Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Thread Starter
Ping Pong
Dear Mr Craig Martin, CASA Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance
I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 20/02/20 where you stated,
"Dear Mr Buckley
CASA has corresponded with you at significant length regarding your various concerns about the manner in which CASA dealt with applications by APTA for regulatory permissions under the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.
As we have noted previously, given that you have now chosen to refer some of those concerns to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, CASA does not propose to engage in further correspondence with you directly in relation to any matters concerning its dealings with you or APTA. CASA will instead, liaise with the Ombudsman to provide him with any information or further evidence he reasonably considers that he needs in order to deal with your complaint.
Sincerely
Craig Martin
Executive Manager
Regulatory Services & Surveillance
Aviation Group | CASA"
I have also received today the following email from Mr Michael Buss, the Assistant Director of Investigations at the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office.
"Dear Mr Buckley
Thank you for your inquiry about further complaints to this Office.
The complaint I am now dealing with is to do with CASAs actions leading to Mr McHeyzer’s approach to your former employer. It was accepted by this Office as the Industry Complaints Commissioner appears to have been unable to resolve the matter.
It is our preference that the agency involved first attempts to resolve a disagreement. If you have received final outcomes from your approaches to CASA then we would be prepared to consider if the matters should be investigated.
Yours sincerely
Michael Buss
Assistant Director of Investigations
COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN"
I am very much of the opinion that CASA has diligently thwarted my attempts at resolving this matter. I am also of the opinion that in fact the appropriate organisation to resolve this matter is in fact the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner, as it is CASA who will have the most efficient and effective access to the required material, in order to arrive at a fair outcome.
For that reason, i intend to proceed with directing my requests to CASA directly, and specifically to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner. For clarity, there is only one complaint lodged with the Ombudsman's Office and that is the complaint regarding the direction by Mr Jason Mc Heyzer that my continuing employment was "untenable"
I will proceed with directing my other allegations directly to the ICC. If this approach is not acceptable to you, could you please identify that to both myself, and to the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office so that we can move forward in the most efficient manner.
Thankyou for your consideration, respectfully, Glen Buckley
ReplyReply to allForward
I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 20/02/20 where you stated,
"Dear Mr Buckley
CASA has corresponded with you at significant length regarding your various concerns about the manner in which CASA dealt with applications by APTA for regulatory permissions under the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.
As we have noted previously, given that you have now chosen to refer some of those concerns to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, CASA does not propose to engage in further correspondence with you directly in relation to any matters concerning its dealings with you or APTA. CASA will instead, liaise with the Ombudsman to provide him with any information or further evidence he reasonably considers that he needs in order to deal with your complaint.
Sincerely
Craig Martin
Executive Manager
Regulatory Services & Surveillance
Aviation Group | CASA"
I have also received today the following email from Mr Michael Buss, the Assistant Director of Investigations at the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office.
"Dear Mr Buckley
Thank you for your inquiry about further complaints to this Office.
The complaint I am now dealing with is to do with CASAs actions leading to Mr McHeyzer’s approach to your former employer. It was accepted by this Office as the Industry Complaints Commissioner appears to have been unable to resolve the matter.
It is our preference that the agency involved first attempts to resolve a disagreement. If you have received final outcomes from your approaches to CASA then we would be prepared to consider if the matters should be investigated.
Yours sincerely
Michael Buss
Assistant Director of Investigations
COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN"
I am very much of the opinion that CASA has diligently thwarted my attempts at resolving this matter. I am also of the opinion that in fact the appropriate organisation to resolve this matter is in fact the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner, as it is CASA who will have the most efficient and effective access to the required material, in order to arrive at a fair outcome.
For that reason, i intend to proceed with directing my requests to CASA directly, and specifically to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner. For clarity, there is only one complaint lodged with the Ombudsman's Office and that is the complaint regarding the direction by Mr Jason Mc Heyzer that my continuing employment was "untenable"
I will proceed with directing my other allegations directly to the ICC. If this approach is not acceptable to you, could you please identify that to both myself, and to the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office so that we can move forward in the most efficient manner.
