Yeah right, I’m going to name names? Not likely. But they were said, and not 30 years ago either. And I forgot another quote from a famous CASA Inspector, this time; “Being a CASA regulator is all a game. It’s a very serious game, but it’s all a game”. Believe me if you wish. If you don’t, well it doesn’t bother me one little bit as it’s all irrelevant anyway because unless there is a 777 with a roo on its tail poking out of a great big smoking hole there will never be change at CASA. N.E.V.E.R

I hope you’ve put in a confidential submission to the Senate Committee’s GA review naming the person. Otherwise you’re complicit.

You really are a flaming galah aren’t you. How old are you, child? I’ve got more hours under my belt and managerial aviation experience than you will ever have in a life time. Senate inquiry’s come and go, senate estimates come and go, Government internal investigations, reports and recommendations come and go, and senators, ministers and independents come and go, and all for naught. I’ve seen at least 20+ senate inquiries over 35 years and more CASA/CAA DAS/CEO’s than I really care to remember. Hell the regulatory reform program commenced the year before the great pilot dispute of 1989 when Hawke and Keating ruled Australia and the reform program still hasn’t been completed!!!! I’ve spoken to Ministers and their minions, politicians and independents, business CEO’s and CASA themselves. I’ve written submissions, publicly supported a plethora of aviation industry groups and I’ve put time and money into fighting the system for justice. It’s all as useful as collecting stale cabbage leaves....If that is complicit then I’m proud to wear that badge.

P.S And submissions that I have tendered have not been CONFIDENTIAL. Let’s see you try that some time Junior.

Para377+

‘’Absent a smoking hole, a concerted negative campaign in marginal seats will do the trick IMHO. As for negotiation, discussion, reviews, reports, etc. don’t make me laugh! You need to demonstrate naked political power if you want to see change.

Yet you say you won’t name names with the inference that you’d be intimidated to do so.

If you’ve the same credibility in the real world as you have on an anonymous internet forum then I’m not surprised you’ve had little success in influencing the direction of the industry or the regulator.

Naming names in a legally governed process and in a forum where the person(s) named cannot return serve by litigating against you for defemation is different to naming names on an internet blog site.

As I have said, I have done my part in challenging the CASA status quo, and you are correct - it failed. But at least I can say that I had a crack at it, much the same as Glen is having a crack at it. What about you Mr Wanchai - keyboard warrior and self appointed judge of other people, what big brave bold actions have you taken, if any? Likely not much because nothing has changed within industry and the regulator, as you’ve pointed out.

Ummmmmm, you won’t name names in ‘a legally governed process’ though.

And keyboard warrior. Pot kettle much? 😂

Back to the thread
 

This thread is too important to Glen to have it trolled into being locked. If any idiots out there want to argue with me please send PM’s.

Glen, many have come up against CASA over the decades with several people really rocking their foundation for a bit but that was about it. Your tenacity and thirst for justice is commendable and many of us in the aviation community are fully behind you, irrespective of what the outcome may of may not be. Keep fanning the flames mate!

There is an old saying that perhaps CASA doesn’t quite grasp; “When people lose everything and they have nothing left to lose, they lose it”. Now not that you have ‘lost it’ so to speak, but you have lost your business, home and income and you have been mentally stripped bare by them. That makes YOU a very dangerous adversary to them. There are several possible outcomes from your actions, but at this point in time I reckon that one day we will log into Pprune and find that you have dissaperared, vanished like taxpayer money in a Politicians grubby hands. That will be because a big fat payout cheque (with numerous confidentiality clauses) will have arrived in your mailbox. I hope that day comes for you mate as you deserve something. It won’t undo the past but it will set you on course for a new future....keep the fire burning.

+ 1 to P377

Dear Mr. Anthony Mathews, and all Members of the CASA Board


Whilst I appreciate that you may not be in a position to personally respond to my request, can I ask that you draw on Mr. Jonthan Aleck in his role as the CASA Executive Manager, Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs as well as any other personnel that you deem appropriate in formulating an official CASA response.


As you are aware, there are three primary core issues that have brought detriment to me, my family, and a number of other entities.

