[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 27/04/23

Courtesy fury308, via the UP:

fury308

G’day Glen,

I don’t know you, but it seems we are about the same age, so there’s some common ground! I don’t have a dog in this fight, but wanted to send a message of support.

I’m somewhat concerned about your health and the toll this fight is taking on you and no doubt your family - so my question is - after I see that you recently mentioned the idea of giving up, why don’t you take the advice of so many here and lawyer up instead? Use the go fund me account to get started.

I say this because it seems to me that you are indeed a principled and decent person who, even if were guilty of what CASA suggest, has been unfairly treated in the extreme - that is, the punishment doesn’t fit the crime (if there were a crime).

It is admirable that you wish to pursue this fight in a gentlemanly way and give the people in power a chance to do the right thing - my opinion is, they won’t! They haven’t yet and they will not.

You have lost so much, to get to this point where you’re about to give in - without actually trying to go down the legal path, using a professional. So is it time to lawyer up? Let someone else do the heavy lifting.

The recent shutdown of the AOPA interview I thought was rather telling, if your opponents had nothing to fear, they’d have nothing to hide.

Could or should the focus of this thread change from fighting this as you have been, to; how to fight it using a professional in this field? Asking again from scratch, for the smart contributors to provide some options such as, media coverage, retired judges, witnesses, subpoenas or whatever else will get traction and then, have a lawyer do it. Perhaps a starting point could be to hire Lead Balloon for a few hours? LB is already familiar with the complexities of this case and could possibly come up with a legal recommendation of how to get focused on a path to force this matter to a conclusion. (sorry LB, I’m suggesting you and/or anyone else, as a starting point, that has the legal nous to give this matter the direction it needs)

For the record, I and I’m sure many others are always hopeful when you have posted previously because we revel in “the chance” that the next thing you do might just be it, but you’re running out of energy and willpower and rightly so after all you’ve been through.

Importantly, no disrespect here whatsoever when I use the words give up, give in, use a professional or change focus etc . Your persistence and effort to fight the way you have are inspirational and show clearly the decent person you are - if the opponents wish to fight in the mud, you generally need to join them - get a good lawyer.

I sincerely wish you all the best regardless of which way you go, but you’ve already paid a very high price to decide to walk now without having tried the one approach that may work?

…and I will contribute to the go fund me account, could somebody point me in the right direction please?

As an add on, I’d like to express my gratitude to the many contributors here who have no doubt spent lots of time and effort on various aspects of this matter - I can’t name everyone but Lead Balloon, Sunfish, Sandy Reith to name but a few…there are many others.

fury…

And in reply so far:

LAME2

I agree with fury. It’s time to take the next step.

---

vne165

Standing by to contribute if you decide to go get 'em Glen.
If you decide to, take the gloves off mate.

---

Valdiviano

I will contribute, you decide how to use it, fight them or a bit of wellbeing for you and family.

---

tossbag

Yes Glen, we're waiting to contribute. And I personally don't care how you use it either.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB - GO FUND ME campaign reawakens - 

Via the UP:

Sandy Reith

I’m in

Glen has been fighting for us all, I’m in too, no problem and in for a substantial amount as I’m sure many of us will gladly contribute because wrong should not stand, it’s our democracy and freedoms which are dependent on justice.

A substantial fighting fund will not only allow Glen to engage a legal representative but also may gain the attention of media and politicians.

There’s no doubt that Glen has been treated unjustly in an appalling manner by an out of control bureaucracy. Glen’s attempts to appeal to reason and fairness through the official means of complaint of both CASA and the Ombudsman, have demonstrated to us all that these avenues are for show only. They purport to be impartial routes to just out outcomes but in reality are all part of the make work justification to keep the salary factories of GI (Government Industries) busy and hoping that the taxpayer doesn’t notice the waste and incompetence.

Glen’s spirited appeals and carefully crafted submissions are all basis for what can come with a legal attack. Including showing that he’s tried to have his Parliamentary representatives take up his case, this is all groundwork so that no one can hide behind feigned ignorance of his case.

But one final point to Glen, any money that I donate has no strings, I’d like to see a you win legally but totally you and family welfare first if you decide otherwise.

---

Global Aviator

Sandy,

Very well said and I agree.

Finally got around to watching The Castle again the other night.

---

tossbag

Anyone who knows the backstory of Glen's fight is disgusted at the corruption inside that organisation. Sandy is correct, this affects anyone that operates under CASA's jurisdiction. Get onboard in any capacity you can.

---

kitchen bench

I’m a starter, too.
Has something been set up yet to which to contribute?
if not, when?

---

Squawk7700

Seems you found it Fury.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/glen-buckley-v-casa

Glen Buckley vs. CASA

Support Glen Buckley vs. CASA

Stop CASA's Bullying Now!

On the 23rd of October 2018, Glen Buckley, the ex-owner of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance  (APTA) was issued with a notice to cease all operations within 7 days by CASA. This unconscionable Administrative Action was never formally acted upon by CASA nor amplified by any supporting documentation.

CASA's actions was not taken on any safety concerns, and after 7 months, CASA still has been unable to state any specific breaches, although they have tried repeatedly to fabricate unsupported innuendo and avoid acknowledging the simple truth that they made a grave error in judgement. It would be fair to say CASA has thrown everything imaginable in an endeavour to bring harm to Glen's reputation, health, and his business activities. This has included false and deceptive verbal and written statements by CASA, the veracity of the CASA assertions are clearly unsupportable and need to be tested in a court of law.

Despite the length of the document, it demonstrates the inexcusable actions taken by CASA against Glen and his previous business; clearly denying him a scintilla of natural justice.

As of June 7th 2019, no progress has been made, with CASA hibernating and it's failure to resolve the dispute deplorable. The impact the CASA action has had on the business, and continues to have on it, is causing an escalating negative commercial effect; this has left Glen no choice but to sell a "core" part of his business in order for APTA to barely survive.

The purpose of this GoFundMe campaign is to assist Glen with his legal battle against the juggernaut CASA.  Its ongoing discrimination is reprehensible, a big Government Department grinding a Small Business Enterprise into oblivion! Glen, being the proud man that he is, would never ask for money from anyone, which is why we, his friends and colleagues, have banded together on his behalf to ask for your assistance.

CASA by its duplicity has financially ruined Glen and his family, causing the sale of his home and exhausting his savings; therefore any small or large donation to aid Glen's legal battle against CASA would be incredible.

Many of you may know Glen, and you would therefore understand the kind, compassionate, and generous man that he is. But now he needs our collective help, consequently, any assistance would mean the world to him.

The "David vs Goliath" story comes to mind when thinking of this case, and the more people who rally behind Glen, the greater the chances that he can stand up for all the little guys in the aviation industry.

Thank you all for your time, and I am sure Glen would be most appreciative and grateful for any moral or kind financial support you are willing to offer!

Remember the old adage, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Please help spread the word!

---

Global Aviator

Just a small donation to make sure it was correct, this is the email to confirm. Was great to see a few already beat me to the link!

Donation date: 1 May 2023 Donation to: Glen Buckley vs. CASA

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

Dead horses and the flogging thereof..

Sandy - “One only has to go back to the hopeful days of the Forsyth Report in 2014 where some 35 recommendations were adopted by Government but never carried through by CASA.”

Don't know how much 'true belief' there was back in 2014; even the 'hope' was akin to an aircrew going down on a 'wing and a prayer'. The last whispered words of a rapidly diminishing industry. The Rev Forsyth and the Senators did their jobs, very well indeed; but: my Tote ledger showed – clearly – that those who backed the real end result were spot on.

Sandy - “That review garnered 269 submissions from an excellent cross section of the GA community including submissions from most of the various aviation associations.” The next call for submissions came from Senator McDonald’s Parliamentary committee which decided to delve into the woes of GA, an inquiry to take two years which fizzled out with practically no result at the last change of government.”

McDonald was always on a 'hiding to nothing' – bet 20 to win one – for the new government to carry the inquiry further; 50/1 odds on it was never heard of again in any meaningful way; once again, history and my tote proved the pudding. There is also a significant, well documented history of Australian aviation administration agreeing to 'do something' after inquiry and international heavy weight conference. The record clearly and unequivocally shows 'agreement' – 'lip service' – then a swift visit to the shredder for the actual proposal while the actual intent is quietly buried alongside other 'great ideas'. The rest of the world march on, from strength to strength under gold standard regulation and sane management – while Australia remains firmly stuck in the same old mud.

The chances of the current parliamentary crowd actually doing 'anything' are in the remote possibility realms of 'odds on'. Even the statistics on the humble forum clearly define the complete lack of meaningful interest. Take a journey back to last Estimates or even check the difference between the Lacking 'reads' and the Chester or McCormack numbers. King is virtually an invisible, silent spectre at the banquet, relying on the three 'Useful Idiots' to keep the lid on the mess.

One has to admire the tenacity, determination and hope of the Australian industry. Whether or not meaningful change, in any format, will happen under the incumbent government is IMO a forlorn hope. The mandarins won't blink unless the minister nods; the CEO's will continue to wallow in clover unless the mandarins get weaving; and, those at the coal face will simply toddle along behind the (ahem) 'leadership' acting as directed and in full rice bowl protection mode.

“Ample evidence M'lud; unimpeachable fact; demonstrable decline, rule of law decimated – and yet this evidence is to be disallowed and dismissed? How is that democratic? How can a government be disconnected from and so completely disinterested in an essential revenue generating industry, with a clear conscience, and remove all hope of essential reform ?”

Toot – toot.  (E&OE) tempus and temper fugit.

[Kharon]

Back on the horse.


Sandy - “There’s no doubt that Glen has been treated unjustly in an appalling manner by an out of control bureaucracy. Glen’s attempts to appeal to reason and fairness through the official means of complaint of both CASA and the Ombudsman, have demonstrated to us all that these avenues are for show only. They purport to be impartial routes to just out outcomes but in reality are all part of the make work justification to keep the salary factories of GI (Government Industries) busy and hoping that the taxpayer doesn’t notice the waste and incompetence”.

Amen to that; and well done those who have kindly offered to donate to the legal battle which must be fought. That will indeed be a true David v Goliath battle and due consideration must be given to seriously mighty funds, talent and tactics the opposition can and will use; as demonstrated many times in the past. However, that is not a topic for today (it will keep). It is for Glen, the man himself which we must do some thinking.

Many have been savaged and thrown into a deep, dark pit by CASA; it is a tough road back from that beating. Yet that recovery must be made, it is essential, for all the right reasons. Fighting a heavy weight bout, in court, with an outfit like CASA demands your best game, best mental and physical balance along with the inner confidence to stand the test. In short you must be 'well'. Only my opinion of course, humbly offered a suggestion; but would it not be a good place for Glen to begin by getting back on the horse?

Perhaps some of the 'Go Fundme' money could be used to validate a pilot medical, reinstate licence and qualifications then return to industry even at a basic level – even in RA Oz as a flight instructor? I wonder if this might assist Glen to find his feet; return him to 'himself' fully grounded. Surely this would be a better option than stacking shelves at Woolies. Once that which was taken away has been regained; then you can stay or leave on your own terms; but return one must; that means a battle.

Mind you, CASA have a proven (demonstrable) track record of 'having a chat' with potential employers; this is an illegal activity although rarely, if ever challenged. So the battle for Glen to regain his dignity and return to the profession he chose will need some pretty solid support from not only a potential employer, but from the aviation community.

No offence to anyone intended, just putting a line of thought down, in words for discussion.   “IF” -

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
    And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
    And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
    To serve your turn long after they are gone,   
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
    Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

Courtesy Sandy (at large in the World) - 

Via the PAIN_Net emails:

Dear Dr. Carina Garland, 
 
In regard to your officer Jarrod Panther’s reply on your behalf to Glen Buckley, I request that you personally make yourself familiar with the salient features of his case.   
 
I support Glen’s pursuit of justice, he has had wrong treatment at the hands of CASA and its disgraceful treatment of him must be redressed. 
 
It is the duty of a Parliamentary representative to pursue the claim of a constituent. Otherwise why have single member constituent representatives? This is a fundamental element of our democratic system. 
 
I vigorously implore you to look again at an obvious injustice that has been perpetrated against Glen Buckley and his well crafted flying training organisation which assisted smaller flying schools and aero clubs to maintain their flying training abilities in the face of a new and far more complex environment of rules, compared to regulations and procedures than pertained in the past (and nothing like the workable system that applies in the USA). 
 
Without the involvement of MPs who are willing to step up and truly represent their constituents at an individual level we deny the basis of single member representatives and responsible government. 
 
Kind regards, and always ready to engage or answer your questions. 
 
Sandy Reith
Alexander Cran Reith 
55 Jones Road
Stonyford Vic 3260
0428 85 88 20

 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 16/05/23

Via the UP:

glenb

An update. Apologies for my absence


I'm sorry, I've been absent for a while. I have adopted a new time management strategy based on some expert advice, with the intention of preserving my mental health. I appreciate the boost to the Gofundme. I am immensely appreciative and emotionally buoyed, by it.

It should be entirely unnecessary. The industry should not have to fund an investigation into misconduct.

I know that I have been stubborn on this, and that it has frustrated many, but if I seriously have to litigate to demonstrate misconduct within the most senior levels of CASA, it is simply ludicrous.

Going forward, I am going to make videos, again on expert advice. They will take far less time, and i will be able to make my point far more clearly. My first one will be on here and will be to my Local Member expressing my concern as a 57 year resident of the Electorate, as to her response to me, which i posted on here recently.

This matter, simply will not go away, I will not let it, and i thank you all for your ongoing support.

Regarding the tell all piece that AOPA was bringing. My understanding is that it is postponed, not cancelled. Ben Morgan reached out to me last night and advised that he has been in contact with the person that was to partake. That individual does have some more important matters that need to be considered, and I fully respect that. I am in this for the long haul, I want CASA employees coming forward when they are comfortable and ready.

I need to be very clear on this. That individual is not out to "bash" CASA. He wants to raise serious concerns that have the potential to impact on the safety of aviation.in this Country. He is doing this with the very real likelihood, that a vindictive element may choose to bring harm to him, as they have to me. This individual, is not after grandstanding or becoming a celebrity, and Im sure he would remain anonymous if he could do so effectively. I have met with this individual on a couple of protracted occasions recently. He holds an enormous amount of firsthand knowledge on my matter, and his testimony and telling of the truth would be very important. If he chooses not to do it, I fully respect that. AOPAs challenge is to create that environment, and my hope is that it can be achieved, as I believe it will be. I believe there is significant desire within AOPA to expose this matter in its entirety.

Cheers. Glen.

---

And once again thank you Sandy

Dear Dr. Carina Garland,


In regard to your officer Jarrod Panther’s reply on your behalf to Glen Buckley, I request that you personally make yourself familiar with the salient features of his case.

I support Glen’s pursuit of justice, he has had wrong treatment at the hands of CASA and its disgraceful treatment of him must be redressed.

It is the duty of a Parliamentary representative to pursue the claim of a constituent. Otherwise why have single member constituent representatives? This is a fundamental element of our democratic system.

