Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
By chance, might you happen to have an old backup (time machine) drive stashed somewhere?
Thread Starter
question to the Ombudsman
Dear Mark of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office.
Thankyou for providing me your finalised response regarding my complaint regarding CASA. I apologise for the delay in responding as I have been involved in a house move. As you are aware the CASA action has left me destitute and bankrupt, as I have personally lost many millions of dollars, and as you are aware several other businesses were forced into closure. The financial and human toll that this has taken on the wellbeing of my family, and me is totally unwarranted and unneccesssary.The impact has been significant to say the least.
I feel compelled to have a response on record, and I am in the process of preparing that response.
In order to assist me in finalising the response, may I put one important question to you.
There is no doubt that since the introduction of Civil Aviation legislation in 1938, multiple flight training organisations operating under a single authorisation was fully sanctioned and approved by CASA. There is no doubt that this is the truth. This can simply be evidenced, by the Latrobe Valley Aero Club operating under the AOC of a Charter Company in Bairnsdale, up until the day they joined APTA.
When Latrobe Valley transferred from its previous operator to APTA, CASA declared APTAs operation illegal, placed trading restrictions on the business for 8 months that prevented it taking on new customers. CASA also wrote to existing customers advising them of that fact that they were operating illegally and subject to regulatory action.
Can I request an explanation as to why no consideration was made regarding this fact i.e. CASA allowed other Operators to do this but determined that I was operating unlawfully.
It would appear to me that this would be the starting point of any investigation, although you chose not to address this critical factor.
If I could request an explanation as to why no comparative analysis was made, I would be highly appreciative.
Yours thankfully,
Glen Buckley
Thankyou for providing me your finalised response regarding my complaint regarding CASA. I apologise for the delay in responding as I have been involved in a house move. As you are aware the CASA action has left me destitute and bankrupt, as I have personally lost many millions of dollars, and as you are aware several other businesses were forced into closure. The financial and human toll that this has taken on the wellbeing of my family, and me is totally unwarranted and unneccesssary.The impact has been significant to say the least.
I feel compelled to have a response on record, and I am in the process of preparing that response.
In order to assist me in finalising the response, may I put one important question to you.
There is no doubt that since the introduction of Civil Aviation legislation in 1938, multiple flight training organisations operating under a single authorisation was fully sanctioned and approved by CASA. There is no doubt that this is the truth. This can simply be evidenced, by the Latrobe Valley Aero Club operating under the AOC of a Charter Company in Bairnsdale, up until the day they joined APTA.
When Latrobe Valley transferred from its previous operator to APTA, CASA declared APTAs operation illegal, placed trading restrictions on the business for 8 months that prevented it taking on new customers. CASA also wrote to existing customers advising them of that fact that they were operating illegally and subject to regulatory action.
Can I request an explanation as to why no consideration was made regarding this fact i.e. CASA allowed other Operators to do this but determined that I was operating unlawfully.
It would appear to me that this would be the starting point of any investigation, although you chose not to address this critical factor.
If I could request an explanation as to why no comparative analysis was made, I would be highly appreciative.
Yours thankfully,
Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
Office update
Will be putting up a post Monday morning, cheers
Update. Apologies behind schedule. Days off Tuesday, and Wednesday. Will post it then
Update. Apologies behind schedule. Days off Tuesday, and Wednesday. Will post it then
Last edited by glenb; 23rd Aug 2021 at 02:42. Reason: postpone
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The newly minted CASA CEO/DAS made this comment in her opening missive in May 2021; “I do not pretend to know everything about aviation and aviation safety, but I do bring a depth of knowledge and experience to my job”.
So she is being paid $600k per year to hold the title of Director Aviation Safety, yet does not know everything about aviation and aviation safety! What folly. That explains why 4 months in we are yet to see any ‘moving and shaking’. Her experience instills There is little confidence within our industry that there will be any positive changes to not only CASA, but to some of the ludicrous rules and regulations that are destroying our industry.
Elsewhere in her opening missive she mentions that she brings with her aviation ‘experience’. Ummm, no she doesn’t. Learning bureaucracy and obsfucation techniques from Mike Mrdak and the infrastructure department does not constitute aviation knowledge. Geoffrey Thomas claims to have vast ‘industry knowledge’ as well, but it relates only to information that he pinches from other people and his understanding of what colour the Chairman's lounge seats are. Pip’s experience is in allocating funding to various aviation industry programs, massaging lots of government money, eating kale sandwiches in Can’tberra boutique coffee shops, and attending copious amounts of bureaucratic meetings in which fantasy and nonsense is promulgated and group discussions take place regarding the photographic design and colour details for the glossy annual report are robustly debated.
Best of luck Glenn, you are going to need it when dealing with this departmental Can’tberra circus. Tootle…..Pip
So she is being paid $600k per year to hold the title of Director Aviation Safety, yet does not know everything about aviation and aviation safety! What folly. That explains why 4 months in we are yet to see any ‘moving and shaking’. Her experience instills There is little confidence within our industry that there will be any positive changes to not only CASA, but to some of the ludicrous rules and regulations that are destroying our industry.
Elsewhere in her opening missive she mentions that she brings with her aviation ‘experience’. Ummm, no she doesn’t. Learning bureaucracy and obsfucation techniques from Mike Mrdak and the infrastructure department does not constitute aviation knowledge. Geoffrey Thomas claims to have vast ‘industry knowledge’ as well, but it relates only to information that he pinches from other people and his understanding of what colour the Chairman's lounge seats are. Pip’s experience is in allocating funding to various aviation industry programs, massaging lots of government money, eating kale sandwiches in Can’tberra boutique coffee shops, and attending copious amounts of bureaucratic meetings in which fantasy and nonsense is promulgated and group discussions take place regarding the photographic design and colour details for the glossy annual report are robustly debated.
Best of luck Glenn, you are going to need it when dealing with this departmental Can’tberra circus. Tootle…..Pip
Last edited by Paragraph377; 26th Aug 2021 at 00:20.
The newly minted CASA CEO/DAS made this comment in her opening missive in May 2021; “I do not pretend to know everything about aviation and aviation safety, but I do bring a depth of knowledge and experience to my job”.
So she is being paid $600k per year to hold the title of Director Aviation Safety, yet does not know everything about aviation and aviation safety! What folly. That explains why 4 months in we are yet to see any ‘moving and shaking’. Her experience instills That no confidence in industry that there will be positive changes not only within CASA, but to some of the ludicrous rules and regulations that are destroying our industry.
