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

Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA

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

Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA

Old 28th Jan 2022, 04:31
  #1901 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
The new SOE is as practically meaningless as the previous ones.
Hardly surprising. When I worked at a (state) regulatory authority the business units wrote the SOE's themselves, for the Minister's endorsement.

There wasn't much point in aspiring to ground-breaking, truly significant achievements if there was a risk they not be met. One of many appalling frameworks I had the pleasure of working with.
Stickshift3000 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2022, 07:10
  #1902 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 3,564
Received 89 Likes on 32 Posts
Well there I was, thinking that the door to the promised land had opened a crack and a ray of sunshine had got out but you lot slam the door shut and tell me I was dreaming.

Let me keep my pathetic optimism a shade longer; if CASA were to be reformed, wouldn't you at least start with an SOE like this?
Sunfish is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2022, 07:20
  #1903 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,286
Received 417 Likes on 208 Posts
Nah. You'd start with blowing the whole thing up, never speaking of it again and starting anew.

Anyone who thinks the Australian sky would fall in if close to $1Billion were not spent on an organisation like CASA each year are the kinds of people who think the traffic lights turning green causes cars to move.
Lead Balloon is online now  
Old 28th Jan 2022, 08:45
  #1904 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sunfish
Let me keep my pathetic optimism a shade longer; if CASA were to be reformed, wouldn't you at least start with an SOE like this?
Sunfish, how can a ‘statement’ written by the Board, vetted by some Uni twerps in PMC, and then digitally signed by the Minister, be taken seriously? As the Screaming Skull would say; “it’s all tautological nonsense”. And that’s all that CASA’s yearly SOE is - same ****, different year. As Lead Balloon said, the only way to reform the mother of all Frankensteins, CASA, is to level it and rebuild. Nothing worth saving, start afresh.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2022, 12:47
  #1905 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 3,564
Received 89 Likes on 32 Posts
Para377:
Sunfish, how can a ‘statement’ written by the Board, vetted by some Uni twerps in PMC, and then digitally signed by the Minister, be taken seriously? As the Screaming Skull would say; “it’s all tautological nonsense”. And that’s all that CASA’s yearly SOE is - same ****, different year. As Lead Balloon said, the only way to reform the mother of all Frankensteins, CASA, is to level it and rebuild. Nothing worth saving, start afresh.
I think I understand that you and many others have just cause to be cynical about the SOE and I can't blame you. I think you might change your view slightly if and when Glens matter is resolved especially if the activities of CASA as alleged are found to have occurred and Glen is justly made whole.

As for those "uni twerps at PMC", if any of them were to read that, they would have a good laugh. Sorting CASA would be in a (Sunday) mornings work for them.

The story behind what has just happened would, I suspect, make an entertaining episode of a TV series, but we will never know.

Yeah I know "Vision", "Mission Statements", corporate business plans, "its all BS innit?". Not if its properly done and carried through.

Do you think that the Minister, PMC, Department, Board and DAS don't know where resistance to change is going to come from?

If I was a senior manager at CASA, I would be applying for a new position, any position, right now because I suspect I know what is going to happen.

I think you may be pleasantly surprised by what happens, assuming of course we don't end up in a shooting war with Russia in the meantime.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2022, 07:23
  #1906 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 58
Posts: 1,103
Received 70 Likes on 36 Posts
CASA lack of accountability

Sunfish, i hope you are correct. Its interesting I've been contacted by a number of people, some of the view that the new Statement of Expectations is a positive move forward, and others more cynical.

From my own personal experience dealing with CASA on my matter over the last three years, I fall on the cynical side.

CASA has absolutely no accountability at all, and most especially at the Executive Level. Despite the Organizational chart and in the spirit of "Yes Minister", it is Mr Jonathan Aleck that runs CASA. Others come and go, but for almost two decades its Aleck that runs the show..

CASA already has a Regulatory Philosophy, but it means absolutely nothing. In my own matter they have shown a flagrant disregard for that Regulatory Philosophy, and most certainly 9 of the 10 items.

Its all up to the Minister of the day. Under the previous Deputy PM, Michael McCormack they got away with murder. The Statement of Expectations is a Ministerial Document that has no head of power or any accountability. Under weak leadership displayed by McCormack it means nothing to Aleck, who simply does whatever he wants, and plighs his narcissistic trade with complete disregard for any ethics. I fear it may be the same under Barnaby Joyce. CASA feeds the Minister the information and the minister .accepts it.

