[P7_TOM]

Yep Tom,

Very similar case, engine failure after take off resulting in a fatality, a Cessna 180 if my memory serves me.

Pilot charged with manslaughter by NSW police.

He beat the charge but it wiped him out financially defending himself.

Very sad, the only people who win in these situations are the lawyers, a pox on them all.

Wow! That was a long, long while ago. I thought it a different mark of Cessna; lobbed into a dam and someone drowned - all fuzzy now (booze and bad living) - the name John rings a bell. This new case is 'interesting' - I reckon the flight path and actions resulting from the engine quitting may be the main thrust - but criminal implies 'intent'. Whichever way it plays out - as always the lawyers end up in the pub. We're batting for the wrong side TB. Too old and cranky now to change - but we shall see what assistance we can offer - least we can do.

From about - HERE - we did do some serious work on this 'accident' (and many others) but I'll be damned if I can make my mind up. If I could trust the ATSB (who can;t imagine why the engine quit) and CASA who approved accepted the operation as writ; then I could probably let it go; alas.

Was it badly done? I'd say so, but the difference between some serious criminal charges, rather than clear guidance and suspension for following SOP as writ seems a little heavy handed to my mind. But then I'm not a judge or a barrister. We shall watch and listen carefully -

Thirst rules OK.

[Peetwo]

CASA embuggerance of BRM Aero - Update. 

Via BM at AOPA Oz:

AOPA Australia Chief Executive BENJAMIN MORGAN reports.


BRM Aero, the Czech Republic manufacturer of the Bristell LSA aircraft, has this week hit back at CASA citing concerns with inaction by the regulator.  The full statement from BRM Aero is below;

---

BRM Aero Follow-Up to CASA Safety Notice Dated 19 February 2020


We thought it was necessary and appropriate to update you all on the current situation regarding the CASA Safety Notice.

As you may recall, back on 19 February 2020 CASA published and distributed a Safety Notice, that states: “Pilots and operators of Bristell light sport aircraft (LSA) are strongly advised to avoid conducting any manoeuvre that may lead to an aerodynamic stall of the aircraft – either intentionally or unintentionally. This includes any flight training for stalls.”

BRM immediately issued a response to the safety notice strongly refuting the implication that the aircraft had not been spin tested and could not be recovered from a spin. The aircraft has been thoroughly spin tested and the test pilot, Mr. Yury Vashchuk has made a written declaration that the aircraft complies with the required certification standard ASTM F2245, section 4.5.9.

Although spin testing data had been previously supplied to CASA, during our 2 hour teleconference with CASA on 18 February 2020, it was agreed that the data would be compiled into a more readable format, together with videos taken by on-board cameras, and would include digital data recorded by on-board data recorders. This up-dated report dated 22 February 2020 was supplied to CASA by the agreed deadline of 26 February 2020.

CASA were still not satisfied. Despite giving absolutely no reason, they again rejected the spin test report. A video teleconference via ‘Zoom‘ was arranged for 3 April 2020 to try and finalise this matter.

On the 3 April 2020 BRM Aero, along with our legal representative and our Australian importer Anderson Aviation, Australian Technical consultant and a number of other parties we participated in a 3 hour video-teleconference with CASA representatives, that included employees of the Sport Aviation section of CASA and also a representative of CASA Legal. This was with the view, as mutually agreed with CASA, to finally resolve the issues as CASA sees them.

During this teleconference it was agreed that there were several action items, among these were:

1. Our Technical Consultant was to respond to a PowerPoint Presentation presented by CASA during this meeting which made several allegations against BRM Aero.

• The BRM Aero Technical Consultant responded with a comprehensive and detailed written response by the date, 29 April 2020, that was nominated by CASA, and to date no feedback has been received from CASA.

2. CASA undertook to produce minutes of the meeting ‘within days of the meeting, not weeks.’ CASA failed to produce these minutes in the timeframe they nominated despite being asked for those minutes on multiple occasions.

• Finally, a representative of BRM Aero produced minutes after 6 weeks in the absence of the CASA minutes. CASA rejected our minutes without explanation.
• CASA finally produced their version of the minutes (apparently not by the person who took the minutes but by their ‘Business Unit’) a week later – 7 weeks after the teleconference. Unfortunately, our view was that the CASA minutes were biased in CASA’s favour, inaccurate and incomplete. We rejected those minutes.

3. CASA undertook to draft an addendum to the original Safety Notice to allay any fears the owners and operators of Bristell aircraft may have as a result of the Safety Notice and to reassure them that a resolution was being worked through. This addendum was to be vetted by our legal representative prior to distribution to ensure accuracy.

• Despite several reminders from our legal representative to CASA, to date CASA has still not done this.

4. A time and date for a further teleconference to resolve any final issues was to be nominated by CASA.

• Despite repeated requests to date CASA have failed to provide a date. It is now two months since the 3 April 2020 teleconference, and no date for a further meeting has been set. When asked, CASA do not respond at all with a proposed date.

5. CASA (Mick Poole) was to provide a response to a letter written by Anderson Aviation to him dated 23 June 2018 (nearly 2 years ago) regarding allegations of illegal and unauthorised spin testing of a Bristell aircraft at Latrobe Valley in December 2017. CASA had never responded to the issues raised in this letter.

• CASA Mick Poole finally responded by way of a short e-mail dated 14 April 2020 in which he stated ‘If you should maintain that the test was in breach of the regulations kindly advise the basis for that view and I can consider the matter further’.
• A comprehensive and detailed critique of the flight tests was subsequently made and submitted to CASA by our legal representative on 15 May 2020. To date CASA has not commented on this critique, or on the original spin test report.

SUMMARY

Despite our attempts to resolve this with CASA in a timely manner, CASA have not placed any urgency at all in working toward a resolution. As with any aircraft, BRM Aero maintains that provided Bristell aircraft are operated within the published limitations and as placarded, the aircraft are safe and fully compliant with the required standards. No other international authority, including the FAA, has raised concerns about the safety or compliance of the aircraft. We remain committed to working toward a resolution and have a dedicated and committed team of people working on all issues so you can enjoy your aircraft now and into the future and realise the full benefit and value of owning a Bristell.

Since our technical representative was appointed in Australia BRM Aero has responded to all CASA requests in a comprehensive and timely manner. CASA has not. To that end we feel compelled to point out CASA have not complied with their own written policy – “Our Regulatory Philosophy” – as published on their web site. We have attached a copy of that CASA policy for your information.

We will provide further updates as they come to hand and apologise to you all for not being able to get CASA to act in a timely manner regarding the Bristell aircraft.

End..

Hmm...no comment - 

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

Oh dear....(sound of bollocks dropping).

BRM Aero, as a professional outfit, seem to have just run up the arse end of Australian aviation oversight – at full throttle.

CASA – Send us data – NOW!.

OK; say BRM – and they do – on time, in internationally acceptable format. Of course, they are used to dealing with a more European bureaucracy; one which actually will reply to a missive or even a phone call.  Then; they hit the brick wall of CASA.

In the real world – if an answer is requested – or required – by a certain date – professional outfits usually comply. BRM had some time lines there and they met them. What they failed to do was nail down a time line for a CASA response. i.e. they gave CASA  room and time to ignore them. Bad mistake.

“CASA were still not satisfied. Despite giving absolutely no reason, they again rejected the spin test report.”


The problem is a simple enough one: CASA have no one qualified or even competent to properly analyse the data – no one. They are very, very good at putting enough 'spin' on the ball to bamboozle an inquiry made by halfwits – but they cannot mount an argument that expert test pilots and manufacturers can discuss on equal footing.

The delayed response to BRM is simply explained. CASA have not a clue of how to translate the data provided. Lots of pretend experts, some Wannabees's and a boatload of legal wriggle room - but 'the facts' and expert, qualified data will make 'em back up into the bunker, close the shades and rely on their old friend – delay. They are bloody good at it.

Expert opinion, OS authority approval, backed by solid data make no differ to CASA, other qualified nations acceptance of flight test data will make no difference. BRM will not receive a timely answer simply because CASA have NDI how to respond – not to real aviation folk. That's why we pay 'em the big bucks.

If ever a Senate committee wanted to seriously get into why aviation in Australia is in the Crapper; they need look no further than BRM's letter.

Not to worry, it's only an aircraft manufacturing company, providing jobs and aircraft to the light end of aviation; trying to sell an accepted, tested, proven, modern product. The CASA response will be 'of interest' – internationally. Yes - it will.

Thirst rules; and, it's my turn at the dartboard.

[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 

[Peetwo]

Addendum to last - 

Via the AP email chain:

Dear Colin, could you please ensure this correspondence is distributed to each member of the CASA Board, hope you are traveling well, cheers. Glen

29/07/20

Dear CASA Board Members.

My name is Glen Buckley, you will be aware of who I am, and the nature of my concerns regarding the conduct of several employees of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and specifically

•     Mr. Jonathan Aleck in his role as CASA Executive Manager, Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs,
  
•     Mr. Graeme Crawford in his role as CASA Executive Manager, Aviation Group,
  
•     Mr. Craig Martin in his role as CASA Executive Manager, Regulatory Service, and Surveillance, and
  
•     Jason McHeyzer in his role as CASA  Region Manager of the Southern Region.
  

You will also be aware that the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office has now completed Stage One of the investigation, and that the findings of Stage One of the investigation have clearly supported my case and indicated that CASA has acted unlawfully, unfairly and unjustly.

The impact of those actions by those CASA personnel has resulted in significant financial damage to me and significant emotional distress.

I am now in a situation where I intend to work towards a fair and reasonable resolution of this matter.

I have made repeated attempts to resolve this matter in the most cost-effective manner for CASA, but previously those personnel named above, have elected a more combative approach, that can only result in a degraded outcome

I am now writing to the CASA Board and have included the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Michael McCormack in on this correspondence, as the CASA Board is accountable to him as the Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

The purpose of this correspondence is to seek a clear and concise determination from the CASA Board, their insurer, and the Deputy Prime Minister as to the direction that this matter will take from here on.

For clarity. Please advise if CASA is prepared to meet with me, without the need for me to engage a law firm to fairly resolve this matter.

If the CASA Board in conjunction with the Deputy Prime Ministers Department and CASAs insurer determines that they are not prepared to meet with me, then I will have no option but to engage a law firm to represent me going forward. A law firm has been briefed and is ready to take over this matter.

My hope is that CASA will act with good intent to seek the most effective resolution practical and avoid a far more costly and combative approach.

I have attached Stage One of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's findings to assist you to arrive at your determination and I look forward to a formal response representing the views of the CASA Board, the insurer, and the Deputy Prime Minister's office.

Thank you for your consideration of my request.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

---

2020-713834
25 June 2020
Mr Glen Buckley
6 Susan Court
MOUNT WAVERLEY VIC 3149
(By email only to: defendapta@gmail.com)

Dear Mr Buckley

I am writing to provide you with an update on my investigation into the matters you raised about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

As previously advised, I have broken the investigation into manageable elements. The first of these was to assess the regulatory setting in which you made your Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC) application, the arrangements under which you developed the exposition, and how CASA supported and responded during that process.

Conclusion of phase 1 of my investigation

On 23 June 2020 this Office sent a concluded view to CASA as follows:

The entry into force of the 1 September 2014 compilation of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR) removed the former CAR 206(1)(a)(vi) related to flying training organisations (FTO) from CAR 206.

CASA’s ruling Franchise AOC Arrangements (the Ruling) issued on 21 February 2006 refers explicitly to its application to commercial operations conducted for CAR 206 purposes. CAR 206(1)(a)(vi) referred to flying training, other than conversion training or training carried out under an experimental certificate.

With CAR 206(1)(a)(vi) removed from the CAR, I note CASA’s view that the policy objectives reflected in the Ruling have remained applicable to the conduct of FTO activities under the post August 2014 regulatory regime, irrespective of the explicit reference to CAR 206.