Issue One- The reversal of approval on APTA after 10 CASA personnel had spent two years designing it with me, approved it, approved bases under it, audited it, and in fact recommended it to a number of operators. By providing me with several short term interim approvals to operate, over a period of 8 months, the business was starved of revenue and was sold at 5% of its value. Importantly CASA has clearly stipulated procedures in their Enforcement Procedures Manual that they are compelled to follow should they Cancel, Suspend or vary an AOC, and those procedures were completely bypassed. No "show cause" notice was ever issued by CASA. The Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office is currently investigating that matter. My concerns with this matter were the clear breaches of Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness, and Natural Justice

Issue Two- The advice that my remaining business/flying school, Melbourne Flight Training, had to be transferred to the new owners of APTA. On this point, CASA, and specifically Mr. Craig Martin advised on 20/06, "For the avoidance of doubt, this would allow flight training to be conducted by APTA employees only-not employees of affiliates. Mr. Jason McHeyzer advised that CASA required complete operational control which included staff, resources, and total financial control. Currently, I do not believe that the Ombudsman's Office is investigating that matter

Issue Three- After obtaining employment in the industry, Mr. Jason McHeyzer the CASA Region Manager sent a direction to my Employer that my continuing employment was untenable based on comments that I was making publicly. As with Issue One, CASAs Enforcement Procedures Manual stipulates the procedures to be followed if a CASA approved Head of Operations is deemed not to be a 'fit and proper person". By completely bypassing these procedures, I was denied a fair process. On this matter, the Commonwealth Ombudsman is investigating.

On issues One and Three, CASA has refused to respond to my fair and reasonable questions, using the investigation by the Ombudsman's Office as a reason not to respond. I have previously spoken to the Ombudsman's Office and it appears that despite the investigation, I am entitled to maintain correspondence with you, and I believe that CASA is unfairly and unlawfully drawing on that investigation to frustrate my efforts to fairly resolve this matter.


However, in this correspondence, I am writing to you regarding Issue Two.


This matter has been specifically addressed by the Ombudsman's Office in Phase One of the Ombudsman's investigation. I have attached the Ombudsman's report for your reference. In light of that, I feel I am fully entitled to a detailed response.

You will note that in Phase One of the Ombudsman's report he made the following statements.

"in my concluded view there was an administrative deficiency due to an absence of a direct relationship between the activity being regulated and the policy said to regulate it. This gave rise to ambiguity and uncertainty with the potential to cause detriment to those relying on the accuracy of the regime or, conversely prevent detriment from occurring."

He then goes on to state "as of October 2016, no Australian legislation prohibited "franchising of an AOC, subject only to the exclusivity of the AOC Holders operational control"

You will be fully aware that this conflicts with the advice provided to me by CASA, and that error on behalf of CASA has clearly resulted in detriment being caused to me.

CASA advised that a franchised AOC was not permitted and that "for the avoidance of doubt, this would allow flight training to be conducted by APTA employees only".

Phase Two of the Ombudsman's investigation deals with the "7 day notice period" for continuing operations and the direction to terminate my employment. As Phase One is completed and that is the phase relevant to the MFT issue (transferring my school to the owners of APTA), I now wish to seek CASA advice on where we move to from here. You have advised that we could progress matters on receiving the Ombudsman's findings.


The detriment caused is significant, as my flying school of 12 years was "handed over" to the new owners of APTA. This instantly denied me access to any revenue. This problem was only further compounded when Mr. Mc Heyzer the CASA Region Manager sent a direction to my Employer that my continuing employment was untenable based on comments that i was making publicly. This led to my termination and a protracted period of unemployment.

In the attached email dated 22/08/20, I advised Mr. Martin that I had complied with his requirements and transferred staff, resources, and financial control. Unfortunately, that left with me ongoing expenses by way of contractual obligations to a number of entities, which I was unable to attend to. Some of those entities have initiated legal action for breaches of my financial obligations to them. This occurred because of the CASA direction to transfer my income but did not attend to expenses.

