The noble Art - Embuggerance.

APTA embuggerance update -  Dodgy

Note who the following glenb email is addressed to... Rolleyes

Quote:Subject:Request for audit results regarding CASA allegation of breach CASR 117
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 23:55:11 +0000
From: Glen Buckley <glen.b@auspta.com.au>
To: Martin, Craig <Craig.Martin@casa.gov.au>
CC: Carmody, Shane <shane.carmody@casa.gov.au>

Dear Mr Martin,

As you are aware CASA raised a number of allegations of regulatory breaches, and there have been multiple recorded attempts by me, to resolve those issues which have been completely ignored by CASA.  These requests have been frequent and been made over many months. You are obligated in your role to assist me.

Mr Martin, I must insist that you immediately stop frustrating my attempts to resolve these matters.The approach by CASA is totally unacceptable, and by doing so, you are preventing me  access to fair processes. As I have maintained since October 2018, there are no regulatory breaches, and no safety concerns. Not one of my requests has been responded to.

By refusing to assist me in resolving these matters I am of the opinion that you are deliberately frustrating my attempts to resolve these matters, and are deliberately protracting time lines. You are not acting in accordance with your obligations.

The failure by you to respond, restricts me from conducting my business, which is my common law right.

My strong preference is to avoid lodging a formal complaint to the ICC about your conduct, hence I will make one further attempt to receive a response in 24 hours to my fair and reasonable request

Mr Martin, I call on you in your role to meet your obligations and assist me to resolve the matter. I call on you to minimise the commercial impact on me and my business to respond.

I look forward to your response,


Glen


Date:
11/06/2019, 1:32 pm
To:
"Martin, Craig" <Craig.Martin@casa.gov.au>


Dear Mr Martin,

As you are aware CASA conducted an audit of Latrobe valley. I wish to clarify an incorrect statement in the “structure review” of APTA. CASA records will clearly indicate that in fact APTA has two CASA approved CEOs, two CASA approved HOOs (with a third on hold due to the current CASA action, and two CASA approved Safety Managers. This is a misunderstanding on behalf of my CMT, and I would like the opportunity to clarify that.

As you are aware we submitted an application on 22/06/18 for the addition of Latrobe Valley as an APTA base. On 03/09/18 CASA attended and conducted an audit.

It was identified that CASA had not provided the audit results and they were provided to us on 20/11/18, almost 5 months after the audit. On provision of those audit results there were allegations that we were misrepresenting APTA. Specifically I was concerned about the CASA allegation of breach CASR 117. These were entirely new allegations that we had not seen before.

As a precaution, I called a halt to our extensive advertising of APTA and that has continued on for many months. As you will appreciate that is effectively placing a restriction on my trade. I have made multiple requests to have this resolved and none have been responded to.

I have not done an exhaustive check due time constraints although I did make the following requests in an attempt to resolve the allegation of a breach by CASA

28/11/18           Email to David Jones asking for information to attend to the CASA allegation of a regulatory breach. There was no response to my request

05/12/18           Email to David Jones. Second request. No response to my request.

10/12/18           Email to David jones. Third request. No response to my request.

11/12/18           Email to Will Nuttall requesting meeting to sort out Latrobe Valley audit results. There was no response to my request.

28/11/18           Email to David Jones. No response to my request.

07/01/19           Email to David Jones urging him to respond to my emails regarding audit findings. No response to my request.

16/05/19           Email to Graeme Crawford.

17/05/19           Email to

21/05/19           Emailed to Jason McHeyzer and he advised me to contact Craig Martin.

21/05/19           Emailed Graeme Crawford.

22/05/19           Emailed to Craig Martin. No response to my request.

27/05/19           Emailed to Craig Martin. No response to my request.



Craig, please, if CASA make allegations of regulatory breaches, they do impact on my business. After nearly 8 months, can you please respond to my request, to assist me to resolve the allegations made by CASA. One finalised, that will allow me to recommence marketing.

As you can see there have been at least 12 requests. They are reasonable requests. The impact of CASAs allegations is significant, please meet your obligations and assist me to resolve this matter.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley.

So why does Craig Martin's name ring a bell? - Here's a reminder: APTA (Glen B) embuggerance update - 4/06/19

(12-04-2018, 07:49 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  
Quote:Bruce Rhoades shared a post.

17 hrs ·

https://www.facebook.com/1224969532/post...495093447/



For those who have not seen it, this is the video which apparently annoyed Graeme Crawford (CASA) so much that he has threatened me with a defamation suit on behalf of two of their officers Craig Martin and Anthony Carter.

CASA must just hate the right to freedom of speech and especially social media.

BR's videos now on Youtube:



Yes indeed he is the Scot's Git's loyal lieutenant who just so happens to be doing another stint in the Acting Executive Manager, Regulatory Services & Surveillance, while the MBE recipient and former Senior adviser to both Interpol and the PMC Mr Peter White is on indefinite leave yet again?



