[Sandy Reith]

Wombat’s “words of two syllables” insult towards Glen Buckley is not acceptable.

Those of us without legal training but have some knowledge of procedures, and are all too familiar with the out of control entity known as CASA, have no doubt that Glen Buckley has been unfairly treated and that’s an understatement.

All the legalities ever invented will not serve to cover up or detract from the rotten behaviour of CASA and the utmost do nothing irresponsibility of the Minister, the CASA Board and it’s CEO to allow this iniquity to remain unresolved.

The stench won’t go away until full and equitable compensation is finalised.

[Wombat]

Sandy, I am a supporter of Glen on the basis that there is truth in what he alleges. However and with respect to Glen and his erstwhile supporters, I have bitter and very expensive (at least $300,000) experience to the effect that there are two sides to every story.

I have been told and unfortunately bought, similar stories to Glen's, not involving CASA. Similar he said/she said claims were made of operatic levels of wrongdoing. I didn't check the attestations of documentary evidence as to what was said and done until it was too late. The 'evidence" turned out to be non existent of even contradictory, leaving me stranded after having spent over $300,000 on project costs.

I have asked Glen about transactions with CASA before and received no response. Some actual .jpgs or scanned .pdf's of CASA documents as evidence are in my opinion required, not more operatic posts on UP. I wish him all the best but if I don't see physical evidence I cannot rule out the possibility that there is a simple explanation to his problem that does not involve devilish levels of deceit by CASA. That includes the possibility that privacy laws might prevent Dr. Aleck from defending himself.

Sorry to be crude, I make no apologies but I want to see the evidence. I've been here before. If no physical evidence, in the form of unequivocal writings, then Glen has no case.

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 1/02/22 - "Dear Barnaby??' 

Via the AP email chains:

---

Dear Mr Barnaby Joyce, Leader of the Nationals, Deputy PM, and the Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

My name is Glen Buckley, you will have some awareness of my matter, although I acknowledge that this matter was initiated under Mr Michael McCormack when he was acting in the role of Deputy PM and the Minister at the time responsible for CASA. Mr Michael McCormack would be the Subject Matter Expert (SME) within the Nationals and would be able to fully brief you.

Similarly, in accordance with the Ministers Statement of Expectations of CASA an obligation is placed on the Board to keep you fully informed, and that would be another resource available to you.

Senator McDonald, a highly regarded advocate of the General Aviation (GA) Industry also has knowledge of the matter, and in fact I raised my allegations of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs before her on 20/11/20, and that presentation can be accessed via here, as well as the copy of Hansard that I have provided. I followed those allegations up with written correspondence to Mr Michael McCormack.

GA Inquiry - 20/11/20: Glen Buckley - Part I - YouTube
GA Inquiry - 20/11/20: Glen Buckley - Part II - YouTube
GA Inquiry - 20/11/20: Glen Buckley - Part III - YouTube

A Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation of my matter has been ongoing over a period of the last three years and is still continuing. Commonwealth Ombudsman Reference 2019-713834-R

The purpose of this correspondence is to respectfully request the direct intervention of your Office

Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regultory Affairs has on multiple occasions provided clearly untruthful and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office , presumably for the purpose of covering up his misconduct, and perverting the outcome of the investigation. For complete clarity, I am fully satisfied that his action was deliberate, as he knew the information to be clearly false at the time he provided it.

Mr Jonathan Aleck has been responsible for leading the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that CASA did not become aware of the structure of my Organisation until just prior to October 2018 when they sent notification to me and advised that my business of more than ten years was operating illegally and shut it down.

I have previously written to both the CASA CEO and to the CASA Board on the matter of misleading information provided by Mr Aleck, and copies of that communication can be accessed via the following link. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 94 - PPRuNe Forums  The forum on my particular topic has currently had in excess of 900,000 views and has attracted wide industry interest and involvement because of the potential ramifications to the wider industry. My correspondence to the CASA CEO Ms Spence and subsequent correspondence to the Board can be found between Posts #1862 to #1884 on that forum, if you do not already have access to it.

I have attached emails dating back 2 ½ years before Mr Aleck claims that CASA” first became aware of APTA”. Mr Aleck asserts that CASA became aware just prior to October 2018, and that is clearly false.

I am able to submit an overwhelming body of evidence in support of my allegation,  but for the sake of expediency I have attached only theemails dating back to June 2016 that clearly demonstrate that I intended to expand on the same activity that I had been doing for 6 years previously. For Mr Aleck to assert that CASA first became aware in October 2018 is clearly untruthful.

I am able to provide an overwhelming body of evidence in support of my allegation if those emails alone are not sufficient, and that includes directing you to current CASA Employees who have come forward and offered to tell the truth on this matter.

Whilst I appreciate that the CASA CEO and Board have elected not to correct the misinformation, it seems entirely unacceptable, and creates a waste of Government resources which is not in accordance with obligations placed on CASA by the PGPA Act.
By providing clearly false information, it only wastes governments resources. The Ombudsman’s Office should be presented with the facts and make a determination on truthful advice provided to it. In fact, the reason that this investigation has dragged on for three years is because CASA has directed significant resources to providing clearly untruthful information.

I would like to refer to specific excerpts from your own Statement of Expectations of CASA, where you stipulate the following expectations. With all due respect, I feel you will be compelled to act.

• “CASA should perform its functions in accordance with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013”
  
• “CASA resources be used in an efficient,, effective, economical, and ethical way”
  
• “conduct and values of CASAs staff should be consistent with those of the Australian Public Service.
  
• “I expect the CASA Board to be transparent in carrying out its functions”
  
• “ I expect CASA will implement its regulatory approach in accordance with its Regultory Philosophy”   Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
  
• “My expectation is that CASA will perform its functions in a manner consistent with the Act and has appropriate regard to the economic and cost impacts of its decisions and actions on individuals, businesses and the community”
  
• “CASA will be transparent”
  

 
My intention is to write directly to you again comprehensively on this matter in 14 days, and my hope is that in the interim, you are able to send a very clear direction to the CASA Board that they are to ensure any information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office is truthful, and to correct any false information previously  provided by Mr Jonathan Aleck immediately that they have doubts as to the accuracy of the information provided by Mr Aleck to the Ombudsman’s Office.

Please understand that Mr Aleck has bought enormous harm to me and my family, and his actions have cost me many millions of dollars and left me bankrupted and destitute. It has resulted in businesses dependant on me closing, staff losing employment, and both domestic and international students having their training impacted, and suppliers being unpaid.

Many individuals and Organisations have made allegations of misconduct against Mr Jonathan Aleck and the Legal, International and Regulatory branch over many years, and it is extremely concerning that the organisation has such negligible levels of accountability, and most especially from the Nations Aviation Safety Regulator CASA operating under Australia’s Coat of Arms. A symbol that suggests the very highest standards of ethics and integrity.

You will be aware that Mr Alecks conduct is increasingly coming under scrutiny due to industry being frustrated by his conduct over many years, and that includes Angel Flight, the family of Mr Bruce Rhoades which formed the basis of an ABC investigation, Bristelle, Jabiru, Shannon Baker, Kurt Pudniks, Polar, etc etc. The list is exhaustive.

You may also be aware that an industry wide petition is now being organised calling for a Royal Commission into CASA Royal Commission into CASA petition. - PPRuNe Forums

Please Mr Joyce, I urge you to demonstrate strong and ethical leadership and hold Mr Aleck to account, and direct CASA to be truthful in their dealings with the Ombudsman’s Office.

I would also ask that you request the CASA Board to provide you with CASAs safety case for closing down my business. My reasonable expectation is that Mr Alecks decision making would be supported by risk based and evidence driven decision making. You fill find that CASA is unable to provide any safety case whatsoever for closing down my business with no prior warning.

Thankyou for your consideration of my matter, and I will write to you comprehensively within 14 days.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

Attachments: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...-2018..pdf & https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...0_8357.pdf

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Lead Balloon with a legal perspective - 

Via the UP: 

Ms Spence won't be in it for the money. She'll be motivated by Australia's 'enviable aviation safety record' caused by CASA's efforts in the face of uninformed critics.

Just to get the focus back on Glen’s plight, but to reinforce the point I made about the ‘standard’ being whatever someone in CASA wakes up each day and decides it is, I remind everyone that Mr White’s email to Glen on 13 March 2019 was merely a regurgitation (a quote verbatim) of words spoon fed to Mr White by Dr Aleck’s team. Those words included:

The operational and organisational arrangements contemplated by CASR 141 [and Part 142] are based on a conventional business model, under which all of the operational activities conducted by the authorisation holder are carried out, for and behalf of the authorisation holder by persons employed by, and in all respects as agents of, the authorisation holder.

If it were true that persons “employed by” an “authorisation holder” were “in all respects agents of” the authorisation holder, some very odd things could happen. If employed under a contract of service, the employed person could, as agent in all respects of the authorisation holder/employer, go off to the Fair Work Commission and agree, on behalf of the authorisation holder/employer, to vary the applicable EBA so as to double the wages of all employees. If employed under a contract for service, the contracted person could, as agent in all respects of the authorisation holder, enter contracts with third parties, which contracts would be binding on the authorisation holder.

That’s what an ‘agent in all respects’ is: A person who can do things that are legally binding between the principal and third parties.

As we know and CASA knows, there are plenty of operators out there who engage pilots as ‘independent contractors’ – that is, under contracts for service. Those contracts almost invariably include a clause that requires the pilot, as independent contractor, to acknowledge and agree that s/he is NOT an agent of the operator and to promise NOT to represent him or herself as being an agent of the operator.

