But Glen, they are going to argue that what they did to you was in the interests of the safety of air navigation. Some of them probably earnestly believe that’s true. That’s one of the reasons they are so dangerous to the industry.


They are just going to put a bunch of high sounding poppycock in a sentence that includes the phrase “safety of air navigation”, and every layperson will be on their side and not yours. CASA regulates on the basis of public perception and fear. CASA can make the public scared of you and grateful for CASA.

They asked you for evidence of the risk you assert, because they know you can’t produce it. The risks we are talking about are just at the margins of very low probabilities. CASA’s counter-productive activities merely move remote probabilities to less remote possibilities. The only way to prove that is to wait 10 years and a few hundred thousand flying hours.

This is why the flying public is so lucky that much of what CASA does has so little causal connection with safety outcomes. It is sickening that the businesses and careers and aspirations of so many are unnecessarily destroyed by CASA incompetence and zealotry, but the public doesn’t care. Their perception is that CASA is keeping them safe.
That’s a legal argument.

If you’d read the Polar Aviation / Clarke Butson Federal Court decisions that I spoon fed you at post #389 over 2 months ago, you’d know that your allegation will almost certainly crash and burn, as will most of the matters listed in your post #791 yesterday.

And what fool with any experience in industry would have had confidence in Mr Carmody in the first place? Confidence that he’d do what, precisely? (Though, when I come to think of it, Mr Carmody has done precisely what I was confident he would do. But I don’t think we’re talking about the same expectations.)

Please do less transmitting and more receiving. Start at the links in my post #389.

We’re on your side. We’re trying as best we can to focus your finite energy where it may be most productive for you and your supporters.

The Safety Risk
 

For perfect clarity, and said on more than one occasion and in front of witnesses, by the previous incumbent to Mr Craig Martin. a gentleman by the name of Peter White. A man of enormous integrity and ethics, and probably "too big a thinker " for CASA. He was the previously the Executive Manager for Regulatory Services and surveillance. He looked after this matter initially and worked professionally towards a resolution. He "seemed to disappear" and left CASA. Mr Martin, then took over in an "acting" role.

The words of the Executive manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance, 12 months ago said...….

"There are two types of risk. Safety Risk and Regulatory Risk. This is certainly not a safety risk, I understand that. We are talking only about regulatory risk".

For complete clarity, CASA has never put forward any safety argument, ever. This is about "other" things. They will never even dare to try and put forward a safety argument.

Let me simply use Ballarat Aero Club as an example, They will appreciate that I am actually presenting their interests.

Ballarat had effectively ceased operating, after almost reaching 100 years of operation.
They joined APTA. Very quickly they became vibrant again.
They conducted their first ever instrument rating.
They invested significantly in a sim.
They will testify, it was a vibrant GA rural aero club again, in fact no club in Australia would have achieved the percentage growth that they did.
The APTA and CASA approved model worked.

Now take all that out of it, and lets look at safety only.

In the APTA model (that CASA designed over many years with me 600 required items, issued the Part 141/142 Approval, audited etc),

The Ballarat Aero Club had access to an annual safety department budget of $250,000 ( industry leading, I suggest).

I will write to the Ballarat Aero Club, and ask what their projected safety budget is for next year. I suggest, it will be about 1/50th of that, and in fact as a Part 141 only school, they don't even need to have a safety manager or safety management system.

Surely that's a reasonable safety argument.




They have identified a "regulatory risk" but cannot clearly or concisely cant pin point it (because there isn't one).


CASA cannot, and will be completely unable to provide a supporting safety case, in fact quite the opposite, and Mr Carmody has some "very concerning statistics".

I will only say that prior to the Regional Manager, Mr Mc Heyzer forcing a new model that he refers to as "direct operational control" the pilots had a more robust safety department, a Safety Manager, a safety management system, high levels of oversight, mentoring, regular meetings, strong admin support etc.

