They would have aircraft inducted into that flying school, and CASA would hold that information on record.

· CASA would hold on file, emails indicating some level of communications, oversight, and engagement with those Entities, as would be expected if they were a flying school.

For CASA to lead the Ombudsman to believe, and for the Ombudsman Office to believe and accept that each of these Entities was a flying school that could deliver flight training is incredulous, it really is.

If The Ombudsman has accepted that these Entities were a flying school, at any time with their own Approvals and Authorisations, it seems entirely reasonable that I call on the Ombudsman to identify which of those Entities held either a Part 141 or 142 Approval.

If I am grossly mistaken and any of those Entities were a “flying school” with an active 141 or 142 CASA approved active Flying School, and able to deliver flight training then I have been grossly mistaken.

I would have a gross misunderstanding of this entire matter, I would be mistaken, and I would have inadvertently but substantially provided the Ombudsman Office with grossly inaccurate information throughout this matter, although not with bad intent. The information that I have provided would clearly be false and misleading.

You will appreciate that it is very important going forward to have this clearly and concisely clarified.

Thankyou in anticipation of clearly confirming the position of the Ombudsman’s office as to how many Entities were approved to deliver Part 141/142 training.

Was there only one, that being APTA, or were there multiple Flying Schools.

I welcome any contact by any means including telephone, if you wish to clarify any aspects of this request.

Respectfully
Glen Buckley
glenb is online now  
Old 15th Jan 2024, 20:53
  #2916 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Victoria Australia
Age: 82
Posts: 292
Received 71 Likes on 34 Posts
The Waiting Game, and All in Together this Fine Weather

Waiting for the independent bodies of CASA or an Ombudsman to admit error and correct same is expecting the whole of the Public Sector to renounce its power, pre-eminence and the great salaries that are part and parcel of the Canberra bureaucratic juggernaut.

The unjustified and forlorn hopefulness that all of governments ills can be solved by the creation of independent (monopoly) Commonwealth corporations or commissions is very evident after years of this experimenting away from Ministerial and Departmental responsibility. The latter is about democratic accountability and the link between government and citizens.

Former Victorian Premier Henry Bolte was correct about the Ombudsman concept, “it will take away from the duties of Members of Parliament.”

Glen has piled on the pressure but without very strong political backing the courts are surely the only viable option. And that political change can be caused by court action because of the publicity it can engender.
Sandy Reith is offline  
The following 3 users liked this post by Sandy Reith:
Old 15th Jan 2024, 21:47
  #2917 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 459
Received 250 Likes on 48 Posts
Waiting for the independent bodies of CASA or an Ombudsman to admit error and correct same is expecting the whole of the Public Sector to renounce its power, pre-eminence and the great salaries that are part and parcel of the Canberra bureaucratic juggernaut.
Correct.

They say the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.

The more I read the more I understand you, it’s personal, you want to beat them on your own terms
That’s what this whole saga boils down to. There’s gofundme plus legal action available here, but the problem is Glen wants to be seen to have been right.

Until pride gets shelved, this train wreck of long letters demanding justice followed by government departments ducking and weaving and hiding behind each other will inevitably continue.
Slippery_Pete is offline  
The following 5 users liked this post by Slippery_Pete:
Old 16th Jan 2024, 00:46
  #2918 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Victoria Australia
Age: 82
Posts: 292
Received 71 Likes on 34 Posts
Quote Slippery Pete:- “..but the problem is Glen wants to be seen to have been right.

Until pride gets shelved, this train wreck of long letters demanding justice…”

With respect I think this has elements that we might agree but I think an over simplification. The whole saga is not a problem of Glen’s making and all his efforts are fighting for the rights of us all. He is absolutely right to pursue CASA in his own manner and our support should be unwavering. And it’s easy to say take them to court but that is a daunting task for anyone and brings with it a lot of stress due to the uncertainties, hard work and great expenses.
.
Sandy Reith is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by Sandy Reith:
Old 16th Jan 2024, 01:52
  #2919 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Equatorial
Age: 50
Posts: 1,039
Received 106 Likes on 52 Posts
Sandy,

I agree but you can remove the ‘expense’ from that statement. From the support I see here and how quickly the first crowdfunding went, I don’t think it would take long to build up the coffers.

Completely unrelated but Aussie Pilots finally seem to have had enough, I’m referring to the fantastic work the Network Aviation guys are doing.

Until CASA have to answer in court Glen will constantly be on the back foot. Glen I think what you have done is fantastic, meticulous and on point. However you go to the doc when ya sick, ya go to a lawyer when well ya need lawerying!

