[Peetwo]

Old Mate Mark's (the Ombudsman) weasel worded response -   

Via the UP: 

---

Dear Mr Buckley

I refer to our investigation of your complaint about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

On 23 December 2020 I outlined why, in my assessment, further investigation of your complaint was not warranted. I have considered the further information you have provided to us in 2021, including your comments and the attachments in your most recent email on 30 June 2021, but have decided to affirm my decision not to further investigate the complaint. Further investigation would not, in my view, result in a substantively different outcome.

As we discussed over the phone on 4 May 2021, my assessment was that CASA had provided us with a reasonable explanation for its view that it was not fully aware of the specific nature of APTA’s operations until just prior to issuing the notice in October 2018. I appreciate that in your view CASA should have been aware of the particular business structure of APTA, and therefore have noted any possible regulatory issues, well before October 2018.

As I noted in our recent phone discussion, during this investigation we asked CASA to explain whether in its view it was aware, or ought to have been aware, of the reported regulatory issues before October 2018. The material you have provided does not, in my view, indicate CASA has misled our Office about this aspect of the matter.

As I understand it, CASA’s view is that the advice you had provided to it suggested that APTA was responsible for flight training conducted at the so-called APTA training bases of members of the alliance. On examining the material you have provided, and the material provided by CASA, for the relevant period I do not believe this to be an unreasonable view in the circumstances. The specifics of APTA’s structure do not appear to have been well defined and clearly articulated in the additional material you recently provided to us. While I accept that it may have been preferable if more action had been taken to clarify APTA’s structure before the notice of October 2018, I accept that there is a not unreasonable basis for CASA’s view that it was not aware of the apparent regulatory issues posed by APTA until around that time.

I have noted in the copies of correspondence you provided on 12 May 2021:

• Reference to changing the name of your company
  
  
• Advice that Avia is intending to join APTA and reference to having signed contracts
  
  
• An email where you ask CASA for a meeting
  
  
• An email from CASA recognising APTA’s achievement of gaining Part 141 and 142 Approvals
  

I acknowledge the material in Appendix B of your email of 12 May 2021 includes some details about your proposal for APTA. I acknowledge your advice that this material was sent to CASA in an email on 23 June 2016, though I am unaware if CASA acknowledged receipt of the reported email. Regardless, the information in Appendix B does not clearly explain the actual structure of APTA. In my view this document is fairly vague about the likely structure and supports CASA’s view that at times the explanations you provided to it about the APTA model were ambiguous and contradictory. For instance, the document suggests that “each remain 100% our Own Businesses” yet also suggests that the AOC Holder will provide all of the “key positions”. This reported email also needs to be considered in the wider context of this matter.

For example, CASA noted that when APTA sought to add Bacchus March as a training base in November 2015 you advised it that APTA would be the operator at that time because TVSA did not have the key personnel required under the regulations. This supports CASA’s view that it was not aware of how APTA was in fact operating when it came to other alliance members given it was not given clear advice that members of the alliance would be conducting flight training on behalf of APTA or would otherwise be operating as separate entities. For instance, the Operations Manuals you submitted to CASA subsequent to the reported email of 23 June 2016 provide more detail about APTA’s structure, but do not provide clear information on this point.

I have no reason to dispute your advice that former CASA officers share your view that CASA was fully aware of how APTA was actually operating well before the notice of October 2018. However, in all the circumstances I do not consider further investigation of this aspect of the complaint warranted. I do not see a good basis to conclude that further investigation would result in uncovering material sufficient for our Office to conclude that CASA’s view is unreasonable. I also cannot see any practical outcome to further interrogating what occurred prior to the notice of October 2018 given our view is that there was a reasonable basis for issuing the notice.

Your most recent email of 30 June 2021 provided further material in support of your complaint. I note that this material is focused more on whether CASA had good reason to issue the notice and whether CASA took reasonable steps to assist you in remedying the reported issues it had identified. I note that I have seen much of this correspondence already in examining CASA’s responses to our Office. For the reasons I have previously outlined, in my view we are not in a position to be critical of the decision to issue the notice in October 2018 nor can we conclude that CASA did not provide sufficient assistance to try and resolve the issues subsequent to issuing the notice.

For the reasons outlined above, in my earlier correspondence, and during our telephone conversations on this matter, I have decided that further investigation is not warranted in all the circumstances.

If you would like to offer further comment please respond via reply email.

I appreciate that you will be disappointed in this email and in the outcome of your complaint to our Office. I understand you have been considering the potential for legal action and raising this matter with a relevant Federal MP. These options remain open to you.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to the attention of our Office.

Kind regards

Mark

Complaint Resolution Officer

COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN

Phone: 1300 362 072

Email: ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.au

Website:www.ombudsman.gov.au

[b][i]Influencing systemic improvement in public administration[/i][/b]

---

P2 comment: Please keep in mind that from my calculations OMM's response was composed and sent within 24 hours of receiving GlenB's 10,000 word submission - must be a world record for a Can'tberra public servant?? 

UP POTW response to OMM's email reply...

Link: https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zea...st11071589

AerialPerspective

Never read so much weasel word obfuscating crap in my life - they APPROVED the operation, it's clear to anyone up to and including a long lost neanderthal with a serious and debilitating head injury that they knew PRECISELY what you were planning from the outset - that much is bloody obvious from the emails you've posted on this forum from the beginning of the APTA concept.


Jesus Christ, they even suggested schools to approach.

I realise that you are disappointed and a bit flattened by this Glen, but don't give up. Just because some bureaucratic public time-server thinks there's no case to answer, doesn't mean it won't frighten the shite out of the right politician if you keep pushing the case.

The thing about politicians as I'm sure you know is that they are both gutless and opportunistic....... hitting the right nail at the right time where embarrassment or worse - loss of ones seat - is a prospect, will work wonders. I say that because I have been closely following another case of outright bastardry, the one involving bugging and legal action in secret court of the two people regarding the Timor Leste case. I can absolutely assure you that if it heats up and becomes a potential election issue, the government will fold its tents and their alleged 'public interest' reason(s) will evaporate like a wisp of smoke....

This is because the sort of people that are pursuing those two and who have done this to you have about as much substance as ectoplasm. I think someone said a while back on this thread - you need to find a way to frighten the shit out of them and make it part of their personal (selfish) interest. I think it was Keating that said "In any battle, back the horse being ridden by self interest, because you know it'll try its best". Finding that self interest will be challenging but I'm certain there's a pathway there somewhere.......

I'd say for the immediate present, settle into your new abode, keep your family close but think through the next move, it is likely we are heading for what may very well be a watershed election that will be too close to call and there is a mounting anger in the community about quite a few things - the time may be approaching to sprint to the finish line....

In the meantime, we are all (I'm sure I speak for everyone on here) in your corner.

Followed by...

sagesau

I may have misunderstood the Ombudsman reply but it reads as though CASA claimed they didn't know what was going on until after the paperwork was signed off then they made up reasons to effectively shut Glen down. At no stage could they advise Glen on how to resolve the various unsubstantiated issues and that's acceptable?


At the very least it's gross incompetence and significant lack of oversight within CASA. How could anyone have any confidence that anything CASA signs off as acceptable will actually be so.

Isn't it CASA's role to know what is going on in a timely manner? I'm not sure that having several of CASA's staff working on a project with a client over several years only to claim at the end of the process that it wasn't what they thought it was but couldn't actually define what the problem is, reeks of incompetence or worse. It's not The (anti) Block (movie) where 'it's the vibe'.

---

Lead Balloon

 CASA did "advise Glen on how to resolve the various unsubstantiated issues".

CASA demanded:

[A] tabular legend, showing how and where the actions called up under each applicable provision of the civil aviation legislation germane to the conduct of operations under CASR Part 141 [and Part 142] are effectively addressed in the terms of the contractual agreement(s).

That demand was based on some conjured up law that doesn't exist:

The operational and organisational arrangement contemplated by CASR 141 [and Part 142] are based on a conventional business model, under which all of the operational activities conducted by the authorisation holder are carried out, for and behalf of the authorisation holder by persons employed by, and in all respects as agents of, the authorisation holder.

As a matter of practicality, that sounded the death knell for Glens' business and livelihood.

---

Paragraph377

CASA also make sure it used the word ‘conventional’. They like to do that when defending or explaining their own actions - we use ‘conventional models’, we promulgate ‘best practise’ modelling, we believe that the ‘intent’ of the rule is such and such. A bit like a Politician who doesn’t want to get nailed, so he/she says ‘I don’t recall’ instead of a yes or no answer. It’s a carefully crafted and manipulated use of the English language. Dr Aleck has used the law and his own personal beliefs to enjoy feeding his narcissism by tinkering with peoples lives and destroying others. He has no conscience and he has no balls. He likes to hide behind law books and secure office doors because he is a gutless little worm. Is it because his father breastfed him as a child or because the waters around Loyola Chicago were polluted with PFAS which has fried his synapsis? Who knows. All I know is that Pip ought to be careful of the little fuzzy haired grey bearded little man because if she does something that he does not like both him and the arrogant Scot will chew her up and spit her out.

---

AerialPerspective

Quite right Paragraph,

This phenomena is the bane of people like Don Watson who I personally think is a national treasure....... I think one of the reasons that people have turned off politicians in general is because of this sort of utter, weasel-word, BS language.

Some obvious examples to add to the one you allude to above....... note how people like Morrison and Dutton and the rest of them say "We TOOK a decision" - don't have the guts to say "I MADE the decision"...... this presumably so later they can claim "I never said I made the decision". "We are seeking to address the issue and that remains our position" - that sentence doesn't even mean anything. Politicians, diplomats and public servants have all bought into this garbage - no one does anything or accomplishes anything anymore, they just "Seek" to do it.

Don't even get me started on the latest crop of buzz words, 'leaning in', 'cohort', 'low hanging fruit' and the like, etc. These people don't realise how moronic they sound parroting this tosh.

I'm mincing with semantics here I know but CASA goes on and on about "outcomes based" this and that. a RESULT is something that you measure and can predict, an 'outcome' is something that results that usually can't be predicted or isn't known until it eventuates, so even the words they use are moronic - what the hell is 'outcomes based education' FFS - how often do Pilots state that they are flying the aeroplane according to an 'outcomes based procedure'.

I watched a Senate Standing Committee snippet the other day and they had some egregiously over-fed diplomatic person who was asked if the decision they made to vote a certain way at an international conference was dictated by what the United States wanted Australia to do....... this guy sat there for 10 minutes continually saying "We interface constantly with a wide range of interlocutors in achieving outcomes in this space".

You could see the Senator(s) (Carr and Patrick I think it was) becoming closer and closer to the verge of saying "JUST ANSWER THE EFFING QUESTION you obscurantist"

No wonder CASA are the way they are.......

Finally (also via the UP) an excellent ANON summary of the GlenB embuggerance...

GlenB embuggerance summary. 




PDF version: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...7/Dear.pdf

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Oh, Wouldn't it be loverly!

You know that thing - the one where you get a 'song' or a 'jingle' stuck on replay in your head - you end up whistling snatches of it all bloody morning. There I was, lighting the stove and setting up the work bench - mind in neutral, idling away chewing over Buckley's Chances. "O wouldn't that be lovely' I thought; if, as a positive demonstration of CASA's new found 'good will' toward human kind there was a serious sit down and an equitable solution found to a way forward. Wretched song stuck - but it is a good notion.

How hard could it be? Angel Flight send in a non combatant negotiator - CASA field a decision maker. Quiet sit down - pro's and cons discussed - and a settlement, binding on both achieved, quietly, with dignity and no red faces.

Say that worked; that would take care of the morning. Lunch break, then the Buckley representative is wheeled in to meet the CASA decision maker. It might be quite a wrangle - but - if Buckley had the right 'peace maker' and CASA sent in a 'specialist'. Shirley, some form of a way forward could be found. There is legal obligations on both sides - these may not be gainsaid - however with the right attitude and a little give or take - from both parties........... Both Buckley and CASA would have to make do with a compromise; but that has to be better than the endless, pointless brangle which takes up time and resources.

How good would it make the minister look if he made this happen? What credit and Kudos for Spence and her outfit. The current impasse is embarrassing, costly and brings no credit to all concerned.

Wouldn't it be loverly?  - Oh, you bet it would be.

Toot - toot....

[thorn bird]

Oh dear K,
noble thoughts and so sensible, everything in life is a compromise.

But I fear we'll be booking our seat on Swine airlines or our next flying lesson with Porcine academy, because as we all know as far as CAsA is concerned

Pigs can fly.

[P7_TOM]

Practical, sensible and very democratic I'd say, but is it doomed to failure?

Buckley is a 'classic' example - of where much industry frustration and anger comes from. We have all witnessed this, in one form or another. Chief pilot mandates blue socks every Tuesday - the CASA fellah wants Pink. Impasse, followed by argument or acquiescence, bowing to the inevitable - Pink socks every day - no option or else.... 

It is the naked threat of 'or else' which shuts down the CP to a simmering rage. Blue socks on Tuesday may be an operational requirement; it meets the 'legal' mandate that socks must be worn - however, if the local FOI interpolates the rule as giving power to the 'non responsible' administrator i.e. him; then pink socks it must be.

Two options - cop it sweet; or, risk the ire of the local branch and challenge the edict. Hell, you may even win the rubber; but, as many within industry know - from that moment on your card is marked. From then on, nothing will be either easy, routine or 'cheap'.

There is a need for a 'middle earth' - somewhere a competent CP or HOTAC or HOFO can 'present' a case supporting the proposed Blue Socks argument. It may well be a 'flawed' argument - the ramifications clearly explained and the liability clearly defined - this is why we cannot approve your request. Fair enough - message received; Blue socks out. The CP folds his tent, shuts up and gets on with it.

But what if it turns out that 'by law' any colour socks may be worn and the FOI is put back in the box? Will it learn from the experience and work from the good advice given; or, toddle off snarling from being embarrassed and smarting from the loss of face; determined make every future hurdle a mine field? You see, when a FOI has been made to look like the inexperienced muff - the type model CASA like; is the one who will now wait an opportunity to regain face. We have all witnessed this a 100 times.

Haystacks built from one straw; the needle carefully concealed - off site'. Aided an abetted by 'the law' there is very little chance anyone can withstand the 'haystack' system. With time, money, no fiscal impost and even less assistance for the defence in any case brought - the chances are slim to anorexic of a win.

IMO; Buckley needs to pipe down and find a way through to a 'negotiating' position; but, most importantly he needs to find the underpinning reason for his treatment. A clear statement of 'fact' based in 'law' - a one page reason why his operation was shut down. There is a whirligig whipping up his haystack; a radical, a reasoned argument as why his operation was shut down - a legally tenable one would help him see how to turn off the wind. For the longer it blows, the more expensive the case; the more time available for 'reasons' to be added and the less chance resolution has. A ten point brief explaining why Blue socks are unacceptable would suffice. Item one: Blue socks are not permitted - here's why. That 'why' will provide the basis for a rebuttal - but 100,000 words writ to all and sundry will net no gain. You must know the charge before you can mount a defence. So then; what, exactly is 'the charge'?

Thirsty work this pontificating stuff; but, as it is my two bob (honestly earned) I shall spend it as pleases me best. I shall help myself to another from 'K's' long suffering keg and warm up on the dart board while I await the arrival of my peers and betters.

[Peetwo]

Sandy in reply to EWH - 

Via latest Oz Flying Air Mail: 

---

---

MTF...

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 4/09/21 

Via the AP email chains:

Ombudsman Reference 2019-713834

Dear Mark of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office.

Regarding my allegations that some CASA personnel acted unlawfully and that their actions lead to the closure of my two businesses. There were three core “topics”.

• The overnight reversal of APTAs approval by CASA, and determination by CASA that it would no longer be permitted.
  
• The declaration by CASA that my flying school of more than a decade, Melbourne Flight Training was suddenly declared an “unauthorised operation” and forced into closure. Despite multiple requests, CASA will provide no explanation for this, and I continue to seek one.
  
• The direction by CASA to my Employer that my continuing employment in the industry was “no longer tenable based on comments I was making publicly” leading to my departure from the industry after 25 years.
  

In this correspondence, I am seeking some clarification prior to potentially requesting a review of my case. I appreciate that you have finalised the APTA matter, but this correspondence relates to the third topic, being the direction by a CASA Employee to my Employer that my “continuing employment was no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”.

I am very much of the opinion that in fact no comments were made publicly by me that would compel a CASA employee to direct that my continuing employment was no longer tenable, and that in fact the direction was vindictive and vexatious. It had no basis in aviation regulations, and no basis on aviation safety.

This particular topic is important because I am claiming that in fact, this entire matter was not based on safety or regulatory matters but was in fact an “engineered” process from within the CASA Executive.

I have made an allegation of misfeasance in public office against three members of the CASA Executive before the Senate Standing Committees General Aviation Inquiry in November 2020.

During the previous 18 months prior to formally raising those allegations in Parliament, I had written to the Leader of the Nationals and Deputy PM at the time, the Honourable Mr Michael McCormack on numerous occasions, and did so again immediately after I appeared in Parliament. None of that correspondence was ever acknowledged or responded to by his Office.

I am fully satisfied that his Office is avoiding this topic, and by him choosing not to respond, I am more dependent on your findings in order to approach my Local Member of Parliament Ms Gladys Liu for assistance.

To the point of this correspondence.

• I have previously received your report on the direction by a CASA employee that my continuing employment was untenable. Are you able to confirm if there is a final report coming, or is that matter also closed, and that report is the final report?
  
• I was hoping that the Ombudsman’s Office could direct me to the particular comment or comments that I made that compelled CASA to write to my Employer and make that direction that my continuing employment was no longer tenable, and my assumption is that identifying the comment or comments that I made, and where they were made, would have been a central theme to the investigation, and be integral to a determination of appropriateness and proportionality of the CASA action. Therefore, can I be informed of what the comment/s were, and in what forum were they made.
  
• Was there any update regarding CASA publishing an apology?
  

 
Thank you for your consideration, respectfully,
 
Glen Buckley 

Appendix A- My letter to the Ombudsman 19/01/21

Para 377 (aka Gobbledock) comment in reply, via UP:

Carmody vs Buckley - only one real man stands tall

---

Shane Carmody, AOM, received the Order of Australia Medal last year. What for, I don’t really know. A government bureaucrat is not a real achievement, as sitting in a Canberra office drinking coffee and eating truffles really doesn’t fit the criteria of being a real job. Slurping on a Ministers jockstrap for decades also doesn’t meet the criteria of being a real job. So awarding such a person as him a title is absolutely sickening. A gutless bully who used the power of the government to back up his spineless actions. It was never a fair competition, but then again bullies always hang out together.

Carmody spent 32 years as a public servant, with no remarkable achievement other than racking up a huge superannuation nest egg. He also spent 15 years as an ‘army officer’, where he no doubt worked in a non-combative role such as being a cook, a cleaner of bedsheets and mess halls, or working in a nice safe Australian stores facility somewhere. So 47 years on the government teat is pathetic. Too scared to get a real job in the real world. Had this individual had any real life skills, he would not have allowed the situation to foster where Mr Buckley was so mercilessly destroyed.

Glen is a true gentleman and a decent, down to earth guy who was simply trying to eek out a modest living for himself and his family. A smart man who developed a concept that was a good match for industry’s needs. He has put up a brave battle and has a robust set of balls, unlike the spineless turds who oppose him.

Karma is real, and eventually everyone pays for their sins.

 


Ref: NT virtual public hearing. & http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...ocus-on-nt

Plus via Facebook, Sandy in reply to EWH's overview of upcoming RRAT GA inquiry NT hearing:

We can only hope for some action but we’ve been treated to so many inquiries that hope is tempered with the grim reality, 33 years of an implacable government condoned attack on this once great free enterprise industry. 


General Aviation (GA) can only be revived if an MP or a number of MPs will stand up for what is right for Australia. 

GA is waiting for reforms. Susan McDonald with or without her Committee could see a start with Minister Joyce requiring CASA to make some simple immediate reforms such as a rational private pilot medical regime and allowing independent instructors. Home Affairs could be asked to relieve the ASIC requirements and Government should declare a moratorium on the continuing alienation of airport land to non aviation uses. 

Lastly the disgraceful treatment of Glen Buckley should be recognised and he be compensated for the injustice he, his family, and employees have suffered. There have been other cases too, all swept under the carpets in Aviation House, but this one, if justly resolved, could create the right precedent that is sorely needed.

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

For a few hundred years the role of good intentions in the affairs of Homo Sapiens has been articulated in one particular and profound manner.

"Hell is full of good meanings and wishes", was published in 1670 in A Collection of English Proverbs collected by John Ray (thanks to Wikipedia).

Senator McDonald has initiated the latest General Aviation inquiry, to take an agonising two years. She has not, to my knowledge, taken on board the 2014 Forsyth report. Has she or her Committee seen fit to study the 269 submissions that were published? They informed the recommendations that were put to Government. The Government made out that it accepted nearly all of about 37 recommendations but did not follow through and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority juggernaut continued it’s destruction of GA.

The saying, the modern version, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

How apt for Australia’s General Aviation (GA) industry? Living through thirty three years of backward slide, but hardly a year or two passes and there’s more good intentions by way of ‘industry consultations,’ or yet another inquiry and a new CEO, otherwise known by the fatuous title of Director of Aviation Safety, making out that there’s going to be a new era of reasonableness

Flying schools closing all over, insufficient pilots being trained so we’ve been importing them, maintenance organisations culled or given up. Irreplaceable Commonwealth airports being built over with factories and shopping centres because the land has been given over cheaply. To cap it off all the rules migrated inappropriately into the criminal code with strict liability for ease of prosecution, and huge penalties prescribed. Some such criminal deeds here don’t even rate a mention as misdemeanours in the USA, but we know how to over regulate for the overkill.

Our Civil Aviation Safety Authority, made independent back in 1988, has embarked on creating the most unworkable, expensive and complex regulatory environment that it could devise. Malevolent comes to mind. Advanced GA nations, the USA in particular, look at us in disbelief, nearly always too polite to make comment, but if one looks you will find undisguised and unflattering views, and no wonder. It is shameful, and the worse because it is so wasteful and unnecessary.

Our government has greatly reduced the role and responsibility of Minister in the misguided belief that government can be by remote control, that a selection of unelected people will altruistically run what was a Department without thought to salary increases, where they can push them to ‘commercial’ rates, and will work hard to administer in the most economical and efficient manner for the benefit of GA.

Without specific direction from the Minister we can expect more of the same or worse. The independent Commonwealth corporate administration concept is a failed experiment, cannot work in the National interest and never will. New CEO Pip Spence says they are “inching towards completion” of the rules, this was tasked to the newly independent regulator in 1988.

As to more detail of our present unhappy state of affairs, Mike Borgelt’s EAA Chapter 1308 submission to Senator MacDonald’s inquiry is an excellent guide to the horrendous regulatory mess that has been created for GA by CASA, and rubber stamped by successive governments.

[thorn bird]

Sandy it is also said "Necessity is the mother of invention"

Given the decline in GA there is obviously a need.

Time I think for the impediments to be removed allowing Mum to give birth to a renascence of GA activity.

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update 14/09/21: Dear - Gladys 

Via the AP email chains:

---

Attachments:   

• Appendix 8B: Magazine article. February 2018 “APTA before CASA action”.
  
