[Peetwo]

Via the UP:

---

Dear Lead Balloon

---

Dear LB,

Would appreciate your considered opinion on this latest development on the ongoing CASA embuggerance of Angel Flight??

Does this meet the definitions and guidelines for a best practice government agency model litigant?

LB's reply - 

---

Lead Balloon

Angel Flight is a kid with a pop gun at a real gun fight. Sadly, that’s not surprising given the disparity in resources.

Because the CASA emails were ‘discovered’ - disclosed to the court and Angel Flight - for the purpose of Angel Flight’s punch up with CASA in matter X (the challenge to the validity of the imposition of the ‘community service flight’ condition on flight crew licences), those emails can’t automatically be used for another purpose e.g. put in evidence in matter Y (the challenge to the validity of the demand for information). If I were an applicant in matter Y, I would have sought to obtain the emails by subpoena for the purposes of matter Y.

(And I do wish people would stop referring to the community service flight “regulations”. There are no community service flight “regulations”. All you need to do is “read” what the document in question says to work out that it’s not a “regulation”. In this gun fight, the distinction is fundamentally important.)

But surely everyone feels grateful that CASA is spending more taxpayers money to drive Angel Flight into the ground? It’s about safety, don’t you know.

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update - 13/10/20 


Via the UP:

POST 1244- Letter to CASA Board. CASA misleading Ombudsman

---

12/10/20

Allegation that CASA Employees have misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office in Phase One of his Investigation.

Dear Mr. Anthony Mathews, Chairperson of the Board of CASA.

I am concerned that CASA Personnel have deliberately misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office. Most likely with the intention of affecting the outcome of the investigation currently being undertaken.

In your role as the Chairperson of the CASA Board, you are the person ultimately responsible for ensuring CASA performs its functions in a “proper, efficient and effective manner”. I am bringing this to your attention, and also the attention of the Ombudsman's Office. I am imploring you to act with integrity and truthfulness, while being mindful of your obligations whilst acting as the Chair of the CASA Board, being Australia's national safety regulator, and operating under the Australian Coat of Arms.

The misleading information that CASA has provided is substantive and fundamental to the integrity of the investigation and subsequent findings of that investigation. Should these misconceptions be carried into Phase Two of the investigation it is likely that the outcome may be perverted.

1. CASA has led the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office to be of the view that CASA did not, and had not, historically permitted Flight Training Organisations (FTOs) to partake in “Franchised Air Operator Certificates ( AOC) arrangements,” when this is clearly not truthful.

2. CASA has led the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that the “Aviation Ruling- Franchised AOC arrangements’, was intended for Flight Training Organisations. That is not truthful.

3. CASA has led the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office to believe that the legislative change introduced on 1 September 2014 was the date that the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) changed. It was on that date the issue of misalignment of the CAR and Aviation Ruling began. That is not truthful.

4. CASA has led the Commonwealth Ombudsman to believe that APTA had made an AOC application. That is not correct.

The truth is.

On Point 1.

• CASA did permit FTOs to operate under Franchised AOC arrangements throughout my 25 years of involvement in the flight training industry.
  
  
• This practice was permitted by CASA and continued up until the day CASA gave my organization notification that it was not permitted. and simultaneously placed restrictions on my business's ability to trade. This action was taken against my business only, and not others.
  
  
• CASA had approved a number of FTOs under Franchised AOC arrangements both prior to, and after the legislative change that CASA introduced on 1 September 2014.
  
  
• CASA approved FTOs to enter such arrangements well after the date of 1 September 2014. I know that from my own personal experience because CASA permitted an FTO called TVSA to operate under my AOC after the date of September 1st, 2014. Similarly, CASA permitted Latrobe Valley Aero Club to operate under the AOC of Bairnsdale Air Charter. There are many examples throughout Australia. I am informed that this practice also occurred in Mr. Craig Martins Region when he was a CASA Regional Manager. You will be able to confirm this directly with him in his current role as the current CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance.
  
  
• There was no change of law, there was only a change of "opinion" by Mr. Jonathan Aleck in his role as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs. The first indication that Mr. Aleck had changed his mind was the notification made to my organization on 23/10/18. The change of opinion was applied to my business only, and not others. It came with no warning at all. It had no basis on any safety concerns. There was no legislative change, I was dealing with a change of “opinion” only, and I maintain that the change of opinion was not well-intentioned and had no basis in law or aviation safety.
  

On Point 2.

• The Aviation Ruling was released in 2006. On its release, CASA approached FTOs and advised them specifically, that the Aviation Ruling only applied to Charter Operators, and not to FTOs. I personally received that briefing from CASA as the business owner of a flying school. I have confirmed this with other FTOs, and that is clearly their recollection also. I can provide Statutory Declarations from those individuals if required. For CASA to suggest that their intention was that the Aviation Ruling applies to FTOs they are not being truthful. The truth is that it was not intended to apply to FTOs and that is the advice that CASA provided to the FTOs at the time of its release in 2006.
  
  
• The truth is that the Aviation Ruling was introduced many years ago when a Charter Operator in Melbourne was shut down by CASA and recommenced operations the next day under another Charter Operators AOC. The Aviation Ruling was written as a response to that occurrence in the Charter industry, and its intention and purpose were entirely different than the purposes CASA used it for in my case.
  
  
• After the introduction of the AOC, CASA did not permit Charter Organisations to operate under franchised AOCs, but importantly they did permit FTOs to operate under such arrangements. That further supports my contention that the wrong document is being used for the wrong sector of the industry i.e. charter v flying training
  

On point 3,

• CASA led the Ombudsman to believe that the date of September 1st, 2014, is the date that Aviation Ruling and the Civil Aviation Regulations (CARs) became misaligned. The truth is that on that day, the CAR and Aviation Ruling became more aligned. The Aviation Ruling clearly refers to Civil Aviation Regulation 206 (CAR 206) where it defines "commercial" purposes. On September 1st, 2014, CASA legally removed Flying training from CAR 206 with the intention to separate the distinct categories. The information provided to FTOs on the release of the Aviation Ruling i.e. that the ruling did not apply to them, was now finally reflected in the legislation as was CASAs intention.
  

On point 4.

• To clarify a misunderstanding in the Phase One report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. There was no new AOC application. The business received its AOC in 2005, and it is the only AOC. CASA had fully approved several Operators to become Members of APTA, it was an application to CASA to add on additional bases to the existing AOC. CASA had previously approved almost identical applications by my Organisation. I had received positive feedback from CASA on those applications, so had no reason to doubt
  
  
• The CASA trading restrictions were placed on my AOC that was operating safely and compliantly, and with no prior warning. There was only ever one AOC of which APTA had full operational control. The AOCs were not being distributed, the entities came under the APTA AOC with Aviation Reference Number (ARN) 759217, with me holding full accountability.
  

The purpose of this correspondence, and what I am expecting

Dear Mr. Mathews, Chairperson of the Board of CASA. Could I respectfully request that you clarify the following with the Commonwealth Ombudsman and myself, to ensure there is no misunderstanding as Phase Two commences?

Is the following statement truthful?

CASA had been aware of, approved, and on occasions encouraged franchised AOC arrangements for Flight Training Organisations, and that was the situation throughout the last 25 years in the aviation industry right up until the date that CASA reversed their approval of my business.

This request does not require an extensive response, and it could be as short as a "yes" or a "no'. I appreciate you may choose to issue a more lengthy statement, but please be assured, I will hold you to account against every word that you write.

I am advised that this matter would also be under consideration by the BARC. The BARC ensures integrity over the Boards conduct.

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul...rangements.pdf

Can you please advise me of the members of the BARC, and am I permitted to contact them directly.

Thank you in anticipation of you clarifying the misunderstandings and ensuring the integrity of the information that CASA provides to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update - 22/10/20

Via the AP email chain...  

---

21/10/20

Dear Senator McDonald,

My name is Glen Buckley. Firstly I would like to convey my appreciation to you for raising my matter in the RRAT Estimates meetings currently underway. I have attached the link and refer specifically to Mr. Carmody's responses provided from 6:30 onwards.

I am fully satisfied that Mr. Shane Carmody, the CEO of CASA has deliberately misled you when providing his response to your questions. He leads you to believe that the only complaint I had was regarding a case of defamation. Mr. Carrmody knows that is not the truth, and his response was intended to deflect you. It was deliberate, calculated, and was not truthful.

He is fully aware that I have made a claim for compensation on behalf of me, my staff, customers, and Suppliers.

He is aware that I have raised allegations of vindictive and vexatious conduct, in clear breach of CASA stipulated procedures. The allegations were substantial and if upheld those personnel would not be able to remain in the employ of CASA. They have clearly breached the requirements of Administrative Law, Natural Justice, and Procedural Fairness, as well as CASAs, own Regulatory Philosophy, and obligations placed on CASA by the Minister's Statement of Expectations and the PGPA Act.

Mr. Carmody further leads you to believe that I raised allegations against only one individual in CASA and he is fully aware that I have raised allegations of misconduct against Mr. Aleck, Mr. Crawford, and Mr. Martin, as well as two other individuals, although they have since left the employ of CASA. Some of those remaining with CASA sat opposite you in the Chamber yesterday.

Mr. Carmody leads you to believe that the ICC reports to the Board. Whilst that is technically correct, Mr Carmody sits on that  Board. Therefore there is effectively a line between Mr. Carmody as the Board Member and CEO of CASA.

Mr. Carmody was fully aware that a Commonwealth Ombudsman's Investigation is underway into my matter and is divided into two phases. He was aware that the Ombudsman has finalized Phase One of his investigation and has found CASA erred and that CASAs error could have caused "detriment" to occur. Phase Two continues. That will investigate the restrictions placed on my ability to trade, and the direction from the CASA Region Manager to my Employer that my continuing employment was untenable. Mr. Carmody is aware that after that CASA direction to my Employer I spent 8 months unemployed and have now been forced out of the industry. I have been left destitute.

Mr. Carmody is fully aware that the findings in Phase One of the Ombudsman's findings subject CASA to the likelihood of a class action based on the economic damage caused to so many.

Mr. Carmody is aware that I allege CASA provided misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and that I have submitted evidence in support of that claim. That misleading information provided by CASA to the Ombudsman was clearly not truthful and was designed to impact Phase Two of his investigation. I have called on the Chair of the CASA Board Mr. Anthony Mathews to act with integrity, and come forward with the truth. I am awaiting his decision.

Mr. Carmody is fully aware that I allege the conduct of those personnel has resulted in the closure of several businesses. He is aware that those business owners have lost their business and associated investment. He is aware that dozens of employees lost their employment as a result of misconduct by CASA personnel. He is aware that the conduct of these individuals has impacted on me financially and impacted on my mental and physical well being as well as bringing, and bought unacceptable reputational damage. He is aware that many millions of dollars damage has been bought to approximately 30 entities as a result of the conduct of Messrs, Aleck, Martin, and Crawford.

