[Sandy Reith]

I’m with P7-Tom 100%, as said the ‘Bull’ is one matter but the calf may turn out to be like the unwelcome gestation of the Alien movies, a monster nightmare scenario for GI (Government Industries).

Over many years CASA has given the boot to numbers of operators both in the flying and maintenance areas of General Aviation. Those unfortunates to be out of favour have had no practical recourse to test the justice of being put out of business. As Clark Butson of Polar Aviation remarked, having taken CASA to courts and appeals, ‘I’ve spent a million dollars to find that CASA can do whatever it likes.’ All of that Polar experience stemmed from an argument with an officious CASA inspector. Polar being a highly respected and very experienced turbine and piston operator with in house maintenance, and at the time in question around 25 or 30 years of unblemished record. Gladly I see that they at least are still in business, unlike others of whom I have first hand knowledge.

[Sandy Reith]

P7-Tom, I believe you are correct, progeny of a reconciliation with Glen Buckley might look, from the viewpoint of GI (Gov. Industries), like the gestation and birth of a creature akin to that double fanged acid dripping monster from the movie “Alien.”

Glen could be just the start, I have first hand knowledge of other cases, and there’s many who have been whacked out of business over the last four decades without any practical recourse.

As Clark Butson of Polar Aviation said, having pursued CASA through the courts, he’d spent one million dollars in legal fees only to find that CASA could do whatever it likes.

[Kharon]

On the Tote board @ 300/1.

Before you rush to invest your Choc Frogs at 300/1 on Open Inquiry in the Embuggerance Cup, consider those odds from a Bookie's stand point. - HERE.

It would be a fine thing to see a full, frank and completely open parliamentary inquiry into the way CASA have operated; into the incredible amounts of money invested in 'safety' for no substantive improvement and the unsupportable burdens imposed on the industry. 300/1 is a tempting number to the mug punter, and may be even worth a small investment from the seasoned veteran. But, in fairness before you place your bet consider the opposition.

Three decades of politicians, of all stripes have happily, in a gutless bipartisan way, been quite happy to simply step away from their sworn duty to the Australian tax payer. Carefully, political rumps have been covered from any 'fall-out' from accident, incident and even the ramifications of the legislation they wave through parliament. Seriously folks, can you imagine what a bipartinsane 'Mea Culpa' would do to the credibility of the elected? Mind you, there could be no leverage to either side of the House, both sides equally guilty.

The true heartbreak (IMO) lays in one simple fact - they all know how rotten CASA is; the whole lot, from mandarin to minion, from PM to the loony tunes independents. It would take a brave heart to even challenge the outrage, considering the level of self protection inherent and evident in the bipartinsane, undemocratic protection racket on offer to those who can turn a blind eye and still sleep at night. We often mention the term 'normalised deviance' in 'safety speak'. Perhaps we could start to use the parliamentary example as 'the' classic case study; for never has a deviance ever been so clearly demonstrated; and, the results of that deviance so easily discerned.

Roll up, roll up; 300/1 starting price for 'Open Inquiry' in race that will be never be run........


“Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ”

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 27/11/21

Via the AP email chains:

Dear Ms Spence and Mr Binskin,
 
As you are aware the Commonwealth Ombudsman is reviewing their investigation.
 
An individual within CASA has led the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the opinion that CASA made a number of attempts to resolve the contracts issue, before lifting the restrictions on the businesses ability to trade.
 
After 8 months, with all funds from the sale of my home exhausted, and my parents having contributed $300,000 of their own funds to maintain staff and maintain the large safety department, CASA finally provided the required text. On listening to the recording, you will clearly be able to identify the CASA employees assuring me that if I embed the text, I could return to Business as Usual.
 
I complied; CASA reneged on the commitments given. CASA then determined that it was illegal and forced all customers to leave APTA including my own flying school of 10 years Melbourne Flight Training.
 
I am supplying this to you to ensure that you have all the information that the Ombudsmans office has, and most likely substantially more.
 
As the CEO and Chair of the Board, there is no reason that you cannot make a decision and take action. Similarly, if you believe that an employee may have been involved in unlawful behaviour and misconduct, as in all Organisations you are empowered to act, and in fact compelled to act.  
 
The recording can be accessed via this link xxxxxxxxxxxx
 
My hope is that strong and ethical leadership can bring this matter to a well-intentioned resolution.
 
Respectfully Glen Buckley.
 
Obviously you will have access to all information, although I have included some pertinent emails below, the recording relates to the meeting from the accounatnts office on April 4th 2019.

Link: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...MELINE.pdf

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

You have to admire Glen Buckley, some have said desist or forget or just leave it because you can’t win. I say he is a courageous Australian who is fighting for justice and a fair go which matters to us all. In another life he would wear the Victoria Cross.

For far too long CASA, this out of control regulator, has been whacking people, putting them out of business and generally being at war with the whole of Australia’s General Aviation (GA) and for longer than most aviators and maintainers can remember.

But I do remember, and have watched with dismay, particularly from the late 1980s, as the bureaucracy has been allowed to grow unlimited sway over what should be a great Aussie industry.

Barnaby Joyce has been given the power that could reshape the regulatory environment with a rational and workable set of rules, and an administrator that is the servant of GA, not its scourge. This can only happen if the Westminster system is revived. The Minister is responsible and should administer through a Department of Government.

Sooner or later it’s all going to blow up in the government’s face as the years of neglect and bureaucratic overkill manifests itself in the realisation of the wasteland that should be a proper going aviation sector.

A sector that is a crucial element to our security as a Nation. We are not talking about the viability of coffee shops but the skills and infrastructure that could be needed in the defence of the Nation, let alone to show strength of capability. Never mind, she’ll be right mate, this is the government that is telling us, through an increased barrage of TV advertising, to respect people. We even get the same feel good advertisements from the Victorian government on the same commercial stations one after another. A sure sign that elections are coming. Ask Glen Buckley or Stan Van de Weil or many others about Can’tberra’s respect for hard working Australians, or the whole GA community for that matter.

Prime Minister Morrison declares he doesn’t want to see a federal ICAC like the NSW model because it is a kangaroo court. I agree with him, attempting to graft the inquisitorial European system onto the British legal framework with yet another ‘independent’ instrumentality will be one more too many. Can’tberra is already home to more than twelve hundred Commonwealth instrumentalities, many of them charging fees for (compulsory) service (?). Ironically the past master at the kangaroo court is CASA, right under the Cabinet’s nose.

Out of hope, politeness and receiving noises of sympathy and nodding understanding we have extended what is now an underserved period of grace to the new Minister, new Board of CASA and new CEO.

