[P7_TOM]

Spot on.

Wombat - "I am therefore sensitive to the way the regulations are crafted, especially the over use of nominatives like “sufficient”, “acceptable”, “appropriate”, “satisfied”, etc. that infest them. Each and every use of each of these words is an open invitation to bias, stupidity and even corruption".


Particularly when the 'context' is supported by words like "must be" or; (my pet hate) 'deemed' etc. I could go on (and on) - relax; not when there is a little more to consider. We need to take a look at the 'philosophy' supporting the use of those words. The determination to 'write' rules which ensure a 99.9% 'safe conviction' rate; for that is the 'design' function. There is a substantive argument against this approach, indeed many wise heads have counselled against it- the FAA and EASA both - for example.

Should the rate be dropped to say 96% then we head into 'risk based' legislation, underpinning that is notion is a 'philosophy' which argues that; OK, the odd villain or even two may 'escape' the noose; maybe - if industry don't squawk - but the vast majority of 'errors' are a civil matter, not criminal. In the USA system, there is a very clear definition of what is a 'criminal act'; the FAA use this template. Now, if you are proven, in law, to have busted that code - the Golden Gate bridge will land on your head; on the civil law side, infractions are deemed much less heinous. But, the FAA regulations are plain words, risk based, with the onus being firmly on the risk taker. It is not perfect; but the approach is much more democratic, even handed and should you be proven to have deliberately set out - with intent - if you will then - well; let's just say you will need expert professional help of the expensive kind.

The 'secret' is in the avoidance of drafting another 'criminal code' and providing risk based, clearly defined regulation. Our Australian aviation regulations are almost diametrically opposed to this approach, with all power of law acting in defence nullified with the simple words - Strict Liability. I'll tell you this - CASA take up more time and cause more aggravation to the drafters of 'rules than any two other 'agencies'. "They're a royal pain in the butt" as one legal draughtsman expressed it one night over an ale (or was it two, I forget)

Only my opinion - but I reckon several departments and Com Care would breathe a huge sigh of relief if the 'philosophy' of the administration could be moderated a tad.

I shall now attend the dart board and my Ale; been a long weary wait for this simple pleasure - best step up - the opposition have clearly been practising at home.

[Kharon]

Whoa, Steady the Buffs.

GB - "Stay tuned because i fully intend to come out fighting like CASA haven't seen before. Im coming for Aleck an Martin, and anybody else in the national Part i.e. our ex Deputy PM who covered up and facilitated this misconduct."

If any of the folk mentioned so much as get a splinter in a Teflon coated arse from a wooden dunny seat, the 'law' will be called in and Glen will be accused of planting it. Accused of 'threatening behaviour' and grievous bodily harm. Believe me, I've seen CASA parlay much less into 'fact'. Being on medication, in pain and awaiting surgery may just be enough defence - as matters stand - however; IMO Glen should modify this post; or, retract it. Ammunition delivered, gift wrapped, to the enemy is not considered good strategy.

GB - "God help you Martin and Aleck because you will pay for this, i now have absolutely nothing at all to loose. You will both pay for the harm inflicted you have my word on that!"

Completely understandable, laudable sentiments - in the pub. But posted on social media - really? Mate, you've only seen a small part of the influence and power these people have at their disposal, you do not want to be exposed to the 'dark side' of CASA, nor do you want to provide free kicks. Believe me, 'we' have done some serious investigation into past episodes and, hardened as we are to the antics, every now and again we find a case which can still 'shock'. Over the past decade we have yet to see more than two of the many 'victims' come out ahead. Nor shall we, not until there is an inquiry into 'past' cases of embuggerance and some financial justice awarded alongside of penalty imposed on 'them what done the 'buggering'. Many have tried - individually - and gone nowhere; without some form of 'judicial' inquiry, politically backed, it is mission impossible to bring 'CASA' to book. Too many political red faces from the fall out a stumbling block of epic proportions.

At the moment, GB has a viable excuse - hospital, pain, medication a reasonable defence option, to reasonable men. Thing is, we are not dealing with 'reasonable' men and any small advantage offered can and will be ruthlessly used in their defence. Get well mate; but please consider the wisdom of not taking a 'knife to gun fight' and then giving it to the opposition. Many a match has been lost through 'free kicks' - given in the heat of competition.

Mind how you go now - Toot - toot...

[Kharon]

"The scandal began in December 1894 when Captain Alfred Dreyfus was convicted of treason. Dreyfus was a 35-year-old Alsatian French artillery officer of Jewish descent. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly communicating French military secrets to the German Embassy in Paris, and was imprisoned in Devil's Island in French Guiana, where he spent nearly five years. "

" On 5 January 1895, the ceremony of degradation took place in the Morlan Court of the Military School in Paris. While the drums rolled, Dreyfus was accompanied by four artillery officers, who brought him before an officer of the state who read the judgment. A Republican Guard adjutant tore off his badges, thin strips of gold, his stripes, cuffs and sleeves of his jacket. Witnesses report the dignity of Dreyfus, who continued to maintain his innocence while raising his arms: "Innocent, Innocent! Vive la France! Long live the Army". The Adjutant broke his sword on his knee and then the condemned Dreyfus marched at a slow pace in front of his former companions."