Then there’s the mere bagatelle of what Parts 141 and 142 actually say. They actually include a definition that says:

personnel, for a Part 141[/142] operator, includes any of the following persons who have duties or responsibilities that relate to the safe conduct of the operator’s authorised Part 141 flight training [Part 142 activities]:

(a) an employee of the operator;

(b) a person engaged by the operator (whether by contract or other arrangement) to provide services to the operator;

© an employee of a person mentioned in paragraph (b).

The “operational and organisational arrangements contemplated by CASR 141 [and Part 142]” are opposite to the effect asserted in Mr White's email. There is no way that all of the people covered by (b) and © – that is, people who are not an employee of the operator – are “in all respects agents” of the operator.

Someone in CASA just woke up one day and decided that the rules don’t mean what they say. That becomes the practical standard because the only way in which Glen could get an authoritative decision to the contrary would result in him going broke and bankrupt quicker than he would in just giving up.

All in the interests of the safety of air navigation, of course.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB's chocfrog reply to CASA Troll Luce -   

Via the UP:

Luce

ABC did an investigative piece

Howdy Glen.I have followed your story from post 1 and learnt a lot from some informed contributors along your quest. I find your responses detailed, accurate and passionate. Some are emotional but understandable given the rough path your walking. I’ve seen you mention a fella in several posts, most recently of an ABC investigative piece. Being an ABC watcher curiosity led me google for this and I must say, this led down a rabbit hole of media information including newspapers and youtube, ATSB, QLD police, legal people and of course CASA.

After reading all sides I ask why you use this example to support your quest? The accident report has a seriously high number of issues with the operation. Shockingly many of the findings were repeats of what the fella lost his pilots licence for and even copped a criminal conviction for previously. The report says both his aircraft were overloaded, conducted aerobatics with people (in a 172!!!!), flew dangerously low, skimming maintenance hours and really hadn’t thought through some fundamental airmanship of where to go if the old donk quits. That photo in the report of where this happen is alarming. The pilot had almost no where to go. I even see the operator provided a submission on the accident report prior to its release so the fella had his say.

So why the difference in storys between the ABC piece and the accident report? Then there is the bit on missing passenger cameras and recording cards taken off the crash site and never found. Strange. Is this why QLD police charging the pilot over the crash. Would the fella be up on charges to if still with us. Lots of questions. I even found discussion here on PPRuNe post C172 down on Middle Island.

After reading all, I ask what you think if an GA operator with these issues approached APTA for inclusion.

I wish you best in your quest for justice.

---

Sunfish

Don’t answer Glen, instead allow me:

Luce, your question is irrelevant, insulting and misleading.

You might as well ask: “As a Catholic Diocese, what would you reply if a local brothel asked to be included in your congregation?”.

You are implying that APTA is/ was established as a deceitful umbrella organization to give cover to a variety of disreputable operators.

This is consistent with the apparent view of your employer that all pilots are “uncaught criminals”.

Nice try.

And GlenB's gold star, informed but passionate reply...

glenb

Luce and Sunfish

Good morning Sunfish, and I very much appreciate the spirited support, but took absolutely no offense at the question, and in fact, I think it’s a very legitimate question. It is something that my management team considered from very early on.

I'm heading off to "Fat Daddy’s Breakfast Club" shortly. A tradition of 15 years now where a group of elite athletes in their mid-50s gather every fortnight to have breakfast and take the piss out of each other. An important process to maintain ones mental health, and look in awe at the one member who has for his own reasons decided to buck the trend and remain under 100kg, yet still insist on maintaining his membership. His membership is tenuous, and he shows almost no resolve to “let himself ago” but we tolerate him.

The answer to your question is quite easy to be honest. Its all about “intent”. Is this a well-intentioned operator with something to bring to the group?

The Operator would be operating under my AOC to my procedures with me as the authorisation holder, and my CASA approved Key Personnel taking on full responsibility, in law for that operation. Not one of the management team would tolerate a “dodgy” operator, as potentially it was us that may have to stand before a coroners inquiry in the event of a tragedy and we needed to be able to justify every decision made.

I need to clarify that in the case of Bruce Rhoades, it was a charter business whereas we chose to operate in the flight training environment only, and had no short to medium term plan to incorporate charter, although I appreciate the point of your question.

Importantly however, the starting point was "intent". What type of operator are we dealing with. Is it someone with "good intent". Someone trying to do the right thing in the flight training industry, and somebody who “shares the vision”

In the case of Bruce Rhoades, my feeling is that he was well intentioned. It’s a highly complicated legislative environment we operate in, and often operators were somewhat stuck in the past. The good intent was there, although I cant speak to the quality of his product.

Once we ascertained that the Operator was of “good intent”, most likely we would proceed with the application. At this stage I would refer you all the way back to Post 46, and the attachment being the “induction checklist that was designed with CASA personnel, approved by CASA personnel, and utilised by CASA personnel as part of the CASA required approval process.

The process was rigid, and in my opinion the quality of the operation would improve substantially, and the operation was closely monitored and supervised.

From my experience, most people are well intentioned, and given the correct robust systems and procedures and extremely high levels of supervision, they will see the benefits of a well run operation.

In short, it is fair to say that had he have run a flying school, I’m confident that we could have transformed that operation to a demonstrably safer and highly compliant operation.

Regarding the attachment to the Bruce Rhoades matter, that’s a bit more personal and rather close to home. I spoke to Mr Rhoades before his passing. He was a man, in my opinion, who was a victim of a “reverse engineered process”, where CASA determines their desired outcome, and manufactures the process to achieve that desired outcome, exactly as they did with me.

Mr Rhoades was somebody dealing with the same three characters as I was. Graeme Crawford, Craig Martin and Jonathan Aleck, so there was a “bond” there if you like.

Mr Rhoades like me, was particularly critical of the conduct of Craig Martin in particular, and in fact made some YouTube videos that you may have seen of Craig Martin.

Sadly, Mr Rhoades died with his reputation in tatters, and I have no doubt that at his funeral, there would have been attendees who in the back of their mind had their own questions about his character, with the knowledge of the CASA attack on him.

In my own case, I am someone who had their business shut down overnight, with an impact on my own reputation. Something that I am fighting to restore while I am still alive. My greatest fear is that something happens to me, before I get to fully clear my name in front of my family, colleagues, past APTA members, employees etc.

I hope that goes someway to explaining in it, and I’m sorry I don’t have more time to address the question, but please feel free to come back to me if you have a follow up question, and with a breakfast in my belly, I will respond.

Cheers. Glen.

For reference from the AP archives and past 'noble Art' thread pages:

The not so noble Art of embuggerance

Bruce Rhoades response to Crawford's bullying letter 

And via the AP SBG blog and Youtube channel: https://auntypru.com/and-thus-i-clothe-m...-villainy/

“And thus I clothe my naked villainy”– AP Forum version.

Late start this morning – much to consider and read; mostly to do with Bruce Roades and his run in with at the CASA gristmill. The story begins with tragedy, a failed engine leading to an air accident, ending with a fatality. A raw day for all concerned; services swung into action and did their usual sterling work (thank you – once again); ATSB arrived ‘on-site’ and began the task of ‘investigation’. This is what we have become used to after an accident; the ATSB attempts to define what happened, why and place, when required, some form of advisory or recommendation designed to prevent a reoccurrence. The CASA often buy in, they are quite entitled to run an investigation; there are matters which they need to be across, matters of law and operational well being. So the scene is set.

Bruce Rhoades - RIP mate! 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

BJ reply to GlenB -   

Courtesy the office of the DPM, via the AP email chains:

---

---

Also GlenB replies to Luce on the UP - :

Luce

Dear Luce and others,

Please be assured that I value your comments.

I understand your sentiment. My matter is unique, in that it has no safety element to it all. There has never been any allegation of any safety concern with my operation at all. It was simply an allegation of a breach of the Civil Aviation Act that states “An Air Operator Certificate cannot be transferred. It is that fact that makes my matter unique, and I do run the risk of “muddying “my own case.

I have taken your advice on board, and it will be in my “considerations” going forward. Cheers.

As a final thought about the Bruce Rhoades matter. Drawing on 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry, I am fully satisfied that the young back packer in that incident would still be alive if:

The CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) adopted this approach.

He/she was allocated 20 businesses by CASA, and committed to popping into each of those businesses once a month, for morning or afternoon tea, on a mutually convenient date.

They sat together for an hour and discussed matters with good intent. They built a relationship of confidence and then trust. A natural part of that conversation could have been as simple as “Run me through how you conduct adventure flights Bruce?” or “can I come along on one of your adventure flights Bruce”, or "how would you handle XXXXX Bruce?"

Any CASA concerns or questions could be resolved right back at that stage. The accident and fatality would most likely never have occurred.

Its hard to digest, but it really is that simple.

If the FOI turned up for morning or afternoon tea, and was told to bugger off, that would be a justifiable CASA concern.

The Operator that invites them in, as almost all would, with welcome arms is the Operator that will work collaboratively with CASA to improve safety and quality outcomes.

Its all well and good to have thousands of pages of documentation, laws, rules, advisories, regulatory philosophies, statements of expectation, exemptions, etc etc, but if the good intent and professional approach isn’t there, then it just won’t work. It really all starts with intent. Intent from the operator and intent from CASA.

The intent exists with the vast majority of operators, and CASA will know, because they will be invited in.

Sadly, and tragically, and most especially at the GA level, there would be less accidents if CASA choose to act with good intent. No amount of legislation can solve this very real problem that is so critical to flight safety in GA

That is what will improve safety outcomes. Good intent. CASA just doesn’t have the intent. Its not in the Organizational culture, and that stems from leadership..

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.

By the way Luce, an industry colleague gave me a copy of “the art of war”, when this matter started. A very informative read, and after your post, I have located it for a re-read.