Mr Mc Heyzers new model, effectively introduced on July 1st 2019 or thereabouts, takes those resources away. Mr Carmody now has statistics for the new CASA direct operational control model, and its effect on safety.

He has figures for July, August, September and October.

Or perhaps Mr Carmody could ask the pilots, or the aero clubs, or the committees of those aero clubs, or the maintenance people, or the admin staff, or the Key Personnel, or the management. Simply ask them to tell the truth. I don't know the answer, but the truth would sort it out.

"Which did you feel was safer, the new CASA imposed "direct operational control" as the Region Manager, calls it, or the APTA model that CASA designed, approved, audited and recommended previously?

I wonder if there are any trends. Im not sure, I don't have access to them any more. Im not talking about "blips", im talking about "smack you in the face statistics" that you cant accept, because you have "other interests".

As pilots and engineers, with a lifetime of experience in this industry, and in fact the vast majority of CASA personnel know, extremely stubborn pilots who refuse to admit they are wrong, get people killed Mr Carmody. Its a dangerous trait in this industry.


I am being somewhat cautious what I write on here, but this is also my "central dumping point", and somewhere I direct "observers" to, after an initial briefing.


Please understand my perspective. There is now a very heavy burden on me, there really is. I simply cannot walk away from this now, I really cant. As well intentioned as this is, can you imagine how much damage I will have caused.

If CASA personnel can act so inappropriately and wreak so much havoc and destruction, and have it vindicated then I will have put the final nail I the coffin for GA in Australia. I am compelled now, I really am.

PPrune posting
 

Dam!,
My wife reads Pprune now. Shes going to come home and say "Hey, I told you that you shouldn't be posting, and everyone else says the same.

Gulp!

Darling, there were heaps of socks this morning, and I folded them all up, and ummmmm. I love you.

Gulp!


I get it folks I really do. As they say, "until you've walked in those shoes.....". PPrune really has been important to me. In fact I've kept off the other forums, and only vented here. It has helped me enormously, so it is a bit of a "crutch", in fact, a very important crutch.

I am now at the stage where I sit in the car at the kids sports and avoid the other Dads. The conversation generally drifts to "How's work....?", how do I respond to that,

I wince, and say "great". Later they find out through the neighbourhood network. Glen lost his business, his home everything.

Alternatively I say, "well I lost my business, my home, savings, and basically everything this year. As you know I had the flying school, and CASA took action that lead to its closure". We all know what people outside of aviation will think. "Whats he really done".

Easier to sit in the car, sadly

So it also gives me a forum, to try and publicly protect my reputation and my rather tattered self esteem.

I really do get the "risk" of letting CASA prepare their "defence" etc by me dumping on here, but it serves many purposes. It also allows me to direct people to a place where all information is available, rather than retelling a traumatic story that I have had to recount to people verbally far too many times. Now I can say "Its a long story, just go to Pprune if your really interested." It helps.

It's a pity some handles can't post on here due to their 'identities' being known. Regardless, any legal action you take that would see a subpoena issued would be more than interesting.

I would love to get on here and give you the stats that Ballarat Aero Club achieved (through a friend who works there of course!!), not only ME-IR's but their first ever Instructor Rating. A local bloke, now employed by the club, he didn't have to leave Ballarat to look for work.

Ready for some more advice Glen??

Post on here as much as you like, subject to legal advice of course.

I know only too well the need for a good rant and the support of people who've gone through similar life events. Despite what you may think, when this is all resolved you'll be a valuable commodity in the aviation business, I speak from experience, not only my own but others who've been able to recover from massive kicks in the balls!

It’s not about Glen not telling any of his story, at all (and I hope that my posts haven’t been interpreted as suggesting that Glen should not have told any of his story).

It’s about where Glen is now in the story, and what Glen should be saying now. At this point in the story, CASA has effectively said they don’t care anymore (although I’m guessing there’ll be a few of them diverting their time to considering writing threatening letters about defamation). The government doesn’t care either.

