POST 1181- Aviation Safety Regulation Review Executive Summary
 

Here is the link to the ASSR Executive Summary https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/av...ve_Summary.pdf

More comprehensive material on the ASSR is available here. https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/

POST 1182- CASA Regulatory Philosophy
 

The ASSR Review referred to in post 1181 came up with this as one of its recommendations

"The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes its regulatory philosophy and, together with industry, builds an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect"

CASA responded: "Agreed The Government’s new Statement of Expectations (SOE) for the CASA Board will require CASA to develop a clear statement of regulatory philosophy. As part of its quarterly reporting to the Minister on its performance against its Corporate Plan, CASA will report on its performance against the new SOE and the recommendations agreed to by the Government arising out of this Report, including implementation of its regulatory philosophy, and associated compliance and enforcement policies. The CASA Director of Aviation Safety will be expected to report regularly to the Board on compliance with the new regulatory policy."

On July 31st CASA advised on updates to this implementation of its Regulatory Philosophy

Completed – Implementation Ongoing The tasks required by the Government response, such as issuing of a new SOE, have been completed. CASA’s Regulatory Philosophy was published on 15 September 2015. The SOE issued to the CASA Board in March 2017 requires that CASA implement its regulatory philosophy with the philosophy being reflected in relevant policies, procedures, manuals and where CASA personnel are carrying out their day-to-day operations.

The link to the CASA Regulatory Philosophy follows:

https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who...ory-philosophy

A little update to the article

So a bit like the muddy waters of supervision being "direct" from afar. When that suits.

I note that, again, the CASA criteria are not objective. “may”, “acceptable”, “full operational control”, “satisfy”, ‘this is so”.

These are meaningless gibberish words whose meanings can be changed at a lawyers whim. This is the actual reverse of classic Weberian bureaucracy - a system of administration developed by the Prussians precisely to stamp out the kind of corruption (including noble cause corruption) that CASAs regulations deliberately facilitate.

‘’To put that another way, the CASA spokesman really said: “if we like you, we might let you franchise stuff, however if we feel we don’t love you any more, then your franchising is not permitted. Be nice to us or we will destroy you.”

POST 1186- The obligation on CASA.
 

Bendy and Sunfish, you hit the nail on the head. That is the crux of the issue.

But it is important to recap the Civil Aviation ACT. The ACT that establishes CASA. I will quote from PART II which deals with the establishment and functions of CASA, in sections 8 and 9)

“CASA is a body corporate and may be sued in its corporate name……. The Public Governance, Performance, and Accountability Act 2013 applies to CASA. That Act deals with matters relating to corporate Commonwealth entities, including… the use and management of public resources……..CASA has the function of developing and promulgating appropriate, clear, and concise aviation safety standards.”

So if CASA, and specifically, Mr. Martin and Mr. Aleck, are unable to produce any supporting safety case after more than two years, then I have a reasonable expectation that they can direct me to a regulatory breach that is “clear and concise”. Surely they are obligated to do so. Especially when one considers the negative impact on safety and the loss of business and jobs that has resulted from their actions and decisions.

If I cannot be directed to a supporting safety case, then there must be a regulatory breach. If neither of those exists, then I reasonably have to assume that their motivation lies elsewhere.

CASA has thrown everything at me. They have tried the Aviation Ruling, bullying and intimidation, breaches of Administrative law, Procedural fairness, and natural justice. They have falsified audit results, made completely unsubstantiated allegations, placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade, etc etc. Nothing sticks.

They now move into “operational control”. It doesn’t appear in any CASA definition, so I will be dealing yet again, with the opinion of Mr. Aleck and Mr. Martin. I am sure they will have a “different opinion”.

I firmly believe my opinion to be correct, and relish the opportunity to challenge them on this one. They will be digging an even deeper hole, be assured!

Senator Susan McDonald
 

04/09/20

Dear Senator Susan McDonald,

My name is Glen Buckley, you will have some knowledge of my current issues with members of the CASA Executive Management, whom I have made substantial allegations against. I have been impacted by the actions and decisions of those personnel.

Allegations against those two individuals have been made before, and in fact, led to the ABC conducting an investigative report into the matter https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/dying-pi...fatal/10444126.

My allegations closely mirror previous allegations that have been raised, and against the same individuals.

The Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) has facilitated an opportunity for me via their Facebook Live conference at 7 PM on Tuesday 8th September. That presentation will open with a direct address to you, in your role on the current Senate Inquiry into Australia's General Aviation Industry. It will be my submission to that inquiry.

If you are unable to accept an audiovisual submission, please advise me and I will provide a written transcript. I invite you to join the conference if you deem it appropriate.

I thank you sincerely for the open and professional manner that appears evident from the feedback Ben Morgan from AOPA has provided me.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

Glen

You might want to contact the Committee Secretary to confirm (Phone: +61 2 6277 3511 or [email protected]), but I'm pretty sure that anything published before submission to the Committee (e.g. an AOPA webcast or even a transcript of it) will not attract parliamentary privilege. Although that would not mean you can't participate in an AOPA webcast, it would mean that any e.g. potentially defamatory content of the webcast would be at your/AOPA's risk.

If you instead write down what you have to say about the CASA officers you've named and submit that to the Committee and the Committee publishes your submission before any proposed webcast, the content will attract privilege and be 'out there'. But beware: You're starting a verbal streetfight with some of the best sophists in the game.