Cheers. Glen.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB submission to McDolittle GA inquiry: Part A 

Via the AP email chains: Ref - https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...uckley.pdf

 This correspondence specifically relates to the following stated terms of reference:

• The operation and effectiveness of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)

• The legislative and regulatory framework underpinning CASA's aviation safety management functions.

• The application of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 to Australia's aviation sector, and whether the legislation is fit for purpose.

• The safety and economic impacts, and relative risks, of CASA's aviation safety frameworks

• The immediate and long-term social and economic impacts of CASA decisions on small businesses, agricultural operations and individuals across regional, rural and remote Australia.

• CASA's processes and functions, including:

o its maintenance of an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry, including viable general aviation and training sectors.
o the efficacy of its engagement with the aviation sector, including via public consultation; and
o its ability to broaden accessibility to regional aviation across Australia, considering the associated benefits of an expanded aviation sector.

My submission is relevant and it highlights my own personal experience and my perspective.

Additional Comment regarding the Terms of Reference

Irrespective of the Terms of Reference, this is a matter of Aviation Safety. To the Senators that cannot be expected to be Subject Matter Experts on Aviation Safety, you will comprehend the following.

Any national aviation safety regulator that engages with the industry, the way CASA does, can only negatively impact on aviation safety. At best, and highly unlikely, it will maintain safety. It cannot possibly improve the safety of aviation.
   

Glen's DRAFT submission etc. can also be viewed via the UP - HERE

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

The Angels take flight?? -  

Via CASA HQ:

Date: 18 March 2022

We have updated the rules for pilots conducting community service flights (CSF) and introduced a new way to comply.



These changes are in response to feedback from the CSF sector, including engagement with Angel Flight, Little Wings and a recent online public consultation.

The changes are designed to be less onerous for volunteers and give the sector more flexibility to achieve safety outcomes.

CASA 09/19 has been updated by CASA 19/22 Civil Aviation (community service flights – conditions on flight crew licences) amendment instrument 2022.

From 19 March 2022, CSF pilots will be able to choose to meet either:

• the requirements in CSF instrument (as updated)
  
• a CSF organisation’s requirements that have been approved by CASA – we’re currently working with CSF organisations on this option.
  

Summary of key changes:

• The old CSF rules had additional 100-hourly maintenance requirements for aircraft conducting CSF flights. This requirement has been removed and aircraft are subject to the same aircraft maintenance requirements as private flying.
  
• The requirement for a pilot to have completed a landing within the previous 30 days in an aircraft of the type being used for the CSF has been clarified. The original intent that a landing can be done on the same day as the CSF has been incorporated.
  
• The old rules required CSF pilots to hold either a Class 1 or Class 2 medical certificate. This requirement has changed to also allow pilots that hold a medical exemption for a Class 1 or Class 2 medical certificate.
  
• There’s a new condition for commercial pilot licence holders who are not also air transport pilot licence holders. They need 150 hours as pilot in command (PIC) of an aeroplane or helicopter.
  
• Flight notifications need to be in a ‘written’ form, for example, the internet or an electronic form. This is to ensure all required data is captured.
  
• Pilots may be able to comply with approved alternative requirements developed by a CSF organisation instead of the rules in the new instrument. CASA is currently working with CSF organisations on this option.
  

Further information on community service flights is available, including a draft version of the instrument showing the changes.

Plus courtesy Oz Flying, via the Yaffa: 

CASA modifies Community Service Flight Rules

18 March 2022

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has today amended the contentious regulations covering community service flights (CSF).

The restrictions contained in the original instrument have been the subject of ongoing legal action between CSF organiser Angel Flight and CASA.

Crucially, the new instrument contains scope for pilots to be exempt from the regulations provided they comply with a requirement regime set down by the CSF organisation, a provision that has yet to be finalised.

CASA released the modified rules after a community survey and consultations with Angel Flight and Little Wings. Key changes to the requirements for pilots and aircraft conducting CSFs are:

• removal of an additional 100-hourly maintenance requirement for aircraft conducting CSF flights above that required for private flights
  
• the requirement for a pilot to have completed a landing within the previous 30 days in an aircraft of the type being used for the CSF has been clarified. The original intent that a landing can be done on the same day as the CSF has been incorporated
  
• pilots that hold a medical exemption for a Class 1 or Class 2 medical certificate are now able to conduct CSFs
  
• CPL holders who are not also ATPL holders now need 150 hours as pilot-in-command of an aeroplane or helicopter
  
• flight notifications need to be in a "written" form such as via the internet or an electronic form to ensure all CSF data is captured.
  

The amended instrument now permits CSFs to also carry other passengers that are needed to communicate with the patient, pilot mentors and other pilots observing the flight before conducting their own CSF.

Angel Flight CEO Marjorie Pagani told Australian Flying that the organisation felt the new rules were an improvement over the original, but work still needed to be done.

"We have had extensive negotiations with CASA in respect of the new instrument," she said. "We're not satisfied with all of its terms; however, we are heartened by their acceptance of their being no need for aerial-work category maintenance on private flights, and the somewhat expanded definition of passengers that can be carried."

Pagani said that talks with CASA regarding the exemption had been ongoing over the past few months, but were now nearing fruition.

"Angel Flight continues to negotiate with CASA for an exemption to the instrument and a lot of progress has been made. We expect that to be finalised within the next few days.

"In the interim, pilots flying for Angel Flight should apply the new instrument until the exemption agreement has been finalised."

The full set of amendments is on the CASA website.

And EWH's take on that..  : Ref - http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...march-2022

"..Community service flights (CSF) have been at the centre of whirlwind of acrimony over the past few years, so it's encouraging to see the issue sliding towards some level of compromise. With the amended CSF instrument published today, CASA has conceded some points after long negotiation with operators, particularly Angel Flight. It's still not perfect, but contains provision to be much better in that it will soon contain an exemption for pilots who conform to the requirements of the organisation.This is sensible because in most cases the organisations' requirements exceed those of the instrument anyway. Removing the need for airwork-standard maintenance on aircraft used in CSFs should release many more pilots who have been stuck in limbo. The regs worked against pilots who flew more hours in their aircraft every year, which meant the most experienced and current pilots weren't permitted to fly CSFs. They are the very pilots that CASA should have been encouraging to fly for the likes of Angel Flight. Although, as Marjorie Pagani has pointed out, the amendments don't make for perfect regulation, they are a good step towards thawing the relationship between CASA and the CSF community and freeing organisations to get on with the vital job they perform...

...About three weeks ago we put a new story on the Australian Flying website detailing a mystery around why the answer to a question taken on notice about court costs awarded against Angel Flight was not made public. It seems no-one knew and no-one was responsible for the decision. The answer arrived in my inbox a few days ago: it seems the committee didn't publish the letter because it was interim information. Furthermore, some submissions from Angel Flight were also suppressed and not published on the inquiry website. That was also a deliberate decision, I am told. The reasoning behind all of this was that the committee wanted to stop the inquiry becoming a battleground for something that had already been settled in court. But there might have been something else behind it. Both CASA and Angel Flight had been talking again to resolve things in negotiations that led to the above legislative amendments, and no-one, not CASA, not Angel Flight and probably not the senators, wanted to queer the process with acrimony..." 

Hmm...no comment - 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 12/04/22

Via the UP:

Cheers Hacick, an update.

Sorry "Havick", i couldnt edit the title after i posted. The truth is that I have been on some prescription medication, and I have since discontinued its use. Admittedly levelled some of the emotion, but thats not what I actually need right now. Back on the horse and ready to go.

I have a telephone call with the Ombudsman's Office on Thursday this week to receive an update, which i will get up here as soon as practical. In the interim i have made this following flyer and begun distributing it in the electorate of Chisholm. Its one of Australia's most marginal seats, and I will be active in distributing this via letterbox drop, train stations, and attending appearances in the community by Ms. Gladys Liu.A 55-year residents personal and unsatisfactory experience with Ms Gladys Liu, the Liberal Representative.

My name is Glen Buckley, I have no political allegiances whatsoever. The truth is that throughout my 55 years in this electorate, I have voted Liberal more often than any other Party. I voted for Ms. Gladys Liu at the last election, I will not be doing so this election, and I urge you to consider my matter in your decision making come election day. Ms Glady Liu has clearly failed me.

In October 2018, a single Government Employee decided that my business was operating illegally and shut it down, effective immediately.

That action resulted in me losing my two businesses, my home, and my health. It left me bankrupt. I still reside in the electorate, but now in a rental property. If either my wife or I were to stop work, we would be homeless. That is the truth, and it is inevitable that at some stage in the future we will be confronting that situation. I have been left destitute.

Despite all that, the greatest burden I carry is for all the people that were impacted by this. That includes other businesses dependant on me that were forced into closure, the staff who lost their jobs and entitlements, the Suppliers that were left unpaid, and the customers who were significantly impacted.

A subsequent investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman found that the Government Employee had no legal basis for that decision. I am unable to fund a legal case, so I am seeking an Act of Grace Payment from the Government for that wrongdoing.

I am not seeking any compensation for the impact on me, but I am seeking a payment to ensure that everyone impacted by this action i.e., staff, customers, and suppliers are paid what they are owed.

Since October 2018, I have been seeking a meeting with Ms Gladys Liu to seek her assistance in pursuing that Act of Grace Payment, and as my elected representative of Chisholm she is the appropriate person to approach.

For more than three years, Ms Gladys Liu the current Member for Chisholm has failed to even meet with me, despite multiple written requests.

Whilst I seek no assistance from you in my matter. I do want to inform you, that from my own personal experience I have found that Ms Gladys Liu has completely ignored my very reasonable pleas for assistance.

I urge you to consider that in your decision making come election day. You will be presented with many options. Please consider those carefully. You too, may need the support of your Local Member at some stage in the future. Please choose someone that you feel will clearly represent you.