At this point in the story, it’s effectively put up or shut up on the litigation threat. If any litigation is going to be commenced, Glen should be listening to his lawyer’s advice about what to say and not to say publicly about it. If the advice he is given is to the effect: keep up the public commentary, then go for it.

I am concerned not to be a cheerleader for litigation. I suggest all should think likewise. Its not us who bear the emotional and physical cost of such a battle nor do we wear the consequences. We are nothing more than cheap talk on the internet.

Glen, nobody will think the worse of you if you walk away from this situation. We don't count. Do what's best for you and your family.

An appeal to the CASA Board, sent 6/11/19
 

To each and every Member of the Board:

My suggestion of making an allegation of malfeasance against Mr Carmody is sincere, well considered, properly intentioned, truthful, supported, and primarily intended in the interests of aviation safety.

I am calling on the Board for good governance to prevail, and to intervene if required.

On that “governance” consideration alone, the four personnel cannot continue to operate, in an operational role where they are making decisions that affect safety and businesses. They must be stood aside until my allegations can be refuted, with no suggestion of innocence or guilt attached, and obviously on full pay and conditions. Obviously not my decisions to make, but that would be the fair and reasonable thing to do. That is what I would have done when I was CEO of my own “safety” organisation.

I am formally calling on the Board to intervene, and demonstrate the qualities that the industry, and the Australian public expect of any Board, and most certainly a Board with the Australian Coat of Arms hanging above it, and also as Australia’s safety regulator, CASA. Seriously. It is reasonable.

Those four personnel must have the allegations made against them seriously considered, and especially if they are to continue in an operational role. If you will not act on good governance, I will clearly place the supporting safety case here.

The APTA 142 model provided all 10 members with a safety department with group funding of $250,000 per annum. In the new CASA enforced system, being applied to APTA uniquely, and not other flight training organisations. The Ballarat Aero Club will become a 141 school, and lose any regulatory obligation to run a safety management system, or have a safety manager. I suggest the aero clubs safety budget will reduce to $5000, as it is forced out of APTA.

The new “direct operational” control model that is being forced on member schools against their clear preference is a system that provides significantly lower levels of auditing, mentoring, professional development courses, testing, feedback, safety resourcing etc. The new CASA ‘model” is clearly failing, as I advised.

Accidents and incidents are increasing at a concerning rate CASA have the statistics. This is exactly, as I repeatedly, and in writing advised, it is not the individual operators fault, it is the CASA system being forced on flying school against their clear preference. Any system with less auditing, mentoring, professional development, testing, feedback, safety resourcing, funding etc will most likely result in degraded safety outcomes.

If you have any doubt, simply ask the Ballarat Aero Club, any of the instructors, any of the aircraft owners, committee members, the students, and their families. “Was the previously approved APTA system safer, or do you think the “direct operational control” model is safer.” You will be alarmed, I can assure you. I think you will find an overwhelming response.

This matter can only grow, and gain more attention. It will simultaneously become more “embarrassing’. If it wasn’t such a hazardous behaviour, I could only describe it as child like. It must be stopped at Board level.

At this stage, I have no intention to publish this letter, but will do so on Friday at 5PM, if important safety matters are not addressed. For clarity. In my professional opinion, I believe that CASA actions and decisions being made by those four personnel, unacceptably increase the chance of an aviation incident or accident. There are Board Members of CASA who are, or have been, pilots. On that alone, and with that knowledge, those particular board members will be compelled to act. This is not a matter to be engaging in bullying or intimidation. I simply ask the same questions of you, that you should be asking of Mr Carmody:

1. What is the “safety case” supporting the initial action over 12 months ago, against APTA?
2. If there is no supporting safety case, please open the regulations and show me clearly and concisely the regulation/s that were broken if any.
3. If there is no supporting safety case, and there have been no regulatory breaches identified, we are dealing with opinion. Whose “opinion” is it? We need a name.
4. Are we (Mr Carmody and the Board), prepared to fully stand behind those four personnel that Glen Buckley has named?
5. Are we all (Mr Carmody and the Board) aware of CASAs regulatory philosophy, and other obligations and expectations placed on us.
6. Is it true that a number of businesses have closed down, and people have lost their livelihoods?
7. Please outline what we are now intending to achieve, and any positive safety outcomes achieved.