The Ruling was not amended to reflect that legislative change from 1 September 2014 meaning that the CAR and the Ruling were no longer aligned in material ways.

Conceptually, I accept CASA's view that the Ruling may reflect broader policy considerations.
Nevertheless in my concluded view there was an administrative deficiency due to an absence of a direct relationship between the activity being regulated and the policy said to regulate it. This gave rise to ambiguity and uncertainty with the potential to cause detriment to those relying on the accuracy of the regime or, conversely, prevent detriment from occurring.

In the circumstances, it is my concluded view that CASA should have made a concurrent amendment to its Ruling at the entry into force of the 1 September 2014 compilation of the CAR because of the practical effect of the change to those relying on the regulatory regime.

Thank you for your advice that CASA will amend the Ruling to confirm the intent of the breadth its application.

Please note that this is the Ombudsman’s opinion and CASA may disagree with it, or parts of it.
CASA’s other points of agreement

CASA agreed with the following propositions put to it by this Office:

 As of October 2016, no Australian legislation prohibited 'franchising' of an AOC, subject only to the exclusivity of the AOC holder’s operational control, and that remained the case as of 25 March 2020.
 There would be no legal or regulatory impediment to Mr Buckley or APTA selling or licencing intellectual property in the form of its AOC exposition to other FTO. And there would be no legal or regulatory impediment to CASA issuing part 142 Permissions on submission of those expositions by other FTO.

Commencement of phase 2 of my investigation

I am proposing to continue this investigation in order to consider issues giving rise, and
Subsequent, to CASA’s notice of 23 October 2018 to you (APTA) to cease all operations within
7 days and matters leading up to 27 August 2019 intervention by Mr Jason McHeyzer in your
Work-place.

Consultation

If you wish to discuss this investigation, please contact me.

Yours sincerely

Michael Buss

Assistant Director of Investigations
Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman
Influencing systemic improvement in public administration

Hmm...me thinks it time Dr A collected what's left of his marbles and along with St Commode quietly left the building...

MTF...P2

References:

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

https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...Amends.pdf

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update - 6/08/20:

FORMAL SUBMISSION OF ALLEGATIONS THAT CASA EXECUTIVE MANAGER- LEGAL INTERNATIONAL AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, Mr. JONATAHAN ALECK IS DELIBERATELY MISLEADING THE COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN OFFICE TO MANIPULATE THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION AND PERVERT THE OUTCOME OF THAT INVESTIGATION


Submitted 06/08/20

Dear Mr. XXXXXXX XXXX, Assistant Director of Investigations, Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Thank you for your continuing work into my complaint regarding CASAs' conduct and decisions.

My interpretation of Phase One of your investigation indicates that your concluded view is that there was an administrative deficiency. Obviously, I concur with that finding and respect the diligence with which you have attended to a difficult and complicated matter.

I note that Phase Two of your investigation continues and that it will extend over a protracted period, and I appreciate the resources that are being allocated to this project.

As part of that continuing investigation, I do request that you consider this correspondence.

Mr. Jonathan Aleck acts in the role of the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International Regulatory Affairs, and is the accountable person in CASA and the person that drove the CASA actions and decisions against me and my business. He chose to target me specifically.

It is my assertion that Mr. Aleck is deliberately misleading your office in its continuing investigation. I have attempted to resolve this matter with the CASA Board by requesting the opportunity to meet with them and put my allegations to them. The CASA Board has flatly refused to meet with me, either in person or by a video conference. I have also written to the Deputy PM, Mr. Michael McCormack but my correspondence continues to be completely ignored despite my requests for an acknowledgment of receipt.

My intent was to provide the CASA Board with the opportunity to meet their obligations to ensure good governance, improve aviation safety, and to promote the Australian owned sector of the industry. For that reason, I would like to raise those allegations with you, provide supporting information on those substantive claims, and make myself available to provide further information should you deem it appropriate.

Important background information

At no stage did I submit an application for a new AOC application. I had an existing business that had been operating with an industry-leading level of safety and compliance since its inception in 2006. For clarity, it was not a new application, it was a well-established business with an impeccable reputation, and CASA records will support that contention.

The CASA action came without any prior warning at all, and no CASA actions were based on any safety issues at all, and there were no regulatory breaches. I am fully satisfied that the CASA actions were motivated by my public criticism of CASAs failed Regulatory program referred to as Part 61/141 and 142. My criticism was based on the fact that CASA spent hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds, and the result was the enormous negative impact on many Australian owned businesses, with no safety benefit. CASA themselves have made that admission. I made a number of predictions about the regulatory impact. The passage of time vindicated my public comments in the media and that was most likely the motivation for the CASA actions i.e. they were vindictive and vexatious.

The Aviation Ruling regarding Franchised AOCs did not apply to the flight training industry and was never intended to be applied to the flight training industry. It was written for the Charter Industry and specifically the carriage of freight. This was clearly articulated to the flight training industry by CASA, by way of a series of face to face briefings by CASA personnel on its release in 2006. My organization received that briefing from CASA personnel in early 2006, and that is the clear recollection of many flight training organizations who have contacted me and validated that comment.

The truth is that the Aviation Ruling was introduced when a Melbourne based charter company was closed down by CASA and they resumed operations the next day under another AOC. As previously stated, the Aviation Ruling was never intended for the flight training industry.

The truth is that after the introduction of the Aviation Ruling, CASA continued facilitating many flight training organizations to operate under a franchised AOC system. There is ample evidence of that assertion. A company called XXXX operated under my AOC for an extended period of time.

The truth is that the XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXX had been operating under a franchised AOC system with XXXXXXX until the day before they joined APTA. It was the application to add XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXX to APTA that resulted in the complete reversal of CASA "opinion"

CASA executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance, Mr. Craig Martin was previously the CASA Regional Manager of the Eastern Region encompassing Queensland, and this practice was particularly prevalent in his own region. i.e. flying schools operating under a franchised AOC system. Mr. Craig Martin could be contacted by your office and will be unable to truthfully refute that claim.

My business at the time, APTA was in fact the first time in Australia that an organization had acted with good intent to improve safety and compliance of the franchised AOC system that had deficiencies and weaknesses that had been accepted by CASA. The truth is that CASA worked side by side with me for two years and was assessed by CASA on over 600 individual requirements, to build this safer and more robust system. i.e. APTA was designed for no other reason than to attend to the existing deficiencies in the accepted practice of franchised AOCs.

Specific Allegations against Mr. Jonathan Aleck

Mr. Aleck was fully aware that the use of franchised AOCs was accepted practice in the flight training industry, and CASA had fully sanctioned those arrangements.

Mr. Aleck applied his opinion to my business only, and chose not to apply it to other operators that were operating under a "franchised AOC."

Mr. Aleck was fully aware that I had worked with CASA for two years and invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars in achieving a safe, compliant, and well-intentioned system that was designed to attend to deficiencies in franchised AOCs.

Mr. Aleck is fully aware that in fact, APTA had the largest and most highly resourced safety department of any flying school in Australia.

Mr. Aleck is fully aware that his decisions and actions were not based on concerns regarding aviation safety.

Mr. Aleck is fully aware that there were no regulatory breaches.

Mr. Aleck is fully aware that audit results were fabricated and written up many months after an audit was conducted, and that those audit results differed entirely to the audit findings provided at the CASA mandated on-site audit exit meeting.

Mr. Aleck is fully aware that when I challenged those fabricated audit findings, CASA was unable to provide any supporting evidence of those false allegations, because they were not truthful.

Mr. Aleck has been responsible for actions and decisions that are not in accordance with obligations placed on him my

• The Minister's Statement of Expectations
  
  
• The CASA Enforcement Manual
  
  
• Administrative Law, Natural Justice, and Procedural Fairness.
  
  
• CASAs Regulatory Philosophy
  

Mr. Aleck is responsible for providing information to your office that is clearly not truthful and is done for the purpose of protecting his position and supporting his decisions that are unlawful, unfair, and unjust.

Mr. Aleck has led your office to believe that my business/ concept was unique and failed to identify that I was specifically targeted whilst others were permitted to operate.

Summary

Mr. Aleck has initiated similar action against many individuals and businesses resulting in many people losing their businesses, their reputations, and their livelihoods. Many of those people have contacted me in the background and offered to submit their allegations if you deem that it would assist your ongoing investigation.

I reassert that I will provide any further information that you require to support my claims.

Can I also draw your attention to an opportunity that has been provided to me by the Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), which is Australia's peak aviation body representing the aviation industry.

On Tuesday 11th August that Organisation will conduct a Facebook video conference on my matter at 7 PM. These attract a wide audience from Industry and are highly interactive. I will ensure that you are provided with a copy of that conference as it will highlight many of the challenges for the industry as a result of the way CASA chooses to conduct themselves, despite the obligations placed on them.

Respectfully and thankfully, Glen Buckley

And :

Dear Sir/Madam, 

I would like to make a Freedom of Information Request in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

Could those documents if released be sent to via my return email address.

On Wednesday 5th August, I received the correspondence below from Mr. Colin McLachlan who is the Board Secretariat for the Board of CASA. 

This was in response to an email that I had sent to Ms. Donna Hardman who is a new member of the Board of CASA. 

I have previously raised substantial allegations against the conduct of Mr. Jonathan Aleck who acts in the role of CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs. I am of the opinion that the Chairperson of the Board of CASA is deliberately frustrating my attempts to resolve this matter and may be complicit in thwarting my attempts to obtain a fair and transparent process. 

My correspondence was specifically addressed to Ms. Hardman and my reasonable expectation was that I would receive a response from her. 

I am concerned that either Mr. Anthony Mathews as the Chair of the CASA board or perhaps Mr. Aleck who the allegations were against, may have prepared that response on her behalf, and potentially without her consent or knowledge. 

I say that because it is unlikely that someone of Ms. Hardman's credentials would make a decision that limits her ability to ensure the good governance of CASA.

To satisfy myself that Mr. Mathews or Mr. Aleck are not acting inappropriately, I am making an FOI request. 

That request specifically relates to any correspondence between Ms. Donna Hardman, Mr. Anthony Mathews, Mr. Jonathan Aleck and Mr. Colin McLachlan that relate to that prepared response. 

It would not be the role of the Board Secretariat to prepare that response without guidance from those named parties. By obtaining those related emails it will clarify the intent of the CASA actions. It will also clarify whether Mr. Jonathan Aleck had any input which I feel would be entirely unreasonable and unethical.

Furthermore, I am trying to ascertain if it was indeed a combined Board response that was arrived at collaboratively or whether it was engineered by an individual who may gain from perverting the process. 

Should you deem that those documents cannot be released, may i request an automatic review of the decision. If that review will forfeit my rights to a review by the Australian Information Commissioner then do not proceed with the review, and i will approach the Australian Information Commissioner

Thank you for your consideration of my request, yours respectfully, Glen Buckley



The email from Mr Colin McLachlan is copied below.

"Dear Mr Buckley

 

I refer to your email message of 2 August 2020 addressed to Ms Donna Hardman, as a member of the CASA Board.

 

You have made very serious allegations about the conduct of a CASA Executive Manager, without particularising your claims, and without providing any factual basis on which those claims rest other than your own convictions.  You have asked for a meeting with Ms Hardman, with a view to an investigation you suggest the Board should conduct into your claims against Dr Aleck.

 

It is not intended that a meeting of the kind you have proposed with Ms Hardman should occur.  Nor, in the absence of any evidence to warrant such action, is it the Board’s intention to mount or recommend an investigation of the kind you suggest.

 

If you have objective evidence to substantiate any of your allegations against Dr Aleck, beyond the information you have previously provided and the opinions you have previously expressed, you are invited to provide that evidence, in writing, to CASA. 