However the outstanding questions here are:

a) Why won't the Crawford Muppet Craig Martin respond to what appears to be a fair and reasonable request?

b) How can CASA deny Glenb and APTA access to audit and/or APTA regulatory oversight records?

As a perfect example of the non-transparency and secret squirreling going on, in regards to the APTA embuggerance, the following is a link for an FOI decision by CASA addressing an APTA FOI request: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...Dec-18.pdf

The following is an example of the docs released under FOI but nonetheless exempted under either s42 (Legal Professional Privilege) or s22 (outside scope of the request).

[Image: D8-9fQ3U8AALOsT.jpg]

Is there a better example of the contempt that the 'law unto itself' Big R-regulator CASA has for the FOI Act and indeed the democratic processes of the Australian Commonwealth?  Dodgy 

MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

Internal embuggerance across the ditch??

Slight thread drift here but apparently all is not well within the Kiwis smaller R-regulator's internal ranks... Confused

Via News Hub NZ'ed:

Quote:'Secrecy and cover-up': Explosive allegations from within the Civil Aviation Authority

23/06/2019

Michael Morrah

A whistleblower from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has told Newshub dysfunction and distrust at the CAA is putting the public at risk.

The employee says he decided to speak to Newshub's investigations reporter Michael Morrah because, he says, the CAA has repeatedly failed in its regulatory role, and a "toxic work environment" is contributing to the problem.

As a result of information shared with Transport Minister Phil Twyford, he said he wants a senior official from the Transport Ministry to meet with the whistleblower to listen to their concerns and investigate.

A Newshub Official Information Act request has revealed that, in just over three years, 20 formal complaints have been made by staff at CAA about bullying, sexual harassment or inappropriate behaviour.

Those complaints led to three staff members being sacked, while others received formal warnings.

Internal documents obtained by Newshub also suggest some staff want to complain about issues but won't because they "don't trust the process" and have concerns about "incompetent managers".

But the CAA's director Graeme Harris has responded by saying it has "very robust" processes to deal with poor performance and complaints.

The CAA informant who spoke to Newshub has worked at the agency for several years. By his own admission, he was taking a big risk going public - but decided to on behalf of his colleagues and in the interests of Kiwi travellers.

"This is a safety regulator. The CAA's job is to protect the travelling public of New Zealand," he told Newshub.

"How can you assure safety in an organisation that has this level of distrust and dysfunction?"

He says the issues largely concern the behaviour of managers, especially those in the helicopter and health and safety units.

"Much of the senior management is simply distrusted by the people who work for them," the worker said.

"There's a lot of internal strife, there's a lot of bullying... there's a lot of toxic atmosphere."

But Harris disputes that, saying the agency has a "very good" culture.

However, when pressed on conflicts between staff, Harris acknowledged he's "never happy with disagreements in the organisation" but felt that sometimes this led to a "useful tension" that can be constructive.

[Image: graeme-harris-NEWSHUB-1120.jpg]

Civil Aviation Authority Director Graeme Harris. Photo credit: Newshub.

Newshub's informant's comments are supported by a leadership Q and A from February 2 this year, which has been obtained by Newshub.

"When are incompetent managers going to be held to the same level of scrutiny as staff?" staff state in it.

"A staff member makes one mistake and gets sacked. Managers screw up whole units for months or years and nothing happens."

On the issue of bullying and harassment one staff member said: "Why were there so many bullying / staff issues in 2018."

Another wrote: "Staff don't trust the process", "I won't speak up again as it backfired badly" and "why have we been so slow in dealing with these issues?"

Managers are prone to sweeping complaints under the carpet, the whistleblower claims.

"The first port of call for a manager if somebody has been complained about is to try and say it didn't happen. It's a culture of secrecy and cover-up."

But Harris rejects that, saying all complaints are taken seriously and our informant should have come to him.

"I am concerned that somebody would go external without raising concerns internally, for sure."

Transport Minister Phil Twyford wants his staff to investigate.

"I take very seriously the kinds of concerns and allegations that are being made," he told Newshub.

"I am going to make sure that a senior Ministry of Transport official sits down with this whistleblower and listens to what they have to say."

And Twyford is promising to protect them, saying he'll "guarantee their confidence and anonymity".

[Image: phil-twyford-NEWSHUB-1120.jpg]

Transport Minister Phil Twyford wants his staff to investigate. Photo credit: Newshub.

In response to the minister's offer, our informant told Newshub while he didn't want to offend the minister, he "does not have confidence his job would be safe" if he met in-person with an official.

However, he did agree to speaking to the official over the phone.

2015 Fox Glacier crash

The whistleblower's comments follows a report into a helicopter crash in Fox Glacier in 2015 which killed seven people, including pilot Mitch Gameren.

That report found the CAA knew of issues with the operator for years, but failed to intervene.