......needless to say, but Captain Dreyfus was innocent and the contortions of the French establishment to try and hide this odorous miscarriage of justice fractured France. Dreyfus was exonerated and reinstated in 1906 snd served throughout WWI.

Perhaps the most famous turning point in this drawn out saga (for a saga is about good vs. evil) was Emile Zolas public letter "J' Accuse" published in L'Aurore - which accused the French General Staff of conspiracy and deliberate miscarriage of justice.

I am reminded of L'affaire Dreyfus by L'affaire Buckley - in which Mr. Buckley's APTA flight training organization was allegedly destroyed by CASA for no good reason at great personal and financial cost. Mr.  Buckley complains voluminously on the pages (90 pages, count them) of another website. He has gone to the Commonwealth ombudsman but receives no satisfaction. CASA makes a submission to the Senate inquiry (46.1) that appears to state that Buckley is just a malcontent.

So there you have it CASA shutters a business for what appears to be not because of any specific breach of the regulations but because it doesn't like "the vibe" of APTA, at least according to Glen Buckley.

So that was the state of play until Glen Buckley had a heart attack on 9 October .. and has spent some time reflecting on what has transpired and has now written and published his own "J'accuse" - targetting Mr. Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.I don't think CASA can ignore this, let alone Mr. Aleck.

MTF

[Peetwo]

FF deckchair shuffle begins; plus GlenB embuggerance update - 

EWH catching up, via the Yaffa:

 

13 October 2021

Executive Manager Stakeholder Engagement Rob Walker is set to take over the Regulatory Oversight Division in a new CASA structure that has also seen Group Executive Manager – Aviation Graeme Crawford leave the regulator after his position was abolished.

Walker has run the Stakeholder Engagement division since March 2016 and has been instrumental in reforming consultation processes and establishing the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel and Technical Working Groups.

The new structure has been put in place by Director of Aviation and CEO Pip Spence in order to flatten the management structure and focus all divisions of CASA on aviation safety.

All executive managers will now report directly to Spence with the Regulatory Oversight Division (ROD), National Operations and Standards, and Group Transformations and Safety Systems joining the CASA executive committee.

In a statement handed to all CASA staff on 5 October, Spence explained the reasoning behind the changes.

"An 'aviation group' with its own executive team implies a split from the rest of the organisation and doesn't properly acknowledge that was are all here to work together in the interest of aviation safety.

"At times, this has impeded organisational efficiency and made it more difficult for our whole executive to achieve alignment on important issues."

Spence acknowledged the work of Crawford pointing our his contribution to regulatory reform and his tenure as Acting Director of Aviation Safety following the retirement of Shane Carmody late last year.

Sources within CASA have said that previous ROD Executive Manager Craig Martin is due to leave the regulator by the end of October.

 
Comments in reply, via FB:

Sandy Reith

Quote from article:- “The new structure has been put in place by Director of Aviation and CEO Pip Spence in order to flatten the management structure and focus all divisions of CASA on aviation safety.”
There you have it, exactly as is the charter of CASA, that safety has primacy over every consideration.
As Dick Smith once said then all airliners should be fitted with passenger ejector seats. Until the Minister changes the riding instructions you cannot expect CASA, with this inappropriate and unrealistic foremost directive, to make the sort of reforms that can stop the decline of GA in Australia.

---

David Ian Grant

From what I hear just replacing one Sociopath with another.?

Via the AP email chains:

13/10/21

Dear Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs,

I am writing to you as the person that I consider accountable and responsible for my entire matter, and the related damage caused.

You were the sole decision maker, and at any time prior to issuing the notification in October 2018 and at any time after, you could have finalised this entire matter in a single day. In fact, you could have completely avoided it had you decided to.

That is the truth, and I will attend to that shortly in correspondence to the CASA Board, CEO and Deputy PM.

The purpose of this correspondence, however, is to call on you to act with integrity and in a truthful manner. If you choose not to do so, I will follow up with more extensive correspondence.

You have misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman to be of the view that CASA only found out about my businesses structure just prior to October 2018.

You know that to be incorrect, and I call on you to clarify this substantial misunderstanding. It is in fact central to this entire matter.

I am exhausted by your conduct. It has cost me my two businesses, my involvement in an industry I loved, cost me millions of dollars, and left me bankrupt. I have negatively impacted on so many people dependant on me. You have destroyed me financially, mentally, and having been released yesterday from hospital after an issue with my heart, physically.

Your “body of work” is complete, I fear it brings you some grotesque satisfaction.

The CASA position presented to the Ombudsman is preposterous. As you are fully aware.

• I had been operating in that structure for almost a decade prior, since our involvement with AV8 in Darwin. With full CASA knowledge and approval.
  
