[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 17/08/23

Via the UP:

glenb

Legal Assistance- Go fund me


Folks, please be assured that my family and I are very appreciative of all the support that has been offered to us throughout the last almost five years, and the continued interest keeps me going.

Regarding the Go fund Me, I believe that the time will come.

Regarding the funds that have been available to me. I have met with lawyers on three occasions to obtain advice and guidance, and ample funds currently remain in the "kitty" for an initial assessment by a reputable legal firm, hence I have not put out the further call to industry.

Please be assured that if I feel I need further funds into the Go Fund Me, I will call for them, but it will be a very significant campaign that I will mount if I do need to revisit the funding. To date i have been very discrete and maintained a profile on Pprune and Aunty Pru only, because I have wanted to remain as discrete as practical.

If the call goes out, please be assured that it will be a very active campaign., utilizing Facebook, possibly an advertisement in Australian Flying, and I will be seeking assistance of my local MP, Ms Carina Garland.

I have heard your suggestions that i maintain a low profile on Ppprune, until that legal advice has been obtained, and i do appreciate that may appear to be the best option, and most probably is.

That underestimates the power of these forums. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Aunty pru and prune have a very significant role to play.

I am convinced that i had not utilized, and continued to utilise these forums, i would have been totally crushed many years ago, and the matter kicks along only because of these two forums. Similarly, these forums and the accompanying support have been a pillar of support for me mentally, and without it, i think that i would be in a far far worse place, I really do.

I feel the most effective approach to crowd funding is a kitty that grows quickly to demonstrate industry support. A shorter more intense campaign may send a stronger signal that a lengthier more drawn-out approach.

I feel the call will come, but it could be a few weeks away. Thank you so much.

Regarding crowd funding, in order to run a case, it will cost a significant amount of money, and ideally i would like to have a proposition to put towards industry, and something more formal. If it were to go to court, and i were to obtain the outcome that i feel my family is entitled to, I assume that i would get my legal costs back, and that they should be returned to the contributors with potentially a return on the investment to those contributors.

Litigation funders usually take approximately 1/3 of the payout. Nothing would give me more satisfaction than making sure that any additional funds were repaid with interest to those contributors that have supported me.

Great to see some new poster's popping up, and to Celtic as a new member, who appears to have joined the pprune community to become involved in this topic, your input is appreciated.

back to a pancake parlor coffee, while i work on some other matters.

Cheers folk, have a good day and safe trip home to you all at the end of it. Cheers. Glen

MTF...P2 

[Wombat]

Could somebody please tell Mr. Buckley that until he has a firm court date, he has nothing. Good lawyers will tell him, bad ones will just let matters take their course until funds are exhausted or the client dies of old age.

CASA's tactic will no doubt be delay, delay, delay for this reason.

Even if you win at Court, CASA will appeal, that could take another three years.

The message CASA has sent to investors is clear; under no circumstances invest in Australian aviation.

[Wombat]

I note that Mr. Buckley has complained about CASA'S complaints commissioner to the CASA Board over the treatment of alleged assault allegations against him.

Could someone please, please, tell Mr. Buckley to back off ASAP? He knows precisely zero about the application of law regarding assault. In particular he doesn't understand that it is open to both the individuals concerned and the Police to prefer charges of assault against him today. One finding against you, even without a conviction on an aviation related matter and he can forget ever travelling by air again, let alone working in the industry.

Once charged are laid, you can kiss your lawsuit goodbye because the task of demonstrating that Buckley is not a serial pest with an axe to grind then becomes insurmountable for any sane lawyer. Contrary to Buckley's belief, hopelessly naive people with long convoluted tales of woe are regarded as time wasters by the courts and especially so when there are entangling charges of criminal behaviour (ie assault) being thrown around.


The name of the game is GET A LAWYER AND A COURT DATE for his suit against CASA. All else is unimportant.

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 4/09/23

Via the AP emails:

From: Glen Buckley <defendapta@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Sept 2023 at 07:15
Subject: Request for the Chair of the CASA Board- Air Chief Marshal (Retd) Mark Binskin AC- Chair of the CASA Board
To: Colin <Colin.Mclachlan@casa.gov.au>


Dear Air Chief Marshal (Retd) Mark Binskin AC- Chair of the CASA Board

Firstly, on behalf of my family, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to meet with you on Tuesday 3rd October between 1400 to 1600 at Aviation House in Canberra.

As you are aware, I have been reluctant to engage in litigation with CASA as it indicates the failure of any remaining "good intention".

My current intention was that only my wife and i would attend that meeting. You will be aware that this matter in its entirety is being covered on two discrete pilot forums referred to as Aunty Pru and Pprune. The overwhelming feedback I receive is that I would be foolish and naïve if I were to attend that meeting without legal representation, and that is the purpose of this request.

Can you advise if that meeting would proceed if I were to be accompanied by Legal representation. I need to emphasize that is not my intention at this stage.to initiate any legal action because my hope is that we can act with good intent at that meeting, and consider an Alternative Dispute Resolution at that meeting, although i understand that CASA have not led me to believe that is an option.

The purpose of bringing along that legal representation would be to ensure that I have a trained professional that can explain the situation to me at the conclusion of that meeting, and effectively act as my support person.

As you are aware I have maintained that this entire matter could have been avoided with a well-intentioned 4-hour discussion, on any day prior to CASA imposing the crippling trading restrictions in October of 2018. It may be that I am missing something, and a lawyer attending that meeting may assist me to understand why CASA chose the path that they chose when other options were clearly available.

Thank you for your consideration, 

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 08/09/23 

Via the UP:

glenb

Response re #2842. CASA investigation into assault

Hi Glen

Please find responses to your queries set out below:

1. The reviewer appointed by the organisation CASA has engaged is a former Assistant Commissioner of the Conduct, Health and Underperformance Branch at the Australian Taxation Office and has also worked in the Criminal Law Division of the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department.
   
2. I am not privy to the length of time the review may take as I have not been involved in the procurement, or any discussions with the provider. My understanding is that the review has commenced.
   
3. Thank you for setting out what you believe my starting point in considering your complaint should have been. The Board has agreed that given your allegations about my conduct and integrity, I should not be involved in this review.
   
4. I am not involved in the review.
   
5. It is open to you at any time to report your allegations to the Australian Federal Police: MEL-OMC@afp.gov.au.
   
6. The complaint was referred to the external investigator in the same terms as it was made.
   
7. I have had no involvement in the procurement or conduct of the external review save for providing the information set out in my email of 28 August 2023. It will be for the external reviewer to assess whether they wish to speak to you — I have been advised CASA has given no instructions either way.
   

Thanks

Jonathan

And in reply:

Lead Balloon

It will be interesting to see what definition of “assault” the investigator uses.

---

Global Aviator

That reply if obviously constructed by a legal team.

Glen I hope every bit of correspondence you are sending is being at least reviewed by a legal team.

Shots fired.

Back to glenb:

The CASA appointed investigator

Thanks to some diligent background work done by the crew at Aunty Pru, i think it is safe to assume that this is the individual that CASA has appointed to investigate Mr Edwards false allegation that I moved toward him and shoved him

The appointed individual is likely from this Organisation CPM Reviews


Dom Sheil – Senior Reviewer – Canberra

Dom has had a highly successful and diverse public service career of 35 years.

Most recently, Dom was the Assistant Commissioner of the Conduct, Health and Underperformance Branch (known as “Working Well”) in the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). The Branch was located in HR and was responsible for managing (amongst other things) all misconduct matters in a diverse organization of 18,000 employees and several thousand contractors.

Dom commenced in the APS as a part-time law student working in the ATO in Sydney in varying roles. Moving to Canberra in the early 1990s enabled him to develop sharp policy formulation skills in some complex tax areas.

Once legally qualified, Dom pursued his interests in criminal law and moved to the Criminal Law Division ofbthe Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department. Dom initially worked on cases involving the
confiscation of criminal assets before moving into international criminal extradition. He worked on the high profile and heavily litigated cases of Peter Foster and Christopher Skase.

In order to broaden his legal skills and knowledge base, Dom moved back to the ATO to the newly developed general counsel area. He covered a broad base of complex legal issues from defamation, contract and intellectual property disputes to (civil) monetary claims against the ATO.

He later specialized in employment and industrial relations disputes before moving into ATO HR, where he reshaped the management of misconduct, worker’s compensation and underperformance.

Dom can undertake complex investigations, including those that involve senior executives and those that require the collection of sensitive evidence. He has extensive experience reviewing and analyzing systemic, process and organization-wide issues and has successfully managed a number of Public Interest Disclosures to finality.

Dom brings a wealth of investigative, legal, policy and practical management experience to any assignment. Dom has a BLegS from Macquarie university and a LLM from the university of Canberra. He is as a legal practitioner of the Supreme court (ACT and NSW) and a barrister of the high court of Australia. He is also a nationally accredited mediator.

&..

Response to # 2845 and #2846 re. legal rep at meeting. From Board to me.

McLachlan, Colin
to me

Thu, 7 Sept, 15:51 (15 hours ago)

OFFICIAL

Hi Glen

The Chair has asked me to check with you if I may please, whether by legal representation, you are proposing this person speak on your behalf? Also, would you intend for the legal representative to participate in place of your wife as your support person, or in addition to your wife?

Mark asked me to remind you that the purpose of the meeting is not to seek a legal solution to anything, but to discuss the outcomes of the Ombudsman’s report and the way forward.

Cheers

---

To Colin

06:50 (11 minutes ago)


Hi Colin,


Thanks for getting back to me.

My wife is attending as she was also the owner of the business that was impacted by the CASA actions. My wife is attending as someone significantly and unnecessarily impacted. The request would be for an additional attendee, and I am currently considering options.

If I were to bring a legal person, my intention is that I would have them accompany me to acquaint themself with the situation and advise me of my options. My approach is to do everything that I can to avoid litigation, but understandably it must remain as my last option. My expectation is that that individual would primarily be a listener.

It may be that at the conclusion of that meeting, that expert advises me that I have no basis to make a claim, then that would obviously suit CASA's agenda.

Thank You to the Chair for his consideration, and I hope you're travelling well. Cheers. Glen

Hmmm...not sure there is many 'cheers' in any of that...

I do find the appointed CPM (Centre for Public Management Pty Ltd) investigator very interesting and I would suggest that, either way, this individual will get to the bottom of the matter. Remember that this incident was used, under Parliamentary privilege, by the former DAS/CEO Carmody to make this accusation:

From 05:25 here:

"...Mr Buckley—as you've probably noticed, and you'll notice my emotion in this—has harassed my staff and continues to do so under PPRuNe and just about every other website. He makes unsubstantiated allegations, and I'm quite happy to deal with them. He has assaulted my staff, he has stalked my staff in the Melbourne office and, frankly, we've had enough of him. So the matter is with the Ombudsman, and I'm very, very happy for the matter to stay with the Ombudsman and get resolved. But I will not accept the allegations that are made..."

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

Good work P2, this issue needs to be kept alive in the public arena. One question that won’t be answered is why did it take so many years for CASA to make its tentative move towards fairness for Glen Buckley? Assuming it’s all too modest movement is in the right direction.

[Peetwo]

Tales of CASA embuggerance will be told?? -  

To begin from the rumour network, word is out that a longtime CASA investigator, attributed to much angst to many stalwart members of the aviation industry and suspected of serious misfeasance in public office, has been given the bullet - mentioned HERE. If true there will be many a quiet toastings/celebrations to seeing the back of that nasty sociopathic individual...

Next (and maybe related) the Fort Fumble resident former USA Airforce spook, that has absolutely NFI about the Oz Civil/General Aviation industry but regardless has held the CASA 'Executive Manager, National Operations and Standards' position for nearly 6 years, has also been rumoured to have been given the bullet - if true I don't believe there will be many tears shed...  

These rumours provide a perfect segue into the sociopathic, toxic, intimidatory (status quo) leadership culture of CASA...  

The stark evidence of this culture starts with the embuggerance case of Glen Buckley - enter stage left former CASA/DAS Shane Carmody: 

The tone of which the accusation (under Parliamentary privilege) was made highlights the complete self-serving, self-righteous, sociopathic arrogance of this man and IMO sets the example for all those like-minded disciples that fell under his leadership. Like (for example) the sycophant behind him...                 

Which brings me to the last part of that video footage and the Hansard:

"..I'll make one more point on Mr Buckley. 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 clearly defined legal document that we will accept and we would be comfortable with the business model. I'll stop Mr Buckley at that point because, clearly, he's been told this many times and we're in a very different place..."

 
This comment from Carmody is quite bizarre because the matter of GlenB producing a 'legal document'/contract for his 'franchisees' was done, dusted, discussed and debated verbatim some 16-17 months before - refer APTA CASA phone call 4 April 2019 (note the arrogant demeanor and derogatory side comments of Crawford and Martin -   ):

 

Sandy comment in reply on Youtube:

[size=1]@sandyreith7458

23 hours ago

No one should forget that CASA with its new rules of Parts 141/142 has created a mountain of completely unnecessary complexities which has smashed Australia’s flying training industry. Hundreds of flying schools have closed, especially numerous schools in regional and outback towns.