 

In the absence of new, factually substantiated evidence supporting your claims, the Board has no intention of considering this matter further.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Colin McLachlan"

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update - 6/08/20:

FORMAL SUBMISSION OF ALLEGATIONS THAT CASA EXECUTIVE MANAGER- LEGAL INTERNATIONAL AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, Mr. JONATAHAN ALECK IS DELIBERATELY MISLEADING THE COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN OFFICE TO MANIPULATE THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION AND PERVERT THE OUTCOME OF THAT INVESTIGATION


Submitted 06/08/20

Dear Mr. XXXXXXX XXXX, Assistant Director of Investigations, Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Thank you for your continuing work into my complaint regarding CASAs' conduct and decisions.

My interpretation of Phase One of your investigation indicates that your concluded view is that there was an administrative deficiency. Obviously, I concur with that finding and respect the diligence with which you have attended to a difficult and complicated matter.

I note that Phase Two of your investigation continues and that it will extend over a protracted period, and I appreciate the resources that are being allocated to this project.

As part of that continuing investigation, I do request that you consider this correspondence.

Mr. Jonathan Aleck acts in the role of the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International Regulatory Affairs, and is the accountable person in CASA and the person that drove the CASA actions and decisions against me and my business. He chose to target me specifically.

It is my assertion that Mr. Aleck is deliberately misleading your office in its continuing investigation. I have attempted to resolve this matter with the CASA Board by requesting the opportunity to meet with them and put my allegations to them. The CASA Board has flatly refused to meet with me, either in person or by a video conference. I have also written to the Deputy PM, Mr. Michael McCormack but my correspondence continues to be completely ignored despite my requests for an acknowledgment of receipt.

My intent was to provide the CASA Board with the opportunity to meet their obligations to ensure good governance, improve aviation safety, and to promote the Australian owned sector of the industry. For that reason, I would like to raise those allegations with you, provide supporting information on those substantive claims, and make myself available to provide further information should you deem it appropriate.

Important background information

At no stage did I submit an application for a new AOC application. I had an existing business that had been operating with an industry-leading level of safety and compliance since its inception in 2006. For clarity, it was not a new application, it was a well-established business with an impeccable reputation, and CASA records will support that contention.

The CASA action came without any prior warning at all, and no CASA actions were based on any safety issues at all, and there were no regulatory breaches. I am fully satisfied that the CASA actions were motivated by my public criticism of CASAs failed Regulatory program referred to as Part 61/141 and 142. My criticism was based on the fact that CASA spent hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds, and the result was the enormous negative impact on many Australian owned businesses, with no safety benefit. CASA themselves have made that admission. I made a number of predictions about the regulatory impact. The passage of time vindicated my public comments in the media and that was most likely the motivation for the CASA actions i.e. they were vindictive and vexatious.

The Aviation Ruling regarding Franchised AOCs did not apply to the flight training industry and was never intended to be applied to the flight training industry. It was written for the Charter Industry and specifically the carriage of freight. This was clearly articulated to the flight training industry by CASA, by way of a series of face to face briefings by CASA personnel on its release in 2006. My organization received that briefing from CASA personnel in early 2006, and that is the clear recollection of many flight training organizations who have contacted me and validated that comment.

The truth is that the Aviation Ruling was introduced when a Melbourne based charter company was closed down by CASA and they resumed operations the next day under another AOC. As previously stated, the Aviation Ruling was never intended for the flight training industry.

The truth is that after the introduction of the Aviation Ruling, CASA continued facilitating many flight training organizations to operate under a franchised AOC system. There is ample evidence of that assertion. A company called XXXX operated under my AOC for an extended period of time.

The truth is that the XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXX had been operating under a franchised AOC system with XXXXXXX until the day before they joined APTA. It was the application to add XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXX to APTA that resulted in the complete reversal of CASA "opinion"

CASA executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance, Mr. Craig Martin was previously the CASA Regional Manager of the Eastern Region encompassing Queensland, and this practice was particularly prevalent in his own region. i.e. flying schools operating under a franchised AOC system. Mr. Craig Martin could be contacted by your office and will be unable to truthfully refute that claim.

My business at the time, APTA was in fact the first time in Australia that an organization had acted with good intent to improve safety and compliance of the franchised AOC system that had deficiencies and weaknesses that had been accepted by CASA. The truth is that CASA worked side by side with me for two years and was assessed by CASA on over 600 individual requirements, to build this safer and more robust system. i.e. APTA was designed for no other reason than to attend to the existing deficiencies in the accepted practice of franchised AOCs.

Specific Allegations against Mr. Jonathan Aleck

Mr. Aleck was fully aware that the use of franchised AOCs was accepted practice in the flight training industry, and CASA had fully sanctioned those arrangements.

Mr. Aleck applied his opinion to my business only, and chose not to apply it to other operators that were operating under a "franchised AOC."

Mr. Aleck was fully aware that I had worked with CASA for two years and invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars in achieving a safe, compliant, and well-intentioned system that was designed to attend to deficiencies in franchised AOCs.

Mr. Aleck is fully aware that in fact, APTA had the largest and most highly resourced safety department of any flying school in Australia.

Mr. Aleck is fully aware that his decisions and actions were not based on concerns regarding aviation safety.

Mr. Aleck is fully aware that there were no regulatory breaches.

Mr. Aleck is fully aware that audit results were fabricated and written up many months after an audit was conducted, and that those audit results differed entirely to the audit findings provided at the CASA mandated on-site audit exit meeting.

Mr. Aleck is fully aware that when I challenged those fabricated audit findings, CASA was unable to provide any supporting evidence of those false allegations, because they were not truthful.

Mr. Aleck has been responsible for actions and decisions that are not in accordance with obligations placed on him my

• The Minister's Statement of Expectations
  
  
• The CASA Enforcement Manual
  
  
• Administrative Law, Natural Justice, and Procedural Fairness.
  
  
• CASAs Regulatory Philosophy
  

Mr. Aleck is responsible for providing information to your office that is clearly not truthful and is done for the purpose of protecting his position and supporting his decisions that are unlawful, unfair, and unjust.

Mr. Aleck has led your office to believe that my business/ concept was unique and failed to identify that I was specifically targeted whilst others were permitted to operate.

Summary

Mr. Aleck has initiated similar action against many individuals and businesses resulting in many people losing their businesses, their reputations, and their livelihoods. Many of those people have contacted me in the background and offered to submit their allegations if you deem that it would assist your ongoing investigation.

I reassert that I will provide any further information that you require to support my claims.

Can I also draw your attention to an opportunity that has been provided to me by the Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), which is Australia's peak aviation body representing the aviation industry.

On Tuesday 11th August that Organisation will conduct a Facebook video conference on my matter at 7 PM. These attract a wide audience from Industry and are highly interactive. I will ensure that you are provided with a copy of that conference as it will highlight many of the challenges for the industry as a result of the way CASA chooses to conduct themselves, despite the obligations placed on them.

Respectfully and thankfully, Glen Buckley

And :

Dear Sir/Madam, 

I would like to make a Freedom of Information Request in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

Could those documents if released be sent to via my return email address.

On Wednesday 5th August, I received the correspondence below from Mr. Colin McLachlan who is the Board Secretariat for the Board of CASA. 

This was in response to an email that I had sent to Ms. Donna Hardman who is a new member of the Board of CASA. 

I have previously raised substantial allegations against the conduct of Mr. Jonathan Aleck who acts in the role of CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs. I am of the opinion that the Chairperson of the Board of CASA is deliberately frustrating my attempts to resolve this matter and may be complicit in thwarting my attempts to obtain a fair and transparent process. 

My correspondence was specifically addressed to Ms. Hardman and my reasonable expectation was that I would receive a response from her. 

I am concerned that either Mr. Anthony Mathews as the Chair of the CASA board or perhaps Mr. Aleck who the allegations were against, may have prepared that response on her behalf, and potentially without her consent or knowledge. 

I say that because it is unlikely that someone of Ms. Hardman's credentials would make a decision that limits her ability to ensure the good governance of CASA.

To satisfy myself that Mr. Mathews or Mr. Aleck are not acting inappropriately, I am making an FOI request. 

That request specifically relates to any correspondence between Ms. Donna Hardman, Mr. Anthony Mathews, Mr. Jonathan Aleck and Mr. Colin McLachlan that relate to that prepared response. 

It would not be the role of the Board Secretariat to prepare that response without guidance from those named parties. By obtaining those related emails it will clarify the intent of the CASA actions. It will also clarify whether Mr. Jonathan Aleck had any input which I feel would be entirely unreasonable and unethical.

Furthermore, I am trying to ascertain if it was indeed a combined Board response that was arrived at collaboratively or whether it was engineered by an individual who may gain from perverting the process. 

Should you deem that those documents cannot be released, may i request an automatic review of the decision. If that review will forfeit my rights to a review by the Australian Information Commissioner then do not proceed with the review, and i will approach the Australian Information Commissioner

Thank you for your consideration of my request, yours respectfully, Glen Buckley



The email from Mr Colin McLachlan is copied below.

"Dear Mr Buckley

 

I refer to your email message of 2 August 2020 addressed to Ms Donna Hardman, as a member of the CASA Board.

 

You have made very serious allegations about the conduct of a CASA Executive Manager, without particularising your claims, and without providing any factual basis on which those claims rest other than your own convictions.  You have asked for a meeting with Ms Hardman, with a view to an investigation you suggest the Board should conduct into your claims against Dr Aleck.

 

It is not intended that a meeting of the kind you have proposed with Ms Hardman should occur.  Nor, in the absence of any evidence to warrant such action, is it the Board’s intention to mount or recommend an investigation of the kind you suggest.

 

If you have objective evidence to substantiate any of your allegations against Dr Aleck, beyond the information you have previously provided and the opinions you have previously expressed, you are invited to provide that evidence, in writing, to CASA. 

 

In the absence of new, factually substantiated evidence supporting your claims, the Board has no intention of considering this matter further.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Colin McLachlan"

Addendum: Dear St Commode invitation - 

Dear Mr. Camody, 


I would like to extend an invitation to you in your role as the CEO of CASA. 

On Tuesday, August 11th at 7PM, AOPA has offered me the opportunity to present my concerns about CASA through a Facebook live conference. 

As you are aware CASA actions were never based on safety concerns, and there were no regulatory breaches. 

CASA initiated their action on the basis of the aviation ruling, and as you are now aware, the Commonwealth Ombudsman has completed Stage One of his investigation and those findings clearly support my contention that CASA acted inappropriately. 

As his investigation continues into Stage Two I am confident that those findings will further support my substantial allegations of gross misconduct. 

The welfare of my family and my own mental health has been significantly impacted by that gross misconduct. I have worked diligently to resolve this matter, but there is no doubt that some personnel in CASA have chosen to cover up this matter and protect their own misconduct.

The purpose of his email is to invite you to represent CASA and defend those actions. During the broadcast, I will make substantial allegations against CASA.

I would very much appreciate your involvement in that broadcast to ensure transparency of the process. 

Could you please advise if you would be willing to participate in that conference to ensure that CASA has the opportunity to present their side of the case. 

I look forward to hearing from you and hope that you will avail yourself of the opportunity.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update - 12/08/20:

Glen Buckley 'CASA destroyed my business' - AOPA Australia FacebooK LIVE

GLEN BUCKLEY 'CASA DESTROYED MY BUSINESS'
AOPA AUSTRALIA - FACEBOOK LIVE - 7PM, TUES 11TH AUGUST 2020

Join the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia for an open and candid conversation with Mr Glen Buckley, founder of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance, discussing the role CASA played inthe destruction of his aviation flight training business.

THIS WEEKS PANELISTS
- Benjamin Morgan, Chief Executive Officer
- AOPA Australia
- Glen Buckley, Australian Pilot Training Alliance
- Ken Cannane, Executive Director AMROBA

JOIN IN THE DISCUSSION - LIVE

AOPA Australia invites you to post your comments and questions during the live panel broadcast.