• Ten CASA personnel were involved over a two-year period in the total redesign of my business, and CASA personnel assessed and approved over 600 requirements. Those same CASA personnel have offered to come forward and tell the truth on this matter. I have extended that offer to the Commonwealth Ombudsman
  
• CASA revalidated the entire operation in April 2017 when it approved the business as a Part 141/142 (one of the first in Australia), eighteen months before CASA “found out”, about the structure.
  
• Routinely audited the entire operation with several CASA personnel over a one-week period in November 2017 (almost a year before you claim you “found out about” my structure.
  
• CASA approved our entire Operations Manual Suite referred to as the Exposition and approved bases via formal processes etc etc.
  
• CASA personnel regularly attended Group Operational Meetings and Safety meetings on numerous occasions, and CASA provided training to us in Group meetings.
  

I need not continue. My hope is that I will not need to. It should not be necessary. You have already diverted far too many public CASA resources to covering up this matter, and engineering your desired outcome.
I personally have expended everything, and I mean everything in trying to expose this matter.
Please note that I have not included anyone from CASA in this correspondence. I will leave it to your discretion if you deem it necessary to share this correspondence with the CASA CEO or Board.

My expectation is that you will reach out directly to the Commonwealth Ombudsman via written notification and clarify the truth regrading CASAs knowledge and involvement in my business years before you claim you first became aware. I ask that I be included in that correspondence.

If you in your role, maintain that it is CASAs position that you only became aware of the structure of my business just prior to October of 2018. I will write to the CASA CEO Board and CEO seeking confirmation that will be  the official CASA position.

My sincere hope is that the new CEO and Board Chair do not need to become involved in this matter, although it seems increasingly unlikely. This matter is entirely in your hands, I urge you to act appropriate to your role.

Glen Buckley

Along with the above from GlenB, the following video segments IMO (along with the 1000s of notified non-compliant differences to ICAO; the hugely complex, totally unworkable, draconian and ICAO non-compliant CASR regulatory suite blah..blah..blah -  ) puts a hat on why it is simply unacceptable for the architect of so many industry embuggerances to be ensconced inside of Aviation House while still actively undermining any real attempts at reforming the completely recalcitrant, 'law unto itself' Australian civil aviation administration...

And who could forget Dr A's extraordinary statement given in the PelAir inquiry, where he gave evidence that the main reason for the ATSB/CASA MOU sharing of investigative documentation etc. was for the main benefit of CASA not the ATSB..

IMO it is definitely way past time that Dr A collected his remaining marbles and exited the building...

MTF...P2 

Ps Karma's a BITCH best respected...

[Wombat]

One option CASA and/or Aleck have might be to ask a Federal Court for an injunction to shut down Glen Buckley, delete his thread on another website and then ensnare him in a protracted and costly legal case for defamation/whatever. This has the "benefit" of suppressing adverse criticism of CASA immediately. CASA can then play a long game designed to destroy Buckleys remaining finances as well as his health while positioning CASA to resolve the case.

That could perhaps be done after a year or two of expensive legal argument by the CASA operatives involved taking early retirement. With no staff available for cross examination, CASA can then magnanimously declare that this is all ancient history of which it knows nothing and offer to drop the case in return for perhaps paying Buckleys legal costs and not much else. A good lawyer should be able to string Buckley out for maybe five(?) years this way and leave him with nothing.

Ideally this process should start with the legal equivalent of a flaming turd on Buckleys doorstep : - that is the 4.59 pm Friday fax and email from CASAs lawyers which is designed to wreck Buckleys weekend.

My opinion? I am reminded of an apocryphal american lawsuit when the injured protagonist is said to have stated to the lawyers acting for him: "I will consider you to have failed if the bastards have a single dollar to their name when this is finished". Not that I could recommend anything at all because IANAL.

In fact I hope Glen leaves his letter hanging and gets on with his life. It's not worth fighting CASA. In fact it's demeaning and dirty to even have to make such allegations against what is supposed to be a Government body.

[Peetwo]

CASA bans Sandy from commenting on Facebook page - WTD?  

Via AP email chains, Sandy to his Federal MP Dan Tehan:

Dear Dan, 

As my representative please find answers to the following questions based on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s banning of comments of selected individuals from it’s FaceBook page.

1. Please advise why I have been selected to be banned.

2. Is it appropriate to ban outright an individual or  group and not notify the reason?

3. Is this CASA’s method of self promotion in the face of legitimate and widespread criticism effectively a political campaign?

4. Please have the list of CASA’s list of persona non grata published and updated regularly and are there any other sanctions placed on these people?

5. Please ask the Board of CASA if it is involved in CASA’s social media policy.

The General Aviation (GA) community is in need of regulatory reform and normal Departmental control under a responsible Minister which will stop the decline of GA and revive this important industry.

I realise that there are leading questions here but being discriminated against is a serious violation against me and I’m entitled to explanation from my Government.

Thanking you,

Sandy

See note in the screenshot below the comments

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 19/10/21

Via the AP email chains:

---

18/10/21

Dear Mr Craig Martin,

Please note that I have included the CEO of CASA Ms. Pip Spence and the CASA Board in this correspondence, as the matters are significant, and have the potential to impact on aviation safety, if my allegations are to be substantiated.