• Appendix 8C- Magazine article September 2019f “APTA after CASA action”.
  
• Appendix 8E-Hansard Report- Senate RRAT Committee November 2020
  
• Link to CASA Principles. Particular attention is drawn to Principle 8 and the link to CASAs Regulatory Philosophy. How CASA meets the government best practice principles for policy makers | Civil Aviation Safety Authority
  
• Appendix- Proposed media release.
  
• Appendix x3 Correspondence to Minister McCormack
  

 
 
15/09/21
 
To the Honourable Ms Gladys Liu, Member for Chisholm.

My name is Glen Buckley, a 56-year resident of the electorate of Chisholm.

The purpose of this correspondence is to request a meeting with you,  to seek guidance regarding the submission of a petition, and to subsequently submit that petition to the House of Representatives via your Office.

I have reviewed the information on the Parliamentary website. I understand the difference between an “e-petition” and a “paper petition”. I understand that an e-petition can only run for 30 days. To achieve my goal of 10,000 signatures I may need a protracted period beyond 30 days, although I am confident of widespread industry support, and would also draw on my local community to obtain my goal. My objective would be to achieve this figure in two months, with it commencing on November 1st and running till the last day of 2021, with submission to your office, in early 2022. I am also considering paying for two months advertising in a prominent aviation magazine to raise awareness of the issue and drawing the publics attention to the petition, I would appreciate direction from your office on the appropriateness of such action.

For these reasons, the E-petition may not be suitable, and the “paper petition” appears the better option. Could you advise whether a petition managed through a website such as Change.org or similar meets the requirements of a “paper” petition for submission.

My suggested wording for the petition follows, but I welcome any input from your Office, to ensure that all protocols are met. I have kept the petition within the 250-word limit.
 
PETITION

I, Glen Buckley, am requesting that the Minister responsible for CASA provide me with the opportunity for a 3-hour meeting.
My intention would be to submit allegations, against a CASA employee of “misfeasance in public office”, and to submit evidence in support of those allegations. At the end of that meeting, I would be seeking direction on how I should proceed.
To maximise transparency, efficiency and to ensure integrity, a Subject Matter Expert (SME) from the CASA Executive Management level should also attend that meeting and ensure that they have the opportunity to alert the Deputy PM if I misrepresent the situation.

The impact of this individuals’ decisions has led to the closure of several businesses, loss of associated investment, and jobs, and has no basis in safety or regulatory breaches.  Not only has it caused significant commercial damage, but it has also had a traumatic impact on the wellbeing of my family, and others.

When faced with alternatives he has deliberately and knowingly made the decision that results in the greater harm and did so repeatedly over an 8-month period. He was not compelled to make the decisions that he made.

At the time of applying his opinion and making his decisions and throughout the 8-month period, he would have been fully aware of the emotional and commercial trauma that would be caused to myself, my family, and others dependent on me, and was alerted to it on numerous occasions in writing. At any time, he could have resolved this entire matter, within 24 hours, but chose not to.

Thank you for your support, Glen Buckley
 
 As you will be aware from the wording, I am seeking a meeting and subsequent investigation of my complaint. That short investigation would ideally be done by someone with a level of industry expertise, to bring increased robustness to the process, and assist in getting to the truth of the matter in a prompt and efficient manner. My suggestion would be to draw from the recent applicants for the position of CEO of CASA. This does potentially impact on the safety of aviation, so a prolonged investigation is best avoided, hence my appeal direct to the Minister.

I feel that a petition is one of my few remaining options to bring integrity and transparency to the process. This individual I have made allegations against is actually in charge of this matter and managing the situation from within CASA. It does not seem reasonable that the person who has allegations made him, is also the person in charge of CASAs management of the matter.

He holds a position of power within CASA and can significantly influence CASA outcomes. I am fully satisfied that he is misleading the Commonwealth Ombudsman in his investigation and that is likely to pervert the outcome, hence my appeal to the Parliament for assistance, and most especially to you in your role as my local Member. The opportunity for me to present my evidence on this matter in support of the allegation is important.

I have raised these substantive allegations against this individual on multiple occasions to the previous Deputy PM, the Honourable Mr Michael McCormack, and have done so on repeated occasions for more almost three years. A limited sampling of that correspondence is attached as: Appendix McCormack in three parts.

Mr McCormack, whilst no longer the Deputy PM remains as a National Party Representative and would be the Subject Matter Expert (SME), within the Government. He has also been fully briefed by the Chair of the Board of CASA prior to his recent departure from the role.

Whilst I am not able to question the Honourable Mr Michael McCormack’s integrity generally, on this matter, it is fair to say, he has not acted in a well-intentioned manner. I say that because he chose not to engage with me on this matter, despite his awareness of it. Mr McCormack was fully briefed by the Chair of the CASA Board at the time in accordance with the Ministers Statement of Expectations.

The matter is complicated, but I believe that you have some pre-existing knowledge. I have attached two magazine articles that provide an overview. These articles have been provided to you some time ago, so I include them again for ease of reference. To anyone not familiar with the matter, these provide an exceptional overview, and are essential reading.

I have also attached a link to my presentation before Senate on 23rd November 2020, and a copy of Hansard. 

Senate Rural Regional Affairs & Transport Committee GA Inquiry - Mr Glen Buckley - YouTube 

It is in this Presentation to the Senate Committee, that I once again formally raised the allegation of “misfeasance in public office” against this CASA employee, and I followed that up immediately, with a formal written submission to the Deputy PM at the time, as the Minister responsible for CASA. That substantial allegation raised by me, was not responded to by his office, despite repeated requests both before and after my allegations were raised in Parliament and were bought directly to his attention.

Depending on the time you have to allocate to this matter, I also draw your attention to the “thread” that covers this topic in some detail. Despite being on what I assumed to be a discrete aviators forum at the time, it has now attracted well over ¾ million views. This matter is obviously important to the wider industry and has significant support. I refer you to the comprehensive information available via the following link. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums

 I also point out that allegations of a similar nature have previously been made against this individual, leading to an ABC investigative story by Adele Ferguson and Chris Gillett on the ABC 7.30 Report in October 2018. I have been approached by many within industry offering to come forward and tell their account of their experience with this CASA employee. Similarly, many of their lives and livelihoods have been destroyed have also been approached by CASA employees who have offered to come forward and tell the truth not only on my matter, but on others.

The purpose of this correspondence is to request a meeting with you or your nominee to seek guidance on how petition that could best be prepared for submission, and what protocols need to be met.

Shortly, I will be writing directly to the Deputy PM, making a request for a meeting. I have been trying to obtain this for over two years, to no avail, and I would like to pre-empt that anticipated rejection by proceeding as expeditiously as possible on this petition.

Please understand Ms Liu, that my family has lost everything as a result of this individual. I lost my two businesses, my home, I was forced out of the industry, I was bankrupted, and am now trully destitute. My business, shut down by CASA was my future security. I have no superannuation. My wife has had only 4 days free of work in over 2 years, as she tries to rebuild our life. The impact on her has been heartbreaking to watch as a husband. Should one of us be unable to work, the truth is we would be homeless. The future of my wife and I is dire, and depressing.

Thank you in anticipation of your assistance on this matter.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley.

---

I do believe there will be much..much MTF - 

[Sandy Reith]

I’ve written to Gladys Liu in support of Glen with copies to my MP Dan Tehan and Senator James Paterson. There’s no question that Glen has suffered from unconscionable treatment. This blatant injustice should not go unnoticed and without remedy.

As it stands it is a blot on the Government of Australia, an excrescence that must not be allowed to forgotten.

I would urge all to contact their MPs or anyone who might help.

[Kharon]

Sleepy Hollow's darkest secrets.

Buckley - "I also point out that allegations of a similar nature have previously been made against this individual, leading to an ABC investigative story by Adele Ferguson and Chris Gillett on the ABC 7.30 Report in October 2018. I have been approached by many within industry offering to come forward and tell their account of their experience with this CASA employee. Similarly, many of their lives and livelihoods have been destroyed have also been approached by CASA employees who have offered to come forward and tell the truth not only on my matter, but on others."


