PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)
-   -   Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa.html)

Dangly Bits 4th Jun 2019 23:14


a flagrant breach of the law
Sunfish if this was the case, how was the operation allowed to operate for 18 months and get through a CASA audit in that time?

A change in CMT to a hostile one seems more accurate as to what I have seen here.

glenb 5th Jun 2019 01:51

SAFETY APPEAL TO THE CASA BOARD
 
Dear Mr Anthony Matthews, I am writing to you in my role as the CEO of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance.

As you will be aware, I have made multiple requests to meet with the Board, none have been responded to by the Board .

Mr Graeme Crawford in his role as the Manager of the Aviation Group intervened and wrote to me advising he would not permit the meeting with the Board.

As the complaints were against his Department, I feel that displayed inappropriate conduct on his behalf, and I have been denied procedural fairness, hence I am making one final appeal to the Board of CASA.

As you are aware, I advised the Board of my loss of trust and confidence in CASA, some time ago and I asked for direction. The Board chose not to respond to me. I did point out to the Board that my allegations were of a substantive nature and I drew the Boards attention to my expectation on them to ensure good governance. In my opinion that has not occurred, and hence this correspondence.

I am going public with this correspondence in order to compel you to respond.

For perfect clarity;

CASA has failed to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards as is required of CASA in the Civil Aviation Act. The General Aviation sector (Charter and Flying Training), will concur wholeheartedly with that statement.

That failure to achieve that negatively impacts on safety and negatively impacts on business, and most particularly in regional areas.

Combine that with an environment where some personnel in CASA decide to act outside the requirements and obligations placed on them byo

The PGPA Act
CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy
The Ministers Statement of Expectations
CASAs enforcement manual
The requirements of Administrative Law

and you have a “perfect storm”. I am on the receiving end of that storm and it compromises flight safety to such an extent that I am compelled to act. Therefore, as I have requested on multiple occasions previously, may I meet with at least any two members of the Board, at any location within Australia within the next 7 days. As this is a matter of Aviation Safety it is essential that timelines are not unnecessarily protracted.

Failing the Boards ability to facilitate that request, I will make an appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Mc Cormack, although multiple requests to him have previously been completely ignored, I will try again, and give him 7 days to facilitate my request.

Failing the Deputy Prime Ministers’ ability to facilitate a meeting, I will be forced to significantly escalate this matter, and will draw on the wider industry for guidance.

My matters are not only related to me, and the compromise to safety affects the GA industry at both the Charter and Flying training levels. The issues are critical, and they must be addressed. My businesses experience provides a perfect example of how CASA actions can negatively impact safety and I am well prepared to fully prosecute my case. I look forward to receiving a prompt response,



Safe Skies for All, respectfully, Glen Buckley.

thorn bird 5th Jun 2019 04:33

"Mr Graeme Crawford in his role as the Manager of the Aviation Group intervened and wrote to me advising he would not permit the meeting with the Board."

Wow that's a revelation Glen. Mr Crawford decides who the board may talk to and who they can't, which begs the question what are we paying large sums of money for a board at all if they can only see what the managers of CAsA feeds them? This harks back to allegations a CEO was sharing toothbrushes with the Complaints Commissioner. No wonder he never saw any complaints.

I also have trepidations regarding CAsA's reluctance to produce documents under the FOI act.

I could understand it if it was ASIO or the military, National security and all that. Do CAsA have any role in the spook business other than the current director of safeties involvement in the past. What National Secrets are CAsA hiding? Their attempts to gain access to citizens META Data was I believe knocked back, a bridge too far so to speak, but one has to wonder just what they are hiding, because lack of transparency is a clear sign of corruption I believe?

glenb 6th Jun 2019 00:01

Follow up correspondence to Board
 
Dear Mr Tony Mathews and Board Members of CASA

Should you grant me the opportunity to present APTAs case to you, may I respectfully request something of you prior to that meeting.

As you are aware, I believe four personnel within CASA have displayed unconscionable conduct. It is only my opinion , and that has not been tested.

On 29/10/18 I sent a letter to my Regional Manager in preparation for a scheduled meeting with CASA the next day. The meeting had been scheduled for an earlier time, but the Acting Regional Manager postponed the original meeting. He explained he was new to the position, wasn’t all over it, and had to meet with his personnel. As he had signed the letter, that alone raised significant concerns in my mind. I sent an extensive letter, containing the following excerpt to the Acting Regional Manager,

The way this has been handled indicates to me a level of confusion that exists within CASA and not within my own organisation. Therefore, I feel it reasonable that CASA nominate the Subject Matter Expert (SME) from the Team, most likely Mr Smithers (name changes) to commence Tuesdays meeting with a simple overview of “how we operate”. That will assist me to identify where the misunderstandings are and clear up any confusion before we proceed on to the more substantive contents of the meeting. I believe this request to be fair and reasonable. You have all the material, by way of our manuals, and have previously been provided with the contracts, so I will leave you to guide this meeting.”


At that meeting the next day with 5 CASA personnel assembled, not one person was prepared to talk about how we operated. The reason. Quite simply because they had no idea, and had made no attempt to find out. That clearly demonstrates a complete lack of good intention on behalf of CASA, and I will shortly provide supporting evidence. As the matter progressed, and the matter snowballed through CASA, I was facilitated a meeting with Mr Wiggum (name changed). As a precursor to that meeting I sent him an email, and I post it below,

