Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Thread Starter
Dear Craig Martin
Dear Mr Craig Martin, Dr Aleck, and Mr Anthony Mathews,
Please find below my concerns regarding potential breaches of Administrative Law and Procedural Fairness regarding the audit of the Latrobe Valley Base.
Associated documents
My understanding is that CASA procedures state that the onsite exit meeting is required to identify all raised issues i.e. no hidden surprises.
We elected to rectify the minor administrative issue immediately in anticipation of receiving the report, which never came. Our assumption was that as the matters were so minor, CASA may have elected not to issue a written report.
What did arrive however on 23/10/18, was a letter indicating that the entire operation was to be potentially shut down in 7 days, and the CASA Region Manager identified that the Latrobe Valley audit results were used as the basis of that determination.
I identified that this seemed excessive in light of such a minor matter being identified, and a meeting with CASA personnel was arranged in the CASA Regional Office at Melbourne on 18/11/18.
At that meeting the CASA Executive Manager queried the CASA Region Manager as to the nature of the audit, and the Region Manager clearly identified it as a level 2 audit (second highest level).
The Regional Manager at that meeting, expressed the CASA concern that there were incorrect and outdated Latrobe Valley forms everywhere. Interestingly that was a new topic not raised at the verbal debrief on site at LTV on the day, and that complaint did not resurface in the subsequently produced audit results. I was concerned by the everchanging narrative.
The CASA Executive Manager asked the Region Manager for a copy of the audit results. It became immediately obvious that CASA had omitted to provide us with the audit result, despite it being the basis of CASAs determination that APTA would potentially be directed to cease operations. It then became obvious that the audit results had not been completed, and the CASA Executive Manager directed the Region Manager to get his staff to prepare those results over the weekend and provide them to me early the following week.
Those “undated” audit results were subsequently provided. They were undated and were not in the standard format that audit results would normally be provided. It is important to note that these results were written up and provided almost 3 months after the original audit date. I was surprised to see that those audit results were undated.
On production of these notes written up, well after the event, a number of new allegations were raised. These included allegations of breaches of
CASR 141.310, CASR 142.390, CASR 117, CASR 141.260, and CASR 142.340.
I was perplexed as to how completely new allegations could arise, so long after the audit. I felt that was a breach of procedural fairness and administrative law. A number of requests were made by me to obtain further information to resolve these unfounded allegations. CASA repeatedly ignored all my requests. I believe the reason CASA refused to respond despite numerous requests, is because they were false allegations. I was confident that CASA would not be able to support them. The new allegations were substantive in nature, but there was no supporting evidence.
On 20/11/18, in the contents of an email, Mr David Jones, the CASA Region Manager stated that “the assessment of the Latrobe Valley Aero Club was used as the basis of seeking CASA legal advice…” I question how the audit results can be used by CASA to shut down my operation without me having had the “right of reply”. This appeared to be a breach of my rights under Administrative law and procedural fairness.
On 28/11/18,The Regional Manager now raises completely new allegations and substantial allegations that differ to the original allegations made on site at Ballarat and Latrobe , which differed to the allegations made at our meeting, which differed to the allegations made in writing. The new allegations were about flight and duty times, and in an email he stated; “These anomalies should be known by Ermin (as the APTA HOO) as there were problems identified with the FSM system and Flight and Duty (F&D) management, in particular associated to the F&D exceedances”.
On receipt of that email I immediately knew that it was a false statement and that it should be known to be untruthful at the time of writing. Despite numerous requests to have those allegations substantiated with any evidence, none will be forthcoming as it was a blatant untruth. My concerns being that once again it appeared the Regional Manager was trying to “paint a picture.” He also cast aspersions on my HOO by stating “should be known by Ermin”. CASA had not sent any audit results, so how could he possibly know. The deficiency was on CASAs behalf, not ours!
I complained to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner who initiated an investigation. On completion of the ICC investigation he wrote back to me and included the following statement “there’s no record of the documents I would expect to see if a level 2 had been commenced in CASAs Sky Sentinel surveillance database….”
This seemed absurd to me, so I made a Freedom of Information Request to obtain those documents so that I could attend to CASAs false and unsubstantiated allegations. On 21/12/19 I received the response to my FOI request and was provided with over 7 pages of completely redacted results.
You will appreciate my confusion
CASA identify that they have conducted a level 2 audit, and used those results as the basis for action taken against APTA.
CASA then identify that in fact the audit results were not written up, and they were not provided to me. CASA undertake to provide me with post written audit notes, which bore no resemblance to the initial on site verbal report.
I ask for the original results, and the ICC has informed me that nothing was initiated, although when I make a claim under FOI, I am provided with over 7 pages of redacted results. Quite simply, it appeared that elements within CASA had been untruthful in their engagement with me.
CASA have consistently and repeatedly ignored all requests for the specifics of the breech. I am strongly of the opinion that they cannot be substantiated, and therefore no matter how many requests I make, they will never be able to address the outstanding allegations.
I am seeking an explanation to this process, because it appears to me that there were significant breaches of CASA procedures, and I feel that the personnel I was dealing with were not acting with good intent.
Please find below my concerns regarding potential breaches of Administrative Law and Procedural Fairness regarding the audit of the Latrobe Valley Base.
Associated documents
- Appendix A- Initial notification of intention to shut APTAs operations down.
- Appendix B- Undated audit results provided almost 3 months after audit.
- Appendix C- Audit notes obtained under FOI. The ICC has advised that these notes do not exist, and that no audit was, or results were in CASAs records.
- Appendix D- Rejection letter of my appeal to obtain audit results.
- Appendix E- Link to CASA Surveillance Manual.
- https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul...nce-manual.pdf
- Appendix F- Link to CASA Enforcement Manual
- https://www.casa.gov.au/publications...rcement-manual
My understanding is that CASA procedures state that the onsite exit meeting is required to identify all raised issues i.e. no hidden surprises.
We elected to rectify the minor administrative issue immediately in anticipation of receiving the report, which never came. Our assumption was that as the matters were so minor, CASA may have elected not to issue a written report.
What did arrive however on 23/10/18, was a letter indicating that the entire operation was to be potentially shut down in 7 days, and the CASA Region Manager identified that the Latrobe Valley audit results were used as the basis of that determination.
I identified that this seemed excessive in light of such a minor matter being identified, and a meeting with CASA personnel was arranged in the CASA Regional Office at Melbourne on 18/11/18.
At that meeting the CASA Executive Manager queried the CASA Region Manager as to the nature of the audit, and the Region Manager clearly identified it as a level 2 audit (second highest level).
The Regional Manager at that meeting, expressed the CASA concern that there were incorrect and outdated Latrobe Valley forms everywhere. Interestingly that was a new topic not raised at the verbal debrief on site at LTV on the day, and that complaint did not resurface in the subsequently produced audit results. I was concerned by the everchanging narrative.