Via Youtube:

&/or via FB: https://www.facebook.com/AOPAaustralia/v...723259630/

P2 addendum:

From: McLachlan, Colin <Colin.Mclachlan@casa.gov.au>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 17:25
Subject: RE: Invitation to the CASA board [SEC=OFFICIAL]
To: Glen Buckley <defendapta@gmail.com>


OFFICIAL
 
Dear Mr Buckley
 
Thank you for your invitation dated 6 August 2020 to participate in a Facebook live conference hosted by AOPA on 11 August 2020 to discuss your allegations against CASA. You will be familiar with my previous advice that it not appropriate to engage directly on matters that are currently under investigation by the Ombudsman’s Office. On that basis I will not participate in the Facebook live conference.
 
Regards
 
Tony Mathews 

---

From: Carmody, Shane <Shane.Carmody@casa.govau>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 13:55
Subject: RE: Invitation to Mr Carmody- CEO Civil Aviation Safety Authority [SEC=OFFICIAL]
To: Glen Buckley <defendapta@gmail.com>
Cc: Minister McCormack <minister.mccormack@infrastructure.gov.au>


OFFICIAL
 
Mr Buckley
 
I refer to your email of 6 August 2020 inviting me to participate in a Facebook live conference. I decline to attend such a conference because I do not consider that it is appropriate to engage with you whilst the Ombudsman’s investigation in to your complaint is ongoing.
 
You state in your email that you will make substantial allegations against CASA during the Facebook live conference about what you assert is ‘gross misconduct’ by CASA officers. Any statement made by any person in such a conference that is defamatory is actionable and in this respect CASA and any of its officers subject to any such statements reserve their legal rights. In this respect, I emphasis I am not seeking to stifle public debate about CASA however, any person making statements about CASA officers should be aware of potential legal liability should they express something that is defamatory about them.
 
Regards
Shane

Via the UP:

Another head rolls perhaps

---

Just got some interesting information from within CASA!

Craig Martin Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance is no longer in that position. Currently still at CASA but with no official title. It would be impossible to promote him based on his conduct, so lets hope he is out the door. If so that would be one big step forward for safety, jobs and Australian business, and more importantly organisational ethics.

He is one bad asss, and was the man responsible for destroying many peoples lives, including Bruce Rhoades who tragically passed away from Cancer before he could vindicate his reputation. Carmody soon to leave as well. Only Aleck and Crawford to go, and CASA may become a better work environment for the well intentioned CASA employees that work so professionally.

Still needs a board revamp which apperas to be underway as we speak, with two new members replacing some recent departures. Once Mr Mathews vacates his position as Chair of the Board, real progress will begin.

Might head down to Dan Murphys bottle shop and buy a bottle of Casa Santos to celebrate the occasion

To this point in time there has been over 150 comments/replies and over 15k views so far of the Glen Buckley FB video conversation - TOP JOB Glen, Ben, Ken and AOPA Oz - 

[Peetwo]

The Empire Strikes Back! - AGAIN 

Via AOPA Oz on FB: https://www.facebook.com/pg/AOPAaustrali...e_internal

IMPORTANT INDUSTRY ALERT
CASA DEMANDING DATA FROM PILOTS

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia has today become aware that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority have provided letters of demand to pilots participating in Community Service Flights, requiring recipients to submit data and information that may infringe a pilots privilege from self-incrimination. CASA have demanded a response from pilots within 10 days.

AOPA Australia is seeking advice of Senior Counsel on this matter and encourages recipients of the above letters to continue monitoring our news feeds for updates, to ensure responses protect individual rights.


An example of the letter from CASA is attached.

It is important for pilots and our industry to be aware, that CASA is currently being challenged in the Federal Court by Angel Flight, in relation to the validity of the unnecessary Community Service Flights regulations that were forcibly introduced in 2019 by the regulator.

The timing of these letters of demand for data and information, coincides with an interlocutory hearing in the Federal Court wherein Angel Flight were successful in its application to expand the grounds of the challenge against the regulator.

CASA’s Executive General Manager, Mr Chris Monahan (who is the CASA deponent named in the Federal Court challenge) appears to be on a fishing expedition, seeking to continue a campaign of harassment towards the volunteer Community Service Flight community.

AOPA Australia’s interest is to protect the aviation community by ensuring pilots are only required to provide what they are legally obligated to, and that individual rights are protected.

AOPA Australia advises pilots to also seek independent legal advice. Further information will be published following receipt of advice from Senior Counsel.

Your sincerely,

BENAJMIN MORGAN
Chief Executive Officer – AOPA Australia
NOT A MEMBER? WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!
Join today: www.aopa.com.au/membership
AOPA Australia | Your Freedom to Fly

---

And some comments: 

Sandy Reith They’ve finally cracked, showing conclusively the depth of contempt that CASA has for General Aviation so that no one, especially our MPs, will have any doubt about the total lack of CASA bona fides.

See further comments attached to Ben’s FB video on this subject. Everyone should jack up on this harassment and ring, write, contact or somehow collar your Fed MPs including Senators. Now if ever is the time because the dog has bared his teeth, the malice is showing plainly for all to see. Authorities are required to treat everyone equally, CASAs demands fall short of that, AOPA’s legal opinion will be most interesting.

Support AOPA.

---

Henry Bear I would like to thank you Ben both personally and on behalf of fellow operators who I work with on your tenacity and willingness to support everyone.

Your interview with Glen and Ken the other night was so powerful and clearly presented that no-one could be in any doubt that CASA is misguided, lacks integrity or willingness to take blame or criticism, and is a bloated organisation that needs to be completely halted and started again.

Ben you are an amazing person and we are very lucky to have someone like yourself standing up and defending the rights of every operator big and small , I feel that at last this will be a turning point for general aviation, take care and keep the momentum going you have our full support ?

Plus:

&/or via FB:

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

Well; did you ever - !

"You have been identified" -


"You are required to respond to this written notice with the specified information and specified documents no later than 27 August 2020."

Sub regulation 11.075 (1) 1998 CASR

11.075  Conditions of authorisations—provision of information
             (1)  CASA may, by written notice, require the holder of an authorisation to give CASA specified information, or a specified document, that relates to the activity, document or thing to which the authorisation relates.
             (2)  It is a condition of an authorisation that its holder must comply with a notice given under subregulation (1):
                     (a)  within 14 days after receiving the notice; or
                     (b)  if a different period is specified in the notice—within that period.
             (3)  A person commits an offence if:
                     (a)  the person is the holder of an authorisation; and
                     (b)  CASA requires the person, under subregulation (1), to give CASA information or a document; and
                     ©  the person does not give CASA the information or document:
                              (i)  within 14 days after receiving the notice; or
                             (ii)  if a different period is specified in the notice—within that period.
Penalty:  50 penalty units.
             (4)  Strict liability applies to paragraph (3)©.

Read it and weep. What's next – a friendly ramp check at the end of every flight; or, a hi-viz jacket with a target placed toward your nether regions – for ease of aiming?

First response – tell 'em to duck off – but you cannot. Bear in mind – one hour late on the deadline and its off to federal court – strict liability – no excuses. Even if you mange to convince the judge (yes a real one) that you have acted 'in good faith' – the very, very best you can expect is 'no conviction' recorded and court costs. But you will be, forever, a marked target.

Consider the language carefully selected – scary ain't it. Fear not; it is but the death throes of a foul beast; lashing out in it's pain and panic. A mad, tormented beast thrashing around – uncaring of what damage it does as it's unlimited power wanes. CASA may well have, once again, decided to 'stamp' it's authority and demonstrate that 'they' have a gods gifted right to do whatever, whenever, to whoever they feel like deserves it (or not). Problem is – they can; and, guess who allowed these rules to be passed without let, hindrance or debate – you guessed it.

Now, the violence inherent in the system is revealed; the target a bunch of volunteer pilots who are (or were) happy to be useful, have a purpose and spend their own dollars to meet a community need. Now an identified target to enforce the notion that CASA can and will do exactly as pleases in defence of and to protect their unmitigated powers. This has nothing whatsoever to do with 'safety' and everything to do with protection – no, idiots - not yours.

A disgusting letter; writ by megalomaniacs, produced by a ministerial protection racket – signed by an ex spook turned CASA hit man (for shame). That letter, standing alone, more than any other deed, action or word, clarifies just how defunct and dysfunctional CASA has been allowed to become. Ruled by lunacy, that rule now enforced by has been spooks and failed coppers. Great situation we've allowed to develop through our silence and acquiescence.

Who's to blame – Oh 'we' are M'lud – no excuses there. Strict liability does apply to that.

Now; I seriously need a drink - “yes please – same again”.............

[Kharon]

For those not familiar.

Do you actually have a 'right to remain silent'?

Not many outside 'commercial' aviation have had the pleasure of a hostile CASA audit; that happy band of volunteer pilots who operate Angel Flight services being one. They are about to discover the 'dark side'. Its a little bit like having a broken leg – until you have actually been through it, empathy of a meaningful sort is not possible.

So as demanded, you provide the data required; fuel documents identified; passenger weights identified; weather data identified; flight time identified; maintenance release time identified; log book entry identified; AF records identified – examination begins.

Dear Pilot – CASA has identified three flights which were overweight; six MR entries which contradict the estimated flight time; two cases where fuel reserves were deemed to be inadequate on arrival; a eighteen log book entries which are in excess of the engine time recorded. On three occasions flights were operated in clear breach of the requirement for VFR weather conditions.

Every tiny clerical error or fudge will be be picked out and added to a haystack which will be impossible to defend. Each alleged offence stand alone insignificant; but collectively they will present a picture of a 'dangerous' disregard for the rules – once the court has finished shaking its head – because CASA have piled it all up and convinced a court that you are not a fit and proper etc. Its all over, they are the authority after all and must be right. That is no long bow I'm drawing – many 'cases' have been recorded were individuals and companies have been destroyed with this 'technique'.  Hard to beat – speed limit 100 KpH; at 101 you are technically 'in breach' – black letter law and strict liability. MTOW 1000 kg – weighed at 1001 Kg – you are now officially a criminal; without hope of defence. Don't laugh – its very real.

CASA are not asking for an overview of AF pilot operation – in general terms – they could provide a 'survey' document to establish the weft and weave of AF operations for individual pilots. – How many, how much, where, when is data freely available from AF, so why the intimidation tactics? Do you actually have a 'right to remain silent'? 'Tis a fair question M'lud.

'The letter' - IMO - reflects the true nature of CASA culture; writ large. I reckon we've had enough of this – time to end it – united this industry does have the horsepower to demand sane and reasonable governance, and, get it. Alas the chickens squabbling over the few grains of corn in the yard are too busy to see the fox behind the shed.

Disgust and contempt for CASA are easily expressed – but how will we express the same for an industry which steps back and allows this type of behaviour from the regulator to go unchallenged. Will it once again change it's pants, lest CASA get their boots dirty when kicking 'em in the nuts?

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update 18/08/20: Dear Mick Mack...L&Ks GlenB  

17/08/20


To the Honorable Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael McCormack. 

I am writing to you in your role as the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the National Party and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, the portfolio responsible for Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Please note that I have included the Board of CASA in this email and Senator Susan McDonald who is currently heading up the two-year inquiry into Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

My name is Glen Buckley and I reside at 6 Susan Court, Mount Waverley 3149. 

I have written to you previously, and your Department has chosen not to respond. I am requesting that you initially acknowledge that you have received this correspondence, in the first instance, and that you will respond in detail after you have given this correspondence due consideration.

The purpose of this correspondence is to call on you to provide an opportunity for me to submit substantial allegations to your Department against the conduct of two personnel within CASA, and to call for an investigation into their conduct. A full and comprehensive investigation is required as I am making these allegations public, and the named CASA personnel are fully entitled to have their reputations protected by your Department if my claims are found to be vindictive or vexatious. The two CASA personnel that I am raising allegations against are:

1. Mr. Jonathan Aleck in his role as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs, and 
   
2. Mr. Craig Martin in his role as the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance.
   

Please note that I cannot make allegations against them outside of their conduct in the workplace, and they may well be good citizens of the wider community. I refer only to their conduct in the workplace as employees of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and I do so primarily in the interests of aviation safety but also because of the significant damage that their actions have brought to so many.