It is absolutely essential however that the meeting, does resolve the issue as to whether we are operating with an “arms length agreement” and whether the Aviation ruling is a valid basis for the CASA action. Can I make a well intentioned suggestion that will demonstrate quite clearly to you, the deficiencies within CASA. Ask either Mr Smithers or Mr Skinner (names changes) to explain how we introduce a new base. A good example would be to ask them to describe how we activated the Ballina base and the procedures we adopted? Who attended on site for training from APTA? How long did we stay? Did APTA personnel meet with the CAGRO for the airport? Did we meet with the fire and emergency services. Were the Prof checks conducted in Melbourne or were they conducted in Ballina and why? How we attend to the FSM training. Was our Group Safety Manager able to attend on site. Seriously Mr Wiggum, please ask them anything. I believe that no-one from my CMT has got absolutely any idea, and quite seriously, I mean nothing. That was done many months ago, so I would expect that they have at least some idea. I have absolutely no intention whatsoever to ask of you what their answers are. But I would ask that you compare answers with mine. You will have a very clear understanding of the deficiency, very quickly. Unfortunately, the misunderstandings and confusion exist within CASA, and not within my own organisation, and that is why we are in this current situation. If you decide to ask either Mr Smithers or Mr Skinner, could I respectfully request that you give them some time to consider their response to you, and I have no concerns with you giving them a heads up today of your requirements. Thank you again for your approach, regards. Glen Buckley.

At that meeting with Mr Wiggum, I was not given the opportunity to present my answers. You will recall, I did not need to know the respondent’s answers, I wanted only the opportunity to give my answers and allow him to compare the answers. The fact that I assume he did not do that, is in fact a critical failure in the process, as that would have highlighted the deficiency. It would have given him the opportunity to resolve the matter then and there, but a decision was made not to pursue that course of action. Therefore, the same opportunity that I presented over 7 months ago, is now presented to the Board. Perhaps the starting point for the Board, is a presentation by the CASA personnel concerned, as once again I feel they will not be able to provide you with substantive answers.

As a further suggestion to reinforce my allegations. The underpinning oversight and compliance tool that we use is a system referred to as “Flight School Manager”. The standard system was not suitable for the high level of oversight required across numerous bases, and that system is in fact the backbone of organisation. Would any of the personnel I have nominated be able to nominate any of the upgrades that were undertaken by the Developer to facilitate our safety and compliance obligations. I suggest not.

There were a number undertaken over an extended period of time, and they are integral to countering CASAs argument. Could they explain any of those. I hope this correspondence is received in the manner it is intended. I am merely trying to expedite processes that have a significant impact. Thanking you in anticipation of an open-minded approach to my concerns,

Respectfully, Glen

glenb 16th Jun 2019 02:29

To the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, the Honourable Mr Mc Cormack.

I write to you in your role as the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, as the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, and Regional Development, and as the person responsible for aviation safety in Australia.

My name is Glen Buckley, the CEO of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA). I am writing to you on important matters of aviation safety, allegations of misuse of public funds within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and allegations of unconscionable conduct displayed by at least 5 individuals within CASA. The conduct of those individuals compromises aviation safety, compromises regulatory compliance, and compromises people’s livelihoods. I have been involved in the flight training sector for 25 years, the last 15 years as the owner of a flight training organisation. CASA records will clearly support my contention that my operations have been well intentioned, safe, and compliant. I consider myself a Subject Matter Expert (SME) in my field, and I am qualified to make the statements that I make.

I stand fully behind everything I say. My assertions can be supported by well documented evidence. I understand that I am fully accountable for the statements that I make, they are being made in the interests of aviation safety, they must be responded to.

Although I am initiating this correspondence as an individual business owner, and drawing only on my own personal experience, I am confident my experiences will be shared by the entire General Aviation (GA) sector of the Industry. For those not familiar with the term “GA”, it includes almost all flying in Australia that is not airline flying, and GA flying is predominantly conducted in propeller driven aircraft. i.e. carrying freight and passengers in smaller aircraft, flying training, community flights, agricultural work, private flying etc. It also includes all the maintenance organisations, spare parts, refuellers and admin personnel that work in that industry sector supporting those safe operations.

My allegations are substantive and not limited to the following.

Breaches of obligations under the PGPA Act to use public resources responsibly

The aviation industry has a legislative program introduced by CASA referred to as Part 61/141/142. It was introduced a decade behind schedule, and is universally acknowledged as an absolute and complete failure. That component alone is estimated to have cost every Australian family $100. It is only one component of a much larger and mismanaged regulatory reform program that has cost both the taxpayer and industry an unacceptable amount, and this matter continues to escalate at an alarming rate. This issue must be addressed.

It can be demonstrated that CASA consistently choose the more costly option, when a more effective solution is available. In my own organisation, CASA have made decisions that have cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars, and taxpayers substantially more, when a simple well-intentioned conversation would have achieved the same outcome. I have many well documented examples. My experiences are not unique.

CASAs failure to achieve “clear and concise aviation safety standards”. This failure impacts on safety.

Critical to my assertions is an understanding that the Civil Aviation Act states the very first function of CASA as: “developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards”.

There is no doubt that CASA have totally and completely failed against this core function, and industry will unilaterally support that statement. I strongly encourage the Government to do a random sample of 50 rural based, and 50 city-based GA businesses. You will find that in excess of 90% of respondents will support my contention that CASA have failed. If 90% of road users felt the road rules were so disjointed that they couldn’t understand them, we would have a major safety issue on our roads.

In the interests of aviation safety, and jobs, CASA must deliver rules and regulations that are clear and concise. For a clear demonstration of this significant issue. Ask someone from CASA to verbally answer this question, what activities can be delivered as an independent instructor? Then ask them to demonstrate how they arrived at that answer as they step you through the associated legislation. It is so complicated that it is truly akin to fraud. It’s simply not fair to deliver rules to a sector if the intended recipients cannot understand the rules because they are not clear and concise. It is actually incumbent on CASA to deliver clear and concise aviation safety standards. That failure directly impacts on safety.