The CASA Executive Manager asked the Region Manager for a copy of the audit results. It became immediately obvious that CASA had omitted to provide us with the audit result, despite it being the basis of CASAs determination that APTA would potentially be directed to cease operations. It then became obvious that the audit results had not been completed, and the CASA Executive Manager directed the Region Manager to get his staff to prepare those results over the weekend and provide them to me early the following week.
Those “undated” audit results were subsequently provided. They were undated and were not in the standard format that audit results would normally be provided. It is important to note that these results were written up and provided almost 3 months after the original audit date. I was surprised to see that those audit results were undated.
On production of these notes written up, well after the event, a number of new allegations were raised. These included allegations of breaches of
CASR 141.310, CASR 142.390, CASR 117, CASR 141.260, and CASR 142.340.
I was perplexed as to how completely new allegations could arise, so long after the audit. I felt that was a breach of procedural fairness and administrative law. A number of requests were made by me to obtain further information to resolve these unfounded allegations. CASA repeatedly ignored all my requests. I believe the reason CASA refused to respond despite numerous requests, is because they were false allegations. I was confident that CASA would not be able to support them. The new allegations were substantive in nature, but there was no supporting evidence.
On 20/11/18, in the contents of an email, Mr David Jones, the CASA Region Manager stated that “the assessment of the Latrobe Valley Aero Club was used as the basis of seeking CASA legal advice…” I question how the audit results can be used by CASA to shut down my operation without me having had the “right of reply”. This appeared to be a breach of my rights under Administrative law and procedural fairness.
On 28/11/18,The Regional Manager now raises completely new allegations and substantial allegations that differ to the original allegations made on site at Ballarat and Latrobe , which differed to the allegations made at our meeting, which differed to the allegations made in writing. The new allegations were about flight and duty times, and in an email he stated; “These anomalies should be known by Ermin (as the APTA HOO) as there were problems identified with the FSM system and Flight and Duty (F&D) management, in particular associated to the F&D exceedances”.
On receipt of that email I immediately knew that it was a false statement and that it should be known to be untruthful at the time of writing. Despite numerous requests to have those allegations substantiated with any evidence, none will be forthcoming as it was a blatant untruth. My concerns being that once again it appeared the Regional Manager was trying to “paint a picture.” He also cast aspersions on my HOO by stating “should be known by Ermin”. CASA had not sent any audit results, so how could he possibly know. The deficiency was on CASAs behalf, not ours!
I complained to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner who initiated an investigation. On completion of the ICC investigation he wrote back to me and included the following statement “there’s no record of the documents I would expect to see if a level 2 had been commenced in CASAs Sky Sentinel surveillance database….”
This seemed absurd to me, so I made a Freedom of Information Request to obtain those documents so that I could attend to CASAs false and unsubstantiated allegations. On 21/12/19 I received the response to my FOI request and was provided with over 7 pages of completely redacted results.
You will appreciate my confusion
CASA identify that they have conducted a level 2 audit, and used those results as the basis for action taken against APTA.
CASA then identify that in fact the audit results were not written up, and they were not provided to me. CASA undertake to provide me with post written audit notes, which bore no resemblance to the initial on site verbal report.
I ask for the original results, and the ICC has informed me that nothing was initiated, although when I make a claim under FOI, I am provided with over 7 pages of redacted results. Quite simply, it appeared that elements within CASA had been untruthful in their engagement with me.
CASA have consistently and repeatedly ignored all requests for the specifics of the breech. I am strongly of the opinion that they cannot be substantiated, and therefore no matter how many requests I make, they will never be able to address the outstanding allegations.
I am seeking an explanation to this process, because it appears to me that there were significant breaches of CASA procedures, and I feel that the personnel I was dealing with were not acting with good intent.
Thread Starter
Dear Craig Martin
Dear Mr Craig Martin ( Acting Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and surveillance), Dr Aleck ( Executive Manager Legal Services and Regulatory Affairs), and Mr Tony Mathews (Chair of the CASA Board).
As you will be aware CASA made an allegation of a breach of CASR 117 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Detai...3#_Toc23856111
CASA will hold on record at least 5 attempts by me to gain further information on this breach. These requests were as simple as asking CASA to identify the regulatory breach on the LTV website. All of these requests were ignored. Can you please identify that CASA has erred and has withdrawn that allegation.
On multiple emails I asked for you to identify the offending page on the website, but CASA failed to respond to these requests. I could not understand how CASA could raise an allegation but not be prepared to support that allegation, particularly when it simply needed you to provide a link to the offending page.
Thanking you in anticipation of your attention to this matter, respectfully, Glen Buckley
As you will be aware CASA made an allegation of a breach of CASR 117 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Detai...3#_Toc23856111
CASA will hold on record at least 5 attempts by me to gain further information on this breach. These requests were as simple as asking CASA to identify the regulatory breach on the LTV website. All of these requests were ignored. Can you please identify that CASA has erred and has withdrawn that allegation.
On multiple emails I asked for you to identify the offending page on the website, but CASA failed to respond to these requests. I could not understand how CASA could raise an allegation but not be prepared to support that allegation, particularly when it simply needed you to provide a link to the offending page.
Thanking you in anticipation of your attention to this matter, respectfully, Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
Dear Dr Aleck
Dear Dr Aleck, CASA Executive Manager Legal and Regulatory Affairs.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman has requested that I provide him copies of any Suspensions, Show Cause notices etc.
As you will be aware, despite my documented repeated requests, I am of the opinion that none were provided, and I feel that was the fundamental breach of my common law right to operate a business, and a breach of Administrative law. Numerous requests were made, and in fact Mr Carmody advised publicly that no administrative action was ever taken. The regulatory obligation on you, would be to provide such documentation and particularly if a variation was made to my AOC. I am required to respond to the Ombudsman and provide such documentation by 30/01/20.
In light of the significant impact on me, my family, other entities, and my business can I respectfully request that you provide copies, or an explanation as to why none were provided by that date.
Thank you in anticipation of your co-operation,
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
P.S. I have included Mr Martin the Executive Manager Regulatory services and surveillance in on this email, as per his direction that all correspondence go via him to ensure a more prompt response.
I have included Mr Graeme Crawford, the Group Executive Manager Aviation, as it was his Department that initiated the action in October 2018.
I have included Mr Anthony Matthews, the Chairman of the CASA Board, being the person ultimately accountable for “deciding the objectives, strategies and policies to be followed by CASA, and for ensuring that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner.”
I have copied Mr McHeyzer CASA Region Manager- Southern region, as I am of the opinion that he was integral to what I believe were unlawful processes, that caused significant harm to me and my family.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman has requested that I provide him copies of any Suspensions, Show Cause notices etc.