Thankyou for your consideration, respectfully, Glen Buckley
ReplyReply to allForward
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA skies are empty skies
Hi Glenn,
I am a qualified ISO 9001, ICAO and CASA auditor so I hope this helps. IMO opinion CASA does not have a safety management system and from my experience a very immature quality management system.
Once again, IMO, CASA could easily, in order to put you out of business, or whatever they did do (it is important to be very accurate about that), prove that you and/or your operation was a sufficient risk to air safety by providing a risk matrix.
As described in this simple you tube segment <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrowycTmRXo> this is a consequence versus frequency matrix, used all over the world, to assess risk.It (a risk assessment policy) was adopted by the Commonwealth in 2014 and a simple guide to implementation can be seen on the ANAO website <https://www.anao.gov.au/work/corporate/anao-risk-management-policy-and-framework-2019-21>
To put you out of business would require you to be beyond management (i.e. medium - high risk) and in the extreme risk range - in other words the consequence of your actions are catastrophic and would happen with high frequency (see video)
These matrices are derived through peer input (Hazard Identification - HAZID), and easily reverse engineered, so it is very important that there is a representative spread of people making the decisions. That would require, as well as CASA staff, independent safety auditors, pilots/staff from businesses that you might have had an effect on and other independent/ not involved pilots/businesses. This means that if a risk matix can be supplied it is important to obtain the minutes of the hazard identification meeting to identify who was there and what they decided.
Finally, even if the risk matrix indicated that you personally, or your operation, was an extreme risk, the hazards should be recorded and should be subject to a risk mitigation exercise, (Hazard Analysis- HAZAN) to ascertain whether controls could be put in place to reduce the risk to what is known as, As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). If they could, a first step would have been to impose such controls and then re-audit in six months, and so on...
With this approach, not only could CASA show yourself, and the ombudsman, that you were a risk to the flying public, but that you were also beyond redemption, so their only choice was to shut you down.
I expect that no such document will be forthcoming, so what evidence do they have to prove they followed the Commonwealth's risk assessment guidelines in coming to their decision?
Once again, I hope this helps and the best of luck!
I am a qualified ISO 9001, ICAO and CASA auditor so I hope this helps. IMO opinion CASA does not have a safety management system and from my experience a very immature quality management system.
Once again, IMO, CASA could easily, in order to put you out of business, or whatever they did do (it is important to be very accurate about that), prove that you and/or your operation was a sufficient risk to air safety by providing a risk matrix.
As described in this simple you tube segment <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrowycTmRXo> this is a consequence versus frequency matrix, used all over the world, to assess risk.It (a risk assessment policy) was adopted by the Commonwealth in 2014 and a simple guide to implementation can be seen on the ANAO website <https://www.anao.gov.au/work/corporate/anao-risk-management-policy-and-framework-2019-21>
To put you out of business would require you to be beyond management (i.e. medium - high risk) and in the extreme risk range - in other words the consequence of your actions are catastrophic and would happen with high frequency (see video)
These matrices are derived through peer input (Hazard Identification - HAZID), and easily reverse engineered, so it is very important that there is a representative spread of people making the decisions. That would require, as well as CASA staff, independent safety auditors, pilots/staff from businesses that you might have had an effect on and other independent/ not involved pilots/businesses. This means that if a risk matix can be supplied it is important to obtain the minutes of the hazard identification meeting to identify who was there and what they decided.
Finally, even if the risk matrix indicated that you personally, or your operation, was an extreme risk, the hazards should be recorded and should be subject to a risk mitigation exercise, (Hazard Analysis- HAZAN) to ascertain whether controls could be put in place to reduce the risk to what is known as, As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). If they could, a first step would have been to impose such controls and then re-audit in six months, and so on...