It is also important that I specify the individuals, to protect the wider reputation of Australia's Safety Regulator and the many CASA employees that act professionally and sincerely towards improving aviation safety in Australia.

However, as employees of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, their conduct has resulted in the closure of several Australian Owned businesses and impacted employees that were dependent on those businesses to derive their livelihoods. I am a person that has been significantly impacted by the actions of these two individuals. I have incurred significant financial damage and damage to my health and well being. The actions of these two individuals has cost me many millions of dollars and resulted in the loss of my business, my home, my life savings, and impacted me and my family's future welfare and security. 

I must point out that after inflicting such damage to me personally and losing my business, I obtained employment as an employee in the Industry, until CASA sent a directive to my Employer that my continuing employment was untenable based on "comments that I was making publicly". I was terminated instantly, was paid no entitlements that were rightfully mine, and spent 8 months unemployed. The action by these individuals has been highly disproportionate.

For clarity, their conduct has been unlawful, unfair, and unjust. 

In considering this request, I encourage you to establish contact with the Chairperson of the Board of CASA who has detailed knowledge of this matter. Mr. Mathews the Chairperson of the Board of CASA will be able to confirm that the actions of these two individuals have no justification on the basis of aviation safety, and that the business I have now lost had maintained an Industry leading level of safety and compliance, and that there were no regulatory breaches. 

The CASA action by these individuals was vindictive and vexatious.

In the process of these two individuals engineering their desired outcome, I am alleging that they  have;

Deliberately provided misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, whose investigation continues in two stages He has completed Stage One of the investigation and in his findings, he reported that there was indeed, "an administrative deficiency" and that it had "potential to cause detriment to those relying on the accuracy of the regime or, conversely prevent detriment from occurring". In my opinion, those substantive findings alone, compel you to provide me with the opportunity to submit my allegations to your office. If these two individuals are permitted to provide misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman in Stage Two of his investigation my concern is that it will pervert the course of justice. The named individuals have acted intentionally, their action has been sustained, and it involved significant planning and pre-meditation. Importantly, I allege that it was premeditated rather than simply an evolved process. These factors will significantly impact on the seriousness of the offense. Furthermore, I allege that the two named individuals have attempted to conceal evidence.

Deliberately provided misleading information to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner,  and that has resulted in an erroneous outcome. This allegation specifically relates to the use of CASAs Temporary locations procedure. Against this allegation, I am fully confident that I have evidence that is clear and concise and cannot possibly be refuted if I am given the opportunity to submit my evidence.

Breached obligations placed on them by your own "Ministers Statement of Expectations for CASA. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00977

On this matter, I specifically refer to your  following directives, 

1. "CASA should perform its functions in accordance with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act)"
   
2. "The conduct and values of CASAs Board and Staff should be consistent with that of the Australian Public Service"
   
3. "I expect CASA to be a world-best-practice aviation safety regulator"
   
4. " I also expect the Board to facilitate effective interaction between CASA and Industry"
   
5. "I expect the Board to keep the secretary of my Department and me fully informed of CASAs actions in relation to the requirements stated in this SOE, and promptly advise of any events or issues that may impact on the operations of CASA"
   
6. "I expect CASA will continue its regulatory approach in accordance with its regulatory philosophy"
   
7. "operate with a consideration of the economic impact and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community"
   
8. "adopt a pragmatic, practical and proportionate approach to regulation as it applies to different industry sectors"
   
9. " undertake effective and ongoing engagement with the aviation industry to create a collaborative relationship based on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect"
   

Breached obligations placed on them by CASAs Regulatory Philosophy that was created as a result of the Australian Government Aviation Safety Regulation Review. https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviati...ummary.pdf

For ease of access, please find the link to CASAs Regulatory philosophy  attached https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-...philosophy
On this matter, I request to make a submission with well-documented evidence against breaches of Items 1,2,3.5,6,7,8,9 and 10 of that Regulatory Philosophy. I am not making any claim against Item 4 of that regulatory philosophy

Breached obligations placed on them by CASAs Enforcement Procedures Manual. I provide the link here to ensure that you have ease  of access https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/fi...9rfull.pdf

On this matter, I draw your attention to obligations placed on them by the Enforcement Procedures Manual in its entirety but with your particular attention drawn to the following sections", all of which were not taken into account, and were clearly and demostrably breached

• The Preface
  
• 2.4 CASAs Enforcement Policy-High Level Principles
  
• 2.4.1 Natural Justice and Accountability 
  
• 2.4.2 Consistency and Flexibility 
  
• 2.4.3 Impartiality 
  
• 2.4.4 Responsible Exercise of Compliance and Enforcement Powers 
  
• 2.4.5 Relevant considerations for regulatory decision-making
  
• 6.6.2.2 Variation, Suspension or Cancellation Under CAR 269 
  
• 6.6.2.5 Variation, Suspension or Cancellation of Other Aviation Permissions
  
• 6.12 Variation Suspension and Cancellation of AOCs
  
• 6.12.2 Variation of Conditions of AOCs – No Breach of Condition Required
  
• 6.18 Refusal to Re-Issue a Civil Aviation Authorisation 
  
• Appendix 2. The Legal Basis of Regulatory Enforcement 
  
• Appendix 4. Guidance on the term ‘fit and proper person’ 
  

Breached obligations placed on them by Administrative Law, Natural Justice, and Procedural Fairness. 
By Mr. Aleck and Mr. Martin choosing not to follow clearly stipulated CASA procedures, this has resulted in breaches of Administrative Law, Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness. I can provide clear and irrefutable evidence of fabricated audit results that are clearly not truthful I can also provide evidence that these audit results were in fact written up many months after the audit, differed entirely to the original findings, and were engineered to ensure they achieved their desired outcome. i.e. to bring significant harm to me and my business, which it has done.

Breached obligations placed on them by the Public Service Act, and specifically the conduct and values of the Australian Public Service Act https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2019C00057. 

On this allegation, I refer to the following obligations from the APS Code of Conduct. Whilst I understand that CASA is not normally bound by those obligations, I note that in your Ministers Statement of Expectations you have specifically identified that they must comply.

A CASA employee and CASA generally must:

• Behave honestly and with integrity in connection with their employment.
  
• Act with care and diligence in connection with their employment.
  
• When acting in connection with their employment, must treat everyone with respect and courtesy, and without harassment.
  
• Must use Commonwealth resources in a proper manner and for a proper purpose.
  
• Must not provide false or misleading information in response to a request for information that is made for official purposes in connection with the employee’s APS employment.
  
• Must not improperly use inside information or the employee’s duties, status, power, or authority to cause, or seek to cause, a detriment to the employee’s Agency, the Commonwealth, or any other person.
  
• An employee must at all times behave in a way that upholds the integrity and good reputation of the employee’s Agency and the APS.
  
• Be professional, objective, innovative, and efficient, and work collaboratively to achieve the best results for the Australian community and the Government.
  
• Demonstrate leadership, be trustworthy, and act with integrity, in all that it does.
  
• Respect all people, including their rights and their heritage.
  

Thank you for your consideration of my request. I would also like to provide links that may assist you in arriving at a fair decision and ensure your Department is fully aware of the support I have gathered. 

Ben Morgan from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) provided the opportunity to present to an audience of over 17,0000 viewers and that can be accessed via the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvf-Piw7WBs&t=17s

Also over 600,000 views have been made on my forum which can be accessed here https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zea...-casa.html

I would also draw your attention to the Gofundme page set up by supporters in Industry to ensure that i can achieve a fair outcome https://www.gofundme.com/f/glen-buckley-v-casa 

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

Plus via the UP: https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zea...st10859549

Torres 

Glen

I have 50 years watching DCA, CAA and CASA and have suffered at the hands of power hungry, unaccountable, incompetence within CASA. An apology from the then Director did not compensate for the loss of a career I loved.

I guess there is always a good side, being forced out of aviation led me to a new very rewarding path which enabled me to help hundreds of young people access qualifications and a new rewarding career.

As fast as one recalcitrant "retires" from CASA, another rises to a position of maximum incompetence. The only obvious constant is the great survivor, Aleck.

The cycle won't end until CASA in it's entirety is replaced with an honest, competent, capable and accountable aviation regulator.

---

&.. 


Epicurus

Craig Martin - the ghost who walks.

---

Glen, Craig Martin is still at CASA and you are correct that he is no longer working in his ‘previous role’. His new role is TBA. The halls at sleepy hollow are bustling at the moment as the heat in the kitchen has been turned up a notch, well done good Sir. Keep it coming.

As for the two new Board members, I don’t want to dash your hopes but they are part of the ‘system’. You won’t get a listening ear or a modicum of sympathy from then. They may be new, but they have been well briefed on activities within CASA along with a rundown on any serial pests, of which you fit the mould! ( and I mean that respectfully mate!).

As has been mentioned by many, CASA deserves nothing short of a Royal Commission. It is the only channel from which the truth can be gleaned. But the Government knows what has been going on and they will never sanction that. While the Loyola lunatic remains at Fort Fumble our aviation industry remains doomed and anybody challenging the powers of CASA will be crushed.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update - 22/08/20: 

Via AP email chain: 

22/08/20

To the Board of CASA, comprising the following Individuals

Mr. Anthony Mathews (Chairperson),  Mr. Shane Carmody (CEO of CASA), Mr. Mark Rindfleish, Mr. Michael Bridge, Ms. Donna Hardman, Ms. Elizabeth Hallet, and Ms. Marilyn Andre. In your roles, you are responsible for ensuring that CASA performs its role in a "proper, efficient, and effective manner."

You will be fully aware of the significant allegations I have bought against CASA Employees;

1. Mr. Jonathan Aleck CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs
   
2. Mr. Graeme Crawford, CASA Executive Manager of the Aviation Group,
   
3. Mr. Craig Martin, CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance.
   

The conduct of these gentlemen in my opinion has been unlawful, unfair, and unjust, and has brought enormous economic harm to me, my family, and other individuals, aeroclubs, and businesses. 

I have had discussions with a number of legal firms, and I am confident that I have a valid basis for a claim against CASA on behalf of affected Parties, and it appears that case would be based around misfeasance, malfeasance and negligent misstatement 

I am now at a point in this process where I need to clearly ascertain whether I proceed with my legal case or, do we arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution with a less combative approach. The latter clearly being my preferred option. 

Should you choose the path of litigation, I need to be very clear that once that journey commences, the opportunity for a negotiated settlement is lost, and I will pursue my matter through to a legal determination. A determination will provide me, and industry with a 

The purpose of this correspondence is to seek a very clear direction from the Board of CASA, in conjunction with your insurance company being Comminsure.

The more combative approach will be the more costly, divert valuable CASA resources from primary tasks, and expose CASA to a far higher level of public scrutiny. In my opinion, it should be an unnecessary approach, but that decision now rests with the CASA Board. 

As you are aware i have made repeated attempts to resolve this matter, but until this point, the Board has resolutely refused those offers. I am now calling on you to make your decision and advise me of that decision.

As the Board already has the facts in front of them, I anticipate that you should be able to arrive at a prompt and well-considered opinion.

Could you please advise me by 5 PM on Friday 4th September of the Board's decision. 

In assisting you to arrive at your decision, I re-extend my offer to meet with the Board at any time prior to that date.

Yours respectfully, Glen Buckley

And via the UP:

glenb

CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner process- fundamentally flawed

---

If there is any doubt about the lack of integrity and effectiveness of CASA having an Industry Complaints Commissioner that is internal, compared to having an independent body such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigate matters. Here it clearly is.!!