Elsewhere in her opening missive she mentions that she brings with her aviation ‘experience’. Ummm, no she doesn’t. Learning bureaucracy and obsfucation techniques from Mike Mrdak and the infrastructure department does not constitute aviation knowledge. Geoffrey Thomas claims to have vast ‘industry knowledge’ as well, but it relates to information he pinches from other people and what colour the Chairman's lounge seats are. Pip’s experience is in allocating funding to various aviation industry programs, massaging lots of government money, eating kale sandwiches in Can’tberra boutique coffee shops, and attending copious amounts of bureaucratic meetings in which fantasy and nonsense is promulgated and group discussions take place regarding the photographic design and colour details for the glossy annual report are robustly debated.
Best of luck Glenn, you are going to need it when dealing with this departmental Can’tberra circus. Tootle…..Pip
So she is being paid $600k per year to hold the title of Director Aviation Safety, yet does not know everything about aviation and aviation safety! What folly. That explains why 4 months in we are yet to see any ‘moving and shaking’. Her experience instills That no confidence in industry that there will be positive changes not only within CASA, but to some of the ludicrous rules and regulations that are destroying our industry.
Elsewhere in her opening missive she mentions that she brings with her aviation ‘experience’. Ummm, no she doesn’t. Learning bureaucracy and obsfucation techniques from Mike Mrdak and the infrastructure department does not constitute aviation knowledge. Geoffrey Thomas claims to have vast ‘industry knowledge’ as well, but it relates to information he pinches from other people and what colour the Chairman's lounge seats are. Pip’s experience is in allocating funding to various aviation industry programs, massaging lots of government money, eating kale sandwiches in Can’tberra boutique coffee shops, and attending copious amounts of bureaucratic meetings in which fantasy and nonsense is promulgated and group discussions take place regarding the photographic design and colour details for the glossy annual report are robustly debated.
Best of luck Glenn, you are going to need it when dealing with this departmental Can’tberra circus. Tootle…..Pip
Moderator
https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/sta...viation-safety
Deputy Secretary for the Arts????
"Before joining CASA, Pip was the Chief Operating Officer and Deputy Secretary for the Arts at the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications. Before that she was the Deputy Secretary for Transport. In this role, Pip was responsible for aviation and airport policy and program matters."
Deputy Secretary for the Arts????
Paragraph377;
GT is the epitome of the Dunning-Kruger effect, not knowing anything and not being able to recognise not knowing anything and thus exhibits unbridled confidence in his abilities which it annoys me no end, media outlets who wouldn't know any better just throw him in front of the camera to spout his sensationalist commentary and throw the word 'Expert' under his name. Sickening for all of us who have spent our lives in all aspects of aviation and know more than he ever will.
What is it about the media that all the so-called experts are the bottom of the gene pool of aviation???? Maybe it just is an arena that attracts narcissists.
GT is the epitome of the Dunning-Kruger effect, not knowing anything and not being able to recognise not knowing anything and thus exhibits unbridled confidence in his abilities which it annoys me no end, media outlets who wouldn't know any better just throw him in front of the camera to spout his sensationalist commentary and throw the word 'Expert' under his name. Sickening for all of us who have spent our lives in all aspects of aviation and know more than he ever will.
What is it about the media that all the so-called experts are the bottom of the gene pool of aviation???? Maybe it just is an arena that attracts narcissists.
Thread Starter
More Ping Pong with Ombudsman
Ombudsman Reference 2019-713834
The precursor to this correspondence is a follow up to my letter on page 73 post#1443
Dear Mark of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office.
Regarding my allegations that some CASA personnel acted unlawfully and that their actions lead to the closure of my two businesses. There were three core “topics”.
I am very much of the opinion that in fact no comments were made publicly by me that would compel a CASA employee to direct that my continuing employment was no longer tenable, and that in fact the direction was vindictive and vexatious. It had no basis in aviation regulations, and no basis on aviation safety.
This particular topic is important because I am claiming that in fact, this entire matter was not based on safety or regulatory matters but was in fact an “engineered” process from within the CASA Executive.
I have made an allegation of misfeasance in public office against three members of the CASA Executive before the Senate Standing Committees General Aviation Inquiry in November 2020.
During the previous 18 months prior to formally raising those allegations in Parliament, I had written to the Leader of the Nationals and Deputy PM at the time, the Honourable Mr Michael McCormack on numerous occasions, and did so again immediately after I appeared in Parliament. None of that correspondence was ever acknowledged or responded to by his Office.
I am fully satisfied that his Office is avoiding this topic, and by him choosing not to respond, I am more dependent on your findings in order to approach my Local Member of Parliament Ms Gladys Liu for assistance.
To the point of this correspondence.
Thank you for your consideration, respectfully,
Glen Buckley
The precursor to this correspondence is a follow up to my letter on page 73 post#1443
Dear Mark of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office.
Regarding my allegations that some CASA personnel acted unlawfully and that their actions lead to the closure of my two businesses. There were three core “topics”.
- The overnight reversal of APTAs approval by CASA, and determination by CASA that it would no longer be permitted.
- The declaration by CASA that my flying school of more than a decade, Melbourne Flight Training was suddenly declared an “unauthorised operation” and forced into closure. Despite multiple requests, CASA will provide no explanation for this, and I continue to seek one.
- The direction by CASA to my Employer that my continuing employment in the industry was “no longer tenable based on comments I was making publicly” leading to my departure from the industry after 25 years.
I am very much of the opinion that in fact no comments were made publicly by me that would compel a CASA employee to direct that my continuing employment was no longer tenable, and that in fact the direction was vindictive and vexatious. It had no basis in aviation regulations, and no basis on aviation safety.
This particular topic is important because I am claiming that in fact, this entire matter was not based on safety or regulatory matters but was in fact an “engineered” process from within the CASA Executive.
I have made an allegation of misfeasance in public office against three members of the CASA Executive before the Senate Standing Committees General Aviation Inquiry in November 2020.
During the previous 18 months prior to formally raising those allegations in Parliament, I had written to the Leader of the Nationals and Deputy PM at the time, the Honourable Mr Michael McCormack on numerous occasions, and did so again immediately after I appeared in Parliament. None of that correspondence was ever acknowledged or responded to by his Office.
I am fully satisfied that his Office is avoiding this topic, and by him choosing not to respond, I am more dependent on your findings in order to approach my Local Member of Parliament Ms Gladys Liu for assistance.