Mitch's father, Paul Gameren, says the offer to meet the whistleblower doesn't cut it and said what's really needed is a "full independent inquiry" of the CAA.

And he had a blunt message for the Minister.

"Get off your arse and do something about it. Seven people perished in a bad accident. We need to get to the bottom of it," Gameren said.

"And if the CAA are not operating properly, do something about it. That's your job.

"When the auditors are going out and picking holes in a company and the CAA do nothing about it, what the hell's the point in having them there?"

Gameren says the fact a current CAA staff member is speaking out says a lot about the organisation.

"If their staff have got no faith in their management, how can civilians think that they're doing the job properly?"

[Image: Paul-Gameren-NEWSHUB-1120.jpg]

Paul Gameren says the offer to meet the whistleblower doesn't cut it. Photo credit: Newshub.

Our whistleblower says there has been a pattern of failures over decades and the failures are "systemic".

These include the Air Adventures crash which killed eight people in 2003. A coroner's hearing into that tragedy found the CAA had received 20 complaints about pilot Michael Bannerman and his company, yet he was never grounded.

In response to the Air Adventures crash, the CAA said it had changed its processes.

In 2012, 11 people were killed when a hot air balloon crashed in Carterton. Before the accident, the CAA knew of complaints about pilot Lance Hopping using cannabis and, on one occasion, being too drunk to fly.

He was never grounded.

Asked whether the Transport Minister should intervene, our informant said "absolutely" and he supports Paul Gameren's call for an independent inquiry "into the whole structure of the CAA".

Newshub.
Hmm...perhaps a whistleblower or two is what we need, that and a Minister prepared to do his job - FDS!  Dodgy 
 
MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

White hats, Black hats and Swans.

P2 – “Hmm...perhaps a whistle-blower or two is what we need, that and a Minister prepared to do his job - FDS!

She was poor, but she was honest,
Victim of the squire's whim:
First he loved her, then he left her,
And she lost her honest name.


The article raises many questions, some very subtle, which, more than likely will get lost in the political perception and in the distractions created to maintain public confidence: particularly in the tourism area. Enter the Swans. No matter how deep, dark or dangerous the political waters may be, the government must be seen to be effortlessly gliding over the surface, calm, serene and in complete control – no matter how frantically they are paddling beneath the surface.

But, in fairness, what can the ‘minister’ actually do apart from keep the lid on it all and call in ‘expert’ advice. There’s the rub. Who will be the ‘expert’ advice? What will be the outcome of an inquiry? What will be done with the results tabled? I believe we in Australia have had a couple of cracks at solving similar problems over the past three decades, without actually getting to the radical cause of our problems. The Kiwi’s had better luck when good sense prevailed and they started with a clean sheet, new regulations and a revamped front row. A sparkling success story; so where has the wheel come off.

See him in the House of Commons,
Making laws to put down crime,
While the victim of his passions
Trails her way through mud and slime.

If it were me, I’d think I’d start with the retired or resigned list. When the ‘new’ CAA kicked off they were (IMO) a first class act, a little pedantic in that way the Kiwi’s have, but straight as a die. As the original team and leadership faded, new blood was brought in, along with the virus. There is a particular ‘type’ of parasitic worm which infects government bodies; and, once established they colonise and slowly, but surely they multiply. The colony usually begins in a management corner and expands from there. This is no whimsy of mine. I can cite many proven examples of where a ‘manager’ has built a hand picked crew and gone on with impunity to wreak havoc or dispense favours as and whenever it pleased.

“He says the issues largely concern the behaviour of managers, especially those in the helicopter and health and safety units.”

Clearly, the Whistle-blower has knowledge of one such ‘bad apple’ but how many other departments are affected with the same rot. One may, with a little patience, see a clear pattern in the Australian system. There are places where the CASA crew and management are first class, constrained by law and process but nonetheless upright citizens who get things done – the right way. Then there are the others; but, they are a home land problem, not NZ’s.  

Standing on the bridge at midnight,
She says: "Farewell, blighted Love.'
There's a scream, a splash--Good Heavens!
What is she a-doing of?

But the CAA's director Graeme Harris has responded by saying it has "very robust" processes to deal with poor performance and complaints.

Once I hear the trite catchall ‘ROBUST” quoted, I cringe. The only part of the process which is ‘robust’ is defence of the minister and the top bureaucratic layers from public exposure of the rot within. Don’t know about NZ but in Oz we have things like the CASA ‘Ethics committee’ , which depending on who, what why and when will protect against any and all ‘complaints’ levelled. This is a thing a minister will never be allowed to witness, the public will never know and those accused of bastardy will either be ‘returned to industry’ under fell ‘confidentiality agreements’ and a guaranteed job; or, promoted and protected. Aye, the Swan on the lake looks peaceful and serene;

"It's the same the whole world over;
It's the poor that gets the blame,
It's the rich that gets the pleasure.
Isn't it a blooming shame?'

"Much of the senior management is simply distrusted by the people who work for them," the worker said.

Not a bad suggestion – unrealistic but sound. No minister will risk exposing the holes in the governmental safety cheese. They simply dare not, what with air safety being a sacred cow and all. Best to let the ‘experts’ deal with it and stay well clear. It’s an expensive but necessary protection racket. The only way to beat it is to dump a load of shit on the ministers desk, in broad daylight, with the media in attendance. Make it so high that it cannot be denied as anything else but what it is. Point out quietly, politely but forcefully that tye crap stops on his desk, on his watch.

"Get off your arse and do something about it. Seven people perished in a bad accident. We need to get to the bottom of it," Gameren said.

That approach will not cut the mustard. We have the Essendon King Air collision with a bloody big building built on a runway – guess what will change. No prize for correct answer.

Going to be entertaining watching how the Kiwi’s handle this little howd’yado. Watch the media first, see how long and hard they carry the ‘public safety interest’ story, before it becomes diluted and quietly cast by the wayside. Then all you have to do is wait for the inquiry, wait for the results and watch them passed over as merely ‘an opinion’. Good luck Kiwi’s, methinks you will need it.

Toot- toot...
Reply

CASA embuggerance of APTA & GB update -  Dodgy

Via Glen Buckley, letter to CASA Chair: Dear Mr Anthony Mathews

Quote:..My own flying school, Melbourne Flight Training is currently in a state of financial duress that is quite likely to be irreparable. The Company has incurred unacceptable debt levels as it has attempted to ensure continuity of operations for APTA and the members that have depended on it. I identified two other business that have ceased operations as result of the CASA decisions made in relation to APTA. By restricting my revenue streams for 9 months, I could not be expected to survive. No business in any industry, could sustain that.

Personally, the process since CASA implemented Part 61/141 and 142, has also been catastrophic. I clearly identified that in fact I couldn’t even muster up the money for the car park fees if the meeting extended for one more than one hour. That is the truth. I have been left destitute and that includes the loss of my family home. That is the fact. There are no hidden accounts or trust funds. I have exhausted every fund I have available to me to defend the APTA model. I resolutely stand by the fact that it

o Was well intentioned.
o Improved safety.
o Improved regulatory compliance.
o Created jobs.
o Protected regional aviation and most particularly regional aero clubs.
o Protected the fast dwindling Australian Owned sector of the industry.

Importantly, it was a multi million dollar investment. It was designed with CASA. It was approved by CASA. It was audited by CASA. The fact is that Mr Crawford and four other CASA personnel operating under his direct operational control, and I include;

• Mr Jones.
• Mr Martin,
• Mr Nuttall, and
• Mr Lacy

initiated a process in October 2018. That process was a complete reversal of previous CASA policy. It came instantly, and with absolutely no warning. The entire process could have been avoided had CASA decided to inform me or meet with me. The associated impact on my business and the gross waste of taxpayer funds achieving that objective, has been truly disgraceful and unacceptable. My experiences may be shared by others in Industry, and if so, it requires a Royal Commission, it really does.

Those actions and decisions

• Were in clear breach of almost every element of CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy.
• In breach of the PGPA Act which requires these personnel to use public funds and resources responsibly.
• Breach the requirements of Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness, and Natural Justice.
• Were quite simply. Not well intentioned, and certainly not based on safety considerations.
• Bullying and Intimidating in their nature.
• Cannot be supported by any clear or concise legislation, and that is a requirement placed on CASA...(for more refer to above link)

And today... Sad

Quote:To the  staff and students of Melbourne Flight Training,

It is with great sadness, that after 15 years of operating at Moorabbin Airport, and at short notice I have to announce the closure of MFT effective immediately.

Since October 2018, CASA initiated action against my business, that has cost the business many hundreds of thousands of dollars, and despite an enormous amount of effort, I have been unable to resolve this matter.  Importantly, the CASA action is not based on safety concerns, and there are no regulatory breaches.

CASA placed a number of restrictions on my ability to trade, and after 9 months of CASA not resolving this matter, the impact has been significant.

As this decision has just been made, I am unable to provide more details at this stage.

I am off airport this morning, and will be on site at APTA after midday.

I will be working towards a prompt resolution to minimise the impact on staff and students.

Please standby for further details. I apologise for the uncertainty that this brings to all.

Thankyou for your support, understanding, and your patience.


Respectfully, Glen.

MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

Of being whelmed – Over or Under.

It takes a little time and some effort to follow the Glen Buckley tale of woe on Pprune – HERE -. The careful observer would see a familiar pattern emerging and note the road blocks being carefully placed to avoid any ministerial or departmental involvement; the endless changing of road signs directing to dead ends and; more importantly, the circling of wagons.  Faced with this type of barricade and dealing with insurmountable odds, it’s a small wonder that Glen_B would consider taking the Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) option. On the surface and as a legitimate requirement for mounting a challenge, it has to be done. Even if only to plug a legal escape path. I doubt he is holding his breath expecting any sort of ‘real value’ response. Time will trickle by until eventually a ‘milk and water’ response will be provided, a carefully crafted heart breaker which will serve to leave him no further along, treading water.  