Personnel within CASA displaying” unconscionable conduct”

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission website states criteria to determine unconscionable conduct. Those criteria include;
  • The relative bargaining strength of the Parties.
  • Whether any conditions were imposed on the weaker Party that were not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the stronger Party
  • Whether the weaker party could understand the documentation being used.
  • The use of undue influence, pressure or unfair tactics by the stronger party.
  • The requirements of applicable industry codes. (i.e. CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, requirements of the Civil Aviation Act, the Ministers Statement of Expectations, requirements of Administrative Law, CASAs Enforcement Manual and section 2 of the Australian Public Service Commission website.
  • The willingness of the stronger party to negotiate
  • The extent to which Parties acted in good faith.
From my own personal experience, I believe I can clearly demonstrate that 5 personnel within the Aviation Group of CASA headed up by Mr Graeme Crawford, have made decisions that demonstrate unconscionable conduct i.e. reasonable people making decisions primarily on aviation safety could not reasonably arrive at the same decisions as these individuals. This conduct has substantially impacted on me and my business. Previous approaches to your office have not been responded to, so I am simultaneously releasing this correspondence to other persons, including but not limited to, the Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, the Honourable Catherine King MP. As this is a matter of aviation safety, and includes allegations of misconduct within CASA, I would call on bipartisan political support to work towards a solution that improves aviation safety across the GA industry, improves regulatory compliance, supports business, and encourages jobs in rural areas.

I am also advising that I make myself fully available to any media form, that is prepared to pursue this matter. It is a matter of aviation safety, and breaches of the PGPA Act, and inappropriate conduct in a Government Department, all of which impact on every Australian. My only request is that CASA be given the full right of reply to any allegations I make in the media.

These matters are significant. I have made repeated attempts to meet with the Board of CASA over the last 6 months, and all requests have been completely ignored. I have sent correspondence to your office on two occasions, and that correspondence has also been ignored. I feel I have no other option available to me, other than going public.

The purpose of this letter is to ensure I am given an opportunity to meet with yourself, or a nominee from your Department. I would like to attend that meeting and provide documentary support of all my claims. I respectfully request that the Honourable Catherine King, or her nominee be given the opportunity to attend that meeting. I would also call on two industry body representatives to attend in an observer role only. They would not have input into the meeting. My sincere hope is that you will attend to this matter as it deserves. At this stage I am requesting the opportunity to be heard. Failing that opportunity being provided to me, I will be forced to escalate the matter in the interests of aviation safety within the General Aviation sector.

Respectfully



Glen Buckley, CEO- APTA

B772 16th Jun 2019 05:00

CASA is a dysfunctional organisation. Michael McCormack is a lame duck. We need a Minister for Civil Aviation whose only role is to sort out the monster and mess created over the past so many years.

thorn bird 16th Jun 2019 05:09

CASA is an omnipotent diety, unaccountable to anyone. Except the devil maybe.

B772 16th Jun 2019 13:57

General Aviation has been strangled in this country. We need a Royal Commission of some description before it industry collapses completely. Should we start a petition for a Royal Commission and submit it to the PM.

AerialPerspective 17th Jun 2019 05:19

I believe 'estoppel' is a legal term for a motion to have declared in law what is actually the case in fact. e.g. a lawyer employs questionable tactics to make money for his law firm where he is not a partner. Law firm takes all the money he generates him and berates him about his behaviour. However, it keeps taking the money up to the point where his contribution outweighs that of the Partners of the Law Firm. They fire him for cause (doing something questionable). He launches an estoppel claim to have himself declared a Partner of the firm so as to obtain his share of the profits which is in fact, all of the profit. He is not a partner in legal terms, he is/was an employee, but the estoppel claim is lodged to have declared in law that he is, in fact, a partner by dint of his financial contribution to the business. That's in the United States of course, it may have a subtlety different meaning here as is the case with many legal terms.

Sunfish 17th Jun 2019 07:47

Disclaimer: I AM NOT A LAWYER.

”There are many different types of estoppel which can arise, but the common thread between them is that a person is restrained from asserting a particular position in law where it would be inequitable to do so. By way of illustration:
  • If a landlord promises the tenant that he will not exercise his right to terminate a lease, and relying upon that promise the tenant spends money improving the premises, the doctrine of promissory estoppel may prevent the landlord from exercising a right to terminate, even though his promise might not otherwise have been legally binding as a contract. The landlord is precluded from asserting a specific right.”
If CASA is changing its reasons all the time, then perhaps that is contravening some dictum like the one above, but Glen would need legal advice. I am not a lawyer and don’t know.

AerialPerspective 18th Jun 2019 00:32


Originally Posted by Sunfish (Post 10495507)
Disclaimer: I AM NOT A LAWYER.

”There are many different types of estoppel which can arise, but the common thread between them is that a person is restrained from asserting a particular position in law where it would be inequitable to do so. By way of illustration:
  • If a landlord promises the tenant that he will not exercise his right to terminate a lease, and relying upon that promise the tenant spends money improving the premises, the doctrine of promissory estoppel may prevent the landlord from exercising a right to terminate, even though his promise might not otherwise have been legally binding as a contract. The landlord is precluded from asserting a specific right.”
If CASA is changing its reasons all the time, then perhaps that is contravening some dictum like the one above, but Glen would need legal advice. I am not a lawyer and don’t know.

Hi Sunfish, I’m not a lawyer either but your post made me curious as I’d only heard the US definition before so with my parents’ words echoing in my head from when I was growing up “Look it up” I did that and the definition fits both our scenarios so I learn something everyday... (from dictionary.com)...

noun
LAW
  1. the principle which precludes a person from asserting something contrary to what is implied by a previous action or statement of that person or by a previous pertinent judicial determination.
    "the case had been one of estoppel"


Squawk7700 18th Jun 2019 01:41


Originally Posted by Sunfish (Post 10495507)
Disclaimer: I AM NOT A LAWYER.