I want to be very clear. At this stage, I have no doubt at all about the integrity of Mr. Hanton in the role of the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner. My allegation is that he is being misled, and deliberately so by members of CASAs Executive Management.

I initially submitted this complaint to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner in December of 2018, and much later to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

It is interesting to see the two very distinctive outcomes that resulted. I had fought with CASA on this matter, and finally CASA and after two months CASA admitted to me verbally that they had erred. Nevertheless, they maintained the restrictions on the business's ability to trade for a further 6 months, until the business was unable to continue.

The complaint was significant and in fact, the use of the Aviation Ruling was the trigger that CASA used to bring down my business. My submitted complaint to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner follows:

APTA REFERENCE- MATTER “F” FOXTROT
DATE OF SUBMISSION- 31/12/18
COMPLAINT LODGED BY Glen Buckley-CEO- Australian Pilot Training Alliance ARN 759217
Email (preferred contact) glen.b@auspta.com.au
Mobile 0418772013
Address – Hangar 17, Northern Avenue, Moorabbin Airport, 3194


BACKGROUND INFORMATION

CASA initiated action against my Business on 23/10/18, and at the time of writing CASA seems some way off from resolving this matter. To date, this has cost my Business approximately $200,00 and has significantly impacted on my ability to continue operating.

I advised CASA very clearly and repeatedly throughout the process of the cost impact.

Such a substantive action would usually be due to a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety.
CASA has raised no concerns at all about Safety but drew on the Aviation Ruling to initiate this significant action.


COMPLAINT

Significant harm has been brought to me and my business as a result of CASA using the Aviation Ruling as the basis of their action, which I have repeatedly objected to and asked guidance on how I can have this “tested”.

I do not believe that the Aviation Ruling applies and have repeatedly highlighted that to CASA over the last 10 weeks.



EXPECTED OUTCOME

My understanding is that the Aviation Ruling does not have a “Head of Power”. Can CASA specifically confirm whether my understanding is correct?

The Aviation Ruling is for “CAR 206 operations”. My understanding is that Flying Training organizations were specifically removed from CAR 206 operations in September 2014. Can you confirm that: for the purposes of action against my business has CASA elected to slip it back in, or is it an “oversight” on CASAs behalf.

The Aviation Ruling refers to a Chief Pilot, and this position does not exist in a flying training environment. Can you confirm that the Chief Pilot (Charter Organisations) and Head of Operations (Flying Training) are interchangeable throughout the legislation, or is this a peculiarity to CASAs action against me only?

The Aviation Ruling was written for a completely different regulatory environment in early 2006. With the complete overhaul of legislation in September 2014, I felt that this may have become redundant. Can you confirm that it does apply?

If the Aviation Ruling does apply, why specifically has CASA turned a blind eye to it for almost 13 years and has reactivated it against my Business so aggressively?

The Aviation Ruling specifically refers to Organisations operating with an “arm's length contractual arrangement”. This is, in fact, the exact opposite of what APTA is, and highlights the confusion that exists within casa. I have highlighted this repeatedly to CASA throughout the process. Can CASA specifically state whether or not they are of the opinion that I operate with an “arms-length contractual arrangement” as opposed to a contract?

Can CASA please clearly state the link between applying the Aviation Ruling and Safety.

END OF COMPLAINT

So as a response to that complaint, how did they respond?

Here is the CASA response from the Industry Complaints Commissioner.

"Because APTA advised CASA has taken the Aviation Ruling "off the table", I continue to be of the view that there is no utility in making an assessment of issues that are no longer in contention"

In other words, CASA can make scurrilous allegations against someone over a protracted period. When the individual lodges a complaint, CASA simply takes it "off the table" and the person lodging the complaint loses their opportunity to have their complaint considered by CASAs Industry Complaints Commissioner.

Yet when the Commonwealth Ombudsman conducts an investigation he finds;

"The Ruling was not amended to reflect that legislative change from 1 September 2014, meaning that the CAR and the Ruling were no longer aligned in material ways"

"In my concluded view there was an administrative deficiency due to an absence of a direct relationship between the activity being regulated and the policy said to regulate it. That gave rise to ambiguity and uncertainty with the potential to cause detriment to those relying on the accuracy of the regime or conversely prevent detriment from occurring"

"It is my concluded view that CASA should have made a concurrent amendment to its ruling at the entry into force of the 1 September 2014 compilation of the CAR because of the practical effect of the change to those relying on the regulatory regime."

Thank goodness we have a Commonwealth Ombudsman and don't need to solely rely on CASA to act with integrity when they investigate themselves. The function and accountability of the CASA ICC process need a complete overhaul if stakeholders in this industry are to have access to a well-intentioned ICC who is determined to arrive at fair and transparent outcomes.

Later today (time permitting) i intend to post another example of the CASA internal dispute resolution process i.e. the ICC being completely flawed,

---

Stickshift3000

For there to even exist a CASA Complaints Commissioner, when the Commonwealth Ombudsman performs the exact same service (more efficiently and independantly), is a useless and wasteful resource.

There will always be a perceived, potential or actual conflict of interest while the CASA Complaints Commissioner derives their pay from CASA; I think you've proven this point Glen.

---

glenb

Some clarification

---

For added clarity

Mr Hanton consistently and repeatedly encouraged me to take my complaints to the Commonwealth Ombudsman from very early on in the process. It was me that chose not to follow his suggestion.

I felt that the CASA ICC would have more efficient access to the documents and a higher level of expertise on these matters. I felt that a more transparent finding would result. Sadly, in my opinion, it didn't.

I also thought it a fairer process if I exhausted all avenues for an internal resolution within CASA.

Mr. Hanton has been an exceptional individual to liaise with. His integrity and intention are not questioned by me at all.

My concerns are only with the CASA Executive Management who I allege have provided misleading information to him to pervert the course of justice. They are strong allegations and I do not step away from them.

Regarding Mr. Hanton, he is truly a well-intentioned gentleman and his conduct is not in any way the focus of my allegations.

Mr Hanton, i hope you read this, and i implore you to reach out and contact me if this post causes you any angst at all. You have my eternal respect, cheers. Glen

---

glenb

Confirmed. CASA resignation

---

I still standby a change to Mr. Martins role, but what I can confirm. Jason McHeyzer the gentleman that wrote to my Employer that my "position was untenable based on comments i was making publicly" will hand in his resignation by 5PM today.

Could there finally be some accountability?

---

glenb

Confirmed. CASA resignation

---

That is confirmed. A sound decision and I respect that.

---

glenb

Suggestion of suitable replacement

---

There is a significant pool of talent within CASA.

Due to the Pandemic, there is also an enormous pool of aviation talent available.outside of CASA.

I hope that the Deputy PM who is responsible for CASA recognizes that fact, and takes advantage of this unique opportunity to "update" the organization with a few changes of key personnel in the CASA executive.

A very real opportunity sits before the Deputy PM. Bow to the pressure of a Royal Commission or simply instigate change and employ personnel that can deliver professionalism. The change of less than 5 staff, replaced by "new blood" may well achieve more than a Royal Commission.

Horrible time to be "resigning" though. Nota lot of aviation jobs around.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update - 27/08/20:

Via the UP:

Correspondence to my lawyer

---

Dear Alex,

Thank you for establishing contact to ascertain whether I wish to proceed with my defamation action against CASA.

Please accept this as my response; that I do wish to proceed with that litigation, noting that the person who sent that direction, CASA Region Manager Mr. XXXXX XXXXXXXX resigned from CASA last week. I'm not sure how that impacts on any case but am advising you, nevertheless. i.e. is the litigation against him as an individual, or against his employer being CASA, or possibly both.

I would also point out that this matter is also being investigated by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and I anticipate that his findings when released, will add significant weight to my case.

Regarding CASAs' previous offer, it is totally unacceptable, and I wish to proceed on the basis that any claim would have to far exceed the paltry and rather mischievous offer that CASA put forward previously. CASA has clearly demonstrated that they are not acting with good intent.

Regarding the reputational damage which also led to a period of 8 months of unemployment, it has been significant. It has extended to my reputation with peers in the industry, my past employees, work colleagues, my suppliers, neighbors, school community, and indeed my own family i.e. wife, children, parents, and siblings.

The nation's Aviation Safety Regulator, CASA, has directed that my employment was "untenable" based on comments I was making publicly. There is no safety case for that direction at all.

The reasonable assumption of many in the industry, and outside of the aviation industry is that I must have done something wrong on the basis of a safety-related matter when that is clearly not the case, and CASA will be unable to refute that statement. For clarity, CASA actions had no basis in safety, and the direction was made to my employer on "comments that I was making publicly".

I have asked CASA to identify those comments that I allegedly made, which led to the direction to terminate my employment. CASA has steadfastly refused to respond to those requests. Their action was in my opinion unlawful, unfair, and unjust.

For clarity, there is no position in the legislation for a "deputy Head of Operations". My position was the Head of Operations, and I operated as the "Alternate Head of Operations". That is to say that the position was a CASA approved position as the Head of Operations. , I was fully approved by CASA to immediately step into the role of the Head of Operations.

The CASA Enforcement Manual (link follows) outlines procedures required in Administrative Law if CASA wishes to remove me from that CASA approved position of Head of Operations. These procedures were completely ignored. https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul...f/009rfull.pdf

After having spent 25 years in the industry and earning an impeccable reputation for safety, regulatory compliance, and acting with good intention, it was destroyed in an instant with that direction from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. I was chased out of an industry that I loved and had committed my life to.

The impact has been far too disproportionate, and the ramifications substantial.

Please note that I have written to the Board of CASA and that correspondence is included at the tail end of this letter. My hope is that the Board of CASA will act with ethics to direct that this matter be resolved, although based on past experience I do not feel that they will, and for that reason, I do wish to proceed to an independent determination via the legal system.

If you think it prudent, however, and I will follow your learned advice, you may elect that one last attempt to reach out to CASA is the best way forward. I will leave it to you to determine how best to resolve this matter as efficiently and fairly as practical.

On other matters and on high-level advice, I will also be proceeding with a case of negligent misstatement/ misfeasance and malfeasance against CASA for the significant commercial damage inflicted on my business, and several other businesses and individuals as part of this process.

I have no doubt that the CASA actions were vindictive and vexatious, so I can assure you that you have an energized litigant that you will be representing.

For your information, the Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) provided an opportunity to begin telling my story, and that presentation a couple of weeks ago attracted 17,000 views and 80,000 shares. I have been presented with another opportunity on Tuesday 7th September at 7 PM, I anticipate an even larger audience for that presentation, and I will send a copy of that to you for consideration.

I look forward to guidance from you on the next step, and please find my recent correspondence to the Board of CASA, thank you for your ongoing support.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley.

---

Plus:

A message for everyone

---

To every one of you that is involved in aviation anyway, whether that be as a pilot, a maintenance person, a business owner, student, etc.

If you are a well-intentioned CASA employee who believes the Authority is not operating to the highest standards of ethics, integrity, and professionalism.

If you are a law firm that would potentially be able to handle litigation against CASA on the basis of negligent misstatement/malfeasance/misfeasance, and on behalf of a number of affected Parties.

If you are an investigative journalist able to develop an appropriate story.

If you are a politician prepared to act with ethics.

The Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) recently provided an opportunity to present my situation via a Facebook live conference. It was viewed 17,000 times and shared 80,000 times.

AOPA has presented me with a further opportunity at 7 PM on Tuesday 8th September.

I intend to use that 90-minute presentation as my submission to the current Senate Inquiry into CASA.

In that Submission, I intend to make substantive allegations that will be well supported. Those allegations will be against three of the CASA Executive Management, and most specifically Mr. Crawford, Mr. Aleck, and Mr. Martin.

If my allegations can be substantiated, these personnel will no longer be able to remain in the employ of CASA.