It really is just a document that has absolutely no value. Far less even than any legislation. The responsible Minister doesn't have the expertise to measure CASA against his expectations, he or she depends on CASA to make that assessment.

As the word count gets longer in the Sof E every time it is released, it simply becomes more offensive. Not until the responsible Minister acts, or old age catches up with Aleck will anything change.
glenb is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2022, 12:34
  #1907 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CASA decisions can be over-ruled by the AAT.

I'd be happy to FOI everything to do with APTA once my own FOIs are done! 🕵🏻‍♂️

The "independent" review will find that AAT reviews + FOI requests are "adequate and available means" to address the concerns of pilots. And will encourage you to utilise such. I think I read in Senate ctte Sub #70 that even Dr Aleck suggests taking Part 149 decisions that CASA makes to AAT to be over-ruled (as required).

The Board thinks in terms of generic risk aka can we claim "plausible deniability" yet.

🐍🪜🐍🪜🐍
skinduptruk is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2022, 21:59
  #1908 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 58
Posts: 1,103
Received 70 Likes on 36 Posts
[QUOTE=skinduptruk;11177350]CASA decisions can be over-ruled by the AAT.

I'd be happy to FOI everything to do with APTA once my own FOIs are done! 🕵🏻‍♂️

The "independent" review will find that AAT reviews + FOI requests are "adequate and available means" to address the concerns of pilots. And will encourage you to utilise such. I think I read in Senate ctte Sub #70 that even Dr Aleck suggests taking Part 149 decisions that CASA makes to AAT to be over-ruled (as required).

The Board thinks in terms of generic risk aka can we claim "plausible deniability" yet.

🐍🪜🐍🪜🐍[/QUOTE

Cheers Skinduptruk

Appreciate the support. Later today i intend to write directly to Mr Barnaby Joyce to clearly bring my allegation of misfeasance in public office and provide irrefutable evidence that Aleck has intentionally mislead the Ombudsman’s office.

I will await Mr Joyce response before my next action. Cheers
glenb is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2022, 09:04
  #1909 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Below is my first email of about 5x to the office of the Minister for Transport. It might give you some ideas. Ultimately the chief of staff made a few calls and got CASA to progress a little, but then things ground to a halt in mid-Jun 21. So I referred CASA to the AAT at that time. My thread is over on the "Pacific Q+A" forum here on PPRuNe as you know.

***

24 Sep 20

Good afternoon Minister Mccormack,


Please be advised that CASA (per attached) is consuming resources forcing paraglider pilots to join a monopoly sporting club known as SAFA / HGFA.

The SAFA company (LLC) does not follow due process so I cannot re-join them in clear conscience. I was formerly, and still am, an experienced SAFA rated PG4 pilot with 270 hrs experience.

CASA has my Part 149 paperwork which addresses the risks involved. Instead of reviewing and approving this paperwork, CASA sends letters which threaten me with excessive penalties (aimed at mechanical airplanes rather than sporting parachutes, which are silent, low momentum, and can land in almost any small clearing).

Ironically the alleged breach would be, and has been, addressed by this very same Part 149 paperwork which CASA is currently ignoring!

CASA Sport Aviation Team has a copy of the relevant email history, less than 6x emails cover the sad story to date.

I am hopeful that your quick look review will reset the CASA behaviour which currently benefits no one.

Cheers
Kurt
skinduptruk is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2022, 19:28
  #1910 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,286
Received 417 Likes on 208 Posts
Yes - Some CASA decisions can be ‘over-ruled’ by the AAT. But CASA has to make that decision first.

CASA’s latest trick is to say an application is not complete because, for example, all the information required to “satisfy” CASA has not been submitted by the applicant, CASA does not have to make a decision until the application is complete, so there is no decision reviewable by the AAT. CASA played that trick on both you (Kurt) and you (Glen). It’s a very neat way to avoid external review (unless you can afford the money to risk an excursion to the Federal Court to get a deemed refusal).
Lead Balloon is online now  
Old 31st Jan 2022, 21:35
  #1911 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 58
Posts: 1,103
Received 70 Likes on 36 Posts
correspondence to Barnaby Joyce

01/02/2022



Appendix

- Hansards Report of my allegation of “misfeasance in public office” against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Services.

-Emails clearly indicating CASA awareness 2 ½ years before Mr Aleck has led the Ombudsmans Office to be aware.