Thank you for the opportunity you have presented. My hope is that Mr. Carmody can act in a well intentioned and truthful manner,  put aside any other temptations, and bring clarity to this matter.

Thank you for your support. Respectfully, Glen Buckley

---

Can also be viewed, with comments in reply, on the UP - HERE.

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

It is extraordinary that the message of the General Aviation (GA) disaster has not got through to the Senators in Committee in the measure or fullness that it deserves. I can only postulate that what has transpired to the GA industry, and to numerous individuals within GA, has been so devastating and extreme that Members of Parliament find it hard to believe that the well paid servants (so called) of the People of Australia could create such mayhem, individual suffering, colossal job losses, business closures and a virtually complete loss of faith in our Commonwealth Government in regard to anything aviation. The wreckage of a once growing and lively GA industry can’t be apparent to the outside observer because there’s no present day comparison. Even to newcomers in GA they can have no experience of yesteryear therefore there’s a lack of appreciation that cannot be overcome without study and seeking out knowledge.

Importantly, MPs could move us towards some real reform, and start a track towards growth for jobs, businesses and services in GA but first they must realise that an independent corporate like the Civil Aviation Safety Authority will never own up to the disaster or what is causing it. They have no incentives to jeopardise their tremendous salary packages and cushy working conditions, quite apart from the all too obvious factors of hubris and ego.

To rationalise just one area of CASA’s monumental regulatory failure, Part 61, would entail losing the ability to charge swinging fees for all sorts of unnecessary permissions. In the area of Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAUS), the private company that the Commonwealth has given monopoly control in the low weight category, this outrageous move some years ago has created a very bad distortion in the GA industry and the light aircraft market. This low weight category should never have been split off from the rest of GA, it should be part of a graduated system with a common pathway. The very notion of inducing aviators into these tiny aircraft is wrong. Induced by way of a sensible personal medical fitness to fly standard as opposed to the costly, intimidating and extreme private pilot medical regime of the standard CASA examination, that which is required to fly a VH registered aircraft. Many RAAUS aircraft are built hard up against the artificial limit of all up weight of 600kg, an engineering wrong because aircraft should be engineered to a purpose, not a weight. Moving more people into such small aircraft beggars belief, and proof of it’s unviability the fact that RAAUS wants to up the weight limit to 750 kg now and maybe 1500kg in the future.

The MPs would do well to investigate the ability to set up particular GA functions, take flying training as the backbone of GA here is a very good example, the permission to operate a flying school. Applicants have been forced, by the monopolistic behemoth CASA, to pay upwards of $100,000 and wait months or years to achieve a permit. In the USA a fresh instructor can start training immediately with an official book that costs $15.99.

There’s one other stumbling block, all of CASA’s main suit of regulations have been passed by Parliament and the Parliament has been either too trusting, naive, or hopelessly ignorant depending on your point of view. Personally it would be a most welcome starting point for Parliamentarians to consider that over many years that Parliament has actually been negligent in this area because it always has the final responsibility.

Will the present Senate inquiry under Chair Senator McDonald make the slightest difference?

Watching a video of proceedings yesterday with CASA CEO Mr. Carmody fielding a few critical questions, but questions so broad to be then easily batted, makes me doubt that any good will come from this inquiry. Well intentioned certainly, but without a real plan of inquiry informed by the GA community in detail this will be simply a repetition of the comprehensive but discarded Forsyth report of 2014.

This present Senate Committee will find that there’s little to be gained by asking CASA anything, it will be far better employed looking at the regulatory environment of the USA by way of comparison. It may then be able to make a rational recommendation to completely change the current unworkable, costly and thoroughly unfit model of governance that we’ve been saddled with since 1988.

[Peetwo]

BRM Aero & GlenB embuggerance update -    

Via Oz Flying:

---

 
CASA referred to Commonwealth Ombudsman over Bristell
26 October 2020
Comments 0 Comments

The controversy over CASA's handling of the Bristell LSA stall/spin issue has resulted in the matter being referred to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.


Anderson Aviation, Australian agent for the Bristell, made the announcement to all Bristell owners today.
CASA currently has a ban in place to prevent the aircraft from being used for intentional stalls over fears that the aircraft doesn't comply with the standards, something manufacturer BRM Aero has consistently disputed.

"We do understand the frustrations for some of you who have your aircraft in commercial operations and the limitations this has caused in the operation of your aircraft," CEO Brett  Anderson said in the letter issued on behalf of BRM.

"We again wish to reassure you that the Bristell does comply in respect of stall/spin performance, it has always complied, and it is a safe and reliable, quality aircraft.

"We can now report to you that the whole matter has been referred to the Commonwealth Ombudsman for investigation and consideration with respect to the conduct of CASA in dealing with BRM Aero and Anderson Aviation in respect of the Bristell.

"We await a response from the Ombudsman. Given the extensive and detailed documentation that has been provided to the Ombudsman, we understand that it will take some time for the matter to be investigated thoroughly, but a recent communication with the Ombudsman indicated they hope to have an initial response to us by the end of this month.

"We have been working with BRM Aero on the way forward, in particular with the spin testing again of the Bristell to prove to CASA that they are wrong in what they have done; however, the factory was already heavily committed to completing the certification of the B23 Bristell.

"This is now complete where it passed with flying colours and that is fantastic news as it once again proves CASA wrong yet again when they stated that BRM Aero were ‘willing but not capable’ in the April 2020 teleconference."

CASA applied the stall ban in July this year, stating that they had not received "sufficient assurance from the manufacturer as to compliance with the relevant safety standards."

BRM, through Anderson Aviation and consultant Edge Aerospace, has insisted that it has provided CASA with all necessary proof that stall/spin testing shows that the aircraft complies with the standard.

"Currently there are matters related to our issue that we believe are serious that we have been investigating that will come to the notice of the public that will assist greatly in providing evidence of this unjustified attack on the Bristell aircraft," Anderson said.

"We are committed to supporting you all and the Bristell aircraft and intend to continue the campaign until we get action regarding the removal of these operating limitations."

---

Next via AP email chain:

To the relevant person within the Attorney Generals Department

I want to lodge allegations against the following CASA Employees for their part in unlawful conduct that has bought detriment to myself and other Entities.  

Their conduct has lead to the loss of my two businesses. Melbourne Flight Training a flying school, and APTA a business offering contracted safety and compliance service to smaller flight training operators.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman has completed Phase One of his investigation into this matter, and I am fully satisfied that his Report supports my contention that their misconduct has caused detriment. I am also fully satisfied that Phase Two when completed will highlight further unlawful conduct by CASA personnel.


The allegations are made against

• Mr. Shane Carmody- CEO of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)
  
• Mr. Jonathan Aleck-CASA Executive Manager, Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs.
  
• Mr. Graeme Crawford- CASA Executive Manager of the Aviation Group
  
• Mr. Craig Martin- CASA Region Manager, Southern Region.
  
• Mr. Anthony Mathews- Chair of the Board of CASA.
  

I am alleging that these gentlemen as a collective, have 

• Endeavored to facilitate a cover-up of this matter.
  
• Have consistently demonstrated a willingness to deliberately frustrate a fair and lawful outcome by breaching procedures they are obligated to comply with.
  
• Have acted unlawfully.
  
• Have acted for reasons other than safety. 
  
• Breached obligations placed on them by the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct and the Australian Public Services Values, CASA Enforcement Procedures as stipulated in their own manuals, breached the Minister's Statement of Expectations, obligations placed on them by the PGPA Act, and obligations placed on them by Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness, and Natural Justice.
  
• Misled Senator Susan McDonald in the Senate Estimates Committee
  
• Attempted to deliberately mislead the Commonwealth Ombudsman in his investigation with the unsuccessful intention of altering the outcome.
  

Whilst, not a point of law they have clearly breached the ethical and moral obligations placed on them by CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy.

A full investigation into the conduct of these personnel will bring clarity to the matter. I have raised allegations against these individuals publicly as I have no other choice to defend my reputation.  I also believe that their conduct has impacted negatively and demonstrably on aviation safety. Because of the substantive nature of the allegations that I make against them, I believe they are fully entitled to a full and comprehensive investigation.

I await your response on how i should proceed with this matter.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

Plus:

Dear Mr. Shane Carmody (CEO of CASA), Mr. Jonathan Aleck (CASA Executive Manager Legal International and Regulatory Affairs), Mr Graeme Crawford (CASA Executive Manager Aviation Group, and Mr. Anthony Mathews (Chair of the Board of CASA).

As you are aware I have made allegations that CASA has  acted to mislead Senator Susan McDonald during the Senate Estimates, and has also provided misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office, with the intention of potentially perverting the outcome of his findings.

I felt it timely to draw your attention to your obligations in accordance with Legal Services Directions 2005. I particularly draw your attention to the bolded paragraph

"Introduction

On 22 June 2012, the Full Federal Court handed down its decision in LVR (WA) Pty Ltd v Administrative Appeals Tribunal which reinforces the overarching obligation of Australian Government Agencies and their legal representatives to act as model litigants in accordance with the Legal Services Directions 2005. This decision illustrates the supremacy of the model litigant obligation which may, in certain circumstances, extend further than merely acting honestly, ethically, legally and in accordance with court rules.

Background

On 30 July 2010, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) dismissed an application for merits review made by LVR (WA) Pty Ltd (the Applicant) in relation to a decision of the Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner). In unique circumstances, the Tribunal dismissed the application without conducting a review of the decision on the basis that the Applicant had failed to comply with a procedural direction made by the Tribunal relating to the filing and serving of evidence.

The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application for review was the subject of a separate dismissal hearing (the Dismissal Hearing), in anticipation of which the Tribunal had made directions for further evidence to be filed in relation to the non-compliance with its earlier directions in the main proceedings. The Applicant filed and served the affidavit of Mr Schokker (the Schokker Affidavit) only three days before the Dismissal Hearing and some seven weeks after it was directed to do so. The Schokker Affidavit responded to the evidence filed by the Commissioner and addressed the applicant's non-compliance with the directions made by the Tribunal in the main proceedings.

Save for a small number of paragraphs, the published reasons of the Tribunal relating to its decision to dismiss the Applicant's application were copied verbatim from the Commissioner's written submissions (the Submissions) without attribution. Because of the Applicant's late service of the Schokker Affidavit, only two paragraphs of the Submissions referred to the Schokker Affidavit and those paragraphs were not reproduced in the Tribunal's reasons.
The decision at first instance

The Applicant subsequently brought an action in the Federal Court seeking judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal to dismiss the application on the basis that the Tribunal had failed to take into account the responsive content of the Schokker Affidavit. In dismissing the application for judicial review, Gilmour J relied heavily upon the Tribunal's reasons and found that the mere absence of any reference to the Schokker Affidavit in the Tribunal's reasons did not indicate that the Tribunal had failed to take into account the Schokker Affidavit when making its decision. Critically, the fact that the Tribunal's reasons had been almost entirely copied from the Submissions was not disclosed to the Court by either party.

