[Peetwo]

Glen B CASA embuggerance update??

Via the UP:

Lead Balloon

Hi Glen


I’ve been a bit busy, so sorry I haven’t responded sooner.

In order for you to be entitled to reasons for decision under s 13 of the ADJR Act (or s 28 of the AAT Act), there has to be a decision to which one of those sections applies. For example, if you have applied for but have been refused a certificate or licence or approval etc that CASA can grant you, you generally have a statutory entitlement to reasons for that decision.

As I’ve tried to explain before, a decision by someone in CASA to interpret the rules differently from someone else in CASA does not seem to me to be that kind of decision. It is, of course, a decision that can have disastrous practical consequences for people who’ve relied on one interpretation over the other, but that does not make the decision, of itself, an administrative decision to which the statutory reasons obligation applies. There are other potential causes of action in those circumstances.

So far as I can tell from your posts, you’ve just been ‘driven into the ground’ by CASA by a change in regulatory approach. You haven’t applied to CASA for something that CASA has refused to give you. If I were in your shoes, I’d be focussing my energy on matters other than reasons for decision. (That is unless you now want to apply for what you need to continue your flying training activities in the way you did before, or a lawyer with professional indemnity insurance has advised you that you are entitled to reasons in the circumstances, or a potentially futile request for reasons is an avenue that is therapeutic for you.)

As always: More power to your arm and I hope you get adequate compensation for what you have been and are being put through.

---

glenb 

Lead Balloon

---

Dear Lead Balloon,
Great to have you back. Thank you!

On advice from here, I have familiarised myself with the ADJR Act. An interesting document, and it has made me change tact somewhat. In a previous post, I attached Stage One of the Ombudsman's report and had the opportunity for a follow-up telephone call. Clearly, Mr. Jonathan Aleck, CASAs Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory services will have a different perspective but i am assured by the Ombudsman that his determination is the significantly more substantive one. That indicates that CASA had no basis on which to reverse the approval. I would appreciate any valued feedback on that if you interpret it differently.

I do have legal firms looking at different aspects. I am awaiting the Ombudsman's determination from the latter stages of the investigation before finalizing my next course of action on this particular matter.

On the defamation case, I have advised the legal firm that the paltry and somewhat insulting offer is so far off the mark, that I cannot accept it. I will await the Ombudsman's report into Jason McHeyzers direction before proceeding, in the hope that further "ammunition" is provided.

I am now reviewing the "Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA Scheme) and also an Act of Grace payment. I hope to have correspondence on that matter finalized today, and will post that on here for feedback prior to submission.

I have an upcoming meeting with a legal firm that has expertise in such matters. I continue to do much of the legwork myself in an attempt to make my shots count and ensure that my funds from Gofundme go as far as possible.

I have had meetings regarding litigation funding, and am confident I will have a number of options available to me.

It's great to have you back, I was concerned that my posts may have become somewhat tedious and you were no longer following. Thanks for reaching out again. My battle will continue not only for me and my family but for the many other people also affected by this matter. Cheers. Glen

As a post note, i must say I am quite surprised by the CASA Boards' reluctance, and most particularly Mr. Anthony Mathews as the Chair of the CASA Board, to demonstrate any intent whatsoever to ensure the good governance of CASA. Aviation safety cannot possibly be enhanced by such poor stewardship. I can only hope that the departure of Mr Carmody coincides with a CASA Board changeover to enhance both aviation safety, good intent, ethics, and a commitment to a robust GA sector in what will be challenging times ahead for all.

Safe travels to you all, cheers. Glen and again, thankyou to you all.

Plus via the Aunty Pru email chains:

24/07/2020

Dear Mr Craig Martin,

Under Australian administrative law, persons affected or aggrieved by a decision may be able to apply to the decision-maker, being CASA, for a formal Statement of Reasons.

A Statement of Reasons is available if the decision in question could be appealed to either the AAT155 or the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act)156 and can be obtained by requesting the Statement of Reasons in writing.

While not an avenue of appeal as such, obtaining a Statement of Reasons can assist a person aggrieved by a decision to assess whether they have a case worth appealing, by fully explaining the reasons for a decision and the findings of fact and evidence considered by the decision-maker.

The Administrative Review Council has identified a number of benefits flowing from formal use of Statements of Reasons, namely they: – provide fairness by enabling decisions to be properly explained and defended – assist the person affected to decide whether to exercise rights of appeal or review – improve the quality of decision making – promote public confidence in the administrative process – assist tribunals and courts to better perform an administrative or judicial review.

In your role as CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance you made a decision/directive that I am seeking a Statement of Reasons to help me understand the lawfulness of that decision/directive.

As you are fully aware i operated a business operating in the flight training sector. You advised me that all employees had to draw their salary from the one Entity. For clarity, I operated a business called APTA which was the Authorisation Holder with the CASA Part 141 and Part 142 approvals that authorised me to deliver flight training, and under that authorisation i operated a flying school called Melbourne Flight Training (MFT).

CASA placed restrictions on APTAs ability to trade over a period of 8 months. As I advised CASA in writing on 10 occasions those restrictions on the businesses ability to trade would cost me in excess of $10,000 per week, as they did throughout the 8 months. Finally after 8 months the position of that business became untenable and APTA was sold for a fraction of its value to another Party.

You then directed that my flying school, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT), which I had retained, had to transfer its staff to the new owners of APTA.

I am not aware of any legislation that supports your contention. I complied with your direction, and reluctantly transferred my staff to the new owners of APTA. That obviously resulted in the failure of my second business, Melbourne Flight Training, as it no longer had any staff. With the transfer of the staff, obviously the students undertaking training were also transferred, and MFT was denied any revenue This caused enormous harm to me as my second business had been decimated, as it was denied its revenue streams.

Unfortunately that business, MFT, had continuing obligations to Suppliers which were not transferred, as understandably the new owners of APTA elected to take the revenue, but not the expenses. It also left me with obligations to staff by way of annual leave, redundancy payments etc that i was unable to meet.

The ramifications of your decision has impacted me, and my family but of equal importance it has impacted on many of my past valued and professional employees.

I do not believe that CASA has made this direction to any other aviation business, and that I was specifically targeted. There can be no doubt that many businesses utilise staff that do not draw their salary directly from the Authorisation Holder.

So can you please direct me to any legislation that supports your determination. I am trying to ascertain if i am dealing with legislative requirements or if i am dealing with opinion masquerading as policy, which is what i believe.

Could you please provide a statement of reasons supporting your directive that my staff had to be transferred to another entity.

I hope you will act with good intention and fulfill my request at your soonest opportunity.

Please note that I have included Mr Buss from the  Ombudsman's office in this correspondence, the Deputy Prime Minister's Office, and the CASA Board.

Yours respectfully, Glen Buckley

I note the following from glenb's UP post:

"..I am now reviewing the "Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA Scheme) and also an Act of Grace payment. I hope to have correspondence on that matter finalized today, and will post that on here for feedback prior to submission..."

Not wanting to burst Glen's bubble but perhaps the following maybe insightful for the way the CASA Iron Ring (and in particular Dr 'Hoodoo Voodoo' Aleck) will try to obfuscate and quash that attempt at recompense...

The Fawcett factor on closing airport safety loops...

Remember this?

Australian Transport Safety Bureau Hansard 19/10/2015. 

Senator FAWCETT: There are a couple of points that come out of this. There is one about the trust of industry in the organisations that are supposed to be having an oversight around safety and regulation, but the other is a very real impact on people. At the time, the committee were concerned about what we saw as a breakdown in the relationship between you and CASA and the inadequacies of the report. Subsequent to the Canadian peer review, which was quite scathing about the fact that there were very clear systemic issues which were not addressed, people who have been affected by this accident—being the pilot involved and potentially the nurse—have sought some remedy for the situation they find themselves in as a result of this report. In the pilot's case, correspondence I have seen from him has indicated that that report has essentially finished his aviation career. My understanding is that even after the Canadian report, when he has sought an act of grace payment from the Department of Finance, ATSB's recommendation is: 'Don't pay it. It was his fault.' Can you confirm that was the case?

Mr Dolan : I recall that there was some information sought from the Department of Finance in relation to an act-of-grace payment. We provided the facts as we understood them. It is not a purpose of our organisation to assign blame, and we would not have said that to the Department of Finance.

Senator XENOPHON: Can you provide the advice that Senator Fawcett has asked you for?

Mr Dolan : I beg your pardon?

Senator XENOPHON: Can you table that advice?

Mr Dolan : I cannot see any reason why we should not, so I will obtain it and table it for the committee.

Good to his word (but not much else) Beaker did table the ATSB 'don't pay him' advice to the Dept of Finance. Unfortunately I missed it at the time because the tabling was buried at the tale end of the 82 page 08ATSB AQON document (which included a 60 page MH370 tender attachment)...

Fair question by Senator X:

Senator XENOPHON: Mr Dolan, do you think it is inappropriate that you provide any opinion as to the appropriateness of an act-of-grace payment to the pilot involved, given your involvement in this particular matter, that there might be an issue of apprehended bias on your part and on the part of the ATSB, and that it really should be a matter that the ATSB either needs to get someone independent to comment on or not comment on it at all?

 
Given the DJ 'Act of Grace' application predated the October 2015 Supp Estimates hearing by  2 years, I always wondered why it was that Senator Fawcett chose that Estimates hearing to bring the matter up, recently I discovered why?

Copy of correspondence from Senator Fawcett to Senator Mathias Cormann, Minister for Finance 10 September 2014:

This correspondence was followed by another from DF in reply to correspondence from another useless, NFI Nationals MP and former Parliamentary Secretary to the Finance Minister Michael McCormack, who Mathias had handballed the matter to:

    
Which brings me to the advice of CASA, which in hindsight truly justifies Senator Fawcett's concerns and some..  

Much like the ATSB advice, bizarrely the CASA advice was not provided by the legal services division but by another conflicted (read NX Hansard text above) senior executive officer of CASA... :

&.. last page:

{Note: 1) Dr A has sent the letter officially from the DAS office and that he was at the time apparently the 'Acting' DAS?? 
2) Dr A acknowledges that the Finance Dept request was sent nearly two months before.
3) 12 December 2014 - Correspondence from manager legal branch Joe Rule indicates that the CASA submission would be forwarded by him within the next week. Yet the submission was ultimately addressed by Dr A - err why?}     

Good to see the good Dr has moved on from the embarrassment of the diabolical PelAir cover-up inquiry - NOT...

See HERE for the full text of one of the most vindictive, nasty documents from IMO the true centre of evil and instigator of FASA embuggerances...

Finally (for now) the evil Dr, not happy with dancing all over and rejecting the DJ 'Act of Grace' payment, takes offence and attempts to 'correct the record' on an incorrect inference in the former Parliamentary Secretary's rejection letter:  

  
Nasty ducker isn't he - UDB!

Do we need any further proof on who still controls the halls of Fort Fumble?? - all in the name of good aviation safety practice of course...

Hmm... what with the upcoming departure of the St Commode perhaps now would be a good time to start up an industry wide petition for Mr. Jonathan Aleck, CASAs Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory services to also be given the mandatory redundancy golden parachute?? 



MTF...P2