Dear Mr Barnaby Joyce, Leader of the Nationals, Deputy PM, and the Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

My name is Glen Buckley, you will have some awareness of my matter, although I acknowledge that this matter was initiated under Mr Michael McCormack when he was acting in the role of Deputy PM and the Minister at the time responsible for CASA. Mr Michael McCormack would be the Subject Matter Expert (SME) within the Nationals and would be able to fully brief you.

Similarly, in accordance with the Ministers Statement of Expectations of CASA an obligation is placed on the Board to keep you fully informed, and that would be another resource available to you.

Senator McDonald, a highly regarded advocate of the General Aviation (GA) Industry also has knowledge of the matter, and in fact I raised my allegations of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs before her on 20/11/20, and that presentation can be accessed via here, as well as the copy of Hansard that I have provided. I followed those allegations up with written correspondence to Mr Michael McCormack.




A Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation of my matter has been ongoing over a period of the last three years and is still continuing. Commonwealth Ombudsman Reference 2019-713834-R

The purpose of this correspondence is to respectfully request the direct intervention of your Office

Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regultory Affairs has on multiple occasions provided clearly untruthful and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office , presumably for the purpose of covering up his misconduct, and perverting the outcome of the investigation. For complete clarity, I am fully satisfied that his action was deliberate, as he knew the information to be clearly false at the time he provided it.

Mr Jonathan Aleck has been responsible for leading the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that CASA did not become aware of the structure of my Organisation until just prior to October 2018 when they sent notification to me and advised that my business of more than ten years was operating illegally and shut it down.

I have previously written to both the CASA CEO and to the CASA Board on the matter of misleading information provided by Mr Aleck, and copies of that communication can be accessed via the following link. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 94 - PPRuNe Forums The forum on my particular topic has currently had in excess of 900,000 views and has attracted wide industry interest and involvement because of the potential ramifications to the wider industry. My correspondence to the CASA CEO Ms Spence and subsequent correspondence to the Board can be found between Posts #1862 to #1884 on that forum, if you do not already have access to it.

I have attached emails dating back 2 ½ years before Mr Aleck claims that CASA” first became aware of APTA”. Mr Aleck asserts that CASA became aware just prior to October 2018, and that is clearly false.

I am able to submit an overwhelming body of evidence in support of my allegation, but for the sake of expediency I have attached only theemails dating back to June 2016 that clearly demonstrate that I intended to expand on the same activity that I had been doing for 6 years previously. For Mr Aleck to assert that CASA first became aware in October 2018 is clearly untruthful.

I am able to provide an overwhelming body of evidence in support of my allegation if those emails alone are not sufficient, and that includes directing you to current CASA Employees who have come forward and offered to tell the truth on this matter.

Whilst I appreciate that the CASA CEO and Board have elected not to correct the misinformation, it seems entirely unacceptable, and creates a waste of Government resources which is not in accordance with obligations placed on CASA by the PGPA Act.

By providing clearly false information, it only wastes governments resources. The Ombudsman’s Office should be presented with the facts and make a determination on truthful advice provided to it. In fact, the reason that this investigation has dragged on for three years is because CASA has directed significant resources to providing clearly untruthful information.

I would like to refer to specific excerpts from your own Statement of Expectations of CASA, where you stipulate the following expectations. With all due respect, I feel you will be compelled to act.
  • “CASA should perform its functions in accordance with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013”
  • “CASA resources be used in an efficient,, effective, economical, and ethical way”
  • “conduct and values of CASAs staff should be consistent with those of the Australian Public Service.
  • “I expect the CASA Board to be transparent in carrying out its functions”
  • “ I expect CASA will implement its regulatory approach in accordance with its Regultory Philosophy” Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
  • “My expectation is that CASA will perform its functions in a manner consistent with the Act and has appropriate regard to the economic and cost impacts of its decisions and actions on individuals, businesses and the community”
  • “CASA will be transparent”


My intention is to write directly to you again comprehensively on this matter in 14 days, and my hope is that in the interim, you are able to send a very clear direction to the CASA Board that they are to ensure any information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office is truthful, and to correct any false information previously provided by Mr Jonathan Aleck immediately that they have doubts as to the accuracy of the information provided by Mr Aleck to the Ombudsman’s Office.

Please understand that Mr Aleck has bought enormous harm to me and my family, and his actions have cost me many millions of dollars and left me bankrupted and destitute. It has resulted in businesses dependant on me closing, staff losing employment, and both domestic and international students having their training impacted, and suppliers being unpaid.