I understand that over coming weeks your intention is to depart CASA. Despite our differences, I do wish you well in your future career outside of aviation safety.

Prior to your departure, and while still in your role as the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Oversight, I would like to provide you with the opportunity to correct any errors in my recollection of our meeting on April 4th, 2019.

I am working on a timeline of some of the core issues, and important dates. Don’t worry, I appreciate that what follows, appears to substantial document, and you will no doubt be extremely busy. I don’t expect you to read through it in its entirety.

Can I ask that you scroll down to one date only and that date is April 4th, 2019? I do not seek confirmation of anything else in this correspondence although I would like to give you the opportunity, while still in your role, to refute my recollection of the contents of that meeting, and the firm commitments you gave me on behalf of CASA at that meeting.

From my clear and well supported recollection, you gave me a very firm commitment that finally after 8 months, CASA was about to lift the trading restrictions, and let my business resume operations, immediately that I embedded the CASA suggested text, and returned it to you.

I embedded the suggested text in the commercial contracts. Exactly as CASA suggested.

On the 9th of April, CASA wrote to me indicating that the matter was now finalised, and therefore my business could resume operations, and that the trading restrictions would be lifted. That information came through to me at 6.30PM, and confirmed the commitments Mr Martin had given me in the meeting from my accountant’s office on the 4th April, only days earlier.

Then at 11.30 PM the same night, only hours later, CASA wrote to me and reversed that approval, and I was back in exactly the same situation I had been for the last 8 months, with the trading restrictions still in place.

My understanding is that there was some intervention or communication with Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs in that interim period, although I am not asking you to comment on that.

At To clarify. I am only seeking comment against my recollection of the commitments you gave on April 4th, 2019, as reflected in the following timeline, on that date only, nothing more, nothing less. If you dispute anything, or disagree with my version of the commitments given, could you please clearly communicate that to me.

I hope that you will respond to my fair and reasonable request. It is important, and it is pertinent. An employee of CASA has misled the Ombudsman’s Office to believe that there was multiple well intentioned efforts made by CASA. I steadfastly refute that assertion by CASA Your commitments given to me on April 4th 2019, and then reversed by Mr Jonathan Aleck are indicative, that in fact no well intentioned efforts were made by CASA.

Yours thankfully,

Glen Buckley

---

And from this week's SBG: https://auntypru.com/sbg-17-10-21-of-cam...d-buckley/

...It is a fair and reasonable call on executive government to guarantee that Buckley is the very last in the parade of those shut down without serious prior consultation and opportunity to reform/comply or satisfy the regulation. A business decimated without clear reason, proven at law, is not a thing which should happen in a civilised democratic country. Buckley should be the straw which collapses the bloody roof...

MTF...P2 

[Wombat]

There can be no investment in General Aviation in Australia at all while CASA is permitted to keep doing what it currently does. investment due diligence focuses on various types off risk - commercial risk - what competitors might do, business risk - the nature of the business eg drought, floods etc. and lastly sovereign risk.- the risk of government corruption nationalisation, etc.

In first world countries sovereign risk is normally zero. there is no corruption, the country won’t go bankrupt, there is rule of law, contracts are honoured, etc.

Unfortunately for Australia, sovereign risk in aviation investment is not zero as it should be. The case of Buckley/APTA is a classic case of sovereign risk, if you are to believe Buckley, he tried to do everything right but was still destroyed. No honest investor worth the name will touch Australian GA with a ten foot pole - way too much CASA risk.

And by definition, you can be sure that anyone who does invest has an “angle” or “connections” because that is obviously the only way to insure against CASA regulatory risk. It appears THAT is what Buckley obviously failed to do. I do not believe any other explanation makes sense.

QANTAS, Virgin have too much political clout. The regional airlines are also politically well connected.

Ask yourself this: APTA was crucified. SOAR a dodgy corrupt, fraudulent, dangerously incompetent flight school that seriously injured some of its students was permitted by CASA to thrive. Why is that? Similarly, individuals and businesses seem to be closed or punished for no consistent reasons.

Perhaps all our breast beating about “the iron ring”, personalities, blighted careers, revenge, etc., etc., is actually wrong. Perhaps the simplest explanation is that the organisation is no different from the Queensland and NSW Police of yore? Brown paper bags? We generally don’t think that way in Australia. What if we should? What if CASA is just a nest of clever crooks?

In that case perhaps we should rename the DAS as “Godfather”? Sorry, “Godperson”.

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 3/11/21

Via the AP email chains:

3rd November 2021
 
TO:
Mr. Mark Binskin AC- Chair of the CASA Board
Ms. Pip spence PSM- CASA CEO
CC:
The Office of the Deputy PM.
 
Dear Ms Spence, and Mr Binskin,

Congratulations on your respective appointments. The General Aviation (GA) is highly dependent on you, in your respective roles, as am I.