Cleary so. More-so obvious given that you lifted that definition from Wikipedia, not to mention that the example of tenancy is not relevant in Australia, where a landlord can’t terminate a lease short of malicious damage or criminality.

glenb 18th Jun 2019 03:14

And then there were four
 
In post 85 I made allegations against 5 people that were in CASA. I believe one has left. Therefore the allegations are now about 4 CASA employees. One has come back to industry I believe.

aroa 18th Jun 2019 04:26

Even if employee No 5 ( now dearly departed from CAsA) did wrong., he will vanish from the CAsA paper.work
With my 3 perjuring AWIs, one bolted and forever after he was the 'Invisible Man', and never again featured in any correspondence. How's that for an escape mechanism ?? Bewdy !
Of course he is vulnerable out in public domain without the most splendid CAsA legal umbrella and the (taxpayer) pocketbook.
CAsA's next method of legal avoidance is to call any crime a 'breach of their code of conduct'. ( escape mechanism # 2 )..and that in itself is a constructive fraud. A crime is a crime and cant be called anything else.
Its how CAsA perverts the course of justice. CYA !21
EVERYONE should be beating the drum...Royal Commission or Judicial Inquiry into CAsA.
NOTHING else that a proper colon cleansing with flush out CAsA and its corrupt personnel

Sunfish 18th Jun 2019 05:42

(sigh) the principle of estoppel is something like that you can’t always keep changing your response to a situation to suit yourself. It may be that If you’re prohibited with the excuse “x” by CASA one day, then the next day it may be that the new excuse cannot be “y”. Ask a lawyer and stop nit picking. It doesn’t help anyone.

thorn bird 18th Jun 2019 07:54

Bloody interesting some of these legal quirks guys.

CAsA are not supposed to interfere with business doing's either, but they do.

Mr Buckley no doubt got his lawyers to put together agreeable contracts between himself and his
partners.

Contracts are between parties yet CAsA crashed the party and interfered demanding changes
to the contracts Mr Buckley was using based on HIS legal advice.

If the clauses CAsA insisted Mr Buckley put in his contracts resulted in a dispute, would CAsA accept any liability, of course not, they are never liable for anything.

Somehow I can't imagine bureaucrats interfering with contracts, say, BHP makes with its customers.

CAsA is an omnipotent deity, the law doesn't apply to them. If any of us falsified evidence or committed perjury we'd be in clink, they can do it with impunity.

aroa 19th Jun 2019 05:51

Going to clients and 'bad-mouthing' the intended victim, with made up stories and BS is bad enough as well.
I had occurrences where CAsA rang my clients and told them not to use my photography services because I was operating illegally...2 years before I even saw a courthouse..!!
One case they got local plods to go and speak to the client...WTF would they know about Ops and Regs...and in breach of the Compliance and Enforcement Manual. And lied / denied later to the Minister and Pollie that they ever did such a thing.
Jesus wept..these people know no bounds.
When yr on a mission at the behest of a competitor company, anything goes. And then some!

The later issue with the false sworn statements just proved that CASA/ Legal do NOT believe in th Rule of Law. (AFP finding..Perjury, Conspiracy and collaboration of statements)
Head of CAsA legal sent me a wonderful thesis about how the false sworn statements/ lies are not really proper lies, but just 'discrepancies in the wording'. Hence the nickname Dr Discrepancy.for Smart Aleck..
All this sort of behavior will carry on , same, same...UNLESS the GA industry gets a Royal Commission ora Judicial Inquiry.
Keep banging that drum to yr local pollie, Senator, whoever,

glenb 21st Jun 2019 02:29

Follow up to Deputy Prime Minister
 
Dear Minister Mc Cormack, or the recipient.

I wrote to the Minister at the start of the week on matters I considered of significance, with regard to aviation safety in Australia. I have not received an acknowledgement, or a response. Can you please confirm that this is the correct email for such matters. Alternatively, if the correct protocols are to formally lodge such matters through the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ASTB) please advise. The issues are significant and effect aviation safety, so at least an acknowledgement that this is the correct email address to reach Minister Mc Cormack would be appreciated.
Respectfully


Glen Buckley


Sunfish 21st Jun 2019 05:19



the correspondence has probably been forwarded to CASA.

i. should have added- so they will write the Ministers response. They will then forward that back to the Minister for approval through the Department of transport who will do their own assessment of CASAs response.

At at this point the Minister is not really involved - which is as it should be in Westminster style government. The Minister takes “advice” from his Department which is why his letter will say words to the effect: “I am advised that...... “.

To effect any change, assuming CASA will not give you what you believe you are entitled to, you will need to make a case strong enough that the Department of Transport takes action to make CASA do something or failing that, that the Minister is galvanised enough to ask his department to do something which may not be possible under the Aviation Act. Then the Minister needs to go to Parliament.

There is a settled hierarchy of actions - the minister can’t just pull a decision out of thin air. Good luck, get legal advice and don’t do anything rash.

thunderbird five 21st Jun 2019 22:29

Delete the "probably".

Seabreeze 22nd Jun 2019 02:39

silence was the reply
 

Originally Posted by thunderbird five (Post 10500023)
Delete the "probably".

For what it is worth my 2c

It is common in various sorts of administration, including government, to not respond to "difficult" questions in the hope that they will go away, and in any case, a non response by a bureacrat is not career threatening. Politicians are even worse, with not answering the question, or answering a different question being common ploys.

As a lawyer once advised me, the only way to get attention is to take someone to court. Justice should prevail in your case, but logic and fairness don't count.

Even the honkys are going to struggle, and that's with 1/3 of their population prepared to demonstrate.

Perhaps focus on individuals in the public service by persisting with legally appropriate "harassment", and keep your energy high without doing in your own head.