Full Court Hearing

The Applicant appealed from the decision of Gilmour J on the basis that his Honour had erred in finding that the Schokker Affidavit was taken into account by the Tribunal in making its decision. The critical fact relating to the source of the Tribunal's reasons was again omitted from both parties' written submissions to the Full Court which was comprised of North, Logan and Robertson JJ.

Prior to the matter being heard, the Court became aware of the source of the Tribunal's reasons and queried the parties as to why this fact had not been disclosed at first instance or on appeal. The response of the Commissioner was that it merely responded to the submissions of the Applicant and given the source of the Tribunal's reasons was not raised, it did not address the issue in its own submissions.

The Full Court held that it was "a distraction to examine the reasons of the Tribunal as if they were an independent text without reference to their source" [at 130]. Given the substance of the Schokker Affidavit was not dealt with in the Submissions, the Full Court further found that it could not be inferred that the Tribunal took the substance of the affidavit into account when making its decision. The appeal was therefore allowed, the decision of the Tribunal set aside and the matter referred to the Tribunal for further consideration.

Model Litigant Obligations

The Full Court stated that "being a model litigant requires the Commonwealth and its agencies, as parties to litigation, to act with complete proprietary, fairly and in accordance with the highest professional standards" [at 42]. The Court further indicated that the content of this obligation may surpass other professional obligations to act honestly, ethically and in accordance with the law and court rules.

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

In the present case, the Full Court found that the Commissioner had an obligation, as a model litigant, to ensure that the Court was fully aware of the relevant circumstances concerning the source of the Tribunal's reasons. The Court stated that "if the appellants failed to fully explain the position to the primary judge then the Commissioner should have done so" [at 40] and indicated that it was inadequate of the Commissioner to only respond to the submissions made by the Applicant.
Consequences

This decision of the Full Federal Court highlights the critical importance of Australian Government Agencies to act as model litigants to ensure that its interactions with private litigants are fair and transparent. This decision further serves as a reminder that Australian Government Agencies and their internal and external legal representatives must act as model litigants at all times, including where it is not necessarily in the strategic interests of the Agency to do so."

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Ref: https://auntypru.com/sbg-1-11-20-all-hallows-eve/

GlenB embuggerance update - 4/11/20

Via the AP email chain..



And via the UP:

02/11/20


Dear Colin (CASA Board Secretariat). Could you please ensure this correspondence be forwarded to Mr. Mathews at the soonest opportunity? Could I be advised when that has occurred? I do appreciate that the Commonwealth Onmbusdan is investigating this matter, and CASA has used this as a reason to ignore my previous requests. This request is independent of the Ombudsman Investigation but will form part of my submission to the Senate Inquiry. I intend to submit that within 24 hours so request a prompt response.

Dear Mr Matthews,

I anticipate having my submission to the current Senate Inquiry submitted within the next 24 hours.

In that submission, I will be making substantive allegations against some members of CASAs Management. The allegations are substantive, well supported, and truthful. I have strong industry support. As you are aware I am highly appreciative of Senator Mccdonalds, well intentioned involvement in this matter, and have included her amongst the recipients. These matters do have the potential to negatively impact on aviation safety. As these personnel opertae at the most senior levels these matters affect aviation safety nationally.

The conduct of these CASA personnel was vindictive and vexatious, and I allege unlawful.

The detriment caused by their conduct is significant, as you are fully aware.

Over the last two years, I have made multiple requests to meet with any two members of the Board. You have decided not to facilitate that request.

You did faciliate a meeting with yourself and the CASA Region Manager, which was not what I had requested.

Interestingly I note, that it was that very same CASA employee at that meeting that subsequently sent an email to my then Employer, that my continuing position was "[i]untenable, based on comments i was making publicly."[/i]

Prior to making my submission, in 24 hours I would like to ask you again.

Am I able to meet with any two Members of the CASA Board for 2 hours? CASA would be welcome to have any other attendees that they felt necessary, including those I have made allegations against. I will attend with only one other person, and that person will not be a lawyer.

Could I respectfully request that you consult with your fellow Board Members, and advise me of the Board decision?

I appreciate that Mr. Carmody the CEO and DAS, of CASA, also holds a Board position.

You will appreciate my preference that Mr. Carmody, not be involved in decision making regarding facilitating a meeting. That could be seen to damage the integrity of the request.

I look forward to your response at the soonest practical opportunity, as it will clearly demonstrate intent and Board integrity, which will be relevant to my submission


Respectfully, Glen Buckley

And the reply:

CASA Chair of the Board responds to post 1274

---

Dear Mr Buckley

I refer to your latest correspondence of 2 November 2020 addressed to Mr Mathews, Chair of the CASA Board.

As there is no new information provided, CASA is satisfied that your request falls within the allegations made to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, noting the review is currently underway. The outcome of the review will inform next steps.

Yours sincerely

Colin McLachlan

Hmm...well I guess no surprises there, verdict? The current board needs to go, otherwise the status quo will remain - :



MTF..P2 

[P7_TOM]

Glen_B - on the UP - "Follow up to post 1115."



If you refer to post 1115 you will see my Freedom Of Information Request that I made. I had written to a Member of the Board hoping that integrity may prevail. I was concerned that my correspondence may have been thwarted by Shane Carmody. To confirm my fears I made an FOI request and have received the response which is attached. Sure enough, the email to the Board Member was intercepted and Mr. Carmody intervened. One of the problems i guess when the CEO also sits on the Board.He has obviously been following this, so a big hello and welcome to Mr. Carmody. If you are not signed up to PPRuNe unfortunately you won't be able to open it. For those that are members, it makes an interesting read.



It's an uphill battle but the exercise is good for me.



Para337 rFollow up to post 1115

---

.


Para 337 response:-



Mr Carmody, and former DAS/CEO’s before him, have periodically received weekly briefings outlining/highlighting key comments made about them or CASA on social media or websites such as PPRuNe. This normally happens when there is something ‘big’ going on that involves CASA. I can assure you that this is correct. In former days when the Screaming Skull was DAS he would often become very angry at PPRuNe comments, and so would Hoody, but Hoody would often have a silent chuckle behind the scenes.




Glen, if you have their attention then that is good. They wouldn’t read your posts if they felt the comments weren’t relevant or potentially threatening to their gravy train. They are adverse to spotlights, which is a common thing among cockroaches. However they won’t be too concerned as one of your bullies recently left CASA and Big Ears leaves later this month. Teflon Aleck will never get a scratch on him, which is a shame because anyone who has intimate knowledge of how the CASA machine operates knows that Aleck is the key piece of the jigsaw that has been there for over a quarter of a century and he is the architect of today’s CASA. Until he ever leaves there will be no change. And even if he leaves he has an understudy in Mr Anastasi of whom he has been mentoring for the good part of 15+ years, so CASA won’t be changing its ways anytime soon, not unless a Royal Commission was formed and the subsequent result was a complete dismantling of the Frankenstein’s monster and AMSA became the new aviation regulatory agency.

[Peetwo]

Ref: https://auntypru.com/sbg-1-11-20-all-hallows-eve/

GlenB embuggerance update - 4/11/20

Via the AP email chain..



And via the UP:

02/11/20


Dear Colin (CASA Board Secretariat). Could you please ensure this correspondence be forwarded to Mr. Mathews at the soonest opportunity? Could I be advised when that has occurred? I do appreciate that the Commonwealth Onmbusdan is investigating this matter, and CASA has used this as a reason to ignore my previous requests. This request is independent of the Ombudsman Investigation but will form part of my submission to the Senate Inquiry. I intend to submit that within 24 hours so request a prompt response.

Dear Mr Matthews,

I anticipate having my submission to the current Senate Inquiry submitted within the next 24 hours.

In that submission, I will be making substantive allegations against some members of CASAs Management. The allegations are substantive, well supported, and truthful. I have strong industry support. As you are aware I am highly appreciative of Senator Mccdonalds, well intentioned involvement in this matter, and have included her amongst the recipients. These matters do have the potential to negatively impact on aviation safety. As these personnel opertae at the most senior levels these matters affect aviation safety nationally.

The conduct of these CASA personnel was vindictive and vexatious, and I allege unlawful.

The detriment caused by their conduct is significant, as you are fully aware.

Over the last two years, I have made multiple requests to meet with any two members of the Board. You have decided not to facilitate that request.

You did faciliate a meeting with yourself and the CASA Region Manager, which was not what I had requested.

Interestingly I note, that it was that very same CASA employee at that meeting that subsequently sent an email to my then Employer, that my continuing position was "[i]untenable, based on comments i was making publicly."[/i]

Prior to making my submission, in 24 hours I would like to ask you again.

Am I able to meet with any two Members of the CASA Board for 2 hours? CASA would be welcome to have any other attendees that they felt necessary, including those I have made allegations against. I will attend with only one other person, and that person will not be a lawyer.

Could I respectfully request that you consult with your fellow Board Members, and advise me of the Board decision?

I appreciate that Mr. Carmody the CEO and DAS, of CASA, also holds a Board position.

You will appreciate my preference that Mr. Carmody, not be involved in decision making regarding facilitating a meeting. That could be seen to damage the integrity of the request.

I look forward to your response at the soonest practical opportunity, as it will clearly demonstrate intent and Board integrity, which will be relevant to my submission


Respectfully, Glen Buckley

And the reply:

CASA Chair of the Board responds to post 1274

---

Dear Mr Buckley

I refer to your latest correspondence of 2 November 2020 addressed to Mr Mathews, Chair of the CASA Board.

As there is no new information provided, CASA is satisfied that your request falls within the allegations made to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, noting the review is currently underway. The outcome of the review will inform next steps.

Yours sincerely

Colin McLachlan

Hmm...well I guess no surprises there, verdict? The current board needs to go, otherwise the status quo will remain - :

Addendum: CASA released FOI docs. 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update - 8/11/20

Via the AP email chain:

---

08/11/2020

To the Members of the Board of CASA, 

Mr. Anthony Mathews (Chair of the Board of CASA)
Mr. Shane Carmody (Director of Aviation Safety, and CASA CEO)
Mr. Mark Rindfleish
Mr. Michael Bridge
Ms. Donna Hardman
Ms. Elizabeth Hallet
Ms. Marlyn Andre

As you will be aware, I have been given an opportunity to present before the Senate Inquiry into CASA. I am extremely appreciative of this opportunity. As you will be aware I am claiming misfeasance/malfeasance and negligent misstatement against a small group of the CASA Executive Management, including Mr. Shane Carmody, Mr. Jonathan Aleck, Mr. Craig Martin, and Mr. Graeme Crawford

I allege that those personnel acted unlawfully, and breached my rights under Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness, and  Natural Justice. They acted vindictively and vexatiously.