As I have repeatedly advised. I am fully available to travel anywhere in Australia, to meet with any two members of the Board, at short notice.

The purpose of this correspondence is to provide the Board with time to consider their actions and decisions. In the interests of safety, and to encourage good decision making. I require only an acknowledgement that this correspondence has been received by all members of the Board. If CASA are compelled to provide a written response, I understand. I believe that there will be less pressure, and better decisions will be made if the obligation is a simple acknowledgement of distribution and receipt to all Board Members.

Respectfully, Glen.

The pigs are busy at the trough
 

I'm surprised nobody's posted the specifics of the annual remuneration packages published in CASA's Annual Report 2018-19: https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul...-2018-2019.pdf

Shane Carmody: $668,640

Graham Crawford: $503,785

Jonathan Aleck: $366,395

(See Part 7 Appendix B Table B.5. Lots of other 'interesting' information about remuneration there.)

Safety costs!

$48,500.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/glen-buck...Xpz3Mt3w1v5h0A

Is it worth it
 

Im heading off for a coffee (their shout) with some friends, and when I get an hour or so today (more likely tonight) I will attend very comprehensively as to why I simply cannot give up.

But let me state very clearly that only two things will stop me,

One. A stress induced heart attack OR
Two. My wife asking me to stop for her own welfare, or that of the children.

Full stop!

Or, this not getting the industry support that it should.

The "crushing" that CASA will bring to bear on me, has already been done.

Reason One i will not give up.
 

First, and foremost my lovely wife of 25 years.

She works in aged care, she does it with the most amazing respect, humility, consideration, and ethics. It truly blows me away. Of late, she has worked 7 days a week. She does in home care, and is highly in demand by her clients. She has as much work as she wants, and I suggest she is averaging a 50 to 60 hour week at the moment. Unfortunately, it is poorly paid, and requires a significant amount of driving.

On occasions, she has been presented with the opportunity to bypass the agency, and deal direct with the clients. We are under significant financial pressure, we discussed it. Her response “No, it would feel like, I am having an affair.”

I am truly a blessed man, but I am not as healthy as my wife, and in all likelihood she will live for many more years than me. I know what substandard aged care looks like. My wife is not going to spend her final years, relying on the Government to look after her. I will ensure that until her very last breath on this planet, she will be warm, she wont smell like piss, and someone will stroke her every waking moment that she breathes, if that is what is required. If I cannot be by her side, I will have funds to ensure it happens.

The actions of some personnel within CASA were so inappropriate, and took that away from her,that they need to fully understand my determination to have their conduct independently assessed. If Mr Carmody will not do it, I will shortly call on the Board. Eventually, it will be assessed.

Reason two, i will not give up- affected members
 

Reason Two I will not give up- Affected members.



Simjet- business ceased proposed operations.

Whitestar – operating business closed

MFT-oprerating business closed after 15 years.

Newcastle aero club- proposed member, ceased operations.

ARC- downgraded to Part 141, loss of Part 142, RTO capability, International Student training approval.

LTF- Placed under pressure as it accelerates its own Part 141/142 approval because of doubts about APTAs CASA approval.

Ballarat Aero Club- now struggling to continue due to a lack of qualified Key Personnel

Latrobe Valley Aero Club- struggling to continue due to a lack of qualified Key Personnel.

AVIA- plans for significant growth curtailed.

And that’s without the many hundreds of millions of dollars of pilot training contracts that have now been lost to overseas.

And that’s without the many people whose livelihoods have been affected.