Most, if not all students of the CASA's actions would hear the clear chime of truth in Buckley's words. Those same folk would acknowledge that it is almost (but not quite) a near impossibility to have those same actions openly investigated. It is not only my personal opinion, but an almost universally held belief, that impossible as it may seem the only way to return credibility, trust and acceptance of the CASA is to take the lid off and examine, in broad daylight 'the case against'. Impossible as it may seem, it must be done - sooner rather than later; the festering canker must be excised.

"I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Any study of the long, long list of 'inquiry' clearly defines the extraordinary lengths gone to in avoidance of detailed examination of CASA actions. Yet, the remedy is simplicity itself: in camera, sworn statements from ex CASA employees. Fat chance right. But therein lays the truth - an inquiry into industry complaint, backed up by Q&A from the CASA officer involved (on oath - in camera) would unfold a story which would not only shock this sleepy nation and it's bipartinsane government awake, but disgust it. 

"One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise. This philosophy fitted on to my early adult life, when I saw the improbable, the implausible, often the "impossible," come true.”

Until there is a normalisation of the natural tension between the regulator and the regulated; expensive, pointless inquiry will continue to be a waste of time and resource. The only way forward is for the 'white hats' within the CASA to speak up, on  the record and set the ball rolling toward the right outcome. Too many 'good folk' have left the organisation; unable to stomach the 'Kool-Aid'.

I know, it'll never happen; but industry statements backed by 'white hat' evidence in a government backed 'fair-dinkum' inquiry (not the McDolittle version) would right many of the wrongs and restore industry faith in the regulator and government. Of course, a total lack of balls, brains and interest will preclude it; and we can only watch on, impotently as the occasional blood sacrifice to the daemons of 'public safety' are periodically made to sate the need for 'State safety coverage' no matter what happens..

Aye, the fool rambles; not many would disagree that CASA needs to be sorted; but when push come to shove - silence, the stern reply from those affected. .

Toot - toot..

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 23/09/21

Via email and the UP today:

I am fully satisfied that CASA has deliberately mislead the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office in the current investigation.
If CASA is to be believed, and I point out that they have very much led what I call an alternating narrative, then I would like to ask one very simple question that requires an explanation that calls into question the ethics, the intention, the integrity and in fact the lawfulness of this matter.

Appropriate at this stage that I refer to Mr Carmody’s Statement to Parliament at the Senate Inquiry into Australia’s General Aviation Industry Friday 20th November 2020. This is more than a year after I have lost the business, due to the restrictions CASA placed on the businesses ability to trade.

“Essentially, Mr Buckley has been asked to do one thing, deliver a legal document between him and his franchisees or his subordinates or whatever he calls them that clearly outlines who has the safety responsibility and supervisory responsibility. Put it in a legally binding document that we will accept, and we would be comfortable with the business model”.

That legally document that clearly outline “safety and supervisory responsibility” already existed, and Mr Carmody would have been fully aware of that and had access to it. It is called the Exposition.

The very same Exposition that CASA designed with me over a two-year period, fully approved in April 2017, and fully audited in November 2018, and raised no concerns at all about. That is the only industry document that contains that information.

The exposition clearly outlined safety and supervisory responsibility. Part of it is attached. It is only a small component of our manual suite, but the pertinent section at this stage.

If CASA had a new and additional requirement to be involved in the commercial contracts between entities that had never previously been applied to other Operators surely it was incumbent on CASA to provide clear and concise direction to me on what they required in the contracts.

There can be absolutely no doubt that I would put anything that CASA required into the commercial contracts. Admittedly it seemed bizarre, as these matters would normally be attended to in the Exposition that all staff comply with. However, as an industry first, CASA had chosen my organisation to involve themselves in the commercial contracts.

The significance of this is:

Quite simply, if CASA had come into my office and said, “Glen, we would like to work with the wording on your commercial contracts”.

They would have been met with a coffee and a biscuit, they could have sat down with me and my team. That would include myself as the Group CEO, my Group Head of Operations (HOO), my Group Safety Manager, my Internal Co-ordinator, and my Technical Writer. We would have embedded the wording exactly as CASA required.

The entire matter could have been completely avoided, CASA would have walked out of my office hours later full of caffeine and sugar, and fully satisfied with the content of the contracts. They would have been finalised, signed by all Members, and held on file by CASA.

Truly. If CASAs story is to be believed. Surely the question is.

How did we get to a situation where businesses have been closed down, peoples livelihoods have been decimated, employees have been left unemployed and unpaid, I have been bankrupted, suppliers have been unapid, students have been impacted?

The entire matter could have been avoided without CASA even sending that initial notification.

You understand, why I very much question the intent.

 

And Leady's reply to that...  

I say again, Glen:


The heart of the issue can be reduced to a handful of sentences. It's not that complex. And, with the greatest respect, continued voluminous correspondence with CASA or anyone else (other than a judge or tribunal member) will not change the heart of the issue.

CASA's position

CASA's current position is that, on its (recently conjured up) interpretation of Part 141 (and Part 142), APTA had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy CASA that APTA had sufficient operational control over its members. CASA's position is that CASA was justified in demanding from APTA "a tabular legend, showing how and where the actions called up under each applicable provision of the civil aviation legislation germane to the conduct of operations under CASR Part 141 [and Part 142] are effectively addressed in the terms of the contractual agreement(s) [between APTA and its members]", before CASA would be satisfied.

(You should note that "CASA" here just means the subjective opinion of an individual, the identity of whom you can safely guess.)

APTA's position

APTA's position is that what APTA provided was sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the legislation, noting that this assertion from 'CASA' is a fiction: "The operational and organisational arrangement contemplated by CASR 141 [and Part 142] are based on a conventional business model, under which all of the operational activities conducted by the authorisation holder are carried out, for and behalf of the authorisation holder by persons employed by, and in all respects as agents of, the authorisation holder.")

The practical problem

To get an authoritative statement of what Parts 141 and Part 142 actually require, APTA would have to spend years and hundreds of thousands, in a court or tribunal, battling master sophists wielding the 'safety' card. CASA will say that, absent evidence of how and where the actions called up under each applicable provision of the civil aviation legislation germane to the conduct of operations under CASR Part 141 [and Part 142] are effectively addressed in the terms of the contractual agreements between APTA and its members, those members could be out of control and creating high risks to the safety of air navigation.

If it makes you feel better to continue writing to CASA, what you should be asking for is specific authority for this proposition: "The operational and organisational arrangement contemplated by CASR 141 [and Part 142] are based on a conventional business model, under which all of the operational activities conducted by the authorisation holder are carried out, for and behalf of the authorisation holder by persons employed by, and in all respects as agents of, the authorisation holder." Ask CASA to cite a specific regulation, or a specific statement in an explanatory memorandum for Part 141 or 142, or the specific reasons of a judge or tribunal member who's considered the legislation, as authority for the proposition.

As I've said, the above is in my view regulation conjured in the mind of a complicator. The 'authority' for the proposition will, I reckon, boil down to 'the vibe' but expressed in enormously impressive but ultimately vacuous motherhood statements, assuming you don't receive the usual crickets chirping as a response. They don't care, because they don't have to.

 

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

There are no new ploys; only old whores.

The tested and proven chicanery has never let CASA down - all paid for through Com-Care's dollars, even when they lie through their teeth.

Buckley - "That legally document that clearly outline “safety and supervisory responsibility” already existed, and Mr Carmody would have been fully aware of that and had access to it. It is called the Exposition."

"The very same Exposition that CASA designed with me over a two-year period, fully approved in April 2017, and fully audited in November 2018, and raised no concerns at all about. That is the only industry document that contains that information. The exposition clearly outlined safety and supervisory responsibility. Part of it is attached. It is only a small component of our manual suite, but the pertinent section at this stage."