To the point of this correspondence.
- I have previously received your report on the direction by a CASA employee that my continuing employment was untenable. Are you able to confirm if there is a final report coming, or is that matter also closed, and that report is the final report?
- I was hoping that the Ombudsman’s Office could direct me to the particular comment or comments that I made that compelled CASA to write to my Employer and make that direction that my continuing employment was no longer tenable, and my assumption is that identifying the comment or comments that I made, and where they were made, would have been a central theme to the investigation, and be integral to a determination of appropriateness and proportionality of the CASA action. Therefore, can I be informed of what the comment/s were, and in what forum were they made.
- Was there any update regarding CASA publishing an apology?
Thank you for your consideration, respectfully,
Glen Buckley
Last edited by glenb; 3rd Sep 2021 at 23:04. Reason: include reference
Glen,
it is good to hear that you are back and still pursuing the faceless men!
I was worrying, as were many other observers of this one side fight, that you might have been overcome.
Please stay safe and look after your self and your family!
All the best!!
it is good to hear that you are back and still pursuing the faceless men!
I was worrying, as were many other observers of this one side fight, that you might have been overcome.
Please stay safe and look after your self and your family!
All the best!!
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carmody vs Buckley - only one real man stands tall
Shane Carmody, AOM, received the Order of Australia Medal last year. What for, I don’t really know. A government bureaucrat is not a real achievement, as sitting in a Canberra office drinking coffee and eating truffles really doesn’t fit the criteria of being a real job. Slurping on a Ministers jockstrap for decades also doesn’t meet the criteria of being a real job. So awarding such a person as him a title is absolutely sickening. A gutless bully who used the power of the government to back up his spineless actions. It was never a fair competition, but then again bullies always hang out together.
Carmody spent 32 years as a public servant, with no remarkable achievement other than racking up a huge superannuation nest egg. He also spent 15 years as an ‘army officer’, where he no doubt worked in a non-combative role such as being a cook, a cleaner of bedsheets and mess halls, or working in a nice safe Australian stores facility somewhere. So 47 years on the government teat is pathetic. Too scared to get a real job in the real world. Had this individual had any real life skills, he would not have allowed the situation to foster where Mr Buckley was so mercilessly destroyed.
Glen is a true gentleman and a decent, down to earth guy who was simply trying to eek out a modest living for himself and his family. A smart man who developed a concept that was a good match for industry’s needs. He has put up a brave battle and has a robust set of balls, unlike the spineless turds who oppose him.
Karma is real, and eventually everyone pays for their sins.
Carmody spent 32 years as a public servant, with no remarkable achievement other than racking up a huge superannuation nest egg. He also spent 15 years as an ‘army officer’, where he no doubt worked in a non-combative role such as being a cook, a cleaner of bedsheets and mess halls, or working in a nice safe Australian stores facility somewhere. So 47 years on the government teat is pathetic. Too scared to get a real job in the real world. Had this individual had any real life skills, he would not have allowed the situation to foster where Mr Buckley was so mercilessly destroyed.
Glen is a true gentleman and a decent, down to earth guy who was simply trying to eek out a modest living for himself and his family. A smart man who developed a concept that was a good match for industry’s needs. He has put up a brave battle and has a robust set of balls, unlike the spineless turds who oppose him.
Karma is real, and eventually everyone pays for their sins.
Thread Starter
Correspondence to local MP, Gladys Liu
Attachments:
15/09/21
To the Honourable Ms Gladys Liu, Member for Chisholm.
My name is Glen Buckley, a 56-year resident of the electorate of Chisholm.
The purpose of this correspondence is to request a meeting with you, to seek guidance regarding the submission of a petition, and to subsequently submit that petition to the House of Representatives via your Office.
I have reviewed the information on the Parliamentary website. I understand the difference between an “e-petition” and a “paper petition”. I understand that an e-petition can only run for 30 days. To achieve my goal of 10,000 signatures I may need a protracted period beyond 30 days, although I am confident of widespread industry support, and would also draw on my local community to obtain my goal. My objective would be to achieve this figure in two months, with it commencing on November 1st and running till the last day of 2021, with submission to your office, in early 2022. I am also considering paying for two months advertising in a prominent aviation magazine to raise awareness of the issue and drawing the publics attention to the petition, I would appreciate direction from your office on the appropriateness of such action.
For these reasons, the E-petition may not be suitable, and the “paper petition” appears the better option. Could you advise whether a petition managed through a website such as Change.org or similar meets the requirements of a “paper” petition for submission.
My suggested wording for the petition follows, but I welcome any input from your Office, to ensure that all protocols are met. I have kept the petition within the 250-word limit.
PETITION
I, Glen Buckley, am requesting that the Minister responsible for CASA provide me with the opportunity for a 3-hour meeting.
My intention would be to submit allegations, against a CASA employee of “misfeasance in public office”, and to submit evidence in support of those allegations. At the end of that meeting, I would be seeking direction on how I should proceed.
To maximise transparency, efficiency and to ensure integrity, a Subject Matter Expert (SME) from the CASA Executive Management level should also attend that meeting and ensure that they have the opportunity to alert the Deputy PM if I misrepresent the situation.
The impact of this individuals’ decisions has led to the closure of several businesses, loss of associated investment, and jobs, and has no basis in safety or regulatory breaches. Not only has it caused significant commercial damage, but it has also had a traumatic impact on the wellbeing of my family, and others.
When faced with alternatives he has deliberately and knowingly made the decision that results in the greater harm and did so repeatedly over an 8-month period. He was not compelled to make the decisions that he made.
At the time of applying his opinion and making his decisions and throughout the 8-month period, he would have been fully aware of the emotional and commercial trauma that would be caused to myself, my family, and others dependent on me, and was alerted to it on numerous occasions in writing. At any time, he could have resolved this entire matter, within 24 hours, but chose not to.
Thank you for your support, Glen Buckley
As you will be aware from the wording, I am seeking a meeting and subsequent investigation of my complaint. That short investigation would ideally be done by someone with a level of industry expertise, to bring increased robustness to the process, and assist in getting to the truth of the matter in a prompt and efficient manner. My suggestion would be to draw from the recent applicants for the position of CEO of CASA. This does potentially impact on the safety of aviation, so a prolonged investigation is best avoided, hence my appeal direct to the Minister.