Their conduct has resulted in the closure of a number of businesses, associated loss of jobs, and bought enormous damage to my mental health, and caused enormous economic damage to me personally. You will also be aware that I have made multiple attempts over the last two years to meet with the Board, and you have chosen not to afford me that opportunity. As you will appreciate, from my perspective each of you has been complicit in facilitating a cover-up of this matter and clearly failed in your respective roles to ensure the good governance of CASA. I will raise these same allegations against you when presented the opportunity before the Senate Committee.

You will each be aware that similar allegations have been raised against these personnel before, and in fact, their conduct formed the basis of an ABC investigative story aired on the ABC.

Your failure to act ethically and with good intention is a clear failure against CASAs' own published Regulatory Philosophy, and the obligations placed on you when you accepted a position on the Board of CASA. 

For clarity, those personnel took three separate and distinct, and deliberate actions.

Stage One- Without any warning at all, and not based on any safety allegations, CASA reversed my business's approval and placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade. That business was called the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA). I emphasize that by CASAs' own admission there were no safety allegations or allegations of regulatory breaches.  On multiple occasions and in writing I advised CASA that those restrictions on my business's ability to trade would cost me in excess of $10,000 per week if I were to avoid business closures and redundancies. After 8 months of having those restrictions applied, the business was unable to continue trading and was sold at 5% of its value to ensure the continuing employment of my highly valued personnel. I was dealing not with a matter of law but only a "change of opinion" by Mr. Jonathan Aleck in his role as CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs.

Stage Two- Those CASA personnel then advised that I had to transfer my remaining business Melbourne Flight Training  (MFT) to the new owners of APTA. The Commonwealth Ombudsman has investigated this matter and clearly found that conduct to be unlawful.

Stage Three- After the failure of APTA and the transfer of my remaining flying school, I managed to obtain employment within the industry whilst continuing to defend my reputation and my position, until CASA sent a direction to my employer that my "continuing employment was untenable based on comments that I was making publicly."

The purpose of this correspondence is to ensure that you are each aware of my allegations and I draw your attention to the following "thread" running on this topic. You will note that it has had over 650,000 views and strong feedback supporting my position. https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zea...-casa.html

Whilst I am confident that each of you are fully aware of this thread, I wish to ensure you have been notified and availed with the opportunity to familiarize yourselves with it, as it will form the basis of my "submission".

Yours thankfully, Glen Buckley.

---

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Hmmm;

Embuggerance comes in many forms. It took a while for the Buckley thread on the UP to become 'unstable' and potentially irrelevant. Like many, I have been following the battle and was pleased to see not only how 'civilised' the thread stayed and managed to stay 'on track'. Usually the 'fix' goes in early in the piece and the thread descends into the usual cat fight and ends up being dismissed from interest.

All was well until about post 1290 – a bump and a wee 'wobble' kicks in about there; recovered and stable again. At about post 1299 the thing becomes unstable; finally there is a line or two which can be used to destabilise the approach. By post 1305 the whole thing has been hijacked, manipulated into a bitch slapping contest; yet another deviated thread, now consigned to the 'can't be bothered' bin.

Nothing there now to help Glen. Not that it matters – Glen has made his point; let's all hope the Senate committee will actually use it's influence and at least return his dignity and his life to some semblance of what it should be.

Toot-toot.

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update - 11/11/20

Via the AP email chain (with some considered pro bono administrative law advice from one LB off the UP -   ) :

Dear Mr. Anthony Mathews, and all Members of the CASA Board


Whilst I appreciate that you may not be in a position to personally respond to my request, can I ask that you draw on Mr. Jonthan Aleck in his role as the CASA  Executive Manager, Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs as well as any other personnel that you deem appropriate in formulating an official CASA response.

As you are aware, there are three primary core issues that have brought detriment to me, my family and a number of other entities.

Issue One- The reversal of approval on APTA after 10 CASA personnel had spent two years designing it with me, approved it, approved bases under it, audited it, and in fact recommended it to a number of operators. By providing me with several short term interim approvals to operate, over a period of 8 months, the business was starved of revenue and was sold at 5% of its value. Importantly CASA has clearly stipulated procedures in their Enforcement Procedures Manual that they are compelled to follow should they Cancel, Suspend or vary an AOC, and those procedures were completely bypassed. No "show cause" notice was ever issued by CASA. The Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office is currently investigating that matter. My concerns with this matter were the clear breaches of Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness, and Natural Justice 

Issue Two- The advice that my remaining business/flying school, Melbourne Flight Training, had to be transferred to the new owners of APTA. On this point, CASA, and specifically Mr. Craig Martin advised on 20/06, "For the avoidance of doubt, this would allow flight training to be conducted by APTA employees only-not employees of affiliates. Mr. Jason McHeyzer advised that CASA required complete operational control which included staff, resources, and total financial control. Currently, I do not believe that the Ombudsman's Office is investigating that matter

Issue Three- After obtaining employment in the industry, Mr. Jason McHeyzer the CASA Region Manager sent a direction to my Employer that my continuing employment was untenable based on comments that I was making publicly. As with Issue One, CASAs Enforcement Procedures Manual stipulates the procedures to be followed if a CASA approved Head of Operations is deemed not to be a 'fit and proper person". By completely bypassing these procedures, I was denied a fair process. On this matter, the Commonwealth Ombudsman is investigating.


On issues One and Three, CASA has refused to respond to my fair and reasonable questions, using the investigation by the Ombudsman's Office as a reason not to respond. I have previously spoken to the Ombudsman's Office and it appears that despite the investigation, I am entitled to maintain correspondence with you, and I believe that CASA is unfairly and unlawfully drawing on that investigation to frustrate my efforts to fairly resolve this matter.

However in this correspondence I am writing to you regarding Issue Two. 

This matter has  been specifically addressed by the Ombudsman's Office in  Phase One of the Ombudsman's investigation. I have attached the Ombudsman's report for your reference. In light of that, I feel I am fully entitled to a detailed response. 

You will note that in Phase One of the Ombudsman's report he made the following statements.

"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."

He then goes on to state "as of October 2016, no Australian legislation prohibited "franchising of an AOC, subject only to the exclusivity of the AOC Holders operational control"

You will be fully aware that this conflicts with the advice provided to me by CASA, and that error on behalf of CASA has clearly resulted in detriment being caused to me.

CASA advised that a franchised AOC was not permitted and that "for the avoidance of doubt, this would allow flight training to be conducted by APTA employees only".

Phase Two of the Ombudsman's investigation deals with the "7 day notice period" for continuing operations and the direction to terminate my employment. As Phase One is completed and that is the phase relevant to the MFT issue (transferring my school to the owners of APTA), I now wish to seek CASA advice on where we move to from here. You have advised that we could progress matters on receiving the Ombudsman's findings.

The detriment caused is significant, as my flying school of 12 years was "handed over" to the new owners of APTA. This instantly denied me access to any revenue. This problem was only further compounded when Mr MC Heyzer the CASA Region Manager sent a direction to my Employer that my continuing employment was untenable based on comments that i was making publicly. This led to my termination and a protracted period of unemployment.

In the attached email dated 22/08/20, I advised Mr Martin that I had complied with his requirements and transferred staff, resources and financial control. Unfortunately that left with me ongoing expenses by way of contractual obligations to a number of entities, which i was unable to attend to. Some of those entities have initiated legal action for breaches of my financial obligations to them. This occurred because of the CASA direction to transfer my income but did not attend to expenses.

For clarity, I feel I have a valid basis for a claim on CASA regarding the loss of my flying school of more than a  decade, Melbourne Flight Training. That claim would require me to submit a request to the Department of Finance by way of the CDDA scheme https://www.finance.gov.au/individuals/a...dda-scheme

I also  draw your attention to Post 1273 in the thread on PPrune that is currently running https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zea...-casa.html. This post refers to the Full Federal Court decision handed down on 22/06/2012 and obligations to act as model litigants. 

I have also included an excerpt from The Commonwealth Ombudsman's office below. CASA have unnecessarily dragged this matter on for far too long. The time has truly arrived where the Board of CASA is compelled to act with good intent, and integrity, and work towards a mutually agreeable solution.

"Compensation for ‘detriment’ caused directly to a person by ‘defective administration’ can be made under the Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA Scheme). ‘Detriment’ includes personal injury, property damage and economic detriment. Examples of ‘defective administration’ are an unreasonable agency failure to follow procedures or to give proper advice, or giving advice that was incorrect or ambiguous. A payment under the CDDA Scheme can be authorised by the agency against which the claim is made. Legal liability to pay compensation does not have to be proved"

I am fully satisfied that I have a valid basis for a claim under the CDDA Scheme. Could you please clearly identify if you will stand in the way of me making such a claim, or am i able to proceed. I note that CASA could veto such a claim, hence I seek clarity on that matter. 

My hope is that you will act with good intent. Should you choose to frustrate my attempt at fair and reasonable compensation I will approach the responsible Minister, Mr Michael McCormack directly to seek  a resolution.

Respectfully Glen Buckley

And LB advice via the UP: 

First paragraph from here: https://www.finance.gov.au/individua...on-cdda-scheme

The Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA Scheme) provides a mechanism for a Non-Corporate Commonwealth Entity (NCE) to compensate people who have experienced detriment as a result of the NCE’s defective administration.

CASA is a Corporate Commonwealth Entity, not a Non-Corporate Commonwealth Entity.

No compliance and enforcement action was taken against you. The content of the Enforcement Procedures Manual is irrelevant to the circumstances.

You’re not (yet) involved in any court or tribunal or other legal action to which the Model Litigant rules apply.

Please (please) Glen, reach out to someone - anyone - who has some idea about what you’re up against, before sending off another letter. That was, I understood, one of the points of the crowd funding. And there are people who may be willing to help you for free.

It may be therapeutic for you to send letters to CASA, notwithstanding the content may be dismissed out of hand by CASA, but I’m confident your energies could be better applied to activities that are both therapeutic and more likely to focus CASA’s attention.

---

And GlenB's reply:

As usual, thank you for the wise advice


I have attended lawyers on a few occasions now, and as you will appreciate they are damned expensive. It has been quite challenging to find a legal firm that has the appropriate expertise. I do have a further meeting on 17/11/20 and feel reasonably confident that this organization will be able to represent me.

I really need the Commonwealth Ombudsman's report finalized before I move too much further. A bit difficult to say too much more here, apart from express my very sincere appreciation. Cheers. Glen.

I would add that if GlenB was to try the 'Act of Grace'/discretionary payment path, that both the useless miniscule McDonaught and Dr (Hoodoo Voodoo) Aleck have O&O form on this with the DJ 'Act of Grace' application: Ref -  Oz aviation, safety compromised by political and bureaucratic subterfuge ?

---

---

  

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update - 24/11/20 

Via AOPA Oz Youtube channel:

Via Oz Flying:


 

Buckley levels Accusations of Misfeasance at CASA

20 November 2020
Comments 0 Comments

Embattled former flying instructor and training operator Glen Buckley accused three high-level CASA managers of misfeasance in his evidence to the senate inquiry into the general aviation industry on Friday.