Poor, benighted Glen - lost and alone, a bit like Alice; her wot fell down a rabbit hole and tried to work out WTD was going on. When Glen applied for his AOC and wrote his 'exposition' (A Wally's word for Operation Manual) little did he know or understand the rabbit hole he'd fallen into. Alice in Wonderland - Glen in Blunder land - same-same....

In primus - Lead Balloon (legend) is providing, gratis, most excellent, logical advice . I shall, in my clumsy manner tell you a 'story' which may assist;(no names, no pack drill) your balance and even a strategy para-dime shift. I shall begin:-

Once upon a time a charter outfit ran head on into a bun-fight; brought into being by an accident - another long story with many 'in's and outs'. The upshot was, in broad terms - that 'matters aeronautical' needed to change. A letter detailing the 'mandatory' changes was issued - no option; comply or close down, no choices. So, in order to keep the business alive they set about a major 'change' - edicts accepted and, fully supported by the management team, no budget limitations, no arguments, complete support. It took a little while; but not too long, and in 'rapid' time (CASA clock) an operation was transformed; a fully approved, accepted and CASA applauded transformation, which worked extraordinarily well. Win - win. CASA delighted - management happy as pigs in clover - and why not; the system was efficient, operationally sound and 'cost' effective to boot.

All was well until one day; against advice, management decided (in their opinion) that the last four, imposed petty restrictions had to go; now - now. There was no reason for this; the restrictions would have been gone within three, possibly four months and clean bill of health issued along with a gold star; alas. I want, very much, to explain the next passage of play to Glen, in the hope that he full comprehend exactly what he is dealing with. In essentials, it is a very, very simple, short story. A badly phrased letter was writ; CASA responded with a very hostile audit. The 'operations manual'; fully approved and in effect for 18 months was declared 'null and void'. The previous manual suite was declared to be still in effect, despite clear (blood curdling threats that it must be discarded) - from there on, there was no hope of remittance. 40 odd jobs vanished as a successful company and several careers came to a sudden end - just like that. Why? Well my friend; that is what you are trying to face down. Hung, drawn and quartered on a manual that CASA insisted be changed; was changed, was operational for 18 months - suddenly declared 'invalid' and the case prosecuted against based on the 'old' system and it's manual. Give you a hint - operations went 'multi-crew' with all the whistles and bells (even a fledgling SMS)- approved and accepted (all signed off) - then declared invalid - all crew grounded because CASA denied all previous acceptance and approval was not 'not accepted' -  just like that. That is what you are facing down; LB knows and understands this; his advice is sage, timely and spot on.

There; a bed time story to terrify the kids with; but be prepared for the most extraordinary twists and turns to come out of the box. Never, not ever, believe that CASA have done all they can to you - believe me - there's more and there's no depth to which they will not stoop to ensure that 'they' and only they hold all the cards.

Aye sleep well - if you can.

Toot - toot...

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 29/09/21

Via the UP: 

Received from Ombudsman 23/09
Our ref: 2019-713834

Dear Mr Buckley

I refer to your emails below.

In our email to you on 23 December 2020 I noted that

• “one of the only outcomes we could potentially obtain for you would be an apology from CASA and advice that it did not direct APTA to end your employment. I believe this remains true. Please let me know if you are still interested in obtaining a written apology and formal advice from CASA that it did not give a direction to your employer in relation to your continuing employment. I can contact CASA to arrange for this to be done for you if you would like.”

My understanding from our subsequent contact was that you were not interested in receiving an apology if the substance was simply that CASA did not direct APTA to end your employment and if this apology was not published. My understanding is that the intention was to offer you an apology directly. Please let me know if you have changed your mind or we have misunderstood you on this point.

In terms of reports, our Office has not issued any formal reports about this matter. I note that a report would be issued under the Ombudsman’s name. That said, I acknowledge that earlier correspondence we issued to you was referred to as a “phase 1 report”. This was not a formal report, but was rather Mr Buss’ summary of our investigation at that point. The correspondence sought to confirm the matters we had finished examining, noted the matters on which there was broad agreement between our Office and CASA, and indicated the further aspects of the complaint we intended to examine. I apologise if we were not sufficiently clear about how the investigation proceeded from that point.

I am not aware of any specific comments you made that may have compelled CASA’s contact with APTA on 27 August 2019. However, as we have discussed, it does not seem to me that anyone is of the view that this contact was reasonable and appropriate. I note in this regard the outcome of your complaint to the Industry Complaints Commissioner, and the fact that on 29 August 2019 CASA clarified with APTA that it had no issue with your remaining an employee. Additionally, while I acknowledge your long standing view is that CASA’s actions in this case had an improper basis, I did not see a reasonable basis for this view on examining the internal documents we obtained from CASA during the investigation.

I acknowledge you remain dissatisfied by this whole situation. However, I remain of the view that our Office cannot obtain a better outcome for you by further investigating the complaint.

Yours faithfully

Mark

Complaint Resolution Officer

COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN

Lead Balloon's summary...

What's happened is this in summary:

1. CASA has distanced itself from the dude who got you sacked and CASA is willing to apologise to you (Glen) that loose cannon dude shouldn't have done what he did.

2. On the regulatory issues, CASA has said to the Ombudsman's office that we, CASA, are the authority and we say the rules allow us to require APTA to provide a bunch of information in order to be satisfied the rules as we interpret them are being complied with by APTA, and APTA did not provide that information. The Ombudsman's office has accepted that.

Unfortunately, I've seen this outcome across a number of areas where the Ombudsman's office is asked to investigate in the last half a dozen or so years. The Ombudsman's office just accepts what 'the authority' or 'the Department' says about some legal issue without actually reading the legislation or forming its own view about what it's been told about the effect of the legislation.

About the only shining light of a Commonwealth organisation that conducts fearless, competent and in-depth investigations and produces corresponding reports at the moment is the Auditor-General and the Australian National Audit Office. Unfortunately, it doesn't 'audit' the kinds of circumstances that crushed APTA into the ground. Its audits focus on the spending of Commonwealth money through e.g. grants (think sports grants rorts and car park grants rorts) or procurements (think $30million for a $3million block of land). Further, the government is of course trying to starve the Auditor-General and the ANAO of resources in order to reduce its capacity to highlight the many unlawful and incompetent actions of government agencies.

And GlenB's response to Mark from the Ombudsman's office and a thank you to Sandy...

Response to Ombudsman letter 23/09 Refer post #1729
Dear Mark of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office,

I apologise if my correspondence of 19/01/21 was not clear on this matter.

In your correspondence you noted; “one of the only outcomes we could potentially obtain for you would be an apology from CASA, and advice that it did not direct the Employer to end your employment. Please let me know if you are still interested in obtaining a written apology and formal advice from CASA that it did not give a direction to your Employer in relation to your continuing employment. I can contact CASA to arrange for this if you would like.”

I interpreted that as having two components;
one of the only outcomes we could potentially obtain from you would be an apology from CASA and
advice that it did not direct the Employer to end your employment
For clarity, I do expect an apology.

Regarding the first component, advice that “CASA did not direct my Employer to end my employment”., I felt that was of little value because CASA clearly did send an email directing my Employer to end my employment. I don’t believe that is in dispute by anyone, therefore, I could see little value in that component. It happened. It can’t “unhappen”

I do however very much expect an apology, and clarity around that direction.

I have had my two businesses shut down by CASA and. I was then forced out of the industry by that direction from the CASA Regional Manager. It was not practical that I could work in the industry again after that direction. It would and did become public knowledge very quickly.

Industry experience indicates that CASA usually restricted such directions to face to face verbal “suggestions”, rather than as written directives as in my case, for obvious reasons.

As you are aware several businesses were forced into closure by CASAs actions against me. Staff lost their jobs, careers were affected, staff lost entitlements. Suppliers were left unpaid, students training was impacted, and personally I was bankrupted. The moment that CASA put those restrictions on my business, it was doomed.