I vigorously implore you to look again at an obvious injustice that has been perpetrated against Glen Buckley and his well crafted flying training organisation which assisted smaller flying schools and aero clubs to maintain their flying training abilities in the face of a new and far more complex environment of rules, compared to regulations and procedures than pertained in the past (and nothing like the workable system that applies in the USA).

Without the involvement of MPs who are willing to step up and truly represent their constituents at an individual level we deny the basis of single member representatives and responsible government.

Kind regards, and always ready to engage or answer your questions.

Sandy Reith

---

And a letter from my wife

I only found about this letter from my wife. I need to paint the picture without getting too graphic I had reached the absolute limit, i really had. I had reached the rock bottom. The response from Ms Garland, was my tipping point. I felt so betrayed and let down by her in her role as my Local MP.

It was the final tipping point. My sisters literally saved my life and were able to get me to see one of Australia's leading Psychiatrists almost immediately in the city, early on a Saturday. I had two options. Follow his advice or go on a 6-month waiting list to find another psychiatrist. Within hours i was in a psych ward and remained there for over two weeks.

My wife has come home from work to find her husband had been whisked off. She was in total shock, as i had hidden it well.

I had met with Ms Garland previously, but unbeknown to me, my wife had organized her own meeting with Ms Garland. My wife is not a native English Speaker and was highly emotional. I have elected, with my wife's 51% consent, to publish this letter. This is not my wife, I have NEVER EVER heard her react to anything in a similar manner.

Dear Ms Garland,

I’m requesting to have meeting with you.

My husband Glen received email from you, and it was very disappointing and disgusting, the way you wrote to him. There was no explanation about why you can’t help with Glen’s issue. I heard about you saying to Glen during election that you can help. Glen believed you and spent so much time and money to distribute leaflets for you.

Glen has been hospitalised today because of this.

We might be nothing to you but we are good people always trying to help people. We deserve to get treated as human beings. All you people need is to treat people with respect like I was brought up in Japan.

I would like to have meeting with you and I would also like you to organise a meeting with CASA’s minister. My children would like to attend.

Before we move on, we need to understand why CASA bullied Glen, and destroyed his life completely.

If something happened to Glen, I will never ever forgive CASA. My children are old enough so I don’t mind ending up the rest of my life in jail.

I expect you to organise meeting with me ASAP. I work everyday for long hours and I only have Fridays at 1pm available.

Please reply with respect and treat us like human.

Kind Regards
Sonoko Buckley

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 28/05/23

Via the UP: 

A letter from Pip Spence


26/05/23

Dear Mr. Buckley

In my correspondence to you over the last 18 months I committed to meet with you to discuss the issues you have raised about CASAs oversight of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA) after the Ombudsman had finalized its review of your concerns.

CASA has now received the outcome of the Ombudsman ‘s review and I have had the opportunity to consider its findings. Overall, I consider the Ombudsman ‘s report confirms the position that I put to you previously, which is that;

• CASA ‘s October 2018 notice of intention to decline APTAs significant changes applications was not a decision to close APTA. and was a reasonable and appropriate action for CASA to take in the circumstances.
  
• CASA had required evidence of contracts with other operators as evidence of operational control before a request for contracts was made to APTA
  
• CASA’s request for contracts from APTA was supported by legislation and civil aviation regulation and was not unreasonable.
  
• CASA did not mislead the ombudsman ‘s office.
  

That said what is apparent is that CASA is yet to acknowledge the Industry Complaints Commissioners ((ICC) findings of 18th of July 2019. The ICC found that the timing of the change in CASA‘s regulatory approach in October 2018, and the manner in which it was communicated to APTA was likely to be unfair, even though the regulatory approach itself was appropriate and reasonable. The ICC also concluded that CASA had taken a different position about APTA business model without forewarning and, collectively, it was likely to have had sufficient information about APTAs, business and operational model prior to October 2018 to form a position about it’s compliance with regulation.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the ICCs findings on these issues and to set out CASA, accepts those conclusions Reflecting on those findings on behalf of CASA. I would like to extend our apologies for the timing and manner of CASA ‘s correspondence of 23 October 2018, that APTAS significant change application may not be approved. I accept that it was likely that you had relied on information from CASA on temporary bases in developing APTAs processes, and CASA change of position on these issues would’ve been unexpected and unsettling. It is apparent that with the benefit of hindsight, once CASA and identified the issues with the proposed model we could and should’ve taken a more collaborative approach in working through these issues with you earlier than we did.

In light of the significant concerns you have raised with me, I did want to confirm that while the ICC concluded in 2019 "that it was likely that CASA collectively was likely to have had sufficient information about APTA‘s business and operational model prior to October 2018 to form a position about its compliance with regulation", neither the ICC nor the Ombudsman concluded that Dr Jonathan Aleck had any involvement in the oversight of APTA prior to 23 October 2018.

Please let my office know a suitable time to discuss your concerns and I will make the necessary arrangements.

Yours sincerely Pip Spence

Sandy, Sunfish et.al in reply...

joe_bloggs

Jeez Glen. I hope this is that crack in the dam wall we have all been waiting on.

”I would like to extend our apologies for the timing and manner of CASA ‘s correspondence of 23 October 2018, …It is apparent that with the benefit of hindsight, once CASA and identified the issues with the proposed model we could and should’ve taken a more collaborative approach in working through these issues with you earlier than we did”

Perhaps time to have a discussion with your legal folks.

I have a big smile on my face!

---

glenb

Cheers Joe

I must say, I am somewhat encouraged, but the CASA beast is a crafty devil. Working on my next maneuver.

---

Sandy Reith

The damn wall definitely has a crack in it.

“taken a more collaborative approach in working through these issues with you earlier than we did.”

I think that is a lie.

I would be asking “what collaborative approach” are you referring to?

Ms Spence is trying to limit the damage which is evident to anyone with knowledge of the basic facts.

At any rate such admission, shockingly late admission, is welcome, but only the beginning of the start. Will she be able to find the courage to deal with this horrendous miscarriage of justice and begin to restore some semblance of respect for CASA?

Hope springs eternal but at least a legal challenge must surely have more legs with Ms. Spence’s admission.

CASA may think it has an academic point about the chain of responsibility as an excuse for its devastating reversal but in real life there was nothing in APTA’s model that was fundamentally wrong in practice.

Then look at the flying schools in the USA where individual instructors can teach flying either solely or in business groups without Part 141 or 142 approvals.

Never forget the big picture of CASA’s control freak mentality and the colossal damage it’s done to General Aviation in Australia. Damage that has implications for our aviation strength as a Nation including our readiness from a security point of view because aerial mobility is a crucial factor in the defence of Australia.

---

LAME2

crafty devil

I agree. I would get legal interpretation on her language. I still think this case will only be resolved in the courts. There are”weasel words” being used to play down their responsibilities to your situation.

---

Sunfish

Sorry for shouting but: DO NOT ANSWER THAT LETTER WITHOUT LEGAL ADVICE because in my opinion, it misrepresents and trivialises CASAs bad behaviour and by not challenging each and every assertion in it you are accepting their version of events. Your letter in reply needs to start with “Without Prejudice “ I think, but I am not a lawyer.

Given the assertion made, it’s going to be a long reply…... More to follow. Sandy is right.

+

Repeat after me :

In loving memory of David Wells, Senior Partner in Mallesons

IN GOOD FAITH

- fairness

- honesty

- reasonableness

-not undermining the contractual objectives

-not acting arbitrarily or capriciously

-having regard to the interests of the other party, without having to subordinate one’s own interests to the interests of the other.

CASA's actions towards Buckley and APTA from 23 October were not in good faith.

CASA has now received the outcome of the Ombudsman ‘s review and I have had the opportunity to consider its findings. Overall, I consider the Ombudsman ‘s report confirms the position that I put to you previously, which is that;

• CASA ‘s October 2018 notice of intention to decline APTAs significant changes applications was not a decision to close APTA. and was a reasonable and appropriate action for CASA to take in the circumstances.
  

Comment: This is bullshit. It effectively closed APTA. As It was not a decision it could not be appealed. What "circumstances"? It represented a complete 180 degree change of CASAs attitude to APTA OVERNIGHT WITH NO REASONS GIVEN. Given that this matter had nothing to do with safety and considering both the known effect and magnitude of this change it is reasonable to expect firstly a detailed explanation of the reason for this policy change, followed by good faith negotiations by both parties to accommodate the changes. Buckley tried CASA didn't. Even if there was a legislative impediment, I would have thought an exemption was not out of the question. No good faith.

CASA's actions towards Buckley and APTA from 23 October were not in good faith.

• CASA had required evidence of contracts with other operators as evidence of operational control before a request for contracts was made to APTA
  
• CASA’s request for contracts from APTA was supported by legislation and civil aviation regulation and was not unreasonable.
  

Yes, contracts were provided. That isn't the issue. CASA refused to specify the nature of the defect and specify a remedy in the contracts supplied - no good faith.
CASA did not mislead the ombudsman ‘s office.
?????

+

I accept that it was likely that you had relied on information from CASA on temporary bases in developing APTAs processes, and CASA change of position on these issues would’ve been unexpected and unsettling.

Why did CASA change its position? Is CASA allowed to take positions? I thought the regulations spelled out the requirements?

---

Sandy Reith

Requirements and regulations

Sunfish …”Why did CASA change its position? Is CASA allowed to take positions? I thought the regulations spelled out the requirements?”

Exactly. And what about “operational control?”

Who is in control in a teaching environment? Obviously we have regulatory standards and then we have the PIC and the judgement of a testing Officer because we are talking about teaching someone to fly.

CASA have persuaded Parliament to inappropriately migrate virtually all the rules into the criminal code, how many more layers of “operational control” do you need?

If it wasn’t for the horrendous consequences, in the first instance to Glen Buckley, his family and APTA employees and associated parties, you could describe the CASA play book as farcical. In the second instance the whole of GA, which includes thousands of people, aircraft owners, maintainers, suppliers and all of the economic generating activities and services, continues to suffer untold losses.

And safety, what a joke, zero encouragement to those of us who could contribute to flying training and GA activity are dissuaded at every turn, be it a completely unreal medical certification process or the mountain of super expensive time consuming and useless paperwork and the waste of the ASIC to boot.

Not one word do we hear from the CASA Board to Government about the loss of critical airport infrastructure, loss of flying schools or questioning the ASIC or loss of maintenance personnel. The Board is an irresponsible and costly irrelevance and should be disbanded.

---

Sunfish

I appreciate that this didn’t happen on Spence or the current Boards watch, but Why did CASA go to extraordinary lengths to close down APTA - a high quality operator and hound its founder, Glen Buckley, out of the industry, while turning a blind eye to the perhaps criminal behaviour of a sleazy, unsafe, fraudulent flight training school called SOAR?

Hundreds of students who trained at collapsed flight school Soar are set to receive a five-figure payout after agreeing to a $33 million settlement.

Soar collapsed into administration on 29 December 2020, but it was already indirectly facing a class action from students arguing its standards were so poor it didn’t meet the subsequent requirements to obtain a pilot licence.

The payout means many former students will now be able to enrol in new courses and qualifications after having used up their limited student loans.

The case was brought by Gordon Legal against Melbourne TAFE provider Box Hill Institute (BHI) –students studied the theory element of their diploma of aviation at BHI but undertook the practical flying elements at Soar………

………

More seriously, the ATSB is also investigating an incident that saw a Soar Aviation instructor and student die when one of its Aquila AT01s crashed in NSW in 2020.

More recently, in a separate incident, the ATSB in May 2021 said a Soar Aviation student pilot who crashed his Bristell aircraft and suffered serious head injuries didn’t have permission to conduct the flight solo.

However, the report revealed the trainee believed he did have authorisation, despite clearly not following the correct procedures.

https://australianaviation.com.au/2022/10/33m-payout-for-students-at-collapsed-flight-school-soar/

---

Sandy Reith

The Board of CASA

“I appreciate that this didn’t happen on Spence or the current Boards watch,..,”

True, but the “sins of the fathers are visited on their offspring (read successors)” and in this case by full measure because CASA is a corporate entity. It was quite deliberately created as such by Parliament. There will be no hiding from its hideous misdeeds by pretending that it was someone else, and so far thankfully we are not hearing that argument.

Truth be we hear nothing of value whatsoever from the Board and it has had every opportunity to converse with Glen Buckley and find an equitable redress for Glen Buckley.

---

MalcolmReynolds

Glen, definitely engage some lawyers before answering that letter. Since it is all happening in Melbourne, the "Vibe of it" demands a QC (now I guess a KC). Pity Lawrence Hammil QC isn't available (Bud Tingwell). However it is time to get serious about nailing these bastards at CASA to the wall! As Jack said in that same movie..."yeah Fark 'em!" ?

Talking of 'crafty devil', I note that Pup_Spence timed the sending of that correspondence for 3 days after she appeared at Budget Estimates...  

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

Ms. Pip Spence has at least displayed a pang of conscience in regard to the CASA wrecking of Glen Buckley.

Unfortunately she is being led up the garden path by her underlings who are deluging her her with unsolvable complexities arranged by the likes of the Mad Hatter whose web of impossible regulations are admirably contorted beyond any reason. 

But who gave her the knowledge of Cape island ops when she directly contradicted that Caravans had been operating there for (only) 20 years? In reality 30 years, was that misinformation a deliberate plant?

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 6/06/23

Via the AP emails:

04/06/2023

Dear Ms Spence,

Thank you for the letter, dated 25 May 2023, extending the invitation to meet with my wife and I, to discuss the profound and harmful impact CASA’s actions have had, and continue to have, on us and the mental burden we carry for all the persons impacted so unnecessarily by this, including many valued and loyal staff, customers, suppliers, and students who depended on us.

I believe that the meeting would be protracted and take up to 4 hours to attend to the matter in its entirety, and to minimise any ongoing ‘ping pong’ subsequent to the meeting, which obviously best serves both our interests.

We fully appreciate that you will have existing commitments, but our preference would be to delay the meeting until your schedule would accommodate a meeting of 4 hours’ duration. I do not anticipate that it would exceed 4 hours, but I do believe it will consume the majority of the 4 hours. The allegations and the associated impacts are significant as you will appreciate.

As you may be aware, the industry initiated a crowdfunding page to assist me in this matter and those funds could be used to facilitate travel for my wife and I to Canberra, noting that may be your more preferred venue, although obviously a meeting in Melbourne is an option. I will leave the determination of time and venue to you. My wife and I will accommodate any preferred option provided we can have 14 days’ notice.

Once you have the opportunity to determine a suitable date and venue, could you also please advise me of any other attendees that you anticipate joining us on the day. At this stage, my intention is that only my wife and I attend. As a request, could I ask that the Chair of the CASA Board, or his nominee also be present, and I have forwarded this correspondence to the CASA Board. I feel there should be an awareness at Board level, although I will respect your determination on this matter.

I initially intended to provide the fairly brief response to your letter. However, I feel compelled to address some of the statements made in it. By allowing those statements to go “unchecked” in written correspondence, it may incorrectly suggest that I accept those statements when clearly my wife and I, do not.

CASA’s 23 October 2018 letter and restrictions was sent on the pretext that CASA had suddenly become aware of some new and important information about the arrangements between APTA, its alliance members and the individuals and aircraft utilised in flying training operations.