The entire matter can be accessed via here, for those that are interested. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums It has had almost 1,000,000 views and thousands of comments. For expediency I would direct you to Post #2039 on page 102 of that forum.

Thankyou for taking the time to read this, please choose carefully on election day. The Seat of Chisholm is one of Australia’s most marginal seats. Your vote is important.

Safe travels. Cheers. Glen. Email: defendapta@gmail.com

---

Plus:

Response from Pip Spence to Post #2046

Dear Mr Buckley

Thanks for your email and apologies for the delay in responding.

I appreciate the update on your intended submission to the Senate, and I will of course read it once it has been provided to the Senate and published.

As I have indicated to you previously, the Chair and I consider that the Ombudsman is best placed to independently review the issues that you have raised, and we are committed to working openly and constructively with the Ombudsman as they complete their review.

Pip

Lead Balloon's response in reply:

I don’t want to be the bearer of bad tidings, but there is no guarantee that the GA inquiry will continue under the new Parliament to be formed after the upcoming Federal election. As you can see from Odger’s here: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/...r_16#h15.5

Uncompleted inquiries and a new Parliament References to the legislative and general purpose standing committees lapse at the commencement of a new Parliament, apart from references which are automatically made under the standing and other orders, such as the references of annual reports and the performance of departments and agencies. …

That said, there is a pretty good chance that some of the Senators in the new Parliament will support the continuation of the reference of the now-technically defunct inquiry.

But as I and others have said many tines before, Glen: CASA doesn’t care. That’s because CASA doesn’t have to care. The only time CASA won’t yawn at more ‘incoming’ from you is if the ‘incoming’ is initiating process in court proceedings to which CASA is a party. Even then, CASA will bring its resources and scaremongering to bear, to drive you further into the ground. Focus your energy on the Ombudsman’s inquiry (the outcomes of which CASA will practically ignore, anyway).

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

If's and buts.

" If's and buts were candy and nuts, what a Christmas we would have."

If - and it is a huge IF - the Buckley saga were a 'one off' or even a once in a decade CASA action, then, perhaps there would be a little less cynicism and more understanding of the action taken by the 'regulator'. In a diverse industry it would be reasonable, indeed, even expected that the Authority would take the odd 'bad apple' to task, throw their weight about and send a clear message to those who tread the thin line between legal safety parameters and 'dodgy' operations.

But; (big one) that  is not the case, is it. I'll not bore anyone with 'real' numbers; suffice to say that the average Senator, Minister and the travelling public would be slightly shocked if every case of gross 'embuggerance' from the last decade were laid bare. Most folk could be forgiven for assuming that where there is smoke, fire is a good bet. What is not clearly understood - or even explained - is the manipulation and 'spin' which underpins almost every action taken; even the few that actually make it into the public arena rarely touch on  the 'nuts and bolts' let alone fact and circumstance. No reason they should, the public and parliament have a short attention span for items which do not affect their day to day existence - fact.

Buckley is no exception - just another victim in a long line of those 'embuggered' by an untouchable, uncontrollable, expensive, outside of ministerial interest or obligation 'agency' - which can, and regularly does destroy viable operations and individuals. Even the latest 20/20 'inquiry' has sheared away from digging down into the Buckley morass. Can't really blame 'em for that - the Senate tried hard with Pel-Air and look what happened after that great spend up - Nothing of consequence - that's what.

Buckley is but one of the many; this has to be stopped, cold, in broad daylight - but how? Aye, that is question, many have tried - alas.........

Toot - toot.

[Peetwo]

Meanwhile in the electorate of Chisholm - 


Ref: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/.../Liu-1.pdf

GlenB embuggerance update: 12/04/22

Via the UP:

Cheers Hacick, an update.

Sorry "Havick", i couldnt edit the title after i posted. The truth is that I have been on some prescription medication, and I have since discontinued its use. Admittedly levelled some of the emotion, but thats not what I actually need right now. Back on the horse and ready to go.

I have a telephone call with the Ombudsman's Office on Thursday this week to receive an update, which i will get up here as soon as practical. In the interim i have made this following flyer and begun distributing it in the electorate of Chisholm. Its one of Australia's most marginal seats, and I will be active in distributing this via letterbox drop, train stations, and attending appearances in the community by Ms. Gladys Liu.A 55-year residents personal and unsatisfactory experience with Ms Gladys Liu, the Liberal Representative.

My name is Glen Buckley, I have no political allegiances whatsoever. The truth is that throughout my 55 years in this electorate, I have voted Liberal more often than any other Party. I voted for Ms. Gladys Liu at the last election, I will not be doing so this election, and I urge you to consider my matter in your decision making come election day. Ms Glady Liu has clearly failed me.

In October 2018, a single Government Employee decided that my business was operating illegally and shut it down, effective immediately.

That action resulted in me losing my two businesses, my home, and my health. It left me bankrupt. I still reside in the electorate, but now in a rental property. If either my wife or I were to stop work, we would be homeless. That is the truth, and it is inevitable that at some stage in the future we will be confronting that situation. I have been left destitute.

Despite all that, the greatest burden I carry is for all the people that were impacted by this. That includes other businesses dependant on me that were forced into closure, the staff who lost their jobs and entitlements, the Suppliers that were left unpaid, and the customers who were significantly impacted.

A subsequent investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman found that the Government Employee had no legal basis for that decision. I am unable to fund a legal case, so I am seeking an Act of Grace Payment from the Government for that wrongdoing.

I am not seeking any compensation for the impact on me, but I am seeking a payment to ensure that everyone impacted by this action i.e., staff, customers, and suppliers are paid what they are owed.

Since October 2018, I have been seeking a meeting with Ms Gladys Liu to seek her assistance in pursuing that Act of Grace Payment, and as my elected representative of Chisholm she is the appropriate person to approach.

For more than three years, Ms Gladys Liu the current Member for Chisholm has failed to even meet with me, despite multiple written requests.

Whilst I seek no assistance from you in my matter. I do want to inform you, that from my own personal experience I have found that Ms Gladys Liu has completely ignored my very reasonable pleas for assistance.

I urge you to consider that in your decision making come election day. You will be presented with many options. Please consider those carefully. You too, may need the support of your Local Member at some stage in the future. Please choose someone that you feel will clearly represent you.

The entire matter can be accessed via here, for those that are interested. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums It has had almost 1,000,000 views and thousands of comments. For expediency I would direct you to Post #2039 on page 102 of that forum.

Thankyou for taking the time to read this, please choose carefully on election day. The Seat of Chisholm is one of Australia’s most marginal seats. Your vote is important.

Safe travels. Cheers. Glen. Email: defendapta@gmail.com

---

Plus:

Response from Pip Spence to Post #2046

Dear Mr Buckley

Thanks for your email and apologies for the delay in responding.

I appreciate the update on your intended submission to the Senate, and I will of course read it once it has been provided to the Senate and published.

As I have indicated to you previously, the Chair and I consider that the Ombudsman is best placed to independently review the issues that you have raised, and we are committed to working openly and constructively with the Ombudsman as they complete their review.

Pip

Lead Balloon's response in reply:

I don’t want to be the bearer of bad tidings, but there is no guarantee that the GA inquiry will continue under the new Parliament to be formed after the upcoming Federal election. As you can see from Odger’s here: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/...r_16#h15.5

Uncompleted inquiries and a new Parliament References to the legislative and general purpose standing committees lapse at the commencement of a new Parliament, apart from references which are automatically made under the standing and other orders, such as the references of annual reports and the performance of departments and agencies. …

That said, there is a pretty good chance that some of the Senators in the new Parliament will support the continuation of the reference of the now-technically defunct inquiry.

But as I and others have said many tines before, Glen: CASA doesn’t care. That’s because CASA doesn’t have to care. The only time CASA won’t yawn at more ‘incoming’ from you is if the ‘incoming’ is initiating process in court proceedings to which CASA is a party. Even then, CASA will bring its resources and scaremongering to bear, to drive you further into the ground. Focus your energy on the Ombudsman’s inquiry (the outcomes of which CASA will practically ignore, anyway).

MTF...P2 

If's and buts.

" If's and buts were candy and nuts, what a Christmas we would have."

If - and it is a huge IF - the Buckley saga were a 'one off' or even a once in a decade CASA action, then, perhaps there would be a little less cynicism and more understanding of the action taken by the 'regulator'. In a diverse industry it would be reasonable, indeed, even expected that the Authority would take the odd 'bad apple' to task, throw their weight about and send a clear message to those who tread the thin line between legal safety parameters and 'dodgy' operations.

But; (big one) that  is not the case, is it. I'll not bore anyone with 'real' numbers; suffice to say that the average Senator, Minister and the travelling public would be slightly shocked if every case of gross 'embuggerance' from the last decade were laid bare. Most folk could be forgiven for assuming that where there is smoke, fire is a good bet. What is not clearly understood - or even explained - is the manipulation and 'spin' which underpins almost every action taken; even the few that actually make it into the public arena rarely touch on  the 'nuts and bolts' let alone fact and circumstance. No reason they should, the public and parliament have a short attention span for items which do not affect their day to day existence - fact.

Buckley is no exception - just another victim in a long line of those 'embuggered' by an untouchable, uncontrollable, expensive, outside of ministerial interest or obligation 'agency' - which can, and regularly does destroy viable operations and individuals. Even the latest 20/20 'inquiry' has sheared away from digging down into the Buckley morass. Can't really blame 'em for that - the Senate tried hard with Pel-Air and look what happened after that great spend up - Nothing of consequence - that's what.

Buckley is but one of the many; this has to be stopped, cold, in broad daylight - but how? Aye, that is question, many have tried - alas.........

Toot - toot.

MTF? - MUCH!...P2

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance: 19/04/22

Via the AP email chains:

To Whom it may concern,
 
I was forwarded your contact details by a concerned neighbour who was aware of my plight.
 
