[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 28/08/24

Via the AP emails:

Dear Mr Hanton.

Thankyou for confirming that the legal area, and specifically that  Mr Aleck never accessed our systems and procedures, My expectation was that Mr Aleck would have accessed the systems to make his assessment. In fact it is quite concerning that he did not look at them or assess them, and that reinforces my view that his actions and decisions were malicious rather than being based on evidence or any identified  deficiencies.

Regarding the two allocations of passwords to the relevant CASA personnel.

The first CASA team that was involved in the design and revalidation of APTA did have access during the development stage and approval, and were conversant with the system.

When the new CASA team was allocated, the access was provided in September of 2019. The FSM system was a highly advanced system requiring training, and none of the CASA personnel that were issued the access codes undertook the associated training in the system which was offered to them, and they would not have been able to operate the system or understand the system.

The comment "it has been identified that the APTA Operations Manual suite contains multiple references to information stored within the organisation’s FSM system, rather than documenting this information in the organisation’s manual suite",

leaves me in no doubt as to the confusion. The comment suggests that some "new discovery" was made .The system was an entirely "real time" system that was web based and required computers. The highly complex systems, quite simply cannot be put on paper inside the Exposition as you cant track aircraft, and qualifications, duty times etc in real time on an older paper based system that we had moved away from, and was explained, discussed and considered at length with CASA, and was the exact system that CASA had approved 18 months earlier as being completely fit for purpose.

The fact that CASA only "identified" that our complex systems required real time access via a web based system, leaves me in little doubt that the team allocated to CASA for the process of closing down APTA had little to no idea of what they were dealing with. Those had been the systems that had been in place for many years and CASA had audited on multiple occasions, after CASA had approved those exact systems 18 months prior as part of the revalidation of CASA in  April 2017.

These are only observations, and I do not require comment against them unless you are in disagreement with me, and feel that comment is necessary, or you feel that you need to personally defend Mr Alecks actions and decisions.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

---

On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 at 12:52, Hanton, Jonathan <Jonathan.Hanton@casa.gov.au> wrote:

Hi Glen


I’ve set out responses to your questions of 19 August 2024 below.


Thanks


Jonathan

• Did Dr Aleck access APTA’s Flight School Manager System (FSMS), and if so, how?
  

Dr Aleck confirmed he has never accessed (or sought access) to APTA’s FSMS.

• Are there any records of CASA ever reviewing APTA’s Flight  School Manager System.
  

Yes.

---

On 12 September 2018, CASA emailed APTA’s then Head of Operations:


As part of the regulatory service task assessment of the LTV and BLT locations, it has been identified that the APTA Operations Manual suite contains multiple references to information stored within the organisation’s FSM system, rather than documenting this information the organisation’s manual suite.


As a result, in order for the LTV and BLT assessments to progress, CASA requires access to the FSM system via remote login. Our understanding is that a remote login was discussed with the previous oversighting team, due to the contents forming part of the organisation’s approved exposition, but not actioned.

---

On 19 September 2018 APTA replied:



Thank you for your time yesterday, always a pleasure dealing face to face.


One of the action items discussed yesterday was the granting of access to APTA’s tools as referred to by our exposition/OM’s.


1.            The FSM access given to your Team (1CASA and 2CASA) have now been given Group Administrator privileges. Both profiles now have read/write access to the APTA FSM in its entirety.

2.            Similarly, as on occasion our Exposition will refer to our “Reference Library” that is in the Cloud (Office 365 Sharepoint). The login details below grants your Team read only access to all of its content.


https://www.office.com

Username: casa@auspta.com.au

Password: Apta1909

Note …  In 06SEP we have uploaded the new Edition 3 REV 0 of our manuals for reading then signing at the end of this week by our staff (1. Operations Manual/For signing 21SEP18). Each similar folder in every Base contains copies of OM’s 1 to 5, the Summary of Changes from previous Edition, and the respective Base Procedures Manuals (if active).

---

On 20 September 2018, CASA replied:


Thank you for arranging full access to the APTA FSM system and Office 365 Sharepoint site.


Also on 20 September 2018, a CASA inspector distributed instructions to the Certificate Management Team oversighting APTA on how to access APTA’s reference library:

---

From: Hanton, Jonathan
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2024 11:51 AM
To: Glen Buckley <defendapta@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Complaint that Mr Aleck never assessed existing systems and procedures. [SEC=OFFICIAL]


OFFICIAL


Hi Glen

Thanks for your email, I acknowledge receipt.

I hope to be in a position to provide a preliminary response to the following questions that should address the queries you’ve made (highlighted below) later this week:

• has Dr Aleck ever accessed APTA’s Flight School Manager System, and if so, how; and
  
• Whether there any records of CASA ever reviewing APTA’s Flight Management System.
  

Thanks

Jonathan

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 12/09/24

Via AP emails:

Dear Mr Hanton, 
In order to expedite processes and prevent the opportunity to further delay matters, may I request that your response be broken into two components with the priority at the moment being "the complaint", and you could respond to the background dot points as soon as "practical", but respond to the complaint as soon as "possible". 
The complaint is:
 

• Can CASA clearly identify to me whether Mr Aleck had considered the Agreement that had previously been provided to CASA on multiple occasions over previous years, on or before 23rd October 23rd 2018. 
  
• Can you advise the date that Mr Aleck first became aware that CASA already held the Agreements.
  

The complaint could be fully resolved by a single internal intercom communication with Mr Aleck, so presumably the complaint could be promptly attended to, and is almost independent of the "dot points" at this stage, although those responses are required.
Considering how promptly the communication could be made with Mr Aleck, would it be possible to have that response by close of business Friday 13th September. The response could be as short as a "yes" or "no. 
Regarding the date that I am attempting to ascertain, I suggest that the misplaced Agreement would have been forwarded to Mr Aleck from within CASA as an attachment shortly after October 23rd 2018, being after the date that I got the request for that document that CASA already held. 
Respectfully, Glen Buckley

---

OFFICIAL

Hi Glen

Thank you for your email, I acknowledge receipt.

With respect to your request that I alert you know if I disagree with any of the statements you have made before you move forward, I am not in a position to do that until I have had the opportunity to review contemporaneous records. For that reason, please do not delay pursuing any course of action if waiting for the outcome of my enquiries would prejudice you in any way.

Thanks

Jonathan

---

Subject: Misfeasance in public office- Mr Aleck CASA Executive Manager.

To the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner

On October 23rd, 2018,  Mr Aleck the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs sent notification to me that my business had been operating unlawfully throughout the previous decade, and the business was given as little as 7 days to continue operating. CASA went on to close down my business in June 2019. In June 2019, CASA stood by its determination that all personnel operating under a CASA Authorisation must be employed by the same Company that CASA issued the Authorisation to, and they cannot be employees of another Company or Entity. 

Furthermore, effective immediately from the date of that notification on October 23rd 2018,

• CASA placed an "administrative freeze" on processing all regulatory tasks for the business in its entirety, which prevented upskilling personnel, adding hardware such as flight simulators, adding new courses, bases, aircraft etc.
  
• CASA advised that I was likely subject to prosecution.
  
• CASA wrote to all my customers advising that they were also potentially subject to prosecution by their association with me.
  
• The business was unable to enrol students due to only 7 days surety of operations.
  
• The business was prevented from adding on new bases, as they were deemed to be unlawful.
  
• The impact on the business both reputationally and commercially was immediate, and significant. On multiple occasions throughout the 8 months that these trading restrictions remained in place, I notified CASA that the trading restrictions were crippling the business, and required me, and once my own funds were exhausted, my parents to fund $10,000 to $15,000 per week in staff wages, and maintaining the safety department, let alone all the other fixed costs of operating a Registered Training Organisation (RTO). 
  

As you are aware I have raised allegations of misfeasance in public office, and providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation. against Mr Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.  

I believe that Mr Aleck acted with targeted malice towards me personally , and that truthfully he made no assessment at all, of any of our systems or procedures at any time. In fact from his office in Canberra, and having never visited the facility, or any of our bases, I suggest that he knew very little about how the business operated, despite it being his own Legal area that had issued all the Authorisations and Approvals over more than a decade that the business operated. 

My concerns that Mr Aleck was acting maliciously towards me, were further confirmed when CASA recently conceded that Mr Aleck never even accessed any of our operational control procedures contained within our Flight School Manager program, at any time prior to sending the notification in October 2018. How could he truthfully have any concerns about "operational control" when the very CASA approved procedures designed for operational control, and in use by the business for over a decade were not even considered by Mr Aleck. 

To me, that is the most astounding and concerning admission by CASA. A business has been shut down by Mr Aleck with all the associated harm and trauma, and there is not a single safety concern ever produced, no deficiency in any procedure,  and furthermore no assessment of systems and procedures was ever undertaken by the decision maker in this matter. The decision maker being Mr Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.  

In your recent correspondence confirming that Mr Aleck never accessed any of our FSM systems designed for operational control, you noted that Mr Aleck had made the following statement. 

"Access to APTA’s FMS system was unnecessary to the views I formed in relation to APTA’s contractual arrangements." 

It only further confirms my view that Mr Aleck may have been acting maliciously. It's interesting to note that Mr Aleck convinced the Ombudsman that he was not the decision maker when his response above , clearly indicates that truthfully he was the decision maker, but more importantly consider this: 

Mr Aleck contends that it was not necessary to review our systems and procedures that are industry leading, fully compliant, and perhaps the most advanced system of operational control adopted by any school in Australia. 

If Mr Aleck was of the view that it was unnecessary to look at our systems and procedures, and determined that an assessment of them was not required, then at least he should have looked at existing contractual arrangements, especially as he had supposed  concerns about the  contractual arrangements. 

The point being that Mr Aleck gathered no evidence to support his decision making. 

Surely any well intentioned, right minded, reasonable person would form the view that for Mr Aleck to have concerns about the existing contractual arrangement he would have to at least have a look at that  existing contractual arrangement that has been in place for a number of years wouldn't he? 

Truthfully, and I'm sure you will concur, although I don't expect you to comment against it. If a CASA employee has closed down a business on any concerns, surely that decision maker should have reviewed the CASA approved systems and procedures that had been in place for over a decade. If the determination is that there is some deficiency, or at least potentially some deficiency, it does require the decision maker to have some knowledge of the existing systems, in order to determine the deficiency. 

If Mr Aleck is of the opinion that it was not necessary to have knowledge of the existing systems, would it not be incumbent on him to at least review and assess the existing contractual arrangements, as an absolute minimum,  if he has concerns that the existing contractual arrangements are deficient. How can you possibly determine something to be deficient, or have concerns about it,  if he  hasn't even looked at it? 

I think it's important that some significant facts are clarified at this point in time, and I am seeking your response. If you disagree with any of the following dot points could I ask that you highlight your objection.  

I understand that if you choose to make no comment, that does not necessarily mean that you concur with my views, however if you fundamentally believe any of the dot points below  to be in error I ask that you alert me to that now, at this stage before I proceed with the matter. These matters need to be clarified before we move forward. You are aware that I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck has provided false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation, I am trying to ensure clarity and truthfulness.

• The business was not "new.'It was first approved by CASA in 2006. There was no change to the business structure during its decade of operations apart from updating procedures as regulatory changes required.
  
• The Ombudsman found that CASA was "generally" aware of my business  for over  a decade, although Mr Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs claims he was not "personally" aware throughout the decade.
  
• Mr Aleck first became aware of my business in September or October of 2018, more than a decade after it commenced operations, according to him.
  
• When Mr Aleck became aware, he determined that my business was operating unlawfully, and presumably had been operating unlawfully but unnoticed by CASA for over a decade, because there was no change to that structure during the decade.
  
• The business consistently delivered industry leading levels of safety and compliance based on CASA feedback. At no stage did CASA ever raise any safety concerns with the business. There were no unsafe occurrences that compelled  Mr Aleck to act. 
  
• At no stage prior to the notification of October 23rd 2018, no concerns at all, had ever been raised by CASA regarding the "structure". In fact every aspect of the structure was fully approved by CASAs Legal Area to do exactly what it was doing and had been for the previous decade. 
  
• On October 23rd 2018, with no prior warning I was advised that I was operating in breach of CASA regulations, and was potentially subject to prosecution. The business was advised that it only had potentially as little as 7 days surety of operations.
  
• CASA called on me to provide copies of "commercial agreements" that I had with my customers.
  
• On receiving the initial notification from CASA I immediately responded in writing calling on CASA to "make a decision" based on the Master Copy of the Agreement that CASA already held, and had held for at least 2 years, that being the 2016 version.
  
• CASA advised that I had not provided copies of the Master Agreement, and that CASA did not hold copies of the Master agreement on file,which I immediately knew not to be an accurate representation of the truth.
  
• It appeared  to me that CASA had misplaced the  multiple copies of the Master agreement that had been provided to CASA on numerous occasions over previous years, by me.
  
• I provided irrefutable evidence to CASA that Agreements had been supplied on multiple occasions to the most senior of CASA personnel over previous years.
  
• CASA reluctantly conceded they had misplaced the Master  Agreement , but was able to relocate it, using the evidence I provided..
  
• The significance of that time line is that on October 23rd 2018 when Mr Aleck  sent correspondence calling for the Agreements, CASA already held the Agreements, but had misplaced those multiple copies. CASA  was not aware that they already held the Agreements until after CASA had sent the correspondence and put the trading restrictions in place. 
  

Admittedly, the matter of the misplaced Agreements, may have only been at a Regional level within the CASA Vic/Tas Office, and it is possible that the document was not misplaced at the "national "level, and it is possible that Mr Aleck did have access to that document as part of his decision making prior to the notification of October 23rd 2018. 

It is reasonable to assume  that before Mr Aleck  sent correspondence calling on  me to supply any Agreement that we had in place, that as part of that process, he would have ascertained whether or not CASA already held the very document that he was seeking.  

Not only did Mr Aleck not review any of our procedures for operational control contained within FSM, but he potentially deemed that my existing contractual arrangements were not suitable, yet he had not even reviewed or assessed the existing arrangement, or so it would appear.

I acknowledge that Mr Aleck does not believe that it was necessary to have an understanding of the businesses operational control systems. I strongly disagree, however I note his opinion. 

However, if it is the Commercial Agreement specifically that Mr Aleck had identified as a "problem" it would be completely incumbent upon him that he had at least viewed that document in order to determine what was "wrong". 

I hope that the significance of the allegation is not lost, and particularly as I am alleging that Mr Aleck was motivated by reasons that were not related to the safety of aviation, but rather to cause harm to me.  

I hope you can see my point. It's been confirmed that Mr Aleck never reviewed the existing procedures which alone is concerning, but if  he also determined that our existing contractual arrangements were not suitable, yet he never reviewed those existing contractual arrangements in his decision making, then that would only support my concerns that he was fabricating requirements in order to cause harm to me and my business, and his actions and decisions were not motivated by any genuine safety concerns, but rather to cause harm by misusing his significant power. 

There is no doubt in my mind that it would be impossible for Mr Aleck to identify any deficiency in any systems if he has not reviewed those existing systems. This only reinforces my view that Mr Aleck acted with targeted malice towards me. 

This is my comment only, and I do not expect the CASA ICC to make a comment against that statement above in this forum, but I acknowledge that the CASA ICC may have a more "invested" view of Mr Alecks conduct, and therefore may have a differing view than mine.  

There was no change to the business, it was doing exactly what it had been doing throughout the previous decade. There was no change to any legislation. There were no changes to the structure of the business or the personnel. There were no changes to any procedures. The business was not new or unusual. It was well established and operating in the same manner and structure as it had been doing in a safe and compliant manner for over a decade. No deficiencies have ever been identified. 

The ONLY thing that changed during the decade was that Mr Aleck personally became aware in September or October of 2018, , and based on existing acrimony between us, he may not have been well intentioned. He wields significant unchecked  power within the Organisation and it could be used inappropriately if he desired that to be so, 

To summarise this complaint. 

I had provided the "commercial agreement" to CASA on multiple occasions over previous years prior to  October of 2018. The Agreement  was distributed to the most senior of CASA personnel including the CEO of CASA at the time, and to the Executive Manager of the Aviation Group, as well as to several senior operational CASA personnel in the Vic/Tas Region, and my own CASA Certificate Management Team (CMT).

CASA always held the "commercial agreements" and had done so for years,  but CASA had "misplaced" the "commercial agreements." This significant matter is central to this matter, and cannot be overlooked. 

When CASA sent that notification on October 23rd 2018, calling for copies of the Agreement, CASA already held the Copies, and had done so for at least 2 years.

Mr Aleck initiated crippling trading restrictions on the business, based on inadequacies in our contractual arrangements, yet Mr Aleck had never looked at those contractual arrangements.

Had Mr Aleck realised that CASA already held the contracts, then it is likely he would not have sent a request for documents that he already held. This entire matter is actually indicative of significant failures to communicate within CASA. 

These are not unsupported allegations. These are statements of fact supported by evidence. Emails between CASA and myself clearly indicate that I am being truthful.

Had CASA realised that they already held the "commercial agreements:, and had done so for a number of years, it is most  likely that Mr Aleck would never have sent that initial notification calling for contracts and  placing crippling trading restrictions on the business.

Once Mr Aleck realised that CASA had erred, and that CASA had truthfully held the Agreements for a  number of years, I fully expected the trading restrictions to be lifted, and well intentioned discussion to follow. It didn't. 

I feel I should somewhat reluctantly give Mr Aleck the benefit of the doubt and I feel I need to clarify whether Mr Aleck had possibly previously located the agreement within CASA systems and whether that formed part of his decision making. I have to consider that the Agreements provided on multiple occasions to multiple senior relevant CASA personnel was misplaced at a more "local" level, and that CASA Head Office may have realised that they already held the Agreement. 

My Complaint 

Mr Aleck made no attempt to assess any of our procedures for operational control at any point of time ever.  

Mr Aleck did not access our FSM operational control procedures before sending the notification of October 23rd 2018. 

Significantly Mr Aleck still did not access our FSM operational control procedures between October 23 rd 2018 through until June 30th 2019 whilst the crippling trading restrictions were in place, and he was "considering" the matter. 

Significantly at the time of determining that the business could not continue after July 1st 2019 because he could not personally be satisfied, Mr Aleck still had not even so much as glanced at our FSM Operational Control Procedures. 

These are statements of fact that CASA has previously confirmed with me, so is important background to my complaint although it is not the complaint that is the subject of this correspondence. 

In this complaint in support of my allegation of misfeasance in public office and providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation. 

• CASA held copies of my Commercial  Agreement and had held the most recent copy for over 2 years.
  
• Through absolutely no fault of my own, CASA had misplaced the previously provided Master Agreement at Regional level. That is a Statement of fact and that has been confirmed by CASA.
  
• I cannot definitively state that the previously provided Agreement was also misplaced at a National level, rather than only at Regional level, and at this stage I cannot definitively state that Mr Aleck did not ever review our existing Agreement, although it does seem unlikely that he did.
  
• Can CASA clearly identify to me whether Mr Aleck had considered the Agreement that had previously been provided to CASA on multiple occasions over previous years, on or before 23rd October 23rd 2018. 
  
• Can you advise the date that Mr Aleck first became aware that CASA already held the Agreements. 
  

Thank you in anticipation of your prompt attention to my complaint. 

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Old adages, oft prove true.

Amazing really, some wit coins a phrase, short, succinct and deadly accurate to those with wit enough to 'see' the truth captured. For instance; “no matter how much you shake and dance, the last few drops go down your pants”.

Reading Buckley's latest epistle to the ICC reminds of that adage; slowly (ever so slowly)  the time for shaking and dancing is approaching, and, the way I read it, Buckley is painting the whole sorry crowd at CASA into a corner.. There is a great need for clarity from CASA, if they have a clear case to take to law, then they should bring it. If there is no case of criminal behavior then they must drop it. But to continue to duck and weave while Buckley is left without a clearly defined reason, tested at law, as to why his operation was simply shut down at the point of reaching its full potential is not only despicable and immoral but points toward despotism. There are laws, there are courts, there is legal counsel all available to those who need them. Let CASA prosecute it's case, let Buckley defend it and let 'the rule of law' settle it. This sorry saga has dragged on for far too long. Time to Piss or get off the pot – IMO. Get on with it or for ever hold your piece. (Yes piece).

Toot - toot,

P7-  Interjection (butts in)

Yeah – BUT there's the rub, the iniquity; CASA say its 'illegal' and must stop – no proof required except their say-so. Want to challenge that? Cool, grab a spare half million and have at 'em. Otherwise – BOHICA. The onus is on the accused; cop it sweet or its off to Court; the Police must 'prove' their case in court; CASA don't have to. All very nasty, CASA should have to prove what they claim, in court. Should they want to shut an operation down, then their 'argument' needs to be tested against the law. Poor Hanton; betwixt Devil and Deep Blue sea; good luck with that.

[Wombat]

Without explicit performance signals built into the legislation or an obvious  implicit set of signals to measure performance, all institutions will gravitate towards behavior that provides personal reward and bugger anyone else. Treasury and the justice system have oodles of implicit signals (e.g. inflation, growth rates, balance of payments, crime rates, etc). Their performance is always on display.

CASA has nothing in the way of performance measures except the nebulous one called "safety", therefore it should be no surprise that their performance is execrable.

I sold my aircraft and am well out of it. I wouldn't advise anyone to start an aviation career and certainly don't fly for recreation. It's just not worth it because CASA behavior makes it impossible to manage risk. - which means that it is not possible to manage returns.

To put that another way, CASA rules, regulations and behavior actually increase risk levels of participants in aviation in Australia and everyone in the industry knows why but can't say it in public.

[Peetwo]

Su_Spence & Co try to dodge liability on Croc Wrangler case??

Via Oz Aviation:

CASA asks to be dropped from ‘Outback Wrangler’ lawsuit
written by Jake Nelson | April 8, 2025


CASA is seeking the dismissal of a lawsuit against it over the death of Netflix star Chris Wilson in February 2022.

The case, brought by Wilson’s widow Danielle in the Federal Court, also involves Helibrook, the operator of the Robinson R44 that crashed near King River in the NT, and Helibrook owner Matt Wright. Should CASA’s bid be successful, the suit would likely continue against Helibrook and Wright.

CASA had approved the use of a “human sling” underneath the helicopter, VH-IDW, which was on a mission to collect crocodile eggs near the King River when it ran out of fuel.

The ATSB said in its report that during the autorotation emergency forced landing procedure that followed, the pilot, Sebastian Robinson, released the hooks and sling line carrying Wilson “above a height that would likely be survivable”.

The helicopter subsequently hit the ground without enough energy from the main rotor to cushion the landing, causing Robinson severe spinal injuries.

In court, CASA’s barrister Peter Ward said the regulator bore no responsibility for the accident, and pointed out that Danielle Wilson’s claim itself acknowledged that Helibrook was not complying with CASA’s approval for the human sling.

“The only way CASA could be said on this pleading to have caused or contributed to the death of Mr Wilson was by approving the operations that involved him being slung underneath the helicopter,” he said, as reported by The Australian.

“If a party knows one set of facts to be true, it is embarrassing and legally impermissible for them to plead in the alternative a case that is based on different facts.

For the latest GlenB embuggerance update refer to his recent UP posts - HERE

Ombudsman investigation cont.

---

Consideration One- Mr Aleck wrote my complaint, not I.

It was CASA that passed my complaint to the Ombudsman Office, not I. It was not my preference as I articulated in writing to CASA.

The manner the Ombudsman investigation commenced was highly unconventional and provided a unique opportunity for Mr Aleck to provide disinformation to the investigation, if he chose to do so, as I have no doubt he did.

Presumably, the normal course of submitting a complaint to the Ombudsman Office is that the Complaint would be submitted to the Ombudsman by the Complainant, and then the Ombudsman would commence its process and establish contact with the Agency that the Complaint was made against.

For clarity, my assumption was that the Ombudsman would investigate the complaint that I would have submitted, had I been provided the opportunity.

In this case, the Ombudsman was investigating my complaint, although it was Mr Aleck himself that submitted that complaint on my behalf.

The significance of this is that for almost the entirety of the five-year investigation and including the from the initial response to the Ombudsman Mr Aleck was in total control of the narrative.

An investigation into the actions and decisions of Mr Aleck, is being managed by Mr Aleck, including how my complaint was framed, and submitted to the Ombudsman.

FOI requests have left me in no doubt at all that the Ombudsman has been investigation a different narrative that the narrative provided to me by CASA.

It must be acknowledged that considering the “expertise” and extensive experience of Mr Aleck, and the highly specialised nature of Mr Alecks role, the seniority, and his length of service, and the significant power associated with his position, it is likely he would be fully aware that he operates with a high level of autonomy within CASA and exerts significant influence, and would be well placed to be confident that he could provide disinformation to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation, with little or no real scrutiny.