In fact, as has been proven, the truth is that CASA was fully aware of the fine detail of those arrangements and worked ‘side-by-side’ with APTA, for a very long time, assessing them against regulatory requirements for exactly the purpose of providing a “single AOC, multi base, multi entity, approach to flight training using personnel that were not necessarily my employees, and, ultimately, recertifying them to the new legislation in April of 2017. The suggestion in your 25 May 2023 letter to the effect that CASA somehow did not know about or was not on notice of those arrangements until some sudden revelation sometime in 2018 is simply wrong in fact.

I ask that you consider the obvious possibility that the ‘the right hand didn’t know what the left hand was doing’ in CASA, and that it is neither appropriate nor reasonable for CASA to expect an ‘outsider’ like APTA and my family to bear the brunt of the capricious consequences of internal CASA dysfunction and disagreement.

I also ask you to consider that the motivation may have been more “sinister” than the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing. It is possible that a CASA employee or small group of CASA Executives may have been deliberately prolonging a resolution, to in fact cause maximum commercial harm to me personally.

I believe that it is worth reiterating our perspective prior to the meeting to ensure that the meeting can be as effective as possible because me must arrive at the truth.

Regarding your first dot point. ‘CASAs October 2018 notice of intention to decline APTAs significant changes applications was not a decision to close APTA. and was a reasonable and appropriate action for CASA to take in the circumstances”.

I must clarify this. The notification of intention to decline APTA’s significant change applications for the addition of further bases in CASA’s letter dated 23 October 2018 which you refer to in your correspondence, was not, of itself, the issue which caused so much harm.

Admittedly that alone was concerning, particularly in light of the fact that CASA had approved multiple bases for me over the previous decade, as well as for many other flight training organisations across Australia, in what was an identical proposal. The complete reversal was totally unexpected, and unjustified, and more concerning because it was directed at my business only, and not others against all precedent.

Most of the harm however was caused by the surrounding restrictions placed on the business by CASA and the unjustifiably long duration that those restrictions remained in place. CASA was fully aware of the commercial impact of the trading restrictions, because I notified CASA in writing on multiple occasions of the impact

These CASA imposed trading restrictions remained in place for eight months, costing me and my family well in excess of $10,000 to $15,000 every week they were in place to avoid staff redundancies, and to meet staff salaries. Throughout the 8 months I had no avenue of appeal against those restrictions. I was completely at the mercy of a CASA employees opinion.

The business was allowed to continue operating in the short term based on CASA issuing a number of subsequent “interim approvals” to allow me to continue operating. These short-term interim approvals were as short as 24 hours, but never longer than 90 days.

These “interim approvals” impacted significantly and immediately on the business by preventing APTA taking on new members, and the previously CASA approved bases unable to enrol new students into courses, past the expiry date of the CASA interim approvals. This effectively prevented the business taking on any new customers, as most courses were of 18 months duration. A course of 18 months obviously being far in excess of the duration of the interim approvals on the business that CASA had imposed. Please understand that as a Registered Training Organisation (RTO), these restrictions impacted significantly, and unnecessarily on the organisation.

For clarity, CASA placed restrictions on APTA’s business in its entirety. The entire business was given only seven days’ certainty of operation. This was much much more than a proposed notice to reject two significant change applications.

CASA advised that all previously approved bases were now determined to be “unauthorised” despite the fact that they had been operating for, in some cases, as long as a decade, and all of those operations had been assessed and certified by CASA previously against regulatory requirements applicable to APTA as the sole AOC holder.

CASA even included Melbourne Flight Training in its list of “unauthorised operations”, even though Melbourne Flight Training was always, and remained the original APTA flying school covered by APTA’s original AOC. Melbourne Flight Training was merely the name of the entity whose name changed to APTA. I hope that this can be explained to me at our meeting.

Additionally, as you are aware CASA placed an administrative “freeze” on processing any regulatory tasks for the business in its entirety. These included upgrading of CASA required Key Personnel, not processing requests for courses waiting to be added, and refusal to process applications for new flight simulators that were essential to course delivery. This “Administrative Freeze was placed on the business in its entirety.

Additionally in that correspondence from CASA in October 2018, I was threatened with prosecution because, according to CASA, APTA had facilitated operations in contravention of regulatory requirements. CASA also wrote to APTA’s customers and advised them that APTA was operating unlawfully, and that they could also be subject to prosecution. All of this, and yet I had no right of appeal.

If there were any safety concerns, CASA would have adopted a different approach. The approach adopted by CASA was most certainly the approach that caused the most commercial harm and reputational harm to my family and our business, while achieving absolutely no safety benefit. If it were a safety concern that was driving CASAs actions, CASA should have prevented all flying operations, instead CASA restricted new members and students enrolling, but permitted existing students and bases to continue trading albeit under short term interim approvals. The safety issue or concern, if they existed cannot have been significant if existing customers and students were permitted to remain in the short term.

The restrictions were harmful, and entirely unnecessary and CASA was not compelled to take that course of action. Restrictions that I believe were placed unlawfully on the business, and could have and should been lifted at any time, This single action would have allowed me to return somewhat, to business as usual.

Consider also the reputational harm caused to the business when the industry becomes aware that CASA has imposed the most substantive restrictions placed on any flying school ever. Reputationally a decade of developing an industry leading reputation of safety and compliance is destroyed.

For many years I have led industry to believe that I am fully CASA approved, as I was. I have taken on many additional bases with full CASA approval over the previous decade. Many have seen me do it successfully during that decade, and they have placed their trust and confidence in me. Suddenly, after a decade of operations and with no concerns having ever been raised CASA advises me that the entire structure, I had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in, and three years of working side by side with CASA to meet the new regulatory procedures and is approved for that very specific purpose. It has been redesigned with CASA for the new regulations, fully approved to the new regulations, yet is declared unlawful less than two months after those regulations are introduced.

So, although CASA’s 23 October 2018 letter was not technically a decision to close APTA, the practical consequences of CASA’s surrounding actions effectively crushed the financial and reputational viability of the business and sent me broke including the loss of my family home, along with three hundred thousand dollars contributed by my parents to maintain staff salaries and prevent redundancies during the eight months that the trading restrictions are in place.

I urge you to read that original notification of October 2018. It was the initial contact, it advised that the entire business was operating unlawfully, had 7 days to operate, and me and my members were potentially subject to prosecution, and all bases including mine was now determined to be “unauthorised”. This notification and subsequent approach by CASA were much much more than a proposal to reject the most recent application to add two new bases. It was effectively notifying that my business of ten years would not be permitted to continue operating.

Regarding dot point two.

“CASA had required evidence of contracts with other operators as evidence of operational control before a request for contracts was made to APTA”.

That statement is misleading, and I feel compelled to address it. The truth is that CASA never required evidence of contracts from other flight training operators.

I have confirmed this with operators that had been doing exactly what I was doing over the previous 25 years. All advise me that CASA was not involved in commercial contracts at all within the flight training environment, and never required commercial contracts from them.

On this matter, I believe that CASA has provided false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation. I believe that you have also been misled Ms Spence.

On this matter, I intend to make an FOI request for any existing commercial contracts that CASA has required of any operator, where the operator has had to outline matters of operational control within a commercial contract which CASA is not a signatory to.

This is fundamental. Matters of operational control are specified in the CASA approved Operations /Exposition that CASA has control over.

Matters of operational control are not specified in “commercial contracts” because CASA is not a party to those commercial contracts.

The significance of this is that the Exposition is the Master CASA approved document specifying matters of operational control.

A “commercial contract is not.

The content of that commercial contract can replicate the CASA approved procedures within the Exposition, but it cannot be the primary source location to stipulate those procedures of operational control. Not without the changes going into the Exposition first.

Pending the release of my FOI request, this is something that you may choose to initiate from within your office.

The significance of this matter is that every single piece of legislation and all additional considerations for this exact operating structure that I had adopted for a decade were already fully contained within the CASA approved Exposition. The truth is that there were no deficiencies. My hope is that prior to our meeting you can discuss with the CASA Executive Management that were involved in my matter, and very clearly and specifically identify what procedures were deficient or absent in the CASA approved Exposition, that CASA wanted to address in the commercial contracts, and not in the Exposition.

It would be ideal if you could present me with some scenarios that CASA feels had not been considered or attended to.

Furthermore, the statement, “before a request for contracts was made to APTA” does not accurately represent the situation. It suggests that I did not have contracts and that CASA made a request for contracts.

The truth is that despite there being no previous requirement from CASA on any operators operating in the same structure that I adopted, to provide commercial contracts, I had supplied them to CASA on multiple occasions over the previous years to CASA as a courtesy. Until now, CASA showed little interest, as they were “commercial contracts”

By legislation those matters of operational control, safety etc must be contained within the Operations Manual/Exposition as ours were. I have spoken to other Operators that adopted the same model as mine and they assure me that CASA never require contracts. I can see that this may be a point of contention, and prior to our meeting I will make a FOI request for the contracts that CASA has advised the Ombudsman’s office that they held, so that we can clarify this matter on the day.

It was APTA that initiated the commercial contracts years prior, and I had provided them to CASA as a courtesy. There was never any objection from me to fully resolve the contract issue. The issue was that CASA was unable to provide me the requirements that they wanted in the contract.

Please note that on 30 April 2019, with the crippling trading restrictions in place for 6 months, CASA informed me that CASA had only now issued instructions to external legal service providers for the provision of ‘model clauses’ for contractual arrangements that would meet the minimum regulatory requirements imposed by CASA. Up until that point, CASA was effectively demanding that APTA guess what words CASA wanted to read in contracts in order to satisfy CASA. Recall that EVERYTHING was already attended to in the CASA approved Exposition, and perhaps that is something you can clarify at our meeting.

Unfortunately, by the point at which CASA finally took an ‘appropriate and reasonable’ approach to its contract clauses demand, I was exhausted financially, physically and mentally. I could not bear the prospect of CASA coming up with yet another and different “appropriate and reasonable” “regulatory approach” at it did shortly afterward when CASA determined that all personnel operating under the AOC MUST also be employees, which very clearly has no basis in law, and CASA have no requirement in the legislation that anyone be an” employee”. The very plain and simple truth is that no-one must be an employee, and that includes all positions including instructors, CEOs, Head of operations, safety Manager etc. No-one.

Regarding dot point three.

“Request for contracts from APTA was supported by legislation and civil aviation regulation and was not unreasonable.”



On this point it is very important that there be a very clear distinction between the what the CASA Exposition is, and what it contains as per the regulations, as mine did, and what a commercial contract is.



I maintain that there is no legislation at all that suggests or requires that matters of operational control are contained within a commercial contract.



As somebody who has operated within the flight training environment for over 25 years, that requirement is as bizarre, as it is absurd.



May I respectfully request that at that meeting you are able to direct me to the legislation that you refer to.

Regarding dot point four.

“CASA did not mislead the ombudsman ‘s office.”

Until now I have steadfastly maintained that Mr Aleck has been responsible for providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation. In recent correspondence you suggested that it was in fact the CASA ICC that was responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman’s Office. I hope that at the meeting we can clarify who, and what stage, which personnel or CASA Departments were responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman’s Office investigation.

At this point I will say this: If, as you say, the “regulatory approach” that CASA took after 2018 was “appropriate and reasonable”, that “regulatory approach” should have been taken by CASA during the processes through which CASA worked ‘side-by-side’ with APTA and certified all of that which CASA subsequently determined to be “unauthorised”. If CASA had done that a decade prior when we opened our first base or during 2016, 2017, and 2018 as I redesigned APTA with CASA to meet the new regulatory structure, it would have become clear that CASA was not going to permit me to continue adopting the structure that I had been using over the previous decade.

Had CASA not encouraged me to develop APTA, and revalidated APTA 18 months prior, and if I was made aware that the process was at substantial risk of turning into a complex and expensive regulatory nightmare, I would have abandoned the concept and my family and I would not have lost all that we have lost.

Instead, I was encouraged by CASA to believe the concept and the arrangements APTA put in place complied with regulatory requirements, without any mention of the “regulatory approach” you say was “appropriate and reasonable”.

Regarding your characterisation of CASA’s 23 October 2018 letter as “unexpected and unsettling”, please note that the letter effectively said that all that I had built, that all of the blood, sweat and tears I had shed, that all of the money invested by my family and I, that all of the work done with and by CASA to get it all certified, was all for nought. And I was a criminal.

A much-higher-than-expected electricity bill is “unexpected and unsettling”, Ms Spence. Losing an entire life’s work is devastating. That devastation has been wrought on my family and me. Your characterisation seemed quite trivialising, and it led my wife to insisting she participate in this meeting as one of the persons most affected by CASA’s actions.

These are all matters that we can discuss in greater detail at a professional and well-intentioned meeting.

I should point out that I have a YouTube broadcast on this subject going to air next Tuesday (6 June 2023) evening. Whilst I certainly don’t expect you to watch that live presentation, I will arrange for a link to be sent to your Office, and may I respectfully request that you view that prior to our meeting.

Ms. Spence, please be assured that I am not trying to be combative. But CASA has delayed properly remedying the injustice done to my family and me for too long, and we have paid a very high price for that delay, not only financially but mentally and physically. My wife and I hope that you will come to the meeting with a concrete proposal to bring that delay and associated suffering and trauma to an end, and ensuring that no other General Aviation Business is ever subjected to such treatment again. We look forward to the meeting.

At that meeting and to ensure we can both "cover as much ground as practical", may I respectfully request that you have access to the following documents, and similarly please advise if you have any suggestions or requirements of me.

• CASAs Regulatory Philosophy
• Copy of the initial notification sent to me. October 2018.
• CASA Regulatory Enforcement Manual
• Aviation Ruling
• CARs
For your information and as possible resources to review prior to our meeting, I draw your attention to the Crowd Fundraising page. Not so much for the monetary value of it, but the accompanying comments are revealing of this entire matter and demonstrate the widespread industry concern of this matter in its entirety. Admittedly many of the supporters are individuals I have engaged with whilst I worked in General Aviation, but many of the supporters are anonymous, and may not be personally known to me. Fundraiser for Glen Buckley by Cale Johnston : Glen Buckley vs. CASA (gofundme.com)

You will also be aware that I have restricted the discussion of this matter to two discrete pilot forums, rather than wider social media. Those two forums being Aunty Pru and PPRuNe. The PPRuNe thread on this matter has attracted well over 1,000,000 views and thousands of revealing comments by concerned industry participants, and a link to that thread can be accessed here. I appreciate that it is easy to be dismissive of such forums, but I sincerely believe that the associated comments by industry professionals must be considered in the wider context of this matter. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums

If I may finish with this request. I asked my wife what a “blue sky” would look like. She wanted two things.

She wanted to walk out of our meeting knowing very clearly what it was that her husband did wrong because like I, she simply cannot understand “what I did wrong”. You will appreciate the connotations that surround a person having their aviation business closed down by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and we would like that clearly identified to us.

Secondly, my wife, like me, would like to obtain a full understanding as to why this entire matter occurred. Why couldn’t it have been fully resolved prior to CASA placing any restrictions at all on the business. Specifically, she would like someone to explain why this whole matter in its absolute entirety could not have been avoided by a well-intentioned discussion of less than 4 hours.