We are behind you.
Global Aviator is online now  
The following 5 users liked this post by Global Aviator:
Old 22nd Feb 2024, 20:29
  #2920 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 58
Posts: 1,066
Received 47 Likes on 22 Posts
Letter to Carina Garland MP Chisholm-DRAFT ONLY 1 of 2

Folks this tedious matter drags on for over 5 years, appreciate the patience and the support. I know that many role their eyes when I continue to bang my head aginst a wall. I remain convinced that ethics will prevail. Naively perhaps.
This entire matter is now in a different arena, and has very little to do with CASA going forward. It really is legal and/or political now, hence this draft latter which will be finalised over the weekend, and presented personally to Carina Garlands Office on Monday.

· Original Copy presented to the Office of Carina Garland, MP Chisholm on 26/02/24.

· Email sent to Carina Garland MP Chisholm, and other listed recipients 26/02/24.





26/02/2023



Dear Dr. Carina Garland MP for the Electorate of Chisholm.

Other pertinent recipients:

Member MP

· Mr Adam Bandt MP

· Mr Stephen Bates MP

· Mr Max Chandler-Mather MP

· Mr Russell Broadbent MP

· Ms. Kate Chaney MP

· Ms. Zoe Daniel MP

· Hon Andrew Gee

· Dr Helen Haines MP

· Ms. Dai Le MP

· Dr. Monique Ryan MP

· Dr Sophie Scamps MP

· Ms. Allegra Spender MP

· Ms. Zali Steggall OAM MP

· Ms. Kylea Tink MP

· Mr. Andrew Wilkie MP

· Senator David Pocock

· Senator Lidia Thorpe

· Senator David Van

· Senator Pauline Hanson

· Senator Jacqui Lambie

· Senator Nick McKim

· Senator David Willmer

· Senator Janet Rice

· Senator Malcolm Roberts

· Senator Tammy Tyrell

· Senator David van

· Senator Larissa Waters

· Senator Peter Whish-Wilson





My name is Glen Buckley, a 59-year resident of the Electorate of Chisholm. An Electorate that four generations of my family have lived in.

As my Local MP, Ms Garland you have an expert knowledge of my matter, as I have kept you fully updated since you won the Seat of Chisholm at the last election. I have also met with you, as has my wife, and on more than one occasion. I have kept you constantly updated by email since those meetings.

I have previously extended multiple invitations to continue to make myself fully available to meet with you at your local Electorate Office in Chisholm, or in your Canberra Office, as best suits you, at any time you feel you require an update. It is crucial that you remain fully informed, as you have been to date, and that you can in turn, ensure Minister King remains fully informed, as presumably Minister King has been to date.

I acknowledge that the CASA Board is also required to keep Minister King informed and I make that assumption based on CASAs own Statement of Intent, where it states:

“CASA will promptly alert Minister King and the Secretary of the Department of any event or issue that may materially impact CASAs operations. CASA will also advise Minister King of any submissions, major media releases or speeches and other information which the Government is accountable to the Parliament.”

My allegations are substantive. If I was found to be making these statements in a vindictive or vexatious maner, I fully understand that I would potentially be subject to criminal, and/or civil action.

These are matters of aviation safety, I am speaking the truth, and it is in the public interest.

As you are fully aware my allegations of

· Providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation, by senior members of the CASA Executive and

· Misfeasance in public office against CASAs second most senior, and the longest serving member of the CASA Executive Management, Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Manager for Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs,

are allegations that are substantial and no doubt the CASA Board would be compelled to ensure the Minister is fully briefed.

My intention is to attract media attention to this matter and that should further compel you to ensure that you remain fully conversant with the matter as you are and ensure that relevant persons are kept fully up to date. I have included some media outlets in this email. I have taken this action because the actions of your Office leave me with concerns that there is an attempt to cover up this matter.

These allegations of misconduct cannot continue to be “swept under the carpet”, and I have a reasonable expectation that Minister King is aware that those two allegations exist and has been kept fully informed by the CASA Board, and by your Office. This is a matter that I will continue to pursue, with widespread support of the General Aviation Industry.

You will be aware of two Pilot forums being Aunty Pru and Pprune. The latter has had over 1.000.000 views and thousands of comments. I understand that the Aunty Pru site also regularly updates your office on mine and other aviation matters.

For that reason, and as a lifelong resident of your Electorate, may I request of you as a Constituent, that your Office ensure that Minister King is aware of, and has been provided a copy of this correspondence by your Office.

My previous correspondence to Minister King on these allegations has not been responded to by her Office, therefore I am seeking a confirmation specifically from your Office, that Minister King is personally aware and has considered this correspondence. I do not require any response from Minister King at this stage, other than confirmation from your Office that it has been provided to her and bought personally to her attention, as the Minister responsible for CASA.