My story is long and detailed, and may be too cumbersome to be of interest, nevertheless here I go.
 
I am currently distributing these leaflets throughout the electorate of Chisholm (Glady Lius electorate). Untitled_Clipping_041522_074444_PM.jpg (1790×1265) (auntypru.com)
 
I have also attached two magazine articles that provide an overview of my situation, and they can be accessed here.
 
               “APTA before CASA action” https://www.dropbox.com/s/znq4es7aoenll2...N.pdf?dl=0
               “APTA after CASA action”    https://www.dropbox.com/s/k12d43vtnhek75...N.PDF?dl=0
 
In short, the second most senior employee of CASA, a man by the name of Jonathan Aleck decided that my business had suddenly become illegal after more than a decade of operations. The cost to me was significant and included the loss of my home, and my two businesses, my life savings. I have been left absolutely destitute. Sadly many others were affected by this and this included employees, businesses, customers and Suppliers.
 
A Commonwealth Ombudsman’s investigation found that in fact Mr Aleck had no legal basis for his decision. Unfortunately my current financial situation makes it impossible for me to pursue legal action. I would also direct you to the presentation that I made before Senate Estimates, which can be accessed here Senate Rural Regional Affairs & Transport Committee GA Inquiry - Mr Glen Buckley - YouTube
 
I have outlined the story in its entirety on a pilot’s forum referred to as Pprune and my thread has now had almost 1,000,000 views and over 2000 comments. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums
 
I am not the first to make allegations against this CASA employee. The matter is relevant with the current election approaching and most especially with one of the hot topics being the Governments failure to establish an anti-corruption commission. Despite the substantive nature of allegations against Mr Aleck, there has been absolutely no investigation into his conduct. I am fully satisfied that this matter is being covered up, and that this coverup extends to the Office of the Deputy PM. The Deputy PM has been fully briefed on this matter by the previous Chair of the CASA Board.
 
I apologise for the rather brief nature of this correspondence but hope that I have provided enough initial information to allow your assessment.
 
I have a large body of well documented evidence in support of my allegations. Of particular concern is that for three years I have been trying to engage the support of Ms Gladys Liu, although she has chosen to completely ignore my please for assistance, and therefore I have decided to distribute the brochures throughout the electorate.
 
If you would like to discuss this matter further, I would encourage you to contact me via return email or my mobile on 0418772013.
 
Thankyou for your consideration, cheers. Glen Buckley

MTF...P2  :P

[Kharon]

A practical test of theory..Now imminent. 

A short while ago, the BRB postulated the notion that through the SoE, supported by the DPM, the DAS was appointed and given the tools to bring balance and reason to the way CASA operate. The Buckley saga is but one of many serious case histories which are not generally known or discussed; all history now, but valid testament to the dire need for serious internal reform of CASA. The opening paragraph of Glen's post - HERE- on the UP was written and predicted by the BRB some 18 months ago. The BRB version was then, and is now, almost word perfect:-

Glen_B  - "After 3 years of investigating, the Ombudsman’s Office is unable to investigate allegations against an individual, such as an allegation against a CASA employee, and that needs to be directed to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner."


Many have trodden down the weary pathway leading to the Ombudsman's offices; many have patiently waited for the response; many have received, eventually, the same advice. Those 'of the Many' have who have beaten a pathway to the ICC's cupboard have been provided a similar response - " Sorry, can't help you directly, I have sent it along to the 'Ethics Committee, up to them now" etc.  There are no prizes for guessing 'who' is on that committee - Ayup, 'tis the same motley crew which created the shit cart parked at the door of the complainant. This is moment when the embuggered realise just how truly buggered they are.

Has that changed? - Well, we shall see. In Glen's post we find the following paragraph:-

Glen_B " - Then the phone rings. It’s the Office of the Deputy PM, and someone very senior. They were aware of the leaflets I was distributing. Let anything let me say that what followed was the most encouraging conversation I have had in over three years. Whilst I don’t want to preempt anything, I do believe that Office will “get to the bottom of it”, and that the Deputy PM would be involved. It was extremely encouraging.

"Extremely encouraging" - Indeed it is; and it warrants close scrutiny. The result will clearly define if any real and meaningful changes have occurred within the top layers of the CASA deniable accountability confection. As I have banged on about for donkey's years - if the truth behind some of the CASA acts of unmitigated bastardy, operational ignorance and technical/legal incompetence is ever made public - the nation would be shocked. I'd settle for a quiet cull; and sound management.

Sunfish - "Glen, don't you dare stop doing what ever you are doing until you NOW get a meeting with CASA and a written plan of how CASA is going to resolve this matter. The difference between NOW and a few weeks ago is that the Board and DAS are NOW empowered by the Government to resolve the matter.


Aye, Sunny and Sandy -  both spot on. Hang in there Glen, not just for you but for the industry.

Toot - toot.

[Kharon]

Glen_B - Question 9...

First coffee thoughts and draft:-

Edit - Q9. After the enforced closure of Mr Buckley's business, permanent employment was secured within industry as the CASA approved Head of Operations, within a similar commercial aviation business. A CASA representative wrote to the management of that employer stating that 'the continuation of Buckley employment was not tenable'. This argument based solely on comments publicly made by Buckley with regard to the actions taken by CASA in the closure, without explanation, as to why Buckley's business had been summarily denied operating rights and approvals. Can a comprehensive explanation and supporting reasoning for this advice to an employer be provided?  (E&OE)...

This single question shines a very bright light on the 'unspoken' dark side of CASA tactics. Buckley is not, by any measure, the first to be treated in this manner. But, by the gods, he must be the last. It is one of the very real, totally 'provable' elements of the reprehensible misuse of power by CASA officers, often with the support, or even at the behest of their senior management. The list of pilots and business operators who have been subjected to similar and worse treatment is extensive. Never once, throughout the long history of Senate inquiry and Investigation, despite the millions spent, has this shameful topic ever been touched on. High time it was blasted wide open...

The existing, ever present threat of the CASA 'treatment' being doled out is very, very real. Should any Minister of government ever have the sand to take the lid off this particular can of worms and eradicate it, it would be a huge step toward reconciliation with and respect for the authority tasked with over sighting an essential, revenue producing industry. I say that unless this highly counterproductive practice is stamped out, those who foster it removed from office and the rules which allow it dismantled, then any hope of a real 'partnership' between industry and regulator will be doomed to fail (once again) - for a simple lack of 'faith' in the rule of law and natural justice and any semblance of honesty within the 'administration'.

Sorry to monkey about with your missive Glen - but that supported single act of calculated, cowardly, unmitigated bastardy (item 9) generates more fury than the other valid points made.

Cheers 'K'...

[Peetwo]

Comments in reply to GlenB...so far?  

Glen_B - Question 9...

First coffee thoughts and draft:-

Edit - Q9. After the enforced closure of Mr Buckley's business, permanent employment was secured within industry as the CASA approved Head of Operations, within a similar commercial aviation business. A CASA representative wrote to the management of that employer stating that 'the continuation of Buckley employment was not tenable'. This argument based solely on comments publicly made by Buckley with regard to the actions taken by CASA in the closure, without explanation, as to why Buckley's business had been summarily denied operating rights and approvals. Can a comprehensive explanation and supporting reasoning for this advice to an employer be provided?  (E&OE)...

This single question shines a very bright light on the 'unspoken' dark side of CASA tactics. Buckley is not, by any measure, the first to be treated in this manner. But, by the gods, he must be the last. It is one of the very real, totally 'provable' elements of the reprehensible misuse of power by CASA officers, often with the support, or even at the behest of their senior management. The list of pilots and business operators who have been subjected to similar and worse treatment is extensive. Never once, throughout the long history of Senate inquiry and Investigation, despite the millions spent, has this shameful topic ever been touched on. High time it was blasted wide open...

The existing, ever present threat of the CASA 'treatment' being doled out is very, very real. Should any Minister of government ever have the sand to take the lid off this particular can of worms and eradicate it, it would be a huge step toward reconciliation with and respect for the authority tasked with over sighting an essential, revenue producing industry. I say that unless this highly counterproductive practice is stamped out, those who foster it removed from office and the rules which allow it dismantled, then any hope of a real 'partnership' between industry and regulator will be doomed to fail (once again) - for a simple lack of 'faith' in the rule of law and natural justice and any semblance of honesty within the 'administration'.

Sorry to monkey about with your missive Glen - but that supported single act of calculated, cowardly, unmitigated bastardy (item 9) generates more fury than the other valid points made.

Cheers 'K'...

Via the UP -  :

Sandy Reith

Letter to Gladys Liu

A very fair offer from Glen Buckley. Glen is an inspiration to keep on for what’s right, and an example to us all.

He has a measured way of expression and is sticking to the facts of his case.

To be tenacious in these circumstances takes courage and we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact we all stand to benefit from any improvements that are achieved.

There will be beneficial ramifications for GA irrespective of any particular outcomes for Glen and his family in the short term.

Exactly what will ensue might not be obvious but his case is gaining political notoriety that is sure to be of influence in favour of GA in the future.

---

Lead Balloon

A couple of points, on the run:

- the current Statement of Expectations is largely irrelevant to your circumstances - perhaps link to both the previous and current one? (Though I can't find a copy of the old one, but only searched briefly.)

- the APS Code of Conduct is not relevant to CASA (and I can't find a copy of CASA's Code of Conduct on its website, but only searched briefly).

Will try to comment more when I can digest.

(I doubt whether too many recipients will be reading your corro on ANZAC Day. Perhaps send at 9AM on 26 April?)

---

The Statement of Expectations

LB makes the point the the SoE has little relevance to Glen’s case.

