GlenB embuggerance update: 08/07/22
Sandy's take/disgust, via the UP...
Quote:CASA prying into financial matters
Quote LB
Quote:CA Act provisions relating to financial viability of AOC applicants have been in there for decades, and CASA has been prying into the financial arrangements of AOC holders - to the extent those arrangements are relevant to financial viability - for that long.
In my recollection maybe that was the position for quite a few years but for most of my career in training and charter that interference was resisted and not legal. Whatever that timeline of that particular concept, that government should make judgement about the viability of a business, is of course completely at odds with our freedoms and against free enterprise which confers our high standard of living. It is also unintelligent by virtue of the undeniable fact that a government instrumentality will never be in possession of all of the facts leading to business decisions, nor have the driving incentives to discover those facts.
Ultimately do you want government to have this power to control our lives and if we confer this power who will decide the limits? Whos to say that give away your rights you will ever get them back again?
And we should never lose sight of the fact that CASAs extreme regulatory regime is inimical to a healthy GA sector and makes poor contrast to the rational regulations of the USA, where, according to John King of highly respected Kings Schools (also John was brought to Australia by CASA as consultant) some 70% of USA pilots are trained outside the Part 141/142 flying schools and with no formal syllabus. Shock horror! No syllabus! no hundreds of tick off signatures? Correct, the system allows innovation and individual tailored training followed by a rigorous testing regime before licence issue. Their safety record is arguably better than ours.
Lastly, CASA by its very name, and by its legislated obligation, claims that safety is its overriding purpose,
but we know that that is a total nonsense because it makes no rational risk assessments for any of its extraordinary rule changes or administrative actions. In judgment against Angel Flight its now clear that the Act doesnt require any such reality to restrain CASA in any way shape or form. No Ministerial or obvious legal restraint as Glen Buckley has learned.
What a disastrous outcome for Australia, having to import airline pilots! Let alone the loss of hundreds of flying schools, charter operators and maintenance businesses. Huge loss of jobs, loss of airports, a continuing disgrace and blot on our democracy where the notion of giving away government responsibility for aviation to an unelected independent corporate monopoly has yet to be recognised by government as a monumental failure of policy.
Cleary an example of failure; by not following the principle of responsible government.
Instead it tried on what seemed to be an expedient way of taking aviation off the books and away from Ministerial responsibility, conceived and executed by the Hawke Labor government with Gareth Evans as Minister. 1988, year of shame. To its credit at the time the Liberal Opposition opposed the creation of the statutory body for aviation but seems to have washed its hands ever since.
MTF...P2
GlenB embuggerance update: 28/07/22
Via the AP email chains:
Quote:28th July 2022.
Useful Links
Civil Aviation Act Civil Aviation Act 1988 (legislation.gov.au)
Civil Aviation Regulations Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (legislation.gov.au)
CASRs Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (legislation.gov.au)
COMPLAINT TO THE CASA INDUSTRY COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER (ICC) OF A CASA EMPLOYEE CHOOSING TO PROVIDE CLEARLY FALSE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION TO THE COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMANS OFFICE INVESTIGATION, WITH THE INTENTION TO PERVERT THE FINDINGS OF THAT INVESTIGATION.
Dear Mr Hanton,
I write to you in your dual roles within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), as both the Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC), and as the CASA Ethics and Integrity Officer (E&IO).
The purpose of this correspondence is to formally submit a complaint to your office of a CASA employee deliberately providing false and misleading information to an investigation currently being conducted by the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office. That investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman’s Office is into the closure of my two businesses and the subsequent direction from CASA to my Employer at the time, that my continuing employment was “no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”.
The person responsible for providing that false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office is Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.
Perhaps not coincidentally, Mr Aleck is also the sole decision maker within CASA that determined my business of more than a decade was suddenly operating unlawfully and forced it into closure on 23rd October 2018 when CASA sent the following notification to me.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k3qn3qdgoa2uavx/App%20A%20initial%20notification.pdf?dl=0
As the investigation by the Ombudsman’s Office is about the processes and consequences associated with Mr Alecks decision making, it is a possibility that Mr Aleck may be tempted to provide false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office to coverup his alleged misconduct.
Importantly, this correspondence is not a complaint about Mr Alecks conduct. This is a complaint about the truthfulness and accuracy of information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office, and a further opportunity for CASA to act professionally and with integrity and simply tell the clear and concise truth to the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
As you are aware the ramifications of Mr Alecks “change of opinion” and determination to close down my businesses in October 2018 and with no prior warning, caused significant harm, as could be expected. The notification that my business was now operating illegally, caught me completely off guard, and was not expected.
My family has been significantly impacted by this matter. I have lost my home, and I have been bankrupted. After CASA closed my businesses, and I obtained employment within the industry, CASA withdrew their approval of me to operate in the role of CASA approved Head of Operations, and directed my employer that my “continuing employment was no longer tenable”, there can be no doubt that I was forced out of the industry that I had spent the last 25 years in.
My wife and I have been left with total assets of $6000. We now rent, and if my wife or I were to stop working for more than 6 weeks, we would be facing homelessness. That is the plain and simple truth, and the inevitability of that situation is traumatic. My physical and mental health has been impacted and my poor wife has had a total of 6 days free of work in the last 1500 days, since CASA did this in October of 2018, as she tries desperately to claw back some level of meagre financial security for our future.
Like most small business owners in Australia, that business that CASA closed, was in fact my Superannuation. The future of my wife and I is bleak, and our latter years will be dependent on social housing. Our life changed significantly on receipt of the notification that the business I had operated for over a decade was suddenly illegal. We have been left destitute.
As the person impacted, by the conduct and decision making of the single CASA employee, Mr Jonathan Aleck, at the very minimum I believe I am entitled to a thorough and well-intentioned investigation, and a written explanation of why CASA took such disproportionate, unnecessary, unlawful, and totally avoidable action against my business. My reasonable expectation of CASA is that they will act professionally and honestly in providing information to the Ombudsman’s Office to facilitate a fair determination.
As you are aware there are three primary issues in that investigation.
- The sudden reversal of CASA approval for my business, the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA).
- The decision that my flying school of more than a decade, Melbourne Flight Training, was now suddenly operating unlawfully and shut down.
- The direction by CASA to my Employer that I was not a fit and proper person to hold the CASA approved position as the Head of Operations (HOO), based on comments that I was making publicly, yet CASA refuses to identify the alleged comments that I made publicly to justify that direction from CASA.
As you are aware, CASA never made any allegations against any safety matter, CASA never stated that we did not have full operational control, never raised any concerns at all about any quality outcomes at all. It was simply a determination by Mr Aleck that my business had suddenly become unlawful against a regulation from 30 years prior. The very same business that had been operating for more than a decade with an industry leading level of safety and compliance.