Reason Three- I wont give up
 

As CASA always says; "Just do what you will say you do in your manuals and procedures"

I respect that, but also expect CASA to do the same, and that extends to

Their own Regulatory Philiosphy
The Ministers own Statement of Expectations
CASAS own Enforcement Manual
Acting in accordance with the PMs own stated expectations of the public service.
Administrative law
Proceduyral Fairness etc

Reason Four I wont give up- because i owe people money
 

I wont be the first school to go bankrupt in this industry, I know it because ive been flying since the early 80s.

I may be the first to fully step up to the plate, say here I am. I want to pay each and every one of you 100%, and I am not going anywhere until those people know I did absolutely everything in my power to pay them 100%. CASA have left me no capacity to pay, and that I what I am working towards.

As I put in writing to CASA on many occasions, their action would cost my business at least $10,000 a week to operate. After 1 year that figure totalled approximately $500,000, as I repeatedly told CASA. With the restrictions on my trade, I could not solve the problem. I battled on expecting an outcome, and an ability to return to trade. CASA never resolved this, and I am left holding the debt.

That includes, aircraft owners, Andy Mac, Gerard Lappin, Malcom Yates, Jeff Kissubi, Express, Tony Kidd, my parents, etc etc etc.

Before I get 1 cent of anything, or even think about clawing back my life, these debts will be resolved!!!!!

You lot have been busy.
Sunfish, the venture capital and high net worth crowd are going to look at a coinciding business and political opportunity and then pay a visit to the Minister for political approval, which translates to the politician's ethos of maximisation of political benefit and minimisation of political risk. CASA will then be briefed from the political end, as opposed to first getting an application for an AOC from someone. No serious investor I know is going to touch an investment without this protection.
Also no serious investor is going to touch a piston GA operation per se unless they are a proprietor of same, with industry experience. Walk around any GA airfield and see a dozen of them beavering away. I have already alluded above to the care and feeding of the CASA Man by operators at this level. Do you think Joyce at QF bends over and jumps through hoops ?

Re your four phrases bound by inverted commas; none are a criminal offence unless they lead to criminal conduct after the golf afternoon is over. I have just described the necessity for political contacts if you intend hauling lots of passengers.

Speaking of golf days, lets go back in time. Lets imagine that Bloggs, an established out-of-area RPT Metro operator wants to displace three established PA31 RPT AOC holders within a potential new market. He reasons that the local Member(s) would like to take credit for a new flash shiny airline and that CASA would like to reduce the number of AOC's it has to administer; ie., benefits for all. After he establishes that the three existing battlers have little contact or pull with the local MP, a few feelers go out. Within a year the march of history has rolled on, the Banks have recovered the fully secured loans for the ratty PA31's, a couple of the ex-RPT route holders have gone bust, and everyone is cruising around in Metros.
Good idea ? Not for some, but is there not a nett benefit for everyone else ?

Being the NT Administrator came with no political protections, how high up do we need to go?

How did Bloggs get established enough to run a fleet of Metro's?

Bend, how high ? Well, as high as the political equation goes. I bet (in the current era) Scotty Morrison would refrain from dealing with anything below Mining and Technology. In the era of my example ... Bloggs and his Metros (and the financiers) are purely hypothetical, old boy !

This does allow some interesting wargaming, however.
Scenario - it is not an aggressive operator who initiates the Metro hypothetical, but the CASA Man himself who acquires some elementary golfing skills and sends out the feelers, motivated by a need to simplify his control of the industry and get rid of flying wrecks and their numerous operators. I have mentioned 'benefits' in my post above; are these benefits in any way devalued by the fact that regulatory rather than commercial maneuverings would eventually lead to a more generally beneficial end-state ?
Lead Balloon will possibly be asking if such action is ultra vires - 'beyond the power' wrt the CASA Man as an individual person and/or as a statutory entity.

But my comment was not hypothetical and the Metros and others were grounded by the 16.21 email.
When the media got hold of it over the weekend, CAsA reply was that the operator read the letter wrong! and that company was not grounded (only a sister company was) and that they had given the company till Monday to reply!! (a little odd letter COB Friday and required to reply Monday).

