Glen_B - Question 9...
First coffee thoughts and draft:-
Edit - Q9. After the enforced closure of Mr Buckley's business, permanent employment was secured within industry as the CASA approved Head of Operations, within a similar commercial aviation business. A CASA representative wrote to the management of that employer stating that 'the continuation of Buckley employment was not tenable'. This argument based solely on comments publicly made by Buckley with regard to the actions taken by CASA in the closure, without explanation, as to why Buckley's business had been summarily denied operating rights and approvals. Can a comprehensive explanation and supporting reasoning for this advice to an employer be provided? (E&OE)...
This single question shines a very bright light on the 'unspoken' dark side of CASA tactics. Buckley is not, by any measure, the first to be treated in this manner. But, by the gods, he must be the last. It is one of the very real, totally 'provable' elements of the reprehensible misuse of power by CASA officers, often with the support, or even at the behest of their senior management. The list of pilots and business operators who have been subjected to similar and worse treatment is extensive. Never once, throughout the long history of Senate inquiry and Investigation, despite the millions spent, has this shameful topic ever been touched on. High time it was blasted wide open...
The existing, ever present threat of the CASA 'treatment' being doled out is very, very real. Should any Minister of government ever have the sand to take the lid off this particular can of worms and eradicate it, it would be a huge step toward reconciliation with and respect for the authority tasked with over sighting an essential, revenue producing industry. I say that unless this highly counterproductive practice is stamped out, those who foster it removed from office and the rules which allow it dismantled, then any hope of a real 'partnership' between industry and regulator will be doomed to fail (once again) - for a simple lack of 'faith' in the rule of law and natural justice and any semblance of honesty within the 'administration'.
Sorry to monkey about with your missive Glen - but that supported single act of calculated, cowardly, unmitigated bastardy (item 9) generates more fury than the other valid points made.
Cheers 'K'...
First coffee thoughts and draft:-
Edit - Q9. After the enforced closure of Mr Buckley's business, permanent employment was secured within industry as the CASA approved Head of Operations, within a similar commercial aviation business. A CASA representative wrote to the management of that employer stating that 'the continuation of Buckley employment was not tenable'. This argument based solely on comments publicly made by Buckley with regard to the actions taken by CASA in the closure, without explanation, as to why Buckley's business had been summarily denied operating rights and approvals. Can a comprehensive explanation and supporting reasoning for this advice to an employer be provided? (E&OE)...
This single question shines a very bright light on the 'unspoken' dark side of CASA tactics. Buckley is not, by any measure, the first to be treated in this manner. But, by the gods, he must be the last. It is one of the very real, totally 'provable' elements of the reprehensible misuse of power by CASA officers, often with the support, or even at the behest of their senior management. The list of pilots and business operators who have been subjected to similar and worse treatment is extensive. Never once, throughout the long history of Senate inquiry and Investigation, despite the millions spent, has this shameful topic ever been touched on. High time it was blasted wide open...
The existing, ever present threat of the CASA 'treatment' being doled out is very, very real. Should any Minister of government ever have the sand to take the lid off this particular can of worms and eradicate it, it would be a huge step toward reconciliation with and respect for the authority tasked with over sighting an essential, revenue producing industry. I say that unless this highly counterproductive practice is stamped out, those who foster it removed from office and the rules which allow it dismantled, then any hope of a real 'partnership' between industry and regulator will be doomed to fail (once again) - for a simple lack of 'faith' in the rule of law and natural justice and any semblance of honesty within the 'administration'.
Sorry to monkey about with your missive Glen - but that supported single act of calculated, cowardly, unmitigated bastardy (item 9) generates more fury than the other valid points made.
Cheers 'K'...