For complete clarity, I am fully satisfied that Mr Alecks decision making, and actions may not have been primarily motivated by the safety of aviation, but that they were in fact made for other less altruistic reasons, and his decision making may not have had the clarity that it should have had. There are reasons I say this, but they do not need to be attended to in this correspondence. This may be a contributing factor as to why he chose to bypass clearly stipulated procedures in CASAs own manuals, when CASA decide to:
A) Close a business down by cancelling, varying or suspending an AOC, or
B) CASA determine that a person is no longer a “fit and proper” person to hold a position as a CASA approved Head of Operations.
By choosing to bypass these stipulated procedures in designed to protect individuals such as myself from abuses of power by public officials, Mr Aleck was able to operate unchecked, and I was left with no appeal available to be to dispute his change of opinion
It is important, not only for me, but also for the wider industry, for the purposes of investigating if improvements in procedures can be adopted within CASA to ensure that this can never happen again to any other person. It does not seem reasonable that in any industry, the Regulator should be able to shut down a business, effective immediately without a sound supporting case, and particularly so when that owner of the business impacted, has no appeal process available to them against the Regulators determination, and always has shown a complete willingness to comply with any new requirements stipulated by the Regulator.
As you are aware on 23rd October 2018, and without any warning Mr Aleck determined that my business of more than ten years was somehow suddenly unlawful, and advised it was most likely I was to be prosecuted as a result.
Three years later, as the person impacted the entire matter remains inexplicable, in fact probably more so now than before.
There were never any allegations against by CASA against any safety matters, or any quality outcomes, just a determination that it was unlawful against a regulation from 30 years prior. The business had been operating for twelve years and was established almost two decades after that regulation was even written.
It was ludicrous and made absolutely no sense at all. Of more concern, it was totally unnecessary and totally avoidable. A well-intentioned discussion could have fully resolved this matter in less than half a day, and that is the plain and simple truth.
Had CASA intended to resolve this matter, there is no reason that it could not have been totally resolved and all the associated harm and trauma avoided. There is no reason that the entire matter could not have been resolved at any time by way of a 4 hour well intentioned discussion between CASA and me. Quite simply, someone in CASA did not want this matter resolved. They wanted my business shut down. It was personal. Whilst I appreciate the difficulty in proving that Mr Aleck acted vindictively and vexatiously against me is most likely not feasible, a genuine assessment of his decision making would have to raise some concerns.
Mr Aleck immediately implemented restrictions on my businesses ability to trade, from that first notification on 23rd October 2018. Those restrictions created an impossible environment to operate a business and deprived me of almost all revenue throughout the next 6-month period, until CASA confirmed their original position in the original document of 23rd October 2018, determined my business unlawful, and forced any remaining customers to leave, leading to the inevitable closure of the business, and significant material harm and trauma.
That trauma was most significant on me and my family but also extended to staff that lost employment and entitlements, to the foreign and domestic students who had their training impacted, to suppliers left unpaid, and businesses dependant on me that were forced into closure as a result.
I appreciate that Mr Aleck will likely try and contend that CASA took no action against my business. As the Owner of that business, and the individual directly affected, please let me be very clear that the restrictions on my businesses were devastating. On multiple occasions, in writing, CASA was made fully aware of the impact of Mr Alecks determination.
Throughout the 8 months between the restrictions on trade being applied, and CASA shutting down the business, CASA was repeatedly advised of the commercial impact. In fact within 24 hours of CASA reversing their approval and placing restrictions on my ability to trade, I had contacted CASA.
That initial notification sent by CASA can be accessed here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k3qn3qdgoa2uavx/App%20A%20initial%20notification.pdf?dl=0
My initial response to that CASA notification can be accessed here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ke7rl708n9vrc2m/Initial%20response.pdf?dl=0
The impacts of that notification were significant. All restrictions remained in place for 8 months until CASA stood by their original determination and forced all my remaining customers to leave, despite that not being the customers preferred option.
- CASA advised I was operating unlawfully and subject to prosecution.
- CASA prevented me from accepting any new customers.
- CASA contacted all my existing customers within 30 days and advised them that I was operating unlawfully, and that their continuing involvement with my business would subject them also to regulatory action.
- CASA restrictions prevented me from marketing my business at a critical time for the business i.e., end of the school year.
- CASA placed several short terms “interim approvals to operate” of as little as 7 days. With 7 days surety of operations, it was impossible and unlawful for me to enrol students into our 15-month courses with those 7 days surety of operations. These short-term interim approvals to operate made business difficult and created anxiety on employees, suppliers, and customers over the lack of certainty regarding continuing operations.
- Placed an “administrative freeze” on the business whereby CASA refused to process any regulatory tasks including approving personnel, renewing flight simulators, adding on any new courses etc.
- Caused enormous reputational damage to the business and to me personally
- Bought enormous organisational instability.
- Starved the business of income.
- CASA allowed the business to remain open, but it was unable to access new customers or retain existing customers. By acting in this way, CASA had not formally “decided”, but rather they were “thinking about it”. As no decision was ever made, the restrictions were never lifted, and I had no appeal process open to me. I was at the complete mercy of Mr Aleck, who may not have been acting with good intent.
With those restrictions being in place for over 6 months, Mr Aleck then stood by his initial determination and closed the business down when he forced all remaining customers to leave, despite that not being the customers preferred option.
The business was obviously forced into closure by CASA. On that matter there is no question.
All of this was done without CASA ever providing any supporting safety case.
It was a reversal of CASAs previously issued approvals, that had been held by me for over a decade.
CASA never issued any documentation throughout this entire process that gave me the right to appeal or challenge the change of opinion by Mr Aleck. I was completely denied procedural fairness and natural justice. These are clear breaches of CASAs obligations in administrative law, as outlined in CASAs own procedures. These include thespecified procedures to be followed when CASA close down a business by “suspending, cancelling, or varying an AOC’ as they did with mine. CASA completely bypassed these stipulated procedures. These procedures can be accessed via CASAs Enforcement Manual located here.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/960oiyktzvgqi99/Appendix%20E%20CASA%20Enforcement%20Manual.pdf?dl=0
Similarly, CASA also completely bypassed all of their own procedures in that same Manual, when they determined that I was not a “fit and proper person” to hold the formally CASA approved position of Head of Operations (HOO) and directed my Employer that my continuing employment as the HOO was “no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”, although CASA fails to identify to me what those “ comments that I was making publicly” were, despite CASA using those “comments” as the basis to force me out of the industry. Once CASA had declared that I was not a “fit and proper person”, I was effectively unemployable in the flight training industry where I had worked for over 25 years. Having lost my two businesses, I was now forced to exit the industry I loved.
The entire matter of closing down my business is absurd. I had been operating in that same structure for the last six years, until Mr Aleck suddenly declared it unlawful in October 2018. I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck was the sole decision maker throughout this entire matter, and that he was abusing his significant power.