With this approach, not only could CASA show yourself, and the ombudsman, that you were a risk to the flying public, but that you were also beyond redemption, so their only choice was to shut you down.
I expect that no such document will be forthcoming, so what evidence do they have to prove they followed the Commonwealth's risk assessment guidelines in coming to their decision?
Once again, I hope this helps and the best of luck!
Risk matrices are bull****. They are very subjective tools that rely solely on arbitrary “decisions” by a person or persons and are not based on empirical facts.
Who decides that a risk is low med or high? Who decides what the likelihood of an incident is? Seldom, likely, often? Who decides the severity, low high, catastrophic?
For example, define seldom? Your opinion on what is seldom may be once a year, mine might be once every three months.
They are not worth the paper that they are written on.
Who decides that a risk is low med or high? Who decides what the likelihood of an incident is? Seldom, likely, often? Who decides the severity, low high, catastrophic?
For example, define seldom? Your opinion on what is seldom may be once a year, mine might be once every three months.
They are not worth the paper that they are written on.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Glenn,
I am a qualified ISO 9001, ICAO and CASA auditor so I hope this helps. IMO opinion CASA does not have a safety management system and from my experience a very immature quality management system.
Once again, IMO, CASA could easily, in order to put you out of business, or whatever they did do (it is important to be very accurate about that), prove that you and/or your operation was a sufficient risk to air safety by providing a risk matrix.
As described in this simple you tube segment <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrowycTmRXo> this is a consequence versus frequency matrix, used all over the world, to assess risk.It (a risk assessment policy) was adopted by the Commonwealth in 2014 and a simple guide to implementation can be seen on the ANAO website <https://www.anao.gov.au/work/corporate/anao-risk-management-policy-and-framework-2019-21>
To put you out of business would require you to be beyond management (i.e. medium - high risk) and in the extreme risk range - in other words the consequence of your actions are catastrophic and would happen with high frequency (see video)
These matrices are derived through peer input (Hazard Identification - HAZID), and easily reverse engineered, so it is very important that there is a representative spread of people making the decisions. That would require, as well as CASA staff, independent safety auditors, pilots/staff from businesses that you might have had an effect on and other independent/ not involved pilots/businesses. This means that if a risk matix can be supplied it is important to obtain the minutes of the hazard identification meeting to identify who was there and what they decided.
Finally, even if the risk matrix indicated that you personally, or your operation, was an extreme risk, the hazards should be recorded and should be subject to a risk mitigation exercise, (Hazard Analysis- HAZAN) to ascertain whether controls could be put in place to reduce the risk to what is known as, As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). If they could, a first step would have been to impose such controls and then re-audit in six months, and so on...
With this approach, not only could CASA show yourself, and the ombudsman, that you were a risk to the flying public, but that you were also beyond redemption, so their only choice was to shut you down.
I expect that no such document will be forthcoming, so what evidence do they have to prove they followed the Commonwealth's risk assessment guidelines in coming to their decision?
Once again, I hope this helps and the best of luck!
I am a qualified ISO 9001, ICAO and CASA auditor so I hope this helps. IMO opinion CASA does not have a safety management system and from my experience a very immature quality management system.
Once again, IMO, CASA could easily, in order to put you out of business, or whatever they did do (it is important to be very accurate about that), prove that you and/or your operation was a sufficient risk to air safety by providing a risk matrix.
As described in this simple you tube segment <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrowycTmRXo> this is a consequence versus frequency matrix, used all over the world, to assess risk.It (a risk assessment policy) was adopted by the Commonwealth in 2014 and a simple guide to implementation can be seen on the ANAO website <https://www.anao.gov.au/work/corporate/anao-risk-management-policy-and-framework-2019-21>
To put you out of business would require you to be beyond management (i.e. medium - high risk) and in the extreme risk range - in other words the consequence of your actions are catastrophic and would happen with high frequency (see video)
These matrices are derived through peer input (Hazard Identification - HAZID), and easily reverse engineered, so it is very important that there is a representative spread of people making the decisions. That would require, as well as CASA staff, independent safety auditors, pilots/staff from businesses that you might have had an effect on and other independent/ not involved pilots/businesses. This means that if a risk matix can be supplied it is important to obtain the minutes of the hazard identification meeting to identify who was there and what they decided.