Again, I thank you for providing this opportunity, we appreciate the opportunity you have provided, and we look forward to a professional, respectful, and productive meeting at your earliest practical convenience. I hope that this correspondence has demonstrated the requirement for the meeting to be somewhat protracted.

Yours sincerely

Glen Buckley

And via the UP: https://www.pprune.org/11446407-post2632.html

[url=https://www.pprune.org/11446407-post2632.html][/url]

glenb

Global Aviator
You are correct, there is no safety case at all or any deficiency ever identified by CASA, and that is what makes this entire matter so outrageous.

The only single argument that CASA put to me was that all personnel operating under my AOC needed to be my employees. It was made to clear to me that if I made them all my employees, there would be no concerns. That was the solution.

That is not what APTA was designed for. It was designed for 10 entities to join my approval to operate to one set of procedures, and in all matters regarding regulatory and safety, it was the one organization.

It is that structure that CASA determined to be unlawful in my organization despite it being completely standard CASA approved practice, throughout my 25 years in the industry.

CASA have craftily confirmed there position that CASA must be satisfied. This was different. This was CASA becoming unsatisfied, but with no explanation.

Every single comprehensive procedure was attended to in our CASA approved Exposition. We were not new to this; we had been doing it successfully for a decade. There were no identified quality issues. If so they would have been initiated through a process.

This was a totally unexpected notification, with no prior warning whatsoever. It was a legal determination from Mr Aleck, or someone within his department.

CASA were fully satisfied with every procedure that i had written, they had peer reviewed, approved, and audited on multiple occasions.

It is all so totally unnecessary. It was not a quality control issue.

CASAs argument was that you cannot have operational control over someone who is not also an employee. Obviously i disagrree.

Highly appreciative of your involvement and support. Cheers. Glen

---

glenb

Getting a lawyer

Wow folks, ive got everyone in my ear to get a lawyer, and I trully do ": get it".

I know that is the next step if it cannot be avoided.

It's a bit of a personal thing. The engagement of lawyers is the end of "good intent". The entire process moves to one of combat and no goodwill. My hope is that I can exhaust every single option that is available to me. Being let down by Local MP was indeed a big blow, but not all options are exhausted. There is the option of an Act of Grace Payment which may be an option to undo some of the harm caused.

Ms. Spences response regarding "attendees" from CASA will be very revealing and set the tone of that meeting. If lawyers are attending, then I will have lawyers, please be assured of that.
Ms Spence may choose to have Mr. Aleck present, but if that is the case I will have to clarify if he is present as one of the CASA employees i have made allegations against, of if he is present as legal counsel.

The nature of my allegations is substantial. Either way someone deserves to be held accountable.

Either one or more CASA employees have acted unlawfully, or I have. I have made many public allegations against Members of CASA senior executive. If my allegations are false, vindictive and vexatious, those CASA employees should initiate some legal action against me.

I was considering writing to Ms Garland my local MP, i note that Minister King has directed Ms Garland not to assist me in this matter. I am considering bypassing the Minister and writing to the PM directly requesting that a nominee from his department attend, as my allegations of misconduct are creeping into his MPs and Ministers. There can be no doubt that they are trying to cover up this matter. My correspondence and requests for meeting goes totally unacknowledged.

As a total aside, I'm sitting here in a 24-hour pancake parlor drinking far too much coffee.

Considering that the Ombudsman conducted a four-year investigation and found nothing at all wrong with the way CASA acted and no suggestions to any systematic improvements, Ms Spence would possibly not have met with me.

The only one that has found any potential "issues" is in fact the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner. A man I have had the good fortune to engage with on a number of occasions. While the ICC does come under criticism for its structure, the incumbent is exceptional. Not because he agreed with me on some issues, but because he is a man of integrity, and good intention..

In recent correspondence Ms Spence suggested that the ICC had been responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman. I do not believe that to be true, and that is not what I was informed by the Ombudsman's office.

Very clearly i want to restate that I do not believe that Mr Hanton, the CASA ICC would ever provide false and/or misleading information to the ombudsman. I believe that Ms Spence is attempting to bring additional credibility to CASA regarding the information that they provided.

---

Sandy Reith

Operational control

Quote Glen:- “CASAs argument was that you cannot have operational control over someone who is not also an employee.”

This is a nonsense argument by CASA, it’s plain that to be a member of APTA the business must follow the APTA procedures, procedures that the business is paying to have in place.

But much stronger still is the fact that CASA has an arsenal of highly detailed rules. Rules that it inappropriately persuaded Parliament to migrate practically the lot (mostly were misdemeanours) into the criminal code.

Some of our ‘criminal acts’ don’t even get a mention at all in the USA, and where any instructor, or group of instructors, may teach without any form of Part 141/142 AOC type permission.

How much more control do you need? And what is the point of it? Training is statistically about the safest type of GA flying, and it’s the resulting standard by testing that’s the real issue.

One could liken Glen’s APTA organisation to gaining a Council building permit and the follow up by the building inspector. The owner and builder and sub contractors don’t have to be Council employees.

To satisfy CASA perhaps a real time surveillance camera and two way communication with a CASA ‘expert’ throughout every flight? Talk about control freaks, they have no bounds.

CASA is out of control, the Board and senior management have shown that they are incompetent and irresponsible.

The Board has buried its head in the sand and is incapable of facing the truth of their failure to rein in the Iron Ring or stop the colossal damage inflicted by CASA on GA as a whole.

As for Ms. Spence she has one chance left to make recompense and save her reputation by meeting with the Buckleys and quickly acting to compensate, then reset CASA and cauterise where necessary.

Highly unlikely that good, but worth a shot, good luck Glen.

Finally tonight GlenB will be featuring with Clinton Mckenzie, via Youtube :

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

WELL DONE Clinton and GlenB - WELL DONE indeed!... 

Via YouTube:

Despite the small glitch at the start, this video should be essential viewing for all those individuals and businesses reliant on the Australian aviation industry for an income - choc frogs are in the mail...  

Sandy's comment in response...  

Via the UP:

The video

Thanks to both Glen and Clinton, you have clarified the issues and exposed the inexcusable manner of CASA’s extraordinary course of injustice towards Glen Buckley, his family and all those myriad others who have been wrongly impacted.

Glen mentioned holding off on the GoFundMe until we know the result of his meeting with Ms. Spence. I say pile in whatever you can afford, and think in $hundreds or $thousands because Glen deserves every support possible.

What might be canvassed in a future video is how CASA prevented Glen from working as a pilot for another operator after they shut him down for no good reason. What has happened here couldn’t be worse than your most severe nightmare that waking doesn’t stop.

And it bares repeating that justice for Glen Buckley is extremely important for all of General Aviation, not to mention fair dealing by all government instrumentalities.

Reference 'The Letter' (23 October 2018): David Jones PDF 







Much MTF! - P2 

[Peetwo]

WELL DONE Clinton and GlenB - WELL DONE indeed!... 

Via YouTube, edited version (Cheers CM -  ):

Despite the small glitch at the start, this video should be essential viewing for all those individuals and businesses reliant on the Australian aviation industry for an income - choc frogs are in the mail...  

Sandy's comment in response...  

Via the UP:

The video

Thanks to both Glen and Clinton, you have clarified the issues and exposed the inexcusable manner of CASA’s extraordinary course of injustice towards Glen Buckley, his family and all those myriad others who have been wrongly impacted.

Glen mentioned holding off on the GoFundMe until we know the result of his meeting with Ms. Spence. I say pile in whatever you can afford, and think in $hundreds or $thousands because Glen deserves every support possible.

What might be canvassed in a future video is how CASA prevented Glen from working as a pilot for another operator after they shut him down for no good reason. What has happened here couldn’t be worse than your most severe nightmare that waking doesn’t stop.

And it bares repeating that justice for Glen Buckley is extremely important for all of General Aviation, not to mention fair dealing by all government instrumentalities.

Reference 'The Letter' (23 October 2018): David Jones PDF 







Much MTF! - P2 

[Sandy Reith]

For anyone new to this scandal, the next truly significant letter from CASA, with outside legal advice, completely negates that Glen has acted illegally and shows that CASA hasn’t got a leg to stand on.
But undeterred CASA spoils every attempt by Glen to resolve any of CASA’s remaining (completely unreasonable) concerns.
Having smashed his business leaving him broke then they prevent him from working in his profession. A professional career developed over some 25 years and with having created an excellent personal record and reputation.
Aside from murder it couldn’t get worse.

[Peetwo]

CM & GlenB post script discussion - tomorrow night 7 pm -   

Via YouTube: 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 14/06/23

Via the AP emails:

       Freedom of Information Request- (My reference-  PPRUNE #2675 )
    
This Freedom of Information request is to attend to my allegation that CASA has provided false and misleading advice to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Investigation that led to the Ombudsman arriving at the following conclusion’.
 
“CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”
 
For complete clarity. As on multiple occasions, CASA has provided false and misleading information to that investigation.
 
Background to request
 
In October of 2018 with no prior indication at all, CASA placed restrictions on my CASA issued Air Operator Certificate (AOC) of ten years, which had an immediate and significant impact on the cash flow of my business.
 
Those restrictions remained in place for 8 months. CASA was notified on multiple occasions in writing throughout the 8 months of the impact of those restrictions, so there can be no pretence that CASA was not fully aware of the impact of those restrictions.
 
The only reason that those restrictions remained in place for 8 months was because I could not satisfy the sole CASA Employee, as to the wording in my “commercial agreements”. There were no safety issues ever identified by CASA. It was a simple wording issue in contracts.
 
This was unprecedented that CASA would ever have any involvement in commercial agreements of flight training operators.
 
The commercial agreement being the document outlining commercial/financial arrangements between my business APTA, and its members. Previously CASA had absolutely no involvement in commercial contracts and matters of operational control were not contained in commercial contracts.
 
Had I have been able to satisfy that sole CASA employee with regard to the wording in the commercial agreements between APTA and its Members, those restrictions placed on my business by CASA would have been immediately lifted by CASA, and I could have returned to Business as Usual, and minimise the harm caused.
 
These were the contracts that APTA had used for many years, and had been provided to CASA on multiple occasions throughout those three years.
 
In a Flight Training Organisation, the “Exposition” is the CASA legislated suite of documents that is required by CASA to outline matters of operational control, not the commercial agreement. CASA was not requesting any change to the Exposition, because CASA was fully satisfied with the Exposition and had approved it, many years prior.
 
The commercial agreement is a completely non related document, effectively being the contract between the AOC Holder being my business APTA, and its customers. This is in contrast to the CASA approved Operations Manual/Exposition which is effectively the contract between the AOC holder and CASA.
 
CASA retains copies of the Exposition and audits the Operators compliance with regards to matters of operational control against that CASA approved Exposition.
 
CASA does not get involved in any way, with commercial agreements, or retain copies of commercial agreements. That is, until it placed these unique and bizarre requirements on Glen Buckley. This is evidenced by the fact that CASA demanded I provide copies of agreements in October 2018, claiming that they didn’t have them. I advised CASA that I had provided them on multiple occasions. Initially CASA denied this but was forced to admit that they had received them, but they had been misplaced.
 
Until CASA placed the requirement on me to put additional matters of operational control into our commercial agreements, that were additional to, and not to be included in the Exposition, in order to lift the trading restrictions, these two documents had been totally unrelated documents. That was the case throughout the flight training industry, and always had been throughout my 25 years in the industry.
 
The unique requirement placed on my business by CASA, in order to have trading restrictions lifted, was that  additional matters of “operational control” now needed to be outlined in the “commercial agreements”. CASA however refused to be a signatory to those commercial agreements, despite the wording being a requirement stipulated by CASA. The only signatories were APTA and its Members, although it was CASA who needed to be satisfied as to the wording. This was a highly unusual environment to be operating in.
 
Irrespective, I was always willing and eager to fully comply with CASAs unusual requirements placed on me. I simply needed to know “whose” responsibilities were to be outlined in the commercial arrangements, and “what” responsibilities were to be outlined in the commercial agreements, or in fact any aspect of operational control that CASA identified that I needed to attend to, that was not already attended to in my CASA approved Exposition. The truth is that everything was already in the Exposition.
 
The fact that CASA could not identify whose or what responsibilities I needed to attend to, made resolution of the situation impossible, hence the trading restrictions remained in place for a staggering 8 months with the matter unresolved. I could not address a problem that CASA could not identify to me.
 
Every single legislative requirement, procedure, responsibility, and accountability was already specified in that CASA approved Exposition and had been for many years. It had been designed in conjunction with CASA, to CASAs 600 specified requirements, peer reviewed within CASA, approved by CASA, and audited by CASA on multiple occasions over the previous decade.
CASA never identified any deficiencies in my operation, and never requested any changes at all to how we operated or any changes to our Exposition. The entire structure of the business was designed to do exactly what it was doing, and all procedures had been designed for the specific purpose of APTA. The purpose of APTA being to deliver flight training across multiple bases under the one and only authorisation that I held. I was doing what I had been doing for 10 years.
 
These were new requirements in addition to the legislation, in addition to standard industry practice, in addition to previous CASA requirements, in addition to my Exposition, and in addition to any industry precedent.
 
The reason for me making this FOI request is because the Ombudsman has advised me that:
 
“CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”
 
With 25 years industry experience, I am fully satisfied that that statement is not the truth, and the Ombudsman could only arrive at that deduction based on the provision of false and misleading information by an Employee of CASA. There is no other possible reason the Ombudsman would arrive at that finding.
 
if the Ombudsman Office has formed the view that CASA required any other operator in the flight training industry, ever,  to outline matters of operational control in commercial contracts, as opposed to the Exposition, It is simply not truthful, and would in fact, I suggest be unlawful and in contravention of the regulations as those requirements are mandated to be in the Exposition, as they rightfully should be.
 
I have contacted  a number of industry personnel that had adopted the same business model as I adopted, and they assure me that CASA is not being truthful on this fact, and drawing on my 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry, I am fully satisfied that CASA has never required commercial contracts to outline matters of operational control, as these requirements are contained within the Exposition/Operations Manual as per legislative requirements, and as approved by CASA.
 
Request under FOI
 
Under FOI I am requesting CASA provide me with copies of commercial contracts that CASA retains of any operator in the flight training industry.
 
Specifically, these would be the commercial contracts that CASA has required of  other flight training operators, as evidence of operational control in support of the Ombudsman finding that;
“CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”
 
I am not interested in any of the financial information, signatories to the agreement, and matters of operational control that are already replicated in the CASA approved Exposition, any names, titles, positions, or any information of a sensitive nature.
 
My expectation is that these documents would be presented to me in a highly redacted state, to maintain appropriate levels of privacy. That will also suit my requirement, as I am only after matters of “operational control” that were addressing CASA requirements in those Agreements.
 
The information provided to me by CASA could be further redacted. Any information that is contained within the contracts, but replicated in the Exposition could also be redacted, as CASA requirements placed on me were over and above what was already in the Exposition.
 
The date range that I am requesting is from November 1938, being the date the Department of Civil Aviation was first established, until October 2018, when CASA placed that requirement on my business.
 