As you will be aware, despite my documented repeated requests, I am of the opinion that none were provided, and I feel that was the fundamental breach of my common law right to operate a business, and a breach of Administrative law. Numerous requests were made, and in fact Mr Carmody advised publicly that no administrative action was ever taken. The regulatory obligation on you, would be to provide such documentation and particularly if a variation was made to my AOC. I am required to respond to the Ombudsman and provide such documentation by 30/01/20.
In light of the significant impact on me, my family, other entities, and my business can I respectfully request that you provide copies, or an explanation as to why none were provided by that date.
Thank you in anticipation of your co-operation,
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
P.S. I have included Mr Martin the Executive Manager Regulatory services and surveillance in on this email, as per his direction that all correspondence go via him to ensure a more prompt response.
I have included Mr Graeme Crawford, the Group Executive Manager Aviation, as it was his Department that initiated the action in October 2018.
I have included Mr Anthony Matthews, the Chairman of the CASA Board, being the person ultimately accountable for “deciding the objectives, strategies and policies to be followed by CASA, and for ensuring that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner.”
I have copied Mr McHeyzer CASA Region Manager- Southern region, as I am of the opinion that he was integral to what I believe were unlawful processes, that caused significant harm to me and my family.
Thread Starter
Dear Craig Martin
Dear Mr Craig Martin,
Apologies for bombarding you with emails, but I hope you can appreciate my position. The matters are significant in nature, and I feel it brings clarity and transparency to the process by attending to them individually. My hope is that by breaking it down into individual matters, it will facilitate a more prompt response, and provide you the opportunity to attend to them in a more efficient manner.
INITIAL NOTIFICATION
Attachments
On 23/10/18, I received the attached notification CASA ref F14/9540. This notification was received without any prior warning at all and came as a complete shock. It was a complete reversal of CASAs position as immediately prior to this I had been receiving strong support and encouragement from CASA. The ramifications of that notification were significant and threated the business, the significant investment in the business, and the many people that depended on the business for their livelihoods including my own family.
I must point out that this complete change of policy application coincided with a change of CMT. The CMT being a Certificate Management Team. A number of these CMTs exist within each region. Each CMT will be responsible for oversighting an allocated group of operators, and the teams consists of CASA Subject Matter Experts on Flying School Operations, Safety and Maintenance and each will have a Manager.
I had been operating under the oversight of a highly respected team referred to as CMT 2 for many years and was notified of a change of CMT from CMT 2 to CMT 3. Immediately on receipt of the notification I requested a meeting with the Region Manager at the time, as I had concerns about a member of the new team, CMT 3. That team contained a flying school SME who had a reputation in industry as being less technically competent than what would be expected and was not well regarded by industry generally.
I immediately requested a one on one meeting with the Region Manager to raise my concerns. I specifically requested a one on one meeting and I requested that meeting be “on record”, therefore CASA will have documentation regarding that meeting. I was assured by the Region Manager at the subsequent meeting that my concerns were “unfounded”. Reluctantly, I had no option but to accept the Region managers determination.
My assumption is that this meeting and its contents were bought to the attention of the person I had had concerns about, as it was that individual that initiated the action against APTA. That was also the advice that I received from the Region Manager of Southern Region.
That CASA notification (F14/9540) contained a number of issues.
Page 3 of the notification- Temporary locations.
The intention had been for new bases to remain dormant and be activated once they had received CASA approval. On querying CASA as to how long that approval would take, we were advised that it would take approximately 6 weeks, which we were satisfied with.
CASA personnel then put forward a suggestion that we should apply for the bases to operate as a “temporary location” to facilitate continuity of operations while CASA was conducting its assessment. We did not suggest this approach and had not previously considered it. This was entirely CASAs suggestion, and we adopted the procedure that CASA recommended.
I emphasise that we used the CASA suggested procedures, and CASA approved the procedures, and audited the We had used these procedures previously, and CASA had commended us on those procedures. The procedures we adopted were significantly more robust than the minimum procedures that CASA required of other operators.
This notification seemed absurd, as all we had done is follow CASA procedures.
On this matter, I am asking CASA to specifically identify why a less robust, minimum standard was acceptable for other operators, although our procedure which was acceptable to CMT 2, and approved and audited by CASA was not acceptable to CMT 3.
Thankyou for consideration of my request for clarification on these matters,
Respectfully, Glen Buckley.
Apologies for bombarding you with emails, but I hope you can appreciate my position. The matters are significant in nature, and I feel it brings clarity and transparency to the process by attending to them individually. My hope is that by breaking it down into individual matters, it will facilitate a more prompt response, and provide you the opportunity to attend to them in a more efficient manner.
INITIAL NOTIFICATION
Attachments
- Initial notification of CASA change of policy
- Notification of change of CMT.
- My emails requesting a one on meeting with CASA Region Manager- Southern Region.
On 23/10/18, I received the attached notification CASA ref F14/9540. This notification was received without any prior warning at all and came as a complete shock. It was a complete reversal of CASAs position as immediately prior to this I had been receiving strong support and encouragement from CASA. The ramifications of that notification were significant and threated the business, the significant investment in the business, and the many people that depended on the business for their livelihoods including my own family.
I must point out that this complete change of policy application coincided with a change of CMT. The CMT being a Certificate Management Team. A number of these CMTs exist within each region. Each CMT will be responsible for oversighting an allocated group of operators, and the teams consists of CASA Subject Matter Experts on Flying School Operations, Safety and Maintenance and each will have a Manager.
I had been operating under the oversight of a highly respected team referred to as CMT 2 for many years and was notified of a change of CMT from CMT 2 to CMT 3. Immediately on receipt of the notification I requested a meeting with the Region Manager at the time, as I had concerns about a member of the new team, CMT 3. That team contained a flying school SME who had a reputation in industry as being less technically competent than what would be expected and was not well regarded by industry generally.
I immediately requested a one on one meeting with the Region Manager to raise my concerns. I specifically requested a one on one meeting and I requested that meeting be “on record”, therefore CASA will have documentation regarding that meeting. I was assured by the Region Manager at the subsequent meeting that my concerns were “unfounded”. Reluctantly, I had no option but to accept the Region managers determination.
My assumption is that this meeting and its contents were bought to the attention of the person I had had concerns about, as it was that individual that initiated the action against APTA. That was also the advice that I received from the Region Manager of Southern Region.
That CASA notification (F14/9540) contained a number of issues.
Page 3 of the notification- Temporary locations.
The intention had been for new bases to remain dormant and be activated once they had received CASA approval. On querying CASA as to how long that approval would take, we were advised that it would take approximately 6 weeks, which we were satisfied with.
CASA personnel then put forward a suggestion that we should apply for the bases to operate as a “temporary location” to facilitate continuity of operations while CASA was conducting its assessment. We did not suggest this approach and had not previously considered it. This was entirely CASAs suggestion, and we adopted the procedure that CASA recommended.