I would like to qualify the following correspondence by acknowledging that you are both relatively new to the positions and have had absolutely no involvement in this matter to date, and therefore not responsible for it.

Similarly, the Honourable Mr Barnaby Joyce has only recently taken over from Mr Michael McCormack, as the Minister responsible for CASA.

Mr McCormack has been fully briefed on this matter by the previous CASA Chair of the Board, Mr Anthony Matthews, in accordance with the obligations placed on him by the Ministers Statement of Expectations of the Board of CASA.

Although Mr McCormack never responded to my correspondence his Office has recently acknowledged receipt, of extensive correspondence from me, including allegations of misfeasance against one of the CASA Executive Managers, and therefore would be considered the Subject Matter Expert (SME) within the National Party.

You will be aware of my matter; my name is Glen Buckley the previous owner of Melbourne Flight Training (MFT) and the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA). Two flight training businesses shut down by CASA in October 2018. This was done with absolutely no supporting Safety Case despite my repeated requests for one.

I am fully satisfied that a CASA employees’ misconduct is the reason for the loss of my businesses, and others, and I have previously made allegations of misfeasance in Public Office against him before Parliament.

Other people have contacted me and offered to come forward and present their evidence, including CASA employees, against that same individual.

The impacts have been significant. Several businesses were closed, people lost their jobs, suppliers were left unpaid, customers impacted, and domestic and international students were impacted.

That is the reason that I am pushing to have my matter fully investigated in a well-intentioned manner. Far too many people have been impacted by this, and that causes an enormous burden on me.

The purpose of this correspondence.

I wish to provide you with a copy of a recording that I have not previously published.

If you listen to that recording of a CASA employee, it will bring this entire matter to a prompt resolution.

It will clearly demonstrate that CASA has mislead the Commonwealth Ombudsman in his investigation of this matter. Please be assured that there will be absolutely no doubt once you have listened to it.

The actions and decisions of this individual have left me and my wife bankrupt. We are destitute, and now literally live week to week. This matter at one stage had me depressed and suicidal and my three children had to experience that.

I am currently off work for 6 weeks after being released from hospital with a heart condition that I attribute to the conduct of this employee. Having just broken-down crying in a Bunnings store while simply trying to choose a light globe, I have come home decided to publish the recording.

Because of this individual misconduct I do not have the funds to obtain legal advice on this matter, so will default to your guidance.

Can each of you please advise the method that I can provide you with a copy of that recording in a confidential and appropriate manner.

Thank you for your consideration, and I hope you choose to take advantage of the opportunity presented.

Glen Buckley

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 6/11/21

Via the AP email email chains -  

 
Dear Mr Buckley

I refer to your email of 3 November 2021 addressed to the Chair of the CASA Board, Mark Binskin AC and CASA’s Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety (CEO/DAS), Pip Spence PSM.  I have been asked to respond on their behalf.

At the outset, Mr Binskin and Ms Spence thank you for your congratulatory wishes, and both confirm their commitment to ensuring CASA performs its important regulatory and safety-related functions in a way that is supportive of the general aviation community.

The particular point of your email concerns a recording you say demonstrates that CASA has misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman in his investigation of your complaints about CASA.  The Chair and the CEO/DAS consider it more appropriate that you provide that recording directly to the Ombudsman, on the basis that it is the Ombudsman who will be in the best position to consider its bearing on his office’s investigation of your complaints.

Should you also wish to share the recording or a summary of its content with the Chair and the CEO/DAS that would be a matter for you.

Yours sincerely

Colin McLachlan

P2 note - A less than 2 day response from CASA would be considered 'light speed' from the
bureaucratese world underneath the Can'tberra pleasure dome...  

Next GlenB's response...  

6th November 2021

cc: Ombudsman

Dear Colin, (CASA Board Secretariat),

Thank you for facilitating a prompt response to my correspondence dated November 3rd, 2021

I am formally requesting that CASA initiates contact with the Ombudsman’s Office forthwith.

It is my belief that CASA is duty bound, if not compelled, to contact the Ombudsman’s Office as soon as practical, after it became aware that it had potentially mislead the Ombudsman’s Office or provided information that is at its best inaccurate.

There can be no doubt that CASA has misled the Ombudsman’s Office to believe “CASA only became aware of APTAs structure just prior to October 2018; this is blatantly not the case.

In fact, that representation is very far from the truth of the situation as I am alleging that CASA has deliberately or otherwise mislead the Ombudsman’s Office and will provide evidence of that.

There are two fundamental points in asserting that CASA has mislead the Ombudsman’s Office, and. whilst not limited to only these two items, they are most significant.

Firstly, CASAs previously maintained CASA did not become aware of APTAs structure until, just prior to October 2018. From a legal perspective, I appreciate the significance of that statement.  If it were the truth, it would work favourably for CASAs position in this matter. My assertion is that an employee / or employees of CASA were responsible for the provision of information to the Ombudsman that is clearly untruthful and was provided with the intention of misleading the Ombudsman on a number of issues. The purpose being to influence the outcome of the investigation.

