Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if by "stopped fighting CASA in court" you mean "AF won" and went back to business as usual, then I would agree with you.
Do you have an alternative version of the story? I am only going off what I have read so far in the Senate ctte submissions page.
You presume wrongly. AF didn’t win their court case against CASA (or, more accurately, their challenge to the validity of the CSF instrument).
It’s about the safety of air navigation. And whatever someone in CASA wakes up each day and decides is in the interests of the safety of air navigation, is in the interests of the safety of air navigation.
It’s about the safety of air navigation. And whatever someone in CASA wakes up each day and decides is in the interests of the safety of air navigation, is in the interests of the safety of air navigation.
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks LB, I shall need to read the CSF case in full! 
Nothing appears on AustLII so it does not appear to have gone ahead, as you wrote.
CASA may draft the laws but the courts shall decide how they are applied.
AF showed that CASA did not rely on any valid safety case when drafting the CSF instrument. I suppose the next step is for the Senate to decide whether to keep the CSF rules in place.
PS. Taken from the Angel Flight sub #71.
The ATSB also acknowledged that “as there was only one fatal accident involving an aircraft
conducting community service flights between 2014 and 2018 there is a high level of statistical
uncertainty associated with this rate”. Similarly, CASA acknowledged that the accident was
due to pilot error: during the Federal Court hearing it also (through Monahan) admitted that
there was no data or analysis to support the regulations, and nor would any of them have
prevented the accident . This is in direct contrast to the evidence of both Monahan and then
deputy DAS of CASA, Crawford, during the 2019 Senate RRAT Committee (ATSB and CASA).See
Table 1.
...
The court found, in summary, that the Civil Aviation Act allows CASA to make any rule in
aviation without any genuine data if they considered it a safety matter.
Nothing appears on AustLII so it does not appear to have gone ahead, as you wrote.CASA may draft the laws but the courts shall decide how they are applied.
AF showed that CASA did not rely on any valid safety case when drafting the CSF instrument. I suppose the next step is for the Senate to decide whether to keep the CSF rules in place.
PS. Taken from the Angel Flight sub #71.
Originally Posted by Angel Flight (#71)
The ATSB also acknowledged that “as there was only one fatal accident involving an aircraft
conducting community service flights between 2014 and 2018 there is a high level of statistical
uncertainty associated with this rate”. Similarly, CASA acknowledged that the accident was
due to pilot error: during the Federal Court hearing it also (through Monahan) admitted that
there was no data or analysis to support the regulations, and nor would any of them have
prevented the accident . This is in direct contrast to the evidence of both Monahan and then
deputy DAS of CASA, Crawford, during the 2019 Senate RRAT Committee (ATSB and CASA).See
Table 1.
...
The court found, in summary, that the Civil Aviation Act allows CASA to make any rule in
aviation without any genuine data if they considered it a safety matter.
Last edited by skinduptruk; 7th Feb 2022 at 02:02.
Now I get it: You’re a comedian!
Champagne comedy!
Of course the case didn’t go ahead. Angel Flight’s submission to the Senate Committee refers to a Federal Court decision that didn’t happen. The Federal Court is in on the joke, too, by publishing a fake judgment cited as Angel Flight Australia v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2021] FCA 469.
Where have I heard that before? Of course: It was in a post just before yours:
And then the punch line:
Thanks for the belly laugh!
I have to hand it to you: You got me a beauty!
When and where’s your court appearance? I’m coming! It’ll be a laugh a minute.
Thanks LB, I shall need to read the CSF case in full! Nothing appears on AustLII so it does not appear to have gone ahead, as you wrote.
Of course the case didn’t go ahead. Angel Flight’s submission to the Senate Committee refers to a Federal Court decision that didn’t happen. The Federal Court is in on the joke, too, by publishing a fake judgment cited as Angel Flight Australia v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2021] FCA 469.
The court found, in summary, that the Civil Aviation Act allows CASA to make any rule in aviation without any genuine data if they considered it a safety matter.
[W]hatever someone in CASA wakes up each day and decides is in the interests of the safety of air navigation, is in the interests of the safety of air navigation.
I suppose the next step is for the Senate to decide whether to keep the CSF rules in place.
I have to hand it to you: You got me a beauty!
When and where’s your court appearance? I’m coming! It’ll be a laugh a minute.