In the highly unlikely event that search by CASA results in more than 5 such documents being produced from the 80-year range, then I will limit my FOI request to only five documents, preferably the most recent five that CASA retain or have been involved in.
 
If CASA is able to produce those five documents that they have required of other Operators, I request that the 5 provided documents include.
·        The Agreements that CASA would hold and have required for both Ballarat Aero Club, and Latrobe Valley Aero Club who had an existing arrangement with previous Flight Training Operators, until the day before they transferred to APTA, when the new and bizarre requirements were placed exclusively on my business. The Ombudsman mistakenly referred to Latrobe valley Aero Club and Ballarat Aero Clubs “authorisations”. It is important to avoid that error. Neither Latrobe Valley Aero Club nor Ballarat Aero Club, had any Authorisations issued by CASA. The Authorisations were mine, and mine only. (APTA)
 
Of the up to 5 contracts provided under FOI, could you please identify specifically which of those 5 documents have previously been provided to the Ombudsman’s Office as part of the investigation.
 No doubt for the Ombudsman to arrive at his determination “CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.” the Ombudsman must have arrived at that determination by requesting CASA to provide evidence of this.
 
Of the five provided contracts, could CASA also provide a copy of the contract that CASA finally determined was acceptable to CASA. That would be athecontract between APTA and Latrobe Valley Aero Club, that was finalised almost immediately after I left the business, in June 2019.
 
The significance of the request, and what this information will demonstrate.
 
Point One- If CASA already held the information they required. Why wouldn’t they share that information with me to allow me to resolve the issue.
 
I very much doubt  that CASA will be able to comply with this FOI request, and there will in fact be no contracts, because the truth is that CASA never required such contracts of any Operator.
 
However, CASA has maintained, and the Ombudsman has accepted that CASA did require such contracts previously, and the Ombudsman found “CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”
 
I made multiple requests of CASA throughout the 8 months the trading restrictions remained in place to provide me guidance on what they required as wording in the commercial agreements. CASA could not/or would not provide that guidance.
 
Inexplicably, with my 25 years flight training industry experience, I was unable to resolve this matter and derive the suitable wording. My task was more difficult, because CASA could not or would not provide me suitable guidance on their requirements.
 
If CASA is able to produce 5 documents under FOI, then the obvious question is. Why couldn’t CASA provide that same information to Glen Buckley to allow him to fully and immediately resolve the issue and return to Business as Usual and avoid the significant harm caused to so many? If CASA already held the information from previous operators, which was the solution, why wasn’t that made available to Mr Buckley?
 
If CASA does hold contracts outlining matters of operational control, the entire matter could have been fully resolved in four hours instead of taking 8 months, and still not being resolved.
This would support my allegation that a CASA Employee deliberately frustrated processes to cause harm to me personally.
 
I have always asserted that members of the CASA Executive management had no intention to resolve the contracts issue. I am fully satisfied that CASA deliberately delayed resolving the contracts issue, and particularly so if CASA claimed that they had previously required contracts of others, and that information was not provided to me.
 
Point Two- How could CASA hold contracts if they hadn’t previously permitted the structure.
 
CASA has led the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that what I was doing was an industry first, and that CASA had never previously permitted and approved the identical structure that I adopted, and had never done so. Those assertions are in the initial notification from CASA in October 2018. This is blatantly untrue.
 
If one accepts CASAs position that CASA had never previously permitted the identical structure, then the obvious question is. How could CASA previously have required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”
 
The point being that if CASA produces the five agreements that I have requested, then it clearly indicates CASA has previously mislead the Ombudsman Inquiry by leading the Ombudsman to form the view that what I was doing was new and unique and was not standard industry practice with formal CASA approval on every occasion.
 
Point Three- Was CASA required to provide evidence, or was CASAs “word” sufficient?
 
I am fully satisfied that throughout the four-year investigation CASA consistently provided false and misleading information to the investigation, and the Investigation placed significant “weighting” on the Agencies “word”, without seeking evidence to support CASAs position.
 
Considering the Ombudsman’s findings “CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”I would have expected the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office to have required evidence of such contracts by requesting copies of those contracts, rather than solely relying on the “word” of the agency representative.
 
For this reason, I have asked CASA under this FOI request to clearly identify, if any of the five contracts were provided to the Ombudsman in order for the Ombudsman to arrive at the conclusion that.“CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”
 
Point Four -Glen Buckley couldn't resolve the matter in 8 months but the new CEO could.
 
I had tried for 8 months to get the wording in the commercial contracts to the CASA employees satisfaction. That was despite me having 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry. Immediately after the new CEO took over, that CEO was able to provide CASA with an acceptable contract that allowed Latrobe Valley to continue operations.
 
The new CEO of the business was not a flying instructor and had no experience in the flight training industry. He did hold a pilot licence ,although most of his flying had been outside of Australia.
 
With his limited experience he resolved the matter in hours, despite the fact that I could not resolve it for 8 months.
 
Could I also request a copy of the contract that was acceptable to CASA and permitted Latrobe Valley to continue operations?
 
By having a copy of the contract that was acceptable to CASA in July 2019, it will clearly identify the deficiencies that I could not attend to, or if indeed, they had already been attended to.
 
Point Five- CASAs alternating narrative
 
If CASA is to be believed on this fact, then one could logically conclude that CASA could not possibly hold commercial contracts for flight training operators outlining matters of operational control for a structure that apparently hadn’t previously existed, and according to CASA, CASA had not been permitted to exist. If CASA does produce 5 contracts, it will demonstrate that in fact the truth is that CASA had always permitted other Operators to adopt the identical structure that I did, and that would indicate that CASA has been deceptive in representing to the Ombudsman that CASA had never previously permitted the structure.
 
Point Six- Targeted malice
If I am claiming that I was the victim of targeted malice by a CASA Employee or Employees, and that CASA placed unnecessary restrictions on me, compared to others, it is important that I can demonstrate there were “other” Flight Training Organisations that CASA permitted to operate, in order to allow a comparative assessment to be made.
 
The fact that “CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA,” indicates that there were in fact other Operators, and will clarify the situation that the Ombudsman could not clarify during the four-year investigation. i.e., was my structure unique, or was it completely standard industry practice adopted throughout the industry with a full CASA approval. Two very different scenarios that until now , and after over four yeras of investigating hasbeen difficult for the Ombudsman to resolve.
 
 Fees
 
I am requesting that CASA consider waiving any fees on this application for the following reasons.
·        If the truth is that CASA has previously provided evidence of contracts to the Ombudsman that information has already been collated and the task is minor in nature.
·        The manner in which CASA chose to act on this matter has caused significant commercial harm to me personally, so my financial means are limited, and I request consideration of a waiver.
·        This has the potential to impact on the safety of aviation if the nation's safety regulator was found to have provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation, and my request has significance to the safety of aviation and the integrity of CASA, and is of national importance.
Other information
 
I understand that the important and significant nature of this request may involve the CASA Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Department for guidance, and specifically Mr Aleck, in his role as CASA Executive manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.
 
May I respectfully request that this request be prioritised. I have an upcoming meeting with the CEO of CASA, Ms Pip Spence, and I would very much like to have this information available to me, and also available to her at that meeting.
 
Yours respectfully
 
Glen Buckley

CM & GlenB post script discussion - tomorrow night 7 pm -   

Via YouTube: 

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

The video post script follow up by Clinton McKenzie and Glen Buckley is much appreciated, thank you gentlemen.

It’s such a long saga with so many CASA twisting moves it’s really important to repeat and narrow the main issues with which we all need to be familiar.

This follow up is particularly important because it details how the arrogance of CASA is runaway irresponsible and has no regard to its own published procedures, let alone fairness or natural justice.

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 16/06/23

Via the UP:

glenb

Reply re. FOI request above


CASA Ref: F23/21245

Dear Glen

I acknowledge receipt of your request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

CASA received your request on 14 June 2023 and the 30 day statutory period for processing your request commenced from the day after that date. You should therefore expect a decision from us by 14 July 2023. However, the period of 30 days may be extended if we need to consult third parties or for other reasons. We will advise you if this happens.

You will be notified of any charges in relation to your request as soon as possible, before we process any requested documents or impose a final charge.

When we have made a decision about your FOI request, we will send you a letter explaining our decision and your review and appeal rights.

We will contact you using the email address you provided. Please advise if you would prefer us to use an alternative means of contact.

I have summarised your request as follows – (please let me know if I have left anything out):

I am requesting CASA provide me with copies of commercial contracts that CASA retains of any operator in the flight training industry. If more than 5 located, the most recent five that CASA retain or have been involved in.

The Agreements that CASA would hold and have required for both Ballarat Aero Club, and Latrobe Valley Aero Club who had an existing arrangement with previous Flight Training Operators, until the day before they transferred to APTA.

A copy of the contract between APTA and Latrobe Valley Aero Club, that was finalised in or around June 2019.

I am not interested in any of the financial information, signatories to the agreement, and matters of operational control that are already replicated in the CASA approved Exposition, any names, titles, positions, or any information of a sensitive nature.

Date range: 1 November 1938 – 31 October 2018

I will liaise with the relevant CASA Officers to locate the documents in scope and will be in touch in due course.

Kind Regards,

And in reply:

Sandy Reith

30 days plus and 'Kind regards.'

I know it's an Australian habit to correspond with informality but I find it very annoying, especially when an official government letter starts with 'Dear Glen' and ends with 'Kind regards'.

It's one thing to be on first name basis on the phone but in the circumstances of CASA's intolerable, relentless and inexcusable attack on Glen Buckley the habit really grates.

in regard to the Glen Buckley and Clinton McKenzie follow up video the additional point of Shane Carmody's unjustified attack on Glen Buckley was well made. This was another example of the CASA Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). Carmody's accusations of assault and stalking were ludicrous considering that CASA presents no evidence or saw fit to institute its own procedures to protect or counter such 'stalking' and 'assault.'

How despicable can you get? Certainly the facts won't stand in the way of CASA's arrogant pursuit of anyone daring to probe or question the probity of its actions.

---

MalcolmReynolds

Glen, did you really request FOI from 1938 to 2018?? That will keep them busy for quite a while methinks!

---

FrankPilot

I used Glen’s company a few years ago to get my controlled airspace endorsement and to hire aircraft. I met Glen a few times. I am a former CASA employee. I support Glen. I wish I could help more - sign a petition or something? Cheers.

---

glenb

The contract

Recall that CASA initially said the structure was unlawful, and gave me only 7 days certainty of operation

It then became an issue of "wording" in contracts, which I couldn't satisfy.

All I needed was for CASA to identify whose and what responsibilities i needed to attend to.

Despite the extended date range, I suggest CASA will fail to produce a single contract that they have ever required of any operator in the flight training industry since 1938. To suggest that matters of operational control would be specified only in a commercial contract and not in the Exposition is quite simply absurd.

I look forward to the results. Cheers.

---

Sandy Reith

Help, means and methods

I used Glen’s company a few years ago to get my controlled airspace endorsement and to hire aircraft. I met Glen a few times. I am a former CASA employee. I support Glen. I wish I could help more - sign a petition or something? Cheers.
Having spoken to Glen only a few occasions, but never met, it’s good to hear from FrankPilot and others, who like myself have been impressed by Glen’s attitude and who has continued to engage in a civilised manner (with an odd excursion, very understandably).

I think we can all spend a few minutes writing to our federal MPs and State Senators telling them enough is enough and we demand restitution and recompense for Glen Buckley. Doesn’t have to be a long letter.

And I think make known our views here, and elsewhere in the social media, and to our aviation associations that we want action.

And not just for Glen’s sake but for the wider implications that go right to the heart of our democracy.
https://gofund.me/1799a035

Would a few hundred or a couple of thousand be missed in a years time? And maybe again some more. Cheers.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 16/06/23

Via the UP:

glenb

Reply re. FOI request above


CASA Ref: F23/21245

Dear Glen

I acknowledge receipt of your request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

CASA received your request on 14 June 2023 and the 30 day statutory period for processing your request commenced from the day after that date. You should therefore expect a decision from us by 14 July 2023. However, the period of 30 days may be extended if we need to consult third parties or for other reasons. We will advise you if this happens.

You will be notified of any charges in relation to your request as soon as possible, before we process any requested documents or impose a final charge.

When we have made a decision about your FOI request, we will send you a letter explaining our decision and your review and appeal rights.

We will contact you using the email address you provided. Please advise if you would prefer us to use an alternative means of contact.

I have summarised your request as follows – (please let me know if I have left anything out):

I am requesting CASA provide me with copies of commercial contracts that CASA retains of any operator in the flight training industry. If more than 5 located, the most recent five that CASA retain or have been involved in.

The Agreements that CASA would hold and have required for both Ballarat Aero Club, and Latrobe Valley Aero Club who had an existing arrangement with previous Flight Training Operators, until the day before they transferred to APTA.

A copy of the contract between APTA and Latrobe Valley Aero Club, that was finalised in or around June 2019.

I am not interested in any of the financial information, signatories to the agreement, and matters of operational control that are already replicated in the CASA approved Exposition, any names, titles, positions, or any information of a sensitive nature.

Date range: 1 November 1938 – 31 October 2018

I will liaise with the relevant CASA Officers to locate the documents in scope and will be in touch in due course.

Kind Regards,

And in reply:

Sandy Reith

30 days plus and 'Kind regards.'

I know it's an Australian habit to correspond with informality but I find it very annoying, especially when an official government letter starts with 'Dear Glen' and ends with 'Kind regards'.

It's one thing to be on first name basis on the phone but in the circumstances of CASA's intolerable, relentless and inexcusable attack on Glen Buckley the habit really grates.

in regard to the Glen Buckley and Clinton McKenzie follow up video the additional point of Shane Carmody's unjustified attack on Glen Buckley was well made. This was another example of the CASA Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). Carmody's accusations of assault and stalking were ludicrous considering that CASA presents no evidence or saw fit to institute its own procedures to protect or counter such 'stalking' and 'assault.'

How despicable can you get? Certainly the facts won't stand in the way of CASA's arrogant pursuit of anyone daring to probe or question the probity of its actions.

---

MalcolmReynolds

Glen, did you really request FOI from 1938 to 2018?? That will keep them busy for quite a while methinks!

---

FrankPilot

I used Glen’s company a few years ago to get my controlled airspace endorsement and to hire aircraft. I met Glen a few times. I am a former CASA employee. I support Glen. I wish I could help more - sign a petition or something? Cheers.

---

glenb

The contract

Recall that CASA initially said the structure was unlawful, and gave me only 7 days certainty of operation

It then became an issue of "wording" in contracts, which I couldn't satisfy.

All I needed was for CASA to identify whose and what responsibilities i needed to attend to.

Despite the extended date range, I suggest CASA will fail to produce a single contract that they have ever required of any operator in the flight training industry since 1938. To suggest that matters of operational control would be specified only in a commercial contract and not in the Exposition is quite simply absurd.

I look forward to the results. Cheers.

---

Sandy Reith

Help, means and methods

I used Glen’s company a few years ago to get my controlled airspace endorsement and to hire aircraft. I met Glen a few times. I am a former CASA employee. I support Glen. I wish I could help more - sign a petition or something? Cheers.
Having spoken to Glen only a few occasions, but never met, it’s good to hear from FrankPilot and others, who like myself have been impressed by Glen’s attitude and who has continued to engage in a civilised manner (with an odd excursion, very understandably).