I emphasise that we used the CASA suggested procedures, and CASA approved the procedures, and audited the We had used these procedures previously, and CASA had commended us on those procedures. The procedures we adopted were significantly more robust than the minimum procedures that CASA required of other operators.
This notification seemed absurd, as all we had done is follow CASA procedures.
On this matter, I am asking CASA to specifically identify why a less robust, minimum standard was acceptable for other operators, although our procedure which was acceptable to CMT 2, and approved and audited by CASA was not acceptable to CMT 3.
Thankyou for consideration of my request for clarification on these matters,
Respectfully, Glen Buckley.
Thread Starter
Dear Craig Martin
Dear Mr Craig Martin,
I'm hoping that you may be able to clarify this inquiry. As you are aware I have submitted this request previously, although CASA chose not to respond. If you have no record of the previous requests, please advise me, and I will furnish those requests. Irrespective of my previous requests, I am hoping that you can deal with it on this occasion. I am considering lodging this matter with the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and I feel it important to give you the opportunity to clarify it, and perhaps allay my concerns.
As you are aware APTA was approved by CASA, in fact CASA helped me design APTA, approved it, and conducted a Level 1 audit, being the highest level audit that CASA conducts. I felt that the CASA action initiated in October 2018 was effectively a variation of my AOC, please correct me if I am wrong. I appreciate that this request may require the involvement of Dr Aleck the CASA Executive Manager of Legal and Regulatory Affairs.
For ease of reference, I have attached what I believe to be the associated legislative requirements below. Could you outline if CASA was deficient in this process, or denied me procedural fairness. I appreciate that you will have a different perspective to me.
Thank you in anticipation of your response, respectfully
Glen Buckley
CASR 11.067
11.067 Imposing and varying conditions after grant of authorisation
(1) After the grant of an authorisation, CASA may, in accordance with this regulation, impose a condition on the authorisation or vary a condition of the authorisation.
(1A) CASA may impose or vary a condition only if CASA considers that it is necessary:
(a) for an authorisation, other than an authorisation to which subregulation 11.055(1B) applies or an experimental certificate—in the interests of the safety of air navigation; or
(b) for an authorisation to which subregulation 11.055(1B) applies—in the interests of preserving a level of aviation safety that is at least acceptable; or
(c) for an authorisation that is an experimental certificate—in the interests of the safety of other airspace users or persons on the ground or water.
(2) If CASA proposes, under subregulation (1), to impose a condition on an authorisation or vary a condition of an authorisation, CASA must give written notice of the proposed condition or variation to the holder of the authorisation.
(3) The notice must specify a reasonable period within which the holder may make a submission in relation to the proposed condition or variation.
(4) If the holder makes a submission under subregulation (3) within the period specified in the notice, CASA must take the submission into account in determining whether it is necessary to impose or vary the condition:
(a) for an authorisation, other than an authorisation to which subregulation 11.055(1B) applies or an experimental certificate—in the interests of the safety of air navigation; or
(b) for an authorisation to which subregulation 11.055(1B) applies—in the interests of preserving a level of aviation safety that is at least acceptable; or
(c) for an authorisation that is an experimental certificate—in the interests of the safety of other airspace users or persons on the ground or water.
(5) If:
(a) after the end of the period specified under subregulation (3); and
(b) having taken account of any submission made by the holder within that period;
CASA is satisfied that it is necessary, for the reason mentioned in paragraph (4)(a), (b) or (c), CASA may impose or vary the condition.
(6) CASA must give the holder of the authorisation written notice of its decision.
(7) A condition imposed, or a variation of a condition, under this regulation takes effect on the date of the notice under subregulation (6) or at a later time specified in the notice.
(8) This regulation does not apply to the imposition of a condition on a class of authorisations under regulation 11.068.
I'm hoping that you may be able to clarify this inquiry. As you are aware I have submitted this request previously, although CASA chose not to respond. If you have no record of the previous requests, please advise me, and I will furnish those requests. Irrespective of my previous requests, I am hoping that you can deal with it on this occasion. I am considering lodging this matter with the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and I feel it important to give you the opportunity to clarify it, and perhaps allay my concerns.
As you are aware APTA was approved by CASA, in fact CASA helped me design APTA, approved it, and conducted a Level 1 audit, being the highest level audit that CASA conducts. I felt that the CASA action initiated in October 2018 was effectively a variation of my AOC, please correct me if I am wrong. I appreciate that this request may require the involvement of Dr Aleck the CASA Executive Manager of Legal and Regulatory Affairs.
For ease of reference, I have attached what I believe to be the associated legislative requirements below. Could you outline if CASA was deficient in this process, or denied me procedural fairness. I appreciate that you will have a different perspective to me.
Thank you in anticipation of your response, respectfully
Glen Buckley
CASR 11.067
11.067 Imposing and varying conditions after grant of authorisation
(1) After the grant of an authorisation, CASA may, in accordance with this regulation, impose a condition on the authorisation or vary a condition of the authorisation.
(1A) CASA may impose or vary a condition only if CASA considers that it is necessary:
(a) for an authorisation, other than an authorisation to which subregulation 11.055(1B) applies or an experimental certificate—in the interests of the safety of air navigation; or
(b) for an authorisation to which subregulation 11.055(1B) applies—in the interests of preserving a level of aviation safety that is at least acceptable; or
(c) for an authorisation that is an experimental certificate—in the interests of the safety of other airspace users or persons on the ground or water.
(2) If CASA proposes, under subregulation (1), to impose a condition on an authorisation or vary a condition of an authorisation, CASA must give written notice of the proposed condition or variation to the holder of the authorisation.
(3) The notice must specify a reasonable period within which the holder may make a submission in relation to the proposed condition or variation.
(4) If the holder makes a submission under subregulation (3) within the period specified in the notice, CASA must take the submission into account in determining whether it is necessary to impose or vary the condition:
(a) for an authorisation, other than an authorisation to which subregulation 11.055(1B) applies or an experimental certificate—in the interests of the safety of air navigation; or
(b) for an authorisation to which subregulation 11.055(1B) applies—in the interests of preserving a level of aviation safety that is at least acceptable; or
(c) for an authorisation that is an experimental certificate—in the interests of the safety of other airspace users or persons on the ground or water.
(5) If:
(a) after the end of the period specified under subregulation (3); and
(b) having taken account of any submission made by the holder within that period;
CASA is satisfied that it is necessary, for the reason mentioned in paragraph (4)(a), (b) or (c), CASA may impose or vary the condition.
(6) CASA must give the holder of the authorisation written notice of its decision.
(7) A condition imposed, or a variation of a condition, under this regulation takes effect on the date of the notice under subregulation (6) or at a later time specified in the notice.
(8) This regulation does not apply to the imposition of a condition on a class of authorisations under regulation 11.068.
Thread Starter
Dear CASA Board
Dear Mr Anthony Mathews, Chairperson of the Board of CASA,
I am writing to you in your role as the Chair of the Board of CASA, and noting that you were appointed into that role in August 2018, which was approximately 2 months prior to CASA initiating their action against CASA in October 2018.