Good luck.
SB




Fantome 25th Jun 2019 08:44

HE WHO CALLS THE SHOTS. In the '60s I had occasion to launch an appeal against refusal by DCA (the Department of Civil Aviation) to issue a medical certificate. (I was seeking an exemption to the uncorrected visual acuity standard.) Seeing DCA had knocked me back, I put my detailed arguments to a succession of Ministers for Civil Aviation. (From Paltridge to Swartz to Cotton).. All of these appeals were summarily rejected. After two years of frustration I made an appointment to see the Director-General of Civil Aviation. Ushered into the office of Donald Anderson, he offered me a seat, saying "So you're man who has been bothering the minister. Well firstly, it is I who decides who can or cannot do anything to do with civil aviation in this country. Not the Minister. Now I'll just call Jim Harper in, who oversees operations." Duly, Jim Harper advised a flight test without visual correction. (To simulate loss of both pairs of specs.) After which DCA granted me an exemption . Two years later the standard changed, so that a number of exemptions were no longer in force. ("The answer my friend is pissing in the wind . . .the answer is pissing in the wind . .')

harrryw 25th Jun 2019 16:44


Originally Posted by Sunfish (Post 10502723)
comment inappropriate, reported. I’m concerned about stress levels here....

Refered to CASA for a check of affects of said Stress Levels.

glenb 26th Jun 2019 01:05

Letter sent to Mr Carmody 21/06
 
Dear Mr Shane Carmody,

There are no regulatory breaches. There are no safety concerns expressed by CASA.

CASAs actions have placed significant restrictions on my ability to trade and that has been repeatedly identified to CASA, as has the associated commercial impact. Craig Martin will be the Subject Matter Expert (SME) within CASA.

Within a week, CASA will make yet another decision to allow continuing operations through another temporary approval, or in fact, close the operation down. I don’t need to outline the enormous organisational instability that brings to the staff, and my ability to retain them, to customers, students, members and suppliers. These “temporary approvals” have now continued for 8 months and understandably bought the business to its knees. The staff and I are exhausted and drained, so is the business.

My Key Personnel must now make decisions about their own employment options, and that impacts on continuing operations amongst the group, with the associated consequences on businesses, staff, and suppliers.

To bring this absurd matter to a close it simply needs one decent human being, acting in a well-intentioned manner, to make a good decision. It is that simple.

It needs one person to give me 3 hours of their time to tell my side of the story.

It then needs that same person to spend a further 3 hours revising the Regulatory Philosophy, the functions of CASA, the enforcement manual, the Public Service Commission website, the definition of unconscionable conduct, the PGPA Act, the Ministers Statement of Expectations on CASA, and a familiarity with Administrative Law.

It needs that same well-intentioned person, to then seriously contemplate what it means to operate under the Australian Coat of Arms that will be proudly displayed throughout every CASA office. Reflect on the substance of it, the history behind it, the standards, ethics, governance and integrity that is conveyed by having the privilege to operate under it.

Then simply arrive at a decision.

As you are aware my preference is to resolve these matters through well intentioned face to face discussion. That is the most effective way to resolve any dispute. However, I have had the opportunity to receive some industry funded and substantive legal guidance on my matter. This meeting was initiated by someone in Industry, and I did not pay for the consultation. This firm does not provide litigation funding, and that necessitates me seeking support from wider industry, should I elect to continue.

At this stage there is no obligation on my behalf to proceed.

If I do: The first stage is a relatively straightforward process costing approximately $50,000. This would provide a robust and detailed overview of the validity of the claim, for both Industry and CASA to consider and would provide full transparency to both parties. On production of the report perhaps I could have the opportunity to meet with CASA again. The case would be based around CASAs failure to deliver clear and concise aviation safety standards, and the effects of that failure on safety and industry, as evidenced by my experience, and no doubt many others. I am fully satisfied that in fact, CASA have failed to achieve “clear and concise aviation safety standards”. That is the root cause of every one of my current issues, and in fact the wider industry’s.

I am fully satisfied that 5 personnel within CASA have acted inappropriately, and in my opinion unlawfully, although I respect that that needs to be determined. My hope is that you could respond indicating if there is a potential change of stance within CASA and a willingness to genuinely resolve the matter via a well-intentioned decision maker that you nominate.

Respectfully,



Glen Buckley.

Sunfish 26th Jun 2019 07:09

Time is on CASAs side.

zanthrus 26th Jun 2019 10:30

Good on yer Sunny, Harry and Michigan J for taking my tongue in cheek posts so seriously. Get a grip guys. :ugh:
But seriously, who hasn’t been frustrated to the nth degree by fort fumble in the past and the corruption and incompetence within? I support Glen 100% :ok: and I wish him a speedy and just resolution to APTA’s problems with the “regulator” and the despicable officers therein. :yuk:

glenb 2nd Jul 2019 05:51

Letter to Mr Carmody 2/7/19
 
Dear Mr Carmody,

Prior to proceeding with the contents of this letter, it is important that I clarify some important matters.

The business has been operating for 15 years delivering well intentioned, safe and highly compliant flight training. CASA records will support that contention.

Flying schools conducting a practice referred to as ‘sharing an Air Operators Certificate” is a practice that has been going on for many decades within the flight training industry. The practice has been conducted with the full knowledge, consent, and support of CASA. This cannot be refuted.

There were deficiencies in those arrangements, as often the organisations operated independently and in their own interests.

APTA was the first time in Australia that the deficiencies in the existing practice were addressed. This cannot be refuted, as CASA personnel worked side by side with APTA personnel in designing the purpose built system that we now have. We attended to over 600 CASA requirements, and in fact we were one of the few schools that met the CASA stipulated deadline of September 1 2017. APTA was approved by CASA in April 2017 and has been operating in that format for more than two years. In November 2017, 6 months after we Transitioned, CASA conducted a level one audit (the highest available), and no concerns were raised.

At no stage during the process did CASA ever require contracts of us, or in fact any other flying training organisation in Australia. The requirements regarding contracts, is a requirement specifically being placed on APTA. Other operators continue to be exempted from this requirement. I assert that in the last 25 years of the practice of schools sharing AOCs, CASA does not hold any contracts on any other operators. They have chosen not to refute my allegation, because the fact is the CASA requirement is unique to APTA. It is unfair and unjust that you elect to single my Organisation out, and apply conditions to me that you choose not to apply to other operators.