If for any reason your Office is unwilling and/or unable to facilitate that request, could you please clearly advise me of such.

I recently received further documents obtained under Freedom of Information (FOI), and those documents leave me in no doubt at all that CASA has provided false and misleading information to that Commonwealth Ombudsman Investigation.

The provision of false and misleading information has been provided by Dr Jonathan Aleck the CASA Executive Manager of Legal International and Regulatory Affairs and I have increasing concerns that false and misleading information may have also been provided by the Office of the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC), although the heavily redacted nature of the documents makes that difficult to confirm at this stage.

If the Office of the CASA ICC has not provided false and misleading information, that Office has as a minimum, facilitated the provision of false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation, and had an awareness that false and misleading information was being provided.

Recent documentation obtained by me under FOI, has raised concerns that the CEO of CASA has also been complicit in the provision of false and misleading information. specifically with regards to how long I had been operating in the CASA approved structure that I was operating with.

On this specific point regarding the involvement of the CASA CEO, and her knowledge of the provision of false and misleading information, I will address that topic after receiving further documentation under FOI. A specific allegation against the CEO of CASA is not the purpose of this correspondence but will be addressed at the appropriate time, and as always, you will be provided with a copy of that correspondence.

I acknowledge that the Ombudsman Office will maintain the position that CASA has not provided false and misleading information.

The point of false and misleading information is, that it is not recognised as false and misleading information. The task of the provider of false and misleading information is made easier if the recipient requires a low threshold of evidence or chooses not to seek evidence when it is readily available.

This low threshold of evidence also highlights again deficiencies within the Ombudsman Office that reaffirm the same findings as the Robodebt Inquiry, and these are significant matters, that cannot continue to be ignored i.e. accepting information at “face value” rather than seeking supporting evidence when it is clearly available.

Of perhaps more concern is the Ombudsman’s Office considered avoidance to seek evidence that may bring harm to the Government Agency, even when that evidence is abundant and readily available.

Under FOI in have obtained heavily redacted documents although if I may quote from correspondence between the Ombudsman and the CEO of CASA where the Ombudsman Office has scratched the surface at least of identifying that CASA is not being as forthcoming as they are obligated to be, and I quote from that correspondence where the Ombudsman Office states;

“while CASA has not denied its knowledge of Mr Buckleys arrangements for APTA, we feel it has been reluctant to acknowledge the extent of its knowledge of the model to the Office, including that other Operators may have been using a similar model……had CASA been more forthcoming in acknowledging to the Office the more permissive stance it seemed to have taken in allowing Operators to share their Authorisations prior to October 2018, it would have allowed the Office a better understanding of the situation.”

Whilst the Ombudsman Office appears to have almost let that slip by with a rather “wet lettuce” approach which is concerning, it does further indicate that Mr Jonathan Aleck, his direct senior being the CASA CEO, and the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner have let things “slip” through to the Ombudsman that perhaps were not truthful.

In fact, this presents one of my major challenges and another reason that I am reaching out to make a final request for your assistance.

If the Ombudsman has identified that CASA Employees have apparently misled or as the Ombudsman politely puts it, been ‘reluctant”, and “not forthcoming” in providing information to the Ombudsman Office, it is likely that behaviour would be replicated in a Court of Law, therefore preventing me from seeking justice.

CASA would be obligated, as it is, to conduct itself as a model litigant. I should not need to prove things to be true that the CASA CEO, The CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner and the CASA Executive manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs know to be true.

As you are aware,I have past CASA Employees from senior positions within CASA that have approached me, and offered to come forward and expose this matter, simply by “telling the truth”. It is significant. The matter attends to serious misconduct at the highest levels within CASA, and potentially to the Office of the CEO.

It also potentially involves your Office and the Office of Minister King, although the purpose of this correspondence is not to formally make those allegations at this stage, and I await your response, and an upcoming FOI request before I proceed.

For the record I must state that I made two ex CASA employees available to meet with you. “Witnesses’ who would both be Australia’s most qualified ex CASA Employees to address this matter and bring almost immediate truth and clarity to this matter. Both your Office and the Ombudsman are unwilling to accept that offer. You will appreciate my concern that “other forces are at play” here.

I am now seeking the appropriate forum, to initially introduce at least those two past CASA Employee’s to assist in exposing this matter. Please be assured that I have access to a significant number of past CASA employees, that have offered to make themselves available. Not for the purposes of causing mischief, but to try and bring about improvement and good governance to CASA. These are significant matters, that cannot continue to be covered up.

I will use this opportunity to provide a brief chronology regarding your involvement as my Local MP and the Member for Chisholm to date.