Many individuals and Organisations have made allegations of misconduct against Mr Jonathan Aleck and the Legal, International and Regulatory branch over many years, and it is extremely concerning that the organisation has such negligible levels of accountability, and most especially from the Nations Aviation Safety Regulator CASA operating under Australia’s Coat of Arms. A symbol that suggests the very highest standards of ethics and integrity.

You will be aware that Mr Alecks conduct is increasingly coming under scrutiny due to industry being frustrated by his conduct over many years, and that includes Angel Flight, the family of Mr Bruce Rhoades which formed the basis of an ABC investigation, Bristelle, Jabiru, Shannon Baker, Kurt Pudniks, Polar, etc etc. The list is exhaustive.

You may also be aware that an industry wide petition is now being organised calling for a Royal Commission into CASA Royal Commission into CASA petition. - PPRuNe Forums

Please Mr Joyce, I urge you to demonstrate strong and ethical leadership and hold Mr Aleck to account, and direct CASA to be truthful in their dealings with the Ombudsman’s Office.

I would also ask that you request the CASA Board to provide you with CASAs safety case for closing down my business. My reasonable expectation is that Mr Alecks decision making would be supported by risk based and evidence driven decision making. You fill find that CASA is unable to provide any safety case whatsoever for closing down my business with no prior warning.

Thankyou for your consideration of my matter, and I will write to you comprehensively within 14 days.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley






glenb is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2022, 01:50
  #1912 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 58
Posts: 1,103
Received 70 Likes on 36 Posts
Attachments for previous post

For Pprune members who are able to open attachments. Post #1814 on page 91 has the attachments of email correspondence with CASA. These emails are two and a half years before Aleck has led the Ombudsman to believe.
glenb is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2022, 03:40
  #1913 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Here is the post #1814 LINK

Is there any chance Costa, Cheshire, and Fox (CASA) will simply say they didnt tell anyone?! Not really an excuse though. I hope you get to discuss with the Minister and/or his office staff asap.

Agree with LB the latest CASA trick is that they try to avoid making decisions. I may have luckily defeated that by stating that their decision to not make a decision - is a decision in itself!
skinduptruk is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2022, 08:38
  #1914 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,286
Received 417 Likes on 208 Posts
Yes. Not making a decision is a decision itself.

But not a reviewable decision.

There's law about that.
Lead Balloon is online now  
Old 1st Feb 2022, 09:05
  #1915 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
imho not making a decision impacts on my rights. see link below.

ie. the unreasonable delay of *an otherwise reviewable* decision ought to be a reviewable decision too. must admit i will have to search AustLII high and low to find a case example of that. maybe CASA are brilliant legal innovators after all! :P

***

Kitto J continued to state that to ascertain the true character of the law, we examine what it does "in the way of changing or creating or destroying duties or rights or powers"

LINK

skinduptruk is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2022, 09:16
  #1916 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,286
Received 417 Likes on 208 Posts
I agree, entirely.

So what do you do, next, after you're ignored despite the powerful judicial precedent you've quoted? Write to the Minister or the CASA CEO or the CASA Board?

Listen carefully: They couldn't give a ****.

Welcome to the party.
Lead Balloon is online now  
Old 1st Feb 2022, 10:24
  #1917 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Aus Constitution says only the courts shall decide how the law is applied.

High Court is only $4,000 and one can represent oneself.
skinduptruk is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2022, 20:24
  #1918 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by skinduptruk
Aus Constitution says only the courts shall decide how the law is applied.

High Court is only $4,000 and one can represent oneself.
Maybe so, but CASA has at its disposal a bottomless pit of money and an endless line of Barristers. It can, does, and will use these resources to crush the little man on the street when required.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2022, 20:39
  #1919 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In court only the quality of your argument should matter.

Angel Flight Submission #71 is worth a read on this page.

I have some highlights below.



Angel Flight page 1

Angel Flight page 2
skinduptruk is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2022, 23:33
  #1920 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by skinduptruk
In court only the quality of your argument should matter.

Angel Flight Submission #71 is worth a read on this page.

I have some highlights below.



Angel Flight page 1

Angel Flight page 2
And how did things work out for Angel Flight?? They stopped fighting CASA in court because CASA had its endless bucket of Barrister money to keep dragging things out and Angel Flight would’ve gone broke. A familiar CASA story that many have experienced.



Last edited by Paragraph377; 7th Feb 2022 at 10:14.
Paragraph377 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

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