Glen_B. “I intend to file formal complaints against 5 X personnel within CASA including the Head of the Aviation Group, Mr Crawford. in order to lodge a legitimate complaints, the starting point for that must be the incumbents Position Description. Something that should be freely available, but it wasn't. It necessitated a Freedom of Information request, which arrived some time later.

Since the new chap took the ICC seat, AP has followed and measured the performance of this supposedly ‘independent’ agent. Close examination of results reveals only one statistic of any value; filing a complaint means that a box has been ticked on your ‘to do’ list; after that simply file the response and tick the box. All part of the endless grind needed to take a case to court, should your coffers still have enough spare cash to support such an action.  

McKenzie “I’m the last person to discourage you (or Glen Buckley) from fighting CASA decisions and actions with which you disagree. However, don’t hold your breath expecting CASA or its employed ‘Complaints Commissioner’ to change anything without the threat of real external scrutiny and embarrassment. And there is, sadly, much truth in what 1a posted at #153.

Even if the ICC was not on the ‘Kool-Aid’ drip feed, any independent study of ‘powers’ and access to the CASA board would show that the placebo is very effective for the CASA hierarchy, protecting the minister. Glen Buckley has enough ‘complaint’ to goose the minister into an open, honest inquiry; that may even happen, who knows. But even if an ‘inquiry’ is mounted, one along the lines of David Forsyth’s effort – what boys and girls do you think the outcome will be? What was in that, some 60 odd recommendations from a Senate Committee and Forsyth – which changed SDA.

Until we have a minister who is prepared to step up, acknowledge the problem and actually ring the changes, Australia will continue to be not only the butt of international hilarity, but the recipient of much sympathy.

Toot – toot.
Reply

(08-06-2019, 08:37 AM)Kharon Wrote:  Of being whelmed – Over or Under.

It takes a little time and some effort to follow the Glen Buckley tale of woe on Pprune – HERE -. The careful observer would see a familiar pattern emerging and note the road blocks being carefully placed to avoid any ministerial or departmental involvement; the endless changing of road signs directing to dead ends and; more importantly, the circling of wagons.  Faced with this type of barricade and dealing with insurmountable odds, it’s a small wonder that Glen_B would consider taking the Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) option. On the surface and as a legitimate requirement for mounting a challenge, it has to be done. Even if only to plug a legal escape path. I doubt he is holding his breath expecting any sort of ‘real value’ response. Time will trickle by until eventually a ‘milk and water’ response will be provided, a carefully crafted heart breaker which will serve to leave him no further along, treading water.  

Glen_B. “I intend to file formal complaints against 5 X personnel within CASA including the Head of the Aviation Group, Mr Crawford. in order to lodge a legitimate complaints, the starting point for that must be the incumbents Position Description. Something that should be freely available, but it wasn't. It necessitated a Freedom of Information request, which arrived some time later.

Since the new chap took the ICC seat, AP has followed and measured the performance of this supposedly ‘independent’ agent. Close examination of results reveals only one statistic of any value; filing a complaint means that a box has been ticked on your ‘to do’ list; after that simply file the response and tick the box. All part of the endless grind needed to take a case to court, should your coffers still have enough spare cash to support such an action.  

McKenzie “I’m the last person to discourage you (or Glen Buckley) from fighting CASA decisions and actions with which you disagree. However, don’t hold your breath expecting CASA or its employed ‘Complaints Commissioner’ to change anything without the threat of real external scrutiny and embarrassment. And there is, sadly, much truth in what 1a posted at #153.

Even if the ICC was not on the ‘Kool-Aid’ drip feed, any independent study of ‘powers’ and access to the CASA board would show that the placebo is very effective for the CASA hierarchy, protecting the minister. Glen Buckley has enough ‘complaint’ to goose the minister into an open, honest inquiry; that may even happen, who knows. But even if an ‘inquiry’ is mounted, one along the lines of David Forsyth’s effort – what boys and girls do you think the outcome will be? What was in that, some 60 odd recommendations from a Senate Committee and Forsyth – which changed SDA.

Until we have a minister who is prepared to step up, acknowledge the problem and actually ring the changes, Australia will continue to be not only the butt of international hilarity, but the recipient of much sympathy.

Toot – toot.

Addendum: 

ICC preliminary review of Glen Buckley's 28 complaints: see HERE


Quote:Was the letter a change in CASA’s approach to APTA?

Reviewing available records, I agree the letter of 23 October marked a significant divergence in CASA’s attitude towards APTA, both in tone and regulatory approach.