Finally, even if the risk matrix indicated that you personally, or your operation, was an extreme risk, the hazards should be recorded and should be subject to a risk mitigation exercise, (Hazard Analysis- HAZAN) to ascertain whether controls could be put in place to reduce the risk to what is known as, As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). If they could, a first step would have been to impose such controls and then re-audit in six months, and so on...
With this approach, not only could CASA show yourself, and the ombudsman, that you were a risk to the flying public, but that you were also beyond redemption, so their only choice was to shut you down.
I expect that no such document will be forthcoming, so what evidence do they have to prove they followed the Commonwealth's risk assessment guidelines in coming to their decision?
Once again, I hope this helps and the best of luck!
Thread Starter
Mr approach
Very appreciative of your interest, involvement and effort.
Interestingly there was never any safety argument at all, and the previous Executive manager (since departed CASA ) made that very clear. His exact words.
"there are two types of risk, safety risk and regulatory risk, on this matter there is NO safety risk".
You may recall that i had a change of CASA oversighting team from CMT 2 to CMT 3. I had been under a capable, professional and well intentioned CMT 2 for many years.
Shortly after i completed the Transition to the new Part 141/142 structure i was changed to CMT 3.
I immediately requested a ONE on ONE ON THE RECORD meeting with the Region Manager at the time and raised my concerns about an individual on CMT 3.
It was that individual that initiated the action, and that was said to me by the Region Manager (who has also left CASA).
Nevertheless, i will look at the link that you sent through. Cheers. Glen.
I think this whole issue was personality based and had nothing to do with safety or compliance, after all, i had just spent two years working side by side debveloping the APTA model with CASA. Had it approved, audited and in fact a number of members joined APTA on CASA suggestions, as they will testify.
Interestingly there was never any safety argument at all, and the previous Executive manager (since departed CASA ) made that very clear. His exact words.
"there are two types of risk, safety risk and regulatory risk, on this matter there is NO safety risk".
You may recall that i had a change of CASA oversighting team from CMT 2 to CMT 3. I had been under a capable, professional and well intentioned CMT 2 for many years.
Shortly after i completed the Transition to the new Part 141/142 structure i was changed to CMT 3.
I immediately requested a ONE on ONE ON THE RECORD meeting with the Region Manager at the time and raised my concerns about an individual on CMT 3.
It was that individual that initiated the action, and that was said to me by the Region Manager (who has also left CASA).
Nevertheless, i will look at the link that you sent through. Cheers. Glen.
I think this whole issue was personality based and had nothing to do with safety or compliance, after all, i had just spent two years working side by side debveloping the APTA model with CASA. Had it approved, audited and in fact a number of members joined APTA on CASA suggestions, as they will testify.
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Industry dont count
No wonder you are where you are Glenn the regulator has lost site of their role. Dont apply for anything with CASA no one is home, its pointless, cant get answers. Takes months just to get a simple application moving. Rumour is that there is next to no staff left after a mass exodus, something has definitely changed. I haven't read all of your thread here Glenn but enough to get the gist. I don't do the Pprune thing normally but my own dealings with our regulator of late and listening to my industry colleagues it is impossible not to say something as it is proven that the current management simply dont listen. They aren't interested, it's like we dont count, at least in the Melbourne office. From my recent dealings the local area manager is a goose and reading your experience rings true with the arrogance we have to deal with here now. The word out there is that this person is now known as the xmas clown, not sure what the story is but sounds about right. The way it is now none of us will exist in the future. I've always had a good relationship with the regulator but in recent times it's fallen in a heap and feeling the need to resort to here is frustration and desperation. Everyone is having the same problems but most fear retaliation from the regulator if they speak out. Where is the CASA board, have they got any idea what is going on. We have never had such an ineffective board, has anyone got their finger on the pulse Just rewind CASA back a year or two at least then you could get some sense now its completely useless. Someone do something before we all fold.
