The noble Art - Embuggerance.

“A lie that is half-truth is the darkest of all lies.”

The story so far: St Commodious, hiding behind his newly grown poofy little 'Goatee' beard (looks like Burl Ives with flatulence) states to a Senate committee that the incorrigible 'Buckley' both assaulted and 'stalked' CASA staff.

Buckley, gets all self righteous and denies the allegations.

To most of us; the great unshriven, 'assault' means anything from smack in the chops to a full flogging; however, the fine print and a clever lawyer can parlay 'assault' into a convincing argument many a judge could support.

Wiki - “ An assault is the act of inflicting physical harm or unwanted physical contact upon a person or, in some specific legal definitions, a threat or attempt to commit such an action etc.

Stalking is another 'thing' with which clever layers can play out to a convincing argument

Wiki - "virtually any unwanted contact between two people that directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking",[4] although in practice the legal standard is usually somewhat stricter.

NSW Police - Stalking is a crime. It is an offence under the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. Stalking is defined under this law and includes:

‘the following of a person about or the watching or frequenting of the vicinity of, or an approach to a person’s place of residence, business or work or any place that a person frequents for the purposes of any social or leisure activity’.

If one puts the first call of 'Bullshit' aside and takes a careful look at the 'rules' associated with the St. Commodious 'accusation' – then take a deep breath, the stench of devious 'legal' distraction is overpowering. Time, money, effort and energy need to be invested in chasing a legal 'red-herring'. If Buckley can 'let it go' and leave it up to CASA to provide enough testable 'proof', to convince the police to arrest and charge Buckley then prosecute, then furry muff. Buckley has taken this to a disinterested minister – far enough; and enough done. More than enough energy wasted on this flatulent. lame legal Red herring.



The term was popularized in 1807 by English polemicist William Cobbett, who told a story of having used a strong-smelling smoked fish to divert and distract hounds from chasing a rabbit.

I could, in a heartbeat, if needed, pull out of the AP archives half a dozen classic examples of CASA 'distraction' tactics which have had the 'victim' chasing his own tail, burning up resources, energy and time. Shear off Glen; let them bring it on, but stay focused on the main game; the clear breach of Administrative law.

There - that's my two bob's worth of opinion anyway – FWIW.

Toot - toot.....
Reply

Angel Flight embuggerance update: 12/05/21  Confused

Via LMH:



 [Image: federal_court_vic.jpg]

Federal Court rules for CASA in Angel Flight Case
11 May 2021
Comments 0 Comments


The Federal Court of Australia has dismissed the application by Angel Flight to have CASA's community service flight restrictions struck out.

Justice Anderson handed down his decision this morning, also awarding costs against the aviation charity.

Angel Flight was seeking to have the Federal Court strike out the conditions placed on Angel Flight pilots and aircraft maintenance standards, saying the regulator had acted outside its authority (ultra vires) and that CASA's exercise of its power was unreasonable.

Justice Anderson ruled that Angel Flight had not established the grounds on which they applied for the review, rejecting the four grounds of ultra vires submitted, mostly on interpretation of legistative and regulatory instruments that frame CASA's authority.

On the argument that CASA's action was unreasonable, the court noted that "CASA's assessment that CSFs had a 'higher risk of accident or incident' due to 'risk factors that are not usually present in baseline private operations'. Angel Flight notes that the alleged higher risk ... was premised on two fatal accidents, which occurred on 15 August 2011 and 28 June 2017.

"Angel Flight submits that, based on these two incidents alone, CASA determined that CSFs had a higher accident or incident rate. Angel Flight submits that what risk factors to this supposed higher accident or incident rate are not apparent from any of the material filed by CASA in this proceeding."

Angel Flight also contended that documents revealed under discovery showed that CASA did not issue the instrument containing the restrictions in response to a higher accident or incident rate in CSFs and there was no evidence provided by CASA that pointed to any risk factors. Angel Flight contended that "the instrument was not able to be justified on any reasonable ground and was otherwise capricious and irrational."

Justice Anderson accepted the evidence of CASA Executive Manager Chris Monahan that the instrument was not issued solely as a response to CSF accidents and incidents, but rather "in response to concerns developed within CASA over some years."

He also accepted CASA's data analysis on which the regulator based its contention that CSFs had higher accident and incident rates, whilst rejecting the data analysis presented by Angel Flight advocate Dr Owen Crees.

"I am not satisfied that the evidence of Dr Crees provides an adequate or satisfactory foundation for his opinion that it is not possible to claim that Angel Flight has a higher rate of fatal accidents than private, business or sports aviation flights," Justice Anderson stated.


Justice Anderson explained in his decision that Dr Crees was not independent because he is an Angel Flight pilot and director, and because he relied on internal data that was not exhibited in his report or affidavit.

"In these circumstances, Dr Crees report should not be given any meaningful weight," Justice Anderson said.

He went on to say that he considered that Angel Flight had failed to prove that CASA acted unreasonably and that he believed there was a rational connection between the imposed restrictions and matters effecting aviation safety under the terms of the Civil Aviation Act.

Most telling, Justice Anderson stated that he did not accept Angel Flight's submission that it is necessary for CASA to "demonstrate by some statistical or empirical analysis that a risk factor exists to justify the validity of a condition in an instrument made under [CASR] 11.068."

Angel Flight has been contacted for comment.



Could you ever get a better example of why the Civil Aviation Act desperately needs to be amended -  Dodgy


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

GlenB embuggerance update: 13/05/21 - Join the dots??

Via the UP:


Quote:glenb

Further correspondence to Ombudsman


Dear XXXX of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office,

Further to our phone conversation I have put together a sampling of communications that began more than 2 years before CASA reversed their approval of APTA.

I believe that CASA has also claimed that the Legal Department was not aware of APTA. The concept of shared AOCs had been accepted industry practice for many years, not only by my own Organisation but by many others. You will recall that I spent two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars working side by side with 10 CASA personnel designing APTA. The checklist that CASA used is attached as Appendix 2A.

Once every procedure was assessed and signed off by CASA personnel with the entire product going to a Peer Review and followed by the issue of the full revalidation of the business in April 2017. This was the approval that CASA legal only became awre of more than 18 months later. To be frank, the assertion by CASA is simply not the truth.

I hope you will consider this further information as part of your investigation.


Yours thankfully, Glen Buckley


[Image: pdf.gif]
 
APPENDIX 2A CASA WORKSHEET TO SIGN OFF EVERY APTA PROCEDURE.pdf (1.10 MB, 8 views)


[Image: pdf.gif]
 
APPENDIX 2B- Emails between APTA and CASA before APTA approval in April 2017.pdf (1.95 MB, 6 views)

To follow that (and in case you missed it) this week's SBG, here is a relevant extract: 




[Image: peter-white.jpg]
Ref: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/…-of-18.pdf




Keeping the above in mind, consider that less than 5 hours after the former CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance (Mr Peter White) made that (extremely positive and embracing) email statement, he was to follow up with this conflicting email at 22:56 that night... Confused :

[Image: Peter-White-2.jpg]

  Huh Hmm...now I wonder what exactly was in the recording that GlenB would desperately like to expose... Huh 


Quote:To the Moderators.



If somebody had recorded a telephone call between a CASA employee and that individual in the State of Victoria. Is that recording able to be published on PPRuNe or alternatively can an individual direct a person to an external link of that conversation.

The contents of that phone call is very revealing.

Cheers. Glen 

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

(05-13-2021, 08:33 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  GlenB embuggerance update: 13/05/21 - Join the dots??

Via the UP:


Quote:glenb

Further correspondence to Ombudsman


Dear XXXX of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office,

Further to our phone conversation I have put together a sampling of communications that began more than 2 years before CASA reversed their approval of APTA.

I believe that CASA has also claimed that the Legal Department was not aware of APTA. The concept of shared AOCs had been accepted industry practice for many years, not only by my own Organisation but by many others. You will recall that I spent two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars working side by side with 10 CASA personnel designing APTA. The checklist that CASA used is attached as Appendix 2A.

Once every procedure was assessed and signed off by CASA personnel with the entire product going to a Peer Review and followed by the issue of the full revalidation of the business in April 2017. This was the approval that CASA legal only became awre of more than 18 months later. To be frank, the assertion by CASA is simply not the truth.

I hope you will consider this further information as part of your investigation.


Yours thankfully, Glen Buckley


[Image: pdf.gif]
 
APPENDIX 2A CASA WORKSHEET TO SIGN OFF EVERY APTA PROCEDURE.pdf (1.10 MB, 8 views)


[Image: pdf.gif]
 
APPENDIX 2B- Emails between APTA and CASA before APTA approval in April 2017.pdf (1.95 MB, 6 views)

To follow that (and in case you missed it) this week's SBG, here is a relevant extract: 




[Image: peter-white.jpg]
Ref: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/…-of-18.pdf




Keeping the above in mind, consider that less than 5 hours after the former CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance (Mr Peter White) made that (extremely positive and embracing) email statement, he was to follow up with this conflicting email at 22:56 that night... Confused :

[Image: Peter-White-2.jpg]

  Huh Hmm...now I wonder what exactly was in the recording that GlenB would desperately like to expose... Huh 


Quote:To the Moderators.



If somebody had recorded a telephone call between a CASA employee and that individual in the State of Victoria. Is that recording able to be published on PPRuNe or alternatively can an individual direct a person to an external link of that conversation.

The contents of that phone call is very revealing.