I feel that a petition is one of my few remaining options to bring integrity and transparency to the process. This individual I have made allegations against is actually in charge of this matter and managing the situation from within CASA. It does not seem reasonable that the person who has allegations made him, is also the person in charge of CASAs management of the matter.
He holds a position of power within CASA and can significantly influence CASA outcomes. I am fully satisfied that he is misleading the Commonwealth Ombudsman in his investigation and that is likely to pervert the outcome, hence my appeal to the Parliament for assistance, and most especially to you in your role as my local Member. The opportunity for me to present my evidence on this matter in support of the allegation is important.
I have raised these substantive allegations against this individual on multiple occasions to the previous Deputy PM, the Honourable Mr Michael McCormack, and have done so on repeated occasions for more almost three years. A limited sampling of that correspondence is attached as: Appendix McCormack in three parts.
Mr McCormack, whilst no longer the Deputy PM remains as a National Party Representative and would be the Subject Matter Expert (SME), within the Government. He has also been fully briefed by the Chair of the Board of CASA prior to his recent departure from the role.
Whilst I am not able to question the Honourable Mr Michael McCormack’s integrity generally, on this matter, it is fair to say, he has not acted in a well-intentioned manner. I say that because he chose not to engage with me on this matter, despite his awareness of it. Mr McCormack was fully briefed by the Chair of the CASA Board at the time in accordance with the Ministers Statement of Expectations.
The matter is complicated, but I believe that you have some pre-existing knowledge. I have attached two magazine articles that provide an overview. These articles have been provided to you some time ago, so I include them again for ease of reference. To anyone not familiar with the matter, these provide an exceptional overview, and are essential reading.
I have also attached a link to my presentation before Senate on 23rd November 2020, and a copy of Hansard.
It is in this Presentation to the Senate Committee, that I once again formally raised the allegation of “misfeasance in public office” against this CASA employee, and I followed that up immediately, with a formal written submission to the Deputy PM at the time, as the Minister responsible for CASA. That substantial allegation raised by me, was not responded to by his office, despite repeated requests both before and after my allegations were raised in Parliament and were bought directly to his attention.
Depending on the time you have to allocate to this matter, I also draw your attention to the “thread” that covers this topic in some detail. Despite being on what I assumed to be a discrete aviators forum at the time, it has now attracted well over ¾ million views. This matter is obviously important to the wider industry and has significant support. I refer you to the comprehensive information available via the following link. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums
I also point out that allegations of a similar nature have previously been made against this individual, leading to an ABC investigative story by Adele Ferguson and Chris Gillett on the ABC 7.30 Report in October 2018. I have been approached by many within industry offering to come forward and tell their account of their experience with this CASA employee. Similarly, many of their lives and livelihoods have been destroyed have also been approached by CASA employees who have offered to come forward and tell the truth not only on my matter, but on others.
The purpose of this correspondence is to request a meeting with you or your nominee to seek guidance on how petition that could best be prepared for submission, and what protocols need to be met.
Shortly, I will be writing directly to the Deputy PM, making a request for a meeting. I have been trying to obtain this for over two years, to no avail, and I would like to pre-empt that anticipated rejection by proceeding as expeditiously as possible on this petition.
Please understand Ms Liu, that my family has lost everything as a result of this individual. I lost my two businesses, my home, I was forced out of the industry, I was bankrupted, and am now trully destitute. My business, shut down by CASA was my future security. I have no superannuation. My wife has had only 4 days free of work in over 2 years, as she tries to rebuild our life. The impact on her has been heartbreaking to watch as a husband. Should one of us be unable to work, the truth is we would be homeless. The future of my wife and I is dire, and depressing.
Thank you in anticipation of your assistance on this matter.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley.
- Appendix 8B: Magazine article. February 2018 “APTA before CASA action”.
- Appendix 8C- Magazine article September 2019f “APTA after CASA action”.
- Appendix 8E-Hansard Report- Senate RRAT Committee November 2020
- Link to CASA Principles. Particular attention is drawn to Principle 8 and the link to CASAs Regulatory Philosophy. How CASA meets the government best practice principles for policy makers | Civil Aviation Safety Authority
- Appendix- Proposed media release.
- Appendix x3 Correspondence to Minister McCormack
15/09/21
To the Honourable Ms Gladys Liu, Member for Chisholm.
My name is Glen Buckley, a 56-year resident of the electorate of Chisholm.
The purpose of this correspondence is to request a meeting with you, to seek guidance regarding the submission of a petition, and to subsequently submit that petition to the House of Representatives via your Office.
I have reviewed the information on the Parliamentary website. I understand the difference between an “e-petition” and a “paper petition”. I understand that an e-petition can only run for 30 days. To achieve my goal of 10,000 signatures I may need a protracted period beyond 30 days, although I am confident of widespread industry support, and would also draw on my local community to obtain my goal. My objective would be to achieve this figure in two months, with it commencing on November 1st and running till the last day of 2021, with submission to your office, in early 2022. I am also considering paying for two months advertising in a prominent aviation magazine to raise awareness of the issue and drawing the publics attention to the petition, I would appreciate direction from your office on the appropriateness of such action.
For these reasons, the E-petition may not be suitable, and the “paper petition” appears the better option. Could you advise whether a petition managed through a website such as Change.org or similar meets the requirements of a “paper” petition for submission.
My suggested wording for the petition follows, but I welcome any input from your Office, to ensure that all protocols are met. I have kept the petition within the 250-word limit.
PETITION
I, Glen Buckley, am requesting that the Minister responsible for CASA provide me with the opportunity for a 3-hour meeting.
My intention would be to submit allegations, against a CASA employee of “misfeasance in public office”, and to submit evidence in support of those allegations. At the end of that meeting, I would be seeking direction on how I should proceed.
To maximise transparency, efficiency and to ensure integrity, a Subject Matter Expert (SME) from the CASA Executive Management level should also attend that meeting and ensure that they have the opportunity to alert the Deputy PM if I misrepresent the situation.
The impact of this individuals’ decisions has led to the closure of several businesses, loss of associated investment, and jobs, and has no basis in safety or regulatory breaches. Not only has it caused significant commercial damage, but it has also had a traumatic impact on the wellbeing of my family, and others.
When faced with alternatives he has deliberately and knowingly made the decision that results in the greater harm and did so repeatedly over an 8-month period. He was not compelled to make the decisions that he made.
At the time of applying his opinion and making his decisions and throughout the 8-month period, he would have been fully aware of the emotional and commercial trauma that would be caused to myself, my family, and others dependent on me, and was alerted to it on numerous occasions in writing. At any time, he could have resolved this entire matter, within 24 hours, but chose not to.