Glenn
I have reviewed everything you have written on this subject and regret I do not have any simple solutions.
I do not believe you will get anywhere by challenging the "airy-fairy" language about process, it is so easily interpreted by CASA, they will also continue to defend their employees becuase they are vicariously liable for what is done in the name of CASA. The time for challenging the legal documents, such as what are now called safety findings or observations, seems also to have passed. My impression is that you were ground down because you tried to do the right thing instead of simply trading on until CASA came up with substantive action such as a safety alert or safety finding with which you could challenge or comply. They seem only to have disallowed a change to your operations manual, which, given that you had traded safely under the un-amended manual, only meant that you should trade on under the approved version. (Forgive me if I have misinterpreted).
I note that APTA is still trading and I assume that this is the entity you sold <https://www.auspta.edu.au/>. They claim to have approval to operate out of Latrobe and Ballarat, is this not what you were trying to do? Presumably this is the same AOC and they used your exposition? If this is so how can they justify the action taken against you?
Regardless, you now seem to be in a position of having lost everything because of the actions of a Government entity which is a body corporate and can therefore be sued. This entity will never agree to compensate you without being ordered to by the Federal Court, and even then they will claim that their action was at the time motivated only by their safety charter. Can I suggest that you run your case past a law firm that specialises in "no win/no-pay" cases and see if they think you have chance? If you have already done this then a believe you have run out of options short of talking to Senator Susan MacDonald (LNP - Queensland) who wants to lead a Senate investigation into CASA. This will not get you any money but might elecit some satisfaction.
I have reviewed everything you have written on this subject and regret I do not have any simple solutions.
I do not believe you will get anywhere by challenging the "airy-fairy" language about process, it is so easily interpreted by CASA, they will also continue to defend their employees becuase they are vicariously liable for what is done in the name of CASA. The time for challenging the legal documents, such as what are now called safety findings or observations, seems also to have passed. My impression is that you were ground down because you tried to do the right thing instead of simply trading on until CASA came up with substantive action such as a safety alert or safety finding with which you could challenge or comply. They seem only to have disallowed a change to your operations manual, which, given that you had traded safely under the un-amended manual, only meant that you should trade on under the approved version. (Forgive me if I have misinterpreted).
I note that APTA is still trading and I assume that this is the entity you sold <https://www.auspta.edu.au/>. They claim to have approval to operate out of Latrobe and Ballarat, is this not what you were trying to do? Presumably this is the same AOC and they used your exposition? If this is so how can they justify the action taken against you?
Regardless, you now seem to be in a position of having lost everything because of the actions of a Government entity which is a body corporate and can therefore be sued. This entity will never agree to compensate you without being ordered to by the Federal Court, and even then they will claim that their action was at the time motivated only by their safety charter. Can I suggest that you run your case past a law firm that specialises in "no win/no-pay" cases and see if they think you have chance? If you have already done this then a believe you have run out of options short of talking to Senator Susan MacDonald (LNP - Queensland) who wants to lead a Senate investigation into CASA. This will not get you any money but might elecit some satisfaction.
Thread Starter
21st February 2020
The Hon. Mr Michael Mc Cormack.
Deputy Prime Minister.
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, and Regional Development.
Dear Deputy Prime Minister,
The purpose of this letter is to call on you, in your role, to remove Mr Anthony Mathews from his current position as the Chairperson of the Board of CASA.
I make this formal request based on misconduct, failure to meet his obligations, and misfeasance in public office.
Mr Anthony Mathews was appointed to the Board of CASA as the Chairperson in August 2018 by you, in your role as the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport.