Lead Balloon.
 

As usual, sound guidance.

Unfortunately, I have been dealing with this, every woken moment in the last two years. I am time poor and need this bought to a head.

This needs to be actioned on, and promptly so. Everything I have said, I stand fully behind. In fact, such statements made without Parliamentary Privilege, carry more weight.

The person making the statements must be fully prepared to back them up with evidence and potentially face charges if they are vindictive or vexatious, not truthful, not in the public interest, unsupported with evidence, cannot be justified on the basis of aviation safety, etc. I'm fully aware of that, and accepting of it.

I know that seems naive, but quite simply the toll this has taken on me, must come to an end by whatever means.

By following CASA processes, this has already dragged on for two years. Enough is enough!

Provided both sides of the story are presented, I will be able to accept the outcome.

If I could delay a couple of weeks, type a submission (I'm a one-finger typer by the way) to the Senate, have it considered, potentially be involved in email ping pong, and accepted, would be weeks away. I simply don't have the time, mental capacity, or resources.

I will have to be fully accountable for my actions and decisions, and be truthful.

More power to your arm, Glen. I look forward to Tuesday evening's webcast.

POST 1190 Notifying CASA of commerecial impact
 

I wrote to CASA on repeated occasions notifying them of the commercial impact of their actions. Here is the first correspondence sent on 24/10/18. This also clearly highlights my arguments regarding the Aviation Ruling. I will post further correspondence shortly.

POST 1189- Commercial impact
 

This correspondence and more to follow will clearly demonstrate that CASA was fully aware of the commercial impact of their actions. I am attending only to the fact that CASA was fully awre of the impact of their actions, irrespective of whether they were right or not

POST 1190- Commercial impact
 

Correspondence sent to Regional Manager

Post 1191 Commercial impact
 

And yet again

Glen. "Borrowed" AOC's for charter operations and "interposed entities" for pseudo RPT operations were approved by CASA and are not dissimilar to franchising.

Australia's worst "airline" accident in decades, the Lockhart River Metro CFIT in May 2005 resulting in 15 deaths involved both a "borrowed" AOC and an interposed entity, both practices being CASA approved.

POST 1196- Commercial impact
 

Correspondence dated 9th November 2018 identifying the commercial impact

POST 1197- commercial impact
 

This is only a sampling of the correspondence sent to CASA ensuring they were clear on the commercial impact. There are many more emails, but I think my point is proven.

CASA unable to identify safety concerns, and unable to identify any regulatory breaches, and fully aware of the commercial impact of their actions.

And sorry to the Mods for the increased workload

Franchising
 

Franchising is relevant to the charter and RPT operations simply to manage commercial advantage. The issue here should be the regulator working with and supporting industry rather than the heavy handed approach to simply bullying industry into submission. I thought the point was to promote industry, promote safety to help us to be compliant and work with us to find ways of making it work. If CASA thinks their role is just to enforce rules and put all the energy into shutting organisations down like they have you Glenn then they have lost sight of how we create a safe and sustainable industry. Time to park the egos and give a damn about industry and start genuinely working with us. New maintenance regulations, part 43, classic exampl, i dont know a single operator who wants it yet CASA says we all want it, time to stop, listen, work with industry instead of constantly working against us, this is out lives, our futures a, our business and what is the point if they drive us all out of business just to ease their own ego's. Time for change, time for those in CASA who think it is all about them to go work somewhere else.

Shipwreck, I started with an unbiased opinion of CASA when I joined this website and even expressed disbelief over the aggressive attitude of much of the industry to CASA and counselled working hand in hand with them in a spirit of cooperation as this is the best way to work with the public service in my experience........

‘’However...... The more I read about their actions, the regulations and their behaviour as evidenced by the Forsyth review, Quadrio, Dominic James, the care flight matter, Jabiru and now Glen Buckley and APTA, I am convinced we need major change otherwise what little investment and jobs remaining will disappear.

The Act does not require CASA to take into account the needs of the aviation industry in any meaningful way. It is written in greasy, deceitful lawyer speak in a way that deliberately avoids accountability while maximising CASA power. The Act is not fit for purpose any more than CASA is if the purpose is for the benefit of Australia.

It's not.

A very deliberate policy decision was made to ensure CASA does not have a 'dual mandate': that is, being concurrently responsible for promoting the industry and policing the industry.

CASA does have a mandate to set clear and concise safety standards but has abjectly failed to do that. This allows anyone in CASA to come up with whatever differing views they want about what those rules mean from time to time. And there is no end of people with strong opinions about how to save the world from perceived and overblown risks to aviation safety. It is very stressful and expensive to challenge their interpretations, as they'll always try to invoke aviation safety to scare the AAT/court. Hence, the practical 'standard' is whatever someone in CASA's subjective opinion says it is from time to time.

Someone in CASA just woke up one day and decided that what Glen had been led by someone else in CASA to believe was OK is now no longer OK. (Actually, I suspect that the person who 'woke up one day' was just used as a patsy to do the dirty work of someone else who saw Glen's success as a competitive threat.) Is aviation any safer now, as a consequence of that change? Of course! There's less of it.

(Actually, the fatality rate has been fairly constant over the past couple of decades, demonstrating that the regulatory 'reform' program has been an abject failure and egregious waste of resources.)