Whereas CASA had worked collaboratively with APTA at the time it sought to transition to Parts 141 and 142, the correspondence of 23 October was direct and unequivocal. With the fresh eyes that came about as a result of new oversight arrangements and legal advice, it presented a new interpretation as to the nature of APTA’s arrangements with Alliance members. The letter imposed a short deadline, and as far as I’m aware nobody within APTA had been given an indication prior to dispatch its significant change applications were likely to be considered differently. In terms of the ICC’s mandate to consider whether CASA’s actions were wrong, unjust, unlawful or unfair, I don’t at this stage propose to find the actions were wrong or unlawful. It’s any decision maker’s prerogative (and obligation) to consider an application on its merits. Just because a different interpretation was reached to a previous decision maker on substantively the same question, it doesn’t mean it was unlawful.

In terms of the other assessments the ICC can make, I don’t consider CASA treated APTA fairly when its approach changed on 23 October. That’s because collectively as an organisation, CASA had an awareness of the APTA business model for a significant period of time prior to its compliance with regulation being called into question. In changing its position so drastically, the circumstances were such that CASA’s actions weren’t fair, given APTA’s likely to have relied on CASA’s failure to highlight any concerns when conducting its operations and planning.

I’ve reached the conclusion CASA didn’t treat you fairly collectively, rather than it being an outcome ‘against’ Mr Jones or Mr Nuttall’s CMT. One reason for the broad conclusion is your specific request that I not review the actions or decisions of the CMT APTA was previously oversighted by, who you commended for their professionalism. Respecting that request means it’s impossible for me to draw any conclusions about which approach to the APTA business model is more likely to be legally correct.

At this stage, I also propose to conclude that as well as being unfair, having two opposing regulatory interpretations about the APTA business model meant CASA didn’t meet the principles it aspires to meet in its Regulatory Philosophy. In addition to APTA’s complaint the different approaches meant

CASA didn’t maintain its trust and respect (Principle 1), I also agree the divergence in the positions CASA took is also unlikely to conform with Principle 7.

Principle 7 provides ‘CASA will consistently employ the same processes criteria and have regard to the same criteria for the purposes of determining whether, and if so how, a regulatory requirement should be interpreted or applied in any given situation.’ There’s limited available information to conclude the Aviation Ruling’s applicability was considered when first assessing APTA’s business model; nor was there consistency about whether the model met regulatory requirements...


And ICC preliminary review outcome: see HERE.

Quote:Summary

In the outcome of my preliminary review dated 12 April 2019, I set out my proposed conclusions in response to APTA’s complaint about CASA’s regulatory oversight since a change in CMT in 2018.

Having reviewed APTA’s submissions in response, I believe I have insufficient information to change my provisional view. I therefore conclude didn’t act CASA unlawfully, or unreasonably fail to provide information.

But the timing of CASA’s change in regulatory approach, and the manner it was communicated to APTA were likely to have been unfair. Up until that point, APTA was likely to have relied on CASA’s failure to highlight any concerns when conducting its operations and planning.

Referral rights

You're able to ask the Commonwealth Ombudsman to review the ICC's consideration of your concerns, or CASA’s actions. Information about how to make a complaint can be found at www.ombudsman.gov.au. Alternatively, you can contact the Ombudsman on 1300 362 072.

And finally GB email to CASA Board secretary:

Quote:Good Morning Colin,
 
May I request that you forward this email to Mr Mathews.
 
Dear Mr Mathews,
 
I have held off sending this email a couple of days acknowledging the fact that you will have returned from Oshkosh to a significant workload. I had hoped to hear of CASA's final position after our meeting as this entire matter has consumed almost every waking moment of the last 9 months, and I want it brought to a close.
 
Accordingly, I am now following up on our meeting in Melbourne a little over 2 weeks ago. I had hoped to receive advice from either you or Mr Mc Heyzer on your behalf by last Friday the 2 August ’19 on whether CASA was:
 
  1. Prepared to meet with me, in a well-intentioned manner to agree a ( x requesting x) fair and reasonable compensation or,
  2.  CASA had a preference for the matter to proceed directly to a “determination" via due legal process.
 
This matter has been dragging on unnecessarily for over 9 months now, and I need to have clarity on the process moving forward.
 
Yours respectfully,
 
Glen Buckley.


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

Rice bowls – and protection thereof.

How often do you have the germ of an idea which, despite being dismissed as an impractical nonsense, keeps popping into your head. Sneaky little bugger, there you sit, feet up taking a well earned half hour of idleness and the notion creeps in, wanting further attention. I blame Glen Buckley for my current haunting; well, him and our ICC. I thought if I put it in written form, I could be shut of the notion for ever, hence this missive. (Twiddle or Ramble). So, with your forbearance: It begins thus.