Importantly, the use of a contract was an APTA initiative, and at no stage had CASA ever required a contract The contracts were drawn up by lawyers, and have been reviewed on at least 5 occasions since that time by lawyers. APTA and APTA members are satisfied with the contracts that we use. It is only CASA that is not satisfied. It is incumbent on CASA to tell me what you want in the contracts.

In October 2018, without any prior warning at all, CASA did a complete reversal of policy and initiated the action that has been continuing for more than 8 months now. The impact of that action on the business, my family, my members and staff has been traumatic. It is a clear breach of many aspects of your own regulatory philosophy.

Initially CASA action was not based on contracts, but the action was taken on the basis of

Aviation Ruling and
Temporary locations procedure.

After approximately two months, CASA admitted that the Aviation Ruling was the incorrect basis to be taking the action and “took the Aviation Ruling off the table”.

CASA also realised that the Temporary locations procedure was in fact their own procedure that they had suggested, helped us design, approved, and in fact they approved bases under the system. It is ludicrous that you now penalise me and my organisation for the very procedure that CASA in fact suggested.

After the CASA confusion was sorted out, they moved to the Latrobe Valley audit results. CASA has ignored 10 requests from me to finalise the allegations made, and they have tried to avoid addressing my concerns. The audit results and the associated process could not be justified, with new allegations arriving many months after you conducted an audit.

With the aviation ruling off the table, the temp locations embarrassingly identified as CASAs own procedure, and an inability to back up the allegations of regulatory breaches, CASA moved to the topic of contracts.

CASA initially accused us of not having contracts in place. CASA had forgotten they had been provided with contracts on multiple occasions. The topic them changed yet again but this time to a requirement to see signed copies of the contracts which we had, and they were provided to CASA.

As nothing appeared to be “sticking” he topic then moved yet again, but now back to the content of the contracts. CASA then provided guidance material on the first occasion that I fully adopted and submitted to CASA. For reasons that I cannot understand, they then rejected the contracts with their own material included.

CASA provided a second lot of guidance material, which I fully adopted. CASA then accepted the second version of the contracts. CASA advised “I have reviewed the draft contract provided this date. I can confirm the content is acceptable to CASA. My appreciation to you and your staff for provision of same”, but hours later reversed their position and withdrew the approved contracts. It appeared that nothing could satisfy CASA and I have no doubt that there was a “hidden agenda” and that was driven by Mr Crawford.

After approximately 6 months, and a high level of confusion within CASA, they were forced into outsourcing the contract requirement to an outside lawyer. That begs the question. Why would CASA initiate the action back in October 2018? In order to know that something is wrong, you do need to know what is right. CASA obviously didn’t!!! It took over 6 months before CASA had the third lot of guidance material.

Eventually a third set of guidance was supplied. CASA advised that it was guidance only and I should use my own terminology, rather than take theirs verbatim. I reviewed that against our contracts and exposition and am satisfied that our current contracts and exposition meet all requirements from their “guidance” material. I have asked CASA to identify any deficiencies and I will attend to them if they provide that information. There is no resistance from me, but I do require clear and concise guidance.

Unfortunately another point of confusion exists, as CASA have provided information on our Part 141 operations only, and have not provided any guidance on the Part 142 component, which is the majority of what we do, so until they clarify that, I am unable to move forward. I have made two requests, but they have not been answered.

CASA have also stipulated that all personnel must be APTA “employees”. The existing definitions of employees support the APTA model, so I have asked CASA to provide a definition of an employee that meets their requirements for this situation, which I am waiting on.

The third lot of guidance material suggests that we need to be assessed on the following. I point out that these are the exact items I attended to with CASA years earlier.

Suitability of the organisation.
Chain of Command in the organisation.
The number, qualifications, and competency of personnel.
Sufficiency of the facilities.
Suitability of the procedures and practices.
Suitability of Key Personnel.
Full operational control.
Compliance with procedures.
Capability to comply with legislation.
Compliance with directions.
Understanding of commitments
Access to reference library
Standardisation and proficiency checks
Ability to remove unsuitable personnel
Notification of change of Key Personnel.
Maintain a register of instructors.
Notification of
Provide a copy to all parties of the Operations manual
Supervision to ensure compliance with the manual.
Audits.
Compliance with audit findings.
Access to records.
Log of all simulator training.
List of simulators
Information pertinent to aircraft
Log of medicals of all personnel
Ability of APTA to cancel or suspend the agreement.


As all members will be aware we do have all of these systems in place because we actually did exactly this more than two years ago, working with CASA personnel and that is what lead to our approval in April 2017. These were the exact items that I worked on with CASA over a two year period as we designed APTA, and they are the procedures we have been following for over two years.

It is obvious that the CASA personnel that I deal with really have no idea about APTA. I have asked CASA to describe to me their understanding of APTA, but they steadfastly refuse to do so. APTA is not confused. The members are not confused, and the personnel are not confused. It is in fact only CASA that is confused. It is CASA that is breaching its obligations placed on it by the Regulatory Philosophy. It is CASA that chose to initiate a complete reversal of policy with no warning, and it is CASA that has bought substantial damage to the business, the members, the staff and to me personally. There are no safety concerns, there are no regulatory breaches, and you cannot direct me to any legislative breaches. I am dealing with the “opinions” of CASA personnel who have displayed unconscionable conduct.

The current situation is that CASA will soon decide on continuing operations. I have engaged substantive legal advice, and a failure by CASA to act appropriately, will be met with a class action, and this will be immediately initiated if required. I will be calling on the wider industry and professional organisations to join me in that class action, as my concerns are shared by the wider GA community.

The failure of CASA to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards, the failure of CASA to comply with its own regulatory philosophy, the malpractice of certain CASA individuals, and a flagrant disregard for the PGPA Act, the total disregard for the Ministers Statement of Expectation, and a complete failure to act in a well-intentioned manner, and a preference to act in a bullying and intimidating manner are in fact the causes of the problems.