For clarity, I feel I have a valid basis for a claim on CASA regarding the loss of my flying school of more than a decade, Melbourne Flight Training. That claim would require me to submit a request to the Department of Finance by way of the CDDA scheme https://www.finance.gov.au/individua...on-cdda-scheme

I also draw your attention to Post 1273 in the thread on PPrune that is currently running https://www.pprune.org/australia-new...ss-v-casa.html. This post refers to the Full Federal Court decision handed down on 22/06/2012 and obligations to act as model litigants.

I have also included an excerpt from The Commonwealth Ombudsman's office below. CASA has unnecessarily dragged this matter on for far too long. The time has truly arrived where the Board of CASA is compelled to act with good intent, and integrity, and work towards a mutually agreeable solution.

"Compensation for ‘detriment’ caused directly to a person by ‘defective administration’ can be made under the Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA Scheme). ‘Detriment’ includes personal injury, property damage, and economic detriment. Examples of ‘defective administration’ are an unreasonable agency failure to follow procedures or to give proper advice or giving advice that was incorrect or ambiguous. A payment under the CDDA Scheme can be authorized by the agency against which the claim is made. Legal liability to pay compensation does not have to be proved"


I am fully satisfied that I have a valid basis for a claim under the CDDA Scheme. Could you please clearly identify if you will stand in the way of me making such a claim, or am I able to proceed? I note that CASA could veto such a claim, hence I seek clarity on that matter.

My hope is that you will act with good intent. Should you choose to frustrate my attempt at fair and reasonable compensation I will approach the responsible Minister, Mr. Michael McCormack directly to seek a resolution.

Respectfully Glen Buckley

First paragraph from here: https://www.finance.gov.au/individua...on-cdda-schemeCASA is a Corporate Commonwealth Entity, not a Non-Corporate Commonwealth Entity.

No compliance and enforcement action was taken against you. The content of the Enforcement Procedures Manual is irrelevant to the circumstances.

You’re not (yet) involved in any court or tribunal or other legal action to which the Model Litigant rules apply.

Please (please) Glen, reach out to someone - anyone - who has some idea about what you’re up against, before sending off another letter. That was, I understood, one of the points of the crowd funding. And there are people who may be willing to help you for free.

It may be therapeutic for you to send letters to CASA, notwithstanding the content may be dismissed out of hand by CASA, but I’m confident your energies could be better applied to activities that are both therapeutic and more likely to focus CASA’s attention.

Leadsled
 

As usual, thank you for the wise advice

I have attended lawyers on a few occasions now, and as you will appreciate they are damned expensive. It has been quite challenging to find a legal firm that has the appropriate expertise. I do have a further meeting on 17/11/20 and feel reasonably confident that this organization will be able to represent me.

I really need the Commonwealth Ombudsman's report finalized before I move too much further. A bit difficult to say too much more here, apart from express my very sincere appreciation. Cheers. Glen.

Keep at it. Where there's a will, there's a way.!
And as casa knows their employees have done wrong, casa has 'vicarious liability 'for their actions.
Good luck !

From the Senate estimates it was revealed that our warrior Glen was offered a deal of about $1.0M by Carmody and knocked it back....

Should that be true - cheers Glen.

Loose change. Glen has lost potential income for the next 20 years, not to mention pain, suffering, bullying and intimidation. That wouldn’t even buy his family a half decent house in the city or pay to start up a new business with infrastructure.

And just how much has Carmody taken away from the taxpayer in his time with CAsA...Millions....plural.
What a pee weak offer ! These buggers insult yr intelligence. and yr sense of decency.

The offer
 

Hi folks, about to walk into work so need to be brief.

There has been one offer only. Mr Carmody walks into work at 9am and out the door at 5pm.

He earns more that day alone than the total of the offer made to me.

As i’ve said before. It’s all about intent.

Cheers. Glen

" Mr Carmody walks into work at 9am and out the door at 5pm."

That's strange Glen, I heard he's dropped at work around ten AM, occasionally, and picked up around two PM. So your calculation may be a tad out.

Carmody salary
 

Probably still accurate as i had factored in a three hour lunch break during such an arduous day as he works so diligently to improve aviation safety in Australia.