Reading the SoE you will see that apart from the fact that it has little power, being this weak idea of a mechanism that’s not an instruction, but merely a hopeful wink and nod, it’s abundantly clear that it has more let outs than a large wire sieve.

Expectations, not Directions:-

“ Paragraph (a) — review its regulatory philosophy following industry consultation by the end of 2022.“

Industry consultation???….. For crying out loud why??? Is this joke??? Another inquiry??? Yes Minister, sure, we all want to dust off the ASSR and RRAT submissions, not to mention all the other forgotten useless inquiry excuses for doing nothing and do it all over again.

“ …to achieve appropriate mutual recognition and bilateral arrangements to support the recognition of Australian designs, innovation and certification in comparable jurisdictions, and minimise the red tape involved in moving between such jurisdictions …where possible,….”

Note ‘’appropriate” and “where possible.”
Not one “CASA shall…”, it’s all about “support, consult, investigate or examine.”

The SoE is shot through with such escape clauses.

The Minister has only set out some wobbly sign posts to desirable reforms that have been screaming necessities for years. Then the timing, not one real action this side of the election, apart from a (so far) temporary stop on the further alienation of irreplaceable airport property at MB.

I think BJ and the Coalition are a still better bet, but like war, politics is unpredictable. We, and Glen, battle on.

A blast from the not too distant past - ref page 7 (2017/18) of this thread (note the common themes with "K"'s post -  ):


Ref: https://auntypru.com/a-cabaret-in-the-temple-of-doom/ & https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...23#pid8023

Graham

When will this government have the guts to put the cleaners through CASA. An authority who is destroying the very industry it regulates.

---

Steve

When I moved to Oz in 1980, I went about converting my private pilot license and Class 1 Instrument Rating [Airline Pilot standard]. Bureaucratic madness (Sir Humphrey at his best), 12 months and $20K later...

---

Les

As a person who has been lucky enough to receive a transplant I know what this means to the person who missed out on the heart transplant. CASA should be ashamed of their actions.

Les Qld 

---

William

I support Dick Smith's assertion that this regulator has gone too far. CASA saying that they weren't approached regarding the heart transplant flight is a lie. The patient should sue them for millions.

---

Peter

I am not an expert but from reports over the last few years, it seems as if the time has come for a review of the aviation industry and its associated bodies. It seems as if their has been a bit of empire building going on.

---

Oscar

CASA - staffed by public servants who love running meetings with no outcomes, with bosses that make decisions with no accountability. We need a Frank Lowy to fix this rotten organisation just like how he fixed Soccer Australia when it was infested with ethnic dysfunctionality.

---

Phil

CASA like the rest of the APS is there to cover its own butt and create jobs , plain and simple.

QANTAS And Virgin call the shots so the General Aviation sector is now so over burdened with regulation and complexity that it's is dying .

Not fuel prices or lack of business,no the regulator is literally choking General Aviation to death.

Only a complete reset of CASA back to the dual role of promoting aviation as well as regulating it (ie a CAA) will fix this.

---

Arthur

If the article is correct, someone is lying. The broker's statement seems to contradict CASA's statement. An Administrative Inquiry should be conducted from within the responsible Ministry, with the findings made public and officials held personally accountable for any poor decision making. This would supply evidence should the transplant non-recipient choose to seek compensation (from any individual as well as an organisation) - as it stands, that individual has only hearsay to support a claim. I don't believe that a Freedom of Information query would reveal where the failure lies, and a failure it surely is. Senior Management exists over peons to consider the bigger picture. Ambulances are required to follow the road rules until there is an emergency. It seems CASA doesn't understand that the same should apply to Air Ambulances.

---

Steve

Make no mistake, CASA is mostly responsible for the demise of aviation in Australia.

CASA public servants are out of control. No accountability and no scrutiny by either side of politics for decades.

No other country has an aviation regulator as incompetent or dysfunctional as CASA.

---

Ashley

Like everything else in Australia - over-regulated and antiquated bureaucracy stifles not only innovation, but just getting things done. This is why the smart money is moving offshore.

---

Vern

Bureaucracy, not common sense is running the country.

---

Kim

CASA has pulled more & more power into itself to justify its existence & provide it with plenty to do. It needs a thorough review and downsizing to get it back to being a public service and not a public supervisor. The other area that infuriated me is the delay these regulators like CASA take to investigate & report back on air accidents. Some of them take years for no logical reason. They need to have a boot up the tail to do their work quickly & efficiently.

---

Brian

Over the years, I have watched as this and another Aviation authority have seemed hell bent on driving general aviation in Australia to the wall. We need safety, but the sheer bloody mindedness of CASA over imposing petty rules at the expense of experience and common sense has long been apparent. The holy grail of absolute safety has been allowed to take over the day to day running of general aviation with impossible burdens and costs imposed which have not affected the already high standards. Dick Smith should be listened to and the Minister responsible should move quickly to an inquiry which could examine the red tape and recommend discarding the rubbish contained in the regulations

And back to "K" (from the same page) : ref - Primal Scream Therapy.

Out of respect for Mark, we will not trot out the whole sorry tale; not yet. There are huge sums invested, jobs on the line and many other weighty considerations which prevent all this sorry tale from becoming public knowledge. However, in time, the tale will become seen as a litmus test for the Joyce administration; that you can take to the bank. There are documented cases which cover the entire gambit of ‘CASA - Bankstown’ actions from Pel-Air to Falcon which demand a full and open inquiry; conducted under the rules of evidence. Perjury is just one item high on the list for independent scrutiny, there are others, of equal weight and concern which cannot be ignored; not for too much longer.

Carmody is Chester’s man – as CEO he must be aware of the consequences related to CASA actions. Joyce is the latest incumbent of the transport seat; if he retains Carmody then we can see the future is more of the Falcon treatment; if he ‘get’s real’ and hires new CEO for both ATSB and CASA then we may yet see an end to the disgraceful behaviour on display at the moment.

There is only one thing certain – none of this is going away. Operators and their crews need to be free of the constant ‘threat’ of becoming ‘criminal’, fear of reprisal for disagreement with ‘opinion’; and, being forced to accept that there are no options other than complete acquiescence to any and all dictates of the less than competent bully boys. Those who not only believe they are above the law, but that their ‘opinion’ overrides the law, common sense, decency and experience; then spin faery stories to support the argument; which are always backed up by the ‘Ethics’ committee ruling.

Let the minister consider just one small element: the ‘Audit’. If a company bring in ‘independent’ auditors who are trained and qualified to use the IOSA system; then the ‘audit’ is always welcome. Areas which can be improved are noted, discussed and actioned; the next audit will examine the result of the ‘tweaking’; and, the ‘fix’ will be refined, again, to become of real value. In short, real safety improvement, real systems monitoring and efficient compliance is a direct result. That audit is looked forward to by the beneficiary. Mention the CASA version to any operator and measure the result, weigh the benefit and count the cost in time and money wasted defending the company from closure. Chalk and Cheese.

Finally back to Sandy...

“the responsible exercise of discretion by CASA decision makers”

Like many things it boils down to a matter of degree, certainly the present framework gives far too much power to officialdom. It becomes too easy for CASA to be policeman, prosecutor, judge and jury when the rules are inappropriately complex and they attempt to dictate actions of flight crew into a straitjacket of perfection as perceived by bureaucratic imaginations.

The seductive advantages of power, position and unassailable righteousness are writ large in the attitudes of the bureaucratic machine. So too obvious has been the utter disregard for the fortunes of the GA industry, let alone the lives of many individuals carelessly smashed and wasted. For many such vilified individuals a recourse to justice in the courts is not viable due to time constraints, lack of money and being up against a daunting opponent with unlimited means.

Considerations;  many of our aviation “offences” don’t even warrant a mention in other jurisdictions. There was no real problem before the rules were migrated into the criminal code and laced with excessively high penalties for the most trivial matters. Proportionately way in excess of comparable fines and penalties for road infringements. Therefore using the road rules as a model gives lie to the argument that its just a similar application of law. The other broad justification that all rules passed the various stages and processes of the Commonwealth only compounds our disquiet, and does not answer the declinng trajectory of GA or the levels of distrust and dissatisfaction with the regulator.

And that is only a flashback of four years (and 11 pages of this thread) - 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 24/05/22

Courtesy Sandy, via the AP email chains:

..A salutary lesson for both Liberal and Labor parties with such low primary votes and there will be many opinions why, but the helplessness of the individual against the ever increasing power of bureaucratic machinery should be recognised.

Lack of Ministerial oversight and a plethora of independent Commonwealth corporate regulators, not to mention the waste of the C’wealth Ombudsman @$45m pa, should be considered as contributing to loss of democratic control and therefore voter dissatisfaction.

24 May, The Wall St. Journal, an article.

A Judicial Ruling Challenges the SEC’s Illegal Power

The Fifth Circuit says the agency violates the Constitution by acting as prosecutor, judge and jury.

This is exactly what CASA has been doing for years.

Excerpt from PPRUNE blog yesterday :-

“ glenb , 23rd May 2022 07:10

The impact of the election result

I have been off air over the last month as i dedicated myself to raising awareness of my matter in the electorate of Chisholm, in the lead up to the election.

In the last week of the election, and with the assistance of neighbors and friends I managed to letterbox drop 14,700 brochures into letterboxes. The content is cut and pasted below. “

Text of Glen’s Buckley’s 14,700 pamphlets

My name is Glen Buckley, I have no political allegiances whatsoever. The truth is that throughout my 55 years in this electorate, I have voted Liberal more often than any other Party. I voted for Ms. Gladys Liu at the last election, I will not be doing so this election, and I urge you to consider my matter in your decision making come election day. Ms Glady Liu has clearly failed to represent me.

In October 2018, a single Government Employee decided that my business was operating illegally and shut it down, effective immediately. The business had been operating for more than a decade.