I think we can all spend a few minutes writing to our federal MPs and State Senators telling them enough is enough and we demand restitution and recompense for Glen Buckley. Doesn’t have to be a long letter.

And I think make known our views here, and elsewhere in the social media, and to our aviation associations that we want action.

And not just for Glen’s sake but for the wider implications that go right to the heart of our democracy.
https://gofund.me/1799a035

Would a few hundred or a couple of thousand be missed in a years time? And maybe again some more. Cheers.

Addendum: GlenB 'stalked & assaulted' FOI request. 

Via the UP:

glenb


18/06/23 FOI Request


Allegation by ex CASA CEO, Mr Shane Carmody to Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, that I, Glen Buckley, “stalked and assaulted” CASA Employees. (My reference: PPRuNe#2684)



Pertinent information to this request

This request will be of a significant nature and may well need involvement from Mr Aleck in his role as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Services.

I have distributed this FOI request with the following recipients.

My Local MP, Ms Carina Garland. I am a lifelong resident of the Electorate of Chisholm, and my wife and I have had the opportunity to meet with Ms Garland our local Labor MP.

Ms Garland was assisting me as a constituent, until directed by the Minister Catherine King to discontinue assisting me any further. Irrespective of Ms Garland not being able to assist me and my family, she would be the Subject Matter Expert on this matter in its entirety within the Government, and it essential that I keep her Office fully informed as this matter develops.

I have also included two pilot forums which are referred to later in this correspondence. I have asked one of those forums, being the Aunty Pru Forum to ensure that they include my local MP, Ms Garland in their ongoing mailing list, to ensure that she is fully informed of my matter, and others. My intention is to place CASAs response onto those websites, in order to let the wider community, determine if I have stalked or assaulted CASA staff.

I have requested CASA to approach the police on Mr Carmody’s allegations, for a full investigation but CASA have chosen not to, for their own reasons. If CASA is not prepared to approach the police on the allegations of stalking and assaulting of CASA staff, then CASA should formally withdraw that statement made by the CASA CEO at the time, Mr Shane Carmody.

I have included the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner for his awareness of this request, although at this stage it needs no involvement from that office, other than to be aware of “what it is that I am seeking from CASA” because that may be the subject of an upcoming complaint from me, although it is not at this stage


Background to this request.


On 20/11/2020 before Senate, Mr Carmody PSM alleged that I had “stalked and assaulted CASA staff.”

I understand that he was able to make those allegations against me in that setting, and I have little recourse against those statements, due to the Parliamentary Privilege afforded him.

When ex CASA CEO Mr Shane Carmody PSM was awarded the Public Service Medal, the citation noted that his actions and conduct had “[i]led to a rebuilding of industry confidence in the regulator[/i].”

It is obvious that the “[i]industry[/i]” had no input into that award. It was understandably a political award, rather than an [i]“industry[/i]” award, or an award based on feedback from the “[i]industry”.[/i]

I do not believe that Mr Carmody PSM should hold that award.

From my personal experience, I found his conduct, not to be in accordance with the obligations placed on him as an employee of the Public Service, the significant position that he held within CASA, and the harm that he caused to me personally.

That is my firmly held opinion.

The purpose of this FOI request is not to work towards financial recompense, what I am seeking is reputational recompense, and in order to achieve that objective, it is necessary that I demonstrate that Mr Carmody PSM was providing false and misleading information to the Senate. I am seeking only reputational recompense, and that is the sole reason for this request.

I have two “core” issues, ongoing with CASA at the moment.

Issue one- CASAs false allegation that I had “stalked and assaulted” CASA staff. The subject of this request.

Issue Two-The decision by CASA that my business of ten years was declared unauthorised and illegal by CASA.

This request is ONLY related to issue one, being the allegation that I have “[i]stalked and assaulted CASA staff”.[/i]

Mr Carmody made an allegation to the Senators that I had “stalked and assaulted CASA staff”.

I absolutely deny this statement. This is not a truthful statement.

Mr Carmody PSM, would have been aware that he was making a false statement to the Senators when he made that statement, because quite simply there would have been no evidence available to him to make that statement.

That statement was made for no other reason than to cause harm to me.

For complete clarity I have never stalked or assaulted any person in my life and have not ever stalked or assaulted any CASA employee. Ever. Be absolutely assured of that.

I am fully satisfied that Mr Carmody deliberately mislead the Senate with the intention to bring harm to me, and my reputation, and to discredit me before industry.

There is an industry forum referred to as Aunty Pru (AP). This forum is operated by two very dedicated volunteers that collate an enormous library of information on CASA and have been an invaluable source of information for me, in relation to my other issue with CASA.

I asked AP if they had a copy of the footage of that presentation where Mr Carmody made that allegation, and they have provided it to me via the attached link.

From Hansard:

Mr Carmody: I also note a lot of comments that Mr Buckley made, and I'll move on to a couple of others, but I would make the point, and I can back this up, that Mr Buckley indicated that the transition from one team to another was the beginning of the change. A number of senators have referred to that. I won't refer to the team leader's name, who has since left the organisation. What I will tell you is that the team leader applied repeatedly from 2015 to 2018 to be removed from the supervision of Mr Buckley's case because he felt that his team was wilting under the demands and behaviours of Mr Buckley and he felt that his team was captured. So he went to his supervisor and asked that Mr Buckley's matter be allocated to another team, and it was allocated to another team, and it was looked at a lot harder. Now, the fact is that Mr Buckley will say that he had a very pleasant journey with CASA employees over a number of years designing his future. The CASA employees didn't quite see it that way. The CASA employees got to the end of that process and felt that they were not delivering the right outcome, and they asked to be removed from that. Mr Buckley—as you've probably noticed, and you'll notice my emotion in this—has harassed my staff and continues to do so under PPRuNe and just about every other website. He makes unsubstantiated allegations, and I'm quite happy to deal with them. He has assaulted my staff, he has stalked my staff in the Melbourne office and, frankly, we've had enough of him. So the matter is with the Ombudsman, and I'm very, very happy for the matter to stay with the Ombudsman and get resolved. But I will not accept the allegations that are made.

In support of my assertion that I have never stalked or assaulted any person ever in my life, I have attached a Statutory declaration to that effect.

There are now only two possible outcomes.

1. Glen Buckley has made a false statutory declaration, or

2. Mr Shane Carmody made a false and misleading statement to the Senators on 20/11/20

The purpose of this request is to restore my reputation, and my mental health. This entire experience with CASA on both issues has been traumatic on me and my family. I am only seeking the truth.

I have made requests of the current CASA CEO to correct that false statement made to Senate, and for her own reasons she has chosen not to.

What I am ultimately seeking from CASA is the following simple statement. Importantly, I am not requesting that Mr Carmody’s name be published in that statement. My intention is not to harm Mr Carmody’s reputation, but rather to restore my own reputation.

For the information of the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner, I would potentially be seeking the following statement, be issued by CASA, but I will await the response to this FOI request before proceeding.

[i]“On 20/11/20 before Senate, the CASA CEO at the time made allegations that Mr Glen Buckley had stalked and assaulted CASA staff.[/i]

[i]No allegations of either the stalking or assaulting of CASA staff was ever bought to the attention of the police, at that time, or at any time since.[/i]

[i]CASA now acknowledges that statement to Senate was likely to be false and misleading, and CASA completely withdraws all allegations or suggestions that Mr Buckley has EVER stalked or assaulted any CASA employee/s”.[/i]

The documents that I am seeking.

I am seeking that CASA release all documents that CASA hold that directly relate to the allegation made by the ex-CASA CEO to the Senators that Glen Buckley had either stalked, or assaulted CASA staff.

I am requesting that the response be provided in two separate files to clearly identify which documents are in support of the allegation of stalking CASA employees, and a separate file identifying documents in support of the allegation of assaulting CASA employees.

I anticipate that those documents will have to redacted to some extent, but I am hoping to identify specific dates of stalking and assault.

If in the case of the assault of the CASA employee/s, I am hoping to identify if these incident/s occurred in the presence of any witnesses, and if those witness statements corroborate those allegations.

Any injuries that were incurred by the employees that were assaulted by me.

I ask that the released documents address specificallyc and only the alleged crimes of

· Stalking, and

· Assault

My assumption is that these crimes are most likely to have occurred in my home State of Victoria, therefore my reasonable assumption is that the CASA released documents address those specific crimes only.

As I am trying to protect my own personal reputation that was damaged by CASA, I ask that consideration be given to waiving any associated charges.

Thankyou for your assistance in this matter. To the person within the FOI Office that is dealing with this matter, please be assured that there is no animosity whatsoever towards you, or your office. I appreciate that the “tone” of this letter is somewhat assertive and be assured that it is not directed to you personally.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

 
MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Second the motion -

Sandy - “I know it's an Australian habit to correspond with informality but I find it very annoying, especially when an official government letter starts with 'Dear Glen' and ends with 'Kind regards'.

“It's one thing to be on first name basis on the phone but in the circumstances of CASA's intolerable, relentless and inexcusable attack on Glen Buckley the habit really grates.”

BUT – I ain't as genteel as Sandy; Spence writes like she is the answer to a pagans prayer; like they are all good mates and there is only some minor 'technical' wording to sort out; over a cuppa. Bollocks. The Spence response is about as cynical a piss take as you could ever dream up. Her minions have literally run a good man and a honest business into bankruptcy, breakdown, family distress and destruction of self worth. They have been deceitful if not borderline dishonest. Now Spence wants to be all 'good friends and jolly good company'; while she sharpens the axe and sets him up for the final coup; in court. Spence should resign, take her witches coven along with the mischief they do with her. Insult to injury, sugar coated.

Though I’ve belted you and flayed you,
By the livin’ Gawd that made you,
You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din!

Toot – toot..

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 22/06/2023

Via the UP:

glenb

FOI request clarification

20/06/23 (My reference – PPRuNe #2690)

Dear Keeley,

Thank you for getting back to me, and providing the opportunity for me to clarify the documents that I am seeking.

On 14/06/23 I submitted an FOI request. (My reference PPRuNe #2675)

On 14/06/23, you responded seeking further clarification. (My reference PPRuNe #2676)

I apologise for my delayed response and acknowledge that may impact on your proposed response times.

Let me again apologise to you in advance. Whilst I appreciate that you are the recipient of this email, I have added some additional detail to.

a.) assist you, and

b.) ensure that my Local MP Carina Garland remains fully briefed on this matter and is therefore included in this correspondence, as are some other Parties.

I have highlighted and italicised some points from your correspondence that I would like top put some additional clarity around.

As with previous correspondence, the “tone” of the letter is not intended to be directed at you or your Office in any way.

“I am requesting CASA provide me with copies of commercial contracts that CASA retains of any operator in the flight training industry. If more than 5 are located, the most recent five that CASA retain or have been involved in.”

To clarify this point.

In October 2018, CASA determined that my business of over ten years had suddenly overnight become unlawful, and unauthorised, despite it operating in the same structure for over a decade, and there being no change to the regulations.

Apparently, CASA had only just become aware of its structure after more than a decade, and that awareness by CASA occurred in October 2018, or at least that is what CASA led the Ombudsman to believe, and surprisingly and concerningly, the Ombudsman accepted.

CASA has recently confirmed that the truth is that it was likely to have been aware of the structure for many years, and that its previous position that it asserted to the Ombudsman’s investigation was therefore false and misleading.

Nevertheless, in October 2018, CASA placed trading restrictions on my business that made it impossible to operate, the most significant being the multiple subsequent short-term approvals to continue operating.

As a Registered Training Operator delivering courses of 18 months duration, it was impossible to enrol students in 18-month courses when the business was operating on multiple short-term approvals.

These CASA issued “interim approvals” to continue operaetrying in the short term were as short as minute by minute, sometimes 7 days, never more than weeks

The impact of these restrictions was crippling on the business, the Members that CASA had previously approved, and the Members left in limbo for 8 months while CASA considered it.

All I needed to do, to have the “interim approval to continue operations” lifted by was to come up with wording in my commercial contracts regarding operational control that would satisfy Mr Aleck.

With 25 years industry experience, I was completely unable to come up with the wording that would satisfy him, and therefore have my trading restrictions lifted.

I must clarify that on this matter, I have no doubt that CASA has provided false and misleading information to the Ombudsman.

CASA has led the Ombudsman to believe that they previously required Operators to outline matters of operational control within commercial contracts between two parties that CASA is not a signatory to, something that I was not able to achieve.

I know that to be false.

Matters of operational control are contained within the CASA approved Exposition, and not within Commercial contracts.

If for some bizarre reason, matters of operational control were suddenly required by CASA to be contained within a commercial contract that CASA refused to be a signatory to, then those procedures might replicate procedures in the Exposition. But! It is preposterous and unsafe to have matters of Operational Control outlined only in commercial agreements and not addressed in the Exposition.

However, the Ombudsman has accepted CASAs false and misleading information, and the purpose of this FOI request is to expose that false and misleading information provided by CASA to the Ombudsman.

So to add clarity to the query.

The Ombudsman has accepted CASAs “word” that CASA had previously required contracts to outline matters of Operational Control.

If CASA is able to produce 5 copies of contracts that they have required of other flight training operators to demonstrate matters of operational control, it would go someway to refuting my allegation that CASA never required contracts of other Operators, and that I was the victim of targeted malice by a CASA.

For clarity, I do not believe that CASA will hold 5 contracts over that 80 year date range that

The Agreements that CASA would hold and have required for both Ballarat Aero Club, and Latrobe Valley Aero Club who had an existing arrangement with previous Flight Training Operators, until the day before they transferred to APTA

To clarify this request.

CASA claimed that the structure that I adopted had never been adopted before, that it was unlawful, unauthorised, subjected me to possible prosecution etc.

What makes this entire matter so concerning is that the exact structure that I adopted had been standard industry practice since, and fully CASA approved since I first entered the industry in 1982, and I presume for many decades prior.

For CASA to assert that what I was doing is unique is truly beyond comprehension, and the industry in its entirety would be fully aware of that.

However, the Ombudsman was unable to determine at the end of the four-year investigation if it was never permitted by CASA or if it was always permitted by CASA.

The undeniable truth, and something that the Ombudsman Office failed to address is that both Ballarat Aero Club and Latrobe Valley Aero Club had the same arrangement with two different flight training Organisations until the very day before they joined APTA.

This makes a mockery of CASAs assertion, and the subsequent acceptance by the Ombudsman investigation that the structure was unique, and never previously permitted by CASA.

It was the application to join APTA by these two aero clubs that CASA used to determine what I was doing was unlawful, but could possibly be deemed lawful if I could come up with the required wording in my contracts.

It would be logical that if two Aero clubs had been permitted to continue under an arrangement with other Flight Training Operators the day before they went to join APTA, then they must have held contracts that satisfied CASA.

After all, I had been determined to be unlawfully operating, subject to prosecution, given 7 days continuity of operations, because my contract wording wasn’t acceptable. Obviously the contracts required by CASA of the other two flight training operators the day prior to them joining APTA had been acceptable.