In the USA an instructor does not need an equivalent to the extremely costly CASA mandated bureaucratic structure of Part 141 or 142, and can instruct independently or band together with other instructors, much as used to pertain when I commenced my own flying school in the ‘70s.

CASA might sound somewhat plausible at times in this audio but it has been perfecting its make work system for years. Since the Westminster system of Ministerial accountability was overturned by the Labor Minister Gareth Evans by kicking aviation out of his Department and creating the independent corporate CASA, General Aviation has been slowly strangled.

Glen Buckley’s attempt to create a model that eases CASA’s extreme regulatory burden for smaller flying schools was too good for CASA. Allowing it to succeed would have meant less work for CASA and fewer opportunities to fee gouge those small flying schools.

The CASA argument about structural accountability is a complete nonsense, all the controlling regulations already exist in excruciating detail  and have been inappropriately migrated, at the behest of CASA, into the criminal code with strict liability applied.
Glen Buckley deserves all our support.

Refer from page 152 onwards:  https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...-of-18.pdf

Moving on and on another matter, very much related to the CASA toxic culture of venomous, vicious, vindictive, vexatious, embuggerances, note the following historical post:  

Tales of embuggerance untold -  

Courtesy AOPA Oz CEO Ben Morgan, via Facebook:
 

CASA v PRIVATE HELICOPTER PILOT
PARAMATTA LOCAL COURT

Attending Paramatta Court House today in support of our member, whom has been battling against CASA since March 2014.

Update:

---

Andy Pascoe
  · 0:00

on behalf of my family we would like to thank Ben for his continued support over the years, CASA have managed to keep my case from going public up until now .... and it might look like we had a bad day today but trust me, we and I mean all pilots and owners of aircraft we embarrassed the f@#k out of casa .

Ben you should be proud of what you do for all the people that can't afford to stand up for what's right.

I'm happy with today's results..... would love to be a fly on the wall in John Moore office tonight

Ref: https://www.casacorruption.com/news-flash/ 

Finally from the GA inquiry I refer to evidence provided by AF CEO Marjorie Pagani:

From 16:30 -

 Hansard GA Inquiry 07/12/21

"...But I can say the substance of those conversations is to the effect that senior internal staff were shocked at what Mr Monahan proposed for Angel Flight and had taken the view that the data was fabricated, there was no basis and it was not supported and that all of this was ignored by Mr Monahan. This seems to be the way CASA operated and continues to operate.

I mentioned briefly a matter before the Campbelltown Local Court in New South Wales currently, between ASA and an aviator. Again, I can give more details of that, and I urge you senators to order a transcript of this—as you would know, transcripts are quite expensive. In that matter, which is in substance relating to charges against CASA that they fabricated information and they engaged in bribery and other serious matters against this person, they have been objecting to providing subpoenaed material in that case for three years, such that, in July of this year, the judge said—the [inaudible] clearly, from the transcript, are very angry—'Is it going to be necessary for me to subpoena the CEO of CASA, issue a summons for her arrest to bring her before this court to explain why you will not provide this information?' CASA's only explanation, through legal, was to the effect that it was all a bit slow because of [inaudible].

In the August hearing, CASA, to avoid providing the subpoenaed documents, withdrew two of its witness statements, which were relevant to the documents, so as to not have to do it. I mention that only because it is more of the same. This is not a transparent authority. This is not one which is fair to the aviation community. It is one which, by its current conduct of failing to engage with Angel Flight at all [inaudible] in November, notwithstanding all of the admissions made in the court case, is continuing on that same path. We had really hoped that there would be some changes made, but it seems—and I can only say this from videoconferences and communications I've had—that Mr Monahan is still running the show and intent upon imposing further legislation, again, clearly, with no intention of doing a risk based analysis in relation to that..."

Marjorie Pagani: "I mention that only because it is more of the same. This is not a transparent authority.."

The comment from MP stands the test of time IE nothing has changed. However the case of CASA embuggerance of Andy Pascoe has progressed and apparently is a matter of weeks away from conclusion and the rumour is that recent hearings have seen some significant casualties/carcasses spun off the CASA embuggerance crew?? Standby for a possible biblical rerun of David and Goliath...

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

And who could forget the CASA evidence against an aircraft owner citing illegal maintenance by falsely claiming that there was a Wilga “left hand elevator” on the hangar floor? Unfortunately for those CASA inspectors the Wilga has a single tailplane. Lying hounds.

Or the exemplary operator with a fixed and rotary wing business at Harvey Bay who was squashed by CASA on the merest of wrongly based suspicion. Suspended his CP approvals right at the start of his busy tourist season and sat on his nominated replacements until the banks moved and repossessed his aircraft.

Highly skilled and long in business maintenance people have had like treatment, they just fold and are forgotten.

Time and again over the last 30 or 40 years this is the normal means of CASA repression and retribution.

There’s been few notable cases who’ve taken CASA to court and have won, but most don’t have the money to employ legal help.

And then there’s those with the wherewithal, like Clark Butson of Polar Aviation who took CASA to court and famously said he’d spent $one million to prove that CASA can do whatever it likes.

But what to expect from a monopoly corporate that operates without direct Ministerial responsibility and oversight? The Westminster principle of responsible government has been degraded by successive governments, the easy way out is to create these ‘independent’ statutory authorities. Of course they will keep their salaries low and altruistically administer solely for the benefit of Australia and do so most efficiently at the lowest possible cost.

No oversight or accountability back to the voter is needed, matter of fact why bother with Parliament and all that awful politics at all? Just have more independent IBACS, ATSBs, ASA, Ombudsman offices, CASAs, Voices, ATSICs etc.
Oops, that ATSIC with Geoff Clark as Chair didn’t work out very well and was disbanded in 2004.

[Peetwo]

Twenty+ years and the CASA 'MODUS OPERANDI' for GA embuggerance remains endemic?? -   

Via ProAviation ( via Phelan/Stan van der Weil posthumously - RIP  ): http://proaviation.com.au/2013/08/07/sho...-analysis/ 

In November 2002, an AAT decision reversing the cancellations was handed down. However, due to “not being able to turn back the clock” a “suspension” was substituted in its stead [sic]. This suspension was lifted effectively on the date of the decision. CASA was later to attempt to argue in its appeal that the AAT had no authority to substitute such an order. CASA implied that the AAT had applied a penalty, leaving the incorrect inference that Stan was guilty of something. It was open to the AAT to reverse the cancellations altogether; being “not able to turn back the clock” is a lame excuse.

Significantly Mr Adam Anastasi of the CASA Office of Legal Counsel contacted Stan 26 days after the AAT decision asking whether he intended to appeal the decision. Stan replied that he was contemplating taking legal action against various individual CASA employees on the grounds of their vexatious conduct. Anastasi said he would have to speak to his (then) supervisor Peter Illyk about this. Anastasi contacted Stan the following day and advised that because of his “threat,” CASA would be filing an appeal in the Federal Court.

CASA commenced its appeal but at the first “mention hearing” was told to submit an acceptable case because the judge was not prepared to accept such an ill-prepared document. CASA failed to meet the time requirements for its amended case. However, the appeal did not proceed, due the forced liquidation of Schutt Flying Academy in April 2002. Stan’s chief pilot approval was linked to the company, so if there was no company, there could be no chief pilot. In the interim there had been uncertainty at CASA as to how to reinstate his chief pilot approval. CASA claimed it had been cancelled, whilst the AAT had changed that to a suspension. CASA disputed the AAT’s right to make such a decision. No conclusive answer was ever received but Stan (acting on the AAT decision,) resumed his position until the company’s demise. All these actions have been in direct conflict with the Attorney General’s Model Litigant Directions, yet a complaint to the Court, the Attorney General and the Minister, met with no response.

During all these months CASA had failed to remove the cancellation or alter its Website to reflect the true situation, and even though it was ordered by the AAT on two occasions, failed to obey. The Website was finally altered by removing the whole message in March of 2003, co-incidentally effective with the liquidation of the company. ASIC rules require a company to remain “solvent” to trade.

CASA’s actions, again contrary to Model Litigant Directions, had succeeded in taking the company over the edge, a goal which aviation lawyers believe was intended all along. CASA had fulfilled the “need to set an example,” expressed in the FOI document.

Information in relation the CASA website protocol was requested under FOI 2005-07 as were copies of instructions to the webmaster but again were not forthcoming. Since the orchestrated failure of the Schutt Group, Stan attempted on numerous occasions to communicate with CASA. Bruce Byron, the new CEO, initially gave the appearance of wanting to resolve the impasse, but apart from the initial meeting and the resurrection of the action against Qantas nothing happened. It is apparent from Hansard that Byron met with considerable and effective internal opposition in trying to root out systemic problems. To Byron however, Stan’s issues were among the least of these.

In 2005, after persistent attempts to obtain Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Stan commenced an FOI application, only to be frustrated at every step, dealing with (now) OLC head Adam Anastasi. Once documents were released, albeit reluctantly, it became clear why Anastasi had refused access. It also became very clear why CASA had withheld many documents from the 2002 AAT hearing. The CDPP reference document to “there is no case” should have been enough to raise questions over CASA‘s Model Litigant credibility. The “Obligation to Assist the AAT” requires all relevant documents to be provided to the tribunal, yet the most relevant documents were held back as revealed by the FOI disclosures. This illustrates the lengths to which CASA will go to defend its position. Continuing requests for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as dictated by legislation were also ignored. Such requests have been repeatedly made in correspondence with current CEO John McCormick, again with total disregard.

In relation to freedom of information requests, at a telephone directions hearing (2006) with Dept President Forgie of the AAT, Anastasi advised that it was impossible to access any records for release. At the next hearing some four months later, Ms. Forgie offered the mildy scathing suggestion that CASA could perhaps conduct a dedicated word search. Two months later at the next telephone conference CASA advised that they had been able to access all of approximately 13,000 related folios. CASA would require several months to scrutinise these for release. Some 2200 documents (many triplicated) were finally received late 2006. Several of these have been referred to in this document.

July 2007: Stan attended a formal AAT hearing before Member E. Fyce seeking the release of privileged documents. A. Anastasi (S.M. Fyce made a point to stress that Mr Anastasi was under oath) stated that “CASA does not hold personal files on (pilots)”. When questioned later he admitted [CASA] does hold medical files on individual pilots. As it obviously also does at least in respect of licences, approvals, other ratings, and correspondence with the certificate holder. Mr Anastasi’s denial that “CASA does not hold personal files on pilots” has never been researched, even when reported to the A.G. Dept.

In his AAT application Stan referred to the “Brazil Directions of Prime Minister and Cabinet”

‘BRAZIL DIRECTION’: CLAIMS OF LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Claims of Legal Professional Privilege Exemption under the Freedom of Information Act
Section 14 provides that nothing in the Act is intended to prevent or discourage agencies from giving access to exempt documents where they can properly do so.

Where a client agency wishes to assert a claim of legal professional privilege in respect of a document which has no apparent sensitivity, the attention of the client agency should be drawn to the Cabinet decision mentioned above. The client should be advised that legal professional privilege should be waived unless some real harm would result from release of the documents.
P. BRAZIL 2 March 1986

Despite the “Real Harm” having already been identified, it was not explained what such exempt documents could hold.

In 2007 Stan presented the new information he had just received to various politicians and wrote to the then Deputy Prime Minister, Hon. Mark Vaile requesting assistance with these issues. His response16 was to request Bruce Byron (CEO of CASA) “to provide [Stan] with a detailed response so that these long standing issues may be resolved.” In 2013 there had still been no response or resolution.

In Stan’s ten year quest to regain his chief pilot approval, he was confronted with Civil Aviation Order 82.0 – Appendix 1. Subsection 5 – 1. Approval of Chief Pilot by CASA

1.3 The appointment may be approved only if the person has: (a) in the opinion of CASA, maintained a satisfactory record in the conduct or management of flying operations;

According to all information available to Stan, he would be found unable to comply. Yet CASA is not prepared to substantiate its opinion either way on whether Stan’s conduct had been satisfactory. If CASA now concedes that “He maintained a satisfactory record” CASA actions in 2001 are further proven to have been vexatious, vindictive and deliberate. Their suggestion in writing was for Stan to apply for a chief pilot position and “see what happens.” The poor delegate of CASA conducting the interview would have no option but to refuse such a delegation. That’s why Stan asked the CEO for the exemption, he explains: “It is a Chess game!”

At this point CASA’s Deputy CEO Shane Carmody put only Stan’s question regarding chief pilot approval to the ICC, knowing full well that such (exemption) was an executive decision and the ICC had no jurisdiction.

The more important questions relating to the Avgas contamination cover-up were ignored as were those relating to the tactics in persecuting the company in relation to its alleged contravention of R.206 and of ”policy”. In his subsequent communications with Michael Hart, Stan on several occasions requested a simple yes or no answer to this question. “However as this is an executive decision it is out of his jurisdiction,” he reports. It only took 18 months to not get an answer. The CASA response to the Minister’s request was quoted in Hansard as having been “satisfactorily completed.” Apparently this was an internal decision by CASA and was not shared with the victim.

Michael Hart resigned as the Industry Complaints Commissioner with CASA after only 15 months in office. All approaches to the current Minister have met with a referral to CASA to investigate.

This report is riddled with examples of the processes by which CASA navigates within available “administrative decisions” options to avoid due legal process. It also reveals how CASA treads a fine line between teamwork and conspiracy in developing tactics which exploit the availability of those administrative decisions and the proposition that “CASA must be satisfied.”

It’s easy to trace the change in the culture of CASA from Stan’s initial dealings with the regulator to the present organisation, where it appears that individuals within it interpret regulations to suit their own personal agendas but with the full backing of most of their colleagues. The organisation as presently structured and overseen provides ample opportunity for corruption. It is statistically unlikely that such opportunity is not being embraced.

Now FFWD to 26 March 2019 when GlenB sent this email correspondence to Dr Jonathon Aleck: PG 28-29 https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...-of-18.pdf





Now despite the nearly 12 years of separation, note the CASA MODUS OPERANDI for any industry stakeholders/operators/pilots/engineers daring to question the inept administration and veracity of CASA remains the same IE discredit/embugger the individual or operator...  

This was Dr A's seemingly gob-smacked reply to GlenB's extremely passionate and articulate correspondence addressed to him:



Unfortunately for Glen it was all downhill from there, including these two self-serving, sociopaths pretending to be Glen's extremely well meaning, friendly CASA executives trying to placate an unjustifiably disgruntled industry operator back into the fold...  :

Now rewind to 2013-14 when a under training (wannabe) rotary wing private pilot Andy Pascoe dared to take his business to another flight training business (2 doors up) due to concerns of dodgy practice's and possible CASR illegalities of the flight instructor he had conducted his training with till that time. 

FOI docs of interest:

---

---

---

This tale, yet to be told, bizarrely unleashed a maelstrom of venomous, vicious, vindictive, vexatious CASA regulatory legal embuggerance that has prevailed for nearly a decade since - UDB?? -    

 MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Dear Pip: Heads UP! - L&Ks Civil Air?? -   

Via the CBASA Senate Inquiry AQON webpage: 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB D-day tomorrow?? -   

Via the AP emails:

 To the CASA CEO and CASA Board, 
 
I am writing to confirm that my wife and I will be attending the scheduled meeting with the CASA Chair, Mark Binskin, and the CASA CEO, Pip Spence  on 
Tuesday 3rd October between 1400 and 1600 at Aviation House,16 Furzer Street in Philip, ACT.
 
My understanding is that the CASA ICC, Mr Hanton will also be attending, 
 
I had previously advised that I was considering bringing along a person with legal training as a "support person" in order to help me to understand CASAs actions and decisions. I have tried. The truth is that I have left myself insufficient time frames to arrange that, so the attendees from my side will be my wife and I only.
 
I assume that CASA would have access to recording facilities for meetings of this nature, and I would request that CASA make a recording of the meeting  with a copy of that recording being made available to me as soon as practicable after our meeting. 
 
I would also welcome any other attendees at the meeting including Mr Aleck, if you deem it appropriate. 
 
You have my assurance that I will be respectful and professional with every Employee, as I always have done, on every occasion that I have engaged with CASA Employees.
 
I will forewarn you that my 45kg wife, while not physically intimidating, will most likely be more "emotional". Please understand that of everybody affected by this totally unnecessary matter, my wife has been the most affected, and continues to be. She will not be aggressive, but saddened,  impacted. and there may possibly be some tears. This meeting will be a significant day for her, as you will appreciate. She intends to participate primarily as an observer to try and comprehend this matter.
 
From my perspective. Quite simply, I operated a business for over a decade, and then one day, a single CASA Employee from his Canberra Office, with no legislative basis and no industry precedent, and no forewarning decided that my business only, and not others, had become unlawful, and I was to potentially  subject to prosecution, CASA placed crippling restrictions on the business for 8 months, and then CASA determined that all personnel operating under an AOC must also be Employees of the same Company that owns the AOC, effectively closing the business.
 
As you are aware, I am fully satisfied that it was an "unlawful" determination. It should have been accompanied by a "decision letter" in accordance with CASAs own stipulated procedures, but it was not, and this breach of following CASA own procedures is what denied me procedural fairness, as the trading restrictions remained in place for 8 months while CASA ``rethought" about the structure. I had no right of review or appeal.
 
It was a complete change in regulatory approach that applied to my business only. As you are aware I am fully satisfied that a small but senior group of CASA personnel commenced an engineered process to bring harm to me personally.
 
CASA advised that I could possibly return to lawfulness and have the trading restrictions lifted,if I could satisfy that same CASA Employee as to some additional wording in our commercial contracts. If he was satisfied, I may be permitted to have the CASA imposed trading restrictions lifted, and potentially  return to Business as Usual. 
 
After 8 months despite every best endeavour by me to satisfy the CASA Employee, for reasons that I cannot explain,he  could not be satisfied, and CASA met with all customers and directed that they leave the business, and this included my own flying school, Melbourne Flight Training, on the basis that all personnel operating under an AOC must also be employed direct;ly by the same Company that holds the AOC.
 
To quote Craig Martin's correspondence as late as 20th June 2019, Mr Martin in his very senior role within CASA as the Acting Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance, and the person representing Mr Aleck, wrote advising "for the avoidance of doubt...... flight training can be conducted by APTA employees only- not employees of affiliates. 
 
That unalwful determination was effectively the "death knell" as CASA imposed new terminology referred to as "Direct Operational Control" where the one Company that held the AOC must also employ all personnel directly, maintain all bank accounts, social networking, admin etc.
 
CASA has never placed that requirement on any Operator in Australia. Ever.
 
I need to ensure that I make these points clearly, and that you can correct me at the meeting if my understanding is incorrect.
 
The changes that CASA required of me could have been attended to instantly. I had been operating in that structure for a decade with full CASA approval, as many  of Australia's flight training organisations were, and my CASA approved Exposition and oversight tool Flight School Manager  (FSM) met and exceeded every regulatory requirement. There were never any identified deficiencies at all. 
 
It was never a quality control issue, and it was never a  legislative issue,it was an issue that CASA effectively created. A new and unique requirement that is not remotely aligned with any legislation at all.
 
A requirement that personnel operating under an AOC must also be employees of that same Company in order to maintain operational control. If those personnel were emplyed by another entity different procedures of operational control were required. 
 
Until this new determination, all personnel operating under an AOC, irrespective of who employs them are subject to the same high levels of operational control. 
 
The only limitation on preventing me returning to Business as Usual was that I needed to place new wording in contracts that reflected exactly what I was already doing. There was no requirement by CASA to change any system, policy, or procedure. All legislated responsibilities accountabilities were already attended to in the CASA approved Exposition, where they should be. I had been operating this structure for a decade, so it would be reasonable to assume that I am experienced with that business structure, and that if it has satisfied CASA for the previous decade,  should have some surety of operations with that structure, provided I do not alter it, which I did not.
 
The important point being that if any deficiencies were ever identified, CASA would have brought them to my attention. Absolutely no deficiencies of any kind have ever been put forward by CASA.
 
The stumbling block for 8 months is that I could not satisfy Mr Aleck. At any stage throughout the 8 months, he could have instantly resolved the matter in its entirety by giving me sufficient guidance, as to whose responsibilities and what responsibilities he needed in the contracts.
 
In the "contract" CASA were requiring me to incorporate responsibilities that are not legislated and CASA was unable to identify,  for personnel who CASA were never able to specify to me, and who are not legislated. 
 
I can only reiterate, that every legislative procedure had been attended to, as it had always been through the decade that I operated in this structure, within the Exposition where such matters are attended to. 
 
CASA were required of me, and me only that matters of Operational Control were now to be identified in "commercial contracts", a document that CASA is not a signatory to, and does not hold on file for any operators because these are commercial agreements of a sensitive business nature.
 
Despite the bizarre nature of this requirement I made my best endeavours to satisfy the CASA employee, but after 8 months of trying i was completely unable to satisfy the employee.
 
I was highly dependent on CASA for guidance as they had never placed these requirements on any other Operator, including those that had also adopted the structure that I adopted. These were new and unique requirements for people and responsibilities that were not required by legislation. CASA were asking me to effectively take responsibilities away from legislated Key Personnel, and transfer or specify those responsibilities to persons that were not specified in legislation  or qualified. i.e. an aero Club committee who may or may not even hold a pilot licence, and have no experience at all in flight training. 
 
The Ombudsman was mislead and failed to comprehend just how "unique" the requirement placed on me that CASA would require matters of operational control and safety that are not specified in any legislation that CASA cannot identify, amd responsibilities that CASA cannot identify into a commercial agreement, and NOT in the CASA Exposition
 
Such complicated changes to responsibilities and accountabilities required very clear direction from CASA. As soon as CASA provided that guidance, I remained ready to embed those new requirements immediately into the "commercial contracts" and return to business as usual., within a matter of hours. To have it unresolved for 8 months can only be as a result of bad intent. There can be no other plausible explanation.
 
If I may refer to previous correspondence between the CASA CEO and myself. I outlined my expectations of that meeting which I have cut and pasted below. I have also cut and pasted your responses. I have made some brief italicized notes for your consideration prior to our meeting
 
My Expected Outcome One- Act of Grace Payment 
 
I am of the opinion that CASA unlawfully and with targeted malice took action that closed my business and was entirely unnecessary. There were no legitimate safety concerns nor were there any regulatory breaches, and at all times I operated fully in accordance with all CASA approved procedures in my Exposition/Operations Manual.
 
My understanding is that CASA would not dispute that position, and that is what makes the entire situation so bizarre. 
 
I believe that I have a valid basis for a claim against CASA. That is not my preferred option.
 
Throughout the last five years, I have gone further than could be reasonably expected of any person to avoid litigation. Litigation suggests to me that there is a complete breakdown of “good intent”. It is unnecessarily combative, protracted and distracts resources.
 
My preferred course of action is to put forward a request for an Act of Grace payment. This request would not be successful if it were opposed by CASA.
 
My hope is that An Act of Grace payment could be considered an Alternative Dispute Resolution,  as outlined in  Appendix B of the Legal Services Directions 2017,  where it states
 
“the Commonwealth and Commonwealth agencies are to behave as model litigants in the conduct of litigation.

In civil litigation matters, Model Litigant rules provide that government agencies should, wherever possible:
· act honestly, consistently, and fairly in handling claims and litigation
· deal with claims promptly
· make an early assessment of the government’s prospects of success
· pay legitimate claims promptly
· not take advantage of a party who lacks resources to litigate a legitimate claim
· keep costs to a minimum e.g. not rely on a merely technical defence
· consider alternative dispute resolution (ADR) options.”

At the end of that two-hour meeting, I would like to obtain a decision from you and the Chair of the Board, whether or not CASA will oppose that claim for an Act of Grace payment.
 
For simplicity of the Act of Grace Payment, it would be for the purpose of compensating/reimbursing staff, customers, students, Suppliers, the other businesses closed down by CASA actions, and others who were dependent on me.
 
It would not contain any claim for me personally, or for the harm and trauma caused to me. I would waive any claim to those aspects in the interests of a prompt resolution, by way of an Act of Grace Payment By rectifying the harm caused to so many, it would lift an enormous mental burden from me, and at least go some way to resolving this entire matter and allowing me to move forward with my life.
 
It seems entirely reasonable that if CASA simply “changes its mind” about a business after 10 years, the persons affected by that change of “interpretation” of the law, should not be impacted, just as a homeowner is reimbursed when the house is to be bulldozed for a road. It is an entirely reasonable expectation.
 
If the CASA Chair and CEO determine that they will oppose an Act of Grace Payment, then I can see little benefit in waiting until October to receive that information.
 
Could you please advise if you would be in a position to advise me at the conclusion of that meeting if CASA will oppose my request for an Act of Grace Payment?

(For full version refer - HERE - on the UP)

---

Pip Spence reply:

Response to previous post from Pip Spence

Dear Mr Buckley

Thank you for your update on attendance at the meeting. From CASA’s perspective it will just be myself, the Chair and Jonathan Hanton.

On completion of the meeting, we will circulate to participants a document setting out the agreed outcomes but we will not be recording the meeting.

Finally, as I indicated in my emails to you of 4 August and 27 June, while I and the CASA Chair remain committed to the undertakings I gave you on 19 November 2021 and 7 January 2022 to meet with you to discuss the outcome of the Ombudsman’s independent investigation once it had been finalised, it is not our intention to revisit the matters you have raised, given these have now been reviewed by the Ombudsman.

We look forward to meeting with you and your wife on Tuesday.

Pip

And Sandy's response and support for Glen:

The meeting

I’m sure that I and many others would willingly back you and be prepared to standby and help in any way if it were possible.

For my part I would testify that CASA’s unnecessarily complex rules around flying training have destroyed hundreds of flying schools for no good reason.

My opinion, having followed the way in which you have been treated, is that you should be compensated to the fullest degree.

That the rationale of CASA that you didn’t have sufficient control is a nonsense, particularly when one considers the plethora of criminal sanction laws that control in minute detail every aspect of flying.

That whatever CASA decided after it changed its mind about your umbrella system it should have stated clearly its reasons and published same for all to see.