You will be aware that I wrote to the CASA Board on numerous occasions, and on every occasion my correspondence was ignored or not responded to.
From CASAs website it states that the Board is responsible for “deciding the objectives, strategies and policies to be followed by CASA and for making sure that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner.”
I have attached correspondence that was sent to you;
02/01/19
02/04/19
22/05/19
28/05/19
05/06/19
06/06/19
11/06/19
16/06/19 Letter to Minister McCormack (Board copied in)
Finally on 19th July 2019, a meeting was facilitated, more than 6 months after my initial request.
I summarised that meeting in my correspondence to you on 29/07/19. and received your follow up correspondence to that meeting on 09/08/19.
I responded to that correspondence on 17/08/19 and 27/08/19 and 06/11/19 (included with the other attached correspondence)
I wrote a further piece of correspondence on 06/11/19. All of which are included.
The purpose of this email.
By failing to respond to me requests for a period of over 6 months, that was integral to the damage caused to me, my family and my business. My complaints were substantial, and should have been something that you and the Board attended to, in a more timely manner. I felt that the CASA Board on receiving the correspondence should have responded if there was genuine good intent from the Board. Im sure you will appreciate my concerns when a Board chooses not to respond to such significant allegations.
I am considering taking my concerns to the Commonwealth Ombudsman because I feel you failed in your role as the Chair of the CASA Board.
Are you able to confirm, that you did in fact receive all of that correspondence, and are you able to provide an explanation as to why you chose not to respond to me.
I look forward to your explanation, respectfully,
Glen Buckley.
I am writing to you in your role as the Chair of the Board of CASA, and noting that you were appointed into that role in August 2018, which was approximately 2 months prior to CASA initiating their action against CASA in October 2018.
You will be aware that I wrote to the CASA Board on numerous occasions, and on every occasion my correspondence was ignored or not responded to.
From CASAs website it states that the Board is responsible for “deciding the objectives, strategies and policies to be followed by CASA and for making sure that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner.”
I have attached correspondence that was sent to you;
02/01/19
02/04/19
22/05/19
28/05/19
05/06/19
06/06/19
11/06/19
16/06/19 Letter to Minister McCormack (Board copied in)
Finally on 19th July 2019, a meeting was facilitated, more than 6 months after my initial request.
I summarised that meeting in my correspondence to you on 29/07/19. and received your follow up correspondence to that meeting on 09/08/19.
I responded to that correspondence on 17/08/19 and 27/08/19 and 06/11/19 (included with the other attached correspondence)
I wrote a further piece of correspondence on 06/11/19. All of which are included.
The purpose of this email.
By failing to respond to me requests for a period of over 6 months, that was integral to the damage caused to me, my family and my business. My complaints were substantial, and should have been something that you and the Board attended to, in a more timely manner. I felt that the CASA Board on receiving the correspondence should have responded if there was genuine good intent from the Board. Im sure you will appreciate my concerns when a Board chooses not to respond to such significant allegations.
I am considering taking my concerns to the Commonwealth Ombudsman because I feel you failed in your role as the Chair of the CASA Board.
Are you able to confirm, that you did in fact receive all of that correspondence, and are you able to provide an explanation as to why you chose not to respond to me.
I look forward to your explanation, respectfully,
Glen Buckley.
Thread Starter
Dear Craig Martin
Dear Mr Craig Martin,
I am providing one further request for you to clarify my query prior to accelerating my complaint to the Commonwealth Ombud
As you are aware there are three separate actions that CASA has done to bring harm to my ability to derive my livelihood in the industry.
Those three separate actions have cost me many millions of dollars and resulted in the loss of my business, and caused unacceptable harm to my parents, my wife, my children, other entities, suppliers and people depending on me for their livelihood
Those were
A normal practice in the aviation industry, that had occurred throughout my 25 years in the industry, and continues to this day was a practice referred to as “sharing an Air Operator Certificate (AOC)”. This was a situation where an Authorisation Holder would allow another entity to operate under the AOC using the approvals of the Authorisation Holder, with responsibility for the operation resting with the Authorisation Holder.
In fact the direction from CASA “for the avoidance of doubt, this would allow flight training to be conducted by APTA employees only- not employees of affilaites” is in my opinion unlawful, and exists nowhere else in industry i.e. it is a specific requirement placed on me only. I have never heard of this requirement, and believe it has no legislative basis.
The level of oversight provided by the Authorisation holder varies from arrangement to arrangement. In fact APTA was the first time in Australian flying training that a system had been devised, proposed to CASA, received encouragement, designed with CASA, approved by CASA, and audited by CASA. The APTA system clearly addressed weaknesses and deficiencies that existed in the industry.
This was a practice conducted with the full approval of CASA, and in fact with CASAs full knowledge and consent a Company called TVSA had been operating under my AOC, prior to the introduction of Part 141/142.
I had been operating a flying school MFT for 15 years delivering industry leading levels of safety and compliance until Jason Mc Heyzer the CASA Region Manager advised that I was required to transfer my entire flying school operations to another entity. That entity being APTA.
This was a unique requirement placed on me, and not on other Operators.
In fact Mr Jason McHeyzer, Mr Craig Martin, and Mr Graeme Crawford would each be aware of that situation and have made a conscious decision to apply their “opinion” specifically to my operation. By applying that direction, they would be fully aware of the significant impact on me.
This direction required me to transfer my business of 15 years to a a new entity, i.e. staff, aircraft etc, and hence deprived me of my revenue. Unfortunately, as they are each aware, that placed me in a difficult situation because while being denied the revenue streams, my costs remained.
These costs included car leases, photocopy machine leases, printer contracts, telephone system leases, mobile phone leases, rubbish removal contracts, utilities contracts, staff entitlements etc.
It effectively forced me into bankruptcy, as without the revenue I could not meet my obligations for omgoing expenses.
For clarity, I was directed to divert my aircraft, personnel, and students to a different entity in order to achieve what CASA calls “direct operational control”.
This direction by CASA resulted in me being placed under extreme financial pressure and mental stress. I was denied any revenue although the associated costs of running my business were not transferred.
I have attached the applicable emails, and draw your attention to the email dated 22/08/20 confirming I have complied.
For clarity:
Can you provide any supporting legislation
Can you explain why this restriction was placed on me only
Thanking you in anticipation of your co-operation in resolving my confusion.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
I am providing one further request for you to clarify my query prior to accelerating my complaint to the Commonwealth Ombud
As you are aware there are three separate actions that CASA has done to bring harm to my ability to derive my livelihood in the industry.
Those three separate actions have cost me many millions of dollars and resulted in the loss of my business, and caused unacceptable harm to my parents, my wife, my children, other entities, suppliers and people depending on me for their livelihood
Those were
- CASA reversal of approval for APTA and the associated restrictions on my ability to trade.