The reason that I am seeking these two contracts as part of the five contracts, is because these two contracts, if they exist, would clearly demonstrate what was acceptable to CASA and highlight “whose” and “what” responsibilities it was that I failed to attend to. Something that I still have no idea about, despite multiple requests for CASA to be more specific about what “matters of operational control” needed to be attended to in commercial contracts, and something that the Ombudsman investigation was unable to identify.

If CASA was unable to produce the contracts that they required of those two aero clubs in their previous agreements, yet the next day declared my business unlawful then that would support my assertion that I was personally targeted by CASA.

I do not believe that CASA ever required commercial contracts of any other operator in the flight training industry. I do not believe that these contracts exist, and I believe the 4-year Ombudsman investigation consistently took the Agencies (CASA) ‘word.”

A copy of the contract between APTA and Latrobe Valley Aero Club, that was finalised in or around June 2019.

Immediately after I handed control over to the new Owners they were able to resolve the issue, and a contract was promptly finalised with CASA.

These two new owners were not flight instructors and had no experience in the flight training industry. One owned a “security” business, and the other admittedly had some flying experience overseas. Their knowledge of Australian legislation was negligible, yet they worked with CASA to produce an acceptable document.

That contract that CASA finally approved, is I believe the first ever such agreement that CASA has required of any flight training operator in the industry.

That document that CASA accepted is being requested by me.

It is a major industry document, because it will clearly highlight what was acceptable to CASA regarding matters of operational control, and it will highlight what it was that I could not achieve in 8 months despite my best intent and effort.

“I am not interested in any of the financial information, signatories to the agreement, and matters of operational control that are already replicated in the CASA approved Exposition, any names, titles, positions, or any information of a sensitive nature”

To clarify this matter.

I am specifically requesting that these documents be highly redacted. I would ask that the redactions remain in place to assist me in assessing the size of the document.

The ONLY component that I need is matters of operational control. Everything else can be redacted.

To maintain consistency the same person highlighting CASAs acceptable matters of operational control, would most likely have to be the same person within CASA that deemed my contracts unacceptable.

Date range: 1 November 1938 – 31 October 2018

The date range was admittedly long, the purpose of that was to clearly demonstrate that since Australia had a an aviation safety Body, they never required matters of operational control to be contained exclusively within commercial contracts.

My suggestion was that if in fact CASA had truthfully required contracts of other operators doing exactly what I was doing, and that has occurred on hundreds of occasions, then 5 contracts would be in existence from the 12 months prior to CASA determining my structure unlawful in October 2018.

In order to reduce the workload, I will reduce the date range from 2006 until October 2018, being the duration that I operated my business in that structure without CASAs knowledge apparently.

“I will liaise with the relevant CASA Officers to locate the documents in scope and will be in touch in due course.”

On this matter I must insist that Mr Aleck CASA Executive manager of Legal, International and regulatory affairs is involved.

I met personally with Mr Aleck. I met every legislative requirement. It was Mr Alecks opinion that I needed to appease and could not do so for 8 months.

If CASA had previously required contracts, which I doubt, then those contracts must have been acceptable to Mr Aleck and his Department previously. In order to determine what is acceptable to Mr Aleck, then it seems reasonable that he be involved.

If CASAs narrative has changed, and there was a different decision maker other than Mr Aleck then that employee should be involved in this process. Perhaps clarify with Mr Aleck as to whether or not he was the decision maker.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

---

08/02/23 Ombudsman advising that my matter is closed

Our ref: 2019-713834

Dear Mr Buckley

Finalisation of Complaint – Civil Aviation Safety Authority

I am writing to confirm the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman (the Office) has finalised our investigation into your complaint about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

I note that you contacted the Office in November 2022, asking to withdraw your complaint. I apologise that I did not respond earlier.

While I understand you requested the complaint to be withdrawn and finalised during your contact in November 2022, I had formed the view with the support of my supervisor that we would send a final request for information to CASA to bring outstanding issues raised in your complaint to a close. I flagged this with you as a possible course of action on 3 November 2022.

I received additional information from CASA in December 2022 and am now satisfied that further investigation by the Office is not required in relation to the matters you raised. I am satisfied that the matters of administration raised by your complaint have now been adequately responded to by CASA, and further investigation would not obtain a different or better outcome for you. We will notify CASA of the outcome of our investigation and may provide feedback to CASA for its consideration as part of that notice.

Consistent with your previous request not to receive detailed findings of our investigation, I have not set out the details of my findings in this email. If you would like additional information, please let the Office know and further details about my conclusions can be provided to you.

Ombudsman’s Office satisfied that CASA has not mislead the Office

In advising that your complaint has been finalised, I would like to reiterate my earlier advice that I do not believe CASA has mislead the Office in responding to our investigation. The Office will advise CASA of this as well.

I understand your concern that CASA may have told us that it did not have awareness of the APTA model prior to October 2018. I apologise if information conveyed to you by the Office in the past seemed to suggest that CASA did not have any awareness of the APTA model prior to October 2018.

Complaint Officer Mark’s email to you dated 23 December 2020 concluded that the evidence available suggested the legal area of CASA had not been made aware of the business structure used by APTA prior to October 2018. This should be distinguished from CASA more broadly. My review and subsequent inquiries confirm that CASA has acknowledged it had an awareness of the APTA model, including in the Industry Complaints Commissioner decision dated 18 July 2019.

Act of Grace

We have previously discussed the availability of the Act of Grace Scheme with you. If you wish to pursue this, further information can be obtained from the Department of Finance, including at their website - Act of Grace Payments | Department of Finance. This is a discretionary scheme, and there is no automatic entitlement to payment.

Legal Advice

If you wish to pursue legal action against CASA, you should obtain independent legal advice in relation to whether there is a possible cause of action and relevant time limits that may apply to your circumstances.

Closure of your file

Thank you for your patience as we have considered your matter. I hope you can see that we have taken your concerns seriously, engaged with yourself and CASA to obtain relevant information, and reached the conclusion that no further investigation is warranted after carefully considering the concerns you raised.

We review complaints only once. This means that as I have looked at the matter afresh, the Office will not consider the same complaint again, unless you can present us with new evidence that would cause us to change our decision. We will consider, but may not respond to, further correspondence received once this review and complaint file is closed.

Yours sincerely[/size]

---

10/02/23- My response to above

Could you please forward me a copy of your report.

Thankyou. Glen

---

Response from Ombudsman 17/02/23

Dear Mr Buckley

Thank you for your email of 10 February 2023.

You have asked Catherine (Senior Complaints Officer) for a copy of the report relating to your complaint. As Catherine is currently on leave, I am responding on her behalf.

I understand that your request relates to Catherine’s advice to you in her email dated 8 February 2023 that she had not sent the details of her findings to you as you had requested for this not to occur. Prior to taking leave, Catherine had produced a more detailed letter which she asked me to send to you if you requested it. Please find that letter attached to this email.

Yours sincerely

Tom

---

2019-713834
8 February 2023

Mr Glen Buckley
Sent by email only to: defendapta@gmail.com

Dear Mr Buckley

Finalisation of complaint about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority

I am writing to provide my findings in the review and further investigation of your complaint about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

I would like to thank you for your ongoing patience while I have completed this investigation. The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman (the Office) aims to provide fast and efficient review and
investigation outcomes, however there are times when the nature of a complaint means it will take us longer to complete than we anticipate. Over the past 12 months, the Office also experienced very
high demand for service, and this has also contributed to the delay. I apologise that you have not received the level of service we seek to provide in your contact with the Office in this matter.

Our role
When assessing complaints, our jurisdiction is limited to ‘matters of administration’ by the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Ombudsman Act). While we can look at the merits of a decision, we only do
so to the extent necessary to determine whether an agency has met the standards of administration we expect of Commonwealth agencies.

Where decisions require judgement or discretion, such as an assessment of the operational model adopted by the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA), we accept there can be more than one outcome available to an agency, and we focus on whether the outcome provided was reasonably open to the agency to make, rather than whether there might be a different or more preferable,response. We do not have the power to direct an agency to change its decision or take particular action as we do not provide the type of merits review conducted by tribunals and courts, which look at what the ‘correct or preferable decision’ should have been and, unlike the Ombudsman, also have the power to make orders to substitute a better decision.

In my role as Review Officer, my role was to assess whether the process Mike and Mark followed was fair and adequate to address the concerns you raised and to determine if the conclusions they
reached were reasonable and properly explained to you. In the review I considered the information on your complaint file. This included your original complaint to this Office, your correspondence with
CASA, information provided by CASA and your contact with our Office over the course of your complaint and our review. I was satisfied the conclusions reached in the initial complaint were
reasonable, but that there were additional questions we could ask of CASA to clarify issues of concern to you.

After I finalised the review, I asked further questions of CASA. I have received a response from CASA and am now satisfied that no further investigation of your complaint is required at this time. I will
explain my reasons for this conclusion in this letter.


Background

On 26 November 2019, you complained to the Office about an email sent by Mr Jason McHeyzer on 27 August 2019 to the new CEO of APTA. You asked for a statement from CASA as to whether the
direction in the email from Mr McHeyzer was lawful, and for an apology. Our initial assessment noted that the only practical outcome the Office may be about to achieve was an apology from CASA. You told us at this time that you did not intend to pursue your rights regarding a possible ‘unfair dismissal’ by APTA.

Your complaint was allocated to Investigation Officer Mike Buss. In December 2019, Mike commenced investigation into your complaint. He asked questions of CASA about Mr McHeyzer’s
role within CASA, the email sent by Mr McHeyzer and additional questions about the Part 142authorisation process by CASA and the notice issued to APTA on 23 October 2018. CASA responded to our investigation and provided numerous documents in support of its response.

On 14 January 2020, you provided a summary of your complaint to our Office. You stated that you believed you had been treated deliberately and unfairly by CASA. You said you did not believe CASA
was engaging with you in good faith and stated that despite multiple attempts to contact the CASA Board, your contacts were ignored and not acknowledged for over 6 months. You complained about
restrictions being placed on your business and stated that there had not been any safety concerns raised by CASA.

Mike asked further questions of CASA in late January 2020, including about the email from Mr McHeyzer, CASA’s reliance on Aviation Ruling 1 of 2006, and about the ability of a Flight Training
Organisation (FTO) to operate under the Air Operators Certificate (AOC) of another FTO. CASA once again provided a detailed response to the questions asked.

On 20 April 2020, the Office sent CASA ‘preliminary views’ under s8(3) of the Ombudsman Act 1976.These views made comments about the relevance on Aviation Ruling 1 of 2006 in the context of the
updated regulatory framework that came into effect in 2014 and the reference to this ruling in the notice of 23 October 2018. It also provided views about CASA’s knowledge of the APTA model from as early as October 2016. CASA provided a response to the view on 22 May 2020 and the Office wrote to CASA again on 23 June 2020. Mike then provided a summary of his conclusions to you in a
letter dated 25 June 2020.

In August 2020, Mike asked for additional information from CASA, which was received in September 2020, around the same time that Investigation Officer Mark became responsible for your complaint. I can see that you continued to contact CASA regarding your complaint while it was being considered by the Office.

You had asked for a statement of reasons from CASA regarding its use of the Aviation Ruling and concept of a franchised AOC. You asked CASA to stop misleading the Ombudsman’s
Office. You also made detailed submissions to this Office regarding ‘Phase 2’ of the investigation.Mark spoke with you on 23 November 2020 and then wrote to you with his assessment of your
complaint on 23 December 2020. In that email, Mark advised that he had formed the view that further investigation of your complaint was not warranted as our Office could not achieve a substantially different outcome for you. You provided 3 detailed responses by email on 19 January 2021, 10 February 2021, and 19 February 2021. You spoke with Mark again on 4 May 2021. You then
provided further information and submissions to the Office.

Mark wrote to you on 1 July 2021 to advise that he had considered the information you had provided, and that he was affirming his decision not to investigate further. He concluded that CASA
had given our Office a reasonable explanation for its view that it was not ‘fully aware’ of how APTA was operating and acknowledged your differing view. He was not satisfied that CASA had misled this
Office. He explained that he did not believe further investigation would cause him to form the view that CASA’s concerns about the APTA model were unreasonable.

Mark provided a further response to you on 11 August 2021 and 23 September 2021. You provided responded to both the Office and CASA following this, expressing your view that CASA had misled
the Office about its knowledge of the APTA model.

Review of complaint

On 19 November 2021, we wrote to you advising that the Office would review how we had handled your complaint, and that this would be done based on the information received from both you and CASA.

The review was initiated due to:
1. Correspondence received from you following Mark’s decision to finalise his investigation of your complaint, and
2. Contact from the CEO of CASA, Ms Pip Spencer, in light of your correspondence to CASA following Mark’s decision.

You have provided further information to the Office, and I have spoken with you on 17 February 2022, 20 April 2022, 10 August 2022 and 24 August 2022. As explained earlier, I have considered the
information contained in our records, as well as information obtained during my discussions with you. I was not involved in the original decision.

Review Findings

Email from Jason McHeyzer on 27 August 2019 Mark considered the information obtained from CASA about this issue and concluded that we were not able to obtain a different practical outcome regarding the email, and that further investigation of this issue was not warranted. He acknowledged that the new owner of APTA may have felt some pressure from CASA regarding your role when they received the email from Mr McHeyzer, but that ultimately any decision about employment was for APTA to make. I reviewed the information we hold about this issue, including your submissions that the email amounted to a ‘direction’ from CASA to your employer, and that the email amounted to a finding that you were not a ‘fit and proper person’ to hold a CASA approved key position with APTA. I am satisfied that CASA did not intend the email to be a direction to your employer to cease your employment, and I am satisfied the evidence supports CASA’s position that Mr McHeyzer took steps to clarify this shortly after the email was sent.

You were able to complain to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) about Mr McHeyzer’s email and the ICC issued a preliminary decision dated 16 October 2019 where it found
the email was ‘unreasonable and inappropriate’. Mr McHeyzer responded to the preliminary decision, providing a written apology to you on 19 October 2019. I note that you asked the ICC not
to speak with Mr Naser Qushair, the new owner of APTA. This prevented the ICC obtaining information from him that may have been relevant to its assessment of your complaint.
I understand that you also had the option of making an unfair dismissal claim against APTA, and that you decided not to follow this path. That was a choice that was yours to make.
In your conversation with me on 10 August 2022, you said you were entitled to know what statements you had been making that led to Mr McHeyzer’s email. I am satisfied that Mr McHeyzer
provided an explanation in his apology to you on 19 October 2019 and referred to your contact with the Prime Minister. In addition, on 7 December 2020 you acknowledged to the Office that you had been commenting on PPRuNe about CASA around the time of Mr McHeyzer’s email.

I am satisfied that on review no further investigation of this issue is warranted in all the circumstances.