That action resulted in me losing my two businesses, my home, and my health. It left me bankrupt. I still reside in the electorate, but now in a rental property. If either my wife or I were to stop work, we would be homeless. That is the truth, and it is inevitable that at some stage in the future we will be confronting that situation. I have been left destitute.

Despite all that, the greatest burden I carry is for all the people that were impacted by this. That includes other businesses dependant on me that were forced into closure, the staff who lost their jobs and entitlements, the Suppliers that were left unpaid, and the customers who were impacted.

A subsequent investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman found that the Government Employee had no legal basis for that decision. I am unable to fund a legal case, so I am seeking an Act of Grace Payment from the Government for that wrongdoing.

I am not seeking any compensation for the impact on me, but I am seeking a payment to ensure that everyone impacted by this action i.e., staff, customers, and suppliers are paid what they are owed.

Since October 2018, I have been seeking a meeting with Ms Gladys Liu to seek her assistance in pursuing that Act of Grace Payment, and as my elected representative of Chisholm she is the appropriate person to approach.

For more than three years, Ms Gladys Liu the current Member for Chisholm has failed to even meet with me, despite multiple written requests. She has been of absolutely no assistance at all. I was born in Chisholm and have spent my entire 56 years here. I plan to die here. I have pleaded for her assistance, and she has completely ignored me.

Whilst I seek no assistance from you directly in my matter. I do want to inform you, that from my own personal experience I have found that Ms Gladys Liu has completely ignored my very reasonable pleas for assistance. There have been multiple requests made to her. The truth is that had she met with me three years ago when I requested her assistance, this entire matter could have been avoided.

I urge you to consider that in your decision making come election day. You will be presented with many options. Please consider those carefully. You too, may need the support of your Local Member at some stage in the future, like I did. Please choose someone that you feel will clearly represent you. I would appreciate any support you can offer by making your neighbours and friends aware of my experience with Ms. Gladys Liu.

For transparency, and as evidence of my claims, the entire matter can be accessed via the following link.. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-a...-casa.html) This forum has had almost 1,000,000 views and thousands of comments. For expediency I would direct you to Post #2039 on page 102 of that forum, where the two magazine articles, provide a 10-minute overview.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, please choose carefully on election day. The Seat of Chisholm is one of Australia’s most marginal seats. Your vote is important. Choose whichever candidate it is that you believe will best represent you. You are entitled to it, as I should have been.

Safe travels. Cheers. Glen. Email:
defendapta@gmail.com

I fully support Glen Buckley, he has been treated abominably and unjustly by CASA.

Our General Aviation industry in Australia could grow several fold with the right policies for free enterprise with USA type rules.

Sandy

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Tales of embuggerance untold -  

Courtesy AOPA Oz CEO Ben Morgan, via Facebook:
 

CASA v PRIVATE HELICOPTER PILOT
PARAMATTA LOCAL COURT

Attending Paramatta Court House today in support of our member, whom has been battling against CASA since March 2014.

Update:

---

Andy Pascoe
  · 0:00

on behalf of my family we would like to thank Ben for his continued support over the years, CASA have managed to keep my case from going public up until now .... and it might look like we had a bad day today but trust me, we and I mean all pilots and owners of aircraft we embarrassed the f@#k out of casa .

Ben you should be proud of what you do for all the people that can't afford to stand up for what's right.

I'm happy with today's results..... would love to be a fly on the wall in John Moore office tonight

Ref: https://www.casacorruption.com/news-flash/ 

Finally from the GA inquiry I refer to evidence provided by AF CEO Marjorie Pagani:

From 16:30 -

 Hansard GA Inquiry 07/12/21

"...But I can say the substance of those conversations is to the effect that senior internal staff were shocked at what Mr Monahan proposed for Angel Flight and had taken the view that the data was fabricated, there was no basis and it was not supported and that all of this was ignored by Mr Monahan. This seems to be the way CASA operated and continues to operate.

I mentioned briefly a matter before the Campbelltown Local Court in New South Wales currently, between ASA and an aviator. Again, I can give more details of that, and I urge you senators to order a transcript of this—as you would know, transcripts are quite expensive. In that matter, which is in substance relating to charges against CASA that they fabricated information and they engaged in bribery and other serious matters against this person, they have been objecting to providing subpoenaed material in that case for three years, such that, in July of this year, the judge said—the [inaudible] clearly, from the transcript, are very angry—'Is it going to be necessary for me to subpoena the CEO of CASA, issue a summons for her arrest to bring her before this court to explain why you will not provide this information?' CASA's only explanation, through legal, was to the effect that it was all a bit slow because of [inaudible].

In the August hearing, CASA, to avoid providing the subpoenaed documents, withdrew two of its witness statements, which were relevant to the documents, so as to not have to do it. I mention that only because it is more of the same. This is not a transparent authority. This is not one which is fair to the aviation community. It is one which, by its current conduct of failing to engage with Angel Flight at all [inaudible] in November, notwithstanding all of the admissions made in the court case, is continuing on that same path. We had really hoped that there would be some changes made, but it seems—and I can only say this from videoconferences and communications I've had—that Mr Monahan is still running the show and intent upon imposing further legislation, again, clearly, with no intention of doing a risk based analysis in relation to that..."

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

I find myself chafing against the bit (again) - there is so much 'wrong' in the handling of the Andy Pascoe case, I, for one of many, believe it must be fully, openly and publicly exposed. Why? Well it parallels so many other cases which have been quietly buried, the mourners for justice and honesty left with only the bitter memories, forced to move along in order to meet the challenges of their own lives. Yet whenever a case - like Buckley/ AF/ Pascoe's /James/ Quadrio (long list available on request) - creeps into the public view those memories return. Return with a vengeance -  along with the determination to stamp out the system which rapidly punishes those alleged to be 'guilty' and allows the accusers to continue their merry way to perdition, well heeled and protected. 

While Pascoe's case remains 'sub judiciary' there are some facts which can be dragged out into the light - albeit they are the witness version and subject to the 'Pub' test; but they all, once again point toward the need for  total reform of the way CASA does business in the field of 'investigation' - and who does it.

But, Pascoe et alia aside for the moment, and without long rambles into 'case histories' - patient research reveals a definite 'pattern' and 'process' for 'prosecuting the case'. Under careful cross examination (you need a transcript) the careful 'stacking' and 'manipulation' of carefully selected evidence which somehow manages 'shade' the story line against the accused is revealed; every time. It is this that the defence must destroy. Bog standard process as any Copper worth his salt will tell you; they will also tell you that if they tried to bring on a case, like some of the CASA AAT lash ups - they would be looking for a new job, in jig time, - despite Union support.

"Despite Union support" - Aye, there's the rub - according to a wise owl I know. The Pascoe case allegedly led to the dismissal of one of the known villains with a solid track record of masterful embuggerance, but not his mates. Which, according to my Owl, left the others involved in a cleft stick and they will try to 'tough it out' - have to. "So" I ask "why has Spence not acted in the face of the evidence presented?" Here, old mate shook his head and smiled - filled our glasses and said but one word - "Union?". I looked askance at this - "can you imagine the bun-fight if Spence tried to fire the whole lot, all that dirty washing hung out and the union swinging into action". - "The top brass and the politicians tremble at the mere mention of 'upsetting' that little apple cart". Aye; Paraphrased, but that is the gist of it. It begs the question- just who is actually running the CASA outfit; the board and DAS (@ 2 million+ a year) or the union?

The cost, stress, time and impact on personal well being prevent many cases being examined under jurisprudence; even then, when there is a clear case against the CASA - nothing changes and the same crew manage to survive to repeat the same performance, time and time again. The pattern consistent through every case history examined. 

Spence has stated she cannot fire any of those she knows to be responsible for the current embarrassment; if she cannot, then it's time aviation had someone who could. McCormick encouraged this behaviour; subsequent DAS have either ignored or tacitly supported it. Perhaps the time has come for someone to point out to Spence that she needs to get ahead of the Pascoe case and do something, before the whole mess is made public (next month) and the whole world can see exactly what a bloody shambles there is behind the 'holier than thou' - facade presented to the aviation world. Much more to follow. Pascoe ain't the first - but he must be the last.

"There is not a court in Heaven or Earth, Tim, where Horace Rumpole is not ready and willing to appear. On the Day of Judgment I shall probably be up on my hind legs putting a few impertinent questions to the prosecution."

Toot - toot...

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 25/06/22

Via the UP:

25th June 2022.

COMPLAINT 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 into the closure of my two businesses and the direction from CASA that my continuing employment was no longer tenable.

My family has been significantly impacted by this matter. I have been bankrupted. CASA closed my businesses, 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. My physical and mental health has been impacted and my poor wife has had a total of 6 days free of work since CASA did this in October of 2018, as she tries desperately to claw back some level of meagre financial security for our future. As a small business owner, the business that CASA closed, was in fact my superannuation. The future of my wife and I is bleak, and at 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.

As the person impacted, by the conduct and decision making of CASA employee, Mr Jonathan Aleck, at the very minimum I am entitled to a thorough investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, and a written explanation of why CASA took such disproportionate action against my business.

Not only for me, but 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. Ever.

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.

Mr Aleck immediately implemented restrictions on my businesses ability to trade, from that date of 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, determined my business unlawful and forced all my customers to leave, leading to the inevitable closure of the business, and significant material harm and trauma. Not only to me and my family but 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.

In that initial notification,

· 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 a number of short term “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.

With those restrictions being in place for over 6 months, CASA then stood by their initial determination and closed the business down when they forced all remaining customers to leave, despite that not being the customers preferred option.

All of this was done without CASA ever providing any supporting safety case. It was a reversal of CASAs previously issued approvals.