It must also be acknowledged that Ms Spence, on taking over the role as the CEO of CASA had no credible aviation experience at all, and it must be accepted that it is likely that it would take Ms Spence a significant period of time in the role, probably many years, to be able to understand the industry and legislation to an “expert” level.

It is quite feasible that as Mr Aleck reports directly, and only to Ms Spence the CEO of CASA, it is possible that Ms Spence may have allowed herself to be misled, and be more dependent on Mr Aleck being truthful with her, although my expectation of the CEO is that she has fully satisfied herself that Mr Aleck has been truthful, and has not been deceptive.

Ms Spence advised in writing that she has full confidence in Mr Alecks submissions to the Ombudsman investigations.

I was not provided with a copy of my complaint that Mr Aleck submitted on my behalf, and I am not privy to how Mr Aleck submitted my complaint.

Its akin to someone assaulting someone, and the person that submits the complaint to the police is the perpetrator of the crime, and the victim doesn’t even receive a copy of the complaint that the perpetrator submitted to the police on behalf of the victim.

Consider then that the victim has an abundance of witnesses, but the investigation chooses not to engage witnesses.

There must be a reasonable suspicion that the process is unlikely to result in a fair outcome, and the alleged Perpetrator would have been presented with a most unique opportunity to provide disinformation to the investigation to conceal the truth of that matter, and most especially if the Perpetrator was aware that the lengthy investigation would not draw on any of the Victim witnesses.

As simple as that analogy is, that is effectively what has happened here, and as this matter progresses the nature of the compliant submitted on my behalf Mr Aleck will most likely become available.

Presumably once I can access my complaint that Mr Aleck wrote and submitted for me, I believe that the true extent of the false and misleading information will be exposed.

I am confident that Mr Aleck manipulated the narrative at the handover stage to the Ombudsman Office, presumably to conceal the fact that he had acted with targetted malice by closing my business only.

I feel confident in stating that a substantial body of false and misleading information was provided to the Ombudsman Office at this early handover stage, and if a FOI request accessed this information, it would be highly incriminating and indicate a high level of disinformation.

An AFP investigation would most likely call on documents that were initially provided to the Ombudsman investigation to determine the nature of the complaint that was submitted to the Ombudsman by CASA

I can confidently state that the provision of false and misleading information commenced at the handover stage to the Ombudsman by Mr Aleck because the entire 5-year Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation did not even make a passing mention of the matter as presented to me, which can leave me in no doubt at that the narrative was altered entirely at this stage.

The matter as presented to me, and in writing from CASA was that

For a Flying Instructor to deliver flight training under my CASA issued Authorisation, that flying instructor had to be directly employed by the same Company that CASA issued that Authorisation, they could not be employed by another Entity.

The matter in its entirety. was one of the requirements that flying instructors are also employees of the same Company. Had all flying instructors been directly employed then the matter would have been fully resolved.

That was the basis that CASA used to close my business down in June of 2019, and as the basis for not permitting operations to continue after June 30th, 2019.

Had I agreed with CASAs interpretation of the legislation and transferred all flying instructors from other Companies or Entities; to become Employees of my Company, they could operate under the CASA issued Authorisation. The matter would have been completely finalised, and I could have immediately returned to business as usual.

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Middle Island event.

Well, it has taken a while, but Hell; after John Quadrio and a couple of other unmentionable 'cases', we have learned to wait and see; then read the transcripts. This of course leads into all kinds of dark, murky corners. For instance:-

LB - “What caused the engine failure?”

Bloody good question – as yet unresolved by the ATSB. However, an independent 'report' on the serviceability of the engine tells a tale worthy of some consideration. In short, the engine had not been 'legal' since 2013; many short falls noted; any one of which could (I did say could) have caused the engine failure. The 'report' on the status of that engine and the 'knock-on' effects have not been mentioned. It begs the question, how 'deep' did the ATSB delve into the 'why' of the engine failure. Seems to me a forensic examination of its maintenance history could have been useful – to the defence.

Item two: - from Pprune - “And the result? Guilty. After being charged with "dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death", and "grievous bodily harm". After less than half-a-day of deliberations, too; the jury must've been pretty adamant there were better options than those he took.”

Yes, 'tis so – however, the closing remarks of the Judge reflect a different, unbiased, experienced appraisal. The 'sentencing' closing remarks opened the door wide for a righteous appeal. In fact, reading through some of the 'prosecution' evidence, as presented, should galvanise the entire pilot population into outrage; and self preservation. The CASA dudes; posing as genuine 'posters' of Pprune stand out like the proverbial dog's balls; misleading and distracting.