In the USA, AOPA is a force to be reckoned with. Had the Buckley Saga even occurred under sane regulation (unlikely), then the AOPA would have gone in to bat. Now then, it costs, as we are all aware, a great deal of time and money to take a case to court. It is a waste of resources to not use a top gun barrister; this implies a support team, lawyers, research and etc. If a case was important enough, as is Glen’s, affecting the whole flight training industry, then a case could be mounted, AOPA probably leading the charge. No one outfit can afford that level of cost, especially going up against the likes of CASA. Huge costs, an incredible amount of money. There have been a few cases in Australia where the bill was a cool million (plus) which went nowhere. So it begs the question; what chance does a small operator like Glen have- standing alone? Buckley’s perhaps.

There is a need for a rebuttal of and a resolution to the CASA employed ICC’s response to GB’s complaint. It is now a matter of law, perhaps even down to the wire constitution law. How is one man to afford that level of argument, hells bells, your looking down the barrel of at least AUD20,000 a day, just for Barristers, let alone a support and research team; plus years of time.

There is a thing called the Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) employed, fed and watered by CASA; the very body against which your complaint has been made. Bloody silly idea ain’t it, unless you happen to bat for CASA. Then it makes a whole world of sense; bit like the so called ‘Ethics Committee’ CASA run in the back rooms; there are some tales from that inglorious body which, I for one, would love to see dragged into a Senate inquiry: but, I digress.  

The point is how does this industry gain a truly ‘independent’ ICC and who would fund such an animal? Dare we ask the RRAT committee to fund such an office? Would it then be free of ‘vested’ interest influence? Could industry collectively fund such an organism and could that be held as free of bias?

Remember - He who pays the piper calls the tune - always. Read the ICC’s carefully crafted response if you doubt that.

"I don’t at this stage propose to find the actions were wrong or unlawful. It’s any decision maker’s prerogative (and obligation) to consider an application on its merits. Just because a different interpretation was reached to a previous decision maker on substantively the same question, it doesn’t mean it was unlawful."

Had a Judge made that comment at the end of a hearing, you may think it fair and reasonable. But when it comes from a CASA employee? Well................

The only ‘fair and equitable’ solution I can come up with (given limited mental resources) is that of a full dress Judicial Inquiry. I know, I do know how difficult it is to have one of these things mounted. But, the reality is that only a willing government can make it happen, this needs a Senate Committee to make that happen with enough evidence to make the incumbent minister realise that even the big airline operations are suffering under the present mindless rule set; and, that natural justice, fair play and a chance to prosper are being denied. Simply because CASA is still ‘liable’ under the Act and they will move heaven, earth and hell itself to protect their rice bowls and cover their unconscionable past behaviour.

Do we have that level of integrity in the Senate; do we have that level of will in the parliament; do we have a minister who actually gives a continental about aviation? Or do we have a bunch of self interested folks grinding one of this nations best assets into the dust beside the road to perdition.

Aye well; that’s got it off my chest – FWIW, perhaps now I too can shake my head, declare it ‘all too hard’ and get back to planet Earth.

Selah.
Reply

Latest on CASA embuggerance of Glen Buckley - 15/08/19.  Angry

Via the UP:

Quote:glenb: On November 20th, 2018, CASA provide me with the “inspection” notes from the audit done at Latrobe Valley on September 3rd 2018.

Please note that these audit results came in 2 ½ months after the audit.

That timeline will become integral, and in my opinion clearly demonstrate clear breaches of Administrative Law, Natural Justice, and Procedural Fairness.

This post will also highlight significant deficiencies in the ICC process.

03/09/18. CASA visit Latrobe Valley (one of our bases). CASA identify minor anomalies only with the exam. We are told a written report will follow. CASA procedures require this. Those procedures all identify that “no new items” should be raised in the written report that follows, if they were not identified on the day i.e. no unexpected surprises.

16/11/18. I attended the CASA office. The Regional Manager began giving me a verbal debrief summary of Latrobe Valley Aerodrome audit results. This time he raised completely new concerns. These were inaccurate claims and different to what I had previously been informed. It was then identified by the Regional Manager that in fact an audit report had not been completed, and he would get it to me by the following Tuesday, which he did.

For clarity. We had an audit conducted on 03/09/18, then on 16/11/18 it is identified by CASA that an audit report was not done, and that it would be.

A few days later on the 20/11/18 the newly “minted” audit results have been prepared over the weekend and now arrive.

Recall, that these are now being written more than two months after the audit. Surprisingly the Regional Manager advises me in the accompanying email, that the Latrobe Valley audit results were “used as the basis of seeking CASA legal advice”. Well that leads me to some obvious questions.

If the Regional Manager admits that audit results were not produced until after our meeting on 16/11/18 (Friday), he writes to me on the following Tuesday stating they were “used as the basis of seeking CASA legal advice”. The legal department couldn’t possibly have used the audit results because they had not been created yet!!!!!!

That statement cannot possibly be truthful!