- CASA introducing terminology called “direct operational control” and applying that to my business only, and not others.
- The direction that my position as an employee of APTA was untenable.
A normal practice in the aviation industry, that had occurred throughout my 25 years in the industry, and continues to this day was a practice referred to as “sharing an Air Operator Certificate (AOC)”. This was a situation where an Authorisation Holder would allow another entity to operate under the AOC using the approvals of the Authorisation Holder, with responsibility for the operation resting with the Authorisation Holder.
In fact the direction from CASA “for the avoidance of doubt, this would allow flight training to be conducted by APTA employees only- not employees of affilaites” is in my opinion unlawful, and exists nowhere else in industry i.e. it is a specific requirement placed on me only. I have never heard of this requirement, and believe it has no legislative basis.
The level of oversight provided by the Authorisation holder varies from arrangement to arrangement. In fact APTA was the first time in Australian flying training that a system had been devised, proposed to CASA, received encouragement, designed with CASA, approved by CASA, and audited by CASA. The APTA system clearly addressed weaknesses and deficiencies that existed in the industry.
This was a practice conducted with the full approval of CASA, and in fact with CASAs full knowledge and consent a Company called TVSA had been operating under my AOC, prior to the introduction of Part 141/142.
I had been operating a flying school MFT for 15 years delivering industry leading levels of safety and compliance until Jason Mc Heyzer the CASA Region Manager advised that I was required to transfer my entire flying school operations to another entity. That entity being APTA.
This was a unique requirement placed on me, and not on other Operators.
In fact Mr Jason McHeyzer, Mr Craig Martin, and Mr Graeme Crawford would each be aware of that situation and have made a conscious decision to apply their “opinion” specifically to my operation. By applying that direction, they would be fully aware of the significant impact on me.
This direction required me to transfer my business of 15 years to a a new entity, i.e. staff, aircraft etc, and hence deprived me of my revenue. Unfortunately, as they are each aware, that placed me in a difficult situation because while being denied the revenue streams, my costs remained.
These costs included car leases, photocopy machine leases, printer contracts, telephone system leases, mobile phone leases, rubbish removal contracts, utilities contracts, staff entitlements etc.
It effectively forced me into bankruptcy, as without the revenue I could not meet my obligations for omgoing expenses.
For clarity, I was directed to divert my aircraft, personnel, and students to a different entity in order to achieve what CASA calls “direct operational control”.
This direction by CASA resulted in me being placed under extreme financial pressure and mental stress. I was denied any revenue although the associated costs of running my business were not transferred.
I have attached the applicable emails, and draw your attention to the email dated 22/08/20 confirming I have complied.
For clarity:
Can you provide any supporting legislation
Can you explain why this restriction was placed on me only
Thanking you in anticipation of your co-operation in resolving my confusion.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Glen, For someone not involved in this , (but sympathetic to your plight), your sustained and relentless pursuit of justice is quite exciting to watch.
I realise that for you it is everything and draining and heartbreaking. In this ‘David v Goliath’ I think David is going to come out on top, battered, bruised, never quite the same but on top. I think that it’s imperative that you don’t run out of energy before Goliath submits. That’s mental energy, physical energy, emotional energy. Monitor all three of those carefully and when one gets dangerously low, retreat and replenish briefly before continuing your impressive attack.
Well done and best wishes.
I realise that for you it is everything and draining and heartbreaking. In this ‘David v Goliath’ I think David is going to come out on top, battered, bruised, never quite the same but on top. I think that it’s imperative that you don’t run out of energy before Goliath submits. That’s mental energy, physical energy, emotional energy. Monitor all three of those carefully and when one gets dangerously low, retreat and replenish briefly before continuing your impressive attack.
Well done and best wishes.
Thread Starter
73qanda, cheers mate (or madam). When these people are exposed, and held to account if it ever happens, it will be worth it. Every time i see a new post and open it up, my anxiety increases somewhat, only to be relived when i read a post such as yours. These small group of personnel that bring so much damage to so may people are being protected at the highest levels, and i include the CASA Board in that allegation. I cant thankyou enough, the support that i have received is what keeps me going. Thanks for the support. In my current condition, it means much more than you will ever appreciate. THANKYOU. Really,
I was thinking something similar.
If Joe Public could go to a website (probably from their Facebook feed) and could see a timeline which had embedded links to the letters and documents it would quickly and clearly show the injustice and corruption that’s occurred and tap into the widely held feeling that the average Australian isn’t getting a fair go from corporate Australia.
I imagine that Glen has legal reasons for not doing this but it would be worth a crack if there was a legal dead-end.
If I were you Glen I would write a list on a small piece of paper of five things that make me feel lucky and grateful. I’d put it in my pocket and pull it out and read it every time I went to the loo. When the list got too crinkled and tattered I’d write another one and keep doing this until this thing is done.
This might not be useful to you but it’d work wonders for me so just an idea.
You’re a champion mate.
If Joe Public could go to a website (probably from their Facebook feed) and could see a timeline which had embedded links to the letters and documents it would quickly and clearly show the injustice and corruption that’s occurred and tap into the widely held feeling that the average Australian isn’t getting a fair go from corporate Australia.
I imagine that Glen has legal reasons for not doing this but it would be worth a crack if there was a legal dead-end.
If I were you Glen I would write a list on a small piece of paper of five things that make me feel lucky and grateful. I’d put it in my pocket and pull it out and read it every time I went to the loo. When the list got too crinkled and tattered I’d write another one and keep doing this until this thing is done.
This might not be useful to you but it’d work wonders for me so just an idea.
You’re a champion mate.
Thread Starter
Sunfish- A political movement
Sunny, it will be.
I am in the process of renouncing my British Citizenship, after all what did the Brits do for us. Apart from sanitation, medicine, education. beer, public order, irrigation, roads, fresh water systems, and public health, what have the Brits ever done for us.
I am a 54 year resident of the electorate of Chisholm, and have submitted 5 requests to Gladys Liu-seless requesting a meeting, since October 2019. All of which have been completely ignored. One further attempt was made, when i bumped into her minions at Mount Waverley shopping centre last week. I have no doubt that would also be ignored. Understandable, considering that APTA was designed to protect the Australian owned sector of the industry, and we know who she represents.
I have secured a website https://www.glenwithten.com.au/ which is currently under development and a couple of weeks from launch. Last election she held the seat by less than 1000 votes and was the "darling" of the Liberal Party.
I have been actively involved in the local community for many years, and have received widespread support. I have no doubt that my challenge is significant, but with an early start, my reputation in the local community, and unrivalled energy and good intent, im confident i can shift at least 1000 votes and boot her out. I will be working towards actually gaining the seat. A big task, but lets wait and see.
I will have 10 key objectives (hence Glen with ten).
One unintended consequence of CASAs actions is that i have time on my hands.