Buckley, who once owned Australian Pilot Training Alliance, has been in a bitter dispute with CASA since the regulator varied the conditions of his Part 142 approval in 2018, which made his business no longer viable.

In evidence provided over an internet feed to a public hearing, Buckley leveled accusations of misfeasance at Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody, Executive Manager Legal and Regulatory Affairs Jonathon Aleck and Group Executive Manager – Aviation Graeme Crawford.

Buckley made the accusations in front of the public hearing chaired by Senator Susan McDonald, which also included senators Glenn Sterle and Rex Patrick.

"I, here in this forum, am lodging a formal allegation of misfeasance against Mr Shane Carmody, the CEO of CASA," Buckley stated without reservation. "I am also lodging, to both of you senators, formal allegations of misfeasance against Mr Jonathon Aleck ... and, finally, an allegation of misfeasance against Mr Graeme Crawford."

Buckley stated he had had legal advice on the matter of misfeasance before making the allegations and had done extensive research into the definitions of both misfeasance in office and negligent mis-statement.

Quoting a High Court source, Buckley said that misfeasance "requires an intentional, but invalid or unauthorised act to be committed by a public officer in the proported discharge of their public duties, which causes a loss to a person. It requires that the person committing the act did so deliberately."

CASA has declined to comment specifically on the allegations, although under questioning from Senator McDonald on Friday, Carmody said he rejected many of the allegations and accusations Buckley made against him and other CASA staff.

In his opening comments, Carmody issued counter-accusations against Buckley including assault of CASA staff.

"Mr Buckley has harrassed my staff and continues to do so, on PPRuNe and just about every other website," Carmody said whilst recognising the emotional argument, "he makes unsubstantiated allegations and I'm quite happy to deal with them. He has assaulted my staff, he has stalked my staff in the Melbourne office, and frankly, we've had enough of him.

"So the matter is with the ombudsman, and I'm very, very happy for the matter to stay with the ombudsman and get resolved. I will not accept the allegations that are made."

The Commonwealth Ombudsman reported in August on the first phase of the investigation, finding that there was no impediment to franchising flight training operations under the Franchise AOC Arrangements ruling made in 2006. That ruling refers to commercial operations under CAR 206, but in September 2014, flight training was removed from CAR 206.

CASA originally used the ruling as the basis for declaring the APTA model illegal.

Phase Two of the ombudsman's investigation will focus on the CASA action of serving a seven-day cease notice on APTA in October 2018 and CASA informing Buckley's new employer in August 2019 that his new role was "untenable" due to comments Buckley was making publicly.

Via the UP and the AP email chain:

Allegations raised by Mr. Carmody regarding "assault" and stalking"


21/11/20


Dear Mr Carmody, CEO of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority,

I refer to your attendance at the Senate RRAT Estimates Committee and associated comments that you made about me on 20/11/20. 

I made my  presentation between the 3-hour 50 minute mark through until 4 hours and 32 minutes. Immediately after my presentation, you were offered the right to reply and I  have attached a link to your presentation at that inquiry.    Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport - 20/11/2020 08:49:59 ? Parliament of Australia

I refer to comments that you made at the 4 hour and 38-minute mark where you claimed “He has assaulted my staff, he has stalked my staff”

Whilst I appreciate that in making such comments you are protected by Parliamentary privilege. That Parliamentary privilege is intended to allow full and frank disclosure of matters. It is not intended for the CEO of CASA to make false allegations against an individual or to blatantly lie and mislead Parliament, and more so considering your position as the CEO of CASA.

Whilst I do appreciate that you were somewhat “rattled” and may not have had the clarity of mind that would be ideal in such a situation, I would like to afford you the opportunity to correct that blatant untruth.

For clarity, I absolutely and totally refute that claim, and as you will appreciate that comment has bought angst to my family.

The purpose of this correspondence.

If you stand by that claim that I assaulted and stalked your staff, can I request the details of those allegations? Are you able to provide any supporting details of such incidents? Ideally, this would include details of the alleged incidents such as dates, times, and circumstances of the alleged assault or stalking matters.

My assumption is that such matters would be held by CASA on file, there would be Workcover documentation, a formal complaint lodged within CASA, or something similar.

If you are unable or unwilling to support those allegations my intention would be to make a Freedom of Information request to obtain any supporting documentation, and fully refute that scurrilous allegation and a blatant untruth.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley.

---

22/11/20


Allegations that Mr. Carmody, CEO of CASA provided misleading information to the RRAT inquiry

Dear Mr. Carmody, the RRAT Committee, the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office and the CASA Board.

I would like to bring some clarity to a matter of significant disparity between what I advised the RRAT Committee and the misleading information that Mr. Carmody in the role of the CEO of CASA provided. I believe that Mr. Carmody was deliberately misleading the RRAT inquiry. This matter is significant as I am claiming that CASA was frustrating my efforts to arrive at a resolution.

In the RRAT inquiry, Senator Sterle queries why I did not pursue legal action earlier. The following correspondence may bring some clarity to that.

Prior to engaging a lawyer, I felt that I should exhaust all opportunities at following due processes i.e. approach the Board who are responsible for the good governance of CASA.

Refer to the attached clip from the RRAT Senate Estimates on 20/11/22  Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport - 20/11/2020 08:49:59 ? Parliament of Australia

Please listen to the recording from the 4 hours 30 minute mark, where I made, in part, the following statement to the Senate Estimates Committee.

“I wrote to Mr. Tony Mathews, the Chair of the CASA Board for 6 months before I went public with this……….. 6months…….. had he acted within an appropriate timeline I probably wouldn’t be where I am now…”

The attached emails, clearly support my contentions. CASA initiated the restrictions on the business's ability to trade on 23/10/18. I initially wrote to the CASA Board on 02/01/19. I first went public with my allegations 6 months later on 06/04/20 by making my very first post on PPRuNe and that link follows as evidence of my claim. The post that I made can be found here.  Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums.

At the 4 hours and 35-minute mark, Mr. Carmody the CEO of CASA, summarised and refuted my statement  in the following way,  “Mr Buckley says the CASA Chair had ignored him, well the CASA Chair met face to face with Mr. Buckley, a fact which he conveniently omits”.

I make note of his very emotional tone suggesting that CASA had perhaps embraced my offer to meet, when in fact it was clearly being resisted.

I have attached emails that relate to the chronological listing below, and clearly support the truthful contention that I did on fact write to the Board repeatedly over a period of 6 months, and was ignored.

·      2nd January 2019 I wrote to the Board of CASA raising substantive allegations regarding unlawful conduct by CASA personnel. I sought the Boards direction on what action needed to be taken. I also pointed out the commercial impact of CASA actions.My request was not responded to.

·      2nd April 2019. I wrote to the CASA Board raising substantial allegations regarding unlawful conduct by CASA personnel and making myself available to meet with any TWO Members of the CASA Board. I made myself available to travel to any location in Australia at any time that CASA could facilitate my request

·      22nd May 2019, I wrote to the CASA Board yet again

·      28th May, the CASA board responds by assuring me that the ‘Board is abreast” of the situation and I was not able to meet with CASA.

·      5th June 2019, I made a further request to meet with the Board, and highlighted how Mr. Crawford had written to me and advised a meeting would not be facilitated with the Board.

·      11th June request to meet with the Board.

·      14th June, CASA advise the possibility of a meeting. Note that this is 6 months after I had made my initial request

·      28th June CASA advises a meeting is available on 19th July 2019.

·      19th July 2019, meeting proceeds more than 6 months after the initial request.

For clarity. I absolutely maintain that I did write to the CASA Board for 6 months on multiple occasions raising substantive allegations. My reasonable requests were not met, and more than 6 months after my first request, I did have a meeting with the Chair of the Board of CASA.

That meeting finally occurred on 19th July 2019, 6 months after multiple requests were made. I had requested to meet with any two Members of the Board to ensure integrity. That request was never facilitated and still has not been.

I did meet with Mr. Tony Mathews and instead of a second member of the Board as I had requested, Mr. Mathews elected to be accompanied by the CASA Region Manager, Mr. Jason McHeyzer.

Interestingly It was Mr. Mc Heyzer the CASA Region Manager that wrote to my Employer on 27th August 2019 ( a little over one month after the meeting), directing that my continuing  employment was “untenable based on comments that I was making publicly”, and I was terminated.

I hope that this correspondence supports my contention and brings clarity to any misunderstandings that may have arisen from Mr. Carmody's misleading response.


Respectfully, Glen Buckley

---

23/11/20

Correcting Mr. Carmody's allegations to the Senate RRAT that I have posted on “almost every other website”

Dear Mr. Carmody,

Whilst I do somewhat apologize for the repeated correspondence, I am merely trying to correspond on one matter per piece of correspondence to bring additional clarity to what is a difficult subject.

As you are aware, I believe you have not acted without ethics or integrity, and in fact attempted to mislead the current Senate inquiry.

In your recent presentation to the RRAT, you made the following comment at the 4 hours and 38-minute mark;

“Mr Buckley has harassed my staff on Pprune and almost every other website” Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport - 20/11/2020 08:49:59 ? Parliament of Australia

The truth is that I have only ever made comments on one website, so your assertion “almost every other website” could perhaps suggest to the RRAT that I am a “trouble maker” going to multiple websites and making allegations against CASA.  If my intention was to cause mischief I would have pursued my case through a more public forum such as Facebook etc, rather than the industry website Pprune.

For clarity and to ensure that the truth prevails.

I have posted on only one website and that is Pprune. The link is attached. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums

I have not posted on “almost every other website” and Mr. Carmody was fully aware of that when he made the misleading comment.

Mr. Carmody, could I respectfully request that you identify to myself and the Senate RRAT, any other websites that I have made comments on.

Thank you in anticipation of you clarifying this matter and ensuring that truthfulness prevails.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

P.S. On post 33, on the Pprune website, I made the following post which I feel is pertinent.

“Dear Moderator,

I appreciate that you are currently reviewing the contents of a letter I wish to publish. Let me be very clear. I fully stand behind anything I say and will be prepared to defend it with evidence. The issue is significant. The fact is that CASA do engage with Industry, and often that manner is inappropriate. My concerns are in the public interest, and in the interests of safety. I prefer this forum as it is appropriately discrete. I am not trying to cause mischief, I would use another social network for that. I am trying to communicate with my industry peers via the only forum available to me. My issue, in my opinion, is pertinent to all business operators in the GA industry. My phone number is 0418772013 if you wish to talk to me. I need guidance from my industry peers and am seeking it through here. Thank you for your consideration.”

And finally a couple of comments/posts off the UP (courtesy of advo-cate & Para 377  ) :

CASA Board

---

Glen, Your experience is not unusual as the casa Board is well captured by the CEO.

A person I know well, has a matter that the required Board intervention and he spent 2 years asking for a meeting.

Finally, the person had a promise from Geoff Boyd [as the chair at the time], to meet with the Board. in a regional setting. That was not facilitated, so he traveled to Canberra [where the next Board meeting was being held]. Geoff Boyd told him he didn't want the person to contact him again [The person had known Geoff since 1994 and Boyd did LAME work on his aircraft at the time].

When the person went to the public area in Aviation House - Furner Street and asked for Mr. Boyd, as Boyd was in the building at the time. There was no response from Boyd or the Board to facilitate a meeting. Instead Jonathon Hanton the ICC arrived and spoke to the person saying that a meeting was being refused. The ICC did arrange a meeting with the FOI officer for a matter that was being requested. The FOI officer was not allowed to speak to the person without Adam Anastasi - casa legal - being present. A breach of the FOI process.

Not to be put off after a 3000km trip, the person came back even earlier the next day to see if he could get lucky as the Board members arrived. The person made the same request as the day before, from the public area. Again the ICC staff came to see him.

An obnoxious "security officer" came downstairs while he was having a private meeting with the ICC. The security officer carried a direct threat from Carmody that they were calling the police to have the person arrested if he did not leave the building.

Good try Carmody.

Threat, public area, improper process, intimidation, stand-over tactics and more.

Why does the aviation community know that Glen is telling the truth.

---

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon 

My apologies for the (slight) thread drift, Glen.

On the subject of the allegations by Mr Carmody against the pilot of an aircraft whose “instruments”, according to Mr Carmody, “say he was at one hundred and twenty five feet”, I’m following with interest a thread on another aviation forum about a pilot who says Flightaware always shows his altitude as 300’ below that indicated on the aircraft’s altimeter, not explicable by differences in QNH. Some [i]very interesting information linked in that thread.

The difference between Height-Above-Ellipsoid versus Height-Above-Geiod in the Geometric Altitude parameter in ADS-B is fascinating. And wouldn’t it be funny (not for the pilot concerned) if the 125 number cited by Mr Carmody is actually a parameter expressed in metres rather than feet...[/i]

Mr Carmody is not an Aviator, nor does he understand aviation processes or procedures, and neither do most of his minions, therefor that may be the reason thatbthe emotionally challenged Mr Carmody speaketh bulls#it to the good Senator.

Now, had Mr Carmody been asked to explain the procedures and processes pertaining to spin, deflection and obsfucation, middle aged manopause and the emotional toll on the male mind, and perhaps Government perks and financial benefits for Career bureaucrat office workers, he would have done extremely well in the Senate and he would not be in a position where he is now being ‘called out’ for making himself and his organisation and the Minister look like a bunch of complete arseclowns.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Addendum to last - 

LB & Para 377, via the UP - 

LB:

The Parliamentary privilege resolutions agreed to by the Senate on 25 February 1988 say, among other things:

...
3 Criteria to be taken into account when determining matters relating to contempt

The Senate declares that it will take into account the following criteria when determining whether matters possibly involving contempt should be referred to the Committee of Privileges and whether a contempt has been committed, and requires the Committee of Privileges to take these criteria into account when inquiring into any matter referred to it:
...
Offences by witnesses etc.

(12) A witness before the Senate or a committee shall not:

(a) without reasonable excuse, refuse to make an oath or affirmation or give some similar undertaking to tell the truth when required to do so;

(b) without reasonable excuse, refuse to answer any relevant question put to the witness when required to do so; or

© give any evidence which the witness knows to be false or misleading in a material particular, or which the witness does not believe on reasonable grounds to be true or substantially true in every material particular.
...

That’s a very (very) high threshold to meet.

I have no first hand knowledge, but I suspect that, in the case of the allegedly low flying pilot, Mr Carmody would simply say that he was told by one of his staff that the aircraft’s “instruments” said the aircraft was flying at one hundred and twenty five feet and, accordingly, it is true that he was told that and he has no reason to believe the statement to be false or misleading. Of course, whether the aircraft was in fact flying at one hundred and twenty five feet is a related but entirely different question.

But it was in my view a very (very) big call by Mr Carmody to flatly assert that Glen has stalked and assaulted CASA staff. Effectively, Mr Carmody seems to me to have asserted that Glen has engaged in criminal acts. I reckon Glen would have reasonable grounds to take those allegations up with the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges.

Odgers says this at page 536, with my bolding, about witnesses whose evidence reflects adversely on another person:

Evidence which reflects adversely on another person, including a person who is not a witness, must be made known to that person and reasonable opportunity to respond given. The committee must consider whether to hear the evidence, publish it, and seek a response to it from another person. These rules, in Resolution 1(11) to (13), do not define the meaning of evidence which reflects adversely on another person. However, certain general principles of interpretation apply.

Evidence given to a committee encompasses written statements or submissions accepted by the committee as well as oral presentations at hearings. The rules do not apply to evidence merely on the basis that it is contrary to other evidence. For the purposes of its inquiry, a committee will seek as many considered views on the subject matter as is reasonably possible. In many cases, the views offered will, and should, differ, contradicting each other and criticising the rationality, accuracy or acceptability of alternative or competing opinions. Thus, evidence adverse to another witness’s case does not fall within the application of the rules. The rules deal with adverse “reflections”, that is, evidence which reflects adversely “on a person” (including an organisation) rather than on the merits or reliability of an argument or opinion. To bring the rules into operation, a reflection on a person must be reasonably serious, for example, of a kind which would, in other circumstances, usually be successfully pursued in an action for defamation.

It seems to me that if Mr Carmody had asserted, to the public and not under parliamentary privilege, that Glen had stalked and assaulted people, Glen would have grounds to pursue defamation action against Mr Carmody. I certainly would, in equivalent circumstances.

P377:

Chapter 18 of the CASA play book

---

Mr Carmody, as the Executive Officer of CASA, has been a complete embarrassment. His emotional rant in the Senate, his disrespect towards Senator McDonald and his deep seeded vitriol and potentially libellous statements against Mr Buckley are representative of who CASA are and how they operate. He acts like a spoilt child who has been caught red handed throwing its broccoli in the rubbish bin. Wha wha wha sniffle sniffle. A stamp of the feet and the cursory ‘NO NOT’ screamed out in between tears.

And the DAS might be the head of CASA, but Dr Aleck is the head that turns the neck. Or if you like - the gloved hand that turns the puppets head. What a performance in the Senate, as always - the little old bearded man quietly, gently and calmly speaking. Oh so innocent, helpful and sweet. A couple of ‘confused looks’ with the odd stammer or two while giving the appearance of a little old innocent man that you would spot sitting on a park bench feeding hot chips to seagulls while muttering to himself. But no not this bloke, he has spent many years throwing herrings at the Senators and appearing to be this little innocent old bookworm peering above his law books while he throws bulls#it to the Senators while muttering about ‘laws’, ‘policies’ and ‘intent’. Smart survivor that one. He has outlived many a DAS from Dick Smith to the Screaming Skull and beyond. But behind the scenes he is an angry, vitriolic vindictive human being who actually enjoys steamrolling innocent people and cheering from the sidelines as people’s personal lives, businesses and way of life burn to the ground. CASA fosters bullies, sociopaths and narcissists.

The only way forward to dismantling the CASA Frankenstein is to;

• hold a Royal Commission into it
  
  
• gut the organisation starting at the top tier, and;
  
  
• adopt and implement the NZ Regulations.
  

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

BRM Aero embuggerance latest - 



Via Oz Flying:

---

 

BRM alleges Inequity in Bristell Overweight Issue
27 November 2020
Comments 0 Comments


BRM Aero representative Edge Aerospace has accused the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) of inequity in their handling of two separate overweight issues.

CASA issued a "show cause" notice to a specific BRM Bristell owner in November 2019 after three aircraft were found to be over their maximum basic empty weights.

No such notices were sent to owners of FlySynthesis Texan aircraft, several of which have been found to be up to 114 kg over their stated empty weights. Instead CASA sent owners a letter endorsing a Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus)  recommendation that Texan aircraft be re-weighed to determine the actual empty weight.

The particular aircraft on which the show cause has been issued was 4.1 kg overweight, which was rectified by replacing a battery and the seat cushions, all approved by the manufacturer.

Edge Aerospace then recalculated the new empty weight, but CASA rejected it because it used the original empty weight data.

The approach led to Edge Aerospace accusing CASA of orchestrating a vendetta against the type in light of the ongoing issue of the stall/spin characteristics.

Edge Aerospace's Lorraine MacGillivray told Australian Flying she was bewildered over CASA's different handling of the Bristell and the Texan on what appears to be a similar issue.

"The difference in treatment between the Bristell and the Texan weight issue is perplexing: 4.1 kg over gets you a show cause and 114 kg over does not?"

"BRM Aero rectified the weight issue immediately with the Bristell and yet CASA saw fit to reject the certified empty weight used for the revalidation, the very weight they used to issue the show cause in the first instance!

"The inequity of the treatment between the two aircraft is very curious. If any Texan is around 100 kg overweight it does not meet its certification basis. But seemingly that is okay, CASA?"

A CASA spokesperson told Australian Flying that the regulator had in fact taken similar approaches to both the Bristell and the Texan, and that some of the Texans involved had had modifications done after delivery.

"The approach is consistent in each case. CASA has initially sought to fully understand the facts before acting (if necessary), this includes engagement with the manufacturer and relevant parties.

"CASA’s concern is that it has evidence of BRM Aero Ltd asserting empty aircraft weights which were not reflective of the actual aircraft weights when landed in Australia. The matter presently remains under consideration following CASA receiving further correspondence on behalf of the owner.

"Texan owners have been advised by RAAus to consider reweighing their aircraft to ensure they have accurate weight calculations for their aircraft. CASA is satisfied that the issue has been properly brought to the attention of owners.

"CASA continues to gather information to fully understand the matter. CASA will take further action to address safety related concerns - if so required."

CASA's spokesperson elaborated by saying the problem with the Bristell was far more complex than that of the Texan.

"The Bristell issue goes well beyond just the weight issue – the safety notice issue related to flight training and issues around the potential for spinning," he said.

"It also includes some VH-registered (for some Bristell) vs only RAAus reg (for Texan)  So it is inappropriate to compare the Bristell matters to Texan just on the weight issue … it's more complicated."

Edge Aerospace has responded to CASA in a letter saying that in request a complete reweigh of the aircraft, the regulator had inappropriately applied the requirements of CASR 100.7 to the Bristell, and also said that CASA's actions had been "unreasonable."

"BRM Aero rectified the Bristell issue promptly. To [our] understanding the manufacturer of the Texan 550 has done nothing to resolve the issue with their aircraft despite being repeatedly requested to do so by [an] aircraft owner.

"It would appear to any reasonable person that CASA's approach in pursuing the empty weight issue of the Bristell that involved no flight safety issue, whilst doing little or nothing in regard to the Texan 550, is totally unreasonable."

---

Slight drift here but if you want to get a real take on where this seemingly biased, conceited, self-serving, duplicitous culture within CASA emanates then go no further than the endless (30+ year) legal gobbledygook that spews forth from Dr Hoodoo Voodoo (I've lost my marbles) Aleck...