That CASA should take heed of the successful USA training model which obviates and gives lie to CASA’s expensive, obsessive and prescriptive flying training regime.

Wishing you well, but not hopeful of a just outcome

I too wish you well Glen and hope that you do get a just outcome but the bollocks response from Spence IMO doesn't bode well...

While on the subject of CASA embuggerances, I note that the other day Pup Spence's crew put out yet another totally obscure 'stating the bollocks' post on their media link pages: [/url]

Flying commercially and privately in Australia

Australia's aviation safety regulations are designed to keep you safe every time you fly but you need to be aware that the rules can vary according to the classification of the activity, an aircraft and its pilot.



Our rules cover how pilots are licensed, who can maintain the aircraft, who the operator is and what permissions they need. The rules also include requirements for aircraft to be registered, as well as certification and airworthiness standards.

Airlines and other commercial operators face more stringent requirements than private pilots, although there are safety obligations both must meet.

When you get into a car with a neighbour or friend there are different rules than if you are getting into a taxi or bus. These include different types of licences, maintenance requirements and who is responsible in the event of an accident and how they are 'checked'.

This is the same for aviation. When you fly with a friend or family member, you are probably flying privately. The pilot must be appropriately licenced, the aircraft must be airworthy, and it's the pilot's responsibility to ensure these requirements have been met.

However, the safety standard applied to private flights is not as stringent as the standards applied to commercial flights.

On the other hand, commercial flights can include everything from flying with a major airline, scenic flights and what are commonly referred to as 'charter' flights.

Charter flights are where you hire a company with a plane to fly you somewhere. Examples of this might be fly-in, fly-out flights or they could be flights put on for a specific event or reason. In some ways, these are like hiring a bus company or a limousine to drive your guests somewhere.

Commercial operators need to be approved to operate by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and are subject to regular and routine oversight activities to make sure that they continue to operate safely.

Here is some further information on each...

Hmm...if the intention is to edumacate Mr and Mrs Joe Public and family, why place this important safety information in such obscure, self-serving webpage??

Both the 'Commercial Operators' and 'Private Pilot' info paragraphs have this 'dobber' link:   

CASA encourages reporting of any [url=https://help.casa.gov.au/csp?id=sc_cat_item&sys_id=8154df17dbe3e1907558065bd39619b4]suspected unsafe behaviour or commercial operations without our approval.

Hmm...there is no doubt that this is all related to the Broome R44 fatal prang , which for some reason Su_Spence (plus her executive crew) are feeling very sensitive about. However is this a prelude to seeing a timewarp kneejerk reaction back to the bollocks attacks on Angel flight and the Private Pilot fraternity?? -    

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

Quote, “ However is this a prelude to seeing a timewarp kneejerk reaction back to the bollocks attacks on Angel flight and the Private Pilot fraternity?? -”

Well who knows? It’s odd, a ‘media release’ that will be of little interest to the media or general public. A prelude it maybe, a sign of of CASA internal machinations, even some conflict is possible within the walls of Aviation Hearse.

Otherwise Can’tberrans will be stressing that a hot summer may again threaten fire and remind them that their artificial city, now near 500,000, was unfortunately placed well away from our beautiful beaches. With Canberra’s extremes of temperature it would be interesting to compare power usage with other city populations. But then with, according to ABS statistics, average Canberra wages 40% higher than the National average, the bills are affordable.

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 12/10/23 

Courtesy the UP:

correspondence from CASA-post meeting

As you are aware, I had my meeting with CASA and provided some initial comment on Pprune in Post # 2871.

I had intended to provide a further update the next day. For the first time in many years, I have slept in past the early hours and not had time to get down to the pancake parlor before work.

In the interim, I have received the following correspondence from CASA summarizing the meeting.

In the meeting I made it clear that i was of the opinion that the only reason that this matter had been kept afloat was because of Prune and Aunty Pru, and that i would continue to publish on those forums, and that i would publish my summary of the meeting. There was no inference that I should not do so.

Understandably, the Chair had an awareness of pprune and AP, but did not follow the forums actively, and I would not expect him to do so.

The response from the CEO suggested that she had a higher level of awareness. Whilst I do not expect that she would be an active follower, I must give credit where credit is due. Considering that she comes from a completely different Govt Dept, it does suggest at least some intent to "have her finger on the pulse" of GA.

The point being that when this letter was sent to me, I believe that the writers would have had an expectation that it would be published on these forums so here it is.

Dear Glen

Mark and I would like to thank you and Sonoko for coming to Canberra to discuss the outcome of the Ombudsman’s review.

In Mark’s opening remarks he noted that the CASA Board had supported the Ombudsman’s Investigation and accepted the findings that (i) there were no recommendations that would lead to a change of CASA’s legal decisions; however, (ii) like the 2019 ICC review, it had concluded that the manner in which CASA had gone about communicating and engaging with APTA around a significant regulatory change was unfair and not in accordance with our Regulatory Philosophy. On behalf of the Board and CASA’s Executive, Mark passed on our sincere apologies and explained that CASA has since made organisational changes to ensure better engagement with industry, and consistency and timeliness of decisions within CASA.

I said I would circulate to you a draft of the action items that came out of our discussion for your consideration. Please provide any comments you have in response by 11 October 2023.

1. I undertook to contact ( a CASA FOI heavily involved in APTA) about his observations of the prevalence of APTA-like arrangements in the flight training sector of the industry.
   
2. I said I would follow up with CASA’s Freedom of Information team on the status of your request for APTA’s June 2019 contract with Latrobe Valley.
   
3. Both Mark and I stressed that if you have any direct evidence that specifically contradicts the Ombudsman’s findings, then this should be provided to it. I offered to contact the Ombudsman to request it review any such material.
   
4. Mark agreed CASA would explore whether APTA’s exposition alone sufficiently set out the type of arrangements that would have allowed it to demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements.
   
5. You set out that it was your intention to (i) seek an Act of Grace payment from the Department of Finance; and (ii) make a referral to the National Anti-Corruption Commission in relation to Jonathan Hanton’s conduct.
   
6. We reiterated CASA’s support for any Act of Grace payment application you make, and I agreed to ask my Executive Officer (Aidan Bruford) to contact you to provide whatever guidance we can in navigating the Department of Finance’s process.
   

We will endeavour to get back to you within three weeks on the points above that relate to CASA.

At the meeting you also explained the impact that Jason McHeyzer’s email to APTA describing your ongoing employment as being untenable caused you. I understand that, through its lawyers, CASA made an offer to you in 2020 in response to a Concerns Notice it had received. While that offer has lapsed, on a without prejudice and ex gratia basis CASA is open to reconsidering compensation for damages that may have been caused by the contents of Mr McHeyzer’s email of 27 August 2019. Please let me know if that is something you would like to pursue. Any compensation would relate only to Mr McHeyzer’s 27 August 2019 email and would be wholly separate from any the Act of Grace process.

Finally, we are conscious that you incurred costs coming to meet with us in Canberra. Please provide receipts of those costs (airport transfers or parking; flights; rental car) and CASA will arrange that these be reimbursed.

Regards

Pip

Refer - HERE - to the ensuing conversations/debate about the Spence correspondence etc..etc - 

Via the AP email chains:

Dear Ms Pip Spence PSM and Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin AC (Retd)

My family and I would like to thank you for the opportunity to meet with you last week in Canberra.

I felt the meeting was well intentioned, with "good intent" being essential for any resolution. 

I understand that the line between lawfulness and appropriateness was addressed in the meeting and that CASA stands by its position that it did nothing "unlawful" but did acknowledge inappropriateness with regards to the "manner" in which this matter unfolded.

I respect your position but please understand that I have a different perspective, as you would appreciate. I am firmly of the opinion that I was treated unlawfully. 

That acknowledgement by CASA regarding the sub-optimal manner that I was treated, was significant, and to have that occur in front of my wife was important for me, and I thank you for the well intentioned manner, the frankness and tone from  the opening of the meeting.

Please be assured that I made no recording, and I took no notes at the meeting. My recollection is as best as I recall, and I was somewhat caught off-guard and affected by  Sonoko's  regarding the impact of this matter on our family.

I acknowledge that it is my recollection only, and open to interpretation. My intention is not to misquote or misrepresent the contents of the meeting or anything said by anyone at that meeting.

It was also significant that my matter had led to a process of "continuous improvement", and was a feature of the determination to restructure the way CASA engages with industry. Something that has been most traumatic about this matter in its entirety, is that it could have been completely avoided with a well intentioned meeting of less than 4 hours at the very beginning. To at least see some positive organizational change within CASA as a result of all the associated harm, is somewhat  encouraging, and noted.

I understand that the date of 11th October for me to respond was not a deadline as such, but rather an expression of your intent to move forward in a timely manner. May I respectfully request an extension of 7 days. The truth is that post our meeting, for the first time in 5 years,  I have allowed myself to get "distracted" from this matter, and it has been somewhat therapeutic and good for the family, as well as for me. 

I am  "back on board" now and typing away from my local 24 Pancake Parlor. I am going away solo camping on the weekend with the intention to have finalized my response by the end of the weekend. I don't necessarily intend for it to be lengthy, but I do hope to provide you with sufficient guidance to operate efficiently and  effectively, as I appreciate that you will both be somewhat "time poor."

If you have no objection, it would assist me to "compartmentalize" my responses.  I would like to provide separate responses to each of the action items, and in this correspondence I will address action item one from your correspondence where you stated, "I undertook to contact Nishi (Naomichi Nishizawa) about his observations of the prevalence of APTA-like arrangements in the flight training sector of the industry."

I believe that this is fundamental to the matter in its entirety. After 5 years the Ombudsman Office was unable to make a determination as to this very simple matter. For such a simple black and white issue, that can be so easily resolved, I am stunned that the Ombudsman Office was unable to make a determination as to whether the structure had never previously been accepted by CASA, as CASA led the Ombudsman to believe, or was it commonplace throughout the industry and authorized by CASA on multiple occasions throughout the industry.

It really should be that simple. Either CASA always permitted it, or CASA never permitted it. There can only be one truthful answer.

It is the complete failure of the Ombudsman's Office to be able to make a determination on something so fundamental, that  has led me to form the opinion that up until this present time,  CASA has provided false and misleading information on this aspect, as well as others.

I have asserted throughout the matter that the identical structure was always approved by formal processes by CASA on multiple occasions over my 25 years in the industry, and all industry participants within Australia would have no doubt that is the truth.

I had 25 years in the industry as a flight instructor. I was a CASA approved Head of Operations (HOO) and CASA approved CEO. I was the owner of a large and successful flight training organization that by CASAs own admission, had delivered industry leading standards of safety and compliance. I could be considered a Subject Matter Expert on  the flight training industry. 

For clarity, I will provide a background on the flight training sector, drawing on my 25 years of experience within that sector.

Increasingly over the years, many  Flight Training Operators usually  in a regional area would be unable to continue operations. Invariably this was for one of two reasons. 

The operator was unable to attract the suitable legislated Key Personnel to move to that regional area, or 
the economies of scale could no longer sustain that  regional Flight Training Organisation. 

From my own experience the best demonstration of this would be my experience operating a flight training organisation for over a decade.

In 2006 when I commenced operations, it required approximately 4000 hours of delivered flight training per annum, for the business to break even, and for me to draw an Award salary from that business. 

By 2016, my business doing exactly the same thing as it had been for the previous decade, needed to deliver 7500 hours of flight training to break even, and to draw an Award salary.

The figures are staggering. I needed to almost double sales to maintain my same position. I acknowledge that there are other cost impacts  on a business, but it was predominantly costs related to CASAs burdensome regulatory structure.  

Quite simply, no regional flight training organisation could achieve 7500 delivered flight training hours per annum. The increased costs associated with this new regulatory structure saw an overnight increase in salaries of over 30%. There was no doubt that the regional sector of the industry was facing insurmountable challenges. 

As those rural schools faced closure they would let their CASA Authorization lapse and approach a larger established flying school and request that they take over operations. 

This required a formal CASA approval process on every occasion, and required changes to the CASA approved Exposition/ Operations Manual, and for a fee to be paid to CASA for that approval process, and for CASA to satisfy themselves that operational control could be maintained. 

This was commonplace throughout my 25 years in the industry, and formally approved by CASA on each and every occasion. From my personal experience I will draw on some such arrangements that comes to mind. 

Ballarat Aero Club had previously had an  arrangement with another operator, as had Bendigo Aero Club. Perhaps of most note is that Latrobe Valley Aero Club  had an arrangement with another operator which CASA was aware of and approved. The day that they transferred from their existing provider to APTA, it was my business that was deemed unlawful, yet the day prior the operations with another Provider was perfectly acceptable to CASA. I believe that the Point Cook flying club operated under an arrangement with a Moorabbin based operator. In my own case, CASA had approved my AV8 base in Darwin 8 years prior. I have been contacted by an ex CASA FOI from the QLD region, and he is aware of these arrangements being in place throughout that region, and prepared to provide you with a Stat Dec, to that effect, I am also advised that CASA FOI Brad Lacey utilized such arrangements at Coldstream when he was CFI of Lilydale, and may be a good further source of information. The list goes on and on, it really does.

The requirement that all personnel operating under an AOC must also be employed by the same Company that holds the AOC was never a condition placed on any of these Operators. This CASA imposed requirement was unique to my Organisation.

I am confident that provided the right environment can be established there are many CASA employees that would come forward and tell the truth on this matter.

In our meeting however, I specifically nominated FOI Nishizawa. I have nominated FOI Nishizawa is for the following reasons. 

I have trust and confidence in this particular FOI. Whilst I have never had any engagement with him outside of the work environment, I have operated under him, in his role as the Chief Flying Instructor/Head of Operations prior to his employment with CASA. Whilst we might not gravitate towards each other at a BBQ, I have the utmost respect for his consistency, integrity and importantly "professionalism', and I draw on my personal experience with him, when I make those statements. 

This FOI was also the FOI that was allocated to my business by CASA for almost a decade as the "flight school subject matter expert" on flight training within my allocated CASA team referred to as a "Certificate Management Team'  (CMT2). He had constant communication with our Organization on at least a weekly base throughout the decade. Of all current CASA employees, this employee would hold the most knowledge of this matter, and have access to the truth.

This FOI, was instrumental  in the design and revalidation of APTA to the new regulatory structure. This approval occurred in April of 2017, and was the culmination of a three year project redesigning APTA to continue doing exactly  what it had been doing for the previous decade, but in the new regulatory structure of Part 141 and 142. I have attached the checklist that was used by CASA personnel including this particular FOI, to approve APTA to that new regulatory structure. The business had adopted that same structure for the previous decade, but now I had invested several hundred thousand dollars in facilities, personnel, and systems to meet the new requirements. As stated, I was fully revalidated to the new regulatory structure in April of 2017. The new regulatory structure was introduced in September 2018. The very next month in  October 2018, I  was advised by CASA  that I was unauthorized and subject to prosecution by CASA, and I was given 7 days certainty of operations.

This FOI was integral in the design of induction checklist that we used to bring new members on board., and the associated Temporary locations procedure which was in fact his recommendation, and for comment on this, if I could refer you to Page 3, post #46 where that post attends to it in more detail to our Temporary Locations procedure. It was in fact this CASA FOI who suggested that we adopt the procedure, and assisted us with the design of it.
 https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-a...asa-3.html

Perhaps more value could be obtained in finding out what the differences were. If you are able to ascertain that in fact the identical or at least very similar structure was always accepted and approved  by CASA, it would assist me if it could be identified what was it that was different about my structure, and what specifically was the deficiency, if any.

May I close by thanking you again for the opportunity to meet with you. I appreciate that i have not attended to a number of other matters in this correspondence but will provide due attention to responding as soon as is practical.
 
I look forward to an update as to whether CASA maintains that the structure was either never approved by CASA or in fact was always and regularly approved by CASA, and hopefully for CASA to clearly identify what the shortcomings were. Something i have not been able to have answered for five years.

I respect the challenging situation that this matter places you in, i really am. My hope is that good intent and integrity will prevail, as I believe it  it will.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

Via the UP, Lead Balloon in reply:

I anticipate that CASA’s ‘C-Suite’ position on the lawfulness of the APTA structure will in effect be: Two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because other personnel arrangements similar to those of APTA were approved, doesn't may the approvals right. I say ‘C-Suite’ because this mess was caused by differences of opinion between C-Suite and other CASA staff.

My prediction is that the C-Suite will eventually have to concede that similar personnel arrangements were approved for other flying training organisations but were also, in the C-Suite’s opinion, unlawful. That’s why those arrangements are being undone, very, very quietly.

I’ll give Ms Spence and Mr Binskin the benefit of the doubt for the time being and assume they have been advised that no other similar arrangements were ever approved, but in that case they’ve been deliberately misled. Or maybe it will be on the basis of weasel words: “Well boss, I am not aware of any evidence of any other approvals”, leaving out: “By the way, I have not tried to find any evidence.”

Of course, the C-Suite’s position on the implications of the definition of ‘personnel’ in Parts 141 and 142 and CASA’s requirements as to the level of evidence demanded to demonstrate ‘operational control’ have never been tested. However, the risks and potential costs of getting an authoritative interpretation exclude that as a practical option for most if not all ‘little’ industry players.

Let’s assume the C-Suite’s position is the correct one. It follows that the requirements eventually imposed on APTA were not unlawful. But it also follows that APTA was led up the garden path into unlawfulness by CASA staff – those friendly FOIs – who encouraged APTA to believe its original structure was lawful. CASA approved it all.

That’s why the C-Suite eventually went to all the trouble it did to try to get APTA to fit into the rules as the C-Suite interpreted them: they knew – and they still know – that CASA stuffed up by leading APTA up the garden path, even if the personnel arrangements in the APTA structure were unique.

Sadly – as we know – Glen was broken at least financially by the process. And CASA is never going voluntarily to admit any liability for its stuff up in leading APTA up the garden path by approving a structure which CASA subsequently decided was unlawful. CASA will continue to admit that the ‘manner’ in which the mess was made and the attempts to tidy it up were implemented was unfortunate or whatever other euphemisms they choose, but that’s not an admission of liability for the mess.

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Ramble On - In a nutshell -

Australia Aviation Regulatory Burden - A Tragedy

Is it just me that has noted that the burden of compliance is ever increasing and becoming impossible to meet.

At some operations I know, there have been people working almost non stop on writing operations manuals for the majority of a decade and it’s still nowhere near done.

The extra staff required to meet regulatory compliance is eye watering. The work load and stress caused by CASA compliance is just incredible.

The majority of the burden stems from the most poorly structured and written suite of rules I have ever seen.

Very few Australian regulations are written in a style for operators or end users but designed to be for lawyers to form the noose with which to hang an operator after an event.

I have nightmares about getting a good working knowledge on the current regulatory Flight Duty times when flight operations cross into 3 or 4 of the Annex definitions.

Part of the burden is also self inflicted because the Operations Manuals are no longer just one simple manual but now a never ending suite of volumes that are each of a size and complexity such that they are almost impossible to have a good working knowledge of let alone retain.

Combine the above with the poorly written extra curricular studies (CRM, RVSM, RNP, TCAS, EGPWS, HF, TEM, EMERGENCY DRILLS, DGs) and I see how costs just skyrocket- because it must be almost impossible to make a profit under this burden.

And it is certainly not SAFER.

Safe is NOT having an 800 page AIP, a 1000 page Operating Manual suite and untold hundreds of pages of CARs, CASRs, CAOs, MOSs, and NOTAMs to recall when things go wrong on a dark and stormy night or when your eyeballs are hanging out during a miserable grey wet first light approach after an oceanic or ITCZ crossing. At that point there are only a handful of numbers that are important and they may all be in an AFM for which there is no longer working brain space to store.

I see that it’s time for operators to stand up and stop this snowball effect. It’s time that we got back to some good simple flying basics in this way too complicated CASA regulatory world. For a start it’s long overdue that we had regulations written for operators and not lawyers and Ops Manuals that were designed for operating and not arse covering.

Succinct, accurate, eminently sensible. The case for adopting the NZ or USA model is undeniable. CASA aim for 100% 'safe' conviction rate, no matter the 'evidence', through the use of this type of rule set, that is the target. Passing strange though that the abominations and blatant disregard for the most basic of rules, occasioning death in Broome, were allowed to continue, without even a mild rebuke, let alone a criminal prosecution. Take a quick study of the Andy Pascoe case; or Bruce Rhodes or Glen Buckley; or, any of the numerous other matters; run a comparison. The relentless nature of prolonged attack, the cost – both fiscal and human. Then run that against 'Croc- Fodder' or his noble off- sider in Broome.

If you can find logic; or, justice; or, even an improved safety case; then you are a better man than I am Gunga Din. 

Toot – toot....

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 16/01/24

Via the AP emails:

Tue 2024-01-16 7:20 AM

16/01/24 

·       Commonwealth Ombudsman Reference-      2019-713834

·       My Reference-                                                PPRUNE #  2915                                                         

---

 To the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
 
The Commonwealth Ombudsman Office conducted a 5-year investigation into matter 2019-713834 involving action by CASA that led to the closure of my business with associated significant harm caused

Presumably, at 5 years duration it is one of the lengthiest and most comprehensive investigations ever undertaken by the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.

As the person whose family has been significantly impacted by this matter, it is concerning that after five years, the Ombudsman Office remains unable to resolve the simplest of issues, and the misunderstandings within the Ombudsman’s Office are highly evident.

Those misunderstandings impact substantially on me and my family.

In the latter part of the investigation, once I became aware that significant misunderstandings had developed within the Ombudsman Office, I made multiple requests/pleas to completely withdraw my complaint. You will have those requests on record.

The Ombudsman Office made its own decision to continue with the investigation despite those formal requests by me to fully withdraw my complaint.

Those misunderstandings within the Ombudsman Office that initially raised my concerns, have compounded, and as I had anticipated, they impact my ability to pursue justice and finalise this matter.

Having reviewed the Robodebt Report and most particularly regarding the comments and recommendations that apply to the Ombudsman Office, I have no doubt that there are systemic issues within the Ombudsman Office, and those very same issues have impacted on my matter.

I continue to ask that my complaint be withdrawn and that the findings of the Ombudsman Office be completely withdrawn, so that they cannot be provided to any other Entity or Government Department and used to prevent me seeking justice or an Act of Grace payment.

If the Ombudsman Office will not withdraw the findings, it is essential that where there are gross technical misunderstandings within the Ombudsman Office, that they are acknowledged and publicly corrected, and most especially, because they are so easily corrected, and the impact of those misunderstandings is significant.

Brief summation of the investigation.

The investigation was based around the CASA action that led to the closure of my business of more than a decade, the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA) and my flying school, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT)

 The closure was forced by a new and unique requirement that was imposed on me and my business only, by a single CASA Employee. That requirement was not and has never been placed on any other Organisations that operated in an identical structure to me and my business.

I was in effect “targeted” by that single CASA Employee. I am fully satisfied that his decision making was intended to bring harm to me personally, based on existing acrimony between him within CASA, and myself.

That new and unique requirement imposed on my business only, being the requirement that all Personnel operating under my CASA issued Part 141 and part 142 Flying Training Approval must now also be directly employed by the same Company that holds that Approval. I was not permitted to utilise personnel that were employed by another Entity, even in cases where I owned the ‘other’ Entity.

I cannot overemphasize how bizarre and damaging both commercially and reputationally this new and targeted interpretation was.

This application of this new and unique requirement was applied only to my Organisation. It is not a legislative requirement, in fact quite the opposite. The legislation clearly and for obvious reasons does permit a Flying School to utilise personnel that are not Employees of the same Company that holds the CASA issued approval. It always has, and it always will, and that is exactly how the Part 141 and part 142 legislation is written. In fact, the Part 142 legislation is referred to as the “contracted training legislation”.

Not only was this new and unique requirement that was placed on me, not supported in any way, by any legislation, it completely contravenes precedent set by CASA during the previous 25 years of my involvement in the industry in its dealings with all other Operators, with the notable sole exception of mine.

CASA applied that interpretation to my business only and continues to permit all other operators to operate in the same structure that I was not permitted to operate with.

The matter in its entirety is truly outrageous. Unfortunately, during the five-year investigation the Ombudsman Office was also completely unable to clarify whether the structure that I adopted was “new and unusual” or if in fact it was commonplace throughout the industry, and continues to be, only after a CASA approval process.

A truly staggering inability to arrive at clear determinations on the most basic and fundamental facts, and particularly where there is readily available irrefutable evidence to make a determination.

I note that in correspondence from the Ombudsman the use of the terminology, “CASA advised….”, indicating that supporting evidence was not required, and CASA assertions were accepted at face value, even in situations they were clearly controversial.

At this stage, I am not seeking any comment against the “background” information provided above, as that is not the purpose of this correspondence. It is provided merely as background information.

I have included my Local MP, Carina Garland in this correspondence, and the information above will ensure that she remains fully briefed on this matter, as she has been throughout.

Minister King has specifically directed my Local MP, Carina Garland not to assist me with this matter, and that direction by a Government Minister further heightens my concerns.

As a constituent of the Electorate of Chisholm, and with concerns as to why the Minister responsible for CASA would direct an MP not to assist a Constituent in such a significant matter, I have included other recipients in this correspondence.

I seek to clarify a simple single issue that is critical to this matter. A matter that the Ombudsman office has been unable to clarify throughout the five years. A matter that I have made multiple requests of the Ombudsman Office to address, yet the Office seems resistant to address this simple to resolve, but critical matter.

My reasonable assumption is that the Ombudsman office is affording the Agency a level of “protection” that is more than the public should reasonably expect of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office.

Many of the findings from the Robodebt investigation are relevant to my matter and particularly the recommendation that a statutory obligation be placed on Government employees to use their best endeavours in assisting an Ombudsman investigation.

In my own matter that has been the subject of a five-year investigation, I am fully satisfied that a senior executive within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has repeatedly and deliberately provided false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.

The Robodebt investigation also identified that despite the Ombudsman Office having significant power to look behind the assertions being made by the Government Department, there was a tendency to not use those powers, and to accept assertions made by the Agency at face value, without the requirement to call on evidence in support of those assertions.

This was very much my experience with the Ombudsman office and to be perfectly frank, I felt that at times there was very little appetite to arrive at the truth, and an aversion to seeking evidence where it was readily available, and that leads me to the purpose of this correspondence.

I feel that the significance of this request may be somewhat lost on the Ombudsman office, nevertheless this request is critical to this matter in its entirety, and I believe that I am fully entitled to have this significant misunderstanding fully and clearly resolved, to allow me to progress this matter.

Throughout the five-year investigation my position was that there was only ever one flying school. That being APTA, the flying school that I owned and operated. That flying school was a Registered Training Organisation and a CASA approved flying school holding both categories of flight training i.e. both a Part 141 Approval and a Part 142 Approval.

There were no other ‘flying schools” involved in this matter.

The Ombudsman Office in correspondence has obviously formed the opinion that there are multiple flying schools, when in fact there is only one flying school and that being APTA. In correspondence received from the Ombudsman office it mentions the other Entities approvals and authorisations, as though they held a flying school approval, when in fact there were none.

This is a significant misunderstanding within the Ombudsman’s office. Whether it is based on false and misleading information, or whether it is based on significant but wildly inaccurate assumptions within the Ombudsman Office, I do not know, and that determination is best left to the Ombudsman office.

The purpose of this correspondence is not to find out how the inaccuracy developed but the purpose of this correspondence is to have it clearly, concisely and finally fully resolved, so that there can be no misunderstanding.

The Ombudsman office accepted that there were multiple flying schools each with their own Authorisations, and the Ombudsman refers to those other Entities training ability and the other Entities CASA issued Authorisations and Approvals.

A gross technical error on behalf of the Ombudsman, because quite simply. There are none.

Of the Entities involved in this matter only APTA was a flying school. Only APTA held  Approvals or flying school Authorisations to deliver Flight Training. There were no others. There was only one flying school, only one CASA issued Part 141/142 Approval. There was only APTAs legislative required Key Personnel, only APTAs Approval, only APTAs Authorisation, only APTA courses and syllabi, only APTAs Registered Training Organisation, only APTAs Safety department, only APTA had the qualified personnel, only APTA had all aircraft inducted into its system there were only APTa policies, procedures and safety systems etc etc etc

Those other “Entities” were no more a flying school, than you as the reader of this correspondence, are a flying school. It is a “black and white matter”, and there should be no confusion. With all due respect to them, they literally would be unwilling and totally unable to operate a flying school, as CASA well knows.

If the Ombudsman Office is of the opinion that there were other Approvals and Authorisations in order for any of the other entities to operate as a flying school, and I maintain that in fact there were no other approvals or Authorisations, I call on the Ombudsman Office to nominate those Approvals held.

An entirely reasonable request, as I am sure you will concur.

The only holder of any approvals or Authorisations was APTA alone with CASA ARN 759217 and a CASA issued Part 141 and 142 .

It is not and should not be a matter that causes any confusion whatsoever within the Ombudsman Office.

The Entities that were not flying schools and who approached me to deliver flight training under my CASA issued Part 141/142 flying training approval at their respective airports, were not ‘flying schools. The Entities that approached me to deliver flying training on their behalf were”

·       Melbourne Flight Training

·       Learn to Fly

·       AVIA

·       AV8

·       Latrobe Valley aeroclub

·       Whitestar aviation

·       Simjet

·       Ballarat Aero Club

·       ARC Aviation

I should point out at this stage that I have already made an FOI request of CASA, and received the required information. I know the clear and correct answer and cannot comprehend how so many of these “misunderstandings” developed in this investigation. If the Ombudsman remains unable to address this issue, please advise me and I will provide you with my FOI response that brings clarity to this matter, although my hope is that the Ombudsman can initiate their own well-intentioned process rather than rely on me.

From my own experience the Ombudsman office demonstrated a resistance to seeking evidence where evidence was readily available. This occurred frequently on matters where a request for evidence would bring clarity to a matter which in turn could potentially cause harm to the Government Agency.

There were no active Part 141 or Part 142 Authorisations, for any of those Organisations. I have put far too much time in trying to correct information that CASA feeds to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman accepts at face value.

For complete clarity. These Entities approached me to deliver flight training because they couldn’t deliver flying training. If they could deliver flying training, they would be a flying school in their own right,, and therefore a business competitor to APTA

None of these Entities were a Flying School. None could deliver flight training because they did not have a CASA Part 141 or 142 Approval. Each of those Entities was no more a flying school than you, as the reader, and as CASA well knows.

As CASA only issues those Part 141/142 Approvals after a lengthy and complex process, CASA would be fully aware that there is only one flying school involved in this matter. Please be assured that the confusion exists only within the Ombudsman Office on this fundamental matter.

For an entity to become a Flying School it’s a complicated, costly, and burdensome process. The school would have to make an application to CASA in order to be approved.

There are a number of ways that the Ombudsman office could almost immediately fully resolve this matter, as it requires any one of these very simple questions.

If CASA, or the Ombudsman  asserts that there were any other Flight Training Organisations with any active approvals then , CASA would be able to immediately provide:

·       The Aviation Reference Number (ARN) for the Organisation, and the associated active Part 141 or 142 Approvals

·       The flying school would have a CASA issued certificate to verify those active Authorisations and Approvals.

·       The flying school would have the CASA mandated Key Personnel for the Flying School i.e. Chief Flying instructor/ Head of Operations. Safety Manager, CASA approved CEO, and CASA would be able to name those Key personnel.

·       They would be required to have a CASA Approved Operations Manual/ Exposition that CASA would hold on file, containing procedures, syllabi, safety management etc.

·       They would have aircraft inducted into that flying school, and CASA would hold that information on record.

·       CASA would hold on file, emails indicating some level of communications, oversight, and engagement with those Entities, as would be expected if they were a flying school.

For CASA to lead the Ombudsman to believe, and for the Ombudsman Office to believe and accept that each of these Entities was a flying school that could deliver flight training is incredulous, it really is.

If The Ombudsman has accepted that these Entities were a flying school, at any time with their own Approvals and Authorisations, it seems entirely reasonable that I call on the Ombudsman to identify which of those Entities held either a Part 141 or 142 Approval.

If I am grossly mistaken and any of those Entities were a “flying school” with an active 141 or 142 CASA approved active Flying School, and able to deliver flight training then I have been grossly mistaken.

I would have a gross misunderstanding of this entire matter, I would be mistaken, and I would have inadvertently but substantially provided the Ombudsman Office with grossly inaccurate information throughout this matter, although not with bad intent. The information that I have provided would clearly be false and misleading.

You will appreciate that it is very important going forward to have this clearly and concisely clarified.

Thankyou in anticipation of clearly confirming the position of the Ombudsman’s office as to how many Entities were approved to deliver Part 141/142 training.

Was there only one, that being APTA, or were there multiple Flying Schools.

I welcome any contact by any means including telephone, if you wish to clarify any aspects of this request.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

Some comments in reply, via the UP:

Global Aviator

Glen, honestly mate why not just get the best lawyers in the country, get the GoFundMe fired up. I’ll defo throw more $$$ into it.

The more I read the more I understand you, it’s personal, you want to beat them on your own terms and get what is rightly yours. I get it I’m the same tenacious prick.

However there also comes a time when ya gotta let dogs out.

I’m sure everyone on these pages would love to see your full legal assault on the institution. Individuals in an organisation destroyed you (yes I’m living vicariously through you as 20 years ago I had my own issues but was not wise enough to know what to do, now it would be different).

I have no doubt through your tenacity and detail that you will eventually win, but at what cost? Plus prob another 5+ years.

The pathetic action of grace offer even fired me up!

---

LAME2

I’m with Global Aviator. Hunt down, someone will have a recommendation they can PM you, a decent law firm that understands your plight. Get the ball rolling, it’s been too long.

---

Sandy Reith

The Waiting Game, and All in Together this Fine Weather

Waiting for the independent bodies of CASA or an Ombudsman to admit error and correct same is expecting the whole of the Public Sector to renounce its power, pre-eminence and the great salaries that are part and parcel of the Canberra bureaucratic juggernaut.

The unjustified and forlorn hopefulness that all of governments ills can be solved by the creation of independent (monopoly) Commonwealth corporations or commissions is very evident after years of this experimenting away from Ministerial and Departmental responsibility. The latter is about democratic accountability and the link between government and citizens.

Former Victorian Premier Henry Bolte was correct about the Ombudsman concept, “it will take away from the duties of Members of Parliament.”

Glen has piled on the pressure but without very strong political backing the courts are surely the only viable option. And that political change can be caused by court action because of the publicity it can engender.

---

Slippery_Pete

Waiting for the independent bodies of CASA or an Ombudsman to admit error and correct same is expecting the whole of the Public Sector to renounce its power, pre-eminence and the great salaries that are part and parcel of the Canberra bureaucratic juggernaut.

Correct.

They say the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.

The more I read the more I understand you, it’s personal, you want to beat them on your own terms

That’s what this whole saga boils down to. There’s gofundme plus legal action available here, but the problem is Glen wants to be seen to have been right.

Until pride gets shelved, this train wreck of long letters demanding justice followed by government departments ducking and weaving and hiding behind each other will inevitably continue.

Hmm...submission to SSP and/or ICAO audit team; compare GlenB's saga to that of the CASA Board oversighted Helibrook operation, or the Essendon DFO cover-up, more than highlights the serious deficiencies of the regulator in adhering to the ICAO international standards and anything like approaching factual compliance with ICAO Annex 19...   (Ref:  Perseverating :: Perspicacity :: Self preservation?  &   Senator McKenzie calls out Albo on Joyce Meeting?? ) 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 9/03/24

Catching up a little bit here - reference via the UP 29/02/24:

glenb

Distribution

I have distributed the correspondence to all Independent MPs with this brief covering letter:

My name is Glen buckley, and I am a Constituent of Chisholm. My Local MP is Dr.Carina Garland of the ALP.


I am writing to each Independent Parliamentary Representative raising awareness of my substantive allegations of misconduct within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Those allegations are raised specifically against the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs. Mr Jonathan Aleck.

This has been a subject of a 5 year investigation by the Ombudsman Office. Recently I have obtained information under FOI that leaves me in no doubt that the Minister King and my Local MP Dr. Carina Garland have some level of involvement in this matter. My Local MP, Dr Carina Garland has been instructed by Minister King not to assist me on this matter. The Office of Dr Carina Garland refuses to accept any submissions from me on this matter, as a result of that direction from Minister King.

As a 4 generation family of Chisholm residents and as a 6 decade constituent myself, I am concerned that my Local MP would not assist a constituent.

While I am not seeking any specific involvement of your Office, I am wanting to ensure that there is at least an awareness amongst our Independent Representatives.


I will also be working diligently within the electorate to ensure fellow constituents are aware that my local MP has been directed by the Minister not to assist me, and those efforts will increase measurably in the lead up to the next election.

I will also be seeking media involvement.

The allegations extend into the Office of Minister King. Minister King's integrity has been recently questioned on Aviation related matters , and I too am questioning the Minister's integrity.

I have an abundance of evidence available to me,including senior ex CASA employees, and fully intend to see this matter through to a determination.

Below you will find my most recent correspondence on this matter.

Thankyou for your consideration.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

Refer to the above UP link for the ensuing comments that followed...

Next, via AP email chains today:

Complaint- “False and misleading’ allegations by CASA against Glen Buckley. 

Dear Mr Hanton, CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner.

Please note that I have included the Office of Minister King in this correspondence to ensure that the Minister responsible for CASA maintains an awareness of this matter. To date I have been corresponding via my Local MP, Dr Carina Garland, and requesting that she, in turn, keep Minister King fully informed.

I sought my Local MP, Dr. Carina Garlands assistance on this matter, but she advised me that she has been directed at Ministerial level, not to assist me with my allegations of misconduct within CASA.

Presumably based on that Directive from Minister King, my Local MP Dr. Carina Garland refuses to accept my submission of allegations of corruption, will not permit me entry to her Office, will not respond to correspondence, nor take phone calls from me. I am therefore compelled to bypass my Local MP, Dr Carina Garland and approach the responsible Minister directly to ensure that she maintains a high level of awareness of this topic, as she has to date.
 

---

Mr Hanton, CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner.

Please accept my complaint regarding the allegation that I “stalked and assaulted”, CASA Employees.

An allegation that I fully refute as you are aware.

This allegation was made by Mr Shane Carmody PSM, the CASA CEO, under the protection of Parliamentary privilege before the Senate RRAT committee on 20/11/20.

That presentation by Mr Shane Carmody PSM was the first time that I was made aware that CASA had made these substantive criminal allegations about me. I had no prior knowledge whatsoever that I had apparently stalked and assaulted CASA employees.

I was with my family at the time, and to say we were shocked is an understatement, and most especially so because of the very formal setting that these allegations were first raised, and the fact that I had no prior knowledge whatsoever that I had allegedly either stalked or assaulted CASA Employees. None!

The complaint being submitted by me relates to the fact that is not true and no CASA Employee has alleged to the police or any internal CASA reporting procedures that I Glen Buckley ever stalked or assaulted any CASA Employees.

I am fully satisfied that Mr Shane Carmody PSM made this false and misleading allegation before the Senate Committee for no other reason than to cause reputational harm to me, based on existing acrimony between Mr Shane Carmody PSM and myself.

Not only was Mr Carmody PSMs approach cowardly, but it was also false and misleading, as he was fully aware when he made those false allegations about me to the Senators.

The very starting point of such an allegation is that a CASA Employee must have made a complaint to the police, or at least via CASA internal OHS procedures that I had stalked them, and they would have had to make some complaint that I assaulted them.

A complaint of “stalking” or “assault” must exist.

A review of the definition of these two most serious crimes indicates that they both have potential criminal sentences attached to them, as they absolutely must, and most especially if a government employee is stalked and or assaulted by a member of the public in the coursed of their employment.

Stalking and Assault are two of the most serious allegations that could be made against an individual, and particularly the connotations of “creepiness” with regards to “stalking” and the propensity for violence suggested by “assault”.

 The point being that to have stalked and/or assaulted CASA employees as Mr Carmody PSM alleges, there would be some formal documentation in support of those very specific allegations, yet there is nothing.

CASA would no doubt be compelled to formally document such substantive allegations as part of their OHS procedures. It is just not feasible that CASA employees were either stalked or assaulted by me, and a substantive “paper trail” does not exist.

I have made a Freedom of Information request on this topic, and those results indicate that there is no documentation at all, held by CASA that indicates any report of either “stalking” or “assault’, that I have been provided access to by that FOI request.

For clarity the descriptors “stalking” and “assault’ yielded absolutely no results from within CASA from a Freedom of Information request on this topic.

The only reference at all, that Glen Buckley has “stalked” or ‘assaulted” any CASA employee is that scurrilous and cowardly allegation that Mr Shane Carmody PSM made in that most formal of settings, being before the Senators at the RRAT Committee

Unfortunately, the harm is not caused so much by the initial allegation by Mr Carmody, but rather by CASAs steadfast refusal to correct that false allegation, with the knowledge it is highly probable that it is a false allegation.

You will be familiar with the background to, and the use of the word. ‘Gaslighting’. From my personal experience, that is a tactic that CASA has consistently utilised in its engagement with me on this matter.

No CASA employee was “stalked” by me, and no CASA Employee was “assaulted” by me.

I am addressing this “gaslighting” very directly in this correspondence.

I am currently in dispute with CASA in an ongoing and substantive unrelated matter. It would suit CASAs agenda to present me as a person who would stalk and assault CASA Employees.

CASA made and has maintained this allegation for several years. Eventually, I begin to question myself. Industry peers, friends and acquaintances still refer to it. Many with good intention, some suggest that I make an apology for stalking and assaulting, others suggest I “let it go”. It breaks my heart when on occasion my wife even queries it. Its constantly around and it has created a seed of doubt in everyone.

I want prompt attention to this question/complaint. It is very simple and very direct.

There are only two options to the two questions that I will put to you. My complaint is that CASA have enough knowledge of this matter to know that on the balance of probabilities, no CASA employee was ever “stalked” or “assaulted” by me, and by continuing to propagate this falsehood they cause continuing harm.

I put this complaint directly to you as the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner.

If no CASA Employee is alleging that I stalked or assaulted them, then quite simply how can I have stalked or assaulted anybody.

To bring an end to the “gaslighting” and maintain my mental health and provide me the opportunity to somewhat restore my reputation, it is essential that only a one-word response be provided to each of these two questions.

A one worded response is all I need to know. It brings immediate clarity, and brings a high level of transparency, it avoids the opportunity to gaslight, and goes someway to immediately restoring my reputation and relieving the stress associated with that.

A resistance to providing a single word response would be concerning.

The two questions that I put to you are.

1.      Has any CASA Employee ever alleged that they were “assaulted” by Glen Buckley?

2.      Has any CASA Employee ever alleged that they were “stalked” by Glen Buckley?

I am not seeking any well-crafted wordy responses, or any inferences. Both crimes are clearly defined, and if you are in any doubt, please ensure you have an understanding of the definitions as of the allegations as made by Mr Carmody, and propagated by CASA on a continuing basis, prior to responding.

I am seeking only a yes or no response as that is the only credible response that needs be put forward.

If I become aware that the CASA CEO has made an allegation that I stalked or assaulted a CASA Employee, my first question would naturally be.

Why do you say that? Has a CASA Employee or Employees made an allegation that I stalked them, or that I assaulted them?”

The single word response to that question determines where the discussion continues from there or it goes no further.

If the response is,

·       “Yes.” A CASA Employee or Employees do allege that you “stalked” them.

and/or

·       “Yes, a CASA Employee or Employees do allege that you “assaulted” them.

Then the matter must rightfully proceed.

If however, in fact no CASA Employee has made an allegation that I “stalked” them and no CASA Employee has made an allegation that I “assaulted” them, then that discussion surely would proceed no further.

If no allegation has been made, that allegation cannot possibly proceed nor have any validity., and I question how it could arise in such a formal setting and suggest that it would not have been raised had Mr Carmody not been protected by Parliamentary Privilege. As previously stated, a most cowardly approach in my view, and most especially because CASA refuse to approach the police on a matter that most certainly should have police involvement, had it really occurred.

I can see absolutely no reason that you cannot immediately attend to this, as you already have all the information at hand, and already know the answer.

As the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner this is a matter that you already have an Expert knowledge on. The information you require is information you already have accessed. If you claim that this is not correct, I will not challenge you, other than to state that you have almost immediate access to the answer, and I hope that you can respond in timeframes that I can reasonably expect, if “good intent” is prevailing.

The purpose of this complaint is to bring immediate clarity to this matter and deny CASA the opportunity to mislead. As the allegations weren’t made against you, you may not fully appreciate the impact that they have, and particularly because of the most formal of settings that those allegations were made.

To be frank, I have felt very much on the receiving end of a determined and sustained effort to effectively “gaslight” me, and cause me trauma, as the ongoing matter does. For reasons of my own health and sanity, I must insist that this complaint is almost immediately responded to, as it so easily be attended to.

It requires only two words in response to my most reasonable questions. I am seeking only a “yes" or a "no" to those questions.

I hope that you can respect the "intent" of my question. I am trying to ascertain if these allegations even exist. That is an allegation of stalking or an allegation of assault. Two different crimes requiring a response to each of those two allegations.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

And the reply comments that followed:

Sandy Reith:

Stalking and assault allegation.

I think we’d like to know if this could be a matter of libel. One for a legal opinion because help from CASA is about as likely reversing the earth’s rotation by wishing it so.

---

Slippery_Pete

Let’s dissect this statement.

“It is essential that I exhaust…”

No, it’s not “essential”. It’s a choice you are consciously making. You are CHOOSING to continue on a path that has rendered NOTHING for many, many years. These unfruitful, repetitive and long letters are not a path you are forced to take - it’s one you’re choosing.

“so I can demonstrate my absolute and total commitment”

Look, I’m no psychologist. But you’ve made comments like this in the past. And it makes me think there’s something deeper here. Who must you “demonstrate” your incorruptibility to?

Is it yourself? Is it your wife? Is it the people you were employing at the time? There’s something much more
going on under the surface.

Please don’t take this post the wrong way. I (and everyone else here) want justice to be served. But you really need to ask yourself some of these hard questions.

IMHO (and nearly everyone else here) - you need to engage a professional.

And in the event that even a professional can’t get you any compensation, that’s still a good outcome - at least you’ll have closure and can get on with the rest of your life.

On average, we get about 80 laps around the sun. How many more are you going to waste on this, just to demonstrate you’re right?

---

Global Aviator

Well said Slippery.

Glen we are all behind you and will continue to be. Just look at the gofundme when it gets pushed. The minute you have legal counsel actively engaged and a REAL fight to CASA it will go up faster than an empty rocket ship.

You’ve said April 2, this is fantastic, a hard date.

I feel your pain and anger in the long letters, unfortunately those reading them don’t give a flying fcuk! Look at the CASA offer of compensation, what a joke.

Go hard bud, reap the rewards of an out of court settlement with a shut up notice attached, flick the money around to those you feel you must.

Above all it will give you closure one way or the other, life is to live mate. I hope these words are encouraging as they are meant.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 10/05/24

Via the AP emails:

Mandatory referral obligations NACC placed on the CASA CEO-Ms Pip Spence. 

To: Ms Pip Spence- CEO of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)

My name is Glen Buckley.

Mr Jonathan Aleck is the Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)

You are aware and have been throughout your tenure as the CEO of CASA, that I have made two allegations against CASA Employee Mr Jonathan Aleck.

I have raised allegations directly with you as the Agency Head of CASA, with Minister King, as the Minister responsible for CASA, and with my Local MP, Dr Carina Garland the Member for Chisholm.

The two allegations that I have made against Mr Aleck are.

1.      Deliberately provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation. I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck is fully aware that the information provided was grossly false and misleading. It was not an act or omission; it was deliberate and considered. He provided that false and misleading information to cover up his own misconduct, and 

2.      Misfeasance in Public office, by acting with targeted malice towards me personally. 

The purpose of this correspondence.

I am fully satisfied that you have an “expert” knowledge of my allegations. I have kept you fully briefed.

My understanding of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 legislation is that there are obligations placed on you as the Agency Head stipulating mandatory referral to the Commissioner.

My understanding is that as the Agency Head you are obliged to refer a matter to the NACC if the issue concerns the conduct of a person who is a Staff Member, and you suspect that this matter could involve corrupt conduct that is serious or systemic.

Having reviewed the legislation, I am satisfied that the corruption demonstrated by Mr Jonathan Aleck is both serious and systemic.

I am fully satisfied that Mr Jonathan Aleck the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs has demonstrated as a minimum, serious corrupt conduct and more towards severe or grave. It is clearly not negligible or trivial. I have made you aware of that.

Furthermore, I am fully satisfied that the corruption is systemic. I say that because I have been contacted by other victims of Mr Alecks misconduct. Although in this correspondence I am referring to my matter only. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr Alecks conduct is more than an isolated case. It involves a pattern of behaviour. I have been contacted by several individuals who would come forward given the suitable forum.

Because of Mr Alecks longstanding position of over 20 years, operating at the highest levels of the CASA Executive, and considering that his position is second on the CASA Organisational structure, and because of the significant power that his position entails, it is likely that if Mr Aleck is corrupt, it is likely that the impacts would  embedded in the system, as I and many in industry have observed.

 With evidence that I have obtained, I believe that his misconduct was deliberate and co-ordinated, and based on industry feedback I am confident that it is systemic.

I have carefully reviewed the legislation to arrive at that determination.

 The purpose of this correspondence is to seek a formal response from you in your role as the CEO of CASA.

I believe that there is a significant body of evidence that has been presented to you, that should cause reason for concern.

It is not reasonable that you would have full confidence in Mr Alecks integrity, unless there is some other motive.

I will be very upfront.

As the person whose family has been significantly affected by the actions and decisions of Mr Aleck, I am very concerned that you are “covering up” this matter, and affording Mr Aleck a far higher level of protection than his conduct entitles him to, or the public would expect.

At this stage that statement will not form part of my formal submission to the NACC, although you should be aware that it is a serious consideration, and your response to this correspondence will be a key determinant.

I have approached the Australian Federal Police (AFP) on this, matter, and I am satisfied that it is a matter to be considered by the NACC.

As the Agency Head, I feel you are compelled to refer this matter to the NACC. and should already have done so.

You are not meeting legislated obligations that are placed on you in that legislation

The legislation stipulates that a person who is required to refer a corruption issue must do so as soon as reasonably practicable after becoming aware of the issue.

If you have not referred the matter to the NACC, this is my formal request of you that you do so.

For complete clarity, I am making a formal request of you as the Agency Head of CASA to refer this matter of Mr Alecks misconduct to the NACC.

I have included Minister King in this correspondence because she has those same obligations in the legislation placed upon her, and I also make that request of her, if you are unwilling or unable to do so.

I have included my Local MP, Dr. Carina Garland in this correspondence because the legislation also places those same obligations on her as a Parliamentarian. My understanding is that Parliamentarians are Agency heads of their parliamentary offices and are also subject to mandatory referral obligations.

As I am pursuing this matter through an application to the NACC, it is essential that I receive a response from you in your role as the CEO of CASA.

Are you prepared to refer the matter of Mr Alecks conduct to the NACC. If you are unwilling or unable to refer this matter to the NACC, can you advise your reasons.

I can see no reason why a well-intentioned Agency Head would have any resistance to referring this significant matter to the NACC.

Your response will allow me to make a clear determination and proceed with my submission.

The Australian Federal Police referred me to the NACC, advising that the resources of the AFP are available to assist the NACC, if called upon by them.

I have spent time ensuring that I have a knowledge of the legislation regrading the NACC.

The NACC Act defines 4 types of “corrupt” conduct that a person can engage in.

1.      They are a public official, and they breach public trust.

2.      They are a public official, and they abuse their office as a public official

3.      They are a public official, and they abuse their office as a public official, and they misuse information they have gained in their capacity as public official.

4.      They do something that adversely affects a public officials honest or impartial exercise of powers or performance of official duties.

After reviewing those 4 types of corrupt conduct. I am fully satisfied Mr alecks conduct falls within the criteria of 1,2, and 3

On the criteria of “public trust” as outlined in legislation

Mr Aleck is a public official in the role of CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Services, the most senior of positions, and a position that wields enormous power including the power to close down businesses.

Those powers are granted to Mr Aleck “on trust” for the Australian Public. Those significant powers that Mr Aleck holds are to be used for the purposes for which the power was granted i.e. the sfety of aviation and must not be used in the process of exercising targeted malice, or any other improper purpose.

I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck has exercised his official power other than honestly for the purpose for which it was conferred.

On the criteria of abuse of office

I am fully satisfied Mr Aleck has engaged in both “improper acts” and “omissions. Improper acts with regards to the way that he engaged with me, and omissions with regards to the way he engaged with the Ombudsman Office.

Mr Alecks actions and decisions were deliberate and considered and caused detriment to me.

 

On the criteria of misuse of information.

Mr Aleck was the decision maker that made the decision to close my business. During the Ombudsman investigation, Mr Aleck was nominated by CASA as the person to represent the Agency and respond on  CASAs behalf.

I made multiple requests of CASA that it seemed unjust that Mr Aleck, the person I made the allegations against was the person solely responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman investigation. It seemed totally unreasonable.

Because of Mr Alecks senior position within CASA, his role as the Agency Representative, and the provider of information, Mr Aleck was afforded an unacceptable level of opportunity to misuse and access information that he had access to because of his position.

He provided false and misleading information to benefit himself by “covering up: his own misconduct, and to cause detriment to me.

My expectation of that response is that you will advise me:

1.      If you have previously referred the matter to the NACC.

2.      The date that you referred it to the NACC.

3.      If you have not referred it to the NACC, the reasons for that decision.

4.      If you have not referred the matter to the NACC, I request that you do so prior to Monday June 3rd, 2024, as I will be making my submission on Tuesday 4th June, and feel that the matter should be preempted by the Agency Head, in accordance with your legislated obligations.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

GB says: "..Furthermore, I am fully satisfied that the corruption is systemic. I say that because I have been contacted by other victims of Mr Alecks misconduct. Although in this correspondence I am referring to my matter only. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr Alecks conduct is more than an isolated case. It involves a pattern of behaviour. I have been contacted by several individuals who would come forward given the suitable forum..."

Hmm...over the last 20+ years, think on the substantial list of individuals that have had their businesses and/or livelihoods legally embuggered by this individual??

Ok so let's kick off the list of possible corruption misdemeanors by Dr A - who can forget this one?

Reference:  ATCB & FASA beyond redemption on Pelair cover-up  

...Given the DJ 'Act of Grace' application predated the October 2015 Supp Estimates hearing by  2 years, I always wondered why it was that Senator Fawcett chose that Estimates hearing to bring the matter up, recently I discovered why?

Copy of correspondence from Senator Fawcett to Senator Mathias Cormann, Minister for Finance 10 September 2014:

This correspondence was followed by another from DF in reply to correspondence from another useless, NFI Nationals MP and former Parliamentary Secretary to the Finance Minister Michael McCormack, who Mathias had handballed the matter to:

    
Which brings me to the advice of CASA, which in hindsight truly justifies Senator Fawcett's concerns and some..  

Much like the ATSB advice, bizarrely the CASA advice was not provided by the legal services division but by another conflicted (read NX Hansard text above) senior executive officer of CASA...  :

&.. last page:

{Note: 1) Dr A has sent the letter officially from the DAS office and that he was at the time apparently the 'Acting' DAS?? 
2) Dr A acknowledges that the Finance Dept request was sent nearly two months before.
3) 12 December 2014 - Correspondence from manager legal branch Joe Rule indicates that the CASA submission would be forwarded by him within the next week. Yet the submission was ultimately addressed by Dr A - err why?}     

Good to see the good Dr has moved on from the embarrassment of the diabolical PelAir cover-up inquiry - NOT... 

See HERE for the full text of one of the most vindictive, nasty documents from IMO the true centre of evil and instigator of FASA embuggerances... 

Finally (for now) the evil Dr, not happy with dancing all over and rejecting the DJ 'Act of Grace' payment, takes offence and attempts to 'correct the record' on an incorrect inference in the former Parliamentary Secretary's rejection letter:  

  
Nasty ducker isn't he - UDB! 

Do we need any further proof on who still controls the halls of Fort Fumble?? - all in the name of good aviation safety practice of course... 

MTF I'm sure...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

An informative look back on the disgraceful shenanigans of CASA over many years.

[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 21/08/24

Via the AP emails:

To the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner.

As you are aware I have made two allegations against Mr. Aleck the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs. Those allegations are:

• Providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation, and 
  
• Misfeasance in public office, and specifically "targeted malice"
  

I am in the process of obtaining evidence to assess whether I have a valid case.

Mr Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory affairs has led the Ombudsman Office to form the view that there was some deficiency in our existing systems or procedures that needed to be attended to by way of additional wording in our commercial agreement.

I have maintained that there was no deficiency, and interestingly no specific deficiency has ever been identified. I am fully satisfied that it was a completely fabricated requirement, used as the basis to maintain crippling trading restrictions on the business for 8 months until My Aleck determined that my business of more than a decade could not continue, and it was forced into closure at the end of June 2019.

In order for Mr Aleck to truthfully identify a deficiency in our existing systems and procedures it would have required Mr Aleck in the first instance to access those systems and procedures in order to review the systems and procedures. It would not be possible for Mr Aleck to identify a deficiency if he did not at least glance at those existing procedures designed for the specific purpose of maintaining the high levels of operational control required.

The expectation is that the identified deficiency, if there really was one, would have been quite significant because I was advised that the business had only 7 days to operate, CASA did provide interim extensions but none were granted past June 30th 2019, and that was when my business was forced into closure.

In order to maintain the high levels of operational control required, we adopted the Flight School Manager system (FSM). A system that CASA had  approved for use in 50 flying schools including mine, as a means to achieve the required levels of operational control.

FSM being the most advanced system in Australia, and the only product designed specifically for the Australian legislative environment. I don't expect you to be personally aware of the system, but it was a far more advanced and comprehensive system than any competitor product, and that is why this system is so popular in  Australian flying schools. You may be aware that we did extensive modifications to the system to further enhance its capability in consultation with CASA  and the Developer, an ex CASA emplyee, to achieve even higher levels of operational control for the multi base structure.

The system does require username and password access, and in order to ensure high levels of operational control, myself and two other staff had the ability to provide access to the systems and procedures contained within FSM that are specifically designed to maintain operational control.If you were not issued with a unique username and password, you had no access at all to the system.

These systems were comprehensive and included all the systems for safety notices, amendments, monitoring and scheduling maintenance, pilot rostering and fatigue management, predictive and unscheduled aircraft maintenance, tracking of all student records, student progress, staff proficiency checks, staff and student inductions, minutes of safety meetings, exam delivery and results, providing ":gates" prior to dispatching flights to ensure all criteria met, Aircraft tracking and search and rescue monitoring, weather monitoring  etc etc. These are only a limited sampling of the capabilities of this most comprehensive of systems designed for the specific purpose of maintaining high levels of operational control.

As you are aware I am of the opinion that Mr Aleck targeted me because I took an  industry lead on raising concerns about the new regulatory structure, and not for reasons of aviation safety.

I don't believe he ever accessed any of our systems or really did ever identify any deficiency at all, and that is why none has ever been specified beyond the very vague descriptor "matters of operational control" which says nothing. If there truly was a deficiency then CASA would be able to identify something more specific than "matters of operational control". As I have stated repeatedly the matter in its entirety was a fabricated one.

As I stated before, the system required one of the three staff or the product developer to issue access codes, and as with all personnel their logins and logouts are tracked and reported.

Mr Aleck claims that he first became aware of APTA in October 2018. It would be assumed that shortly after he became aware he would have promptly reviewed  and  accessed the system and reviewed the existing systems and procedures in order to identify any deficiencies that need to be attended to, if there really were any.

It is very concerning that Mr Aleck, or in fact no CASA employee, including your own office ever accessed my systems or procedures, which would make it impossible for Mr Aleck to identify a deficiency, wouldn't it?

My complaint is that Mr Aleck has led the Ombudsman Office to form the view that he had identified a deficiency when truthfully he had never even looked at our systems and procedures.

My complaint is that no CASA emplyee accessed those systems any time in the 12 months prior to October 2018, so no CASA employee would have been able to identify any deficiencies.

Can you confirm that Mr Aleck did not ever access our systems by way of a username and password, and if Mr Aleck maintains that he did review our systems and procedures contained within FSM, could he advise how he accesses that system.

For clarity the complaints that I am requesting a clear and concise response to, and they can be as short as a yes or no, unless you feel that there is other pertinent information that needs to be provided.

Did Mr Aleck at any time, ever review the comprehensive systems that we had in p;lace to maintain operational control, in order to identify a deficiency that needed to be attended to in our "commercial agreement".

If CASA claims that Mr Aleck did ever review the comprehensive systems that we had in place to maintain operational, control, can CASA advise how they accessed the system, and if possible the log in codes and passwords that were used to access the system, and is there any record of CASA ever looking into the systems and procedures designed for the exact purpose of maintaining operational, control.

Thankyou for accepting this complaint, as it requires only short responses, and as those responses can be resolved in a single communication my assumption is that this could be attended to in a fairly short time frame.

My hope is that I could receive a response by September 1st if that is possible, and could I respectfully request that you advise me as soon as practical if you anticipate it taking more than 14 days to establish contact with Mr Aleck and ask him,  presumably he operates  from the same building as yourself.

I look forward to a prompt, truthful , and well intentioned response.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

Sandy response: "..Hope he is gathering evidence for legal action.."

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

Pause, for thought..  (Before going Medieval)...

Idea 1) - Glen really needs to have his 'notes', particularly the ones sent off to an 'official' 'legal' operation put into 'proper' legal language. Many of us can 'understand' the points made and argument presented; however, …...............the 'legal' mind (with a few notable exceptions) operates differently from the way in which 'non legal' folk ruminate. 

Idea 2) – Glen presents an excellent notion in the following paragraphs, extracted from his ramble: to wit:-

Buckley - “Mr Aleck claims that he first became aware of APTA in October 2018. It would be assumed that shortly after he became aware he would have promptly reviewed  and  accessed the system and reviewed the existing systems and procedures in order to identify any deficiencies that need to be attended to, if there really were any.”

Buckley - “It is very concerning that Mr Aleck, or in fact no CASA employee, including your own office ever accessed my systems or procedures, which would make it impossible for Mr Aleck to identify a deficiency. (Great point, badly mishandled and wide open to argument - silly waste).

A fair few of the Fellahin have, at one time or another been involved in drafting and having approved (accepted) Operations Manuals or 'system' section to that manual. Routine stuff for CP or HOTAC or OPS etc.. Usually, CASA bowl up, eat all the Tim Tams and depart the fix, manuals in tow. Sometimes it takes a while, sometimes the return is speedy. However, it is not uncommon for there to be a long list of 'amendments' or 'changes' and some correspondence (back and forth) before the desired 'Tick' of 'acceptance' is issued and paid for.  CASA charge for this service. In effect, to the common man; this throws the onus back on the CASA. We proposed; CASA disposed; no 'tick' = ergo, no operation. Industry 'pays' for this (purchased if you like) 'expert' advice and proposed changes from the CASA. Arguably, anything that from then on, goes pear shaped, the question begged is – 'who's to blame'? An operational proposal altered at the behest of CASA, altering the 'operators' original, based on 'hands on' expertise IMO leaves a gaping hole in the 'safety net'. Enter the legal eagles – maybe?.

Idea 3. Having the Buckley operation 'approved' by the CASA delegates charged with the process; (as I understand it); the prohibition was issued on a 'legal' basis. Now then, put two lawyers in a room and fart; the case could go anyway of 50 ways, depending, drag on for a decade. This is the nature of a litigious mind. Put an aircon man and a plumber in the same room; same endless argument. However, when it comes to operational matters (aeronautical) – 'operational matters' – that safety assessment is probably best left to those who understand it. CASA have a legion of such folk and they are all (allegedly) full bottle on the 'legal' and operational levers.

I say, if Aleck can present an air tight legal reason for denying Buckley, then, in the full blaze of Jurisprudence, let him present it. If there is demonstrable proof that he has indeed, studied the allegedly complex Buckley system, then let him present his argument. That is after all the basis of 'the rule of law' – prove it or piss off.

Glen – mate. STFU and get a good legal counsel; what's the hold up? Why not get this resolved? Life is too short and there are many potential future airmen who could and probably would have benefited from the training system you proposed. Both Dr Aleck and yourself need to Piss, or get off the pot.

This is the last time I will weigh into this never ending 'he said' – she said' bitch slapping contest.

Ale, now, and keep it coming.