Notice to APTA - 23 October 2018

Mike considered CASA’s reliance on Aviation Ruling 1 of 2006, Franchise AOC Arrangements in the Notice to APTA dated 23 October 2018. He formed a preliminary view that no Australian legislation prohibited the ‘franchising’ of an AOC and noted the Ruling referred to a regulatory scheme no longer in place. In response, CASA agreed generally with the fact that a ‘franchise-like’ arrangement was not prohibited but referred to legislation and regulations stating that authorisations were not transferrable. CASA also noted that any agreement between an authorisation holder and a third party must demonstrate the authority of the authorisation holder over the third party. I can see this is consistent with the advice CASA gave you in your discussions in 2019 that there may be ways for the APTA model to work within the scope of existing civil aviation legislation and regulations, provided it could be satisfied that APTA maintained full control of operators working under its authorisation. When Mark considered the complaint, he concluded that despite the reference to the Aviation Ruling in the Notice, our Office could not be critical of CASA for forming the view that the APTA model may not have been complying with aviation legislation and regulations.

This is because it had obtained information and advice suggesting the model used by APTA was different to what CASA understood it to be when it had transitioned APTA to the new regulatory scheme, and when it had previously added new bases to ATPA’s authorisations. Mark also told you that he was satisfied that CASA had provided us with a reasonable explanation for its view that CASA was not ‘fully aware’ of the APTA model prior to October 2018. I understand that prior to October 2018 CASA had accepted that APTA was itself conducting flight training in the various locations, under its own authorisations. In October 2018 CASA sought legal advice about the possibility that it was separate legal entities, not APTA itself, conducting the flight training operations. In my review of your complaint, I accepted that the conclusions Mark reached were open to him to make, and that he explained his decision to you. I can see that you have provided information to the Office showing you had discussed the APTA model with CASA prior to October 2018, and it should have had a general understanding of what you were trying to achieve. I would like to make it clear that CASA has also provided substantial
information, including emails between you and CASA in 2016 and 2017 that also demonstrate that you had discussions with CASA about the APTA concept during that time.

I note your advice that CASA had approved significant change requests for both MFT and APTA prior to October 2018 to add new operating bases to relevant authorisations and can see this did occur.
However, I do not believe this means CASA could not reach a different view about how the regulations applied to APTA. I can see that CASA obtained legal advice regarding the APTA model for
the purpose of the Significant Change application. After receiving advice, CASA sent the notice dated 23 October 2018 where it advised you of its intention to refuse the request to add new bases and
invited APTA to provide additional information. It is important to note that the wording of the notice was not a decision to close APTA.

When I completed the review, I decided there were further inquiries our Office could make with CASA to clarify parts of its earlier response to us about the Notice. The scope of my additional inquiries was limited to questions about the requirement for contracts to show operational control
and clarification of information regarding CASA engagement with MFT and APTA prior to October 2018. The purpose of the further inquiries was to provide assurance about the way CASA engaged with you, noting the ICC has already concluded that the way CASA advised you of its change to regulatory approach was likely unfair and not in line with its Regulatory Philosophy. Operators using substantially the same model as APTA

Part of your complaint was that you believed APTA was treated unfairly and differently to other Flight Training Organisations (FTO’s). You told us that there are other FTO’s operating under the
umbrella of a third-party AOC. At the conclusion of my review, I asked questions of CASA about this issue as part of my further inquiries for the purpose of obtaining assurance APTA wasn’t treated
unfairly.

Request to meet with the CASA Board You complained that you made multiple requests to meet the CASA Board, and say these requests were ignored for at least six months. Your complaint record shows that you did make multiple requests to meet with the CASA board, and that this was declined. CASA has provided information showing it advised you that the board was being kept updated on your matter, but that it deemed your concerns to be an operational matter, and more appropriately dealt with by CASA staff. I have no reason to be critical of this response in the circumstances. I can see from emails provided by you and by CASA that you had ongoing communication with CASA following the October 2018 notice,
including multiple meetings, including with senior staff such as Peter White, Craig Martin and Shane Carmody, then then CEO of CASA. I am satisfied that no further investigation of this issue is warranted in all the circumstances.


Temporary bases

You complained that in the October 2018 Notice, CASA told you that the use of ‘temporary bases’ was likely unauthorised, but that you had adopted a model recommended by CASA and used CASA’s
own sample document as the basis for this procedure. In a report prepared by CASA in December 2018, CASA acknowledged that APTA was referred to its
own sample manuals for Part 141 and Part 142, which included a broad ability to conduct flight training at temporary bases. I acknowledge that you likely relied on information from CASA in
developing your process for using temporary bases, and that CASA’s change of position on this issue would have been a shock to you.

I considered this issue as part of my review of your complaint. I am satisfied that while there was scope for CASA to engage with you in a more informal way prior to the notice of 23 October 2018, its
concern as to whether the use of temporary bases complied with the legislation was reasonable and it was appropriate for it to seek more information from APTA about this. I understand that when
CASA identified its own documents had been used by APTA, it did not pursue this issue. This was open to CASA to do.

I am satisfied that no further investigation of this issue is warranted in all the circumstances.

Complaint outcome – further inquiries
I asked further questions of CASA about its engagement with you and APTA both before and after the notice dated 23 October 2018 was sent. I asked about the requirement to show operational
control, the requirement to provide contracts and CASA’s engagement with you when it sought information about the APTA model. CASA responded to further inquiries from the Office in November 2022 and has provide information and evidence to satisfy me that:

 Operational control was not a new concept that was created by CASA and applied to APTA in
this matter.
 CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of
operational control before it made this request of APTA.
 Legislation and civil aviation regulations do support the basis for CASA’s request for
contracts from APTA, notwithstanding the legislation does not specifically require contracts.
 While you had provided sample contracts to CASA prior to the notice, it was not
unreasonable for it to request signed contracts to show the actual agreement in place
between APTA and its affiliates.
 CASA engaged with you and your father in a collaborative way following the notice of 23
October 2018, despite your view that CASA did not engage with you fairly.
 CASA had been provided with information from you about the intent of the APTA model
prior to October 2018, and there may have been opportunities for CASA to engage with you
in a more collaborative way to raise its concerns, prior to sending APTA the formal letter of
23 October 2018.

I can see that you had a close working relationship with your CASA inspectorate team during the time that Melbourne Flight Training / APTA transitioned to the new regulatory regime. I accept that you had provided information to CASA about the APTA model prior to October 2018, and it was reasonable for you to believe that CASA understood how the model worked. However, at the point
in time when CASA inspectors became concerned that the APTA model may not have been consistent with what civil aviation legislation and regulations permitted, it was reasonable for CASA
to take steps to clarify how APTA worked, and to seek evidence to support the model’s compliance.

While the notice of 23 October 2018 that CASA intended to refuse the Significant Change application likely came as a shock, it was an invitation for APTA to provide further information to CASA to allow
the application to be finalised. I acknowledge that it may have been beneficial if CASA had taken a more collaborative approach to seeking this information, including by having a more informal
discussion with you first.

Allegations that CASA has mislead the Ombudsman’s Office

I note that you have made allegations that CASA has mislead the Office. I can see you raised this concern as early as July 2020 after Mike sent you an update regarding ‘Phase One’ of his
investigation. You raised further concerns following Mark’s email to you dated 23 December 2020 and during the course of my review of your initial complaint. Having considered the information provided to the Office by yourself and CASA during the investigation, I do not believe CASA has mislead our office, or sought to withhold information from us. The information and evidence provided by CASA has been detailed and showed its engagement with you both before and after the October 2018 notice. The information does show that CASA was, and should have been, aware of the APTA model prior to October 2018. CASA has acknowledged this to our Office and to you.

The information provided by CASA also supports its position that it engaged with you following the October 2018 notice and sought to assist you to provide information that would have satisfied CASA
of the ‘operational control’ requirement. As set out above, I am satisfied the change in regulatory
position was open to CASA, while acknowledging the process could have been managed better. I appreciate the circumstances of the notice in October 2018 must have come as a shock to you, and
do not seek to diminish the impact of the regulatory change on your business model and yourself personally, however I do not agree with your view that CASA has misled the Office about material aspects of your complaint.



Conclusion

Having considered the issues raised in your complaint and assessing the information obtained during the investigation of your complaint by the Office, I am satisfied that no further investigation of your
complaint is warranted in all the circumstances. As I advised in my email dated 8 February 2023, we have now closed your complaint file. While this may not be the outcome you were hoping for, I hope you can see we have taken your complaint seriously and have thoroughly considered the concerns you raised. Thank you for bringing your concerns to the attention of the Ombudsman’s Office.

Yours sincerely
Catherine
Senior Complaint Officer
Complaints Branch

---

My follow up 15/04/23

To The Ombudsman's Office,

I am just following up on the previous email. Once the Ombudsman's Office has been able to determine whether CASA always or never permitted this arrangement, can you confirm that I would be entitled to that information, which is integral to this entire matter, and i would have expected to be fully clarified at the onset of the investigation over 4 years ago. This truly should be a black and white matter.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

---

Ombudsman Response 15/04/23

Dear Mr Buckley,

I refer to your email dated 28 March 2023, in which you expressed dissatisfaction that Catherine’s decision letter did not express a view about whether APTA had been treated fairly compared to other Flight Training Organisations (FTO). Catherine is on leave from the Office but, in her absence, I reviewed her records of investigation. From these, I can see that she considered, and sought information from CASA about this issue and ultimately decided she could not confidently conclude who (within CASA) knew what about your business model at what time, to assess the way your business was treated compared to other similar organisations. I apologise that this conclusion was not explained more clearly in her letter of decision.

Noting this investigation is closed, our Office may file but not necessarily respond to any further correspondence you send on the matter.

Kind regards

Some UP response posts:

More weasel words- my bolding.

Good to see its starting to fall apart.


“After I finalised the review, … no further investigation of your complaint is required at this time…”

“had given our Office a reasonable explanation for its view that it was not ‘fully aware’ of how APTA was operating and acknowledged your differing view. He was not satisfied that CASA had misled this Office”

“and the ICC issued a preliminary decision dated 16 October 2019 where it found the email was ‘unreasonable and inappropriate’. providing a written apology to you on 19 October 2019.”

“suggesting the model used by APTA was different to what CASA understood it to be when it had transitioned APTA to the new regulatory scheme,”

“I would like to make it clear that CASA has also provided substantial information, including emails between you and CASA in 2016 and 2017 that also demonstrate that you had discussions with CASA about the APTA concept during that time.”

“the ICC has already concluded that the way CASA advised you of its change to regulatory approach was likely unfair and not in line with its Regulatory Philosophy.”

“I acknowledge that you likely relied on information from CASA in developing your process for using temporary bases, and that CASA’s change of position on this issue would have been a shock to you.”

“I accept that you had provided information to CASA about the APTA model prior to October 2018, and it was reasonable for you to believe that CASA understood how the model worked.”

“I acknowledge that it may have been beneficial if CASA had taken a more collaborative approach to seeking this information,”

“The information does show that CASA was, and should have been, aware of the APTA model prior to October 2018. CASA has acknowledged this to our Office and to you.”

“As set out above, I am satisfied the change in regulatory position was open to CASA, while acknowledging the process could have been managed better.”

“I can see that she considered, and sought information from CASA about this issue and ultimately decided she could not confidently conclude who (within CASA) knew what about your business model at what time,”

---

Clinton McKenzie

Originally Posted by glenb [url=https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/620219-glen-buckley-australian-small-business-v-casa.html#post11454801][/url]

Dear Mr Buckley,

I refer to your email dated 28 March 2023, in which you expressed dissatisfaction that Catherine’s decision letter did not express a view about whether APTA had been treated fairly compared to other Flight Training Organisations (FTO). Catherine is on leave from the Office but, in her absence, I reviewed her records of investigation. From these, I can see that she considered, and sought information from CASA about this issue and ultimately decided she could not confidently conclude who (within CASA) knew what about your business model at what time, to assess the way your business was treated compared to other similar organisations. I apologise that this conclusion was not explained more clearly in her letter of decision.

Noting this investigation is closed, our Office may file but not necessarily respond to any further correspondence you send on the matter.

Kind regards

As I said in one of our recent video discussions, Glen, the most appalling thing for me out of the RoboDebt Royal Commission hearings was the revelations as to the extent of the deterioration of the Commonwealth Ombudsman function.The Ombudsman’s Office was sent some ‘RoboDebt’s all fine and dandy and legal, nothing to see here’ correspondence from the policy Department, the Ombudsman’s Office asked ‘are you sure about that and have you given us all the legal advice you’ve received’, the policy Department said ‘yep’ and the Ombudsman just drank that Koolaide.

The Ombudsman’s Office was fed misleading information, the Ombudsman’s Office suspected the information was misleading, but didn’t dig any further.We know, from the hearings of the Royal Commission, what would have been dug up if the Ombudsman’s Office had done its job properly.

The ‘explanation’ given to you for the ‘conclusion’ of and the closing of the ‘investigation’ of your allegation that ATPA was treated differently and unfairly compared to other FTOs by CASA is, in and of itself, an admission that the Ombudsman’s Office did not do a proper investigation! It’s breathtaking that the Office is now so busted that it thinks that a reasonable explanation for not finding out whether APTA was treated differently and unfairly compared to other FTOs is that the Ombudsman’s Office looked at some information provided by CASA and couldn’t work out who in CASA knew what.

Differing levels of knowledge and ignorance of different individuals within CASA could be the cause of the very problem which the Ombudsman was supposed to be investigating! The Ombudsman’s Office’s job was to first get to the bottom of whether APTA was actually subjected by CASA to regulatory requirements to which other FTOs were not subjected in similar circumstances, irrespective of the cause of that differential regulatory treatment. If APTA was in fact subjected by CASA to regulatory requirements to which other FTOs in similar circumstances were not subjected – such as APTA being required to provide copies of contracts, containing clauses to the satisfaction of CASA, because non-employees were engaged in the delivery of flying training under the authority of APTA’s AOC, but other FTOs who engaged non-employees were not required by CASA to provide copies of contracts with those clauses - that’s the failure of administration that the Ombudsman’s Office is supposed to identify.

The next step is to identify the cause of that failure and to fix the cause. For example, if it turns out that CASA is an internal governance basket case, such that different silos of the organisation have different levels of knowledge and views about what regulatory requirements apply to FTOs in similar circumstances, and interpret and enforce those requirements differently while having internal arguments about who’s right and who’s wrong, that governance failure is the cause of the problem. Best to fix that.

I shake my head in disbelief in much of what I read coming out of the Ombudsman’s Office on this and other matters in last few years. It’s no wonder to me that faith in politicians and the institutions of government is at an all time low.

MTF...P2 

[Wombat]

Could someone ask CASA this question and copy their answer to all concerned;

Did other training providers in Australia operate under a substantially similar business model - subcontracting their AOC to other training providers at the time CASA initially acted to restrict APTAs activities? Yes or No?

If the answer is yes, how many other training providers in Australia operated under an arrangement substantially similar at that time?

Were such arrangements, if any, of long standing? Say for three or more years or were these a matter of short term administrative convenience for perhaps a matter of a few weeks?

If the answer to any of the foregoing questions are “yes” and more than one operator (APTA) engaged in substantially similar operations over considerable time, how many of these operators were served with notices restricting their activities in the same way and at the same time as APTA?

If not, why not?

If the APTA business model had features unacceptable to CASA, compared to models that apparently do exist, then why wouldn’t CASA permit APTA to modify its models into a compliant form?

Failing that, and given CASA’s obvious commitment to a thriving industry, why did not CASA explore the possibility of seeking an exemption from the Minister for the offending as it regularly does?