What made this even more absurd is that two and a half years earlier, CASA had worked side by side with me, for hundreds of hours, as I invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars in systems, procedures and personnel to become one of Australia’s first schools to get CASA accreditation as both a Part 141 and 142 organisation in April 2017, and we were operating in the same multi base structure that CASA would later, suddenly determine to be illegal in October 2018, and deceptively claim that they were not aware of. It is such a ludicrous assertion, and so clearly false and misleading.
As you are aware, I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck, the sole decision maker in closing my business. drew on no supporting safety case, no regulatory breach, no identified concern against any quality outcome whatsoever. You simply need to ask him, to put forward his arguments clearly and concisely. The tenuous nature of Mr Alecks opinion will become immediately obvious. Despite my repeated requests for an explanation, none has been forthcoming. CASA is extremely evasive in providing an explanation for Mr Alecks decisions and actions, and this has been my experience throughout the last three years. To be frank, I believe that there is an attempt to cover up this matter, at the highest levels of CASA.
It is important to understand that I was not disputing CASAs safety case because there was never any safety case put forward by CASA to dispute. CASA have never put forward any safety case at all in support of Mr Alecks decision making. Surely one would expect that such substantial decision making within CASA, such as the decision to shut down a business of more than a decade would be driven by decisions on based on safety with supporting safety cases and evidence-based data. Surely that failure to have any supporting safety case at all, must raise concerns as to the quality of his decision making, and more so when I have made formal allegations before the Senate that he was acting vindictively and vexatiously against me.
That presentation to Senate on 23rd November 2020 where I raised these allegations of misfeasance in Public Office against Mr Aleck, can be accessed here.
https://youtu.be/b_VZCixKm3c
This entire and exact structure that I had been using for 6 years and that that Mr Aleck suddenly declared unlawful in October 2018, had been re-designed from the ground up and formally revalidated 18 months earlier by CASA in April of 2017. Yet inexplicably,18 months later, in October 2018, CASA declare it unlawful and shut it down, then assert to the Ombudsman that they weren’t fully aware of my structure. The level of deception being propagated by Mr Alecks Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Department is substantive, and easily proven to be so.
Mr Hanton, please note that I have also included by new Local Member for Chisholm in this correspondence, as I anticipate seeking her assistance on this matter.
For Ms Carina Garland my local MP, and other relevant recipients. At this stage it may be worth reviewing two magazine articles from the Australian Flying magazine. One written when APTA was revalidated by CASA and the other after APTA was closed down by CASA. They provide a fairly plain English overview of the background to this matter. The first article was published in early 2018. This is 10 months before Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman’s office believe that CASA “first became aware of APTA”, and further indicates that perhaps Mr Aleck is being deceptive. It is highly unlikely that a respected industry magazine is publishing a story a year before CASA claim that they first became aware of my business that CASA had themselves approved through a revalidation 6 months earlier.
Those two magazine articles can be accessed here
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k12d43vtnhek75l/APTA%20AFTER%20CASA%20ACTION.PDF?dl=0
For reference for Ms Carina Garland. This matter has attracted widespread industry interest on a discrete pilots forum referred to as Pprune. My particular thread has had over 1,000,000 views and encouraged robust discussion. My particular thread can be accessed via this link. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums
When CASA acted to shut down my business, the industry established a crowd funding page, and that can be accessed here. The comments associated with donations make interesting reading. Fundraiser for Glen Buckley by Cale Johnston : Glen Buckley vs. CASA (gofundme.com)
I provide the above information as background information to the lodgement of formal complaints that follow.
The response to the three complaints in this correspondence is simple and really only requires the very briefest of responses, and possibly as short as a yes or a no from CASA.
It requires only statements of fact and requires no judgement applied to it. It is not a complaint against a person, it is a complaint against truthfulness, and requiring only clarification of clear statements of fact. There is only one truthful response to each complaint.
To the “trigger” for these three complaints.
I recently had the opportunity to receive a telephone update from the Ombudsman’s Office on progress of the three-year investigation into the closure of my two businesses by CASA in October 2018, and the subsequent written direction to my Employer from CASA that my “continuing employment was no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”, and my subsequent termination of employment as a result of that directive.
That telephone call with the Ombudsman’s office left me in no doubt, that a CASA employee has been responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman Office as part of the investigation that is “false and misleading”, substantially so, and is integral to this entire matter.
Furthermore, that recent communication with the Ombudsman’s office has left me in no doubt that the false and misleading information provided by the CASA Employee has had the effect that the CASA Employee intended when he knowingly provided that false and misleading information. That being to pervert the findings of the investigation.
There is an overwhelming body of well documented evidence to support my allegation, and I look forward to presenting that evidence in full to you, if the evidence provided here is insufficient.
In this correspondence I will limit myself to only the most pertinent supporting information to assist you in an initial assessment of the validity or not of my complaint, and whether you are able to investigate my allegations.
There can be no doubt that the single CASA employee responsible for providing that information, Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASAs second most senior employee, was fully aware that the information was false and misleading at the time of providing that information to the Ombudsman’s Office. It was a considered decision and deliberate.
Mr Aleck has also chosen to omit providing pertinent information highly relevant to the investigation to the Ombudsman’s Office. I am fully satisfied that this was also a considered decision and deliberate.
I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck acted in this way to pervert the findings of the Ombudsman’s Office investigation, and most likely, in part, to coverup his own misconduct, and his sub optimal decision making.
These are not “matters of opinion” or “grey areas” that I am referring to. These are gross misrepresentation of facts that have been presented to the Ombudsman’s Office. The complaints that I will put forward will only require short but truthful responses. The answers are either black or white. There are no grey areas.
Truthful responses will clearly indicate that the information previously provided by CASA to the Ombudsman’s Office was false and misleading.
Any CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) with more than 10 years’ experience with CASA will be able to assist you in arriving at the truth, alternatively the CASA CEO Ms Spence would have prompt access to truthful information, should she choose to obtain it.
These are matters where the truth can be readily obtained. The matters can be easily clarified so that there can be no doubt. I urge you in this investigation to cross check any information that is provided to you by Mr Aleck. Unlike the Ombudsman’s Office you have the advantage of access to more than one point of contact, so accessing truthful information and fact checking will be more easily achieved by your office, rather than the Ombudsman Office, which is dependant only on information that Mr Aleck is responsible for providing.
Due to the substantive nature of the false and misleading information, I have been compelled to request that the Ombudsman hold off releasing any final report until these matters can be clarified by CASA. At this stage the Ombudsman Office is holding off finalising the report, based on my request, and to provide CASA the opportunity to be truthful.
It is not reasonable or fair for the many people impacted by Mr Alecks alleged misconduct, that the Ombudsman’s office arrives at a determinations or findings based on significantly false and misleading information, provided by that same CASA employee, and potentially to cover up his own misconduct.
Understandably the Ombudsman’s Office is likely to have trust and confidence in information provided to it by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and particularly so when one the most senior and highly experienced CASA Executive Managers is providing that information.