Cheers. Glen 

Addendum: On contract history & COI with Executive Manager Craig Martin??  

Via the AP library, GlenB's timeline of notification of contracts to CASA: 

https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...l-2017.pdf

Next a quote from this week's LMH:

Quote: ...It will take a DAS of drive and energy to overcome the rolling resistance of CASA's old-guard middle managers who are pre-programmed to resist any initiative they didn't think of first. Is Spence that person?

Hmm...here's a good place to start -  Rolleyes



And if Ms Spence needs further evidence of why this individual needs to go ASAP - read this:

 
Quote:14/05/2021- Request for consideration of change of primary contact within CASA

 
Dear Mr Craig Martin, CASA Executive Manager Regulatory Oversight, (previously Regulatory Services and Surveillance)
 
I refer to correspondence received from you today, advising me of the following:
 
“I remind you that I remain the nominated CASA manager for responding to all correspondence received from you by any CASA manager or officer, including the CEO/DAS, but with the exception of the Industry Complaints Commissioner”.
 
It is important that I formally put this on record. I have done this in the past, but I will do so again.
 
As you are aware, I have raised an allegation of misfeasance in public office against you. That allegation is not vindictive or vexatious. I am fully satisfied that I have a valid basis for a claim. In my opinion you have been instrumental in causing much of the harm done to date. I have written to CASA before on this matter, requesting that you not be the point of contact.
 
It does not seem reasonable that l bring an allegation against a CASA employee for misfeasance in public office, and that same individual is then nominated by CASA to be the person that manages the project from within CASA. Surely that brings the integrity of the process into question.
 
May I respectfully request guidance on who I can raise this matter with? For clarity. I do not believe that process provides me with natural justice or procedural fairness. I am not trying to be combative, but I have a reasonable expectation that CASA acts with good intent.
 
I would also point out that by dealing through you, it does not provide clear lines of accountability, which are important, and CASA would appreciate the importance of clear lines of accountability.
 
Finally, and with all due respect. Whilst I respect your industry expertise it is outside of the flight training industry. By writing to the respective Subject Matter Expert (SME) within CASA I feel that to be more effective.
 
Respectfully, Glen Buckley.

Quote in bold - UFB! Dodgy

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Craig Smart'in Martin 'dead man talking' email reply - UFB!  Rolleyes

Via the AP email chain:


Quote:From: Martin, Craig <Craig.Martin@casa.gov.au>

Sent: Tuesday, 18 May 2021 1:55 PM
To: 'defendapta@gmail.com' <defendapta@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Request for consideration of change of primary contact within CASA. [SEC=OFFICIAL]
 
OFFICIAL
 
Dear Mr Buckley
 
As the CASA manager designated to consider your queries to CASA and prepare responses accordingly, my role is largely administrative. Where necessary or appropriate, I seek input from the relevant areas in CASA, which is duly reflected in the substance of my replies.
 
In light of the volume and frequency of your communications, this is the most effective and efficient way to manage these exchanges. Thus, with a view to maintaining the continuity of the process by which your queries are considered and appropriate responses provided, CASA does not intend to alter these arrangements.
 
Your unsubstantiated allegations of misfeasance against me, which CASA and I have rejected as baseless, have no effect on the integrity of this, as said, essentially administrative process. If at any point you believe this might not be the case, you should direct your concerns to CASA’s Industry Complaints Commissioner.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Craig Martin
Executive Manager
Regulatory Oversight
Aviation Group | CASA
 
CASA\Aviation Group
p: 07 3144 7451  m: 0477 329 409 
GPO Box 2005, Canberra ACT 2601
www.casa.gov.au
 


Hmm...TICK TOCK Smart'in...MTF - P2  Tongue

Ps Next the Scot Git??
Reply

GlenB embuggerance update: 19/05/21

Via the AP email chain:



18/05/21            CASE K12266238
 
Dear Court Registrar, Moorabbin Magistrates Court, and the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office Reference 2019-713834, and to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Mr Michael McCormack.
 
To the Presiding Magistrate of case K12266238

I fully respect the legal process, and I am mindful of the significant resources that have been directed to this matter by all Parties. Nevertheless, I am unable to attend the case on Thursday 20th May 2021.

I understand that I am fully accountable for what I state here, and you have my word that this is the truth. I am submitting this to you, and fully appreciate that the legal and moral obligations to tell the truth are as strong as if I was in the courtroom, and under an Oath.

My name is Glen Buckley, for the next few weeks residing at 6 Susan Court, Mount Waverley. I am the owner of the Business Melbourne Flight Training named as a Third Party in the court case scheduled for Thursday 20th May 2021.

I have already experienced two court cases related to this matter, and the last one, I found particularly difficult. I was unable to afford legal representation and represented myself. My naive assumption being that I simply needed to attend and tell the truth.
Unfortunately, my lack of understanding of this matter was misconstrued as deception, and that is not the case. Quite simply, for my own mental health, and the wellbeing of my family, I am not prepared to put myself through that again. Not without a representative from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) also appearing to explain what happened or providing me with a written explanation for me to bring to the Court.

I have made numerous requests for an explanation as you will see from the attached communication with CASA.

My best explanation that I can provide as a background.

In October 2018, Mr Jonathan Aleck the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Services determined that my two business, APTA, and MFT were an “unauthorised operation”.  I was later found out that it was his opinion only, and that no external legal advice had been obtained at that stage. As stated, I was dealing with his opinion, not a law or regulation.
Later external legal advice received by CASA confirmed that Mr Alecks opinion was incorrect. That was also supported by the findings in stage one of the Ombudsman’s office investigation. Stage two of the Ombudsman’s investigation continues.

CASA placed restrictions on the businesses ability to trade. CASA advised that they would be short term restrictions. My expectation was that CASA would resolve this matter in a short time frame of approximately one week. I could not have reasonably assumed that this matter would continue for over 6 months and still be no closer to being resolved. After 6 months, with those trading restrictions still in place, it became obvious that those restrictions were not going to be lifted. My parents had already funded $300,000 to staff salaries to avoid redundancies. It was inevitable that the business had to be closed or sold.

I sold APTA for 5% of its value due to the CASA trading restrictions, including a CASA issued interim approval to operate that expired in a matter of days, with no certainty of operations was assured after that date. The new owners were taking a big gamble, hence the reduced price. Every single cent from that sale went to creditors of that business. I did not receive anything at all. The business was forced into a situation where it was effectively given away. I was to remain on as an employee, as a condition of the sale of the business.

CASA then turned their attention to my flying school, Melbourne Flight Training, that also had restrictions on its ability to trade for 8 months. CASA directed that I had to transfer all staff, students, customers, marketing, and financial control to the new owners of APTA. I had effectively been forced to give away my second business.

I do not believe this direction had any basis in law. I reluctantly complied with CASAs request. The CASA direction made no mention of who became liable for the financial obligations for the business Melbourne Flight Training. I was left with the debts that accumulated whilst the trading restrictions were in place, and still accruing, including this matter for consideration today.

After the loss of my two businesses APTA and MFT, CASA then wrote to the new owner of APTA advising that my continuing employment was untenable, based on comments that I was making publicly. Hours later I was terminated, and I did not receive any entitlements owed after more than a decade with the business.

The fact that CASA refuses to provide an explanation, makes it impossible to present before the Court, as I have no explanation, and I do not understand why this happened.

To assist you in your determination and for complete clarity

These monies that are owed are ethically and morally my responsibility to resolve. They are expenses incurred between CASA initiating their action in October 2018 through until I was forced to transfer the business i.e. customers, staff, marketing, and financial control to the new owners of APTA approximately 9 months later.

Despite my best intention, it is not likely that I will ever be able to resolve this debt and the many hundreds of thousands owed to so many businesses, customers and employees that have been impacted by this matter. My family has been left destitute by the conduct of those three CASA employees, and imminently about to be declared bankrupt, if that has not already happened.

I have continued to push the office of the Deputy PM for his intervention and submitted a formal request for compensation for affected Parties before pursuing any compensation for myself. That claim for compensation includes the other parties in this legal action.

I have made allegations of misfeasance in public office against three CASA employees Before the Senate on 20/11/20, and that was followed up with a written submission to the Deputy PM. No response has been received by the Deputy PMs Office.

Several requests over the last two years to the Deputy PMs Office requesting a meeting to present my evidence of misconduct have similarly received no response.

I continue to push this matter for the many people affected. My hope being that CASA will act in a well-intentioned manner and meet with me, so that I can pay back everybody that I have a moral or ethical obligation to, irrespective of which Party is deemed to be legally liable.

The matter has received wide industry support with over ¾ million visits to this story, on a discrete pilot’s website. Whilst I do not expect the Magistrate to review the material, it does go someway to indicating that it may have some “substance”. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums

Regarding the Court case. I am unable to present before the Court and present my case. My reasons are as follows, and I mean no disrespect to the judicial system.

The impact of this matter has been substantial. Quite simply, I no longer have the mental capacity to deal with the fallout from this matter. I am placing my health and wellbeing as my priority. I do that for the benefit of my family who depend on me.

Eighteen months ago, I was depressed and suicidal, my family having lost absolutely everything. I had a nervous breakdown and an extended period of unemployment.

Since that correspondence in October 2018 from CASA, my wife has had a staggering 4 days free of work, as she works through every public holiday, family birthday etc trying to rebuild some modest level of future security. This is literally killing her and it breaks my heart.

I have been dealing with this matter and its fallout for every waking moment of the last two and a half years. I cannot resolve it.