The personal cost to me runs into many millions of dollars, but there are also approximately one million of debts to parties that were completely innocent, and directly impacted by CASAs actions. They should not have been affected. It is reasonable that many of them would think poorly of me. If CASA shut me down, it would be logical that Glen Buckley had committed some very serious breaches of either a safety or regulatory manner.

Almost everyone in my life has been impacted, including three generations of my family. I have lived in this same area my entire 56 years, and everyone in my community knows that CASA shut me down and I was bankrupted. Its unbearably embarrassing and humiliating.

When I tried to find work and potential employers asked me what happened after 25 years in the aviation industry, I have to explain how CASA closed my business down and then sent an email to my Employer. In an interview that obviously raises concern. Its hard to sweep 25 years under the mat.

My families welfare has been absolutely decimated by the closure of the businesses. My mental health and physical health have been equally decimated. I carry an enormous burden every waking minute of the harm, that I have caused to so many.

My reputation has been absolutely trashed, and I am just too embarrassed to engage with anyone at all from the aviation industry. Many who have been significantly impacted.

None of this is based on safety, regulatory breaches, or quality outcomes. To anyone that doesn’t know the details behind this situation, it is likely that they will assume that Australia’s aviation safety regulator came down hard on me, and that I must have done something that was a grave and imminent risk to safety. When in fact, it clearly wasn’t.

I feel that an apology regarding that direction made public is a fair and reasonable request. It is essential that the apology identify that the direction was made on the basis of comments that I was making publicly, and not based on safety concerns or regulatory breaches.

I request that the apology be published nationally, and my preference would be that it is placed in Australian Flying or on the CASA website.

I am hopeful that you can assist me in obtaining an apology on this matter, and it seems a very fair and reasonable request, and it is very important to me.

Thanking you in anticipation of your consideration, respectfully, Glen Buckley.

---

Thankyou- Sandy - his letter to my MP.
I just wanted to express my thanks to a gentleman called Sandy Reith. For many from the Vic/Tas Region they will know Sandy as someone who owned and opertaed a local airfield. Despite departing the industry a number of yeras ago, he still remains active in protecting the interests of GA. I am very appreciative of the support that he has offered to me and the wider industry. Cheers Sandy. As with the efforts of you all, I am highly appreciative. Cheers. Glen.

Ms. Gladys Liu MP , Vic
Electorate Office, Burwood Vic.

15 Sept 21

Dear Ms. Liu,

I believe that Glen Buckley is appealing to you for assistance in relation to the conduct of CASA towards his aviation business.

I fully support his case and endorse his characterisation of the action against him by CASA as unconscionable, I would add disgraceful, and a blot on the Government of Australia.

I’ve been around politics for many years, my brother is Peter Reith, and I understand the difficulties that MPs have in determining the truth when assessing the many claims by their constituents. In this case a remedy for Glen Buckley would create a salutary example and potentially cause a great benefit to General Aviation (GA) and flow on throughout the Public Service. I’m sure that you will be aware that there’s a trend that Australians generally are tiring of bureaucratic over reach.

GA has been suffering for many years since the administration of civil aviation was removed from direct Ministerial control. Over-regulation and the creation of new and unnecessary permissions for which swinging fees are extracted from the GA industry have resulted in the decline of this once growing Australian industry with the loss of thousands of jobs and businesses. The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development statistics show this decline but not in the context of a nearly doubling of our population, thus the situation is much worse than Government agencies portray.

I’m a retired commercial pilot, previous owner operator of Phillip Island Airport where I was Chief Pilot and Chief Flying Instructor with various additional CASA approvals.

On the other side there is a great opportunity to create jobs and garner support from thousands of aviators, happy to discuss further.

Kind Regards,

Alexander C. Reith

sandy@reith.com.au

Next GlenB, on the way to work, emails the ANAO:

28/09/21 To the person responsible within the Australian National Audit Office.

I write to you in regard to the current audit into the Civil Aviation Safety authority (CASA) Planning and Conduct of Surveillance Activities.

I am writing to you as a person directly impacted by what I perceive as deficiencies in this area, and I feel that I could make a valuable contribution as part of a process of continuous improvement.

In short, I operated two businesses in the flight training industry, since 2005. That business underwent a complete revalidation by CASA in April 2017.

In November 2017, that entire business underwent a Level One Audit. This being the highest-level audit that CASA can conduct. It involved several CASA personnel over a period of one week. No concerns other than minor administrative matters were raised.

In October 2018, CASA determined that identical business was now declared unauthorised, and placed restrictions on the businesses ability to trade, leading ultimately to its demise which impacted on businesses, students, customers, suppliers etc.

Personally, this matter has cost me many millions of dollars and left me bankrupted.

I am concerned that the business could undergo a CASA revalidation in April 2017, followed up by a Level One audit six months later in November 2017, but be declared unlawful in October 2018. In a subsequent investigation, CASA had advised the Ombudsman’s Office that they were not aware of my business structure until just prior to October of 2018. The Ombudsman subsequently found that despite CASAs assertion, the business was in fact not unlawful. I find it concerning that CASA would not be aware of the organisation structure, despite conducting a level one audit.

Had CASA identified any concerns during the development stage prior to the April 2017, or during that audit, I may have had the opportunity to act in a more timely manner and avoid the associated closure of my own business, business dependent on me, and the impact onmany staff, students, and suppliers also impacted.

May I respectfully request that someone from your office contact me by phone on 0418772013 at a suitable opportunity. In order for me to discuss making a submission,

I would need to arrange a few days annual leave. If my matter is not pertinent to the current audit, then I obviously will not make a leave request to my current Employer.

Yours thankfully, Glen Buckley

What prompted this was the fact the ANAO notified an extension period for contribution to CASA audit:

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Planning and Conduct of Surveillance Activities

  Contribution for this audit has been extended until 28 November 2021

Finally Para 377 (aka Gobbledock) response to that:

Lead Balloon is correct. The scope of the ANAO’s audit processes centres mainly on government departments, agencies and bureaucracies spending. They predominately audit what, where and how budgeted monies are spent. As we all know, government money is mostly taxpayer money and that means each department must adhere to governance and spending processes. Even then, there is little to nothing that the ANAO can do, other than issue a damning audit report. A proverbial slap with the wet lettuce leaf. Unfortunately the scope of their work does not include whether a member of the public/taxpayer has been personally screwed or shat on by a government agency.

This government is happy to waste many many billions on continuous bureaucratic f#ckups such as the Defence submarines and aircraft debacles, pork barrelling and rorts programs, snowy hydro mess and the Great Barrier Reef gift of half a billion dollars, yet it cuts budget spending for the ABC and the ANAO! I wonder why that is? This government and successive ones are absolute shysters, crooks and incompetent morons. They are bending over 99% of Australia’s residents while looking after the interests of the 1%. It is no wonder, in fact it is of very little surprise that poor Glen is being treated like a little worker bee amongst a large hive. He has little say and certainly little assistance from the drones and their Queen as they center themselves in the middle of the hive and don’t give two handfuls of shit about the others.

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Stray thoughts

Or, whimsy from the workshop. I expect it has happened to most; involved in a routine task, mind at 'idle' when a stray thought creeps in, one worth exploring. I had spent a fair part of the previous day wading through the massive amount of 'correspondence' between Buckley and various agencies, trying to get down the core of the debacle; the root cause. Always a challenge, even with less complex issues than the Buckley conundrum. Anyway, I let the thought line ramble away, stray notions and half baked ideas included; got nowhere. Well, not to a definitive conclusion at least.

But: one notion stuck fast and (IMO) worth a mention - I reckoned it worth a post (FWIW). Way back, at the start of the Buckley troubles there was ample time and scope for 'avoidance' of the current situation. So, why did it all turn to worms? Let's fairly suppose that CASA had discovered 'problems' with some of Buckley's stuff as it approached final approval. Legal and or operational impediments to the approval being issued. What then?