Aviation and the conduct of Government Departments will be one of the policies, i can assure you.
I may not win, but i will go down swinging!!!!!
I am in the process of renouncing my British Citizenship, after all what did the Brits do for us. Apart from sanitation, medicine, education. beer, public order, irrigation, roads, fresh water systems, and public health, what have the Brits ever done for us.
I am a 54 year resident of the electorate of Chisholm, and have submitted 5 requests to Gladys Liu-seless requesting a meeting, since October 2019. All of which have been completely ignored. One further attempt was made, when i bumped into her minions at Mount Waverley shopping centre last week. I have no doubt that would also be ignored. Understandable, considering that APTA was designed to protect the Australian owned sector of the industry, and we know who she represents.
I have secured a website https://www.glenwithten.com.au/ which is currently under development and a couple of weeks from launch. Last election she held the seat by less than 1000 votes and was the "darling" of the Liberal Party.
I have been actively involved in the local community for many years, and have received widespread support. I have no doubt that my challenge is significant, but with an early start, my reputation in the local community, and unrivalled energy and good intent, im confident i can shift at least 1000 votes and boot her out. I will be working towards actually gaining the seat. A big task, but lets wait and see.
I will have 10 key objectives (hence Glen with ten).
One unintended consequence of CASAs actions is that i have time on my hands.
Aviation and the conduct of Government Departments will be one of the policies, i can assure you.
I may not win, but i will go down swinging!!!!!
Thread Starter
Please explain!
Dear Craig,
As you are aware, the action against APTA, then the requirement to place MFT income streams, staff and resources, followed by the direction to APTA that my position was "untenable", have bought significant mental and financial trauma to me and my family, and left me with absolutely nothing. I am having difficulty meeting my living expenses, and am about to seek accommodation assistance from Centrelink. Similarly, my credit rating has been impacted, and the bank has closed my accounts. My situation really is critical, to the point where i am unable to afford medical care for me and my family.
CASA moved in, and dismantled my previously approved Company, but no explanation was ever provided to me. I have been dealing with this for almost 18 months, and the trauma of trying to explain this again and again is something i can no longer deal with. I am making an appeal to my sons school to try and ensure he can continue his final year of High School, and similarly i am trying to maintain my daughters regional University education.
In October 2018, CASA did issue a request for documents, but no explanation has been provided.
Are you able to provide an explanation, or draw on Dr Alecks expertise in this area.
For clarity, i am requesting an explanation from CASA as to what actions were taken and why. This need not be a particularly lengthy document, but an explanation to use for creditors etc.
You will appreciate that when i say "CASA took action against my business", it has connotation that i have done something wrong i.e. broken rules, compromised safety etc and it places me in a very stressful and embarrassing situation.
I am hoping that CASA could provide an explanation to assist me try and move forward and rebuild my life. I feel it a more than reasonable request in light of all the harm that has been done to so many people.
Thanking you in anticipation of your co-operation. I am under enormous pressure to solve these issues, and that information should be readily available to CASA.
As you are aware, the action against APTA, then the requirement to place MFT income streams, staff and resources, followed by the direction to APTA that my position was "untenable", have bought significant mental and financial trauma to me and my family, and left me with absolutely nothing. I am having difficulty meeting my living expenses, and am about to seek accommodation assistance from Centrelink. Similarly, my credit rating has been impacted, and the bank has closed my accounts. My situation really is critical, to the point where i am unable to afford medical care for me and my family.
CASA moved in, and dismantled my previously approved Company, but no explanation was ever provided to me. I have been dealing with this for almost 18 months, and the trauma of trying to explain this again and again is something i can no longer deal with. I am making an appeal to my sons school to try and ensure he can continue his final year of High School, and similarly i am trying to maintain my daughters regional University education.
In October 2018, CASA did issue a request for documents, but no explanation has been provided.
Are you able to provide an explanation, or draw on Dr Alecks expertise in this area.
For clarity, i am requesting an explanation from CASA as to what actions were taken and why. This need not be a particularly lengthy document, but an explanation to use for creditors etc.
You will appreciate that when i say "CASA took action against my business", it has connotation that i have done something wrong i.e. broken rules, compromised safety etc and it places me in a very stressful and embarrassing situation.
I am hoping that CASA could provide an explanation to assist me try and move forward and rebuild my life. I feel it a more than reasonable request in light of all the harm that has been done to so many people.
Thanking you in anticipation of your co-operation. I am under enormous pressure to solve these issues, and that information should be readily available to CASA.
Thread Starter
Mr Carmody- Its your Regultory Philosophy. You came up with it, not me.
Dear Craig,
As you are aware, the action against APTA, then the requirement to place MFT income streams, staff and resources, followed by the direction to APTA that my position was "untenable", have bought significant mental and financial trauma to me and my family, and left me with absolutely nothing. I am having difficulty meeting my living expenses, and am about to seek accommodation assistance from Centrelink. Similarly, my credit rating has been impacted, and the bank has closed my accounts. My situation really is critical, to the point where i am unable to afford medical care for me and my family.
CASA moved in, and dismantled my previously approved Company, but no explanation was ever provided to me. I have been dealing with this for almost 18 months, and the trauma of trying to explain this again and again is something i can no longer deal with. I am making an appeal to my sons school to try and ensure he can continue his final year of High School, and similarly i am trying to maintain my daughters regional University education.
In October 2018, CASA did issue a request for documents, but no explanation has been provided.
Are you able to provide an explanation, or draw on Dr Alecks expertise in this area.
For clarity, i am requesting an explanation from CASA as to what actions were taken and why. This need not be a particularly lengthy document, but an explanation to use for creditors etc.
You will appreciate that when i say "CASA took action against my business", it has connotation that i have done something wrong i.e. broken rules, compromised safety etc and it places me in a very stressful and embarrassing situation.
I am hoping that CASA could provide an explanation to assist me try and move forward and rebuild my life. I feel it a more than reasonable request in light of all the harm that has been done to so many people.
Thanking you in anticipation of your co-operation. I am under enormous pressure to solve these issues, and that information should be readily available to CASA.
CASA will also ensure that all relevant facts and circumstances peculiar to an individual situation have been fully and fairly considered on their merits, and will provide advice about, or decide the outcome of, a particular matter governed by a regulatory requirement on that basis. In this way, everyone may be confident that, within a regulatory framework that consistently employs the same processes and assesses facts against the same criteria, their individual circumstances will be fully and fairly considered.
As you are aware, the action against APTA, then the requirement to place MFT income streams, staff and resources, followed by the direction to APTA that my position was "untenable", have bought significant mental and financial trauma to me and my family, and left me with absolutely nothing. I am having difficulty meeting my living expenses, and am about to seek accommodation assistance from Centrelink. Similarly, my credit rating has been impacted, and the bank has closed my accounts. My situation really is critical, to the point where i am unable to afford medical care for me and my family.