My current situation is that my family has been provided a notice to vacate our current rental property, as the Landlord is selling the property. Between my wife and I, we do not have the money to afford a furniture removalist, let alone a rental bond. Our situation is grim, and was totally avoidable, but for the misconduct of those individuals. I am staring down the face of being homeless in a matter of weeks.

Quite simply, I have spent 18 months trying to get out of a very dark place and fighting not to go back there. Until CASA can provide an explanation, I am not prepared to risk it.

I recognise that by making this decision, I may have committed a regulatory breach. I will respect any determination made and commit to doing my utmost to resolve any associated financial penalties, or any other punishment applied.

Respectfully, 

Glen Buckley



 To the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable, Mr Michael McCormack the Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)

My understanding is you have been fully briefed on this matter over the last two and a half years by Mr Anthony Mathews, the Chair of the Board of CASA. I have also written to you on several occasions since October 2018 requesting the opportunity to present evidence in support of my allegations of misconduct/misfeasance in public office against current  CASA employees.

You are aware that I raised allegations of misfeasance in public office against three CASA personnel, Mr Crawford, Mr Aleck, and Mr Martin in Parliament on 20/11/20 and followed up with a written submission to your office. After many months, that correspondence remains unanswered.

You are   also  aware that similar allegations were made by Mr Bruce Rhoades, against those same three individuals, and that formed the basis of an ABC program into their conduct. Tragically Mr Rhoades died of cancer whilst still trying to clear his name and hold these same three individuals to account. I have his family’s approval to mention this matter. He attributed his terminal illness to the stress caused by the misconduct of those same CASA employees. His family will verify Mr Rhoades thoughts on this matter. The fact that the ABC devoted an investigative story into this matter alone, suggests that my allegations should be considered by your office, and most especially because misconduct amongst the senior executive management of CASA could potentially negatively impact the safety of aviation.

I have also advised you that senior ex CASA employees have contacted me, and offered simply, to tell the truth, should that opportunity present, and I again extend that offer to your Office.

My allegations are substantive, and there is an overwhelming body of evidence in support of those allegations by myself and other affected individuals I have written to you on several occasions over the lasty two years, seeking the opportunity to present my evidence. You have chosen not to present that opportunity.

For complete clarity.

Again, I am making a request of your office to facilitate an investigation into the conduct of those three CASA personnel.  The impact of their action has no basis in safety or regulatory compliance

I respectfully request, a well-intentioned and comprehensive response from your office on this matter, as I have previously requested.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley



To the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office – Reference 2019-713834

As you are aware there are three matters being investigated by your office.

  1. The CASA reversal of approval of my business APTA.
  2. The determination that my flying school of more than 10 years, Melbourne Flight training (MFT) was suddenly an “unauthorised operation”, provided 7 days’ notice of continuing operations and under what CASA deemed, “direct operational control”, I was forced to hand over all customers, staff, financial and marketing control to another business. CASA made no determination on the liabilities, and therefore all liabilities fell back on me, leading to this current court case.
  3. The direction to my employer that my continuing employment was not tenable based on comments that I was making publicly.
The correspondence above is to the Magistrate presiding over a related court case. For clarity, this is related to the second issue identified above.

May I respectfully request that the above correspondence be considered prior to your final determination as to the appropriateness of that direction.

Respectfully, 

Glen Buckley



MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Barmen, Barristers, Barbers and even the humble 'Plod' on the beat can tell a fiction from a fact: eventually. The tell tale signs are obvious to those who deal with 'stories' told. Then, there are the 'versions' of tale. An old and valued friend of mine has 'a system'. It was explained to me more decades ago than I care to remember; and, with use, has been proven to be reliable 95% of the time –and a useful guide for the remainder. It is a simple enough construct; listen once and pay attention; then after the 'story' has been told five times; an inkling of the 'truth' may be gleaned – then ask the questions – the shift in and variations of the tale become clearly apparent.

I refer now to the 'Buckley' saga. There has never been a 'shift' in the GB narrative; well, not a discernible one at least. The CASA version is a moving feast of variation, spin, obfuscation, legal niceties and horse manure. This is backed up by careful research of data provided – not by Buckley, but from the very bowels of a very slippery, carefully modulated 'legal' wriggle room response.

The legal tentacles serve but one purpose – to bind and bleed. Buckley simply cannot match the fire power and wriggle room CASA will throw up in defence of their own. A decade and ten million may just put a dent in the CASA defence – maybe.

So, an alternative solution to taking on a bunch of professional twisters of the law (remember who penned that law) must be found; or, perhaps someone, with a grain of integrity could quietly sort the mess out and square the books.

I say a directive from the PM &C to 'sort it out' will save a whole world of ministerial embarrassment. Buckley may fade away; rubbed out by this and that – but his story and that of the many others which have parallels will not. Not while I can hold a glass they won't.

Far too many have been consigned to the CASA scrapheap – on their say-so alone, unchallenged, through lazy, minister supported, politically motivated face saving positioning.

CASA can sit back under the ministers umbrella; once they have stumped up to Com Care the measly 'premium' of $100, 000 then they have automatic access to as much money as it takes to 'win' a legal opinion in their favour. One goes to court for 'the law' not justice (boy). Buckley writes letters in his tea breaks – CASA just tip it all onto some of the finest, government employed legal minds and the tax payer picks up that tab....Strewth, talk about knives to gunfights.

Time someone with clout stepped in – it would be less expensive to 'square' Buckley. Cleaner and more sensible – just from a tax payer perspective; before we mention stuff like injustice or a fair go. CASA for some strange, esoteric reason shut him down and broke the heart of a honest man. The 'facts' are self evident – everything else cover up.

Shame, shame, shame on you Minister. I've scraped better of my boot heel.

Yes please Miss – keep 'em coming – I've something stuck in my craw – best flush it out.

[Image: Untitled%2B2.jpg]
Reply

A simple question - from a practical mind; one which to which I would really like to see answer, writ in plain, clear English.

What exactly did Buckley do (or not do)?

In every document I've read (a lot of) it seems he jumped through many hoops, cleared away obstacles, developed a working model of the 'flight school' mess under the new regulation and offered 'franchise' for use of his sound, working system. A system which I believe would be beneficial to all – except it may have taken some 'fee for service' away from the CASA juggernaut – maybe. A drop in the bucket really.

So why 'the full Monte' treatment? Don't make any sense to me whatsoever. I think industry deserves that question answered – at top level – even if we spend a few bucks on quality counsel to speak on his behalf to the government's legal eagles (another drop in the bucket). Not in a court; but in 'meeting' environment, where the pro's and con's may be examined impartially before a Senate committee. Can't be that hard to arrange.

Just a simple paragraph – Buckley did this and that 'wrong' – here is a list of the regulations which were busted. It shouldn't take too long – CASA must have that list.

Toot – toot..
Reply

Short answer K

Pigs might fly.

Glen came up with a model that might actually have worked. The risk I believe the CASA hierarchy contemplated was if he became too successful he would reach a point where he would become too powerful to control, thus he had to go
Reply

On common themes, the Village Idiot and the embuggerance of an industry (cont/-) - Dodgy

[Image: 4cd85da4320d7412e57b3f7df10d698a.jpg]

Simple answer - NO!  Angry

Well not in this lifetime and here's proof, reference:

(05-19-2021, 08:25 PM)P7_TOM Wrote:  Barmen, Barristers, Barbers and even the humble 'Plod' on the beat can tell a fiction from a fact: eventually. The tell tale signs are obvious to those who deal with 'stories' told. Then, there are the 'versions' of tale. An old and valued friend of mine has 'a system'. It was explained to me more decades ago than I care to remember; and, with use, has been proven to be reliable 95% of the time –and a useful guide for the remainder. It is a simple enough construct; listen once and pay attention; then after the 'story' has been told five times; an inkling of the 'truth' may be gleaned – then ask the questions – the shift in and variations of the tale become clearly apparent.

I refer now to the 'Buckley' saga. There has never been a 'shift' in the GB narrative; well, not a discernible one at least. The CASA version is a moving feast of variation, spin, obfuscation, legal niceties and horse manure. This is backed up by careful research of data provided – not by Buckley, but from the very bowels of a very slippery, carefully modulated 'legal' wriggle room response.

The legal tentacles serve but one purpose – to bind and bleed. Buckley simply cannot match the fire power and wriggle room CASA will throw up in defence of their own. A decade and ten million may just put a dent in the CASA defence – maybe.

So, an alternative solution to taking on a bunch of professional twisters of the law (remember who penned that law) must be found; or, perhaps someone, with a grain of integrity could quietly sort the mess out and square the books.

I say a directive from the PM &C to 'sort it out' will save a whole world of ministerial embarrassment. Buckley may fade away; rubbed out by this and that – but his story and that of the many others which have parallels will not. Not while I can hold a glass they won't.

Far too many have been consigned to the CASA scrapheap – on their say-so alone, unchallenged, through lazy, minister supported, politically motivated face saving positioning.

CASA can sit back under the ministers umbrella; once they have stumped up to Com Care the measly 'premium' of $100, 000 then they have automatic access to as much money as it takes to 'win' a legal opinion in their favour. One goes to court for 'the law' not justice (boy). Buckley writes letters in his tea breaks – CASA just tip it all onto some of the finest, government employed legal minds and the tax payer picks up that tab....Strewth, talk about knives to gunfights.