Latest classic example:

 Senator PATRICK: And that's what I want to get out on the table. I have a definite view on what that means and I'm trying to understand CASA's view in respect of that change directed by the parliament.

Dr Aleck : We were very conscious of that change, very well aware of what it would imply. The language, as you probably know, was taken almost verbatim from the minister's statement of expectations. At the time, we were aware of the fact—as were those who participated in the introduction of the legislation and the second reading speeches—that this provision enshrines what CASA was meant to be doing anyway. Those expectations about taking cost and risk into account are expressed in our regulatory philosophy. They are expressed in the directive that's been around about risk based legislation. By putting it in the act, and in the course of the second reading speeches, it was made clear that this was about making the importance of that expectation as clear as it could possibly be. Of course, it creates a legal duty where previously there was an expectation.

Senator PATRICK: So you're saying that's business as usual—that, prior to that point, you were doing that anyway?

Dr Aleck : We did. But I must say that, cognisant of the fact that this was now a legal duty, we made it very clear that, as this is now a duty, the expectation will be that we will be able to demonstrate in a much clearer way how this is done. We provided guidance and direction to those in our organisation who are responsible for developing standards under the provisions of the act that are referred to in the amendment—what these terms mean? These are terms that have been dealt with in a legal context. So we said that, if you're going to comply with the law, you need to know what that means. It does actually impose a new discipline, and in the process of developing—


Hmm..nothing to see here, business as usual - FDS!   

Next and who could forget??



And then:

---

Plus:

---

Ref: https://auntypru.com/midweek-on-the-ap-29-08-18/

Finally, going even further back in time, who could forget the Dr A mindboggling interpretation of the main purpose for the 2010 MOU between CASA and the ATSB...

---

Ref: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...282#pid282 & https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...342#pid342 

---

Phil Hurst quote: "..So, yes, a move to at least benchmarking against international regulations would be a good start, but we're very shy of that. We're very shy of the bona fides of CASA doing that given our experience with the maintenance suite, where we were assured that the ASA-style rules, as they were called at the time, would be internationally recognised, would be transferrable from one jurisdiction to another and would be scaled to match the complexity of the company being regulated. The first thing that CASA did was remove the B3 licence to get rid of GA [inaudible], with no consultation with industry at all. We were all caught flat-footed. We could not believe that, to be blunt, we'd been lied to and misled. That was under a previous DAS about two or three DASes ago, I think—hard to keep count with the churn. But that's the culture you're dealing with. The culture really hasn't gone away, because the same people who drove those decisions are still working in CASA today..."

P2 comment: A good start would be simply frog marching Dr A out the front door of Aviation house -(hint) you'll probaly find him scuttling around in the deep, dark, back corners of the DAS's office...

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB & BRM/Aero embuggerance update - 2/12/20

Via the AP email chain...

Dear Mr. Colin MacLachlan, Chair of the Board of CASA, and all Board Members.

Please note that I have included other Parties in this email.

In Senate Estimates on 20/11/20, Mr. Carmody, the CEO of CASA  raised allegations of criminal conduct against me, when he said the following.“He has assaulted my staff, he has stalked my staff.”

I absolutely refute those allegations. These are significant allegations and impact on my reputation. I would like to provide Mr. Carmody the opportunity to fully retract his statement and unreservedly apologize for it.

If Mr. Carmody refuses to fully retract that statement and publicly apologize, I will refer this matter to the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges. There are rules associated with adverse reflections on a person, and I feel Mr. Carmody's comments have clearly breached these.

As this matter should be easily attended to, I request that this matter be finalized by way of a retraction and published apology by 5 PM on Tuesday 8th December 2020.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

Also from Glen B on the UP 

This is what accountability looks like

---

 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-guernsey-55046616

Guernsey's civil aviation director removed over conduct

Guernsey's director of civil aviation has been removed from his post for "gross incompetence", following a vote in the States of Guernsey.

A report into Dominic Lazarus's job conduct found a series of failings, including conflicts of interest and his ability to act as a regulator.

The motion to remove him was brought by the Committee for Economic Development based on an investigation in September.

Mr Lazarus also does the same role in Jersey as part of a job share.

As the regulator for civil aviation, the director deals with the airworthiness of aircraft, flight operations and aviation security.

The investigation concluded that since being appointed in 2018, Mr Lazarus demonstrated "repeated poor performance, failure to learn from previous mistakes and lack of competence as a regulator".

It also found he had "misbehaved in office and has behaved in a way that is grossly incompetent".

The report's four key findings were that Mr Lazarus:

• Failed to demonstrate his ability to work as a regulator and apply the law in a fair and evidence-based manner
  
• Did not meet the skills and competencies required for some aspects of his role, in particular airworthiness and aviation security
  
• Failed to lead and manage to meet the required levels of service and customers' expectations
  
• Undermined the standing of the director of civil aviation and exposed the States of Guernsey of increased risks of litigation and damage to its reputation
  

As a statutory official, the director must be appointed by and removed by States deputies to protect their independence, President of Economic Development Neil Inder said.

However, he will still be under c

ontract by the States of Guernsey which will be dealt with as a separate matter by the government as his employer.

Deputy Inder said there was "simply no alternative" to removing Mr Lazarus following the "unequivocal" findings.

Mr Lazarus is currently on a "period of absence" from his role in Jersey and the Government of Jersey is "considering the implications" of the Guernsey decision, a spokeswoman confirmed.

Finally via the 20/20 thread:

BRM Aero correcting the record - 

Via RRAT 20/20 inquiry submissions webpage:

47 BRM Aero/Edge Aviation (PDF 562 KB) 

Mr Ben Morgan gave evidence of a foreign aircraft manufacturer and the treatment of that
manufacturer. As the Australian technical representatives for BRM Aero the manufacturer of
the Bristell Light Sport Aircraft, we submit this in response and as further evidence of the
adverse impact of CASA and decisions made by CASA that appear to me, not based necessarily
on sound evidence or fact.

Mr Shane Carmody stated;

‘The third matter relating to the aircraft registration it concerns me that, that point is made
with that company misrepresented the aircraft when they introduced it into Australia. It’s a self
declaration & we caught them.

I would also say that the Legal Representative for that company is actually on the AOPA Board.
Something that yet that does not get mentioned. So we get the issue raised but disingenuously
not completely.

It would appear to me that Mr Carmody is not across this matter as it is not to do with aircraft
registration, it is to do with aircraft certification and compliance with an international standard.
It is not a self declaration it is self certification of compliance against an international standard.
The CASA in my opinion did not ‘catch’ BRM Aero as the aircraft have been flying in Australia
for eight years without incident until an unfortunate accident resulting in one fatality which
was deemed by the Victorian State Coroner to not be a result of a faulty aircraft. The Legal
Representative for BRM Aero has nothing at all to do with them being on the AOPA Board in
my view. This Legal Representative acts for many aviation businesses and individuals in the
aviation industry and has done for many years as his area of expertise is aviation related
matters. The issue has been raised and most definitely completely. We have been involved for
one year of a two-year dispute. BRM Aero the manufacturer has attempted to address all the
queries made of CASA in the document attached ‘BRM Aero Response to CASA PowerPoint
Presentation Document dated 3 April 2020' BRM Aero does not dispute a number of
administrative issues related to understanding the CASA Form 681 compliance document, that
issue has been rectified, will not occur again into the future, and yet it appears to me that the
CASA continue their relentless attack on this manufacturer. Note: The administrative issues
resolved was not safety related and did not render the aircraft ‘unsafe’

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

FRMS and St Commode's history of pilot association embuggerance?? - 

For the benefit (HINT) of the EAL (Editor At Large) -   

Reference:

No interim report? Plus St Commode's last 'up yours' Senators?

Also from the 'Additional Documents' webpage possibly (hopefully) the last 'spin and bollocks' correspondence to the committee from the much maligned St Commode (note that this was posted weeks after the 20 November public hearing - ??? )...  :

---

---

Well we know where the committee concern emanated from don't we?  

From the AFAP 20/20 submission 44:

Composition of the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel

62. The Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) is the primary advisory body through which CASA
directs its engagement with industry and seeks input on current and future regulatory and
associated policy approaches. The ASAP has never had a representative on it from a member
based association.

63. Professional pilots are a unique group of aviation stakeholdersin that the result of nearly all safety decisions flow through the aviation system to us. We, as an association of professional pilot
representatives, are uniquely able to observe and collate where consistencies and deficiencies
collect in the aviation system. Other front line professionals may also be able to do the same
however professional pilots, more so than others, receive the outcomes of these other groups,
and are at the final point of control in the aviation decision making process. The AFAP is the key
representative organisation for GA pilots and would be best placed to contribute to the ASAP.

64. A consultative panel in the medical sector for example, similar in purpose to that of the ASAP,
would not exclude doctors. Yet in aviation, the voice of professional pilots is not welcomed by
CASA in the ASAP.

And from the AIPA submission 28:

Aviation Safety Advisory Panel

Earlier, we referred to the ASAP in the context of getting the regulatory balance right.
The ASAP20 was formed as a consequence of the recommendation of the ASRR to
review the SCC as the previous consultative mechanism. The ToRs for the ASAP
state, inter alia:

The purpose of the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) is to provide the
CEO/Director of Aviation Safety (DAS) with informed, objective high-level advice
from the aviation community on current, emerging and potential issues that have,
or may have, significant implications for aviation safety and the way the Civil
Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) performs its functions

While the purpose is laudable and, in AIPA’s view, most desirable, we have had
concerns about the implementation of the process since it was first proposed.

The AusALPA member associations found the report of the SCC Working Group on
this new consultative process particularly vexing. In May 2016, AusALPA wrote to the
then-DAS and advised him, in part:

We note that, to a surprising extent, it is blatantly self-serving in regard to the
influence of the Working Group members and, consequently, contains some
fundamental flaws.

In particular, AusALPA is concerned that the proposed DAS Advisory Panel
represents a particularly unbalanced concentration of advice.

We strongly recommend that you include our Association as a full member of your
chosen advisory mechanism, noting that full membership appropriately reflects
both our consistent safety and technical contributions and the true characteristics
of membership of both the recommended ASTRA and FAA advisory models.

Given the wider publication of the Working Group advice, AusALPA believes that it
is important to correct some key factual errors and selective research, as well as to
note the unjustified but apparently philosophical bias against workforce
representative associations demonstrated by a number of the Working Group
members.

This latter sentiment often arises in our dealings with government on aviation matters,
particularly among those who are intellectually incapable or unwilling to accept that
representative bodies such as our member associations operate quite separately in the
safety and industrial arenas.

Continuing refusal to engage with Australia’s pilots is a matter that must be addressed,
since we remain a valuable source of independent, experienced and unbiased safety
advice.