If my claims are found to be false, vindictive, or vexatious, I could face a term of imprisonment. Whilst I am confident that will not be the case, my decision is a well-considered one.

The misconduct by these personnel has negatively impacted on aviation safety, it has caused the closure of several businesses, and an associated loss of jobs.

Their conduct has been unlawful, unfair, and unjust.

I am compelled to name them as this is a matter of aviation safety. Furthermore, I do not want to harm the wider reputation of CASA and the many well-intentioned and professional employees who work within CASA.

I hope that you can spread this correspondence to anyone in the aviation industry, as I record my Submission via AOPAs Facebook live conference at 7 PM Tuesday 8th September.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Angel Flight embuggerance update - 2/09/20:

Via Oz Flying :

---

 

CASA under Fire as Angel Flight goes to Court over Letters
1 September 2020
Comments 1 Comment

Angel Flight is headed back to the courts after CASA sent letters to pilots and the organisation demanding information about community service flights (CSF).

The letters, sent in mid August, told owners their aircraft had been identified as one used for a CSF and demanded copies of the maintenance release and aircraft log books. Pilots were instructed to provide information on the number of flights, passengers, flight rules and aircraft used. Extracts from pilots logbooks were also demanded.

Angel Flight was told they needed to disclose information covering all CSFs conducted under their banner for the period 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020, including number of flights, hours flown, operation type and qualifications of the pilots used. Information has also been demanded of aircraft hirers even though there is no legal obligation for owners to record the purpose for which the aircraft was hired out.

According to CASA, the information is needed to conduct a 12-month review into the CSF regulation imposed last year, but Angel Flight believes the letters were issued for an "improper purpose" and the information demanded is outside of CASA's power.

Angel Flight and two other applicants, Owen Crees and Garth England, have applied to the Federal Court seeking a declaration that the requests made by CASA were issued for an improper purpose and are of no effect.

The applicants also want an order that the CASA demands be quashed or set aside, which would relieve them from having to comply with the demands.

In February last year, CASA imposed restrictions on CSFs that target Angel Flight specifically because of the type of mission flown. The restrictions included:

• private pilots cannot fly CSFs unless they have 400 hours total time with at least 250 hour in command
  
  
• multi-engine aircraft cannot be used on CSFs unless the pilot has 25 hours time on type
  
  
• private pilots cannot fly CSFs if they hold a CASA Basic Class 2 medical only
  
  
• VFR pilots cannot fly CSFs unless they have 10 hours on type
  
  
• IFR pilots cannot fly CSFs unless they have 20 hours time on type
  
  
• no pilot can fly a CSF unless they have made at least one landing in the type of aircraft in the previous 30 days.
  

CASA has also demanded that CSF flight must submit a flight plan and pilots must mark the flight in their logbooks as a CSF.

Angel Flight has since been working through the courts to have the new rules nullified.

A case management hearing on the matter of the letters has been scheduled for 10 September.

Sandy Reith • 6 hours ago

Thank goodness for Angel Flight who are acting to halt the predations of the tyrant CASA. There’s no other way to describe CASA, an organisation which is completely out of control. Even it’s Board obviously has no sense of propriety, fairness or understanding of General Aviation (GA) let alone the principle advantages of a free people exercising their skills and their right to fly for the benefit of others. The Minister is nowhere to be seen, and never have I seen in 54 years of flying such vengeful behaviour of the aviation regulator on a group of individuals. Individuals who selflessly contribute to the well being of fellow Australians by transporting those who need medical care at no cost. If anyone had any doubt about the legitimacy of our call in GA for root and branch reforms then CASA’s unconscionable actionS should thoroughly dispel that caution.

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update - 5/09/20

Via Oz Flying: http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...-apta-case

Update 3 September

A CASA spokesperson today issued the following statement.

"CASA’s position on ‘franchise-like’ arrangements is that they may be acceptable, so long as those arrangements ensure that the authorisation holder maintains ‘full operational control’ over the approved activities and is able to satisfy CASA that this is so.
"CASA will continue to cooperate fully with the Ombudsman’s investigation, which is not yet completed."

In response to that via the UP:

Bend alot

Originally Posted by thisishardtochoose View Post

A little update to the article

So a bit like the muddy waters of supervision being "direct" from afar. When that suits.

---

Sunfish

I note that, again, the CASA criteria are not objective. “may”, “acceptable”, “full operational control”, “satisfy”, ‘this is so”.

These are meaningless gibberish words whose meanings can be changed at a lawyers whim. This is the actual reverse of classic Weberian bureaucracy - a system of administration developed by the Prussians precisely to stamp out the kind of corruption (including noble cause corruption) that CASAs regulations deliberately facilitate.

‘’To put that another way, the CASA spokesman really said: “if we like you, we might let you franchise stuff, however if we feel we don’t love you any more, then your franchising is not permitted. Be nice to us or we will destroy you.”

---

glenb

POST 1186- The obligation on CASA.

---

Bendy and Sunfish, you hit the nail on the head. That is the crux of the issue.

But it is important to recap the Civil Aviation ACT. The ACT that establishes CASA. I will quote from PART II which deals with the establishment and functions of CASA, in sections 8 and 9)

“[i]CASA is a body corporate and may be sued in its corporate name……. The Public Governance, Performance, and Accountability Act 2013 applies to CASA. That Act deals with matters relating to corporate Commonwealth entities, including… the use and management of public resources……..CASA has the function of developing and promulgating appropriate, clear, and concise aviation safety standards.”[/i]

So if CASA, and specifically, Mr. Martin and Mr. Aleck, are unable to produce any supporting safety case after more than two years, then I have a reasonable expectation that they can direct me to a regulatory breach that is “clear and concise”. Surely they are obligated to do so. Especially when one considers the negative impact on safety and the loss of business and jobs that has resulted from their actions and decisions.

If I cannot be directed to a supporting safety case, then there must be a regulatory breach. If neither of those exists, then I reasonably have to assume that their motivation lies elsewhere.

CASA has thrown everything at me. They have tried the Aviation Ruling, bullying and intimidation, breaches of Administrative law, Procedural fairness, and natural justice. They have falsified audit results, made completely unsubstantiated allegations, placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade, etc etc. Nothing sticks.

They now move into “operational control”. It doesn’t appear in any CASA definition, so I will be dealing yet again, with the opinion of Mr. Aleck and Mr. Martin. I am sure they will have a “different opinion”.

I firmly believe my opinion to be correct, and relish the opportunity to challenge them on this one. They will be digging an even deeper hole, be assured!

Next via one of the PAIN_Net email chains...

Dear Mr. Buss, 

I have not had the opportunity to submit any documents for Phase Two of your investigation.

Please accept this document as an overview. It was prepared some time ago, however it does contain a significant amount of pertinent information. 

Thank you, respectfully, Glen Buckley

Ref: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...040619.pdf

Also via the email chain:

04/09/20

Dear Senator Susan McDonald,

My name is Glen Buckley,  you will have some knowledge of my current issues with members of the CASA Executive Management, whom I have made substantial allegations against. I have been impacted by the actions and decisions of those personnel.  

Allegations against those two individuals have been made before, and in fact, led to the ABC conducting an investigative report into the matter https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/dying-pilot-...l/10444126.

My allegations closely mirror previous allegations that have been raised, and against the same individuals.

The Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) has facilitated an opportunity for me via their Facebook Live conference at 7 PM on Tuesday 8th September. That presentation will open with a direct address to you, in your role on the current Senate Inquiry into Australia's General Aviation Industry. It will be my submission to that inquiry. 

If you are unable to accept an audiovisual submission, please advise me and I will provide a written transcript. I invite you to join the conference if you deem it appropriate.

I thank you sincerely for the open and professional manner that appears evident from the feedback  Ben Morgan from AOPA has provided me.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

In response to that, off the UP, Lead Balloon posted...

Lead Balloon:

Glen

You might want to contact the Committee Secretary to confirm (Phone: +61 2 6277 3511 or rrat.sen@aph.gov.au), but I'm pretty sure that anything published before submission to the Committee (e.g. an AOPA webcast or even a transcript of it) will not attract parliamentary privilege. Although that would not mean you can't participate in an AOPA webcast, it would mean that any e.g. potentially defamatory content of the webcast would be at your/AOPA's risk.

If you instead write down what you have to say about the CASA officers you've named and submit that to the Committee and the Committee publishes your submission [b]before[/b] any proposed webcast, the content will attract privilege and be 'out there'. But beware: You're starting a verbal streetfight with some of the best sophists in the game.

To which GlenB replied:

Lead Balloon.

---

As usual, sound guidance.

Unfortunately, I have been dealing with this, every woken moment in the last two years. I am time poor and need this bought to a head.

This needs to be actioned on, and promptly so. Everything I have said, I stand fully behind. In fact, such statements made without Parliamentary Privilege, carry more weight.

The person making the statements must be fully prepared to back them up with evidence and potentially face charges if they are vindictive or vexatious, not truthful, not in the public interest, unsupported with evidence, cannot be justified on the basis of aviation safety, etc. I'm fully aware of that, and accepting of it.

I know that seems naive, but quite simply the toll this has taken on me, must come to an end by whatever means.

By following CASA processes, this has already dragged on for two years. Enough is enough!

Provided both sides of the story are presented, I will be able to accept the outcome.

If I could delay a couple of weeks, type a submission (I'm a one-finger typer by the way) to the Senate, have it considered, potentially be involved in email ping pong, and accepted, would be weeks away. I simply don't have the time, mental capacity, or resources.

I will have to be fully accountable for my actions and decisions, and be truthful.

---

LB reply - 

More power to your arm, Glen. I look forward to Tuesday evening's webcast.

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

Of sophists and Shit bags.

LB. - “If you instead write down what you have to say about the CASA officers you've named and submit that to the Committee and the Committee publishes your submission before any proposed webcast, the content will attract privilege and be 'out there'. But beware: You're starting a verbal street-fight with some of the best sophists in the game”.


Sage advice Glen; we all understand your stance and have every sympathy for it – but LB is bang on the money. Perhaps you could 'do' the webcast; send a recording through before AOPA broadcast it – couple of days more– makes no odds at this stage; BUT you do need all the protection you can gather. The Secretariat are remarkably helpful and efficient - make the call - please........ FWIW, let me try to explain.

IMO - You come from the Marquis of Queensbury school of hard knocks – with rules; and have only had a brief encounter with 'the beast'. You have not as yet seen the fangs and claws of whole thing – many of us have. There is no depth to which they will not stoop to protect themselves; the rules are simply ignored or, worse yet, the rules built in to protect – under law – are so flexible that they can be cut and shaped to suit any argument you can mount. In what “K” refers to as the 'Bankstown Chronicles' there are a dozen tales which are truly (I mean really) scary. We keep hoping for an inquiry with some hope of achieving 'something' (a cat in Hell's chance would do) where the stories can be heard and justice will be done. Been a long wait. I digress. 

If you've never been a 'street-fighter' or been in a brawl or two then you have no idea of the violence and savagery involved; not the gentile pushing and shoving of the schoolyard days, but the real deal. Bottles, bricks, baseball bats, knives, boots and at least two to one; bare knuckles and blood; stitches and hospital waiting rooms are the least of it. A good hiding leaves deep scars in the mind – unless you are the one dishing it out. When push comes to shove – you will be standing alone, at the end of a dark blind alley facing a crew of hardened thugs. Take every opportunity to protect yourself from harm – 'privilege' of the parliamentary kind will remove some of the iron bars and knuckle dusters and you will not be standing alone.

Get Ben to do the 'show' – send it off to the Senate – then put it to air. That will do more 'behind the scenes' damage than you stood alone facing the beast with a dustbin lid for protection and a wet noodle to beat off the inevitable attack.

Sophist - a paid teacher of philosophy and rhetoric in Greece in the Classical and Hellenistic periods, associated in popular thought with moral scepticism and specious reasoning.

a person who reasons with clever but false arguments.