Time someone with clout stepped in – it would be less expensive to 'square' Buckley. Cleaner and more sensible – just from a tax payer perspective; before we mention stuff like injustice or a fair go. CASA for some strange, esoteric reason shut him down and broke the heart of a honest man. The 'facts' are self evident – everything else cover up.

Shame, shame, shame on you Minister. I've scraped better of my boot heel.

Yes please Miss – keep 'em coming – I've something stuck in my craw – best flush it out.

[Image: Untitled%2B2.jpg]

(06-07-2021, 06:59 AM)Kharon Wrote:  A thing of wonder.

It was a bleak, dark and stormy night when some intrepid members of the IOS penetrated the swamps of Sleepy Hollow. Despite being at great personal risk and with some difficulty, they managed to liberate a master copy of the forecast CASA 'safety' lecture tours. But I must warn you, before you watch the CASA method of 'safety' vision, to beware of being outspoken.

You see, the minister must be appeased; there is great concern within his office that the fluffy, manipulated- 'Tell-us-U-Luv-us' questionnaire will not be able to convince anyone that CASA is a model, much respected, internationally admired organisation. The 'safe compliance' training lectures are designed to add credibility to the claim that all is well and CASA is keeping all 'safe'. So, here is the CASA vision splendid of 'safety training'.


Via the UP, a GlenB embuggerance update:

Quote:glenb

CASA deliberately misleading the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office




I am currently very limited in what i can post. I woke up early this morning and was working through my correspondence.

I will write to the Ombudsman today challenging some information that the CASA Legal Department headed up by Mr Jonathan Aleck has provided to the Ombudsman. In my opinion that CASA Department has been responsible for providing significantly misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, presumably for the purposes of engineering CASAs preferred outcome.

CASA claims that they were not aware that APTA provided multi base coverage for different entities at the time they revalidated APTA as a Part 141 and 142 Organization in April of 2017.

Unfortunately, for Mr. Aleck, i have the email that i sent to CASA on 23rd June 2016, almost one year before CASA revalidated APTA. That email contained an overview of the concept and how i intended to present it to industry.

So for Mr Alecks department to claim that they were not aware is quite simply not the truth. I will write extensively on this matter later today, an overwhelming and interesting body of evidence is developing.

Below is part of the email sent to CASA on 23rd June 2016. Really Mr Aleck, are you still going to claim that CASA didnt know. I will also be drawing this information to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister.

In the following posts, is the information i provided to CASA, two and a half years before they became aware of APTA and reversed its approval. Trust me folks, its very challenging trying to hold the Executive Management of CASA to account, when they are prepared to blatantly lie.


I claim that CASA is deliberately misleading the Ombudsman Office

  #1646 #1647  #1648



well, well, well


It seemed such a good concept. CASA knew about it. CASA worked with me to design it, CASA approved it, CASA audited it, CASA approved bases under the system, CASA recommended it.

CASA changed their mind overnight in October 2018. Not on a legal concern, not on a safety concern, quite simply a change of opinion by Mr Alecks Department.

Im not the first person to have their life destroyed by this man, but i will be the last!

Next from EWH with an Angel Flight embuggerance update: ref - http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...gel-flight

Quote:"It was extremely disappointing that the court proceedings against CASA, based on there being no safety case nor any evidence to support the CSF regulations, failed essentially on the basis that CASA does not need to establish a safety case, nor does it require any empirical data or evidence upon which to base its regulations," Pagani told Australian Flying.


"None of my evidence was challenged at the hearing. On the contrary, the evidence of the CASA representative was telling in that, he admitted only after rigorous cross-examination that he had no such evidence, data, nor safety case, in respect of any of the regulations – not a single one."

CASA applied the restrictions based on data that it said showed CSFs were more likely to result in an incident or accident than a normal private flight, attributing that to added pressure to complete the mission. Angel Flight strongly contested both the data and the conclusions.

"The evidence was that, in coming to the view that pilots were under pressure when flying CSFs, CASA had not asked a single pilot; that no-one in CASA had any experience with CSFs; that in terms of his view that passengers were uninformed, they had not asked a single passenger and totally disregarded the documents, briefings and videos passengers must acknowledge before any flight.

"As the largest single supporter of private flight GA in Australia, we can only say that we did all that was possible to protect the rights of those pilots to fly, and the rights of disadvantaged rural and remote people to access much-needed non-emergency medical transport. 

"The support from our passengers and pilots was overwhelming, and we will continue to carry out this valuable work Australia-wide."

Plus off the LMH: http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...-june-2021

Quote: ...Passing comment on the Federal Court ruling against Angel Flight is hampered significantly by the contempt of court laws, but the original regulations and the evidence presented by CASA are still fair game! With Angel Flight electing not to appeal, the resistance to CASA's community service flight restrictions has come to an end. This is by no means an admission that the regulator is right, but rather that the cost outlay of further action is too mind-blowing to be considered responsible. Most frustrating and galling of all is that even CASA has admitted that the restrictions will achieve nothing and the evidence presented to the court seems to support the theory that the underlying data fails to justify the action. However, the Federal Court ruled that CASA has no obligation to justify regulation based on data, which gives them a free hand with regulation. Armed with this precedent, will CASA use that free hand responsibly and fairly, or will they cloak it with a gauntlet and beat the aviation community further just because they can? The problem facing the aviation community is that–at the GA level at least–we have evidence that the operations side of CASA is better at beating than it is at being responsible and fair. Angel Flight gave it everything they had in a fight that had ramifications for the wider GA community and private pilots in particular...

  Finally, Sandy in reply to EWH... Wink

 
Quote:..Regarding Angel Flight and it’s disappointing loss in court. I think it was Clark Butson of Polar Aviation, having gone to court with CASA, who said that he’d spent a million dollars in legal fees to learn that CASA has the power to do anything it likes. He had had a run in with CASA that started with what, from memory, began with a disagreement between Polar and a CASA officer about some operational procedure. Its also my view that Government Industries tend to stick together and that in our hierarchical system of government its all uphill to win against such a well entrenched and well funded Commonwealth corporate such as CASA. CASA’s writ of ‘safety’ can cover a multitude of sins against any unfortunate individuals that fall foul of the regulator or those that believe they have an indisputable case against CASA. 

We have a very long way to go before General Aviation is afforded a rational and respectful place in the normally accepted realm of free enterprise, as are most other pursuits. 

Nothing will change until there’s a change in the political sphere and this will require leadership of a high order, possibly spurred by a media campaign. The latter is probably our best hope.--


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

GlenB embuggerance update - 13/06/21: 'Dear Ombudsman'  Rolleyes

Via the AP email chains:


SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MY ALLEGATION THAT MEMBERS OF THE CASA SENIOR EXECUTIVE ARE MISLEADING THE OMBUDSMANS OFFICE
 
  • Appendix A- Emails referred to in the timeline below.
  • Appendix B- The “concept,” detailing APTA and sent to CASA 23rd June 2016. This is perhaps the single most important document in this correspondence as it clearly refutes CASAs claim that they were not aware of APTA in April 2017.
  • Appendix C- Part of the manual suite (Exposition) that was prepared. It is a large document but outlines all policies and procedures of how APTA will manage its operation in a safe and compliant manner.
  • Appendix D- Technical Assessor worksheet, where CASA ticked off, once they were fully satisfied with our procedures. This was obtained from CASA under FOI and is the Worksheet CASA used for APTAs revalidation.
 
12th June 2021
 
To the Commonwealth Ombudsman,

Please note that I have included the Deputy Prime Ministers Office, and other recipients in this correspondence. My hope being that Mr McCormack, in his role as the Minister responsible for CASA will intervene and bring this matter to a resolution. It is important that his Office is fully informed of this matter.

I have also included Senators on the current Senate RRAT inquiry, as I have previously raised an allegation of misfeasance in public office against Mr Aleck in Parliament, on 20/11/20, and feel compelled to include them.

My understanding is that Mr Jonathan Alecks’ department within CASA, has led the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that: “CASA was not aware what APTA was doing at the time of its revalidation in April of 2017 as a Part 141/142 Organisation and only became aware later.”

Apparently, according to CASA I then operated APTA for a further 18 months after that revalidation, and CASA added additional bases, until CASA suddenly realised anddetermined that I was operating unlawfully and placed restrictions on my business in October 2018, leading to its demise, 8 months later in June of 2019.

CASA imposed those restrictions even though they raised absolutely no concerns at all of any nature, prior to initiating the restrictions. It seems unjustly harsh, particularly considering there are no safety concerns and no regulatory breaches, simply a change of opinion of a CASA Employee.

To the point of this correspondence.

I intend to provide evidence that CASA has mislead the Ombudsman’s Office if CASA continue to claim that they were “not aware of what APTA was doing  as of April 2017”, when they revalidated APTA as a Part 141/142 Organisation.

Please consider the following timeline as evidence to support my assertion that CASA is misleading your Office in its investigation, and that in fact CASA was fully awre, and I had followed all protocols to ensure they were aware.

In reviewing this timeline consider that CASA notified me in October 2018 that I was now operating unlawfully. CASA revalidated the model 18 months prior in April 2017. CASA claim at the time of revalidation in April 2017, they were not aware of APTAs model. I absolutely refute that statement. Note the correspondence that commenced well before our revalidation in April 2017.
  • Email 20th June 2016 to CASA addressing the concept of an alliance of flight training organisations. Approximately 10 months before revalidation and two and a two and half years before CASA reversed the approval. Note that this stage we were already providing AOC coverage for MFT and TVSA.
  • Email 21st June 2016 to CASA advising my timeline for expanding operations and specifically visiting flying schools. In that correspondence I actually request that someone from CASA meet with me and potentially interested Members. The purpose of requesting this meeting is to ensure I have CASAs support.
  • Email 23rd June 2016 to CASA. I attached and submitted a detailed proposal of the APTA concept to CASA by way of an attachment to this email. This is a significant email. It provides written notification to CASA of the concept of APTA. It contains details about the proposal and how it will be operated. I have attached this extensive correspondence as Appendix B. This is a must-read document, because it clearly refutes CASAs claim that they were not aware of what APTA was doing and intended to do in the future. Recall that it was not until 2 ½ years later that CASA supposedly finally became aware of APTA and reversed the approval.
  • Email 13th July 2016, I contact CASA to advise that I have got significant interest in the APTA concept, and intend to add a further base. This is still over 2 years before CASA allegedly become aware of APTA.
  • Email 1st August 2016 Advising CASA that I am officially changing the name of the business from MFT to APTA to more accurately reflect what APTA is actually about i.e., a “collaborative approach’ between the schools that will be APTA Members.
  • Email August 1st, 2016, from CASA advising that they will meet with me 4 days later at Moorabbin Airport to discuss the details about the APTA proposal which they did.
  • Meeting August 4th, 2016, at the Melbourne Flight Training base with CASA personnel. This was the meeting referred to 4 days previously. Protracted discussions were held around the concept. CASA personnel were highly supportive of the concept and particularly about the improved quality outcomes that would result. CASA also used the phrase “this is not an unseen approach; Airlines and the military use it. We understand the concept and are familiar with it”.
  • January 18th, 2017, which is 4 months before CASA issue our revalidation, I meet with the Executive Manager of the Aviation Group, Mr Graeme Crawford in Canberra. It was obvious at that meeting that he was aware of the concept at this stage. We discussed it, and the emails confirm that.
  • August 2016 to April 2017. After receiving such support from CASA, APTA continues working on its Exposition (manuals and procedures). This is an enormous task, and we had been working on it for many years prior. Every procedure is designed around the multi base format that we were already doing. Based on the support I have received from CASA; we commence a very intense period of developing manuals and procedures in conjunction with CASA personnel
CASA would have the Ombudsman believe that APTA underwent the following processes, already operating in the multi base format, and overhauling all the processes, and no one at all within CASA became aware. Its just not feasible that this could possibly be the truth.

APTA was required to draw on many thousands of pages of CASA rules and regulations to write up our manuals and procedures. For this we drew, in part on the following legislation which clearly outlines what needed to be contained within our Exposition for the CASA revalidation.

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 142.340 Part 142 operators--content of exposition (austlii.edu.au)

We then referred to the CASA Part 142 “sample exposition” and our existing operations  manuals (Exposition) The following link is the CASA provided sample exposition.

CASR Part 142 sample exposition v3.1 | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)

We then continued working with renewed diligence (we had started this project part time two years earlier) to write up all the policies and procedures. Importantly, there were ten CASA personnel involved in this project as we worked side by side with those CASA personnel to design the Exposition around the concept presented to CASA in writing on 23/06/16 and in our meeting with CASA on 04/08/16. This was an enormous project, requiring many hundreds of hours allocated to it by both APTA and CASA personnel. It also required significant investment.

This resulted in a suite of manuals that are referred to as the Exposition. In Appendix C, I have attached only a small portion of the completed product. These are our main suite of manuals. I would strongly encourage you to view these, as they will provide an indication as to the size of the project, and the quality of the end result. It is these documents that guide every aspect of APTA. Refer Appendix C

CASA personnel then used the Technical Assessor Handbook which provides extensive guidance to CASA personnel on how to assess our procedures. Again, I encourage the Ombudsman’s office to review that document. It provides comprehensive guidance on how thorough CASAs procedure is.The link to that document can be found here. . CASR Part 142 technical assessor handbook | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)

After reviewing and assessing all of these procedures, the CASA personnel then indicate that they are satisfied with all our policies and procedures and tick them off against the CASA Assessor Worksheet, which I obtained under Freedom of Information and is attached as Appendix D.

The assessing CASA personnel then submit our policies and procedures contained within our Exposition (part of which is contained in Appendix C) with the completed Technical Assessor Worksheet in Appendix D to higher levels within CASA for a Peer Review. Most likely this would occur in CASAs office of Legal International and Regulatory Affairs for authorisation of approval.

We were one of the first flying schools in Australia to be ready for the new legislation, and it is likely that CASA was having a thorough review of one of the first new 141/142 Approvals to be issued in Australia. If CASA is to be believed, still no-one within CASA has become aware that APTA is providing a multi base, multi entity approach, despite the fact that we had been doing it years prior.

On completion of that process, CASA will issue the Part 141 and 142 Approval.

Just prior to the CASA revalidation being issued, the APTA Key Personnel are interviewed and assessed by CASA. These are the legislated accountable positions within the Organization. The title we used for the Key Personnel was Group CEO, Group Head of Operations, and Group Safety Manager. These personnel are interviewed and assessed by CASA against the Exposition. A significant part of each of these interviews was the CASA personnel covering the topics of procedures, operational control etc in a multi base/multi entity format as we had been doing for many years. The interview was based around the APTA multi entity approach that we utilised.

But, according to CASA they were still unaware of the multi base/multi entity format.

Somehow according to CASA, throughout the process that precedes this date CASA still was not aware of what APTA was doing. It’s an absurd assertion, clearly false and most likely intended to manipulate CASAs preferred outcome in the Ombudsmans investigation.
  • Email 26th April 2017, APTA revalidation as a Part 141/142 has been issued by CASA. Emails arranging for the CASA Regional Manager to come to the APTA Head Office to present our Approvals as a revalidated Part 141/142 Organisation approximately 4 months before the deadline of September 1st, 2017. Still, according to CASA, if they are to be believed, CASA is not aware of what APTA is doing, despite the presentation being in our brand-new Head Office for APTA.
At that Presentation there was significant discussion with the attending CASA personnel, and me and my management team. The recollection of attending APTA management and my own recollection is that the attending CASA personnel spent a significant amount of time with the entire APTA management team. Extensive discussions were based around our existing bases, MFT at Moorabbin and TVSA at Bacchus Marsh. There was no doubt that the contents of that discussion were entirely based around the business model and plans moving forward. A high level of encouragement was offered by CASA. Therefore, at the time of CASA awarding our revalidation as a Part 141/142 in April 2017, there was no doubt that CASA was fully aware, as at the time of approval we already had two bases, and CASA had just worked with us to write our entire Exposition based around this. For CASA to assert that they were not fully aware of APTA is blatantly untruthful, especially considering the content of “the concept” sent through almost one year earlier on 23rd June 2016 and attached as Appendix B.

CASA claim that they only became aware of what APTA was doing, at some after now.

CASA took no action and raised no concerns at all until October 2018,which is 18 months later, so my assumption is that they supposedly claim they became aware some time just prior to issuing the notification in October 2018,otherwise I presume they would have acted earlier.
  • Email 7th October 2017, being one year prior to Casa’s reversal of APTA in which I refer to my meeting in Canberra with Mr Graeme Crawford, CASA second most senior person, on 18th January 2017 which is four months before CASA revalidated APTA in April 2017. CASA was clearly aware of the concept, and at the highest levels, although they would have the Ombudsman’s Office believe otherwise.
  • Email 26th April 2017 from me to CASA acknowledging that the Part 141/142 Approval is about to be issued. CASA claims that on this day, CASA was not awre of what APTA was doing. I strongly refute that, and particularly so because of the detailed correspondence I provided to CASA on 23rd June 2016, and the many hundreds of interactions with CASA on the matter and most significantly in the 6 months leading up to our re-approval of APTA in April 2017.
  • Email 26th April 2017, the CASA Executive Manager of the Aviation Group, Mr Graeme Crawford congratulating me and my APTA team. CASA would now claim that at this stage he remains unaware of APTAs model.
  • June 2017, CASA delay the introduction of the legislation by 12 months to September 2018 instead of September 2017, due to most flying schools not having been able to complete the required transition to the new regulations. This delay was to cost APTA approximately $700,000.
  • October 2018 CASA reverses APTAs approval with no prior warning.
  • Meeting 20th December 2018 in CASA Melbourne Office between me and my father and Mr Peter White, CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance. At this meeting Mr White advises two critical pieces of information. Mr White assured me that CASA were fully awre of APTA and would not claim that they did not know about APTA, he then went on advise that irrespective of that APTA would not be permitted to continue operating. The assurance was not met, as CASA now claim that they were not aware. The Ombudsman’s Office could verify this with Mr White.
 
If at this stage there still remains any doubt in the mind of the Ombudsman’s Office, I can provide you with contact details of four CASA personnel who will confirm to your Office that CASA was fully aware of APTA at the time of revalidation as a Part 141/142 Organisation in April 2017, and in the period prior.

I encourage you to contact these personnel, as that will potentially bring this matter to more prompt and fair resolution. Whilst their preference would be to maintain confidentiality, all will be prepared to publicly put their name to those statements if that is what is required. They will only be telling the truth, and In my opinion, no investigation could be completed without availing yourself of that opportunity.

It will clearly identify that the multi base concept was CASA accepted and sanctioned industry practice, but more importantly, that CASA was fully aware of what APTA had been doing for many years and intended to continue doing and expanding on in the future. They will each confirm that CASA was fully aware throughout the design process and at the time of approval. One CASA employee retains “extraneous” note taking which he will provide in support of the truth on this matter.