I had a chance to read the Friday letter, but did not - it would be very hard (impossible) to interpret that all aircraft were not grounded, I was told.

CAsA following the wishes of our elected governments would be a good thing, even just one of our governments. But CAsA has long been off the chain.

P.S. the Gofundme is sitting at $49,010.

allegation of malfeasance.
 

Laying low except to advise that a formal allegation of malfeasance against an individual in CASA has been lodged with the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Over $50K - cheers Glen.

You may mean “misfeasance” rather than “malfeasance”. The latter is generally understood to mean criminal behaviour. Allegations of criminal behaviour against Commonwealth public officials would generally be referred to the AFP, not the Ombudsman.

In any event, neither the Ombudsman nor the AFP has any power to give you or make anyone else give you compensation.

Now that you’ve reached the ostensibly arbitrary but presumably-to-you magic $50K, you should spend some of it on getting expert advice.

mis or mal..does CAsA give a rats?
CAsA has a gold pass in describing criminality of their staff..its called a Code of Conduct. Theircode is a sick joke if ever there was one.
Carmody, aided and abetted by the Smart Aleck, McComick and Co...called serious allegations 'just possible breaches of the code.and spent a bucket load of taxpayers dollars to confirm what they already knew...breached the code.
Not only that , the AFP advised Smart Aleck in 2009 that those employees had breached the Criminal Code 1914 , Secs for perjury and conspiracy, and obviously collaborated in the making of those statements.
I was never advised of those findings by either the AFP or CAsA , to whom I had made the allegations of serious criminality and submitted proving material.
CAsA perverted the course of justice, thus protecting the 3 Amigos / employees from criminal sanctions.

And the Legal Pervert proved his worth, and seriously warped mind-set in 2014 by stating in the public domain...that no CAsA person had falsified evidence.!!
And CAsA continually claim ..due process and natural justice. BULSH*T !!
We need that Judicial Inquiry.

and another one resigns
 

And another from my CMT resigns. Not many left now.

That is the way CASA protects itself Glen. The pawns are removed from the Chessboard. Then, when you seek justice, you are just punching air - there is no one left who knows anything about the actions that were taken. All that is left is a file - which has been carefully manicured (possibly in defiance of the public records Act). Was injustice done? Who knows? It's all ancient history. Time to move on.

My opinion, for what its worth, which is not much, is that you were seen as a threat to "the Iron Ring" because APTA had the potential to reach "critical mass".

By "critical mass", I mean attaining a deeper knowledge and experience of the part 141(?) training school regulations and operation than CASA itself possessed, along with the financial resources and weight of numbers to make your voice heard and thus start driving the future directions of training school development.

I have seen this situation develop in other industries - where a company becomes more knowledgeable about industry issues then their regulators and starts driving the debate. In my case, like a good public servant, I welcomed their contributions and invited them on board. It appears CASA hates the idea of not being in complete control, so their response was to destroy you.

BTW, poster "Swells" paid you a compliment in the thread about SOAR aviation, after remarking on the abject failure of the regulators to reign in that school:

"By "critical mass", I mean attaining a deeper knowledge and experience of the part 141(?) training school regulations and operation than CASA itself possessed,"

What makes you think CAsA has the slightest understanding of their own Reg's?

I recall mention of the pilot who ditched at Norfolk. Did he or didn't he breach any regulations? Ten CAsA incompetents canvassed, I believe it was fifty fifty for and against.
Unfortunately the guy with the anger management issues in CAsA deemed the pilot guilty, even before any formal examination by the ATSB had begun.

I imagine the legal guy with the missing marbles and expertise in Voo Doo magic deemed prosecution problematic for a guilty verdict so an administrative Purgatory was ordered.

I agree with you Sunny, poor old Glen became a threat and once the hierarchy finally twigged he was buggered.

Aint it grand that in Australia the bureaucrats work feverishly to stifle innovation and enterprise, anything that they perceive may be a threat to their rice bowl.