It would be a reasonable expectation that the Ombudsman’s Office should be able to depend on the truthfulness and good intent of any information provided by CASA. The Office is likely to receive that information, reasonably believing it to have those qualities. The perceived “trustworthiness” of CASA may require a lesser amount of supporting evidence. i.e., CASA may be trusted on their word, and that has been my experience.
The CASA employee would be fully aware of that credibility imbalance between an individual such as myself, and information provided by himself as the second most senior executive at CASA. If the senior CASA Executive was aware of that credibility imbalance, he could potentially use it to his advantage, and most especially when providing information to the Ombudsman’s Office that is false or misleading. It could not reasonably be expected that the Ombudsman’s Office would be able to easily identify the truthfulness or not of the information provided, and more so when it is provided by someone of Mr Alecks senior position as the second in charge of CASA.
My only reasonable assumption is that this grossly false and misleading information has been provided with the intention to alter the findings of that investigation The information provided is substantially and materially misleading and false. I am fully satisfied that I have an overwhelming body of evidence to support that allegation.
I have personally witnessed this same CASA Employee be responsible for providing false and misleading information to the current Senate Inquiry, and now also to the Ombudsman. This employee has had allegations made against him previously. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. As I have witnessed it previously, as others have, it is reasonable that I have concerns about the intent to with which information is provided to the Ombudsman’s office, and most especially when it is provided by the same person that I raise allegations of misfeasance in public office against.
I appreciate the seriousness and substantive nature of my allegation. I stand fully behind it, and I understand that I am fully liable if my allegations are found to be false or vexatious. An investigation would clarify the situation one way or another.
I have approached the CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence directly bringing this complaint of false and misleading information to her attention and calling on her to act and correct any substantial misunderstandings that the Ombudsman’s Office may have developed based on false and misleading information that CASA has previously provided.
Ms. Spence, the CASA CEO has chosen not to correct the misleading information provided; this is despite her having ready access to the truthful information. Some of that correspondence with the CASA CEO on this topic be found via the following link.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1wkdinj8avsyl8j/APPENDIX%20TWO-%20SPENCE%20EMAILS.docx?dl=0
If the CASA employee that I make allegations against is prepared to mislead the Ombudsman’s Office, and the Senate Inquiry, it is possible that they would also be prepared to mislead the CASA CEO. Ms Spence also may be acting on disinformation, although she does have access to other personnel that can promptly advise her on the tenuous nature of CASAs information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office to date, and I again refer her to any CASA Flight Operations Inspector with more than 10 years’ experience, as they will be able to confirm that previously provided advice is false and misleading and provide her the opportunity to intervene, and act appropriate to her senior role within Government.
For that reason, I once again make the same offer I have since Ms. Spence commenced in the role over 12 months ago. I have requested a meeting with Ms. Spence to brief her on the facts and have a well-intentioned discussion. Ms Spence has chosen not to take advantage of that opportunity. That invitation remains in place. I have no doubt that if Ms. Spence were to provide me that opportunity, the truth could be promptly ascertained, and Ms Spence would be compelled to act. If the CEO of CASA is unable to meet with me, my only option is to submit my complaint via your Office for assessment.
It is not possible for me to proceed with costly litigation in pursuit of the truth and a determination if I have legitimate concerns as to whether CASA will act truthfully and as a model litigant. By CASA demonstrating that it is prepared to mislead both the Senate Inquiry and the Ombudsman’s Office it must be reasonably assumed, that the CASA employee would be likely to repeat that behaviour in a courtroom scenario, in fact it is more likely that the individual would further propagate that disinformation, rather than act honestly and risk highlighting the falsehoods previously propagated. It is this very misconduct that denies me an opportunity for procedural fairness, and natural justice. I trust you can appreciate my position.
CASA has an obligation to act as a model litigant and whilst I certainly don’t intend to go through the entire charter here, I would like to highlight some of the relevant commitments given. The first of these being particularly salient in this matter, as that is in fact the crux of the three formal complaints that follow later in this correspondence.
- “Not requiring the other party to prove a matter which the Crown knows to be true.
- Act honestly and fairly
- Not causing unnecessary delay.
- Endeavouring to avoid litigation wherever possible.
- Not taking advantage of a claimant who lacks the resources to litigate a legitimate claim
- Apologising where the Crown is aware that it or its lawyers have acted wrongfully or improperly,
- The Court also traced the model litigant obligation back to the traditional relationship between the Crown and its subjects and noted that the Commonwealth and its agencies have no legitimate private interest in the performance of their functions and frequently also have greater access to resources than private litigants. For these reasons, the Court held that Australian Government Agencies and their legal representatives should act as moral exemplars when engaging with private litigants.”
Quite simply I am asking the CASA to tell the truth. CASA knows the truth of the three complaints that I submit. If CASA acts honestly, I can avoid any further ongoing stress and pressure on myself trying to prove matters true, which CASA already knows to be true, yet claims to the Ombudsman’s Office that they are not. This matter has dragged on for three years. The cumulative stress has taken a toll not only financially, but mentally and physically. It is in fact CASAs continuing deceptiveness on this entire matter and attempts to frustrate any investigation that have caused so much unnecessary and additional cumulative trauma. This is an opportunity for CASA under the CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence to bring it to a well-intentioned conclusion by simply being truthful and well intentioned.
Conclusion
I trust that you can appreciate the significance of the Ombudsman’s Office being very clear on the outcome of these three complaints, but may I put the importance of truthful responses into context.
If CASA always permitted on every occasion, and had done since the inception of CASA, more than one flying school to operate under a single CASA authorisation, exactly as I did,
and;
If CASA was fully aware that I had adopted that exact CASA approved structure for at least 6 years,
and;
If CASA has no supporting safety case at all to support their decision to close my businesses.
and;
If CASA can identify no regulatory breach to support their decision to close my businesses
and;
If CASA claim that their regulatory approach is outcome based yet cannot identify any concerns against any quality outcomes at all to support their decision to close my business
and;
if CASA have shown a flagrant disregard for their own procedures and obligations under Administrative Law in their Enforcement Manual , and shown total disregard for their own Regulatory Philosophy Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
and;
if the Owner of the business closed down by CASA maintains that all of the harm caused by CASAs decision to close the business could have been avoided by a well intentioned 4 hour discussion, and CASA is unable to challenge that assertion.
and;
If you consider the enormity of the trauma caused to me and my family, not only financially but also the impact on our mental and physical health,
Then you will appreciate that responses to my complaints are essential in any determination by a third party such as the Ombudsman or some other forum. I look forward to hearing from you.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Via the UP comments in reply...
Quote:Sandy Reith
GlenB All cards on table. AerialPerspective Comment 2234
Glen, a tour de force of the whole sorry saga, I hope CASA answers in a positive and constructive manner with view to compensation. The CASA CEO should lead because that is her job and if there was ever a case that demands action this is it.
AerialPerspective comments on the negative side of our political landscape and in general will get no argument from many people but ask ourselves a a question.