Secondly, CASA maintain that they made a number of well-intentioned attempts to resolve this matter in good faith and finalise the wording for the contracts. Whereas I would strongly assert that CASA did not act in good faith, deliberately frustrating the matter; what is more to the point never actually had any intention of resolving this matter. I will provide and release the recording of the CASA personnel that I have mentioned previously.

Dealing with the first point only in this correspondence at this time, I will address the second matter at a later date.

The impact of CASA’s misconduct and misinformation has been significant, and quite frankly after having spent every waking moment of the last three years dealing with this trauma, I am well and truly over it. Far too much time and stress has been directly related to me refuting clearly untruthful information by CASA to no avail.

It seems entirely appropriate that CASA reach out to the Ombudsman’s Office and advise that after the receipt of this correspondence, they request the Ombudsman’s Office to place the investigation on hold. Such action will enable CASA to reassess its position and provide both the Ombudsman’s office and myself with CASAs position, hopefully this time reflecting the truth. CASA may choose however to maintain its “position” in that they were not aware of the structure of APTA until just prior to October 2018.

Please find attached supported samples of emails to and from CASA dating back 2 ½ years before they claim that they first became aware.

Sampling of the emails and the timeline from mid-2016 are attached; that is, before CASA claim they first became aware of APTAs structure. I have also attached a copy of the proposed contract that was supplied to Mr Graeme Crawford the CASA 2IC on October 7th, 2017,being 6 months after APTA was fully approved by CASA; interestingly, one year before CASA claim they first became aware of my structure.

Exhibit A: 20 June 2016 => Email from Glen Buckley to the three CASA oversighting personnel. (2 ½ years before CASA claim that they became aware of APTA.

“Dear John,

As you are aware, I am in the process of putting together and alliance of flight training organisations, under an Industry leading group of professionals. My intention is to build a team that can communicate with CASA in an effective, professional and constructive manner.

I have now invested significantly in the proposal. If practical I would like the opportunity to meet with you in the CASA Office to outline my proposed course of action. I will be seeking significant guidance from CASA during this process. My intention is to “get it right”, the first time. I genuinely want to work as closely with CASA as your resources permit…………”

Exhibit B: 21 June 2016 => Response Email from CASA to Glen Buckley

This email is from CASA arranging the requested meeting

Exhibit C: 21 June 2016 => Email from Glen Buckley finalising meeting late June 2016,

(that is 2 ½ years before CASA claim they first became aware of my businesses structure).

Exhibit D:  23rd June 2016 => Email from Glen Buckley to CASA

This email has a 9-page document attached to it, that can leave absolutely no doubt in the readers mind as to the structure that is intended.

Exhibit E: 13th July 2016 => Email from Glen Buckley to three oversighting personnel within CASA.

This email advises CASA that I am obtaining some interest in this concept and requesting CASA time frames to add new Entities.

This attached the 2016 version of the proposed contract to Mr Crawford; it was provided as a courtesy in the interests of transparency. When CASA sent the initial notification years later in October 2018, they “overlooked” the fact that these contracts had been supplied on multiple occasions, and that can be clearly evidenced.

Exhibit F: 18th January 2017 => Meeting with Mr Graeme Crawford 2IC of CASA.

This is almost 1 ½ years before CASA claim they became aware of the structure.

The meeting occurred in Canberra on an unrelated matter. Interestingly, it was the CASA Executive, Mr Crawford who raised the subject of APTA; therefore, he was clearly aware of APTA existence at that time.

Conclusion

CASA has an obligation to act as a model litigant and whilst I certainly don’t intend to go through the charter here, I would like to highlight a sampling; however, Mr Jonathan Aleck will be fully aware of those obligations. The first of these being particularly salient in this matter.
   

• Not requiring the other party to prove a matter which the Crown knows to be true.
  

   

• Act honestly and fairly
  

   

• Not causing unnecessary delay.
  

   

• Endeavouring to avoid litigation wherever possible.
  

   

• Not taking advantage of a claimant who lacks the resources to litigate a legitimate claim
  

   

• Apologising where the Crown is aware that it or its lawyers have acted wrongfully or improperly,
  

The Court also traced the model litigant obligation back to the traditional relationship between the Crown and its subjects and noted that the Commonwealth and its agencies have no legitimate private interest in the performance of their functions and frequently also have greater access to resources than private litigants. For these reasons, the Court held that Australian Government Agencies and their legal representatives should act as moral exemplars when engaging with private litigants.

Trusting that you have the freedom to act with integrity in this matter and make good the wrong that CASA has perpetrated on myself and my family.

Yours Faithfully,

Glen Buckley

 
MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

I agree with Glen Buckley in every respect and until and unless he is fully compensated for the wrong doing against him CASA cannot hold the respect of the aviation community.

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 19/11/21

Via the AP email chains:

Dear Mr Buckley

I refer to your recent email messages addressed to the Chair of the CASA Board, Mark Binskin AC, and to me, in which you ask for a meeting with us.