Ring any bells? It should. That is my two bob, spent as pleased me best.

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update - 11/09/20

Via Youtube and Facebook:

Plus FB link for over 200 comments: https://www.facebook.com/AOPAaustralia/v...874287614/ 

#SBG 6/09/2020: The shout of outrage!

Plus via the UP:

Lead Balloon

All CASA is going to do is argue that APTA’s activities had grown to such an extent that CASA was no longer satisfied that Glen had full operational control over those activities. Once the criterion is some bureaucrat’s subjective satisfaction, it’s ‘game over’.


Don’t forget it was Dr Aleck who came up with this logic to justify the CSF kneejerk: “If we were to wait for sufficiently robust data to support an evidence based decision for every individual decision we took in this space, we would have to wait for a dozen or more accidents to occur.”

CASA couldn’t wait for APTA to bring down an A-380 or B-747 over a playground full of innocent children, but CASA knew that’s where your business was heading, Glen. You should be grateful that CASA saved you and those children.

---

Sunfish

I’m not sure I said this before but the most frightening thing for a manager or a bureaucrat of any sort is to lose control of the agenda by having their formalposition as a leader challenged, innocently, by an informalthought leader. I know exactly what this feels like from both sides of the table.


I put it to you that Glen and APTA had developed a better understanding of the regulations as they applied to their operations than CASA had. They were then in a position to tell CASA what works and what won’t work and where improvements could be made. They knew more about the game then CASA did. Once the higher management understood this deeply unsettling fact, APTAs fate was sealed because no one must know more than CASA.

The reason for that animosity? Because if the government finds out that your so called clients know more than you do, your job and position is surplus to requirements. Furthermore, it would only be a matter of time before other training organisations, seeing APTA’s supremacy, sought them out because they were the informal leader of the training sector and potentially able to marshal support so that the industry was driving the agenda, not CASA.



its sad when it happens. I’ve never felt so useless as when chairing a meeting on high level software architecture for a $60 million system and realising that I didn’t have the faintest idea about what the participants were discussing. I was tempted for a second to replace these experts with people as dumb as I was. Similarly, I’ve never been so frustrated as trying to explain to a manager that what he wanted to do for the business was counterproductive-and had been known to be a waste of time for thirty years.


These confrontations are encapsulated in the managers lament : “I don’t care if it works in practice - make it work in theory!”

glenb

You got it!

---

Sunfish and Lead Balloon, you have hit the nail on the head.

Interestingly, CASA will have several written offers from me over the years prior to the introduction of the new legislation.

I made repeated offers to fund $180,000 over a 12 month period to have a CASA Flight Operations Inspector based in the Company. Together we would write the manuals to CASAs full satisfaction. They would then become the Company procedures. Importantly those templates would be made freely available to industry.

I felt this was a wise business decision, as it would overall work out the most cost-effective option for the business. CASA refused those multiple offers. Years later they did provide templates that were "impractical".

Without wanting to sound arrogant, I have no doubt that I had a better understanding of the safe applcation of the legislation than the CASA Executive did.

A quick recap.

I was called into the CASA Head Office very early on. The entire CASA team of half a dozen was sitting across the table in a confronting manner. They explained to me that I had breached the regulations regarding signage requirements. Apparently, I didn't meet the stipulated regulations in regard to signage and the size of the associated dimensions of that signage.

I explained to them that I wouldn't knowingly breach those regulations so could we have a look at them now in the Head Office. They didn't have access to the regulations apparently. I let them go on. They explained that they would send me a copy of the regulations the next day to support the allegation of the breach.

It was an awkward situation, I didn't want to publicly embarrass them and explain that I thought they were confused with the size requirements for aircraft call signs. Needless to say, CASA never got back to me with the legislation, as it obviously didn't exist. Graciously they didn't issue a Finding against me.

As I've said before. CASA has an enormous pool of talent available to them now due to the Pandemic. Let's hope the Minister takes action and implements a handful of new personnel into the Organisation.

---

Lead Balloon

Gosh, I stand corrected and apologise for calling the CASA officers concerned ‘arseclowns’.

Subdivision 203.ZD.4.1—Safety of aviation-related signage

203.976 Interpretation for Division 203.ZD.4

For this Division

(a) aviation-related signage includes any mark, symbol, figure, words and depictions, whether represented in electronic or physical form, of any object, service, person or place connected with aviation, if the mark, symbol, figure, word or depiction, or any combination of them, is visible to any person whether through electronic means or by physical observation;

(b) Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage means the manual approved from time time by the Authority under regulation 203.979.

203.977 Prohibition on display of aviation-related signage.

A person must not cause or permit the erection or display or publication of any aviation-related signage unless the signage:

(a) complies with the Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage; and

(b) has been approved by CASA for erection or display or publication (as the case may be).

203.978. Offences relating to contravention of regulation 203.977

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and

(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.977; and

© the person intends the act or omission to create a risk to the safety of air navigation.

Penalty: Imprisonment for life or 15,000 penalty units, or both.

(2) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and

(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.977; and

© the person is reckless as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.

Penalty: 1,000 penalty units.

(3) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and

(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.977; and

© the person is negligent as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.

Penalty: 500 penalty units.

(4) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and

(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.977.

Penalty: 100 penalty units.

(5) An offence against subregulation (4) is an offence of strict liability.

203.979 Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage

The Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage may specify the following matters:

(a) if the signage is physical - the dimensions of the sign;

(b) if the signage is electronic - the maximum number of bytes of data that the signage may contain;

© the words, symbols, figures that must not be depicted in the signage;

(d) safety procedures that must be followed in the design, construction and location of the signage;

Example for paragraph (d): The Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage may specify that the the corners of physical signs be rounded so as to avoid risks created by pointy corners.

(e) requirements for the display of material worshipping our dear leader (the Director of Aviation Safety - blessed be the DAS) and his regulations - blessed be his regulations.

203.980 Annual review of aviation-related signage

A person must not cause or permit the continued display or publication of any aviation-related signage for a period in excess of a cumulated period of twelve months unless, during that period, the person has:

(a) undertaken or caused the undertaking of a review to confirm the ongoing compliance of the signage with the Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage; and

(b) obtained from CASA a renewal of the approval for the continued display or publication (as the case may be); and

© made a written record of the review conducted in compliance with paragraph (a).

203.981. Offences relating to contravention of regulation 203.980

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and

(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.980; and

© the person intends the act or omission to create a risk to the safety of air navigation.

Penalty: Imprisonment for life or 15,000 penalty units, or both.

(2) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and

(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.980; and

© the person is reckless as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.

Penalty: 1,000 penalty units.

(3) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and

(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.980; and

© the person is negligent as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.

Penalty: 500 penalty units.

(4) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and

(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.980.

Penalty: 100 penalty units.

(5) An offence against subregulation (4) is an offence of strict liability.

203.982 Keeping of records of reviews of aviation-related signage

A person who undertakes or causes the undertaking of a review to comply with paragraph 203.980(a) must keep the records created to comply with paragraph 203.980(b) for a period of at least seven years from the date of creation and make those records available for inspection by the Authority on demand by the authority.

203.978. Offences relating to contravention of regulation 203.982

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and

(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.982; and

© the person intends the act or omission to create a risk to the safety of air navigation.

Penalty: Imprisonment for life or 15,000 penalty units, or both.

(2) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and

(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.982; and

© the person is reckless as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.

Penalty: 1,000 penalty units.

(3) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and

(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.982; and

© the person is negligent as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.

Penalty: 500 penalty units.

(4) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and

(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.982.

Penalty: 100 penalty units.

(5) An offence against subregulation (4) is an offence of strict liability.

I feel safer already. (P2 -   )

---

vne165

"Example for paragraph (d): The Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage may specify that the the corners of physical signs be rounded so as to avoid risks created by pointy corners.


(e) requirements for the display of material worshipping our dear leader (the Director of Aviation Safety - blessed be the DAS) and his regulations - blessed be his regulations."

:LOL...

---

Lead Balloon

The safety of air navigation is no laughing matter, vne165. Leave the approval of the design, construction, erection and display of aviation-related signs to the experts.

---

Vref+5

Is there a MOS for that? Oh. It’s next to the ones for 141 and 142....

---

Lead Balloon

Correct. Obviously there’s ongoing risk of aviation signage-based accidents during the period in which the MOS is being finalised, but that’s been dealt with by interim Directions from CASA. I’ll post copies of those shortly.

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Angel Flight embuggerance update - 17/09/20

Via Oz Flying:

The Federal Court will hear the Angel Flight application in Melbourne. (Google Earth image)

Crucial E-mails ruled out in Angel Flight Case
17 September 2020
Comments 0 Comments

The Federal Court in Melbourne last week barred Angel Flight from using certain CASA internal e-mails in the case against the regulator's Letter of Demand sent to pilots, forcing the organisation to withdraw their application.

Angel Flight had taken CASA to court over letters sent to pilots and aircraft owners demanding details of operations conducted under Angel Flight's banner.

The organisation was attempting to have pilots relieved from having to comply with the letters because they were issued for  "improper purpose".

Angel Flight relied on four internal CASA e-mails to support their case, e-mails which had been supplied to them in the discovery phase of their primary case against CASA to be heard next March.

However, CASA objected to Angel Flight using the e-mails on the basis that they were disclosed only for the primary case and invoked the rule against using them for another purpose.

"We needed those emails to support our case for Improper Purpose," Angel Flight CEO Marjorie Pagani told Australian Flying. "One would have thought that CASA should be the model litigant, as it is required to be as a regulator, and support transparency. Allowing use of their internal emails would have done that.  

"Instead they insisted they not be used and invoked the rule that they should only be used for their discovered purpose. As a consequence we cannot use or publish them so therefore have had to discontinue the Improper Purpose case."

Responding to the accusation that they have failed to be an model litigant, a CASA spokesperson said that their action in blocking the e-mails was consistent with that requirement.

"CASA has acted strictly in accordance with its ‘model litigant’ obligations," the spokesperson said. "To be clear, doing so most certainly does not include countenancing another party’s failure to comply with their legal obligations to the court.

"Neither the court nor the other party saw any basis on which a dubious ‘model litigant’ issue might have been raised in the hearing; and as the obligation is incorporated in the Legal Services Directions, which are made under the Judiciary Act, this is certainly something the court would have been alive to, if it were at all pertinent.

"In short, the documents were excluded because the court found their introduction failed to serve the interests of justice."

The e-mails in question were sent in 2018-19 between CASA Executive Director Legal and Regulatory Affairs Jonathan Aleck, Executive Direction National Operations and Standards Chris Monahan, Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody and Executive Manager Stakeholder Engagement Rob Walker.

Angel Flight has said it will use the e-mails in its primary case against CASA to be heard next March, which is an attempt to have the regulations surrounding community service flights struck out.

Via the Magna Carta Insitute: https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/priorities/...individual.

It is vital that government bodies should not be ‘out to get’ people, but should be acting in the public interest, according to law.  These guidelines seek to address an inherent and substantial power imbalance.

IMO there is no better example of why, in the interests of industry survival, it is absolutely an imperative that the next CASA executive manager that should be shown the door is Dr Hoodoo Voodoo Aleck - FFS!     

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

I just love the hypocrisy – CASA and 'model' litigant – in the same sentence?

Priceless -


“CASA has acted strictly with its 'model litigant' obligations,”



“To be clear, doing so most certainly does not include counterbalancing another party's failure to comply with their obligations to the court.”

Pure Aleck – engineered to a point of no return – gone past it and now is stuck with that decision – but: the judiciary will see it as a clever 'legitimate' legal loophole;  and, be obliged to support it. Spirit and intent – Wuzat? We must hope this is the last in a long line of 'clever/ dumb' moves from the King of Lost Marbles – the Eastern Bloc awaits his return.

I wonder what he'd make of a simple statement - "Bugger off". Not too many loopholes there.