The CASA website states that ‘The Board is responsible for deciding the objectives, strategies and policies to be followed by CASA and for ensuring CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient, and effective manner”.
Whilst I will raise specific allegations in this correspondence, there can be no doubt that the General Aviation (GA) sector across Australia, is firmly of the opinion that CASA has failed to perform its functions in a proper, efficient or effective manner.
His position is untenable. The impact on aviation safety and the future of a sustainable GA industry is being unacceptably compromised by him continuing in that role. He is facilitating a dangerous culture within CASA that is clear breach of CASAs own regulatory philiosophy and other obligations placed on him in his role.
Mr Mathews has consistently and repeatedly overseen clear breaches of:
· The Ministers Statement of Expectations
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00977
· The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013A00123
· CASAs Regulatory Philosophy
https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who...ory-philosophy
· The values of the Australian Public Service.
https://www.apsc.gov.au/aps-values-1
· Commitments given to the Australian public by the Prime Minister in his address to the Institute of Public Administration at Parliament House on 19th August 2019
https://www.pm.gov.au/media/speech-i...administration
· The functions of CASA stated in section 9 of the Civil Aviation Act
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C01097
· Unlawful conduct by a small group of personnel within CASA.
Whilst CASA as an organisation is predominantly made up of a highly professional team focussed on achieving optimal safety outcomes, that good work is compromised by a small group of decision makers in the organisation that choose to act unethically and unlawfully.
These matters have been bought to the attention of Mr Mathews and he has chosen not to act and has therefore failed to meet the obligations that are placed on him, in his position as the Chair of the CASA Board.
I have attached correspondence with him over the last 12 months. In January 2019 I raised significant allegations about a number of individuals working within CASA. Those allegations were completely ignored, and not responded to.
By choosing not to respond to those allegations, he failed in his role as the Chair of the CASA Board. His conduct is indicative of a cover up rather than any good intent.
Correspondence (attached) was sent to him on 02/01/19, 02/04/19, 22/05/19, 28/05/19. 05/06/19. 06/06/19, 11/06/19 and 16/06/19. Please note that I included your office on the correspondence sent on 16/06/19.
For a period of 6 months he completely ignored that correspondence and chose not to consider the substantive allegations. As a result of him choosing not to respond, a number of businesses were forced into closure, significant investment was lost, and peoples livelihoods were impacted. This situation could have been avoided had he chosen to act with ethics and in a well-intentioned and timely manner.
My allegations of unlawful conduct are not vindictive or vexatious, and I expect to be held fully accountable for anything that I state. We have seen an undesirable trend in Australia over recent years away from accountability and responsibility, and most particularly at Board level. The conduct of these personnel who I will name, has personally cost me many millions of dollars and impacted significantly on my family’s welfare, and a number of other businesses predominantly in rural areas.
I make myself fully available to meet with you or your nominee, to present my evidence, prior to me making a submission to the current Senate Inquiry into General Aviation, if you will provide me with that opportunity.
I appreciate that you will be obligated to approach Mr Mathews on these matters and ask that you ask him to identify the basis for the action that CASA took against me, and if there is any supporting safety case, or were there any regulatory breaches. If he chooses to answer truthfully, as he will be compelled to, it will become immediately evident that significant failures have occurred.
Thankyou in anticipation of your consideration, and a determination to ensure CASA achieves its stated functions.
Respectfully
Glen Buckley
The Hon. Mr Michael Mc Cormack.
Deputy Prime Minister.
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, and Regional Development.
Dear Deputy Prime Minister,
The purpose of this letter is to call on you, in your role, to remove Mr Anthony Mathews from his current position as the Chairperson of the Board of CASA.
I make this formal request based on misconduct, failure to meet his obligations, and misfeasance in public office.
Mr Anthony Mathews was appointed to the Board of CASA as the Chairperson in August 2018 by you, in your role as the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport.
The CASA website states that ‘The Board is responsible for deciding the objectives, strategies and policies to be followed by CASA and for ensuring CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient, and effective manner”.