As Mr McLachlan indicated in acknowledging receipt of your communications, Mr Binskin and I believe any issues you want to raise, or material that you have that has not previously been provided to the Ombudsman, that relate to the claims you have made against various CASA officers, including your claim that CASA has misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman in the course of their investigation, would best be directed to the Ombudsman to  support their independent review of your concerns.

Having reviewed your correspondence of 13 October 2021 to CASA’s Executive Manager, Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, Jonathan Aleck, and of 18 October 2021 to CASA’s then-Executive Manager, Regulatory Oversight, Craig Martin, I also suggest that you draw the issues in those emails to the attention of the Ombudsman.

I have contacted the Ombudsman to advise her that we have encouraged you to refer to that office your ongoing concerns and reiterated CASA’s ongoing commitment to cooperate fully with the Ombudsman in support of any further steps she may wish to take in relation to your complaints.

Once the Ombudsman has completed any further review, Mr Binskin and I would be happy to meet with you to discuss the outcome of the Ombudsman’s independent investigation.

Yours sincerely

Pip

MTF...P2 

[Wombat]

Ms. Spences action is perfectly reasonable.

I think that when the Ombudsman queries CASA, judging by the dates in the CASA workbook produced under FOI, and one or two other items that might come to light, it will be discovered that an administrative oversight has occurred through no fault of anyone, purely by accident of course, nobody could possibly have known and those that might possibly have some knowledge are all retired and the details are lost in the mists of time.

That said, CASA, as a model corporate citizen, will no doubt then attend kindly to Mr. Buckley and in a spirit of win/win, thank him for bringing this matter to its attention and the subject is closed.

[Sandy Reith]

Yes Wombat, absolutely reasonable, ping pong in slow motion, we peasants may look on, but not allowed to play this particular version.

Not your ordinary ping pong, this game is one where the players, CASA and one of those Ombudsman, both win by keeping the ball in play.

This game is called PPAI. Pronounced “Pipeye”.
(PingPong Ad Infinitum)

Hot potato is another variety of the game, keep it airborne until it cools by throwing it up time and again wearing fireproof gloves supplied exclusively to government corporations by the Department of Do Nothing.

Ms. Spence on $600,000 plus doesn’t have either the ability or the will to review the actions of her corporation and come to a decision. Similarly no doubt don’t expect anything from the Board. In fact let’s not talk about it, it might be embarrassing.

[Wombat]

Sandy, I think you might be just a tad cynical. I expect very great things from DAS and the Board.

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 19/11/21

Via the AP email chains:

Dear Mr Buckley

I refer to your recent email messages addressed to the Chair of the CASA Board, Mark Binskin AC, and to me, in which you ask for a meeting with us.

As Mr McLachlan indicated in acknowledging receipt of your communications, Mr Binskin and I believe any issues you want to raise, or material that you have that has not previously been provided to the Ombudsman, that relate to the claims you have made against various CASA officers, including your claim that CASA has misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman in the course of their investigation, would best be directed to the Ombudsman to  support their independent review of your concerns.

Having reviewed your correspondence of 13 October 2021 to CASA’s Executive Manager, Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, Jonathan Aleck, and of 18 October 2021 to CASA’s then-Executive Manager, Regulatory Oversight, Craig Martin, I also suggest that you draw the issues in those emails to the attention of the Ombudsman.

I have contacted the Ombudsman to advise her that we have encouraged you to refer to that office your ongoing concerns and reiterated CASA’s ongoing commitment to cooperate fully with the Ombudsman in support of any further steps she may wish to take in relation to your complaints.

Once the Ombudsman has completed any further review, Mr Binskin and I would be happy to meet with you to discuss the outcome of the Ombudsman’s independent investigation.

Yours sincerely

Pip

Addendum: Ombudsman review. 

Ombudsman ref: 2019-713834


Dear Mr Buckley

I refer to your complaint to the Ombudsman about CASA.

We have decided to review how we handled the complaint. The review will be
handled by an experienced officer in my team. The review will examine all
the information we have received from you and CASA. We will then decide what
next steps we should take.

I expect it will take the Review Officer a couple of weeks to examine all
the information on the file.

In the meantime, it would help if you refrain from sending both CASA and
this Office further information about your complaint. We will contact you
again in due course.

Tim

Review Manager

COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

Sandy, I think you might be just a tad cynical. I expect very great things from DAS and the Board.

I hope your optimism is justified but, firstly we never hear from the Board on the declining state of General Aviation nor has the Board, to my knowledge, ever made any definitive and particular directions to the CASA CEO to correct this glaringly wrong situation. Why would a new Board change direction (or indeed does it have the power?) in light of three decades of nothing? Burning desire?

The new CEO is another question, I can’t bring myself to use that ridiculous title of ‘Director of Air Safety,’ after all there’s not been one CEO of CASA that’s had a clue about the practicalities of safe commercial flying which is far and away the most important consideration for the Australian public.