Our engagement with the Parliament, through this and other Committees, and
executive government on matters of aviation safety is not as industrial forums and
never has been. Critically, AusALPA has no legal standing or role in any Federal or
State industrial framework. Ironically, the often preferred source of advice is from
those in the commercial sector who act unashamedly in their own best interests,
particularly in the industrial arena. In that context, the key point we made to the then-
DAS was:

Importantly, we think it is critical that you recognise that the proposed membership
of your advisory group are all representatives with vested commercial and
economic interests whose safety activities are rarely characterised as timely, let
alone proactive, and therefore lacks balance. In particular, you should be very alert
to the fact that management representatives of operators do not, and cannot,
represent the views of their pilot workforces – that is the very reason that both
IATA21 and IFALPA co-exist.

Subsequently, the then-DAS invited AusALPA to be a full member of the DAP.
However, in reforming the DAP as the ASAP, the current DAS has reverted to
excluding the policy advice of Australia’s professional pilots. Despite several ASAP
renewal opportunities, the current DAS has ensured that the ASAP is entirely
populated with vested commercial interests. This is consistent with his entrenched
aversion to associations such as ours and despite our singular focus on safety and
technical matters. In the absence of the informed input from pilots who actually fly the
aircraft and conduct the operations that CASA is regulating, the ASAP is predominantly
an special interest economic rather than safety advisory panel.

AIPA suggests that it would be most appropriate for the Committee to consider making
a recommendation that the Government should seek more balanced advice, both for
the Minister and for the DAS, on aviation safety policy. There can be no balance when
the voice of the last line of defence, Australia’s pilots, is suppressed.

To give some historical context to the apparent animosity, disdain and disregard that St Commode and the Iron Ring have for the professional pilot associations please to following archived AP posts...

FAA IASA audit, FRMS & an 'inconvenient ditching'?

FRMS & the timeline of regulatory embuggerance 

https://auntypru.com/the-return-of-the-s...-assassin/

https://www.aipa.org.au/media/1118/13-11...ao-481.pdf

Our Concerns

Part 48 of the Civil Aviation Orders was produced in the 1950s. There have been few
amendments since. The provisions are not based on science. The empirical basis of Part 48
led to some unsafe outcomes, the most obvious example of which are the provisions for
augmented crews, i.e., the addition of a third pilot to allow long range international operations
across many time zones. These rules will survive until December 2016.

Around 1990, an attempt was made to make CAO Part 48 more flexible to meet the demands of
the operators. Standard Industry Exemptions (SIEs) were invented that, while modelled on a
semi-scientific British system, ignored such science as was available and in many scenarios
produced even more unsafe outcomes than did Part 48. These SIEs will also survive until
December 2016.

AIPA acknowledges that the new rules, Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013 (the
“Instrument”) are, in many ways, a significant improvement on the previous rules. However,
they still allow certain operations that reflect the commercial bias embedded in the SIEs rather
than the science.

Fatigue risk is regulated because the world-wide experience is that the commercial interest of
operators will trade off a high risk of a fatigue-related accident for a short term commercial
advantage. Australia is no different and the clear evidence has been identified by the
Parliament on several occasions.

AIPA is a fervent supporter of FRMS. We applaud the introduction by CASA of “operator
obligations” as a means to impose some FRMS processes on those operators who choose to
operate only under the prescriptive rules set out in the Instrument. But we are concerned by
two aspects of the Instrument:

• The lack of transparency about what CASA will accept under an “approved FRMS”; and
• The prescriptive rules that will inevitably form the basis of the FRMS rule sets.

Hmmm...more to follow me thinks? P2 

[Kharon]

Just thinking out loud really.

62. The Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) is the primary advisory body through which CASA directs its engagement with industry and seeks input on current and future regulatory and associated policy approaches. The ASAP has never had a representative on it from a member based association.

Or, trying to find my way through the maze of 'control' and authority. It seems, on first look through to be an even playing field. The ASAP the conduit between 'industry' and the Authority. It is from ASAP that the 'working groups' stem and report back to. It all seems linear and democratic until you try to sketch out a chart showing the 'flow' of control and the important 'cut-outs'. I've seen bowls of spaghetti less tangled and no where near as slippery. 

All P2's fault – he had to go digging through the annual report. - HERE -.

“CASA’s Aviation Safety Committee (ASC) continually reviewed data from a variety of sources to inform its decision-making and approach to surveillance and proposed policy development. Aviation safety data and trends were presented and discussed at ASC and CASA Board meetings.”

Being naïve and mostly honest; we tried to chart the lines of connection and authority; who's who at the zoo etc. Worked backward from those who should – like the 'Unions' (engineering, pilots, operators, associations etc.) have a seat at the table.  From there we tried to work out the lines of communication, in terms of input to 'policy' making, and sector risk analysis. From the workshop floor to the minister.

Now you could be forgiven for believing that 'expert' coal face advice, across the board would form the basis of 'policy' and risk management. To the layman, it would seem reasonable that a pilot association or a representative of an industry – like the Aerial Agriculture or flight schools submissions to the ASAP would carry some weight and even have an influence on matters which affect their particular branch of industry. A straight line through to those responsible for industry well being.

Enter the great spaghetti untangling competition. As far as we can define it; there exists a significant 'gap' (chasm really) between those who actually make the decisions and those who provide, from a carefully selective group (s) advice, which is edited before it arrives in the dustbin at the end of the ASC table. Examination of even some of that carefully 'cherry-picked' advice reveals that even that is paid scant attention. For little of it is reflected in either policy or rule making.

The complete disconnection may well be explainable; but, it seems to be a line of inquiry the RRAT committee could at least take a look at. If it all turns out to be window dressing, then there are but two options. Save the money, end the farce, unmask the illusion that industry actually has a say at the top table; or, make sure that any and all 'decisions' made by the ASC are published and available for scrutiny by those their findings affect.

Start with the Buckley horror story; let's hear what the ASC made of that.

Something to do with a vague notion called 'democracy' I believe.

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update - 20/01/21

For GB's latest interaction with the Commonwealth Ombudsman see this UP - HERE 

However I wanted to focus on GlenB's interaction with A30_737_AEWC -   

A30_737_AEWC

Glen,


A question if I may ask as I don't have the requisite knowledge/understanding at this time. It comes to mind after reading your recent posts. If I've previously missed something, my apologies in advance.

At the time that the CASA Regional Manager wrote 'THAT' email to your employer, did you hold any kind of instrument of appointment from CASA ? Maybe my terminology is dated as I've not worked in the civil system of airworthiness management.

Or was it that case that you were a person nominated in a critical role from an airworthiness/safety perspective in that organisation's procedures and processes pursuant to the applicable regulations/roles that applied to the flying school sector ? I'm more familiar with the latter personally, where the airworthiness regulator satisfies itself that the people an organisation nominates in key roles are suitable/acceptable. Note that the organisation 'FIRST' determines that it is so.

---

glenb

A30- Clarification regarding the direction from CASA re. my employment

---

Thanks for the question.

A Part 141 and 142 Organisation had a requirement for the following key personnel.

1. CASA approved CEO
   
   
2. CASA approved HOO
   
   
3. CASA approved Safety Manager
   

I was CASA interviewed and approved to operate in the roles of HOO and CEO.

By CASA sending that direction, CASA completely bypassed their obligations to determine that i was not a fit and proper person.

That direction was based on "comments i was making publicly i.e. only on PPRuNe. Not based on safety or compliance concerns. totally unacceptable and unalwful.

Cheers. Glen

---

A30_737_AEWC

Thank you, Glen.

What you've described absolutely aligns with the kind of expectations I had from Defence/Commercial Industry engineering/maintenance organisations under the ADF system of airworthiness/safety management. It's about sticking to the underpinning principles first in my book, then ethical behaviours.

Apologies if my question seemed a bit personal and abrupt. I asked the question as I was curious if CASA challenged you on the assessment as CEO & HOO. Clearly they hadn't.

I have my own opinion of the chap who sent you that email and I may have hinted at it in a previous post. Clueless and totally reliant on his previous experience which he must have thought would acquit him in the role he had in CASA. Only it didn't.

But their complete failure to follow any kind of documented processes (allowing transparency and good governance) in the initial email action is beyond obscene IMO. I've suffered a similar outcome (different context) in another aviation environment with 'a couple of his kind'. After 6 years (and coupled with a couple of other significant life events outside of my control), I'm only coming back to being reasonably functional in the last 6 months. Doing it alone is difficult and reaching out when you need to (or even when you don't) is the imperative.

My best wishes to you Glen.

A30_737_AEWC

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Bugger !


We scrimped and saved and sacrificed (lots) to save enough pennies for our own Choc Frog machine, we dd. But it looks as though we may be obliged to hand it over to 'Lead Balloon'.

Finally, at long last, in this post on the UP – HERE – the bare bones of the Buckley saga meet solid 'legal logic'. The legal Eagles really don't see the world as us simple folk do, they have a very different 'take' on how it all works. I expect that is why they need to go to 'law school' and get qualified in the black arts.

'Law' is a strange business; what may seem perfectly logical and straightforward to the 'practical' mind can be and often is, turned upside down by an inappropriate sentence – action or even in a 'word'. It was once explained to me thus: your intention may have been to be doing 100; proven fact is you were doing 101. Legal at 100 – fine for 101. I know, it ain't usually that close run a race; but 'intention' no matter how well meant; v 'fact' will loose every time; in law. It would be a Bobby with an evil, inflexible, tunnel vision disposition who would prosecute the case; and, it would probably never happen. But rest assured if the stakes were high enough he would; and probably win.

As LB say's - “the crux of the matter is”:-

Sanguine thanks for a nicely articulated argument.

Toot – toot.

[thorn bird]

Yup K, it took a weasel worded Eastern Block Ex Stasi lawyer and his acolytes to put CAsA legal in ascendancy within the organisation and set in train the pogrom that was to become the so called regulatory reform. Written by lawyers, for lawyers, siphoning off half a billion plus of taxpayer dollars, taking almost thirty years plus to sort of complete.

But there was method in their madness.

By making the regulatory suite so obtuse and unlike anything else in the developed world, those in the industry who must comply with them, of course, have a great deal of difficulty understanding them, nor recognise the hangman's nooses hidden behind the legal jargon. They (industry) are, by and large, very practical people, not lawyers. Weasel words don't fit in their lexicon, common sense and real risk management do, not the esoteric horse shit pushed out by bright young things with lots of letters after their names.

This set things up nicely to retain a whole bunch of lawyers to produce another manual to explain what they do mean, by then the reg's will most likely be out of date again and need reform, what do they call it, a self licking ice cream?

P7 (butts in) - Yeah - but... your plain English 'understanding' of a law ain't necessarily 'legally precisely' the meaning of 'the law'. Double jeopardy - plus legal costs. Oh, it;s a great system alright.

So why don't industry retain a lawyer to sort their compliance?

I asked a fairly astute gentleman of the law, he was retired judge, what it would cost. His response for a simple GA charter AOC, around two or three million for the manuals and half a million a year to maintain them. He said it with a smile, but I'm not sure he was joking.