Capt Bloggs sent the message in a nicely drafted post on the UP:-

"This should have been an inquisitorial investigation, not Adversarial. I still maintain that, in these highly technical cases which are totally unfamiliar to the jury, they (the jurors) haven't got a hope of, effectively, being taught to fly in the number of days of the trial, let alone being bombarded with the counter arguments being pushed by both sides. For the vast majority of court cases, theft, fraud, aggression (rape, murder) drunken car accident, speeding at 200kph in a 60 zone, the jurors are well aware and understand the scenario. They don't have to learn about it. They only have to shift through the evidence to decide and most probably can spot BS artists a mile away."

"In this situation, they have none of that. Most people wouldn't have a clue about aviation, much less the finer points of doing a turn when confronted with a water landing.I hope none of you end up in court facing Harvey Spectre after an aviation accident."

The accused fellah needs to raise some money for the appeal – AOPA are running a 'Go-Fundme' drive; if you have a few bucks to spare (difficult these days I know) kick the tin and help. IMO, the results of the appeal will send shivers through the opposition. Don't be too swayed by the skewed arguments and pontification of the CASA ring ins on the UP. 

My two Bob, spent as pleased me best, to back my opinion. FWIW........

Toot – toot.....

[Kharon]

Walk a mile – In my shoes.

Now, I know times are tough and uncertain. The daily struggle to keep it all afloat, the dreams and hopes for the future and etc. These obstacles can be overcome; it is as 'tough-row-to hoe' now as it always has been. The only difference now being the ratio of dollars required to achieve the same goal – I can remember when $10 could fund a big night at the pub and the change was left on the bar for the barmaid. Costs and wages a never ending battle; but being young, healthy and qualified always helped – even if not in a 'chosen' profession; there was always 'work' – in one form or another, to do and get paid for.

But, what if there was no work available- to you, in your chosen field, because of an event; that employment was denied to you? Think about it; what if, your professional life was ended through something over which you had no control; responsibility for; or, were even 'guilt associated'. What then?  Let me tell you a story – a tale which could happen to any pilot.

Les Woodall, an industry long time professional with literally over 1500 beach landings accepted a day's work from an outfit which catered to the young backpacking fraternity – a joy flight to a beach and whatever came next. As per the 'book' a precautionary landing of the beach 'strip' was executed – low level, paying attention to the condition of the approved landing area. Piece of cake – on a fine day with a light load. Over-flight and inspection conducted (as scripted) – no problems noted – routine go-around next phase. Power up, clean up and - -  the bloody engine quit. Options limited; hours of experience kicks in and (arguably) the best 'option' (from experience) was the selected action. So far – so good. Water landing or Beach? Little time from a low level failure; decision made.

The result was tragic – no bones about it. But, IMO, the aftermath was even more so. A criminal conviction (strict liability) was parlayed from this event. CASA needed a peg on which to hang their safety hat – the rest history. A lay jury trial found him guilty; the Judge dismissed Woodall without goal time; now there is an appeal to be fought.  This costs more money than 'Woody' has ever laid his paws on. The CASA case was not based on any tangible 'rule' breaking – but rather in defence of their lackadaisical approach to 'real' safety oversight of procedures and operational standards. For example there was no forensic examination of the failed engine's history. The ATSB could find no fault; but, that engine had been 'illegal' for years.

Look, I could bang on here for pages about how fundamentally flawed the CASA 'approach' to this case has been. I won't – but I say it is flawed and remedy is required of the CASA 'crucify and close' approach to safety.

Les needs a few more dollars than he has to appeal this travesty; it could be you in the Dock next outing. So, if you can – spare a few bucks so Les can not only redeem his good name, be free of a criminal charge; but perhaps send a message to CASA that it's OK to be the school yard bully – until someone thumps you back. 

Enough said; but this ludicrous prosecution of the fiscally defenseless to justify CASA's existence and 'versions' safety through unlimited money prosecution needs to end. If you have a spare buck (or even two) in your back pocket – Kick the Woodall defense tin:-

https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-aopa-hel...conviction

You know you want to.

Toot – toot.