CASA never issued any documentation throughout this entire process that gave me the right to appeal or challenge any decision. I was completely denied procedural fairness or natural justice. These are clear breaches of CASAs obligations in administrative law, as outlined in CASAs own procedures (Appendix- Enforcement manual)

The entire matter is absurd.I had been operating in that same structure for the last six years. What made this even more absurd is that 2 1/2 years earlier CASA had worked side by side with me, as I invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars in systems, procedures and personnel to become one of Australia’s first schools to get accreditation as both a Part 141 and 142 organisation in April 2017, and we were operating in the same 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.

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. There are none. Despite my repeated requests for a explanation, none has been forthcoming. It is important to understand that I was not disputing CASAs safety case. The point is that there is no safety case. CASA have never put forward any safety case in support of Mr Alecks decision making. Surely one would expect that his decision making is driven by decisions on safety with supporting safety cases. 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.

As the person most impacted by this entire matter, and significantly so, it is beyond any reasonable comprehension.

This entire system 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 18 months later 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 the CASA employee is substantive.



That revalidation by CASA that commenced in June 2016 and was finalised 9 months later in April 2017 occurred while we were operating in the multi base multi entity structure.

I provide the above as background information to the complaints that follow.

At a later date I will submit a formal complaint to your office of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck. That is not the purpose of this correspondence. I am requesting that the two separate complaints be handled independently. An allegation of misfeasance in public office will understandably require opinion and judgement to be applied. The response to this complaint is far simpler and really only requires the very briefest of responses, and possibly as short as a yes or a no. 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.

To the “trigger” for this complaint.

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. 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. 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.

Due to the substantive nature of the false and misleading information, I am compelled to request that the Ombudsman hold off releasing any final report until these matters can be clarified by CASA. It is not reasonable or fair for the many people impacted by Mr Alecks 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... (1/12)

Comments in reply:

Flaming galah

Originally Posted by glenb View Post
I have been working away diligently in the background. I am about to submit a complaint to the CASA ICC

Why even bother with the ICC? Last time you complained you found that the ICC avoided the key issues, didn’t give an honest assessment, lacked integrity and was just a tool used by CASA to delay access to the Ombudsman.

If Pip Spence and the Board are getting rid of the current ICC as rumoured, if you insist on the ICC charade you could wait until the replacement is in situ and then maybe you’d get a fairer hearing?

---

Sunfish

I don't like your chances Glen. My guess is that CASA will try and explain you away to the new Minister as a crank.

Nothing will save GA.

Dick Smith was right - 9 Mar 2016:

I’d like to re-emphasise what I’ve told many people and that is there is no light on the horizon and many tens of millions of dollars more is going to be lost in general aviation in this county before anything is done about it.

---

aroa

Sorry. No such thing as a "fair hearing" in the CAsA lexicon.

While the ICC guy, in my case, was a good and conscienicous bloke, and came to talk with me due to his concerns of about what was happening..or not. He was over run / over ruled from higher up the food chain. They didnt like his result.

The "investigation" (sic) was then handed off to a women plucked from Human Resources or whatever the wanko name for that division was called then. ...Sheeple and Culture...some 'culture' !!
Result. "On the basis of probabilities, wasnt him." ( The CAsA perp)

A teenager, or a proper investigator could have worked it out. The available fact were overwhelming.
CAsA is all about covering its polished arse...and then some.

So they have criminals and perjurers working in the rotten place.....Who cares.?

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 07/07/22

Via the UP - from here: 4 of 12. Continued from Post 2132- Complaint to ICC, false and misleading information 

Lead Balloon etc. in reply today:

Lead Balloon

APTA’s short point: CASA was well aware, for years, of APTA’s structure.

That’s undeniable.

CASA’s short point: CASA adults weren’t aware, until around 2018, that APTA’s structure did not include legally binding agreements between APTA and ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel and others, giving APTA effective control over the operational activities of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’.

That claimed ignorance is probably true, because CASA is a governance basket case. But it does not mean CASA had no duty to make clear to APTA, very early in the protracted and detailed interactions between APTA and CASA personnel, the important CASA requirements which were instead sprung upon APTA in 2018 and beyond. CASA should have made those requirements clear to APTA, from the outset.

I’m guessing that the various CASA personnel dealing with ATPA from day to day were blissfully unaware of the nature of the legal relationship - or, more accurately - the absence of any binding legal relationship, between APTA and the personnel of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’. But again, that does not mean CASA had no duty to take reasonable care not to make misleading statements to APTA. And silence can constitute a statement: saying nothing about an important subject can mislead someone into believing the subject is of no importance. Why would APTA have dedicated time and energy and money to formulating effective binding agreements with ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel and others, when the CASA personnel with whom APTA was interacting didn’t say those agreements were among the many requirements against which CASA was already assessing and approving additional ‘bases’?

But CASA’s not going to admit negligence misstatement. CASA never makes mistakes.

---

Chronic Snoozer

CASA never makes mistakes.

Except when they do something right.

---

glenb

Lead balloon and others

A very poorly proof read document, but a response nevertheless. Apologies but about to get a flat battery on the laptop.CASA’s short point: CASA adults weren’t aware, until around 2018, that APTA’s structure did not include legally binding agreements between APTA and ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel and others, giving APTA effective control over the operational activities of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’.

My response needs to be based on a truthful appreciation of the industry, not as misrepresented to the Ombudsman by CASA. The plain and simple truth is that CASA ALWAYS approved more than one flying school to operate under a single CASA approval, with the single Authorisation Holder of the “master” school taking on full responsibility for both operations.

I did it myself at no charge on occasions for flying schools. When a regional flying school was unable to attract the required personnel to continue operations, I assisted with full CASA approval, to take on responsibility for those operations until they could resume operations on their own

Admittedly it used to be a lot easier. The respective school syllabi blended easier with probably only about 10% of the box ticking that is required nowadays, and I mean that. We used to regularly accept students from other schools. A one hour records assessment by me as the CFI would give me a pretty reasonable “handle” on a new student. That was in 2006. Less than 10 years later, that same student record transfer had become at least a 10 hour exercise with approximately 8 hours of that as an admin task at $40 an hour, and two hours at a more Senior level @ $100 an hour, and the same task becomes well in excess of a $500 task. When a flying schools hoping to make about $50 an hour, that’s a lot of flying to pay for that predominantly admin task. Its no wonder no smaller regional flying schools can continue.

The point is that CASA always and frequently approved this single authorisation, multiple base multiple entity approach. At this stage its not a discussion about the merits or not of it. Its just a truthful overview. Did CASA always know that this CASA approved structure was adopted by industry? Yes they did, and that was the case throughout my 25 years in the industry. CASA always knew this structure was adopted and CASA approved it, and

CASA never required contracts of any other Operator despite being fully aware that this structure was adopted throughout the industry. This was the case throughout my 25 years in the industry. This was a unique requirement placed on me. That alone makes me question the motivation.

CASA therefore have no records on file of any contracts required of any other Operator.

Also recall that as a courtesy, and as part of the process of I did provide multiple copies of our contact back in 2016. CASA initially denied this, but after I showed them the emails they concurred, and looked rather “awkward”. Had they have realised they had held the contracts for over two years, they may well have not sent that that ‘initial notification” of October 2018. A copy of the contract provided in 2016 is attached. Although it is fairly dry but the last few pages are the :”spirit of APTA”. This document was provided to the second in charge of CASA years earlier, as well as my CASA CMT. At any time I would have welcomed any changes CASA required. There was no resistance at all from me, in fact if it was really only about the wording in the contract the entire matter could have been fully resolved in a day. Regarding that contract provided to multiple CASA personnel in 2016, those last pages alone would have made CASA fully aware that they were dealing with a multi entity multi base single approval operation.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tdhss2mpf9t0oa...t.pdf?dl=0

Just to clarify, this entire matter is about his is the “commercial contracts”. Operational Matters are all contained within the CASA approved Exposition. CASA never suggested any changes at all to the way we operated, as there were no concerns against any quality outcomes, and no changes required of our Exposition.

CASA only wanted terminology in the commercial contracts, although they did not want to be a signatory to those commercial contracts. Rather bizarre, but nevertheless, CASA met no resistance from me. Why would they?

Understand that CASAs initial position was. “We are shutting you down, and placing immediate restrictions on your business. Your structure is illegal.”

My argument was “Ummm, no its not, could you lift the restrictions on my business.”

CASA refused to lift the restrictions for 8 months, until they decided. Yep, we still think its illegal.

CASA used the 8 months to play a game of “ping pong” over the contracts while keeping the trading restrictions in place, to achieve their original purpose.

Im very interested in others take on my perspective. No-one ever handed over any operational control, because they didn’t have it to hand over and they were fully aware of that. That is in fact the reason an aero club or similar would approach me. Without me, they have nothing. Wow, that sounds a bit self opinionated. Hopefully you get he gist of what I am saying. The aero club pulls beers, because that’s all they can do. They have Members with predominantly a recreational interest.

---

The contract at the link in your post does not give APTA any power of control over the operational activities of 'member' personnel.

If CASA has been 'approving' flying training (or any other operation) by a 'school' under an AOC held by someone who does not have legal power to control the activities of the personnel engaged in the flying training or other operations at the 'school', CASA is incompetent.

Once approval is granted for flying training to be conducted at 'club' X or 'base' X under APTA's AOC, 'club' X / 'base' X has everything. APTA is 'responsible' for flying training activities at 'club' X / 'base' X but has no control over them. If something goes wrong, CASA goes APTA, not the 'club' or 'base.

---

glenb

As it should be.

The legislation stipulate the Authorisation Holder and the Key Personnel. Every responsibility is already in the legislation for the Key personnel. There was never any intention by me to deflect any responsibility from where it rightfully belongs. With me and the Key Personnel.

MTF...P2