Quite simply, the confusion exists within CASA. APTA was designed to increase safety, increase regulatory compliance, protect our respective business, and to create jobs. The concept is fully approved by CASA and the complete reversal of policy is not acceptable.

CASA has placed a number of restrictions on my ability to trade that have had enormous consequences, and I emphasise that there are no allegations of safety concerns or regulatory breaches. This entire issue and all of the associated damage to so many businesses and people is truly disgusting and could have been avoided had .......................................... acted in a well intentioned manner, and adhered to the obligations placed on them, in their roles.

Glen Buckley

Will Nuttall, Brad Lacy, David Jones, and Craig Martin

aroa 3rd Jul 2019 00:32

Onya Glen. !!
Easy to see why a Royal Commission or Judicial Inquiry is needed.
CAsA's ****ty nappies need to be hung out on the line for all to see. Fort Fumble is a corrupt and unethical farce of the first magnitude.
What a waste of time and money for all concerned, and so destructive to the GA industry, so vital to this wide brown land..
One does have to wonder at the mind-set of some CAsA persons, bullies and BS artists, it borders on the insane.
Its a bit of a joke with all the requirements they place on people and businesses.. and DONT do the same themselves.
Different strokes for different folks, depending where you're standing, or who you know, or dont..
CAsA does no wrong. CasA will never admit the truth. CAsA will obfusticate and play pseudo-legal buggery to their hearts content to arrive at any result they want.
Even the Head? of Legal, Dr Discrepancy doesnt believe in the Rule of Law, so what hope have we got
CEO and Boards come and go like smelly sox, and over the last 2 or 3 decades it has just got WORSE.
WTF is going on, apart from absolute bureaucratic lunacy..?
We, the people should have a right to put all this to an END.
AND VERY SOON.

ps Class Action?. I'm in. Vicarious Liability and lots, lots more. And 20 years of paperwork and FOIs to back it up. This disgusting "Authority" has GOT TO GO

bankrunner 4th Jul 2019 03:40


Originally Posted by FPDO (Post 10481539)
Hit them up for a Freedom of Information request.
This will show what actions were taken internally upon your correspondence arriving at their office.
You have a right to request and they must supply

Doesn't mean they will release anything.

They can stonewall you endlessly and invent BS reasons to not release the information.

They might also claim that it'll take 500 hours to search for and assess the material you've requested, and that you'll need to pay an exorbitant fee for them to do so. You'll pay the fee, and be handed a stack of documents where the interesting details are blacked out.

You could then take the matter to the OAIC. The Information Commissioner may well find in your favour, but they're so under resourced that it'll take two years to reach a decision.

The original FOI decision will be referred back to CASA, who will then choose a whole suite of new reasons to refuse access to the information you've requested. You then make another application to the OAIC, wait another two years, and the cycle repeats.


aroa 4th Jul 2019 07:16

If yr FOI from CAsA is blacked out somewhat ...or all. With BS excuses like 'not in the public interest' and others. The classic was ..If you know from the (req'd)docs what CAsA people had to say, we wont be able to manage our staff, because they wont talk in any 'investigation'
THEY get to read the investigation transcript in full. And in my case used something in there against me , when I had told the truth to the investigator. Honest these bastards are NOT..
Dont ask THEM for a review. Go straight to the Office of the Information Commissioner OAIC. They will review CAsA's dirty work.. two NON FOIs for reports , and OAIC got me enough to work with.
Like I said before this disgusting outfit HAS to GO

Murray Cod 5th Jul 2019 02:38

Hi Sunfish
I operated a VFR Cessna for aerial photography (airwork) , we were tempted to do some work in the Solomon Islands under PVT but gave it away as too hard, need a international AoC.
CASA got a whiff, and a please explain why your AoC is not available on your website , as it's a requirement. etc, I was ignorant of this rule but it appeared more like intimidation and bullying tactics than helpful advice.
I did point out that Qantas doesn't have their AoC details on their website either. Didn't hear a peep after that.
Why did I require to operate under an AoC ($30/Hr) , the pilot is qualified under CASA and the maintenance is conducted by CASA recognised people, I'm not Qantas.

aroa 5th Jul 2019 06:01

I always thort that to operate in another country like PNG, one has to get permission from the country concerned...as we did. While CAsA may have some interest in an Oz registered a/c, once you are out of Oz ..what then.
On one trip to PNG many moons ago I got a lovely document from the " International Division" (sic..very sick) from a lady who shall remain nameless, PNG hadnt even been contacted and this doc stated Here is your permission to operate in PNG !!. It was all bumpf. Actually it was the PNG entry permit for the aircraft and the job that "allowed it", organised by myself.
All that "fake job" rubbish has since been changed, or modified as CAsA does continuously to keep you even more confused . Last trip, PNG clearance from CAA POM and off we went.
Nauru.. we just went there, by permission of Nauru Government./Lands Dept who wanted the place mapped. It must be about the only Republic that you can fit in a single shot from FL170 NIce place to visit for just 2 weeks, and the Surveyors opening remark was 'Welcome to the Alcatraz of the Pacific !' Which now it is.
Certain HF frequency was required tho, ditto for PNG. Isnt there a lot of water out there tho.?

glenb 11th Jul 2019 03:10

Industry Complaints Commisioner Report
 
Well today is the day that CASA is scheduled to release the Report from the Industry Complaints Commissioner into my matter.

On receipt of the report, I will either be satisfied or unsatisfied, so I thought it might be timely to provide some feedback to Industry. My suggestion would be that AOPA and other organisations consider this feedback in their future dealings with CASA in trying to bring about Organisational Improvement.

I lodged a number of complaints through the ICC during December and January, and the report should be released today ( 6 months later)

Feedback.