Whilst I will raise specific allegations in this correspondence, there can be no doubt that the General Aviation (GA) sector across Australia, is firmly of the opinion that CASA has failed to perform its functions in a proper, efficient or effective manner.
His position is untenable. The impact on aviation safety and the future of a sustainable GA industry is being unacceptably compromised by him continuing in that role. He is facilitating a dangerous culture within CASA that is clear breach of CASAs own regulatory philiosophy and other obligations placed on him in his role.
Mr Mathews has consistently and repeatedly overseen clear breaches of:
· The Ministers Statement of Expectations
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00977
· The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013A00123
· CASAs Regulatory Philosophy
https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who...ory-philosophy
· The values of the Australian Public Service.
https://www.apsc.gov.au/aps-values-1
· Commitments given to the Australian public by the Prime Minister in his address to the Institute of Public Administration at Parliament House on 19th August 2019
https://www.pm.gov.au/media/speech-i...administration
· The functions of CASA stated in section 9 of the Civil Aviation Act
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C01097
· Unlawful conduct by a small group of personnel within CASA.
Whilst CASA as an organisation is predominantly made up of a highly professional team focussed on achieving optimal safety outcomes, that good work is compromised by a small group of decision makers in the organisation that choose to act unethically and unlawfully.
These matters have been bought to the attention of Mr Mathews and he has chosen not to act and has therefore failed to meet the obligations that are placed on him, in his position as the Chair of the CASA Board.
I have attached correspondence with him over the last 12 months. In January 2019 I raised significant allegations about a number of individuals working within CASA. Those allegations were completely ignored, and not responded to.
By choosing not to respond to those allegations, he failed in his role as the Chair of the CASA Board. His conduct is indicative of a cover up rather than any good intent.
Correspondence (attached) was sent to him on 02/01/19, 02/04/19, 22/05/19, 28/05/19. 05/06/19. 06/06/19, 11/06/19 and 16/06/19. Please note that I included your office on the correspondence sent on 16/06/19.
For a period of 6 months he completely ignored that correspondence and chose not to consider the substantive allegations. As a result of him choosing not to respond, a number of businesses were forced into closure, significant investment was lost, and peoples livelihoods were impacted. This situation could have been avoided had he chosen to act with ethics and in a well-intentioned and timely manner.
My allegations of unlawful conduct are not vindictive or vexatious, and I expect to be held fully accountable for anything that I state. We have seen an undesirable trend in Australia over recent years away from accountability and responsibility, and most particularly at Board level. The conduct of these personnel who I will name, has personally cost me many millions of dollars and impacted significantly on my family’s welfare, and a number of other businesses predominantly in rural areas.
I make myself fully available to meet with you or your nominee, to present my evidence, prior to me making a submission to the current Senate Inquiry into General Aviation, if you will provide me with that opportunity.
I appreciate that you will be obligated to approach Mr Mathews on these matters and ask that you ask him to identify the basis for the action that CASA took against me, and if there is any supporting safety case, or were there any regulatory breaches. If he chooses to answer truthfully, as he will be compelled to, it will become immediately evident that significant failures have occurred.
Thankyou in anticipation of your consideration, and a determination to ensure CASA achieves its stated functions.
Respectfully
Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
the attachments
If anyone is interested in a copy of the attachments while they are pending approval, please feel free to email me
[email protected]
[email protected]
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Victoria
Age: 59
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Save your breath
No point Glenn, they will never admit they are wrong even when they know they are. They need to get rid of the Melbourne manager, he has no idea, what be did to you should have been enough for casa to see him as a liability The inspectors we deal with are really good but the Melbourne office has so few left so many jumped ship and its a mess trying to get anything done.
Dont fancy your chances but i hope you manage to salvage something out of this.
Dont fancy your chances but i hope you manage to salvage something out of this.
Last edited by Shipwreck00; 21st Feb 2020 at 05:24.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts