Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
I reckon your arguments are entirely reasonable, Glen. Trouble is, CASA doesn't agree and doesn't care what you or I reckon.
The only person whose opinion counts is that of a judge. Unfortunately, as you and many others have found out, first-hand, the costs and risks of taking on a scare-mongering 'safety authority' are prohibitive. The practical 'standard' is whatever someone in CASA wakes up each day and decides it is.
The only person whose opinion counts is that of a judge. Unfortunately, as you and many others have found out, first-hand, the costs and risks of taking on a scare-mongering 'safety authority' are prohibitive. The practical 'standard' is whatever someone in CASA wakes up each day and decides it is.
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
If retelling the story is too difficult then don't. It doesn't matter what people think of you, those of us that know you well, know your character and anyone who wants to say otherwise can go f-ck themselves IMHO. If writing on pprune is cathartic, then keep doing it. I for one go straight to your thread to check for updates when I log on.
But one thing please NEVER do - do not EVER worry about your reputation or your integrity - those of us that know you personally know that you are a gentleman, a man of his word, a man that will be aggrieved if he feels he hasn't delivered on something he promised (which never happened in my experience) and overall someone who I and many others trust and consider to be one of the best and most honest people they've ever worked for (and in my case, that list of good people to work for is very, very short, but you're on it).
Overall, look after your family and keep your head held high - I'm sure many on here can't begin to imagine what you've been through personally even knowing the facts, but remember always, it wasn't you or anything you did, it was a mindless bureaucracy that eats its own and when it runs out, it devours honest people.
I don't want to get into politics but I think in other circumstances there might have been someone or more than one person who would have stood up from that organisation and blown the whistle, but this current government has made that an act that they are vindictive and amoral toward, finding any way to lock someone up for telling the truth about b-stardry. You just need to look at journalists, a respected former AG and international lawyer looking to lose his freedom for defending someone who blew the whistle, not to mention the recriminations that surround the leaking of the Afghanistan events of alleged murder who are being pursued by this government, even though it looks like the 'whistle blower' was telling the truth.
Anyway, I believe as an optimist that this will come to a satisfactory conclusion in the fulness of time because of one simple aspect that is inescapable in this universe - the truth will always out.......
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glen B; “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”.
The misuse and/or personal interpretation of rule and law is what CASA is famous for. Over many decades they have made up their own minds as to what certain rules and regulations mean and they written them in a way that gives them an ace up their sleeve because when it suits them they like to apply whatever ‘intent’ or ‘meaning’ they see fit. And usually that is to suit their own nefarious agenda. Glen, they used this ‘ace’ to nail you to the wall, and others before you.
Lead balloon; “The only person whose opinion counts is that of a judge. Unfortunately, as you and many others have found out, first-hand, the costs and risks of taking on a scare-mongering 'safety authority' are prohibitive. The practical 'standard' is whatever someone in CASA wakes up each day and decides it is”.
Again, so very true. CASA are like a ‘woman choosing which shoes to wear each day’. On any given morning it will normally be a different pair of shoes to the previous day. And some days there will be multiple changes throughout the day, all depending on each wearers personal taste and the days agenda. To try and follow this process or the methodology/thought pattern behind it is next to impossible.
The overarching Civil Aviation Act is ****. It is a convoluted dogs breakfast and the starting point for reform is rewriting the Act. And what a dream come true that would be. By contrast, as a retired pilot and businessman I have also dealt with The Marine Safety National Law Act 2013 (may have been updated more recently, not sure) under which AMSA regulate. And also the Biosecurity Act 2015 under which the Department of Agriculture regulate. Both Acts have both been rewritten and updated in the past 8 years. They aren’t perfect but they are much more clear and precise (maybe lacking some teeth) compared to what they used to be. The 1988 Civil Aviation Act is an outdated load of cobblers and remains that way so that certain CASA legal folk can use it as a weapon when it suits them. It may be fun and games to them (you know who you are) but it negatively impacts and costs Australia’s economy many many millions of dollars in revenue each year. Since 1988, that figure is probably in the billions. If Australia wanted to get serious, the Government would follow the example of my beloved New Zealand who took only 4 years to rewrite the rule set into a more manageable and sensible suite of regulations which sit under a more succinct Civil Aviation Act. CASA is a pathetic joke.
The misuse and/or personal interpretation of rule and law is what CASA is famous for. Over many decades they have made up their own minds as to what certain rules and regulations mean and they written them in a way that gives them an ace up their sleeve because when it suits them they like to apply whatever ‘intent’ or ‘meaning’ they see fit. And usually that is to suit their own nefarious agenda. Glen, they used this ‘ace’ to nail you to the wall, and others before you.
Lead balloon; “The only person whose opinion counts is that of a judge. Unfortunately, as you and many others have found out, first-hand, the costs and risks of taking on a scare-mongering 'safety authority' are prohibitive. The practical 'standard' is whatever someone in CASA wakes up each day and decides it is”.
Again, so very true. CASA are like a ‘woman choosing which shoes to wear each day’. On any given morning it will normally be a different pair of shoes to the previous day. And some days there will be multiple changes throughout the day, all depending on each wearers personal taste and the days agenda. To try and follow this process or the methodology/thought pattern behind it is next to impossible.
The overarching Civil Aviation Act is ****. It is a convoluted dogs breakfast and the starting point for reform is rewriting the Act. And what a dream come true that would be. By contrast, as a retired pilot and businessman I have also dealt with The Marine Safety National Law Act 2013 (may have been updated more recently, not sure) under which AMSA regulate. And also the Biosecurity Act 2015 under which the Department of Agriculture regulate. Both Acts have both been rewritten and updated in the past 8 years. They aren’t perfect but they are much more clear and precise (maybe lacking some teeth) compared to what they used to be. The 1988 Civil Aviation Act is an outdated load of cobblers and remains that way so that certain CASA legal folk can use it as a weapon when it suits them. It may be fun and games to them (you know who you are) but it negatively impacts and costs Australia’s economy many many millions of dollars in revenue each year. Since 1988, that figure is probably in the billions. If Australia wanted to get serious, the Government would follow the example of my beloved New Zealand who took only 4 years to rewrite the rule set into a more manageable and sensible suite of regulations which sit under a more succinct Civil Aviation Act. CASA is a pathetic joke.
Glen B; “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”.
The misuse and/or personal interpretation of rule and law is what CASA is famous for. Over many decades they have made up their own minds as to what certain rules and regulations mean and they written them in a way that gives them an ace up their sleeve because when it suits them they like to apply whatever ‘intent’ or ‘meaning’ they see fit. And usually that is to suit their own nefarious agenda. Glen, they used this ‘ace’ to nail you to the wall, and others before you.
Lead balloon; “The only person whose opinion counts is that of a judge. Unfortunately, as you and many others have found out, first-hand, the costs and risks of taking on a scare-mongering 'safety authority' are prohibitive. The practical 'standard' is whatever someone in CASA wakes up each day and decides it is”.
Again, so very true. CASA are like a ‘woman choosing which shoes to wear each day’. On any given morning it will normally be a different pair of shoes to the previous day. And some days there will be multiple changes throughout the day, all depending on each wearers personal taste and the days agenda. To try and follow this process or the methodology/thought pattern behind it is next to impossible.
The overarching Civil Aviation Act is ****. It is a convoluted dogs breakfast and the starting point for reform is rewriting the Act. And what a dream come true that would be. By contrast, as a retired pilot and businessman I have also dealt with The Marine Safety National Law Act 2013 (may have been updated more recently, not sure) under which AMSA regulate. And also the Biosecurity Act 2015 under which the Department of Agriculture regulate. Both Acts have both been rewritten and updated in the past 8 years. They aren’t perfect but they are much more clear and precise (maybe lacking some teeth) compared to what they used to be. The 1988 Civil Aviation Act is an outdated load of cobblers and remains that way so that certain CASA legal folk can use it as a weapon when it suits them. It may be fun and games to them (you know who you are) but it negatively impacts and costs Australia’s economy many many millions of dollars in revenue each year. Since 1988, that figure is probably in the billions. If Australia wanted to get serious, the Government would follow the example of my beloved New Zealand who took only 4 years to rewrite the rule set into a more manageable and sensible suite of regulations which sit under a more succinct Civil Aviation Act. CASA is a pathetic joke.
The misuse and/or personal interpretation of rule and law is what CASA is famous for. Over many decades they have made up their own minds as to what certain rules and regulations mean and they written them in a way that gives them an ace up their sleeve because when it suits them they like to apply whatever ‘intent’ or ‘meaning’ they see fit. And usually that is to suit their own nefarious agenda. Glen, they used this ‘ace’ to nail you to the wall, and others before you.
Lead balloon; “The only person whose opinion counts is that of a judge. Unfortunately, as you and many others have found out, first-hand, the costs and risks of taking on a scare-mongering 'safety authority' are prohibitive. The practical 'standard' is whatever someone in CASA wakes up each day and decides it is”.
Again, so very true. CASA are like a ‘woman choosing which shoes to wear each day’. On any given morning it will normally be a different pair of shoes to the previous day. And some days there will be multiple changes throughout the day, all depending on each wearers personal taste and the days agenda. To try and follow this process or the methodology/thought pattern behind it is next to impossible.
The overarching Civil Aviation Act is ****. It is a convoluted dogs breakfast and the starting point for reform is rewriting the Act. And what a dream come true that would be. By contrast, as a retired pilot and businessman I have also dealt with The Marine Safety National Law Act 2013 (may have been updated more recently, not sure) under which AMSA regulate. And also the Biosecurity Act 2015 under which the Department of Agriculture regulate. Both Acts have both been rewritten and updated in the past 8 years. They aren’t perfect but they are much more clear and precise (maybe lacking some teeth) compared to what they used to be. The 1988 Civil Aviation Act is an outdated load of cobblers and remains that way so that certain CASA legal folk can use it as a weapon when it suits them. It may be fun and games to them (you know who you are) but it negatively impacts and costs Australia’s economy many many millions of dollars in revenue each year. Since 1988, that figure is probably in the billions. If Australia wanted to get serious, the Government would follow the example of my beloved New Zealand who took only 4 years to rewrite the rule set into a more manageable and sensible suite of regulations which sit under a more succinct Civil Aviation Act. CASA is a pathetic joke.
Bravo. Bravo.
I remember the late eighties/early nineties and 'harmonisation' being discussed in NZ and AU - the difference was, as you say, NZ had it done in 4 years (Civil Aviation Act 1990).
To be fair (well, to give some hope), CASR Parts 91, 119, 121, 125, et al come into force on December 2nd this year, effectively wiping out nearly all of the previous CARs and CAOs and getting somewhere approximating what NZ took 4 years, to our 35 years and still not complete.......
As an interesting aside, there is actually no 'head of power' that enables the Commonwealth to Regulate Aviation and Aerospace under the Constitution. Section 51 ("Parliament shall have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:.......) mentions nothing about aviation.
An attempt was made in the Post War Reconstruction and Democratic Rights Bill (a Bill to Amend the Constitution) to, among other things, grant the Commonwealth power to regulate aviation and navigation. This followed a similar Referendum in 1937 to do the same, both failed to achieve the required majority of voters in a majority of States and a majority overall.
The ONLY reason the Commonwealth is able to regulate aviation is because Parliament DOES have a 'Treaty Power'. The Chicago Convention 1944 is effectively a 'Treaty' so the Federal Government uses it's 'foreign affairs power' as the font from which it is able to make laws to give effect to the Articles of the Convention.
Just shows how out of date the Constitution is in many ways and perhaps the overly onerous method of amendment should be eased somewhat.
Anyway, may be telling everyone something they already knew but I just thought that was an interesting aside.
Last edited by AerialPerspective; 26th Sep 2021 at 06:33. Reason: wrong word used
The ONLY reason the Commonwealth is able to regulate aviation is because Parliament DOES have a 'Treaty Power'. The Chicago Convention 1944 is effectively a 'Treaty' so the Federal Government uses it's 'foreign affairs power' as the font from which it is able to make laws to give effect to the Articles of the Convention.
You'd think with hot air balloons already existing and the likelihood that the aeroplane would be a reality within 3 years of the Constitution being enacted that "... and similar matters...." added on the end of shipping and navigation would have covered it but no.
Needless to say, the external affairs power (not the foreign affairs power as I erroneously identified it) has come in very handy for establishing a right to legislate in matters that the Constitution is silent on.
While s128 is onerous, I tend toward supporting it on the basis that if it were much easier to amend the constitution, goodness knows what governments of both stripes would have done to it over the years.
I do however think that a dual system, such as having a second amendment method based on that in the US Constitution (extremely erroneous in their political landscape) where the Parliament must pass something by a special majority (2/3rds), then it must be ratified by the legislatures of 2/3rds of the States might still retain the check on unbridled changes, while allowing a bit more evolutionary change to occur.
Thread Starter
Received from Ombudsman 23/09
Of the three core issues;
1. Reversal of APTA approval.
2. CASA declaring my flying school, Melbourne Flight Training an "unauthorized operation"
3. CASA directing my Employer that my continuing employment was no longer tenable based on comments i was making publicly.
This particular post is about point 3.
Page 73, post #1443 of this forum contains the letter sent to the Ombudsman on 19/01/21.
Page 86, post #1711 of this forum contains follow up correspondence.
Below is the response received 23/09/21
Our ref: 2019-713834
Dear Mr Buckley
I refer to your emails below.
In our email to you on 23 December 2020 I noted that
In terms of reports, our Office has not issued any formal reports about this matter. I note that a report would be issued under the Ombudsman’s name. That said, I acknowledge that earlier correspondence we issued to you was referred to as a “phase 1 report”. This was not a formal report, but was rather Mr Buss’ summary of our investigation at that point. The correspondence sought to confirm the matters we had finished examining, noted the matters on which there was broad agreement between our Office and CASA, and indicated the further aspects of the complaint we intended to examine. I apologise if we were not sufficiently clear about how the investigation proceeded from that point.
I am not aware of any specific comments you made that may have compelled CASA’s contact with APTA on 27 August 2019. However, as we have discussed, it does not seem to me that anyone is of the view that this contact was reasonable and appropriate. I note in this regard the outcome of your complaint to the Industry Complaints Commissioner, and the fact that on 29 August 2019 CASA clarified with APTA that it had no issue with your remaining an employee. Additionally, while I acknowledge your long standing view is that CASA’s actions in this case had an improper basis, I did not see a reasonable basis for this view on examining the internal documents we obtained from CASA during the investigation.
I acknowledge you remain dissatisfied by this whole situation. However, I remain of the view that our Office cannot obtain a better outcome for you by further investigating the complaint.
Yours faithfully
Mark
Complaint Resolution Officer
COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN
1. Reversal of APTA approval.
2. CASA declaring my flying school, Melbourne Flight Training an "unauthorized operation"
3. CASA directing my Employer that my continuing employment was no longer tenable based on comments i was making publicly.
This particular post is about point 3.
Page 73, post #1443 of this forum contains the letter sent to the Ombudsman on 19/01/21.
Page 86, post #1711 of this forum contains follow up correspondence.
Below is the response received 23/09/21
Our ref: 2019-713834
Dear Mr Buckley
I refer to your emails below.
In our email to you on 23 December 2020 I noted that
- “one of the only outcomes we could potentially obtain for you would be an apology from CASA and advice that it did not direct APTA to end your employment. I believe this remains true. Please let me know if you are still interested in obtaining a written apology and formal advice from CASA that it did not give a direction to your employer in relation to your continuing employment. I can contact CASA to arrange for this to be done for you if you would like.”
In terms of reports, our Office has not issued any formal reports about this matter. I note that a report would be issued under the Ombudsman’s name. That said, I acknowledge that earlier correspondence we issued to you was referred to as a “phase 1 report”. This was not a formal report, but was rather Mr Buss’ summary of our investigation at that point. The correspondence sought to confirm the matters we had finished examining, noted the matters on which there was broad agreement between our Office and CASA, and indicated the further aspects of the complaint we intended to examine. I apologise if we were not sufficiently clear about how the investigation proceeded from that point.
I am not aware of any specific comments you made that may have compelled CASA’s contact with APTA on 27 August 2019. However, as we have discussed, it does not seem to me that anyone is of the view that this contact was reasonable and appropriate. I note in this regard the outcome of your complaint to the Industry Complaints Commissioner, and the fact that on 29 August 2019 CASA clarified with APTA that it had no issue with your remaining an employee. Additionally, while I acknowledge your long standing view is that CASA’s actions in this case had an improper basis, I did not see a reasonable basis for this view on examining the internal documents we obtained from CASA during the investigation.
I acknowledge you remain dissatisfied by this whole situation. However, I remain of the view that our Office cannot obtain a better outcome for you by further investigating the complaint.
Yours faithfully
Mark
Complaint Resolution Officer
COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN
What's happened is this in summary:
1. CASA has distanced itself from the dude who got you sacked and CASA is willing to apologise to you (Glen) that loose cannon dude shouldn't have done what he did.
2. On the regulatory issues, CASA has said to the Ombudsman's office that we, CASA, are the authority and we say the rules allow us to require APTA to provide a bunch of information in order to be satisfied the rules as we interpret them are being complied with by APTA, and APTA did not provide that information. The Ombudsman's office has accepted that.
Unfortunately, I've seen this outcome across a number of areas where the Ombudsman's office is asked to investigate in the last half a dozen or so years. The Ombudsman's office just accepts what 'the authority' or 'the Department' says about some legal issue without actually reading the legislation or forming its own view about what it's been told about the effect of the legislation.
About the only shining light of a Commonwealth organisation that conducts fearless, competent and in-depth investigations and produces corresponding reports at the moment is the Auditor-General and the Australian National Audit Office. Unfortunately, it doesn't 'audit' the kinds of circumstances that crushed APTA into the ground. Its audits focus on the spending of Commonwealth money through e.g. grants (think sports grants rorts and car park grants rorts) or procurements (think $30million for a $3million block of land). Further, the government is of course trying to starve the Auditor-General and the ANAO of resources in order to reduce its capacity to highlight the many unlawful and incompetent actions of government agencies.
1. CASA has distanced itself from the dude who got you sacked and CASA is willing to apologise to you (Glen) that loose cannon dude shouldn't have done what he did.
2. On the regulatory issues, CASA has said to the Ombudsman's office that we, CASA, are the authority and we say the rules allow us to require APTA to provide a bunch of information in order to be satisfied the rules as we interpret them are being complied with by APTA, and APTA did not provide that information. The Ombudsman's office has accepted that.
Unfortunately, I've seen this outcome across a number of areas where the Ombudsman's office is asked to investigate in the last half a dozen or so years. The Ombudsman's office just accepts what 'the authority' or 'the Department' says about some legal issue without actually reading the legislation or forming its own view about what it's been told about the effect of the legislation.
About the only shining light of a Commonwealth organisation that conducts fearless, competent and in-depth investigations and produces corresponding reports at the moment is the Auditor-General and the Australian National Audit Office. Unfortunately, it doesn't 'audit' the kinds of circumstances that crushed APTA into the ground. Its audits focus on the spending of Commonwealth money through e.g. grants (think sports grants rorts and car park grants rorts) or procurements (think $30million for a $3million block of land). Further, the government is of course trying to starve the Auditor-General and the ANAO of resources in order to reduce its capacity to highlight the many unlawful and incompetent actions of government agencies.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 26th Sep 2021 at 23:42.
Thread Starter
Response to Ombudsman letter 23/09 Refer post #1729
Dear Mark of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office,
I apologise if my correspondence of 19/01/21 was not clear on this matter.
In your correspondence you noted; “one of the only outcomes we could potentially obtain for you would be an apology from CASA, and advice that it did not direct the Employer to end your employment. Please let me know if you are still interested in obtaining a written apology and formal advice from CASA that it did not give a direction to your Employer in relation to your continuing employment. I can contact CASA to arrange for this if you would like.”
I interpreted that as having two components;
Regarding the first component, advice that “CASA did not direct my Employer to end my employment”., I felt that was of little value because CASA clearly did send an email directing my Employer to end my employment. I don’t believe that is in dispute by anyone, therefore, I could see little value in that component. It happened. It can’t “unhappen”
I do however very much expect an apology, and clarity around that direction.
I have had my two businesses shut down by CASA and. I was then forced out of the industry by that direction from the CASA Regional Manager. It was not practical that I could work in the industry again after that direction. It would and did become public knowledge very quickly.
Industry experience indicates that CASA usually restricted such directions to face to face verbal “suggestions”, rather than as written directives as in my case, for obvious reasons.
As you are aware several businesses were forced into closure by CASAs actions against me. Staff lost their jobs, careers were affected, staff lost entitlements. Suppliers were left unpaid, students training was impacted, and personally I was bankrupted. The moment that CASA put those restrictions on my business, it was doomed.
The personal cost to me runs into many millions of dollars, but there are also approximately one million of debts to parties that were completely innocent, and directly impacted by CASAs actions. They should not have been affected. It is reasonable that many of them would think poorly of me. If CASA shut me down, it would be logical that Glen Buckley had committed some very serious breaches of either a safety or regulatory manner.
Almost everyone in my life has been impacted, including three generations of my family. I have lived in this same area my entire 56 years, and everyone in my community knows that CASA shut me down and I was bankrupted. Its unbearably embarrassing and humiliating.
When I tried to find work and potential employers asked me what happened after 25 years in the aviation industry, I have to explain how CASA closed my business down and then sent an email to my Employer. In an interview that obviously raises concern. Its hard to sweep 25 years under the mat.
My families welfare has been absolutely decimated by the closure of the businesses. My mental health and physical health have been equally decimated. I carry an enormous burden every waking minute of the harm, that I have caused to so many.
My reputation has been absolutely trashed, and I am just too embarrassed to engage with anyone at all from the aviation industry. Many who have been significantly impacted.
None of this is based on safety, regulatory breaches, or quality outcomes. To anyone that doesn’t know the details behind this situation, it is likely that they will assume that Australia’s aviation safety regulator came down hard on me, and that I must have done something that was a grave and imminent risk to safety. When in fact, it clearly wasn’t.
I feel that an apology regarding that direction made public is a fair and reasonable request. It is essential that the apology identify that the direction was made on the basis of comments that I was making publicly, and not based on safety concerns or regulatory breaches.
I request that the apology be published nationally, and my preference would be that it is placed in Australian Flying or on the CASA website.
I am hopeful that you can assist me in obtaining an apology on this matter, and it seems a very fair and reasonable request, and it is very important to me.
Thanking you in anticipation of your consideration, respectfully, Glen Buckley.
I apologise if my correspondence of 19/01/21 was not clear on this matter.
In your correspondence you noted; “one of the only outcomes we could potentially obtain for you would be an apology from CASA, and advice that it did not direct the Employer to end your employment. Please let me know if you are still interested in obtaining a written apology and formal advice from CASA that it did not give a direction to your Employer in relation to your continuing employment. I can contact CASA to arrange for this if you would like.”
I interpreted that as having two components;
- one of the only outcomes we could potentially obtain from you would be an apology from CASA and
- advice that it did not direct the Employer to end your employment
Regarding the first component, advice that “CASA did not direct my Employer to end my employment”., I felt that was of little value because CASA clearly did send an email directing my Employer to end my employment. I don’t believe that is in dispute by anyone, therefore, I could see little value in that component. It happened. It can’t “unhappen”
I do however very much expect an apology, and clarity around that direction.
I have had my two businesses shut down by CASA and. I was then forced out of the industry by that direction from the CASA Regional Manager. It was not practical that I could work in the industry again after that direction. It would and did become public knowledge very quickly.
Industry experience indicates that CASA usually restricted such directions to face to face verbal “suggestions”, rather than as written directives as in my case, for obvious reasons.
As you are aware several businesses were forced into closure by CASAs actions against me. Staff lost their jobs, careers were affected, staff lost entitlements. Suppliers were left unpaid, students training was impacted, and personally I was bankrupted. The moment that CASA put those restrictions on my business, it was doomed.
The personal cost to me runs into many millions of dollars, but there are also approximately one million of debts to parties that were completely innocent, and directly impacted by CASAs actions. They should not have been affected. It is reasonable that many of them would think poorly of me. If CASA shut me down, it would be logical that Glen Buckley had committed some very serious breaches of either a safety or regulatory manner.
Almost everyone in my life has been impacted, including three generations of my family. I have lived in this same area my entire 56 years, and everyone in my community knows that CASA shut me down and I was bankrupted. Its unbearably embarrassing and humiliating.
When I tried to find work and potential employers asked me what happened after 25 years in the aviation industry, I have to explain how CASA closed my business down and then sent an email to my Employer. In an interview that obviously raises concern. Its hard to sweep 25 years under the mat.
My families welfare has been absolutely decimated by the closure of the businesses. My mental health and physical health have been equally decimated. I carry an enormous burden every waking minute of the harm, that I have caused to so many.
My reputation has been absolutely trashed, and I am just too embarrassed to engage with anyone at all from the aviation industry. Many who have been significantly impacted.
None of this is based on safety, regulatory breaches, or quality outcomes. To anyone that doesn’t know the details behind this situation, it is likely that they will assume that Australia’s aviation safety regulator came down hard on me, and that I must have done something that was a grave and imminent risk to safety. When in fact, it clearly wasn’t.
I feel that an apology regarding that direction made public is a fair and reasonable request. It is essential that the apology identify that the direction was made on the basis of comments that I was making publicly, and not based on safety concerns or regulatory breaches.
I request that the apology be published nationally, and my preference would be that it is placed in Australian Flying or on the CASA website.
I am hopeful that you can assist me in obtaining an apology on this matter, and it seems a very fair and reasonable request, and it is very important to me.
Thanking you in anticipation of your consideration, respectfully, Glen Buckley.
Thread Starter
Thankyou- Sandy - his letter to my MP.
I just wanted to express my thanks to a gentleman called Sandy Reith. For many from the Vic/Tas Region they will know Sandy as someone who owned and opertaed a local airfield. Despite departing the industry a number of yeras ago, he still remains active in protecting the interests of GA. I am very appreciative of the support that he has offered to me and the wider industry. Cheers Sandy. As with the efforts of you all, I am highly appreciative. Cheers. Glen.
Ms. Gladys Liu MP , Vic
Electorate Office, Burwood Vic.
15 Sept 21
Dear Ms. Liu,
I believe that Glen Buckley is appealing to you for assistance in relation to the conduct of CASA towards his aviation business.
I fully support his case and endorse his characterisation of the action against him by CASA as unconscionable, I would add disgraceful, and a blot on the Government of Australia.
I’ve been around politics for many years, my brother is Peter Reith, and I understand the difficulties that MPs have in determining the truth when assessing the many claims by their constituents. In this case a remedy for Glen Buckley would create a salutary example and potentially cause a great benefit to General Aviation (GA) and flow on throughout the Public Service. I’m sure that you will be aware that there’s a trend that Australians generally are tiring of bureaucratic over reach.
GA has been suffering for many years since the administration of civil aviation was removed from direct Ministerial control. Over-regulation and the creation of new and unnecessary permissions for which swinging fees are extracted from the GA industry have resulted in the decline of this once growing Australian industry with the loss of thousands of jobs and businesses. The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development statistics show this decline but not in the context of a nearly doubling of our population, thus the situation is much worse than Government agencies portray.
I’m a retired commercial pilot, previous owner operator of Phillip Island Airport where I was Chief Pilot and Chief Flying Instructor with various additional CASA approvals.
On the other side there is a great opportunity to create jobs and garner support from thousands of aviators, happy to discuss further.
Kind Regards,
Alexander C. Reith
[email protected]
Ms. Gladys Liu MP , Vic
Electorate Office, Burwood Vic.
15 Sept 21
Dear Ms. Liu,
I believe that Glen Buckley is appealing to you for assistance in relation to the conduct of CASA towards his aviation business.
I fully support his case and endorse his characterisation of the action against him by CASA as unconscionable, I would add disgraceful, and a blot on the Government of Australia.
I’ve been around politics for many years, my brother is Peter Reith, and I understand the difficulties that MPs have in determining the truth when assessing the many claims by their constituents. In this case a remedy for Glen Buckley would create a salutary example and potentially cause a great benefit to General Aviation (GA) and flow on throughout the Public Service. I’m sure that you will be aware that there’s a trend that Australians generally are tiring of bureaucratic over reach.
GA has been suffering for many years since the administration of civil aviation was removed from direct Ministerial control. Over-regulation and the creation of new and unnecessary permissions for which swinging fees are extracted from the GA industry have resulted in the decline of this once growing Australian industry with the loss of thousands of jobs and businesses. The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development statistics show this decline but not in the context of a nearly doubling of our population, thus the situation is much worse than Government agencies portray.
I’m a retired commercial pilot, previous owner operator of Phillip Island Airport where I was Chief Pilot and Chief Flying Instructor with various additional CASA approvals.
On the other side there is a great opportunity to create jobs and garner support from thousands of aviators, happy to discuss further.
Kind Regards,
Alexander C. Reith
[email protected]
Thread Starter
email to Australian National Audit Office
28/09/21To the person responsible within the Australian National Audit Office.
I write to you in regard to the current audit into the Civil Aviation Safety authority (CASA) Planning and Conduct of Surveillance Activities.
I am writing to you as a person directly impacted by what I perceive as deficiencies in this area, and I feel that I could make a valuable contribution as part of a process of continuous improvement.
In short, I operated two businesses in the flight training industry, since 2005. That business underwent a complete revalidation by CASA in April 2017.
In November 2017, that entire business underwent a Level One Audit. This being the highest-level audit that CASA can conduct. It involved several CASA personnel over a period of one week. No concerns other than minor administrative matters were raised.
In October 2018, CASA determined that identical business was now declared unauthorised, and placed restrictions on the businesses ability to trade, leading ultimately to its demise which impacted on businesses, students, customers, suppliers etc.
Personally, this matter has cost me many millions of dollars and left me bankrupted.
I am concerned that the business could undergo a CASA revalidation in April 2017, followed up by a Level One audit six months later in November 2017, but be declared unlawful in October 2018. In a subsequent investigation, CASA had advised the Ombudsman’s Office that they were not aware of my business structure until just prior to October of 2018. The Ombudsman subsequently found that despite CASAs assertion, the business was in fact not unlawful. I find it concerning that CASA would not be aware of the organisation structure, despite conducting a level one audit.
Had CASA identified any concerns during the development stage prior to the April 2017, or during that audit, I may have had the opportunity to act in a more timely manner and avoid the associated closure of my own business, business dependent on me, and the impact onmany staff, students, and suppliers also impacted.
May I respectfully request that someone from your office contact me by phone on 0418772013 at a suitable opportunity. In order for me to discuss making a submission,
I would need to arrange a few days annual leave. If my matter is not pertinent to the current audit, then I obviously will not make a leave request to my current Employer.
Yours thankfully, Glen Buckley
I write to you in regard to the current audit into the Civil Aviation Safety authority (CASA) Planning and Conduct of Surveillance Activities.
I am writing to you as a person directly impacted by what I perceive as deficiencies in this area, and I feel that I could make a valuable contribution as part of a process of continuous improvement.
In short, I operated two businesses in the flight training industry, since 2005. That business underwent a complete revalidation by CASA in April 2017.
In November 2017, that entire business underwent a Level One Audit. This being the highest-level audit that CASA can conduct. It involved several CASA personnel over a period of one week. No concerns other than minor administrative matters were raised.
In October 2018, CASA determined that identical business was now declared unauthorised, and placed restrictions on the businesses ability to trade, leading ultimately to its demise which impacted on businesses, students, customers, suppliers etc.
Personally, this matter has cost me many millions of dollars and left me bankrupted.
I am concerned that the business could undergo a CASA revalidation in April 2017, followed up by a Level One audit six months later in November 2017, but be declared unlawful in October 2018. In a subsequent investigation, CASA had advised the Ombudsman’s Office that they were not aware of my business structure until just prior to October of 2018. The Ombudsman subsequently found that despite CASAs assertion, the business was in fact not unlawful. I find it concerning that CASA would not be aware of the organisation structure, despite conducting a level one audit.
Had CASA identified any concerns during the development stage prior to the April 2017, or during that audit, I may have had the opportunity to act in a more timely manner and avoid the associated closure of my own business, business dependent on me, and the impact onmany staff, students, and suppliers also impacted.
May I respectfully request that someone from your office contact me by phone on 0418772013 at a suitable opportunity. In order for me to discuss making a submission,
I would need to arrange a few days annual leave. If my matter is not pertinent to the current audit, then I obviously will not make a leave request to my current Employer.
Yours thankfully, Glen Buckley
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About the only shining light of a Commonwealth organisation that conducts fearless, competent and in-depth investigations and produces corresponding reports at the moment is the Auditor-General and the Australian National Audit Office. Unfortunately, it doesn't 'audit' the kinds of circumstances that crushed APTA into the ground. Its audits focus on the spending of Commonwealth money through e.g. grants (think sports grants rorts and car park grants rorts) or procurements (think $30million for a $3million block of land). Further, the government is of course trying to starve the Auditor-General and the ANAO of resources in order to reduce its capacity to highlight the many unlawful and incompetent actions of government agencies.
This government is happy to waste many many billions on continuous bureaucratic f#ckups such as the Defence submarines and aircraft debacles, pork barrelling and rorts programs, snowy hydro mess and the Great Barrier Reef gift of half a billion dollars, yet it cuts budget spending for the ABC and the ANAO! I wonder why that is? This government and successive ones are absolute shysters, crooks and incompetent morons. They are bending over 99% of Australia’s citizens while looking after the interests of the 1%. It is no wonder, in fact it is of very little surprise that poor Glen is being treated like a little worker bee amongst a large hive. He has little say and certainly little assistance from the drones and their Queen as they center themselves in the middle of the hive and don’t give two handfuls of **** about the others.
Last edited by Paragraph377; 1st Oct 2021 at 05:02.
Thread Starter
Updated Index
Not sure if this is going to work. Im new to Dropbox. Im hoping that this will provide a full index of this to assist followers of the story. This is an updated version of a previous copy.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ew0tyo1x8p...Copy.docx?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ew0tyo1x8p...Copy.docx?dl=0
Not sure if this is going to work. Im new to Dropbox. Im hoping that this will provide a full index of this to assist followers of the story. This is an updated version of a previous copy.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ew0tyo1x8p...Copy.docx?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ew0tyo1x8p...Copy.docx?dl=0
Link works Mate, a bit of work in that.
A quick look at it, but 929 shows the human in you we love.
Hope you and family are doing best you can.
Regards
Bendy
Good to see you’re still fighting Glen. I’m sorry to hear they made you bankrupt, and I guess the AFSA trustee took all the gofundme 50k fighting fund too? Hope you can get an audience with the ANAO.
Thread Starter
Flaming Galah
Good to see another poster pop up again. It has been a long running thread.
Be assured the Go Fund me contributions are secure and being used prudently.
This fight is far from over. Hoping to take some annual leave shortly to ramp this up.
My 25th wedding anniversary coming up in February.
I know it’s ambitious but i need this fully resolved by then. That will be my gift to her and the family.
Thanks again to all.
Be assured the Go Fund me contributions are secure and being used prudently.
This fight is far from over. Hoping to take some annual leave shortly to ramp this up.
My 25th wedding anniversary coming up in February.
I know it’s ambitious but i need this fully resolved by then. That will be my gift to her and the family.
Thanks again to all.
Have you read CASA's supplementary submission (46.1) to the Senate Committee inquiry, Glen? I reached for the bucket when I got to this:
Australia has an enviable civil aviation safety record, and an approach to its regulatory functions that is widely acknowledged internationally and by the vast majority of Australians to be sound, sensible, fair and appropriate. CASA’s contribution to both achievements has been, and continues to be, significant.
Thread Starter
Mr Crawford departed CASA.
Can anyone confirm that Mr. Crawford has departed CASA. A person that has been very involved in my matter, and someone I raised allegations of misfeasance in public office against. Someone who i can say from my own personal experience utilizes bullying and intimidation as his techniques.
Has someone in CASA, above Mr Crawford (Executive Manager Aviation Group) actually made a bold decision in the interests of safety and the future of the GA industry. If true then the Iron Ring must be hemorrhaging and trembling at the moment.
If anyone has any info, i would love to know. Cheers.
Please tell me this is true. I have just heard this now.
Has someone in CASA, above Mr Crawford (Executive Manager Aviation Group) actually made a bold decision in the interests of safety and the future of the GA industry. If true then the Iron Ring must be hemorrhaging and trembling at the moment.
If anyone has any info, i would love to know. Cheers.
Please tell me this is true. I have just heard this now.