CASA moved in, and dismantled my previously approved Company, but no explanation was ever provided to me. I have been dealing with this for almost 18 months, and the trauma of trying to explain this again and again is something i can no longer deal with. I am making an appeal to my sons school to try and ensure he can continue his final year of High School, and similarly i am trying to maintain my daughters regional University education.
In October 2018, CASA did issue a request for documents, but no explanation has been provided.
Are you able to provide an explanation, or draw on Dr Alecks expertise in this area.
For clarity, i am requesting an explanation from CASA as to what actions were taken and why. This need not be a particularly lengthy document, but an explanation to use for creditors etc.
You will appreciate that when i say "CASA took action against my business", it has connotation that i have done something wrong i.e. broken rules, compromised safety etc and it places me in a very stressful and embarrassing situation.
I am hoping that CASA could provide an explanation to assist me try and move forward and rebuild my life. I feel it a more than reasonable request in light of all the harm that has been done to so many people.
Thanking you in anticipation of your co-operation. I am under enormous pressure to solve these issues, and that information should be readily available to CASA.
7. CASA fairly balances the need for consistency with the need for flexibility
CASA will consistently employ the same processes, and have regard to the same criteria, in all cases involving the consideration of particular facts and circumstances for the purposes of determining whether, and if so how, a regulatory requirement should be interpreted or applied in any given situation. In this way, everyone may be confident that they are receiving the same advice about the general meaning and application of any regulatory requirement.CASA will also ensure that all relevant facts and circumstances peculiar to an individual situation have been fully and fairly considered on their merits, and will provide advice about, or decide the outcome of, a particular matter governed by a regulatory requirement on that basis. In this way, everyone may be confident that, within a regulatory framework that consistently employs the same processes and assesses facts against the same criteria, their individual circumstances will be fully and fairly considered.
Thread Starter
Brad Lacey- CASA FOI. Are you being truthful. I suspect not. No suprises!
Dear Mr Craig Martin,
In the meeting at the CASA Office in November 2019, Flight Operations Inspector, Mr Brad Lacey specifically stated the following, and did so in the presence of witnesses who clearly recall the statement.
" I have had legal advice that the Temporary Locations are not intended for flying schools"
In light of the fact that is not a factual statement, as CASA specified the procedures on AOCS for over 20 years, and CASA includes guidance in the sample expositions, and it has been accepted industry practice throughout my 25 years in the industry, can i specifically ask the following of you.
If Mr Laceys statement is truthful, can you ask him to identify which person in CASA gave him that legal advice.
Thankyou, in anticipation of a response to my reasonable request.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
In the meeting at the CASA Office in November 2019, Flight Operations Inspector, Mr Brad Lacey specifically stated the following, and did so in the presence of witnesses who clearly recall the statement.
" I have had legal advice that the Temporary Locations are not intended for flying schools"
In light of the fact that is not a factual statement, as CASA specified the procedures on AOCS for over 20 years, and CASA includes guidance in the sample expositions, and it has been accepted industry practice throughout my 25 years in the industry, can i specifically ask the following of you.
If Mr Laceys statement is truthful, can you ask him to identify which person in CASA gave him that legal advice.
Thankyou, in anticipation of a response to my reasonable request.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
Just making sure the CASA Board is keeping the Minister updated
Dear Mr Anthony Mathews, Chairperson of the CASA Board,
As you are aware the Minister issues a Statement of Expectations, with the link attached here for your reference. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00977
I am firmly of the opinion that the conduct of CASA has not been in accordance with
Further i believe that CASA have not "considered the economic and cost impact on individuals, and business", as required by the Statement of Expectations.
I do not believe that CASA have adopted a "pragmatic, practical, and proportionate approach to regulation" as required by the Statement of Expectations
I do not believe CASA have" undertaken effective and ongoing engagement with the aviation industry (specifically my business) to create a collaborative relationship based on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect."
I say that from my own personal experience with CASA, and because of the enormous harm that conduct has bought to me, my family, my business, and other businesses impacted by the conduct of certain personnel within CASA. I have specifically identified those individuals to you on numerous occasions.
In the Ministers Statement Of Expectations, i note that you are required to "keep the Secretary of my Department and me fully informed of CASAs actions in relation to the requirements stated in this SOE, and promptly advise of any events or issues that may impact on the operations of CASA.
The purpose of this correspondence;
Can you please confirm to me that you have raised these issues with the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael Mc Cormack, in accordance with your obligations in the PGPA, and that he is conversant with the allegations and concerns that i have raised.
As this request is a fairly straightforward request, i am hoping that you can respond in a timely manner
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
As you are aware the Minister issues a Statement of Expectations, with the link attached here for your reference. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00977
I am firmly of the opinion that the conduct of CASA has not been in accordance with
- The Ministers Statement of Expectations,
- The PGPA Act,
- CASAs Regulatory Philosophy
- The values of the Australian Public Service,
Further i believe that CASA have not "considered the economic and cost impact on individuals, and business", as required by the Statement of Expectations.
I do not believe that CASA have adopted a "pragmatic, practical, and proportionate approach to regulation" as required by the Statement of Expectations
I do not believe CASA have" undertaken effective and ongoing engagement with the aviation industry (specifically my business) to create a collaborative relationship based on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect."
I say that from my own personal experience with CASA, and because of the enormous harm that conduct has bought to me, my family, my business, and other businesses impacted by the conduct of certain personnel within CASA. I have specifically identified those individuals to you on numerous occasions.
In the Ministers Statement Of Expectations, i note that you are required to "keep the Secretary of my Department and me fully informed of CASAs actions in relation to the requirements stated in this SOE, and promptly advise of any events or issues that may impact on the operations of CASA.
The purpose of this correspondence;
Can you please confirm to me that you have raised these issues with the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael Mc Cormack, in accordance with your obligations in the PGPA, and that he is conversant with the allegations and concerns that i have raised.
As this request is a fairly straightforward request, i am hoping that you can respond in a timely manner
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Hi Glen, Happy new year and all, to you and your family.
Hope you are doing well and your legal guys are getting positive progress on the audit.
I wish your wife and your children the best for this year as you fight your fight. Just remember they are more important than the fight.
All the best Mate, Stay strong.
Hope you are doing well and your legal guys are getting positive progress on the audit.
I wish your wife and your children the best for this year as you fight your fight. Just remember they are more important than the fight.
All the best Mate, Stay strong.
Hi Glen, Happy new year and all, to you and your family.
Hope you are doing well and your legal guys are getting positive progress on the audit.
I wish your wife and your children the best for this year as you fight your fight. Just remember they are more important than the fight.
All the best Mate, Stay strong.
Hope you are doing well and your legal guys are getting positive progress on the audit.
I wish your wife and your children the best for this year as you fight your fight. Just remember they are more important than the fight.
All the best Mate, Stay strong.