How do we improve if not through individual effort within the democratic institutions that we’ve inherited?
Sunfish
Sandy:
Quote:Glen, a tour de force of the whole sorry saga, I hope CASA answers in a positive and constructive manner with view to compensation. The CASA CEO should lead because that is her job and if there was ever a case that demands action this is it.
Sadly no. If "they" can discover one statement by Glen that is capable of being construed to his disadvantage, eg. an error in dates, something that might look like a threat, etc. they will take it and weave a story around it that portrays Glen as a malcontent nutcase who refuses to take "no" for an answer and can be safely ignored.
Unfortunately such sad cases do exist and regularly pester officials about imagined grievances and conspiracies**. I would imagine that Glen has already been labelled as such.
As I have written more than once, Glens complaint would have ended up on Dr. A's desk and he would be writing the letters for the DAS and Board to sign together with the brief to them explaining the situation as Dr. A sees it and asking for their signatures.
Neither the Board nor DAS will know anything about Buckley except what was written in the brief and they will follow the departmental advice contained therein to the letter.
** For example, I was once asked to deal with a nut who kept at the Premiere about a nuclear power plant for Victoria. Since no municipality would permit such a power plant, his solution was to build it on a barge to be anchored in the river Yarra. He complained to the Premiere (Kennett) that he had everything lined up to proceed except that BHP refused to manufacture 200 mm armor plate that he calculated he needed for his barge - they were part of a conspiracy against him and would we help? I forget how I fobbed him off, I think I asked him for details of his patents or something.
Sandy Reith
What the CASA Board knows
Quote Sunfish:-
“Neither the Board nor DAS will know anything about Buckley except what was written in the brief and they will follow the departmental advice contained therein to the letter.”
With respect that might be likely but maybe they do have some additional knowledge and it’s a prospect that we should endeavour to build upon. There would be few, if any, more prominent cases of bureaucratic incompetence and completely unjustifiable action against an individual.
In particular the declaration of “not a fit and proper person” and preventing Glen to work in GA would have to be the lowest act of all.
Lead Balloon
No, I think the lowest act was Carmody’s accusation, under parliamentary privilege, that Glen had stalked and assaulted CASA staff. So far as I am aware - Glen will correct me if I’m wrong - Glen has not been charged with or questioned by police about either allegation.
Paragraph377
Quote:Originally Posted by Sandy Reith View Post
Quote Sunfish:-
“Neither the Board nor DAS will know anything about Buckley except what was written in the brief and they will follow the departmental advice contained therein to the letter.”
With respect that might be likely but maybe they do have some additional knowledge and it’s a prospect that we should endeavour to build upon. There would be few, if any, more prominent cases of bureaucratic incompetence and completely unjustifiable action against an individual.
In particular the declaration of “not a fit and proper person” and preventing Glen to work in GA would have to be the lowest act of all.
The CASA CEO and Board will be acutely aware of who Glen is and what the current status of his complaint is. CASA may be all and powerful, but they exist as a barrier between industry and the Minister. A protective cocoon if you will. However Glen has shone a spotlight on several Ministers by going public about CASA and not letting go - speaking on radio, speaking in the media, writing to many politicians etc. It hasn’t gone unnoticed by numerous testicle deficient ministers. And the proof of that is by way of several scalps that have already been sacrificed by CASA - Crawford, Martin, McHeyzer, all rolled/pressured to leave. And if rumour is to be believed, Aleck was also strongly encouraged to retire. Frau Spence is slowly picking them all off one at a time. But all for naught as Glen is all about justice and I imagine that an apology and adequate compensation is the only thing that will make Glen go away.
MTF...P2
GlenB embuggerance update: 11/08/22
Via the AP email chains:
Quote:11/08/22
Ombudsman Reference 2019-713834.
Dear Catherine
Thankyou for your time on the phone yesterday (10/08/22).
I think the approach of breaking the matter down into the three topics will assist in handling what is obviously a technically challenging matter.
- The direction that my continuing employment was untenable.
- The closure of MFT, my flying school of more than a decade.
- The closure of APTA,
Today we covered topics one and two only and will talk again regarding topic three.
On topic one, I believe I have communicated the following.
The Head of Operations position requires a formal application to CASA, a CASA assessment and interview, and a CASA approval. Without that CASA approval, an individual is not able to operate in the role of Head of Operations. The position is dependent on that continuing CASA approval. If CASA deem the holder not to be a fit and proper person, CASA has procedures in their Enforcement Manual accessed via this link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/e4g6j45mpviqon...l.pdf?dl=0
The manual in its entirety is a pertinent read, but I draw your attention to pages 6-33 in particular. It outlines the position of the Chief Pilot. That was the terminology prior to the legislative changes. That role is now the Head of Operations (HOO), being one of the three legislated positions in the legislation. Further details of that role can be accessed here Civil Aviation Safety
Regulations 1998 (legislation.gov.au) at CASR 142.185 and CASR 142.190.
Appendix Four of that same document addresses the “fit and proper person”
The ICC response to this matter is attached for your reference: https://www.dropbox.com/s/h1dwih4f30jb8h...e.pdf?dl=0
As you are aware I believe there was a breach of obligations under administrative law, CASA own procedures, natural justice and procedural fairness.
On 27th August 2019, the CASA Regional Manager sent an email stating that my continuing employment as the “HOO is no longer tenable with the comments that Mr Buckley is making publicly.”
I acknowledge that we had a discussion as to whether that direction equates to CASA declaring me not to be a fit and proper person and therefore not able to maintain the role of HOO.
As you are aware I am of the opinion that is a very clear direction from CASA to the Employer that my continuing employment in that role was no longer tenable. I cannot possibly imagine a clearer direction.
The mere fact that CASA Regional Manager, Mr Mc Heyzer chose to completely bypass CASA stipulated procedures in that determination, should not mean that the decision no longer becomes an accountable decision. I should still be entitled to procedural fairness, as though correct procedures had been followed.
I have attached the link to the “Jason McHeyzer” file for your reference. The entire document makes an interesting read. It is in chronological order, and emails regarding my employment can be found in the latter part of the document: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qkzhwgp5esojnbz/JASON%20MC%20HEYZER%20%20%20%20%20%20%2010%20of%2018.pdf?dl=0
I also raised my strong desire for CASA to identify the comments that I was making publicly. I believe that if CASA send a direction to my employer that my continuing employment is no longer tenable based on comments that I am making publicly,
then it is fair and reasonable that CASA identify to me those comments that their determination was based on.
I point out that the Employer interpreted it the same way that I did as I was terminated on the spot. I advised you that in my opinion the subsequent communications after I was terminated were “back pedalling”
I did clarify the situation with regard to the Employer offering me alternative employment. I have clarified the nature of that “employment”. I was required to set up my own business with an ABN. The Employer offered me approximately 10 hours per week teaching theory classes on a casual contracting basis. Due to the low volume of students that employment continued for approximately 6 weeks, at which stage I left the industry.
Having had CASA remove me from the role of HOO, my options were non-existent.
On Topic Two
I explained to you the inexplicable nature of CASAs determination that my business MFT was now operating unlawfully. I refer you to the initial notification from CASA that can be accessed here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/k3qn3qdgoa2uavx/App%20A%20initial%20notification.pdf?dl=0
I believe that I made it very clear that there were absolutely no changes to the way that MFT operated. The only change was a change of name of the parent company from MFT to APTA. The trading name MFT remain unchanged.
It is unlikely that anyone within my Organisation would have been aware of any change at all. I had no reason to discuss a name change only, of the parent company, with the pilots. It is likely that the office/admin staff would have been aware.
If CASA have closed my flying school of more than a decade down because there was some change, then it is fair and reasonable that CASA clearly identify exactly what changes there were, that made my school of more than a decade suddenly become an unauthorised operation.
I was suddenly in contravention of s29 of the Civil Aviation Act. Absurdly the correspondence states that the situation does not alter even if
- I am the Owner and director
- Using my own procedures.
- I am paying myself a fee and
- Using my own personnel.
Truly, this is absurd, and must be unlawful. Whilst I disagree with CASA on the wider issue of the “sister schools”, I absolutely have no understanding at all as to how my school of more than a decade suddenly became unlawful, and I think it is incumbent on CASA to provide me with an explanation.
This matter has resulted in a number of significant consequences. I currently have issues with the tax department, an upcoming case in the Supreme Court as a Defendant, and staff and suppliers rightfully chasing me for entitlements.
In order to explain my position to the Tax Office, Judges etc, I must have a clear explanation from CASA. In a recent appearance before VCAT, my inability to explain the rationale behind the CASA decision making was interpreted as deceit.
That was a very sad moment for me personally and had quite an impact. I cannot put myself in that situation again.
An explanation from CASA is essential.
Thank you for your time on the phone, and I hope you don’t mind the follow up correspondence. I appreciate that you are dealing with a number of matters in addition to mine. I hope this correspondence and the links can assist you.
I look forward to the opportunity to discuss the third topic when we next chat.
Thankyou sincerely for your time and your ear.
Cheers. Glen.
Plus (
via the UP) Lead Balloon's response:
Quote:Lead Balloon
As a matter of interest, why was your employer at the time of the McHeyzer correspondence so spineless? If I’d received the email as your employer, I would have - in slightly more diplomatic language - told McHeyzer to go and get f*cked.
On the section 29 issue, I’ll preface what I’m about to say with a statement I’ve made many times over decades of unravelling corporate pea and thimble tricks: Those who wish to enjoy the benefits of the corporate veil have to cop the pitfalls.
In relation to MFT, you keep saying “my” flying school. Given your reference to a ‘parent company’, I assume the AOC under which the MFT flying school was operating was issued to a corporate entity and not you personally. Is that assumption correct? If yes, the MFT flying school was, under the aviation law (at least) the corporate entity’s, not yours personally.
Let’s call that corporate entity ‘Person A’.
You then refer to a ‘change of name of the parent company’ of Person A. If it was in fact the parent company of Person A, the parent was a different entity to Person A.
Let’s call the parent corporate entity ‘Person B’. (I assume that’s APTA?)
We’ll call you ‘Person C’.
Note that there are 3 separate legal persons here, notwithstanding that they are ‘related’. Only one of them has been issued an AOC for the MFT flying school: Person A.
To put this another way, despite Person B and Person C having some control over Person A as a consequence of shareholding and officership, respectively, neither Person B nor Person C holds the MFT flying training AOC. And Person A cannot transfer its AOC to Person B or Person C. That would be like me saying I’ve ‘transferred’ my driver’s licence to my Mum or Dad.
Mere changes of trading names have no effect on any of this. It doesn’t matter whether ‘Person A’ or ‘Person B’ have the trading name Arthur, Martha or McGuirkinsquirter (just as it doesn’t matter whether you change your name to Arthur, Martha or McGuirkinsquirter). The legal person remains the same and has all of the same legal obligations and rights, despite what its name might be from time to time. Despite any and all mere changes of name by any of them, only Person A has authority under the aviation law for MFT flying training.
So here’s the fundamental problem as I see it, based on my understanding of the facts (which I may have wrong - please correct me).
You (Person C) made arrangements such that the business previously being done by the MFT entity (Person A) started being done by APTA (Person B). Fundamental problem: APTA didn’t have an AOC authorising MFT flying training.
I know that, as a matter of practicality, it was all the same humans doing the same things under the same procedures. But they were doing it for the APTA entity, not the MFT entity.
This all may seem extraordinarily silly and artificial but, them’s the pitfalls of the corporate entity benefits.
It’s like an individual who incorporates and is the sole director and shareholder of a company which buys an aircraft and hires it back to the individual at an ‘arm’s length’ rate. Great for limiting the liability of the individual and there may be tax benefits. But…
The company is the legal owner of the aircraft, not the individual. If it’s insured by the company (tax deductible premium), the insurance responds to the liability of the company, not the individual, and the proceeds of insurance are the company’s, not the individual’s (unless the individual is named as an insured along with the company). And there may be implications under the aviation law. For example, under proposed Part 43 as drafted, the aircraft is used ‘for hire’ and, therefore, 100 hourly inspections (along with annuals) would be required. The individual might claim that the aircraft is ‘really’ the individual’s and there’s no hire ‘really’ going on because the individual is in control of everything but - alas - that ain’t how the law sees it.
I hope that makes some sense and, for your sake, that my reading of the facts between the lines is mistaken.
MTF...P2
GlenB embuggerance update: 18/08/22
Via the AP email chains:
Quote:17/08/22
Dear Ms Pip Spence, CEO of CASA,
I understand that you are in the process of considering my request for CASA to publicly retract the allegations of Stalking and Assault that I am alleged to have committed against CASA employees.
As you will appreciate this matter in its entirety, is about “intent,” and the nature of that intent i.e. well intentioned or not well intentioned.
It’s not really about any safety concerns, regultory breaches, degraded quality outcomes, nor any examples offered by CASA that are indicative of any lack of operational control.
If I am to be believed, it’s a matter of a single CASA employee engineering a process to bring harm to me personally, and as you are aware I am fully satisfied that process was engineered by Mr Aleck. Mr Alecks conduct was facilitated by Mr Shane Carmody, the CASA CEO at the time.
It is fact, Mr Carmody’s statements made to the Senators, that I am asking you to retract or substantiate.
Mr Carmody’s presentation was “littered” with information that was clearly false and misleading. It was what can only be described as a character assassination on me, made with Parliamentary Privilege.
As you know, my opinion is that, if you determine that I had in fact stalked and assaulted CASA employees, it was incumbent on CASA to take measures to protect those employees, and that would involve a complaint to the police. That would allow me procedural fairness, and for the allegations to be fully investigated, and resolved. As the nature of the allegations is so substantial, I insist on that process being initiated, if it has not been commenced previously, and CASA chooses not to retract that false and misleading statement.
These are all matters that you are aware of.
In Mr Carmody’s presentation I have noted that he has provided false and misleading information on nine other occasions apart from the false and misleading statement that I had “stalked and assaulted CASA employees”.
Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport - 20/11/2020 08:49:59 - Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au)
I would like to draw your attention to one other false and/or misleading statement. At the 13:27:50 mark of the presentation Mr Carmody refers to me as me “describing the experience as a very pleasant journey over a number of years designing his future.”
Mr Carmody was obviously inferring a smooth journey, most likely initiated by me to secure my financial security.
The intent of his comments is obvious.
Mr Carmody chose to mislead the senators.
Mr Carmody failed to mention that the new regulations that applied to all of Australia’s 350 flight training organisations was the largest project ever undertaken by the flight training industry in Australia.
The new legislation presented me with three options.
- Cease trading on September 1st 2017
- Continue trading but my business would be unable to continue delivering its current courses. This would result in a reduction of revenue of over 90%, effectively making the business unviable.
- Invest many hundreds of thousands of dollars upgrading all systems and procedures via a rigid CASA procedure to the far more burdensome legislative requirements in order to continue operating as the new category Part 142 School.
I chose option C, and began a two year process requiring an enormous investment of both time and money to be one of the very small minority of flight schools that was ready for the deadline of September 1st 2017.
After assurances from CASA that the legislation was proceeding, as planned on September 1st 2017, I activated my new Part 141/142 compliant multi base structure that I had been using for many years, in April 2017, approximately 6 months before the deadline.
Weeks after I activated that structure fully compliant to the new regulations, CASA reversed their decision, and postponed the introduction of the legislation. This reversal by CASA cost me several hundred thousand dollars.
The truth is that it was path I was forced down by CASAs legislative changes, that required an enormous investment.
Mr Carmody’s comments about me describing the experience as “pleasant” are not only insulting to me personally, but I am sure they would be insulting to the highly professional CASA employees that had put so much of their time into the very substantial project.
Ms. Spence, please appreciate that this is not about the semantics. It is about a very carefully engineered process by a small number of current and past CASA employees.
It is about the “intent”. The intent of Mr Carmody’s presentation was not well intentioned. It was false and it was presented to mislead the Senators.
As I have advised, I am not seeking a prompt response from you. I am seeking a well-intentioned, and well considered response.
If you feel there would be some benefit in me addressing all 10 false and/or misleading statements prior to CASAs formal response, please advise and I will respond within 48 hours with that completed document.
I thank you in anticipation of your well-intentioned response,
Glen Buckley.
P.S. Whilst I am not apologising, I do acknowledge that you are relatively new to the position, and were not involved in the “problem”, although the burden of the “solution” has become yours.
(For the UP commentary that followed see -
HERE)
MTF...P2
GlenB embuggerance update: 14/10/22
Via the
AP email chains:
Quote:OFFICIAL
Hi Glen
Given the nature of the allegations you made in your 2022 ICC complaint, I am emailing to let you know that I will be attending an upcoming meeting between CASA and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office.
As you’re aware, no review of your most recent ICC complaint has commenced. That was on the basis set out in my email of 16 August 2022 seeking further information where I noted that if the issues you have raised are still being considered by the Ombudsman in any form then an ICC review may be inappropriate or premature at this stage.
My offer to meet with you and any support person you wish to attend stands.
Regards
Jonathan Hanton
"..I am emailing to let you know that I will be attending an upcoming meeting between CASA and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office.."
Hmmm...luv to be a fly on the wall for that one but I wonder why GlenB hasn't got an invite??
MTF...P2
Probably because a last ditch attempt will be made to brand him a vexatious crank.
Quote from above, Johnathon Hanton:-
“I noted that if the issues you have raised are still being considered by the Ombudsman in any form then an ICC review may be inappropriate or premature at this stage.”
One has to wonder why would the circumstances of the Ombudsman’s business have anything to do with the Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) of the Commonwealth’s independent corporate aviation regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)?
Those of us that have followed the disgraceful trajectory of CASA’s unjust treatment of Glen Buckley will not be satisfied with the words “may be inappropriate or premature” as excusing a lack of determination by the ICC.
Picked this up from the UP –
HERE -.No comment required......
GB -
"In post #2410 i had written to the CASA ICC. That correspondence being a request to attend a meeting between CASA and the Ombudsmans office."
20/10/22 Good morning Glen. Thanks for your email.
The meeting with the Ombudsman has already taken place.
The primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss what further material CASA may be able to provide to assist the Ombudsman in the investigation of your complaint to that Office.
I anticipate that as a result of the meeting, a further request for information will be made to CASA.
Regards Jonathan Hanton.
Ref:
TICK..TOCK goes the captured McDonaught's clock
Dots-n-dashes to GlenB embuggerance vs CASA blind eye to Soar Aviation??
Ref:
BJ reply to GlenB
"..In my own matter, and far closer to home. I operated only a few hundred meters from SOAR aviation. The truth is that industry, including other Government Departments raised safety concerns about that organization on multiple occasions, and repeatedly so over a protracted period. The Company had more accidents, incidents, than most, and even a fatality. That business went on right under CASAs nose and they knew about it. They ignored it. It wasn’t CASA that shut SOAR down. It was the students going to the Australian Skills and Qualifications Authority (ASQA), Its mind boggling.
ASQA was taking action against SOAR, while CASA was shutting me down. Its simply inexplicable at least..."
Via Oz Aviation (4 days ago):
Quote:
Hundreds of students that enrolled with collapsed flight school Soar are set to receive a five-figure payout after agreeing to a $33 million settlement.
Soar collapsed into administration on 29 December 2020, and it came with the company indirectly facing a class action from students arguing its standards were so poor it didn’t meet the subsequent requirements to obtain a pilot licence.
The payout means many former students will now be able to enrol in new courses and qualifications after having used up their limited student loans.
The case was brought by Gordon Legal against Melbourne TAFE provider Box Hill Institute (BHI), which partnered with Soar for the course.
Of the final amount, $5.455 million in legal fees and $4.8 million in administrative costs will be deducted, and the settlement still has to be approved in a court hearing scheduled for 17 November.
The class action made a number of claims, including accusing BHI of breaching its duty of care by working with the troubled flight school.
It also stated BHI engaged in “misleading and deceptive conduct” by suggesting to potential students that it would enable them to subsequently obtain a CASA pilot licence.
In January 2020, Australian Aviation reported how those calling the flight school in the days after its collapse were were presented with a voice message bluntly informing them that the business wouldn’t be taking or responding to any messages.
It was the last chapter in a difficult history for the once-prestigious flight school.