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Angel Flight Australia v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (2021) FCA 469
359 I do not accept this type of methodology was required. This is for two reasons. First, there is no indication in the text of the relevant statutory materials that such an assessment, which is largely based on the methods of applied natural science, is necessary. Second, the authorities provide no indication that such methods are required.
361 Having regard to those matters, I do not accept that the words “in relation to” in s 98(5A) of the CA Act required a connection between the Instrument and “matters affecting the safe navigation and operation, or the maintenance, of aircraft” that was supported by statistical significance or the methods of analysis which were advanced by Angel Flight. It was sufficient if there was “a relationship, whether direct or indirect, between” the two relevant “subject matters”. There was, in particular, no requirement to establish that there was a statistically significant difference between the relevant accident and incident rates of CSFs and the relevant rates of other operations. There was no requirement that the conditions in the Instrument be supported by methods that are coextensive with natural science.
Originally Posted by Angel Flight Submission (#71) Attachment 1
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
ANGEL FLIGHT AUSTRALIA
and
CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
MELBOURNE
9.55 AM, TUESDAY, 16 MARCH 2021
MR WALKER appears with MR P. BONCARDO for the applicant
MR P.J. HANKS QC appears with DR L. HILLY for the respondent
...
MR HANKS: For example, your Honour’s not concerned with whether the director of air Safety
got it right, reached a conclusion as expressed in the instrument with which your
Honour agrees or which your Honour regards as fair and reasonable. Rather, the
question is whether the conclusion as expressed in the instrument is reasonably open
to the person who made the instrument.
...
MR HANKS: It is not necessary for the identification of the problem to be
scientifically supported, or statistically supported, it can be identified by an
experienced regulator. Where the problem would arise, in our submission, would be
if a solution was not connected to the problem.
I can see what you mean now, CASA can speculate that A leads to B - and apparently there is no requirement for science or data to back it up.
I do not wish to repeat my information in Glen's thread, since it is already listed in my thread at the post here.
By the way I think Glen's case is quite different to Angel Flight (AF). With AF they dragged CASA to court to ask if the new CSF instrument was fair. With Glen's case, it was CASA who took actions against him, with CASA claiming they "did not know about" the arrangements proposed. Glen's letter to the Minister outlined this, by my understanding.
Dear Glen, If you need more funding, you can be sure I will be there.
But Mate, I can never use the Gofundme platform ever again. Can you consider another if needed?
Hope you are well. As for your family, I hope they love you more for your stand.
Regards Bendy.
But Mate, I can never use the Gofundme platform ever again. Can you consider another if needed?
Hope you are well. As for your family, I hope they love you more for your stand.
Regards Bendy.
Thread Starter
Bendy
Good to have you on the journey after 3 years. Whilst i dont anticipate anymore crowd funding at this stage, Im interested on your views on GoFundMe. My own personal experience with them was very good, have you got some feedback. Cheers. Glen
Thread Starter
No response from the Office of Barnaby Joyce
In Post 1912, i sent correspondence to the Office of Barnaby Joyce. It remained not acknowledged or responded to. That correspondence was sent on 01/02/22.
I sent follow up correspondence on 07/02/22 and again that was not acknowledged or responded to.
I have resent that correspondence again this morning.
Failing a response to that, my intention is to seek the assistance of Ms Gladys Liu, the member for Chisholm (my local electorate and Australia's most marginal seat), as well as Ms Helen Haines the Independent for the Victorian Seat of Indi and an advocate for an anti corruption body.
Cheers. Glen
I sent follow up correspondence on 07/02/22 and again that was not acknowledged or responded to.
I have resent that correspondence again this morning.
Failing a response to that, my intention is to seek the assistance of Ms Gladys Liu, the member for Chisholm (my local electorate and Australia's most marginal seat), as well as Ms Helen Haines the Independent for the Victorian Seat of Indi and an advocate for an anti corruption body.
Cheers. Glen
Non acknowledgement of mail
Parcel post also a method which provides tracking information.
I hope Glen’s MP Gladys Liu takes up his case.
Thread Starter
Correspondence to Gladys Liu from Sandy Reith
Thankyou Sandy for taking the time to send the following correspondence to my local Member of Parliament, Gladys Liu, Noting coincidentally that my electorate is the most marginal in Australia, and an electorate that i have resided in my entire life. My matter is one that clearly suggests a need for a body to investigate corruption in Government, something that the Liberals seem keen to avoid.