Please advise if you would like me to provide contact details of those employees, as they can be provided immediately that you request them. Some of these personnel have now left the organisation and would appreciate the opportunity to bring light on this matter, and on others matters that would be pertinent to your investigation and the claim that “CASA was not aware” of what APTA was doing.

Also please consider APTA had been providing a multi base operation prior to the revalidation of the business model as a Part 141/142 in April 2017, as was common industry practice in the flight training sector throughout my last 25 years in the industry. That is why CASAs approach towards me and my business is so totally inexplicable.

Importantly, the practice of more than one entity operating under a single Authorisation Holders Air Operator Certificate (AOC) was very much accepted industry practice but much more than that it was fully sanctioned and accepted by CASA. It had been for many years. If CASA continues to assert any argument to the contrary, I must be provided the opportunity to provide irrefutable evidence that CASAs assertion is very far removed from the truth. On this matter, I could provide you a signed statement with several long-term industry participants simply signing that this statement is the truth. Please advise me if that would be of any assistance to your office in its investigation.

The purpose of this correspondence was to provide evidence in support of my stated position that CASA was very involved in the design of APTA and had full knowledge of it at the time of the revalidation as a Part 141/142 Organisation in April of 2017.

Thankyou for considering this additional information, and I hope that you will deem it appropriate to speak to the personnel that I have suggested. Please contact me, for prompt provision of their details.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley, a person significantly impacted by this matter.

References: 

1. https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...WLEDGE.pdf
2. https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...O-CASA.pdf
3. https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...l-2017.pdf
4. https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...SITION.zip
5. https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...CEDURE.pdf




MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Of Angels and Daemons.

“Justice Anderson ruled that Angel Flight had not established the grounds on which they applied for the review, rejecting the four grounds of ultra vires submitted, mostly on interpretation of legislative and regulatory instruments that frame CASA's authority.”

“Most telling, Justice Anderson stated that he did not accept Angel Flight's submission that it is necessary for CASA to "demonstrate by some statistical or empirical analysis that a risk factor exists to justify the validity of a condition in an instrument made under [CASR] 11.068."

Pagani - "None of my evidence was challenged at the hearing. On the contrary, the evidence of the CASA representative was telling in that, he admitted only after rigorous cross-examination that he had no such evidence, data, nor safety case, in respect of any of the regulations – not a single one."

Hitch - “The decision also enshrines CASA's inference that a 350-hour PPL must be more dangerous than a 150-hour CPL and, perhaps more damaging, that CASA is under no obligation to justify its decision to apply conditions on a class of operations. There are several operators who have fallen foul of CASA's reluctance to supply meaningful justification for any decision, not just Angel Flight, and now the courts have confirmed what we've always feared: there are no shackles on CASA, a regulator that has a track record of getting things wrong then hiding behind a barricade of legislated authority. It will always be a struggle trying to overcome the barricade, which is what Angel Flight has discovered over the past few years.”

Hitch - Passing comment on the Federal Court ruling against Angel Flight is hampered significantly by the contempt of court laws, but the original regulations and the evidence presented by CASA are still fair game! With Angel Flight electing not to appeal, the resistance to CASA's community service flight restrictions has come to an end.

In February 2019, CASA imposed restrictions on CSFs that target Angel Flight specifically because of the type of mission flown. The restrictions included:
private pilots cannot fly CSFs unless they have 400 hours total time with at least 250 hour in command
multi-engine aircraft cannot be used on CSFs unless the pilot has 25 hours time on type
private pilots cannot fly CSFs if they hold a CASA Basic Class 2 medical only
VFR pilots cannot fly CSFs unless they have 10 hours on type
IFR pilots cannot fly CSFs unless they have 20 hours time on type
no pilot can fly a CSF unless they have made at least one landing in the type of aircraft in the previous 30 days.

So, from a purely 'operational' view it is worth spending some time considering the 'pro's and con's of the CASA v CSF operational arguments.

:- private pilots cannot fly CSFs unless they have 400 hours total time with at least 250 hour in command.

The first thing noted is the 400 hrs total time. This represents (give or take) about a half years work for a new start 'commercial pilot'. During the time it takes to log the first 400 hrs many lessons are learned. For instance the fatigue 'waiting time' produces; the pressure to get the job done and the important lessons related to cross country flying into an unknown aerodrome. Serious lessons which will serve later in a career. Arbitrary 'numbers' serve little purpose – a 'private' pilot may have logged 400 hours and never left the training area; or, has repeated one or two journeys several times; in short, the breadth of experience required to complete a day long journey may never have been acquired. Perhaps a more realistic 'minimum' could have been dictated. For example 250 hours as a minimum with the rider that at least 150 of those hours involved 'cross country' flights.  There are some internationally recognised 'tomb-stones' marking the 'danger' periods in a pilots career – one stands at the 500 hour mark. I have no quarrel with CASA setting 'benchmarks' provided they are based on a realistic appreciation of the tasking. This one fails the 'pub test' on operational grounds.

“multi-engine aircraft cannot be used on CSFs unless the pilot has 25 hours time on type”.

Once again we run into an arbitrary number of little significance. Lets say it takes between 5 and 10 hours to master the 'first twin' with the basics and the foundations laid down in a permanent manner. In the class of aircraft available - <5700, piston – the average Joe (or Joette) should need for a 'second twin' about two (min) five (max) hours of training followed up by as much supervised flight as is deemed necessary – 10 hours is a reasonable rule of thumb. So, for our CSF/PPL transitioning from say a Duchess to a Baron – there will have been at least 20 (total) odd hours of multi engine training and 10 hours of supervised flying. Then before being allowed to operate someones 'pride and joy'. You may safely bet that some hard eyes would looking at the performance during a pretty rigorous 'check flight' after that – and carefully checking their insurance policy. 25 hours 'on type' on top of this serves little purpose. This one fails the 'pub test' on operational grounds.

I could go on (and on) – but the bottom line (IMO) is CASA may have won the legal battle and demonstrated their command of the law – as writ. But - from a purely operational standpoint the CSF embuggerance shines a spotlight on just how bereft of 'operational safety savvy' CASA are. In short they have NDI. Big on winning at law - piss poor at understanding matters aeronautical. Etc...

Toot – toot.
Reply

What an absolute joke, CASA have set themselves up to even more ridicule from the International aviation body.
Are they seriously saying a 200 hour commercial pilot is safer than a 400 hour private pilot?
Based on what statistics?
Reply

Only my two bob's worth.

Hours – flight time – in the log book; duty hours – instrument hours – a 'book of hours'.

“The book of hours is a Christian devotional book popular in the Middle Ages.”

Sound familiar – it should. Using minimum 'logged' flight time during training is, IMO, a sensible practice, based on sound logic which allows the instructing pilot latitude to ensure that the lesson is 'learned'. But once that training period is over, I have often wondered if 'sectors' operated would not be a better yardstick. The bulk of any flight is 'cruise' time and once the aircraft is 'settled' in the cruise, the workload mostly decreases. The 'hard work' part is the planning and organising, departure, approach and landing. I've personally never placed much stock in 'hours' logged once a pilot is 'qualified'; how many instructor pilots have logged essentially the same hour a 100 times or more. Highly experienced within that hour – but that is not quite the same thing as say 100 hours on the old Bank runs – or charter – or any of the many aerial work tasks is it.

The CSF flights which kicked off this imbroglio came to grief during 'critical' weather related time periods. Neither should have occurred – but they did. CASA went for the easy fix – up the 'flight hours'. This 'solution' completely and utterly fails to address the radical cause of both accidents and will not prevent a recurrence. VFR operating into IMC – or even marginal VFR has been with us for a long, long time.

As you and I both know Thorny, there is a very fine line between being 'visual' at the bottom of an ILS and not. Most instrument pilots have made the decisions on continuing – or not – based not on hours flown – but on 'experience' – as in 'sectors' operated. But the VFR guys and gals simply do not gain that experience – nor are they taught the skills required to gain it.

So, how will an increased minimum 'hours' combat the problem? In short it will not. It is simply a cost impost without benefit. I'd bet my boots that AF could, without any bother, arrange a weekend 'briefing' course related to VFR operations in marginal weather conditions and even a morning spent understanding 'how' to translate the weather forecast as it applies to the sectors being flown. Another 'sensible' fix would be to ignore the total time logged and examine the 'sectors' operated, which has a much more direct bearing on 'safety'. I reckon they could even persuade some of the more experienced to 'ride-along' for a few sectors with a new chum – in the interests of 'education'.

There are many 'operationally sensible' things CASA could do – slapping an increase of 'hours' is not one of them.

Just stray thoughts with first coffee – What say you Thorny?
Reply

And therein lies the rub TOM.

There is no doubt in my mind that a properly trained and tested instrument rated pilot is a far safer bet than a purely VFR pilot, but that only applies when the weather is marginal, on a moderate to severe CAVOK day there is very little difference from a safety perspective between a VFR pilot and an instrument pilot. Its that grey area of is it or is it not advisable to proceed with a VFR flight that the risk between them starts to diverge and the trouble starts.
With all the modern tools available today for weather assessment, one can, in real time, gain a very accurate "picture" of what the "weather" actually is, not like the old days when a TAF was an each way bet. But still VFR pilots get themselves in trouble by attempting to fly in marginal conditions. Perhaps a forensic examination of the mind set that leads pilots into these traps and an education program developed to change that mind set, and by that I don't mean the usual CASA lecture about the ROOLS and their penalties, but an educational exercise to change attitudes to risk. Finger pointing, brow beating and threats are never a really affective tool for learning.

I remember way back when, I think around lesson five, my instructor got me to fly into a bit of puffy Cu. Falling out the bottom, almost inverted after about 40 seconds, really set in my youthful mind the dangers of trying to fly in IMC.

There is also Australia's clap trap regulations that positively discourage private pilots from gaining an instrument qualification, too convoluted and expensive to gain and too expensive to maintain under Australian rules unlike the US where quite a majority of private pilots are instrument rated.
Reply

My turn:-

Just saying – I wonder if a NVMC rating may have been a 'better' solution than an increase in 'hours'. Basic instrument flying a required skill and Etc. Percentage basis, there's more chance of a CSF being caught out by daylight than unexpected or not forecast 'bad' weather. Basic instrument 'savvy' an experience could – just maybe – buy enough time to extricate the aircraft from an 'inadvertent' collision with cloud.

It ain't an onerous rating to acquire – HERE – and I reckon a handy one. But education of the real kind is a partial solution. But it too can fail to completely address the 'human condition' no matter how draconian the penalties are. Look no further than your drive to the airport to see what you are dealing with. Take any one of a dozen or so 'silly' things some do on the road despite 'rools' education and horrific pictures – there are those who clearly realise that it could be them and try to act responsibly – then there are the 'others' who believe the converse – it is a mixture for trouble.

Pilots are probably more risk aware than the average road user; and we've all done it – taken a punt. But mostly it is an 'educated' risk – like pushing on into bad weather under the VFR. You can do this and you can do it quite safely – provided that you are fully aware of the inerrant dangers; always, always, always leave the back door open and a clear run to a suitable field. So far and no further unless I can see my way clear.  Of course having the forecast on board is about as much use as a chocolate fire wall if it is not understood, or treated as a 'legal' requirement. The BoM (bless 'em) can be +/- 70% out, and will always lean toward the 'worst case' and I have little quarrel with that; forewarned and forearmed – gas for Mum and an alternate plan can't harm anyone. I'd much rather be pleasantly surprised on arrival than have an Oh crap moment when go-around time comes; or a diversion is required.

I guess there will always be risk takers; we all are to some degree – but few outside of airshows are 'thrill – seekers' or fools. And yet year after year there are CFIT events involving VMC qualified tangling with instrument conditions. Decade after decade there is the brangle of do we teach basic instrument skills or not. There are those who say No; it will lead to temptation. There are those who firmly believe in additional instrument training. As TB mentioned – 30 seconds in cloud demonstrates just how quickly control can be lost. There has never yet been a solution and the tribes are convinced that 'their' philosophy is the only one.

So, I don't know where the solution lays; a NVMC rating seems a reasonable step to keep 'instrument' skills current – but there lies a separate problem – staying current. Round and round it goes – but one thing is abundantly clear – there will always be those who chance their arm – same thing on the roads; those who believe they were kissed on the arse by God and made immortal. For me, I always know where Murphy is – right there, where he belongs – in the right hand seat.

Toot – toot.
Reply

I have no idea of a solution K, humans being human can at times prove a quandary.

But if "Safety" is the catch cry I do believe it can be improved by tearing up the inane regulatory suite offered up by our inane regulator and adopt NZ or FAA regulations.

As you quite rightly point out experience has a positive impact on safety as does currency.

Reducing the cost of committing aviation, its almost 50% cheaper in the USA, would encourage more participation.

There is much focus on Total hours logged, not much on recency.
Reply

A two bob Toot..

A simple enough question – to which 100% replied 'Oh yes – several times'.

I have never liked the phrase 'inadvertent excursion into non VMC'. It is a misleading cop out. There is only one time when 'inadvertent' can be used; to wit, at night, on an instrument approach after becoming visual and bumping into a low deck or rain; you can't always see it – particularly when 'circling' or even in the circuit = 100% asked had the experience. So, IMO the humbug excuse often used in reports on daylight, VFR entering IMC 'inadvertently' is a Bollocks.

Malice aforethought is closer to the mean. There, on the 'wires' is the area and aerodrome forecast – it paints a clear enough picture; there are dozens of sources for collecting weather information – and there is a new invention – the telephone which can be used to gain additional information. So, armed with the best information available, you can 'plan' a journey. Go/ See how we go/ No go.

Sensible pilots will (or should) weigh up a couple or three critical elements. The first being do I know the area? Experienced 'local' pilots will know where the traps lay; those not so familiar will up the ante, decide early the best plan to avoid the 'rising terrain – lowering cloud' trap – and find a back door escape route to a coffee and a break. Then there are those who just trust in the gods, Garmin and Pratt and Whitney. There they sit – choofing along @ 2 miles a minute – in marginal conditions; that allows a mere two minutes to decide how best to avoid the cloud and rain they can (or should be able to) see. No plan – blind luck – you know the rest.............This is not an 'inadvertent' act.

It takes time – experience and 'sectors' operated to be able to 'read' the sky as it is, and time to consider the forecast conditions and compare it to what is seen through the front window. Acknowledged; the BoM do get it wrong – countless times expected and planned for an instrument approach only to break out above the start or part way through; not too many instances of missed approach due to the forecast wrong the other way (its happened but I can remember every one of 'em).

There is no simple solution – but the notion that an arbitrary increase in 'minimum hours' will fix it is a crock. Dealing with fatigue, stress and pressure of an early start – a short flight – waiting around all day – late passengers and the weather turning as darkness approaches – etc. All, are part and parcel of sector flight – as any junior charter pilot will tell you; irrespective of the hours in the log book. It would, IMO, be an easy matter to arrange a course to highlight these elements. Knowledge is power, to be aware and to find your own way to deal with these things and form a personal limit strategy - early could just assist in reducing the instances of CFIT due 'inadvertent' operation in non VMC conditions.

Or; the short version – expect and plan for the worst; hope for the best.

Toot – just saying – toot.
Reply

GlenB embuggerance update: 1/07/21 

Via the AP email chain:


Dear Mark of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office.
 
Firstly, may I apologise if I have not proofread this document adequately. I am in the process of moving home and committed to getting this to you by tonight. I have significant time constraints.
 
I had been a vocal critic of CASAs implementation of the regulatory suite which was delivered a decade behind schedule, and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. I was approached by the media on these topics, and I made truthful comment.
 
It is not unlikely that my criticism of some elements of CASA may possibly have caused some employees to act for reasons other than aviation safety or regulatory compliance. It is increasingly likely if allegations have been made against those individuals previously, and that lead to an ABC investigative story, as you are aware.
                                                                                                                                       
I walked into my business on October 23rd, 2018, having no inclination that by the end of the day CASA would advise me that my flying school of more than a decade, MFT had suddenly been declared an unauthorised operation, and my business APTA was declared to be operating in breach of the regulations. Absolutely no concerns at all had been raised by CASA prior to receiving that notification. Initially, and for the first two months the CASA position was that my operation of more than 10 years had been declared unlawful. It was ludicrous, but concerning.
 
You are also aware that several businesses were forced into closure directly because of the restrictions on my businesses ability to trade. Employees lost their jobs, significant investment was lost, suppliers were left unpaid, students training was impacted, many millions of dollars were lost by a number of well-intentioned Operators, and the impact on me on my family has included the loss of my home and my two businesses. After enduring all of that, CASA then wrote to my Employer advising that my continuing employment was “no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”. Those comments were me defending myself against CASAs actions.
 
I was now completely forced out of the industry I loved, and had spent 25 years working in. I was left unemployed, depressed, and it has left me destitute at 56 years of age. Like many business owners, my business was my security in retirement. It has gone. My wife and I will most likely never be able to recover from this situation. My wife has had a total of four days free of work since that correspondence in October 2018, as she desperately tries to rebuild our life from the start. In all of this, the impact on my family is the most heart-breaking to watch. Soon, I will make my final submission to your Office and that will clearly outline the impact of the actions and decisions made by the three CASA employees that I have named. 
 
I can assure you that I am someone very affected by the decision making of CASA employee, Mr Aleck, working closely with Mr Martin and Mr Crawford
 
Those consequences are directly as a result of the “opinion” of a CASA employee. They are not supported by a safety case or regulations. In fact, quite the contrary, there is a demonstrable safety case that CASA actions have actually impacted negatively on safety. As stated, it is the application of an individual’s opinion. It may not be well intentioned and led to my allegations of misfeasance in public office that I made on 20/11/20 before the Senate Inquiry.
 
Allegations of misconduct were previously made against those same three CASA Employees by Mr Bruce Rhoades. A pilot who died of cancer, desperately trying to bring the alleged misconduct of those same individuals under investigation. under investigation, and repair the enormous harm bought to him and his family. This story was aired on the ABCs 7.30 Report. I mention this because many other affected people have contacted me and offered to make a confidential submission to your office raising the same allegations against those same three individuals. It is reasonable to assume that “where there is smoke, there is fire”. These are not vindictive or vexatious allegations. These are facts. The impact is real and can clearly be demonstrated. The named CASA personnel cannot say the same. They are completely unable to present to your office a supporting safety case, a regulatory breach, or in fact demonstrate any sort of a well-intentioned motivation.
 
These considerations are significant, and most especially because CASA had no supporting safety case, never identified any regulatory breach, never raised any queries as to the quality outcomes of the Organisation. It was literally just that, a change of opinion. The decision maker took no external legal advice, applied his opinion, and made a decision that he was not compelled to make. In making that decision he would have been fully aware of the implications on the business, and throughout the process I wrote to CASA on multiple occasions highlighting the significant commercial impact, which I will address later in this document.
 
The decision maker within CASA was not compelled to make the decisions that he made, and there was no precedent. They had no supporting regulation, and CASA has never identified their supporting safety case despite multiple requests made by me. If the intent of the application of decision is not made on the basis of a regulatory breach and has no supporting safety case, that application of opinion should be able to be questioned, and most especially so for the individual who has been impacted.
 
The impact of the “opinion” is totally unacceptable and would have been completely avoided had CASA chosen to “engage” with me rather than adopt an unnecessarily combative stance and place those restrictions on the business. As I have stated previously I only needed CASA to clearly and concisely advise me of the terminology that they wanted in the contracts, and the entire matter could have been resolved at any time within 48 hours. There was no resistance at all from APTA or the entities depending on APTA. Our interest was to have this matter fully resolved to CASAs satisfaction at any time.
 
Please note, and related to the matters before you now, that I have made allegations of “misfeasance in public office”, against CASA employees, Mr Crawford, Mr Martin, Mr Aleck and Mr Carmody in Parliament before the current Senate Inquiry on 20/11/20 which can be accessed here and located at the “12:40” position on that recording. RRAT Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport - 20/11/2020 08:49:59 - Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au)
 
I have also made a number of written submissions to the office of the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia at the time, Mr Michael McCormack, as the Minister responsible for CASA. None have been responded to by his Office.
 
I would like to provide some additional important and pertinent information that I believe needs to be considered as part of your investigation, and most particularly regarding your preliminary opinion where you were of the view.
 
“On examining the correspondence between yourself and CASA subsequent to the notice of October 2018 it appears to me that there was an impasse of sorts, though CASA appears to have made a number of good faith attempts to assist you in resolving the issue. I accept that you would have liked CASA to provide clearer advice about what material to place in contracts between APTA and members of the alliance. However, it seems to me that CASA provided sufficient assistance in the circumstances.”
 
Regarding your preliminary opinion, that CASA provided sufficient assistance, and that CASA made a number of good faith attempts, I strongly refute that, based on my own personal experience and would like to submit further supporting information for consideration prior to your final determination.
 
Regarding there being a number of good faith attempts. There was only the one attempt by CASA, rather than a number of good faith attempts. That attempt came almost 6 months after restrictions were placed on the business on April 2nd, 2019, by which time the business was decimated. CASA had contacted all customers and told them that I was acting unlawfully many months earlier. The timeline of 6 months was commercially fatal, due to the unreasonably long delays, and a major contributor to the significant commercial harm done to so many stakeholders.
 
Regarding the finding that, I “would have liked CASA to provide clearer advice”. It is much more than that. I was completely dependent on CASA to provide that advice. They were asking for something additional to the legislation, which we had fully attended to in our Exposition. Because it was something outside of the legislation, I needed guidance on what CASA wants. I complied with every bit of legislation. The existing legislation is very clear on my accountability, and after 25 years in the industry and almost half of it as the owner of a large flying school, I understood those obligations at an expert level, and the legislative environment I was operating in. There was nothing else that my Exposition could attend to. If CASA wanted to design a new rule, that was fine, and I was willing to comply, but I was not in a position to guess what it was that CASA was after. All requirements are held within the CASA approved and designed Exposition. I have attended to this later in the correspondence, where I deal specifically with the contract versus the Exposition.
 
Please allow me to go through the following timeline, with particular attention to the communications between CASA and I, in April of 2019. Importantly the reversal of commitment given to me by Mr Aleck and Mr Martin, shortly after that meeting...

...In closing, please understand that I waited a staggering 6 months for CASA to advise what they wanted in the contracts. They provided that guidance on April 2nd, 2019. I returned it April 9th. On that day CASA advised it was acceptable, and later the same day applied a reversal, and the entire matter was no closer to being resolved.

 
Please understand that this was a matter that could not be resolved by me. I attended to every single requirement of many thousands of pages of documentation contained within CASA regulations.
 
There were no safety breaches or concerns ever raised by CASA. There were no regulatory breaches. The entire system was designed with CASA. The system was approved by CASA 18 months earlier. There was only one CASA issued authorisation and that was the single authorisation that entities operated under. I had 25 years industry experience and was fully aware of my responsibilities and accountabilities as that Authorisation Holder for the quality outcomes across all bases. Our Exposition was written in that manner, CASAs own legislation is written in that manner.
 
As the Owner of that flight training organisation and CASA issued authorisation, I was fully awrecof the responsibility and accountability. I drew on 25 years industry experience, half of that as a CASA approved Chief Flying Instructor (CFI), CASA Approved Head of Operations (HOO), CASA Approved CEO, and a Grade One Multi Engine IFR instructor with 25 years experience. I had also owned a flying school for more than a decade and based on CASA feedback, that Organusation had delivered industry leading standards of safety and compliance.
 
This need not have been such a “confusing” issue for CASA. Many operators had been doing the same thing well before I joined the industry over 25 years ago. CASA have attempted to present this concept as something not seen before. That is not truthful. One only has to ask how Latrobe Valley Aero Club operated up until the day they joined APTA. The provider of the AOC coverage, the day prior wasn’t required to have a contract. I was.
 
I feel strongly that CASA should have obtained legal advice before commencing their action and placing restrictions on the business.
 
APTA met every existing piece of CASA legislation and that was embedded into a comprehensive manual suite. I was in an impossible situation. It was CASA that wanted the additional text and to become involved in the contracts. They were seeking something that was in addition to the lefislation. I could not resolve this situation. It was incumbent upon CASA to advise me what they wanted. This is critical to this entire matter. CASA initiated the action in October 2018. At that stage I depended on them to advise me what CASA wanted in the contracts. With trading restrictions on the business in place for a staggering 6 months, the business was doomed.
 
The truth is that had Mr Aleck/Martin/Crawford chosen to resolve this matter, it could easily have been resolved. That is the plain and simple truth. Furthermore, it could have been resolved promptly i.e., 3 working days.
The matter of contracts did not need to be an issue. Mr Martin, Mr Crawford, and Mr Aleck chose for it to be an issue.
 
At any stage CASA needed only to tell me clearly and concisely what they wanted in the “contracts”. I choose the words deliberately because that is in fact the very terminology in the Civil Aviation Act as one of the core functions of CASA, refer Appendix A
 
The truth is that after 25 years of experience in the flight training industry, with almost half of that as the owner of a highly respected flying school, I was acutely and fully aware of my responsibility for the outcomes of all operations delivered under my AOC. My responsibility was 100%. The existing legislation makes that very clear. I had been a CASA approved Chief Flying instructor for over a decade, CASA approved Head of Operations and a CASA approved CEO. It is highly unlikely that I would have passed each of those CASA assessments if I was not fully aware of my obligations.
 
The contract was a commercial agreement between APTA and its Members. The agreement was in two parts. Part A with the legal component and Part B with the intention of APTA. I provided the contracts to CASA on multiple occasions during the 18 months lead up to CASAs reversal. CASA did not show any interest in the contracts, their interest understandably, was the Exposition. As it should be. I reiterate that CASA have never required contracts of other Opeartors. Any changes to APTA should have been reflected in the Exposition. If CASA want to become involved inn the commercial aspects of the agreement, which are in the contract, the onus is on CASA to advise me of the content that they require. A copy of the contract is attached as Appendix E.
 
Once again, please accept my apologies for a document that has not been proofread as much as I would have liked. I am limited for time, thank you for your consideration.
 
Respectfully
 
Glen Buckley.




MTF...P2  Tongue
 
Reply

Watershed or Water Closet?

One definition of “watershed” is “an event marking a unique or important historical change of course or one on which important developments depend.”

We all may (safely) define the meaning of a WC.

Although 'tis but early days in the Spence administration, and despite the the fact that CASA have washed the Buckley blood off their collective hands and are desperately trying to sell the notion that a Leopard can change it's spots; in reality - nothing has changed - nor is it likely to. Or is it?

Master Buckley, despite his best efforts has hit the brick wall belonging to the Ombudsman - "nothing to see, move along" sayeth this worthy. It shames me to say it - but, the 'Tote' did very well out the Ombudsman's response to Buckley; I had it 'odds on' from the beginning. Safe as houses and totally predictable.

So what's next? Well, I'd give you very, very attractive odds on the most humane, logical and politically correct entrant into the next round of the Buckley Embuggerance Stakes. 'Impossible Dream' start price 40/1.

Spence, backed by the new DoIT crew, with a new chair and even considering buying a new broom have a perfect opportunity to realign with the industry and gain some serious credit. The new DAS (silly title) could order a full dress review of the Buckley matter; from soup to nuts. An internal inquiry; confidential if need be, but a careful, factual examination of the entire matter. Published report to the minister and due consideration given to some form of rehabilitation and an Act of Grace payment to set matters to rights.

Some Senators and the general aviation community understand the Buckley case, very well indeed. They are also very familiar with the CASA antics.. Time the new broom 'manned up'. Even if the CASA actions could be fully supported and proven completely justified, then that finding should be published, so every one could see that 'fair play' had indeed prevailed/or not.... Either way, it would go a long way toward putting a dull shine on what is (global fact)  the very tarnished reputation of the disliked, distrusted administration of aviation 'Down Under'.

Toot - toot.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)