Ms. Spence, presumably @ $600,000+ p. a. has been in position since 17th of May but has not generated one reform that could halt the decline which would give some heart to GA or stem the loss of flying schools and maintenance facilities. In the same time CASA has done nothing to alleviate or stop AVMED from causing costly and unnecessary medical impositions on pilots. There is no safety case or basis in fact for maintaining AVMED’s excruciating strictures. CASA ignores the successful car driver standard that applies in the low weight category, and ignores the reforms of other countries. CASA has belatedly leaked (Steve Hitchen Aus. Flying “you heard it here first”) that it is considering a new, can you believe it, medical Class 5! Another Australian first! Is it because they couldn’t bring themselves, too embarrassing, to amend the existing Clayton’s Basic Class 2? We can only guess if the leak was approved by Ms. Spence or if it has substance at all.

But worst of all is the lack of action from Minister Joyce, unless and until he issues some detailed instructions, like independent instructors and medical reforms, we will not see the Board or the CEO make the big moves that are necessary. In other words the structure of an independent corporate like CASA cannot work without Ministerial direction, without reverting to the Westminster system, we can’t expect real and lasting reform and the administration of aviation in a form fit for purpose.

Note that Senator McDonald’s time wasting two year (!) inquiry has put off it’s conclusions until March 2022. It might just as easily reviewed the 2014 Forsyth report and concluded in a few short days that those government approved recommendations had not been implemented.
Note that the reform rumours via CASA have timelines about then too.
Note that the federal election is being touted for around that time. Join the dots.

I took a deputation to Minister Truss in 2006 with view to stemming the bureaucratic taxing and regulatory overkill of GA.
The current state of affairs is far worse today. I’m sorry to say there may be announcements but nothing real this side of next year. Christmas will come and go, Can’tberrans will go to the beach for as long as possible, and then election frenzy will block any thought of reform. CASA will heave a sigh of relief, kicking the can further down the drain. Ring write email MPs and State Senators and the media, this might help.

[Sandy Reith]

And further, Glen Buckley’s letter from the Ombudsman’s office signed “Tim.” Seems that official letters are a thing of the past, formality has gone along with respect.

Tim who? Or is that Ms. or Mr. Tim who says, ingratiatingly :-

“In the meantime, it would help if you refrain from sending both CASA and
this Office further information about your complaint. We will contact you
again in due course. ”

Why the hell not! Can’tberra arrogance, and ‘Tim’ slipped up there rather badly, giving away collusion with CASA by delivering their ‘stop writing’ injunction as well as that from the Ombudsman. So much for the independence of that Office.

G.I. (Government Industries) at work, different entities in name but all together in practice.

In other words our buddy Tim ?…..? says don’t disturb us or CASA with anything else. Christmas is coming up, we can’t handle reading any more and whatever you have extra is not important to us so don’t bother. We’ll ring you when it suits us, go away, don’t pester us.

And as the letter in opening states, they will look at how they handled Glen’s case, not prioritised in the first place to look at the facts. Expect little from this arm of G.I. and nothing at all in a timely manner. It’s the game PPAI, (Ping Pong Ad Infinitum) or Pipeye.

[Wombat]

Sandy, I think we should give the Board and DAS some slack. After all, they inherited this situation and, absent the political will for reform, previous Boards may not have had support for change. I think that environment may have changed and the current DAS and Board have the ability and experience to run a change agenda if the Minister, advised by his Department, permits.

I don't think we will have long to wait

[P7_TOM]

My two bob's worth. (FWIW).

I've no idea why I find the coy trend in signing off 'formal' letters with abbreviated forenames offensive; but I do. The standard 'Yours sincerely" is an old valediction, it assures the recipient that the letter is 'without wax' (popular) or, more correctly - 'pure'. Signing off implying that the missive is from 'your mate' Tim or Pip is ridiculous , especially when one is engaged, as in the Buckley case, mortal combat with a deceitful enemy.

There is one wrinkle to the Buckley matter which has not been mentioned, although many have quietly voiced their concerns, over a beer. It is worth a mention, if only to alert Buckley to what, in the opinion of many, he is really facing down. In country parlance, the mandarins are not feared of the Bull, but of the calf. A Buckley win could open the gates to 'other' acts of pure malice being re-examined. Some of the evidence collected over the years paints a bleak picture. Taken individually, as in the Buckley matter, they may be defended and strung out over a long period of time, eventually loosing public support and interest. However, IF the Buckley matter ever reaches the stage where a public inquiry into complaints against the regulator may be openly heard; then the backlash against the successive governments who turned a blind eye and deaf ear to some outrageous action taken against operators and individuals would be significant; not to mention expensive.

Of course, this is highly unlikely (in the extreme) to occur. Many serious players have, at a political level, thought to reveal the unpleasant truth of how the management of aviation has been 'enforced' and the tactics, worthy of an Eastern Bloc system have been allowed; in the name of 'safety'. The bipartisan sheep safe in the yard, protected by fierce guard dogs; off leash and uncontrolled. Ever see a politician with a whistle try to call 'em off? Nah, didn't think so.