Six long months and nothing; except more GA people leaving the industry or dying, more aircraft being exported and still stuck with the debilitating regulatory nightmare that is Australia’s sorry legacy continuing for the aviation community.

[Wombat]

What would happen if the aviation community were asked to support independent candidates at the next federal election? This is a theoretical question.  In marginal seats might a few hundred votes make a difference?

Might there be people only peripherally interested who might help? I'm thinking of parents whose kids are aviation  minded through to modellers, drone users, Angel Flight supporters, etc.

What would one ask an independent to support?

- For example a rewrite of the Act:

. evidence based regulation using ICAO risk management methodology

. seperate regulating from enforcement.

. a requirement to foster the industry

.FAA rules

- removal of criminal penalties and strict liability.

etc.

Could it make a difference???

[Sandy Reith]

Wombat’s concept certainly would make a difference if it led to such legislation being enacted. The problem being that single issue parties have a very hard time against mainstream parties.

But very move for a new paradigm makes some difference, and never say never, even writing here and garnering support is adding to the cause.

But from previous attempts and following the course of politics it is a question of where to put the efforts to gain the best chance causing legislative action.

The one most promising and proven area of influence is support from the media, especially TV. If the dysfunction of GA in general and the unjust treatment of individuals were exposed by the media then there’d be a real momentum for change in the Parliament.

[Peetwo]

The embuggerance of Pudnik??

Via the UP:

Pudniks and CASA [2021/5950]

Hello all,

Glen Buckley encouraged me to share my story here, to gather feedback, and for ease of reference.

To paraglide or hang glide in Australia, one must be a member of the sports aviation federation of Australia (SAFA nee HGFA). The civil aviation order (CAO) 95.8 refers.

In Mar 2020, SAFA suspended my paragliding membership with no right of reply, and no right of appeal. This was for paragliding on Fri 13 Mar 2020 when no COVID lockdowns were in force, although SAFA wanted to lockdown anyway (to virtue signal I suppose). This membership suspension was unlawful under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (imho). Also the Australian Constitution says only the courts shall decide such matters.

In Aug 2020, I submitted my Part 149 paperwork to CASA to start my new paragliding organisation. Other Part 149 ASAOs are RAAus (GA) and APF (parachutes). SAFA is not yet an ASAO.

In May 2021, CASA tasked NSW Police to confiscate my wing with no warrant and no formal charges. CASA also tasked the Commonwealth Dept of Public Prosecution (CDPP) to investigate me for “flying an aircraft without a licence / unregistered aircraft (up to 2 years jail)” which remains ongoing six months later. The wing remains held with no formal charges. CASA is suggesting a paraglider is an aircraft despite its mass of 20 kg and airspeed of 20 kts, with no engine, no fuel, and no medical checks for pilots.

In July 2021, CASA wrote to confirm they are refusing to review my Part 149 paperwork, pending the ongoing CDPP investigation (which CASA started, then delayed by months by not providing basic information to the CDPP).

In Aug 2021, I referred CASA to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for their misfeasance re refusing to review my Part 149 paperwork in good faith, which they have held for over 1 year now. The link to the AAT matter is below (non-url mode sorry, due to being a new user).

http://online.aat.gov.au/eCaseSearch...no=2021%2F5950

Cheers,

Kurt.

Lead Balloon in reply:

Quote:

In Mar 2020, SAFA suspended my paragliding membership with no right of reply, and no right of appeal. This was for paragliding on Fri 13 Mar 2020 when no COVID lockdowns were in force, although SAFA wanted to lockdown anyway (to virtue signal I suppose). This membership suspension was unlawful under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (imho).

Nah. The AAT Act has nothing to do with it.
Quote:

Also the Australian Constitution says only the courts shall decide such matters.

Nah. You’re going to the AAT and the AAT isn’t a court.

Quote:

In Aug 2020, I submitted my Part 149 paperwork to CASA to start my new paragliding organisation. Other Part 149 ASAOs are RAAus (GA) and APF (parachutes). SAFA is not yet an ASAO.

And when you satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Part 149 approval, you will be entitled to it.

Quote:

In May 2021, CASA tasked NSW Police to confiscate my wing with no warrant and no formal charges. CASA also tasked the Commonwealth Dept of Public Prosecution (CDPP) to investigate me for “flying an aircraft without a licence / unregistered aircraft (up to 2 years jail)” which remains ongoing six months later.

Nah. CASA doesn’t task police and the CDPP does not do investigations. CASA can inform police of alleged offences and police can choose to investigate them and prepare a brief of evidence for the consideration of the CDPP. Or CASA can conduct the investigation itself and prepare a brief for the consideration of the CDPP. Maybe SAFA dobbed you in to the police?

Quote:

The wing remains held with no formal charges. CASA is suggesting a paraglider is an aircraft despite its mass of 20 kg and airspeed of 20 kts, with no engine, no fuel, and no medical checks for pilots.

It’s an aircraft. The clue is in the word “wing”. It's a "machine or craft that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air, other than the reactions of the air against the earth’s surface." CASA regulates gliders and model aircraft that weigh less than 1kg.

Quote:

In July 2021, CASA wrote to confirm they are refusing to review my Part 149 paperwork, pending the ongoing CDPP investigation (which CASA started, then delayed by months by not providing basic information to the CDPP).

The CDPP doesn’t conduct investigations. If it is doing anything, it is considering whether or not to commence a prosecution, on the basis of the brief given to it, in the context of the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth.

Quote:

In Aug 2021, I referred CASA to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for their misfeasance re refusing to review my Part 149 paperwork in good faith, which they have held for over 1 year now. The link to the AAT matter is below (non-url mode sorry, due to being a new user).

The AAT isn’t concerned about misfeasance and bad faith. It’s interested in whether your application satisfies the criteria for the grant of a Part 149 approval. You should focus on those criteria and showing the AAT that they are satisfied.

CASA will use whatever tactics they can to delay and put you in as bad a light as possible. Welcome to the party.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Royal Commission into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.


Ref: https://www.change.org/p/aviation-indust...5d3f22b052


 SHANNON BAKER started this petition to Aviation industry.

As we all know, CASA (Civil Aviation Safety Authority) have had underlying issues that have eroded industry confidence at all levels - for decades, after multiple senate enquiries over the years, it appears these have had little to no affect on how CASA continue to operate.

The first step to change - is an independent public investigation into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority... a Royal Commission would be the most appropriate medium for this, and would help restore industry confidence.

"A Royal Commission is an investigation, independent of government, into a matter of great importance. Royal Commissions have broad powers to hold public hearings, call witnesses under oath and compel evidence. Royal Commissions make recommendations to government about what should change."

The Royal Commission into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority should focus its investigation on:

1) If CASA is 'fit for purpose' in its current form, in particular to its Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Division (LIRA), if CASA's conduct is reasonable and in accordance with wider aviation community expectations.

2) CASA's apparent abuse of administrative law, and whether it is appropriate it retain these powers.

3) Whether it is appropriate for CASA to be involved in drafting aviation regulations.

4) Investigation into Freedom of Information requests to CASA and potential interference from (but not limited to) the Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Division, as openness and transparency are pillars for democracy, trust and progress which will give confidence to industry that good governance is taking place.

5) Investigation into whether there has been any use of taxpayer funds to protect CASA staff in litigation or legal proceedings who have engaged in misconduct or alleged criminal activity, or the signing of NDA (non-disclosure agreements).

6) The erosion of General Aviation in Australia through CASA decisions.

7) Airspace review to align more with the FAA. (USA) rules.

8) Any other matter of importance that should be investigated that comes to the Royal Commission's attention during its investigation.

In its findings, the Royal Commission should include comment on whether the establishment of an independent aviation ombudsman would be appropriate, and all matters that arise from the investigation that appear to be criminal in nature shall be referred to the Australian Federal Police or other relevant authorities for investigation.

The Royal Commission shall make its findings open, public and transparent, and shall accept submissions from the public during the investigation.

This petition will be presented to federal members of parliament.

[Peetwo]

Signing the RC petition and fear of CASA retribution??

Reference:

Royal Commission into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.


Ref: https://www.change.org/p/aviation-indust...5d3f22b052


 SHANNON BAKER started this petition to Aviation industry.

As we all know, CASA (Civil Aviation Safety Authority) have had underlying issues that have eroded industry confidence at all levels - for decades, after multiple senate enquiries over the years, it appears these have had little to no affect on how CASA continue to operate.

The first step to change - is an independent public investigation into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority... a Royal Commission would be the most appropriate medium for this, and would help restore industry confidence.

"A Royal Commission is an investigation, independent of government, into a matter of great importance. Royal Commissions have broad powers to hold public hearings, call witnesses under oath and compel evidence. Royal Commissions make recommendations to government about what should change."

The Royal Commission into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority should focus its investigation on:

1) If CASA is 'fit for purpose' in its current form, in particular to its Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Division (LIRA), if CASA's conduct is reasonable and in accordance with wider aviation community expectations.

2) CASA's apparent abuse of administrative law, and whether it is appropriate it retain these powers.

3) Whether it is appropriate for CASA to be involved in drafting aviation regulations.

4) Investigation into Freedom of Information requests to CASA and potential interference from (but not limited to) the Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Division, as openness and transparency are pillars for democracy, trust and progress which will give confidence to industry that good governance is taking place.

5) Investigation into whether there has been any use of taxpayer funds to protect CASA staff in litigation or legal proceedings who have engaged in misconduct or alleged criminal activity, or the signing of NDA (non-disclosure agreements).

6) The erosion of General Aviation in Australia through CASA decisions.

7) Airspace review to align more with the FAA. (USA) rules.

8) Any other matter of importance that should be investigated that comes to the Royal Commission's attention during its investigation.

In its findings, the Royal Commission should include comment on whether the establishment of an independent aviation ombudsman would be appropriate, and all matters that arise from the investigation that appear to be criminal in nature shall be referred to the Australian Federal Police or other relevant authorities for investigation.

The Royal Commission shall make its findings open, public and transparent, and shall accept submissions from the public during the investigation.

This petition will be presented to federal members of parliament.

Peter Brookman
24 hours ago

I believe a lot of CASA’s powers are detrimental to aviation and serves in no way for safety in aviation

---

Debra Koch
3 days ago

They have lied to me in the past. They are brazen faced shameful, deceitful and duplicitous. I would say a royal commission is the very least they deserve for chemtrail crimes against humanity

---

Sean Frewin
3 days ago

We need a fair, just and impartial authority to oversea aviation safety in this country.

---

Derek Liston
4 days ago

As a retired LAME and still current PPL I am well aware of the problems with CASA and in my particular case the Aeromedical branch.

---

Michael Carlin
4 days ago

A government department about as useful as pedals on a wheelchair. Needs a complete overhaul urgently.

---

Marjorie Pagani
5 days ago

The lack of accountability and cost to aviation has gone on far too long: the police shouldn’t be writing the rules. Departmental supervision is overdue.

---

Wally Sturgeon
5 days ago

Running 2 parallel systems since 1998 should have been fixed up long ago. Show me another country that has kept this up for the last 23 years. If you plan to adopt e.g. the EASA system, and then tamper with it you end up in 'no man's land' in terms of International harmonisation.

---

Terence McGowan
5 days ago

casa needs to have aviation experienced people. Not political appointees. Someone who has actually been involved in general aviation.

---

Bob Pagett
5 days ago

CASA need to be held to account for the mismanagement and obvious corruption that sits within the Dept.

---

Bryn Watson
5 days ago

CASA has become the single biggest threat to my safety as a professional helicopter pilot. Their well outdated methodology for regulating safety is creating more problems that they purport to solve.

---

Christopher Atkinson
5 days ago

CASA has destroyed general aviation in this country

And from GlenB, via the petition:

Glen Buckley
22 hours ago

I am personally affected by the unsafe culture that exists within CASAs Legal, International and regulatory branch under the stewardship of CASA employee, Mr Jonathan Aleck, having had my business closed down by this man. Action is needed before he causes any more harm to anybody else. There is a "cover up" of his misconduct, and the only way to expose him is for a Royal commission to be announced. Australian owned businesses, and in fact aviation safety is dependent on that Commission. I encourage all to sign and support positive change

Plus via the UP: 

Petition signed

I encourage every participant in GA, concerned about the future of the industry to make the effort and sign this petition. It really is crucial, and I commend the organizer for sticking his/her neck out and having the courage of their conviction for initiating it.

As someone previously being publicly critical of CASA and having my livelihood destroyed, I can only hope they don't track you down and cause the same harm to you and your business. Mr Aleck can be a very dangerous man to cross. I say that from my own personal experience.

Hats off to you, cheers. Glen

In reply Shannon Baker highlighted why it is that many in industry will be reluctant to sign:

Glen,

This was the main concern bought to me by those who wanted to sign, but ultimately did not - out of fear of not being able to sign anonymously so as to not attract the attention of CASA.

Only those who have witnessed this BS first hand would even begin to comprehend how bad the problem really is - 99% of the industry have NO idea.

If police acted the way some of the CASA staff do, in my opinion they would be in gaol. - I wish I was exaggerating, but I am not.

They love to play the game of "who do you believe more"... Unfortunately to a third party not involved with aviation they view CASA as the "experts" and cannot fathom why they would be motivated to lie, deceit or mislead... But, in my opinion.. they do.

To this GlenB has responded with a query:

fear of retribution

There can be no doubt that many with a business operating in GA may be concerned to sign the petition.

From my own personal experience, criticism of CASA can be met with fierce retribution.

Im not sure if someone can clarify this for me.

I am unable to access the signatories unless they have also made a comment.

If you make a comment your name is displayed.

If you simply sign with no attached comment it appears your name is not displayed.

If that is the case, and i hope someone can confirm that, more industry participants may be prepared to sign, if a higher level of anonymity can be maintained

   

P2 question: Hmmm...remember this? ( HANSARD & TICK TOCK!! - Time's up Ms Spence )

CHAIR: I do. I am really frustrated that, having heard the evidence this afternoon, Dr Aleck didn't come prepared for questions about Angel Flight, about the costs. He is the head of the legal team. He would have been directing the proceedings. I imagine that he had to sign off on what the requests to the courts were and then what the courts decided. I would be fascinated to know what amount you asked the court to award and then what the court did award. I cannot believe, Dr Aleck, that you do not know the answers to this question. I appreciate that Ms Spence is covering for you, but I am very, very unhappy with the horrible abuse of your position with CASA. It's not right. For regional people [inaudible] general aviation, they are terrified of what you do to people.

In the interests of further protection of anonymity, I wonder if Change.org can facilitate certain aviation advocacy associations (plus industry stakeholder groups/businesses) the ability to present their membership as a combined number of signatories under the association's banner? 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 8/01/22

Via the AP email chains:

---

From: Ombudsman <Ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.au>
Sent: Thursday, 6 January 2022 9:11 AM
To: defendapta@gmail.com
Subject: REVIEW – Complaint to Ombudsman about CASA; ref 2019-713834-R – Glen Buckley [SEC=OFFICIAL]
 

OFFICIAL

 
Our ref: 2019-713834-R
 
Dear Mr Buckley
 
I am writing to let you know that I am the Review Officer reviewing your complaint to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman about CASA. I apologise that I did not contact you sooner.
 
I am in the process reviewing and assessing the information and documentation on your file. Due to amount of information this process is taking longer than anticipated, but I am progressing your matter with priority. I also wanted to let you know that I will be on leave from today until the end of January, so will not have any further updates for you in that time. I will contact you again in February with a further update.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Catherine
Review Officer
COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN
Phone:   1300 362 072
Email:    ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.au
Website: ombudsman.gov.au
 

---

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

Apology with no explanation and then more delay and eventually the ‘independent’ Ombudsman will pussy foot around as they did before. Why expect this arm of Government Industries (GI) to change its MO and upset its GI mates over in Aviation Hearse?

And there’s only one person that can progress Glen Buckley’s case? A case that any competent person could resolve in a day or two. That resolution would be that CASA owes Glen Buckley three or four $million because even the Ombudsman’s tea lady would see the travesty committed by CASA.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

You’d have to wonder why we have elected representatives when we are blessed with so many hard working independent GI workers all slaving away delivering public services at the lowest cost and with minimal restrictions to private enterprise.

[Kharon]

Sandy - "Justice delayed is justice denied".

: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments". 

If and it is a bloody great big IF (huge) Buckley was a one off - a rarity - an exception; then most of us would sit back, give the keyboard a day off and watch with interest as the case unfolded; allowing the 'law' to run it's course and abide with the decisions made. But, as the old Gershwin song says - "it ain't necessarily so" - is it.

There exists a long list of carefully examined cases of 'Embuggerance'; not one, but many, some of them IMO, matters some serious concern to the fundamental tenets of the justice system, laws and freedoms hard won in our democratic nation. Both the  Buckley and Angel Flight matters while significant, are not on the list of extreme embuggerance. For example there is an on going battle between an operator and the CASA, the details of which may not, as yet, be openly discussed which has been described by a couple of top draw 'legal eagles as hair raising. This, once again, is not an isolated 'one off' but one of the many cases which demand serious examination by the judiciary.

There is a long list of 'Senate Inquiry' : there is a warehouse full of industry submission to those inquiry; there is an industry fully aware of and vocal about the behaviour of the regulator. Yet, at the termination of every costly inquiry the deep, dark, repetitive underpinning element of the discussions is never mentioned, let alone investigated or examined impartially. The heartbreak part is that the Senate committee members are fully aware of the travesties; have the power to invoke the real inquiry which must be made; and yet do nothing but sit back and allow it all to continue unabated; tacitly encouraging through inaction a continuance with increased confidence of CASA being above the rule of law.

The longer this national disgrace continues, the greater the shame on those who could , but failed to fulfil their obligation to a democratic nation.

Toot - toot....

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 10/01/22

Via the AP email chains:

---

09/01/22
 
Dear Ms Spence, CEO of CASA,
 
In your recent correspondence to me, you stated the following: “We do treat your allegations very seriously and if you have new information or evidence to support such an allegation it is appropriate that it be provided to the Ombudsman so that it can be included in their review. Until that review is completed, it is not appropriate that we comment or interfere with the independent process in place.”
 
I agree that it is not appropriate that you “interfere”  with the independent process in place. I do however feel that as the CEO of CASA you are compelled to ensure that truthful and factual information is provided to the investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman’s Office. Mr Aleck in his role as the Executive Manager of Legal International and Regulatory Affairs has clearly provided untruthful advice to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office. I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck has provided that untruthful advice in order to pervert the outcome, and to cover up his misconduct.
 
As the CASA Organisational Chart indicates that Mr Aleck is a direct report to you in your position as the CEO, you are the most appropriate person to write to on this matter, and to ensure that any misconception manufactured by Mr Aleck is clarified with the Ombudsman’s Office. As you are aware I have made allegations of misfeasance in public office by Mr Aleck, before Parliament to Senator Susan McDonald. I encourage you not to be complicit in covering up that misconduct and to take appropriate action and act with integrity commensurate with your position.
 
Mr Aleck has led the Ombudsman to be of the view that CASA does not and has not ever permitted multiple entities to operate under a single AOC which is blatantly not the truth.
 
Whilst I can only draw on the 25 years that I have been involved in the industry, throughout that entire period CASA consistently permitted this arrangement. Whilst there is an overwhelming body of evidence, can I draw your attention to this very clear demonstration that supports my assertion.
 
Latrobe Valley Aero Club operated under the AOC of Bairnsdale Air Charter. When Latrobe Valley Aero Club transferred from Bairnsdale Air Charter to my business APTA under the identical arrangement, CASA determined my business unlawful and closed my business down, at a personal cost to me of several million dollars, and significant “fallout” to employees, customers, and
 
My assumption is that Mr Aleck will continue to propagate falsehoods to protect his position. I appreciate that you are relatively new to the position, and it is not reasonable to expect you to be a Subject Matter Expert on this particular topic. May I suggest that you establish contact with Flight Operations Inspector, Mr Naomichi Nishizawa. In his position he was overseeing both Bairnsdale Air Charter and my organisation and could be considered a Subject Matter Expert on this particular topic. He would be able to bring clarity to the matter. Mr Nishizawa has a well established reputation in the industry achieved after many years as a CASA employee demonstrating the very highest levels of integrity and professionalism.
 
Can I ask that you confirm to me that you will clarify the truthful situation with the Ombudsman Office or if you choose to support Mr Alecks assertion, so that I can consider what action I should take.
 
I apologise for involving you in this matter, although I am sure you appreciate the substantive nature of my allegations.
 
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
 
 

---

 
And via the UP, Lead Balloon's comment in reply to Glen B's previous correspondence:

Lead Balloon

My guess is that ‘CASA’s’ explanation - i.e. Dr Aleck’s explanation - will in effect be that all those drones working out in the regions and interacting with the GA industry aren’t ‘CASA’. They don’t understand the regulatory framework and don’t make decisions as to CASA’s position on regulatory requirements. Only ‘CASA’ - i.e. Dr Aleck - does.

That’s why the email from Mr White to Glen setting out ‘CASA’s’ view on the requirements of Parts 141 and 142 was, in effect, Dr Aleck using Mr White as a glove puppet. “Dr Aleck says and I agree with him…”. I also note that the ‘requirements’ set out in the email were invented by someone who evidently doesn’t understand the law of agency and hasn’t read Parts 141 and 142.

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

Glen Buckley, has, in the view of probably the vast majority of General Aviation who have followed the disastrous course of GA administration, an open and shut case against the CASA.
The only variation to his appeal might be not to apologise, the boot is really on the other foot.

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 11/01/22

Via the AP email chains:

Dear Ms Spence,
 
With the greatest of respect to your position.
 
Over 12 months ago, before Parliament and directly to Senator Susan McDonald, I made an allegation of Misfeasance in Public Office. I made that allegation against Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs. A substantive allegation. One that I stand 100% behind and can support with an overwhelming body of evidence.
 
For complete clarity, I am alleging that CASA has misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office in its current investigation and has done so with the intention of perverting the outcome of that investigation.
 
I have provided you with an opportunity to rapidly determine whether Mr Alecks Office has in fact misled the Ombudsman’s Office.
 
The Ombudsman’s Office appears to be of the view that, CASA was not integral in the design and approval of the APTA business model, and that CASA only became aware of the APTA business model just prior to reversing it approval without warning in October 2018.
 
That CASA  position is the complete opposite of the truth.
 
CASA was integral in the design and approval of the APTA business model and was fully aware of the structure for 2 ½ years before they claim that they first became aware.
 
You suggested in your previous correspondence, that the Ombudsman could contact Flight Operations Inspector Mr. Naomichi Nishizawa. My suggestion is that you personally establish contact with your employee and put the question directly to him.
 
Ask him the following.
 

• When did CASA first become aware of APTA?
  
• How involved was CASA in the design and approval of CASA?
  
• Why would CASA permit Latrobe Valley Aero Club to operate under Bairnsdale Air Charter but not under APTA?
  

 
With the responses to those questions, within 15 minutes, you will be able to make a determination as to whether this matter needs to be clarified with the Ombudsman office. I would also ask that you advise me of CASAs position as I am the person impacted.
 
Unlike CASA, my intention is not to “blindside” anybody. My request is entirely reasonable. Should you choose not to avail yourself of the opportunity, it then becomes a matter of Governance, at which stage I will, write with my request, directly to the CASA Board, and consider my option of contacting Mr Barnaby Joyce. Although Mr Joyce, was not the responsible Minister at time, and is relatively new to the role, I would urge him to draw on the knowledge of the previous Deputy PM, Mr McCormack who has extensive knowledge of this matter, and would be considered a Subject Matter Expert (SME).
 
For your information I will be appearing on an AOPA Facebook live conference at 7PM and would encourage you to view that program when time permits.
 
Respectfully, Glen Buckley

Next via the UP:

Paragraph377

Glen, Ms Spence is following the government manual entitled; “Mandarin Deflection Protocols For Career Bureaucrats’”. All agency heads have to study and apply the protocols contained within this manual when dealing with industry stakeholders, e.g Glen Buckley. Ms Spence is well versed in the procedures contained within the mandarin manual, particularly the chapters dealing with how to deny, deflect, obsfucate, divert, and cover up. You don’t become a Secretary, COO, CEO or any other fancy Department title without having proved yourself capable of engaging in the aforementioned protocols over an extended period of time.

Glen, for over 20 years the Loyola Lawyer has been able to crush and remove obstacles to CASA (people like yourself) by drawing on his narcissism, ego and pride, and of course his unique ability to write weasel words and ‘CASA get out of jail free cards’ into the regulations. He has made sure that he, as a public serpent, has an endless bucket of taxpayer money, access to a long list of high-end Barristers, and of course the naivety and stupidity of a list of former (and current) dopey CEO/DAS’s. He has the perfect work environment for a little old man with small cojones to work in.

Ms Spence will stay for a few years, then move on to another department. She will swan around the cafe scene of Can’tberra for a few more years yet, pick up her OAM, fill the superannuation account with many taxpayer dollars and then tootle pip off into the sunset. At that point, the game begins again……and again and again.

As always, I wish you the best in your endeavours Glen. Keep up the good work and may 2022 be the year that the thorn in CASA’s flesh be embedded deeper.

And GlenB in reply:

Paragraph. You were spot on.

Dear Mr Buckley

Thanks for your follow up email

Just to be very clear, the issues you have raised are the issues I am expecting to be addressed in the Ombudsman’s independent review.

I am committed to supporting the ombudsman in their independent review and see that as a more appropriate path than undertaking an internal exercise that you are suggesting.

Yours sincerely

Pip

My Response

Dear Ms Spence,

Understood. I will contact the CASA Board.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

And from P377 in reply:

Ms Spence is actually ‘committed’ to relieving the taxpayers of approximately $700k per year, committed to rising even higher through the ranks of federal government in the Mandarin fantasy land, and she is committed to remaining a loyal footstool to the Minister of the day and licking, shining and polishing his boots (unless it’s Barnaby, whose boots are coated in cow shit and sweat!)

And finally BM postpones public hearing:

Postponed AOPA Facebook Live presentation

I have just been liaising with Ben Morgan from AOPA. We have delayed todays scheduled presentation at 7PM. I will get back to you as soon as i have the new date. Cheers. Glen

MTF...P2 

[Wombat]

I wouldn't be too hard on Ms. Spence, nor would I contact the CASA Board and I think delaying AOPA is essential. Two words: "Back off".

Despite what anyone here thinks, Dr Aleck is an employee of CASA in good standing, entitled to the presumption of innocence, procedural fairness, equity and natural justice and for Ms. Spence to act otherwise and not respect his rights will land her and CASA in a world of hurt conceivably including his walking away with a few million while you get to explain your baseless and defamatory allegations to a judge.

There will be no lynching. Grow up.

As has been said many times: " The mills of Government grind exceedingly slow but they grind exceedingly fine." There is also an old British anglo-indian administration saying; "The file must talk".

IF, and it is a big IF, there is written evidence in the Buckley files held by CASA, that supports Glen Buckleys allegation that something material has been deliberately misrepresented by Dr. Aleck for illegal purposes, then, perhaps, Dr. Aleck MAY have a case to answer. That something would need to be clear and unequivocally deliberately untrue with a purpose to deceive. NOT a verbal brain fart at a Senate Inquiry or over a coffee somewhere. NOT hearsay as in "Dr Aleck told me to say....". NOT a crime of omission. NOT a bull session with the Ombudsman. NOT Hansard and NOT some handwritten note. And furthermore the something must be of a nature that cannot be attributed to misplaced zeal for "safety".

If its in the File Ms. Spence will see it, if its not, you are SOL. If its there, well, there is no greater PS crime than falsifying something in the file - making the file lie to a reader.

"But! But! But!" You say; "presumption of innocence, fairness, natural justice, equity! Those are all things that have been denied by Aleck to pilots, operators and engineers for decades!".

That may be true, but it doesn't matter. Ms. Spence will have to get up very early in the morning if she or anyone else is to penetrate that alleged layer of teflon and if she mishandles this matter then she will be the one leaving CASA, not Dr. Aleck, who might then become acting DAS. You didn't think about that did you?

All power and best wishes to the Ombudsman and Ms. Spence. Our prayers are with you.

P.S. Watch the Djokovic hearing if you want to see what a good QC can do to 'regulations".

[Kharon]

Just got time for a quick note in full support of the Wombat advice. Emotive pleas made on an AOPA you tube gab fest are not helpful. Guile, cunning, experience as provided by first class legal advice are the best bet. Not always a winner - but short odds on to run a place. We all want to see Glen back up, running and compensated, that would be a righteous result; but; it is still CASA's bat, ball, wicket and paddock; mind how you go.

Toot - toot.

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 21/01/21

Via the AP email chains:

---

Dear Air Chief Marshall (Retd) Mark Binskin AC, Chair of the Board of CASA, and Members of the CASA Board.
My name is Glen Buckley. You will be aware of my matter, as it has been the subject of an ongoing investigation by the Ombudsman’s Office, and I have written to the CASA Board on multiple occasions.
 
Background Information
CASAs basis for shutting down my business with no warning, was not based on any identified safety concerns, nor concerns about operational control, or in fact, any identified quality outcomes at all. CASA has never made any assertions against any of those criteria.
CASAs basis for closing my businesses was simply an allegation that my business was operating unlawfully against CAA 27(8), this was even though I had been operating for over a decade, and the last six years in the same “structure” that you claim was unlawful. Importantly, this structure was designed and revalidated over a two-year period with 10 CASA personnel involved and was fully revalidated 18 months prior to CASA suddenly determining that it was now “unlawful”.
CAA 27(8) was the only single piece of legislation that CASA ever made an allegation against and was the basis for declaring my business “not permitted”, giving it only 7 days surety of operations, placing restrictions on its ability to trade, enforcing an administrative freeze on all pending CASA regulatory tasks, and then contacting and requiring all customers to leave my business. This allegation made by CASAs Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Department, can be found, on the upper half of page 2 of the attached initial CASA notification (Appendix- Initial Notification).
In that correspondence you refer to the legislation and state, “Section 27(8) of the Civil Aviation Act states an AOC is not transferable. “
The interpretation and application of that legislation as a basis for closing my business down, with no prior warning, is the first time in my 25 years in the industry that I have seen it applied by you in that manner and has absolutely no industry precedent. For complete clarity, I do not feel it had any lawful basis, and I do not believe it was well intentioned. It was yet another case of Mr Jonathan Aleck decimating somebodys life and their livelihood.
CASAs previous and consistent interpretation of CAA 27(8) “an AOC is not transferable”, has been that the CASA issued AOC, cannot be sold or transferred on its own. i.e.

• CASA   permits an Authorisation Holder to sell his Company and AOC together.
  
• CASA does not permit an Authorisation Holder to retain his Company and transfer the AOC only, to another Entity. The AOC cannot be sold as a “stand alone” item.
  

Hopefully you can appreciate my confusion, and why I have absolutely no understanding of why this specific legislation was used to cause so much harm. There was never any attempt by me to sell the business or transfer the AOC, either together or separately. None.
From my perspective, that allegation of a regulatory breach is ludicrous, and a complete change by CASA in the way that they had applied that legislation and has no precedent at all.
I completely refute that I ever transferred my AOC or considered transferring my AOC. I believe that your opinion has no valid basis in law or precedent
My allegation against CASA Executive Manager Jonathan Aleck of deliberately providing misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office
To the purpose of this correspondence. I am fully satisfied that substantive and misleading information has been provided to the Ombudsman’s Office with the intention to pervert the findings of the Ombudsman’s Office.
That information was most likely provided by CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, Mr Jonathan Aleck. You will be aware that I have made an allegation of misfeasance in public office against him in Parliament before the Senate inquiry and followed up with correspondence to the Board and the office of the Deputy PM at the time, Mr McCormack, as the Minister responsible for CASA.
You will also be aware that many other individuals and Organisations have made similar allegations against Mr Aleck of misconduct, none of which have been addressed by CASA. The continued coverup of Mr Alecks conduct through to the very highest levels of CASA is despicable and continues. As recently as yesterday, I have been contacted by people who have similarly had their entire lives decimated by this man.
The purpose of this correspondence is to bring to your attention that clearly misleading information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office by Mr Aleck, and for the Board to take appropriate action to ensure that the information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office is corrected, and that truthful information be provided.
You will be aware that I have written to Ms. Pip Spence, the CASA CEO, and she has chosen not to correct this situation. I understand that as an appointed public servant she may have other considerations that prevent her from acting in the manner that I would expect. It then becomes a matter of ethics, integrity, and truthfulness, it is a matter of Governance, and I feel it appropriate that I write to the Board.
Ms. Spences response was that she did not want to correct the clearly false information provided by Mr Aleck because she did not want to “interfere” with the investigation. I am fully satisfied that if CASA chooses not to correct that situation, then CASA is in fact becoming complicit in facilitating that situation, and therefore actually “interfering” in that investigation by choosing to endorse Mr Alecks blatant misrepresentation of the truth.
For complete clarity, I allege that CASAs Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Branch under Mr Aleck has clearly misled the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that CASA was not aware of APTAs structure until just prior to the notification in October 2018 that led to the closure of the business.
This substantially misrepresents the truthfulness of the situation. There has been substantially misleading information on several topics provided to the Ombudsman’s Office although in this correspondence I am addressing only this one topic. That being the prior knowledge that CASA had of my business model.
In support of my allegations, and calling on you to rectify the situation, I am providing you with the following information, all of which you have the capability to satisfy yourselves as to the accuracy of, and then to act as the Board of most organisations would be compelled to act on.
 
Evidence that CASA was fully aware of the exact structure of my business model well before CASA assertion that they first became aware, “just prior to October 2018” when they acted and closed my business down.

1. CASA own Industry Complaints Commissioner stated the following in his own investigation: “CASA had an awareness of the APTA business model for a significant period of time prior to its compliance with regulation being called into question. In changing its position so drastically, the circumstances were such that CASA’s actions weren’t fair, given APTA’s likely to have relied on CASA’s failure to highlight any concerns when conducting its operations and planning.”
   

If the findings of CASAs own Industry Complaints Commissioner are not enough to compel you to rectify the misinformation, then I ask you to also consider the following,
 

1. CASA had always permitted, and formally approved, more than one flying school entity to operate under a single AOC provided that the Authorisation Holder accepted full responsibility and accountability for all persons operating under the AOC irrespective of where they drew their salary. That was the case throughout my entire 25-year involvement in the industry, and in fact that was the case for decades prior. Any CASA Flight operations Inspector with experience prior to October 2018, will be able to verify the truthfulness of that situation to you. The CASA Board will be able to ascertain the truthfulness of that statement easily and promptly, and therefore becomes compelled to act.
   

 

1. CASA was fully aware that I had been delivering a multi base, multi entity approach to flight training for at least 6 years before CASA claim that they first became aware of it. With full CASA approval, and by way of formal processes, I had taken over operational control of AV8 (a Darwin based flying school), 6 years earlier. It is simply ludicrous for CASA to suggest that they had no knowledge of this operation, as a formal and comprehensive CASA process was required. This clearly demonstrates the precedent that CASA permitted such activity and was fully aware of what I was doing for at least 6 years before Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman’s office believe.
   

 

1. CASA approved via formal processes referred to as a Significant Change, the addition of other bases including, Melbourne Flight Training (my own school), Learn to Fly and AVIA. The latter two schools being Moorabbin flying schools not owned by me. The addition of these two additional bases occurred approximately two years before Mr Aleck claims CASA first became aware of the structure. This involved my business submitting manuals and procedures that were fully approved by CASA. It involved CASA visiting the sites to assess their suitability, and me having to pay fees for those CASA tasks.
   

 

1. CASA conducted the highest-level audit referred to as a Level One Audit. This occurred in November 2017, approximately 1 year before CASA claim that they first became aware of the structure. This involved visits to the CASA approved bases. It is not reasonable to claim that CASA auditors visited these bases and engaged with my Key personnel at those sites and addressed correspondence to my organisation about those audits at those sites. It would simply be ludicrous for CASA to maintain that they were not aware.
   

 

1. Many CASA employees attended our weekly Group Meetings, and minutes of those meetings and attendees can be provided. Ten CASA personnel attended those meetings 18 months before Mr Aleck claims that CASA first became aware. During the CASA attendance at those group safety meetings it was very clearly apparent that we were operating a multi base, multi entity structure. Furthermore CASA personnel attended and delivered briefings to meetings with all bases in attendance.
   

 

1. Mr Alecks false assertions also disregard the fact that APTA underwent a substantial process over a two year period as we attended to the revalidation of the structure as a Part 141/142 Organisation and was formally approved by CASA in April 2017, being 18 months before CASA claim that they first became aware. The design process with CASA was substantial and required an investment by me, of several hundred thousand dollars.
   

 

1. Whilst I cannot expect you personally to be a Subject Matter Expert on the topic, you do have access to resources within CASA to determine the truthfulness of the situation. I would encourage you to verify this information directly with Flight operations Inspector Naomichi Nishizawa, as he was the CASA employee directly involved in the process, at the time. He can verify that apart from a name change only from Melbourne Flight Training to APTA, the identical structure had been adopted with formal CASA approval for at least 6 years.
   

 

1. Similarly, Mr Nishizawa will also be able to confirm that the structure was fairly commonplace within the industry with many operators including Latrobe valley Aero Club which operated under the AOC of Bairnsdale Air Charter (BAC). When Latrobe Valley decided to change from operating under BAC to my business. It was my business that was declared unlawful and shut down with no prior warning.
   

 

1. In June 2016 I wrote to CASA advising that I intended to significantly expand this structure, and I sought CASA involvement in completely overhauling my operation and investing significantly in designing a system that was engineered and designed from the ground up to improve on what we we already doing. At the time CASA was very supportive of the concept, and you will be able to verify that by contacting the CASA employees involved in that process, and specifically current employee, Mr Naomichi Nishizawa. A number of past CASA employees have also contacted me offering to come forward and tell the truth on this matter. I worked side by side with 10 CASA personnel over a two-year period to redesign the business for the exact purpose of delivering this multi base multi entity structure. This required an investment of many hundreds of thousands of dollars.and the revalidation as a Part 141/142 Organisation occurred in April 2017 (18 months before CASA claim that they first became aware of APTA. At the time of this revalidation, I was operating in the multi base, multi entity structure, and had been for many years.
   

 

1. I invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars in a head office facility, personnel, manuals, and IT systems to continue delivering a far improved version of the multi base, multi entity structure that I like many other flying schools had been delivering throughout my 25-year involvement in the industry. This investment occurred many years before Mr Aleck asserts CASA first became aware.
   

 
 
In considering whether to correct this misinformation, I ask you to consider the following obligations placed on CASA which include, but are not limited to the following:
 
Purpose of the Board of CASA
“….to ensure CASA performs its functions properly, efficiently and effectively.
 
Obligations under the Public Governance, Performance and accountability Act 2013 (PGPA)

26. Duty to act honestly, in good faith and for a proper purpose

An official of a Commonwealth entity must exercise his or her powers, perform his or her functions and discharge his or her duties honestly, in good faith and for a proper purpose.

27. Duty in relation to use of position

An official of a Commonwealth entity must not improperly use his or her position:

(b) to cause, or seek to cause, detriment to the entity, the Commonwealth, or any other person.

28. Duty in relation to use of information

A person who obtains information because they are an official of a Commonwealth entity must not improperly use the information:

(b) to cause, or seek to cause, detriment to the Commonwealth entity, the Commonwealth or any other person.

CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy

Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)

Aviation Safety consideration

The aviation safety consideration alone, should be enough to compel you to act. If my allegations are correct, and please be aware that there are many within industry would make the same allegations as mine, then you are compelled to act. Misconduct at the Executive Level of CASA cannot be facilitated by the CEO and Board.


Under the previous CASA CEO, Mr Shane Carmody there was a very vigorous campaign designed to crush me. Sadly, it has been successful. My mental and physical health is decimated. I have lost my home, and my two businesses, I have been left bankrupted and living week to week, terrified of how I will keep a roof over our head when inevitably My wife or I stop working, all without any safety case at all to support all the harm caused.

It is the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Australia’s National Aviation Safety Regulator operating under the Coat of Arms, the community is rightfully entitled to the very highest standards of ethics and integrity.

For complete clarity, Mr Jonathan Aleck has led the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that CASA was not fully involved in the design and approval of the business structure that I used.

I claim that CASA is deliberately and substantially misleading the Ombudsman’s Office in the investigation.

There is an overwhelming body of evidence to support my assertion that CASA had full knowledge of my structure, and to assert any other position is simply immoral, and most likely illegal.

I urge you to stand Mr Aleck aside on full pay until this matter can be fully investigated by CASA. By allowing the very person that substantive allegations have been made against to be the person responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman’s Office is not acceptable. I know of no organisation that would permit this to happen, and most certainly it should not be permitted within a Nations aviation safety regulator. The potential and ongoing risk to aviation safety of permitting a CASA Executive to remain in his position when such allegations have been made against him by so many affected individuals, cannot be justified on any level.

Should you choose not to stand him aside, I must insist that as a minimum he be immediately removed from any further involvement in this matter. An allegation of misfeasance in public office has been made against him, and he should not be the person nominated by CASA to be responsible for the provision of information to the Ombudsman’s Office. It makes no sense at all, on any level.

Without disclosing the current nature of my employment, I now work in a field in which many employees at any time are  “under investigation”, some are permitted to remain operational during the investigation, whilst others are not. Most investigations find the employee has acted appropriately, and on occasions not.

Whilst I personally have not been under investigation, I will embrace the situation if it were to occur. It ensures a workplace with ethics and integrity. No doubt Mr Jonathan Aleck would welcome an investigation into his conduct, as I would in my own workplace. An innocent person has nothing to fear from a well-intentioned and well run investigation.

Surely the CASA Board must have a reasonable doubt as to the integrity of the information provided by Mr Aleck, and is compelled to act, and rectify the situation. Should the Board choose to facilitate this misinformation, my intention is to establish contact with Senator Susan McDonald and my local MP, Ms Gladys Liu requesting a two-hour meeting for me to fully brief them on the facts, and to bring this matter directly to the attention of Mr Barnaby Joyce, the Deputy PM, Leader of the Nationals and the Minister responsible for the conduct of CASA and its employees.

On February 11th, I will commence a group of sessions with a psychiatrist to attempt to repair the trauma caused by Mr Alecks conduct. I have finally accepted this option at the insistence of my GP and family. There is no doubt that Mr Aleck caused the financial harm, but CASAs continued coverup of this matter causes the psychological trauma. I am not the first to be impacted in this matter, but I must be the last.

I await a response from you, that you intend to clarify the truthfulness of CASA involvement and knowledge of the structure that I adopted with the Ombudsman’s Office.

Once again I extend my request to meet with any two Members of the CASA Board. The exact same request that I have made on multiple occasions over the last three years. That meeting should occur before the Ombudsman’s investigation is completed to ensure the accuracy of that investigation, and to ensure that the Ombudsman’s Office findings are based on facts and not blatant lies propagated by Mr Jonathan Aleck, to cover up his own misconduct.

Glen Buckley

---

MTF...P2

[Wombat]

Will somebody please communicate to Mr. Buckley, in words of one or two syllables if necessary, the following message because I have tried and failed. Others may wish to comment as well.

in my opinion, Glen continues to gloss over this absolutely crucial matter that destroys CASA's position.

It is here: "CASA approved via formal processes referred to as a Significant Change, the addition of other bases including, Melbourne Flight Training (my own school), Learn to Fly and AVIA. The latter two schools being Moorabbin flying schools not owned by me. The addition of these two additional bases occurred approximately two years before Mr Aleck claims CASA first became aware of the structure. This involved my business submitting manuals and procedures that were fully approved by CASA. It involved CASA visiting the sites to assess their suitability, AND ME HAVING TO PAY FEES FOR THOSE CASA TASKS (my bold capitals)."

If this transaction(s) can be substantiated - that CASA has provided goods and services in connection with the operation of the APTA business model then, absent fraud, whatever Dr. Aleck may believe is moot. If Glen has a receipt or other evidence of this transaction then that is enough because it is axiomatic that a business or corporation (which is what CASA claims to be) does not accept money without providing something in return and somewhere in CASA's accounts there must be a line item relating to Buckleys payment and what it was for. The possibility that Dr. Aleck or another CASA employee didn't know about it is irrelevant. CASA took money! It must have known what it was for - the approval process of the APTA business model!

That now raises the question of what CASA's relationship is with anyone who pays it money. When CASA declared APTA unlawful, what happened to that money? Was it returned with a note ? "Sorry we can't take this cash"?

The existence of an itemised invoice from CASA should end this farce.