The ICC is exceptional. I appreciate that previous incumbents have not been well accepted by Industry, the current position holder is exceptional. He travelled from Canberra to meet with me, and spent considerable time discussing my concerns. I have no doubt that he has the highest levels of honesty and integrity, and I stand by that comment, prior to the release of his report, which may not be to my satisfaction.

However, the Department is grossly under resourced. It was clearly identified to CASA that their actions would cost me $10,000 per week. It should not take 6 months to finalise a report, when the commercial impact is substantial. This department must have further resourcing.

The ICC should have specified criteria published with regards to turn around times. This will provide clarity to industry, and accountability.

The ICC cannot draw their salary from CASA. It is disrespectful to the process, and takes away the credibility. My own report is due today, and its quite likely that CASA will have a different perspective to me. If I know that the person writing and releasing the report draws their salary from CASA its simple human nature that I will feel aggrieved. There are three important words. All significant, but all with different meanings i.e. unfair, unjust, and unlawful. In the eyes of the law they are very different words, with different ramifications. Does the truly independent person hover over the same letters on the keyboard as the CASA employee. I don't know, and I cant cast aspersions, but I am human.

In the interests of improving safety, transparency, effectiveness and credibility.

The office needs more resources allocated to it, and it must be truly independent from CASA. It should also have performance criteria with regard to response times.

Cheers. GB.


aroa 11th Jul 2019 04:18

I can concur with yr comments re the current ICC. JH.

ANY investigation into CAsA should be done by an independent body, with truly adequate funding not just a niggardly pittance as allocated by CAsA now.
Amazing how CAsA can spend so little, and yet when it comes to arse covering, so much to spend and waste.

Will be interesting to see how you make out.
Dont forget the OAIC for any review of denied documents.
A must since CAsA has turned NON FOI into an art form.

zanthrus 25th Jul 2019 14:02

Any further updates Glen? I am sure many of us are hoping for a good result for you and APTA.

Kagamuga 30th Jul 2019 05:04

Any updates, big audience for this one!

Kagamuga 30th Jul 2019 12:16

I received a PM from a Pprune member (thank you!)
It would appear Glenn's business has folded? At least at Moorabbin and that MAC (Moorabbin Airport Corp.) has taken the building.

If this is indeed true; I hope CASA are proud of themselves !

Okihara 30th Jul 2019 21:43

Very sad. I wish him and his team well. Why his school in particular and not other APTA members?

glenb 31st Jul 2019 04:16

MFT Update
 
Good afternoon all,

I have a lot of people after me for a lot of information, and will try and dump it all down here in the one spot. I anticipate being back here frequently over coming days.

It is heartbreaking to advise that MFT is no more. Whilst the business does operate, I have lost my premises.

The facts are;

MFT was clearly in arrears on the land lease, and had been for some time.
The Airport personnel I deal with have been exceptional i.e. Mark, Paul, John and Diem, and I mean exceptional.
Under Marc's stewardship, many months ago, Marc constructed a plan that I thought I could achieve, but alas I could not.
Fully in accordance with a lease that I have signed and understood, the owners of Moorabbin Airport, are exercising their right and their obligations to take control of the building.

Of course it is heartbreaking, but the responsibility is mine. This has had an enormous effect on the staff and students, and for that I apologise.

All students and staff are "APTA", so their training can continue uninterrupted, or at least with minimal interruption. Operations have moved immediately to the Vortex building which is an APTA member. All staff will continue to get paid, and all staff will continue to deliver the same training from another building in the same aircraft. It is effectively only a building change.

My hope is that the new owners of the MFT building will lease the premises back to MFT. That is a project for the future when I am well underway cleaning up the fallout from this fiasco.

As most readers will be aware, CASA took action against APTA from October 2018. CASA actions placed a number of restrictions on my ability to trade. i.e. I could not market, advertise, take on customers, add capabilities, or renew existing capabilities. From the onset it was identified to CASA on numerous occasions in writing, that their actions would cost me at least $10,000 per week, as it has. In October 2018, I anticipated this matter would continue on for 6 weeks at most, with a total cost of $60,000. Unfortunately it has now dragged on unnecessarily for approximately 40 weeks.

If I had known it would drag on for this long, I may have taken a different course of action. In my worst nightmare I could not have imagined 40 weeks with no end in sight. Nevertheless, I was compelled to continue as I had a large number of operators depending on me for their own continuity. As time has dragged on and the financial impact worsened I called on MFT and my parents to support continuing operations.

It got to the stage where I could ask my family for no more, and the burden fell on MFT alone to sustain APTA operations. Quite simply the numbers didn't stack up, and there was no resolution in sight. I was not going to be able to meet staff salaries, and APTA was sold for the value of the debt only.

I must use this opportunity to thank the team at MFT for their unwavering professionalism. To Sreya Brown, Will Long, Tim Verhoef, Tarik Hartley, Shingote Shubham, Rory O' Heir, Pete Schultz, Cameron Meyer, Coby Ramos, Jake Lummis, Jo Ikin, Lawrie Byrnes, Pete bishop, and James Skinner. They have worked under extremely challenging conditions over the last 6 months in particular. They have demonstrated uncompromising standards of safety and compliance. The organisation has been under enormous duress, with all of the associated challenges and they have conducted themselves admirably.

They are all names worth noting because they are a truly exceptional team, and will be an enormous attribute to the new owners of APTA. I am confident the new owners have a vision, and will execute a vision, that will bring stability and opportunities for all.

Please feel free to fire away with any questions, cheers. Glen.



The name is Porter 31st Jul 2019 21:59

The heady days of MFT's commencement 15 years ago was of excitement. Mixed in with exceptional flight training who could forget the the spa on the balcony, the 'recycling' shoot from the balcony to the garbage bin. Glen thoughtfully distributing the 'recycling' amongst other tenants bins! A fair whack of Glen's instructors and students are now Airline Pilots, RFDS Pilots, Flight Attendants etc.

I look forward to MFT's phoenix like rise from the ashes!


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:49.


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