Founded in 2012, the company grew to have campuses at Moorabbin Airport in Melbourne, Bendigo Airport in regional Victoria, and Sydney’s Bankstown Airport.
Its fleet of 50 aircraft comprised Bristell LSA, Technam P2006T, Foxbat A22LS, Vixxen A32 and Aquila A210 aircraft, as well as a CKAS 7D0F simulator.
However, things turned sour in 2019 when partners Box Hill demanded the business supply documentation about its fleet and trainers.
Soar’s registered training organisation status was then revoked after an audit by the regulatory body for vocational education before Gordon Legal launched its class action.
While the business eventually had its accreditation restored, it still faced sanctions before it finally collapsed into administration late in 2020.
Founder Neel Khokhani resigned in early 2019, though has insisted it was purely a result of personal health reasons unrelated to the company’s struggles.
More seriously, the ATSB is also investigating an incident that saw a Soar Aviation instructor and student die when one of its Aquila AT01s crashed in NSW in 2020.
More recently, in a separate incident, the ATSB in May 2021 said a Soar Aviation student pilot who crashed his Bristell aircraft and suffered serious head injuries didn’t have permission to conduct the flight solo.
However, the report revealed the trainee believed he did have authorisation, despite clearly not following the correct procedures.
MTF...P2
PS: In a follow up to P9's post above, via the UP -
Quote:Sunfish
GA is dead. No one but an idiot will invest in private sector GA given the regulatory risk to their capital that CASA poses, as demonstrated by Glen Buckley. All Spence and Binskin are doing is what is termed palliative care - the future is electric multi copters and drones don't you know.. There will be the appearance of reform but it will have no substance, well, not enough to convince investors anyway.
glenb
Reply to post #2410 from CASA ICC
In post #2410 I had written to the CASA ICC. That correspondence being a request to attend a meeting between CASA and the Ombudsmans office.
Quote:20/10/22 Good morning Glen
Thanks for your email.
The meeting with the Ombudsman has already taken place. The primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss what further material CASA may be able to provide to assist the Ombudsman in the investigation of your complaint to that Office. I anticipate that as a result of the meeting, a further request for information will be made to CASA.
Regards
Jonathan Hanton
And back to the ICC
21/10/22
Good morning, Mr. Hanton,
Thank you for the notification that the meeting has occurred. Am I able to be advised as to who attended that meeting from CASA apart from yourself obviously?
Cheers. Glen
Sandy Reith
Meeting attendees
I’m sure we’d all like to know who attended the meeting, and what was the outcome of their discussions.
Public servants and their activities should be transparent, just as said by CASA Chair Mr. Binskin.
In the circumstances, and the enormity of Glen’s case concerns the whole of the General Aviation industry, it would be fitting to have a full run down of the proceedings.
This would be in the spirit of the Government’s model litigant requirements, fairness and displaying a willingness to address any wrongful treatment of Glen Buckley.
Ms Spence reply to my correspondence in Post#2409
Dear Mr Buckley
I apologise for the delay in responding, but as you have observed I have been travelling.
As I have consistently indicated, I am awaiting advice from the Ombudsman as they complete their review of their original investigation. Once that process has been finalised, I will be happy to meet with you and discuss their findings.
That said, there are some points that I do need to clarify.
The first is that I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information that CASA provided to the Ombudsman.
The second is that I have now asked the Ombudsman’s office to address their correspondence to me rather than Dr Aleck. This is not because I have concerns about him or the role that he has played, but because I think it is appropriate in light of the issues that you are raising about Dr Aleck’s role.
In terms of your questions about the meeting between CASA and the Ombudsman, as Mr Hanton has already advised the primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss what further material CASA may be able to provide to assist the Ombudsman in its investigation.
Your sincerely
Pip
GlenB embuggerance update: 2/12/22
Via the AP email chains...
Dear Ms Pip Spence,
I have contacted the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office and fully withdrawn my Complaint to that Office.
I am fully satisfied that Mr Jonathan Aleck the CASA Executive Manager of Legal International and Regulatory Services has provided clearly false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman's investigation.
There is a substantial body of evidence already presented to you that would indicate that my allegation may have some merit. You are readily able to avail yourself of the truth.You choose not to.
Over the last four years CASA has used the ongoing Ombudsman's investigation as a reason not to respond to my questions.
There is now no Ombudsman's investigation, so that cannot be used as an excuse, as it should not have been anyway.
I am calling on you in your role as the CEO of CASA to act in accordance with obligations placed on you by both CASAs Regulatory Philosophy and the obligations placed on CASA when they choose to close down a business as they did with mine, and as outlined in CASA s own Enforcement Manual.
As you are aware, I walked into my business of a decade at 8am on 23rd October 2018, having no idea that by the end of the day I would receive notification from CASA that the structure I had adopted for the last decade was now declared unlawful, and my business had only 7 days to continue operating. CASA placed a restriction on the business that prevented it taking on customers. This continued for 8 months until CASA stood by its original decision and forced all remaining customers to leave the business.
CASA did this entire process from that initial notification in October 2018 when the trading restrictions were put in place, through to closing my business in mid 2019, with me having no appeal process being provided to me at all.
How can that possibly be that the owner of a business in Australia has his business closed down, his life decimated, and no reason is provided in writing, there is no appeal process open to him, CASA does this without making a "decision" that can be appealed. Its not reasonable.
The truth is that CASA erred, and despite your best efforts, that cannot be covered up. CASA bypassed its own procedures.
I have never been provided with any correspondence that advises me what I did wrong.
In October 2018, I should have been provided a Show Cause Notice (SCN) that clearly outlined what the allegations were. That was never provided.
In mid 2019, CASA stood by its original determination, and forced all remaining customers to leave. I should have been provided with a copy of a "Decision" in writing rather than the process being verbal and unwritten.
As the family who have had their lives decimated by the sudden closure of their business, my request for a very clear written "decision" outlining very clearly what I did wrong, and why you closed my business down.
I will be frank. I believe you will continue to deflect, and not provide a response to my very fair and reasonable request, and that is why I have sought the assistance of my Local MP, Ms.Carina Garland. I need this not only for my own mental health, but I have taxation office issues that are related to the closure of my businesses, and I am required to provide an explanation. Because of this matter, I also have an upcoming case in the Supreme Court and I need to know why my business closed down, in order to defend myself.
It's also important reputationally for me. I want to know what I did wrong, so I can explain it to people.
Seriously Ms. Spence there is no reason that you would not provide me that document, I am fully entitled to it under procedural fairness. I find your deflection to the Ombudsman concerning. I am not interested in what the Ombudsman thinks at this stage. It was not the Ombudsman that closed my business, It was CASA. CASA must have had a reason. CASA should be able to explain that on its own, and is totally independent of the now terminated investigation.
I have attached my previous correspondence to you and Ms Garland below for quick reference. I also note that the initial email sent on 22/11/22 may not have been ideally formatted. A reformatted version of identical contents is below.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
MTF...P2