Perhaps i could reach out to Angel Flight, AOPA and affected industry participants and request an industry meeting with Ms. Gladys Lius office. I will put some thought into it. In the interim here is the letter to Gladys Liu. Thankyou again Sandy, and by the way I did meet you just once. About 25 years ago, at Philip Island one night when i came into pay a landing fee at Philip Island. It was one of my very first instructional flights as a Grade Three Instructor.
Dear Ms Liu,
I believe you have an opportunity to gain popularity by supporting the General Aviation (GA) community and assist government to reverse the bureaucratic strangling of of what should be a vibrant and growing GA industry.
You might be surprised at the numbers of people and their families and friends who have come across the very bad reputation of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) within the GA community including GA businesses and employees.
CASA is now a 34 year old independent monopoly inventor of ever more numerous permissions to which are attached swingeing fees. Its ever increasing and changing mountain of rules, inappropriately migrated to the criminal code, are so numerous that there are numbers of them that are contradictory and solid interpretations are impossible.
I’m making an appeal to you to give stronger and public support to your constituent Glen Buckley on the basis that his case is an example of CASA’s completely unjustifiable bureaucratic overkill, quite apart from the wrecking of Glen’s aviation businesses.
I have never met Glen and he has not asked for my support or intervention.
Because I am Peter Reith’s brother, have been involved in politics since the 1960s, plus having made a career out of General Aviation, I am uniquely placed to see the benefits to be gained by you and the Liberal Party by being vocal on this issue.
Barnaby Joyce has recently issued a new Statement of Expectations (not Directions), to the Board of CASA. Here is the basic problem, in this statement the Minister claims, rightly, that he and Parliament are responsible but that CASA is independent.
This is a straight up contradiction and the results are manifest across the 34 years of CASA’s operations. The losses of hundreds of flying schools, charter operators and maintenance facilities throughout Australia for no good reason.
This illustrates that you can’t have the Westminster system debased by hiving off responsibility to an unelected body and expecting the best governance with efficiency and low costs to business.
Should you take up this opportunity and declare for aviation to be governed through a regular Department of Government, and support Glen Buckley, you will gain much kudos. Glen being the underdog fighting an implacable Canberra bureaucracy, you will win much respect in your electorate, and right around Australia for the Liberal Party.
Sometimes you must take a stand to win, if I can help any further please be in touch, for example I can refer you to a number of respected GA people who will give you confidence to pursue this issue.
Kind Regards,
Sandy Reith
Perhaps i could reach out to Angel Flight, AOPA and affected industry participants and request an industry meeting with Ms. Gladys Lius office. I will put some thought into it. In the interim here is the letter to Gladys Liu. Thankyou again Sandy, and by the way I did meet you just once. About 25 years ago, at Philip Island one night when i came into pay a landing fee at Philip Island. It was one of my very first instructional flights as a Grade Three Instructor.
Dear Ms Liu,
I believe you have an opportunity to gain popularity by supporting the General Aviation (GA) community and assist government to reverse the bureaucratic strangling of of what should be a vibrant and growing GA industry.
You might be surprised at the numbers of people and their families and friends who have come across the very bad reputation of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) within the GA community including GA businesses and employees.
CASA is now a 34 year old independent monopoly inventor of ever more numerous permissions to which are attached swingeing fees. Its ever increasing and changing mountain of rules, inappropriately migrated to the criminal code, are so numerous that there are numbers of them that are contradictory and solid interpretations are impossible.
I’m making an appeal to you to give stronger and public support to your constituent Glen Buckley on the basis that his case is an example of CASA’s completely unjustifiable bureaucratic overkill, quite apart from the wrecking of Glen’s aviation businesses.
I have never met Glen and he has not asked for my support or intervention.
Because I am Peter Reith’s brother, have been involved in politics since the 1960s, plus having made a career out of General Aviation, I am uniquely placed to see the benefits to be gained by you and the Liberal Party by being vocal on this issue.
Barnaby Joyce has recently issued a new Statement of Expectations (not Directions), to the Board of CASA. Here is the basic problem, in this statement the Minister claims, rightly, that he and Parliament are responsible but that CASA is independent.
This is a straight up contradiction and the results are manifest across the 34 years of CASA’s operations. The losses of hundreds of flying schools, charter operators and maintenance facilities throughout Australia for no good reason.
This illustrates that you can’t have the Westminster system debased by hiving off responsibility to an unelected body and expecting the best governance with efficiency and low costs to business.