It is fair and reasonable to expect that a meeting be arranged, a meeting where Buckley was calmly and carefully walked through the road blocks, the barriers clearly defined and explained, until Buckley fully understood the impediments. A benevolent administrator may even suggest some 'work -a round's to set the ship back on course. Then, armed with a full appreciation of 'why' his approval could not be issued - as matters stood; then he could set to work, re-jig the hard spots and resubmit the proposal, sans the sticking points.

Perhaps I missed the paperwork relating to a conference of this kind; the paperwork lost withing the mountains of correspondence; but I cannot find notes or mention of a 'sit-down' to sort out 'Why' his application was summarily dismissed. Passing strange it seems; green lights all the way; then - all stop. Aye, as presented 'tis a puzzle.

I shall ask Buckley about this, perhaps there exists a brief from CASA which explains and expands the 180 turn about; for if there is such an animal, I (for one) would like to read it.

Toot - toot..

[Wombat]

From prior experience, not with CASA, regulators get extremely stressed when they get caught with the cart before the horse. I am fairly certain that is what happened. Glen Buckley’s work in building APTA and the encyclopaedic knowledge of training school regulation required to satisfy CASA requirements - which he succeeded in doing, made him the pre-eminent subject matter expert (SME) on training school administration and regulation in Australia. Such a situation is anathema to CASA, hence APTA and Buckley had to be destroyed in order to both maintain their reputation for omnipotence and their control of the training regulation agenda.


Think of it; a network of schools with state of the art administration, obviously compliant, Backed by a comprehensive knowledge of the minutiae of the regulation that was better than CASAs, with perhaps thousands of students and growing across the nation, who then has control of the training regulation agenda in Australia? Not CASA.

Translation: Buckley got too big for his boots in the view of CASA management and had to be destroyed. I can think of no other reason to destroy the APTA business model.

This also begs the question why APTA was crushed while the sub standard training disaster that is SOAR was allowed to continue.



The weasel words in CASA’S supplementary submission (46.1) also point to how and perhaps who engineered APTAs demise. It would however take a supreme Court judge to dissect the obfuscation therein. What jumped out at me were words to the effect that “ Dr. Aleck was not directly involved” in the process of making decisions under the regulations and writing letters, “nor should he have been”. The key word is “directly” this begs the question: was he indirectly involved?

Then CASA cites “lack of evidence ….that CASA did anything.Well of course there is no evidence….because CASA did precisely nothing, it killed APTA by omitting to allow it to continue to operate for no real reason. This appears to be a favorite tactic - starve the business to death by withholding approvals or renewing permissions or exemptions.

The cure for that practice of delaying approvals to deliberately starve a business to death is to rewrite the operative sentences in the regulations and change: "CASA must not issue unless......" to "CASA shall issue unless...".

[thorn bird]

The law is a strange beast, words and wording carrying so much weight. What can be done, what may be done, what Might be done, what should be done, what must be done and on and on it goes. Then the big question what is the "Intent" of the law, what was it enacted for and what was it meant to achieve?

Therein lies the rub, keeps lawyers in a style they have grown accustomed for centuries arguing, for a fee, just exactly what was it "Intent" of the law as writ? There lies the schism between intent and the words. Our regulations are written by lawyers for lawyers, in legalise language, rather than for the understanding of them that must "comply" with them. Unfortunately for the GA industry nobody could afford to pay for lawyers to provide advice on the meaning of the words or ask via the courts, for more learned "advice" or judgement as to the meaning of the words. Intent gets completely lost in argument over words. Our bureaucrats know this, that was their "intent". It follows the prime objective of the bureaucratic class, that of control.

There is no doubt poor Glen Buckley's business model would not have existed but for the convoluted gobbledygook regulation provided by CASA. Buckley's business model created a workaround for rules that killed off small regional flying schools and aero-clubs because they simply couldn't afford the enormous cost of "Complying", perhaps not with the law so much, rather the competing egos and interpretations of the various "experts" within CASA of the meaning of the law. Bureaucrats hate it when someone with the smarts finds a workaround, it dents their ego's and all their sociopathic tendencies for control, thats why poor Glen had to go.

[Wombat]

I understand this morning that Glen Buckley is in hospital after a heart attack.I wonder if the behaviour of CASA may have been a contributing factor?

Thorn Bird is correct; “words matter”. I once had an object lesson to this effect dealing with a contract between our company and a somewhat colourful and high profile member of the orthodox jewish community. While everything was always legal, honest  and honourable and we both completed the contract successfully with reputations intact, I received a year long, highly enjoyable education in what the wording of the contract really meant.

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

PS - P2 comment : In response to my concerned SMS to GlenB today, I received in reply...

"cheers mate all good..."  Will follow up in due course...   

[thorn bird]

Not only "invites" corruption Wombat, there is little doubt that corruption does and continues to exist within the bureaucratic ranks, just look at the secondary airports as an example. There was a law, the airports Act, there was a legal document, a lease, there was "Intent" to preserve secondary airports for aviation use and development, all corrupted for the enrichment of development sharks.

[Peetwo]

Clinton McKenzie Addendum:

I understand this morning that Glen Buckley is in hospital after a heart attack.I wonder if the behaviour of CASA may have been a contributing factor?

Thorn Bird is correct; “words matter”. I once had an object lesson to this effect dealing with a contract between our company and a somewhat colourful and high profile member of the orthodox jewish community. While everything was always legal, honest  and honourable and we both completed the contract successfully with reputations intact, I received a year long, highly enjoyable education in what the wording of the contract really meant.

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

PS - P2 comment : In response to my concerned SMS to GlenB today, I received in reply...

"cheers mate all good..."  Will follow up in due course...   

CM, via the UP: https://www.pprune.org/11124001-post1761.html

I hope you recover quickly and completely, Glen.

One of the more ghastly realities we face is that some in CASA are prepared for us to be driven to physical or mental breakdown, and ultimately to the grave, in the name of 'aviation safety'. The most dangerous ones are those who are sure they are 'right'.

In 2018 I started a thread about Avmed's biased, intellectually dishonest and unlawful behaviour to which I was personally subjected. An apologist for Avmed posted (as a first post - that's always the 'giveaway') this:

Quote:

The emotional effort and time to 'fight' for a principle or against perceived slights is not going to be healthy for you in the long term.

In my supplementary submission to the Senate Committee inquiry into the general aviation industry I say this about the above statement:

Quote:

To people with that mindset, their compliance with the law is a matter of mere principle, not substance. Someone on the receiving end of their unlawful behaviour has suffered a mere perceived slight. Avmed is the authority, and it is for others to comply with whatever, in Avmed's opinion, is required in the interests of aviation safety. The law is for Avmed to wield against others, not for Avmed to comply with if it gets in the way of doing whatever, in Avmed's opinion, will contribute to the achievement of its noble cause.

The single quotation marks around 'fight' and the comment about resistance being bad for your health manifest the languid arrogance of someone who knows that if a mere individual wants to take on an authority committed to a noble cause, the authority is going to bring to bear formidable resources and tactics to drive the individual into the ground. Every 'trick in the book' is going to be used to 'win', including casting the individual in the worst possible light by exaggerating and catastrophizing risks and downplaying matters in favour of the individual. And the process will certainly be very bad for the individual's financial health. ...

Sound familiar?

Submission #56 to the current inquiry details a couple of examples of appalling behaviour and demands by Avmed that in my view are the product, at best, of negligent people who are insouciantly indifferent to demanding medical tests entailing risks to the pilot of permanent brain damage or death many, many orders of magnitude higher than the probabilities of winning the lottery, when people with specialist qualifications and experience consider the tests unnecessary.

It is to be hoped that the new CASA PMO is a change for the better. That would require her to understand and accept that Avmed is supposed to comply with the law like the rest of us. And you can't comply with the law unless you know what it is and means. In my first hand experience and observation, some previous occupants considered themselves to be laws unto themselves. I hope they haven't chosen another one of those.

Get well soon GlenB...

MTF...P2