Thank you for your support, Glen Buckley
As you will be aware from the wording, I am seeking a meeting and subsequent investigation of my complaint. That short investigation would ideally be done by someone with a level of industry expertise, to bring increased robustness to the process, and assist in getting to the truth of the matter in a prompt and efficient manner. My suggestion would be to draw from the recent applicants for the position of CEO of CASA. This does potentially impact on the safety of aviation, so a prolonged investigation is best avoided, hence my appeal direct to the Minister.
I feel that a petition is one of my few remaining options to bring integrity and transparency to the process. This individual I have made allegations against is actually in charge of this matter and managing the situation from within CASA. It does not seem reasonable that the person who has allegations made him, is also the person in charge of CASAs management of the matter.
He holds a position of power within CASA and can significantly influence CASA outcomes. I am fully satisfied that he is misleading the Commonwealth Ombudsman in his investigation and that is likely to pervert the outcome, hence my appeal to the Parliament for assistance, and most especially to you in your role as my local Member. The opportunity for me to present my evidence on this matter in support of the allegation is important.
I have raised these substantive allegations against this individual on multiple occasions to the previous Deputy PM, the Honourable Mr Michael McCormack, and have done so on repeated occasions for more almost three years. A limited sampling of that correspondence is attached as: Appendix McCormack in three parts.
Mr McCormack, whilst no longer the Deputy PM remains as a National Party Representative and would be the Subject Matter Expert (SME), within the Government. He has also been fully briefed by the Chair of the Board of CASA prior to his recent departure from the role.
Whilst I am not able to question the Honourable Mr Michael McCormack’s integrity generally, on this matter, it is fair to say, he has not acted in a well-intentioned manner. I say that because he chose not to engage with me on this matter, despite his awareness of it. Mr McCormack was fully briefed by the Chair of the CASA Board at the time in accordance with the Ministers Statement of Expectations.
The matter is complicated, but I believe that you have some pre-existing knowledge. I have attached two magazine articles that provide an overview. These articles have been provided to you some time ago, so I include them again for ease of reference. To anyone not familiar with the matter, these provide an exceptional overview, and are essential reading.
I have also attached a link to my presentation before Senate on 23rd November 2020, and a copy of Hansard.
Depending on the time you have to allocate to this matter, I also draw your attention to the “thread” that covers this topic in some detail. Despite being on what I assumed to be a discrete aviators forum at the time, it has now attracted well over ¾ million views. This matter is obviously important to the wider industry and has significant support. I refer you to the comprehensive information available via the following link. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums
I also point out that allegations of a similar nature have previously been made against this individual, leading to an ABC investigative story by Adele Ferguson and Chris Gillett on the ABC 7.30 Report in October 2018. I have been approached by many within industry offering to come forward and tell their account of their experience with this CASA employee. Similarly, many of their lives and livelihoods have been destroyed have also been approached by CASA employees who have offered to come forward and tell the truth not only on my matter, but on others.
The purpose of this correspondence is to request a meeting with you or your nominee to seek guidance on how petition that could best be prepared for submission, and what protocols need to be met.
Shortly, I will be writing directly to the Deputy PM, making a request for a meeting. I have been trying to obtain this for over two years, to no avail, and I would like to pre-empt that anticipated rejection by proceeding as expeditiously as possible on this petition.
Please understand Ms Liu, that my family has lost everything as a result of this individual. I lost my two businesses, my home, I was forced out of the industry, I was bankrupted, and am now trully destitute. My business, shut down by CASA was my future security. I have no superannuation. My wife has had only 4 days free of work in over 2 years, as she tries to rebuild our life. The impact on her has been heartbreaking to watch as a husband. Should one of us be unable to work, the truth is we would be homeless. The future of my wife and I is dire, and depressing.
Thank you in anticipation of your assistance on this matter.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glen, under the Civil Aviation Act and the subsequent legislation, officer delegations and legal framework, CASA inspectors are permitted to evaluate regulatory risk, monitor compliance and then respond to non-compliance. In their mind they have done exactly this in relation to your specific case. To an observer or industry participant, what they have done is bastardise your company and sweep it out of existence for reasons only known to them. Absolute pricks. However, from a legal perspective they have shown that they have acted honestly and with due diligence by eliminating what they perceive as being a safety risk - you/your organisation. They will simply keep on promulgating that message, that they have acted prudently to mitigate and reduce a big scary safety risk to the dear Australian population. They will continue to present it in such a way that it is hard to dispute.
Winning against CASA is like chalking up a win against the Attorney Generals office or the ATO. It does happen, but rarely, and at great cost. Your hope should be that they view you as a pest, a thorn in their side (and successive and future Ministers sides) disrupting their busy Canberra schedule of coffee shop meetings and afternoon truffles, and hopefully they will offer you a few breadcrumbs to go away and leave them alone. As always Comrade, best of luck and we wish you every success.
Winning against CASA is like chalking up a win against the Attorney Generals office or the ATO. It does happen, but rarely, and at great cost. Your hope should be that they view you as a pest, a thorn in their side (and successive and future Ministers sides) disrupting their busy Canberra schedule of coffee shop meetings and afternoon truffles, and hopefully they will offer you a few breadcrumbs to go away and leave them alone. As always Comrade, best of luck and we wish you every success.
Shane Carmody, AOM, received the Order of Australia Medal last year. What for, I don’t really know. A government bureaucrat is not a real achievement, as sitting in a Canberra office drinking coffee and eating truffles really doesn’t fit the criteria of being a real job. Slurping on a Ministers jockstrap for decades also doesn’t meet the criteria of being a real job. So awarding such a person as him a title is absolutely sickening. A gutless bully who used the power of the government to back up his spineless actions. It was never a fair competition, but then again bullies always hang out together.
Carmody spent 32 years as a public servant, with no remarkable achievement other than racking up a huge superannuation nest egg. He also spent 15 years as an ‘army officer’, where he no doubt worked in a non-combative role such as being a cook, a cleaner of bedsheets and mess halls, or working in a nice safe Australian stores facility somewhere. So 47 years on the government teat is pathetic. Too scared to get a real job in the real world. Had this individual had any real life skills, he would not have allowed the situation to foster where Mr Buckley was so mercilessly destroyed.