· Prior to the last Election, I met you, and you gave me your personal assurance, if you were to win the Seat of Chisholm from the Liberal incumbent that you would assist me and my family in my allegation of “misfeasance in public office” against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory affairs, and the allegation that CASA was “providing false and misleading information” to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation



· Based on your assurances, in the lead up to the election, I was very active with the assistance of members of the Electorate of Chisholm. I distributed many thousands of leaflets in the Electorate calling for a change of representation to yourself. It was not a Liberal/Labor argument, but rather I was calling for a move towards integrity in Government, and at the time, I felt the Labor Party, and you personally, best represented that. A decision that I obviously regret now,



· You went on to win the Seat of Chisholm on 21/05/22.



· Over the next 6 months I made multiple requests of your Office asking you to meet the commitment that you gave me prior to the Election and meet with my family. Those multiple requests went unanswered by your Office.



· On 16/11/22, after multiple requests and visits to your Office over the 6 months trying to secure an appointment with you, I finally obtained a meeting with you, and at that meeting occurred on 16/11/22, you led my wife and I to believe that you would actively investigate this matter and help us as residents of your Electorate.



· I waited 4 months, without hearing anything at all from you. It became apparent that my matter was not high on your agenda, and presumably you had more important matters to attend to. I sent a follow up email to ascertain if there had been any developments with regards to your offer to assist me in my most serious of allegations of misfeasance in public office and providing false and misleading information to an Ombudsman investigation.



· On 28/03/.23, I received correspondence from your Office which simply and dismissively read.

“Hi Glen, Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. As agreed, we have raised your case directly with Minister Kings Office and they have advised that we are unable to assist further with this matter. I’m sorry we don’t have better news.”

That dismissive response from you as my MP was heart breaking. You were well aware of the impact that this matter had on three generations of my family, all residents of your Electorate, as well as businesses and employees that were dependent on me. You were aware that my wife and I had lost absolutely everything including our family home.

Eventually after the enormous toll that Mr Alecks actions and decisions had on me and my family, I fell into a deep depression, made an attempt on my own life, very shortly afterv receiving your dismissive correspondence and ended up in a psychiatric hospital.

The impact of Mr Alecks actions and decisions was targeted, it was personal, and it was entirely unnecessary. Entirely.

You were aware that I was firmly of the view that Mr Jonathan Aleck had acted with targeted malice towards me, and caused significant harm, you were aware of the substantive nature of my allegations,

Whilst I don’t believe that my 6 decades in the Electorate entitles me to any higher level of assistance than any other Constituent. My family believes we were entitled to at least your best endeavours, which we clearly feel have not been met, and I am forced to question your willingness and ability to assist your Constituents, in matters that they are entitled to your assistance with.

As a Constituent of your Electorate, you have completely failed me, and my family, and to be frank, I question your genuine commitment to your constituents, and your reversal of position leads me to question your integrity.

I am compelled to move forward on this matter because it involves misconduct at the highest levels within the Executive Management of CASA. A most significant and important Government Department. I am not the only one raising allegations against Mr Jonathan Aleck, but as with mine, all attempts are generally covered up by CASA.

I continue to make myself available to meet with you face to face and update you on any aspects to ensure you can remain fully abreast of this matter.

I know that a person with some exposure to the world of politics, Mr Sandy Reith wrote to you encouraging you to personally make yourself aware of the “salient features of this case”, and a copy of that correspondence that was sent to you follows.

“Dear Dr. Carina Garland,


In regard to your officer Jarrod Panther’s reply on your behalf to Glen Buckley, I request that you personally make yourself familiar with the salient features of his case.

I support Glen’s pursuit of justice, he has had wrong treatment at the hands of CASA and its disgraceful treatment of him must be redressed.

It is the duty of a Parliamentary representative to pursue the claim of a constituent. Otherwise, why have single member constituent representatives? This is a fundamental element of our democratic system.

I vigorously implore you to look again at an obvious injustice that has been perpetrated against Glen Buckley and his well-crafted flying training organisation which assisted smaller flying schools and aero clubs to maintain their flying training abilities in the face of a new and far more complex environment of rules, compared to regulations and procedures than pertained in the past (and nothing like the workable system that applies in the USA).

Without the involvement of MPs who are willing to step up and truly represent their constituents at an individual level we deny the basis of single member representatives and responsible government.

Kind regards, and always ready to engage or answer your questions.

Sandy Reith”




The point of mentioning that correspondence is that it reinforces the fact that you that you have received correspondence on this matter from a third Party, and my hope is that you heeded that advice rather than facilitate a cover up of the matter, and that you have ensured you are fully aware of the “salient features” of this case.


glenb is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.