Should you take up this opportunity and declare for aviation to be governed through a regular Department of Government, and support Glen Buckley, you will gain much kudos. Glen being the underdog fighting an implacable Canberra bureaucracy, you will win much respect in your electorate, and right around Australia for the Liberal Party.
Sometimes you must take a stand to win, if I can help any further please be in touch, for example I can refer you to a number of respected GA people who will give you confidence to pursue this issue.
Kind Regards,
Sandy Reith
Corruption.
Like many words that describe the worst failings of us humans ‘corruption’ has many shades. In Glen’s case he has obvious reasons to make claim.
How to combat corruption in government is a vexed question but firstly I think it rational to go back to first principles and that is that our elected representatives must be accountable and responsible. We must expect this and foster this concept by, say, joining a political party, making frequent representations to our various MPs and helping to create that kind of political interest that is lacking in day to day life.
Henry Bolte was one of Victoria’s longest serving and most successful Premiers. I was at a meeting where the concept of an Ombudsman was presented and enthusiastically promoted. I thought what a great idea. Henry Bolte said this is a bad idea because this will cut across the work of MPs.
Now I see clearly he was right.
Yet another independent body or Commissioner to swell the bloated ranks of the Public Sector (was once Public Service) will not enhance the behaviour of government. We should pay our MPs more and fund their offices for extra duties that we should expect.
Question Time in Parliament should be returned to its true meaning and importance instead of its current party political theatre.
The courts should be more available, accessible and at lower cost. The police could be better organised.
We can’t do better than try to improve our democracy and that does not mean handing off functions to unelected people, see CASA. In my not so humble opinion.
How to combat corruption in government is a vexed question but firstly I think it rational to go back to first principles and that is that our elected representatives must be accountable and responsible. We must expect this and foster this concept by, say, joining a political party, making frequent representations to our various MPs and helping to create that kind of political interest that is lacking in day to day life.
Henry Bolte was one of Victoria’s longest serving and most successful Premiers. I was at a meeting where the concept of an Ombudsman was presented and enthusiastically promoted. I thought what a great idea. Henry Bolte said this is a bad idea because this will cut across the work of MPs.
Now I see clearly he was right.
Yet another independent body or Commissioner to swell the bloated ranks of the Public Sector (was once Public Service) will not enhance the behaviour of government. We should pay our MPs more and fund their offices for extra duties that we should expect.
Question Time in Parliament should be returned to its true meaning and importance instead of its current party political theatre.
The courts should be more available, accessible and at lower cost. The police could be better organised.
We can’t do better than try to improve our democracy and that does not mean handing off functions to unelected people, see CASA. In my not so humble opinion.
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re above post from SR. I suppose (regrettably for my stress levels) my contribution will be showing in Katoomba local court that CASA do not understand high school physics. Submission #72 to the current Senate ctte refers.
PS. GB try sending in hard copy with words "PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL" - this stops any staff opening the letter - you might be surprised. In my case, I called to confirm the email address, emailed it, then another call to ensure my email arrived. They got the message and emailed me back an acknowledgement.
PS. GB try sending in hard copy with words "PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL" - this stops any staff opening the letter - you might be surprised. In my case, I called to confirm the email address, emailed it, then another call to ensure my email arrived. They got the message and emailed me back an acknowledgement.
Petition?
I had one back in 2016 that elicited 3000 signatures and some hundreds of comments, many of which have very detailed accounts of mistreatment and unnecessary bureaucratic intransigence etc.
We’ve had umpteen inquiries, what we need now is a very loud crying out, media if possible, for a Department of Aviation with a Minister in charge.
Support AOPA and ring write contact media and your MPs.
We’ve had umpteen inquiries, what we need now is a very loud crying out, media if possible, for a Department of Aviation with a Minister in charge.
Support AOPA and ring write contact media and your MPs.
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASRR Submission #107 by Pro Aviation (Phelan, 2014) says it all.
And it would seem that CASA has only gotten worse...
PS. ASRR Submission #192 is probably the best one-pager summary I have seen from both the current Senate review (2020-2022+) and the older ASRR review (2014) aka Forsyth review. I happened to only just read it now.
And it would seem that CASA has only gotten worse...
PS. ASRR Submission #192 is probably the best one-pager summary I have seen from both the current Senate review (2020-2022+) and the older ASRR review (2014) aka Forsyth review. I happened to only just read it now.
Last edited by skinduptruk; 15th Feb 2022 at 05:05.