Glen is a true gentleman and a decent, down to earth guy who was simply trying to eek out a modest living for himself and his family. A smart man who developed a concept that was a good match for industry’s needs. He has put up a brave battle and has a robust set of balls, unlike the spineless turds who oppose him.
Karma is real, and eventually everyone pays for their sins.
Carmody spent 32 years as a public servant, with no remarkable achievement other than racking up a huge superannuation nest egg. He also spent 15 years as an ‘army officer’, where he no doubt worked in a non-combative role such as being a cook, a cleaner of bedsheets and mess halls, or working in a nice safe Australian stores facility somewhere. So 47 years on the government teat is pathetic. Too scared to get a real job in the real world. Had this individual had any real life skills, he would not have allowed the situation to foster where Mr Buckley was so mercilessly destroyed.
Glen is a true gentleman and a decent, down to earth guy who was simply trying to eek out a modest living for himself and his family. A smart man who developed a concept that was a good match for industry’s needs. He has put up a brave battle and has a robust set of balls, unlike the spineless turds who oppose him.
Karma is real, and eventually everyone pays for their sins.
As for the Order of Australia, they're like confetti - I seem to remember in the same year, a bloke who took hold of the country's second largest airline and effectively ran it into the ground financially to the point where the next CEO couldn't pull it up in time and it went into administration also got awarded one of these vacuous 'awards' for 'services to aviation' - well, I guess there is some truth in that, the bloke concerned (the mail room boy) well and truly 'serviced' Virgin, if you know what I mean.
People often complain about someone like AJ getting bonuses but there were times when he and his predecessor, Dixon, decided to forego their bonuses - the MRB never knocked back a bonus or took a cent less through 10 years of ZERO profits.
I know this is about Glen, but I just add that extra commentary to highlight what a joke the entire 'award' system is.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,971
Received 96 Likes
on
55 Posts
Slight thread drift
Ah yes, the Order of Australia; Every time I hear those words, for some reason I always think of the similarly named award....The Order of Lenin.
Once read that the ribbon colour of the two are identical, but NFI if that is true.
The Australian awards system; Otherwise irreverently known as the 'Bunyip Aristocracy.'
Back to the thread proper.
As for the Order of Australia, they're like confetti
Once read that the ribbon colour of the two are identical, but NFI if that is true.
The Australian awards system; Otherwise irreverently known as the 'Bunyip Aristocracy.'
Back to the thread proper.
Thread Starter
The Elephant in the room question
Sorrtry folks about to walk into work. I will return to add to and edit this, but keen to get it up.I am fully satisfied that CASA has deliberately mislead the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office in the current investigation.
If CASA is to be believed, and I point out that they have very much led what I call an alternating narrative, then I would like to ask one very simple question that requires an explanation that calls into question the ethics, the intention, the integrity and in fact the lawfulness of this matter.
Appropriate at this stage that I refer to Mr Carmody’s Statement to Parliament at the Senate Inquiry into Australia’s General Aviation Industry Friday 20th November 2020. This is more than a year after I have lost the business, due to the restrictions CASA placed on the businesses ability to trade.
“Essentially, Mr Buckley has been asked to do one thing, deliver a legal document between him and his franchisees or his subordinates or whatever he calls them that clearly outlines who has the safety responsibility and supervisory responsibility. Put it in a legally binding document that we will accept, and we would be comfortable with the business model”.
That legally document that clearly outline “safety and supervisory responsibility” already existed, and Mr Carmody would have been fully aware of that and had access to it. It is called the Exposition.
The very same Exposition that CASA designed with me over a two-year period, fully approved in April 2017, and fully audited in November 2018, and raised no concerns at all about. That is the only industry document that contains that information. The exposition clearly outlined safety and supervisory responsibility. Part of it is attached. It is only a small component of our manual suite, but the pertinent section at this stage.
If CASA had a new and additional requirement to be involved in the commercial contracts between entities that had never previously been applied to other Operators surely it was incumbent on CASA to provide clear and concise direction to me on what they required in the contracts.
There can be absolutely no doubt that I would put anything that CASA required into the commercial contracts. Admittedly it seemed bizarre, as these matters would normally be attended to in the Exposition that all staff comply with. However, as an industry first, CASA had chosen my organisation to involve themselves in the commercial contracts.
The significance of this is:
Quite simply, if CASA had come into my office and said, “Glen, we would like to work with the wording on your commercial contracts”.
They would have been met with a coffee and a biscuit, they could have sat down with me and my team. That would include myself as the Group CEO, my Group Head of Operations (HOO), my Group Safety Manager, my Internal Co-ordinator, and my Technical Writer. We would have embedded the wording exactly as CASA required.
The entire matter could have been completely avoided, CASA would have walked out of my office hours later full of caffeine and sugar, and fully satisfied with the content of the contracts. They would have been finalised, signed by all Members, and held on file by CASA.
Truly. If CASAs story is to be believed. Surely the question is.
How did we get to a situation where businesses have been closed down, peoples livelihoods have been decimated, employees have been left unemployed and unpaid, I have been bankrupted, suppliers have been unapid, students have been impacted?
The entire matter could have been avoided without CASA even sending that initial notification.
You understand, why I very much question the intent.
If CASA is to be believed, and I point out that they have very much led what I call an alternating narrative, then I would like to ask one very simple question that requires an explanation that calls into question the ethics, the intention, the integrity and in fact the lawfulness of this matter.
Appropriate at this stage that I refer to Mr Carmody’s Statement to Parliament at the Senate Inquiry into Australia’s General Aviation Industry Friday 20th November 2020. This is more than a year after I have lost the business, due to the restrictions CASA placed on the businesses ability to trade.
“Essentially, Mr Buckley has been asked to do one thing, deliver a legal document between him and his franchisees or his subordinates or whatever he calls them that clearly outlines who has the safety responsibility and supervisory responsibility. Put it in a legally binding document that we will accept, and we would be comfortable with the business model”.
That legally document that clearly outline “safety and supervisory responsibility” already existed, and Mr Carmody would have been fully aware of that and had access to it. It is called the Exposition.
The very same Exposition that CASA designed with me over a two-year period, fully approved in April 2017, and fully audited in November 2018, and raised no concerns at all about. That is the only industry document that contains that information. The exposition clearly outlined safety and supervisory responsibility. Part of it is attached. It is only a small component of our manual suite, but the pertinent section at this stage.
If CASA had a new and additional requirement to be involved in the commercial contracts between entities that had never previously been applied to other Operators surely it was incumbent on CASA to provide clear and concise direction to me on what they required in the contracts.
There can be absolutely no doubt that I would put anything that CASA required into the commercial contracts. Admittedly it seemed bizarre, as these matters would normally be attended to in the Exposition that all staff comply with. However, as an industry first, CASA had chosen my organisation to involve themselves in the commercial contracts.
The significance of this is:
Quite simply, if CASA had come into my office and said, “Glen, we would like to work with the wording on your commercial contracts”.
They would have been met with a coffee and a biscuit, they could have sat down with me and my team. That would include myself as the Group CEO, my Group Head of Operations (HOO), my Group Safety Manager, my Internal Co-ordinator, and my Technical Writer. We would have embedded the wording exactly as CASA required.
The entire matter could have been completely avoided, CASA would have walked out of my office hours later full of caffeine and sugar, and fully satisfied with the content of the contracts. They would have been finalised, signed by all Members, and held on file by CASA.
Truly. If CASAs story is to be believed. Surely the question is.
How did we get to a situation where businesses have been closed down, peoples livelihoods have been decimated, employees have been left unemployed and unpaid, I have been bankrupted, suppliers have been unapid, students have been impacted?
The entire matter could have been avoided without CASA even sending that initial notification.
You understand, why I very much question the intent.
I say again, Glen:
The heart of the issue can be reduced to a handful of sentences. It's not that complex. And, with the greatest respect, continued voluminous correspondence with CASA or anyone else (other than a judge or tribunal member) will not change the heart of the issue.
CASA's position
CASA's current position is that, on its (recently conjured up) interpretation of Part 141 (and Part 142), APTA had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy CASA that APTA had sufficient operational control over its members. CASA's position is that CASA was justified in demanding from APTA "a tabular legend, showing how and where the actions called up under each applicable provision of the civil aviation legislation germane to the conduct of operations under CASR Part 141 [and Part 142] are effectively addressed in the terms of the contractual agreement(s) [between APTA and its members]", before CASA would be satisfied.
(You should note that "CASA" here just means the subjective opinion of an individual, the identity of whom you can safely guess.)
APTA's position
APTA's position is that what APTA provided was sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the legislation, noting that this assertion from 'CASA' is a fiction: "The operational and organisational arrangement contemplated by CASR 141 [and Part 142] are based on a conventional business model, under which all of the operational activities conducted by the authorisation holder are carried out, for and behalf of the authorisation holder by persons employed by, and in all respects as agents of, the authorisation holder.")
The practical problem
To get an authoritative statement of what Parts 141 and Part 142 actually require, APTA would have to spend years and hundreds of thousands, in a court or tribunal, battling master sophists wielding the 'safety' card. CASA will say that, absent evidence of how and where the actions called up under each applicable provision of the civil aviation legislation germane to the conduct of operations under CASR Part 141 [and Part 142] are effectively addressed in the terms of the contractual agreements between APTA and its members, those members could be out of control and creating high risks to the safety of air navigation.
If it makes you feel better to continue writing to CASA, what you should be asking for is specific authority for this proposition: "The operational and organisational arrangement contemplated by CASR 141 [and Part 142] are based on a conventional business model, under which all of the operational activities conducted by the authorisation holder are carried out, for and behalf of the authorisation holder by persons employed by, and in all respects as agents of, the authorisation holder." Ask CASA to cite a specific regulation, or a specific statement in an explanatory memorandum for Part 141 or 142, or the specific reasons of a judge or tribunal member who's considered the legislation, as authority for the proposition.
As I've said, the above is in my view regulation conjured in the mind of a complicator. The 'authority' for the proposition will, I reckon, boil down to 'the vibe' but expressed in enormously impressive but ultimately vacuous motherhood statements, assuming you don't receive the usual crickets chirping as a response. They don't care, because they don't have to.
The heart of the issue can be reduced to a handful of sentences. It's not that complex. And, with the greatest respect, continued voluminous correspondence with CASA or anyone else (other than a judge or tribunal member) will not change the heart of the issue.
CASA's position
CASA's current position is that, on its (recently conjured up) interpretation of Part 141 (and Part 142), APTA had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy CASA that APTA had sufficient operational control over its members. CASA's position is that CASA was justified in demanding from APTA "a tabular legend, showing how and where the actions called up under each applicable provision of the civil aviation legislation germane to the conduct of operations under CASR Part 141 [and Part 142] are effectively addressed in the terms of the contractual agreement(s) [between APTA and its members]", before CASA would be satisfied.
(You should note that "CASA" here just means the subjective opinion of an individual, the identity of whom you can safely guess.)
APTA's position
APTA's position is that what APTA provided was sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the legislation, noting that this assertion from 'CASA' is a fiction: "The operational and organisational arrangement contemplated by CASR 141 [and Part 142] are based on a conventional business model, under which all of the operational activities conducted by the authorisation holder are carried out, for and behalf of the authorisation holder by persons employed by, and in all respects as agents of, the authorisation holder.")
The practical problem
To get an authoritative statement of what Parts 141 and Part 142 actually require, APTA would have to spend years and hundreds of thousands, in a court or tribunal, battling master sophists wielding the 'safety' card. CASA will say that, absent evidence of how and where the actions called up under each applicable provision of the civil aviation legislation germane to the conduct of operations under CASR Part 141 [and Part 142] are effectively addressed in the terms of the contractual agreements between APTA and its members, those members could be out of control and creating high risks to the safety of air navigation.
If it makes you feel better to continue writing to CASA, what you should be asking for is specific authority for this proposition: "The operational and organisational arrangement contemplated by CASR 141 [and Part 142] are based on a conventional business model, under which all of the operational activities conducted by the authorisation holder are carried out, for and behalf of the authorisation holder by persons employed by, and in all respects as agents of, the authorisation holder." Ask CASA to cite a specific regulation, or a specific statement in an explanatory memorandum for Part 141 or 142, or the specific reasons of a judge or tribunal member who's considered the legislation, as authority for the proposition.
As I've said, the above is in my view regulation conjured in the mind of a complicator. The 'authority' for the proposition will, I reckon, boil down to 'the vibe' but expressed in enormously impressive but ultimately vacuous motherhood statements, assuming you don't receive the usual crickets chirping as a response. They don't care, because they don't have to.
Thread Starter
Lead balloon
Lead Balloon, please be assured, I am listening to you, I really am. Your posts are highly valued and respected and do attend to the legal aspect informatively, there is no doubt. Your response to what I write below would be appreciated.
Regarding CASAs position. Correct. They will probably argue the point that you raise. My response.
APTA did demonstrate that it had full operational control. There was one AOC, and the Key Personnel specified and required by the legislation. In fact, we significantly exceeded the Key Personnel requirements. We had two CASA approved Group CEOs, two CASA approved Group Head of Operations (with a third undergoing a 12-month induction after transferring from the Airline Industry). We also had two CASA approved Group Safety Managers. The Safety Department was the largest funded safety department of any school in the Country.
This was supported by the industries most advanced IT system supporting that and providing CASA with 24/7 remote access to every aspect of the business. This included scheduling, safety department, flight and duty, minutes of all management meetings, real time info on who was flying and where, student training records, bookings, predictive maintenance etc etc.
Ten CASA personnel designed it over a two-year period, assessing more than 600 revised procedures. One they were satisfied they sent our entire Exposition within CASA for Peer Review and fully approved it in April 2017. They came back and did a level one audit 6 months later in November 2017, with no concerns raised. Then 18 months after approval, say that "CASA didn’t know our structure" and shut the whole thing down.
Importantly, and this is crucial I believe. CASA make no allegations at all that we did not have full operational control. You will note that they lead you to believe that, but never actually go so far as to say that.
CASA was fully satisfied at the approval stage in April 2017. They were fully satisfied at audit in November 2017. They approved bases under the system, and even recommended APTA to aero clubs. CASA never raised and concerns about operational control. Never. To this date, they still haven’t. There are no noncompliance notices (NCNs), no safety concerns, no regulatory breaches. Absolutely nothing. CASA is not arguing that we did not have full operational control. They say that “we must have full operational control”. I agree. We must, and we did. Otherwise, CASA would not have approved the systems and procedures that we followed exactly.
It’s a cunning use of phraseology they use, that leads people to believe that we did not have full operational control. CASA never state which rule was breached or what we did to raise concerns, because there is nothing.
I have asked CASA to identify which procedure they were not satisfied with. There is none. It is just a change of opinion, that was not well intentioned.
CASA is unable to even provide a scenario in which they thought we could lose full operational control. Its typical CASA tactics of trying to mask something in what appears to be a supporting safety argument.
Regarding the energy that I put into writing. It is therapeutic, it really is. Pprune got me through my darkest hours 18 months ago, it really did.
It’s a place to try and protect my reputation. Most people in the industry, my neighbourhood, and my friends and workmates in my new industry only know that CASA closed my business down, and in the process, I was bankrupted. I don’t have the mental capacity to retell the story again and again. Its too traumatic. If I can get away with a simple story, I simply tell people I was a victim of fraud. It tends to make people less judgemental, and allows me to hold my head just that little bit higher. Even my family must have some doubt. They must query how our family ended up in this situation at the hands of CASA. Surely, Glen must have done something wrong?
Its also the method that I use to communicate with the businesses, staff, suppliers, students and customers that have been impacted by the result of CASA shutting me down. Rather than traumatise myself by defending myself on a daily basis, I can deflect some of the stress by pointing people to Pprune for updates.
Belting this out before I say goodbye to my wife who is heading off to work. Apologies for the poor editing, and any typos. Will try and get back later.
Cheers. Glen
Regarding CASAs position. Correct. They will probably argue the point that you raise. My response.
APTA did demonstrate that it had full operational control. There was one AOC, and the Key Personnel specified and required by the legislation. In fact, we significantly exceeded the Key Personnel requirements. We had two CASA approved Group CEOs, two CASA approved Group Head of Operations (with a third undergoing a 12-month induction after transferring from the Airline Industry). We also had two CASA approved Group Safety Managers. The Safety Department was the largest funded safety department of any school in the Country.
This was supported by the industries most advanced IT system supporting that and providing CASA with 24/7 remote access to every aspect of the business. This included scheduling, safety department, flight and duty, minutes of all management meetings, real time info on who was flying and where, student training records, bookings, predictive maintenance etc etc.
Ten CASA personnel designed it over a two-year period, assessing more than 600 revised procedures. One they were satisfied they sent our entire Exposition within CASA for Peer Review and fully approved it in April 2017. They came back and did a level one audit 6 months later in November 2017, with no concerns raised. Then 18 months after approval, say that "CASA didn’t know our structure" and shut the whole thing down.
Importantly, and this is crucial I believe. CASA make no allegations at all that we did not have full operational control. You will note that they lead you to believe that, but never actually go so far as to say that.
CASA was fully satisfied at the approval stage in April 2017. They were fully satisfied at audit in November 2017. They approved bases under the system, and even recommended APTA to aero clubs. CASA never raised and concerns about operational control. Never. To this date, they still haven’t. There are no noncompliance notices (NCNs), no safety concerns, no regulatory breaches. Absolutely nothing. CASA is not arguing that we did not have full operational control. They say that “we must have full operational control”. I agree. We must, and we did. Otherwise, CASA would not have approved the systems and procedures that we followed exactly.
It’s a cunning use of phraseology they use, that leads people to believe that we did not have full operational control. CASA never state which rule was breached or what we did to raise concerns, because there is nothing.
I have asked CASA to identify which procedure they were not satisfied with. There is none. It is just a change of opinion, that was not well intentioned.
CASA is unable to even provide a scenario in which they thought we could lose full operational control. Its typical CASA tactics of trying to mask something in what appears to be a supporting safety argument.
Regarding the energy that I put into writing. It is therapeutic, it really is. Pprune got me through my darkest hours 18 months ago, it really did.
It’s a place to try and protect my reputation. Most people in the industry, my neighbourhood, and my friends and workmates in my new industry only know that CASA closed my business down, and in the process, I was bankrupted. I don’t have the mental capacity to retell the story again and again. Its too traumatic. If I can get away with a simple story, I simply tell people I was a victim of fraud. It tends to make people less judgemental, and allows me to hold my head just that little bit higher. Even my family must have some doubt. They must query how our family ended up in this situation at the hands of CASA. Surely, Glen must have done something wrong?
Its also the method that I use to communicate with the businesses, staff, suppliers, students and customers that have been impacted by the result of CASA shutting me down. Rather than traumatise myself by defending myself on a daily basis, I can deflect some of the stress by pointing people to Pprune for updates.
Belting this out before I say goodbye to my wife who is heading off to work. Apologies for the poor editing, and any typos. Will try and get back later.
Cheers. Glen