Interestingly, these newly minted audit results have allegations of breaches of
· CASR 141.310 (1),(5), and (6)
· CASR 142.390 (1),(5), and (6)
· CASR 117· CASR 141.260 (g)
· CASR 142.340 (g)

The ICC seemed to brush these matters aside. I specifically identified to the ICC that CASA made allegations of regulatory breaches and the Regional Manager required me to respond. I will contain excerpts of associated emails. The point of these emails is that they clearly demonstrate I was required to respond to an allegation of a regulatory breach as I am.

“Good afternoon Glen,

Please excuse me for any confusion that you may have, but CASA is waiting for you to reply to those matters that were provided in my email to you dated 20th Nov 18 (copy attached again for your reference)

At the meeting with Mr Peter White - CASA Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance on Friday 16th November 18, it was established that I would provide you the feedback from the CASA assessment of the Latrobe Valley training base, and it was further agreed that this assessment information would be reviewed by yourself, and that you would provide your response to all of the issues identified. Once we received your response, we would resubmit the information to our CASA legal team for a second review …………. 

Then again from the Regional Manager a few days later;

“Hi Glen,

This is just a follow-up email requesting your assistance to provide CASA a reply to the information I supplied you last Tuesday 20th November 18 (please see attached). 

May I please seek some assurance that you will be able to provide CASA your feedback against the Latrobe Valley Aero Club training base inspection results, in a timely manner. It is respectfully requested that you provide this feedback to CASA by close-of-business on Tuesday 4th December 18, as this equates to a period of 14-days since the information was sent to you. 

As you will recall, it was agreed at the 4th December 18 meeting between APTA and CASA that following the receipt of your reply to the Latrobe Valley Aero Club inspection information, we would request another review of the relevant information by the CASA legal team to ascertain if there is any change against the original determination that APTA is a franchised arrangement. I look forward to your reply. 

Kind regards,

Those above emails clearly indicate that I am clearly required to respond to the allegations of regulatory breaches.

I will clearly indicate in following posts how the Regional Manager ignored and frustrated my attempts to resolve these issues over many months,

The reason. The allegations were not correct, and to this day after more than 9 months despite over 30 requests for assistance which I will document, CASA cannot support or justify any of the new allegations that arose. Furthermore and interestingly the notes provided on the audit were not dated. It was almost as though CASA was trying to hide this clear breach of administrative law. 

28/11/18 the Regional Manager writes “ a level 2 surveillance event was created in our system”, yet the ICC says in his Preliminary report dated 12/04/19 “theres no record of the documents I would expect to see if a Level 2 had been commenced in CASAs Sky Sentinel surveillance databaseLater, CASA tried to reverse the position and called it a surveillance event rather than an audt. The ICC claims that it was a surveillance event, and that’s why he chose to avoid addressing my complaint in my final ICC report.

My point, the changing terminology for the event is irrelevant. My complaint was not about the terminology used, it was clearly about CASA frustrating my attempts at a resolution, and prolonging the impact of the damage caused by CASA actions.Overall, an audit or “event” that is surrounded by significant, repeated, and sustained breaches of procedures. Why? Because the named personnel in CASA made a decision to act this way. Its not an error or an omission. It is a deliberate attempt to frustrate fair processes.



CASA frustrating my attempts to resolve

Importantly CASA made a number of allegations of breaches.

The accusation of CASR 117 was particularly concerning, as it relates to misrepresenting your organisations capabilities.

A serious breach. CASA raised this allegation against me. The CASA allegation placed a serious restriction on my trade, and prevented me from marketing my product.

I was in a situation where I believed CASA was wrong. I made many attempts to resolve this issue over manty many months as you will see. This was typical of my dealings, and my requests were completely ignored. There can be no doubt that CASA raised the allegations, CASA clearly required me to respond. It was the CASA personnel that DECIDED not to respond and allow me to become compliant again.

This is an important piece of information that the ICC decided not to address. t was listed as one of my complaints, but masterfully avoided. Whilst I have not included all of the emails, it does clearly demonstrate unacceptable behaver by those CASA personnel.

28/11/18

CASR 117. I have visited the Latrobe Valley Website and cannot identify the breach. Could you please provide information on specifically which part of the website is causing the regulatory breach, perhaps a link to the relevant page. 

05/12/18

In regards to our alleged breach of CASR 117, I have visited the Latrobe Valley website and cannot identify the breach. As per my request submitted to you on 28/11/18 can I make a second request to have the offending link sent through to me, so I can satisfactorily address the breach. 

10/12/18

Similarly with CASR 117. I have reviewed CASR 117, and I do understand the regulation but I am having difficulty in responding, as I cant see the “offending:” page on the LTV website. Perhaps a link could be sent through to me and I will attend to that immediately. 


07/01/19

Dear Mr Jones, I thought I would take the opportunity to remind you to attend to this. One month ago, you advised that you would respond. My experience dealing with you is that you consistently deflect or do not respond. My request is fair and reasonable and your consistent failure to respond and assist me to finalise this matter is unethical and brings unnecessary continuing harm to my business. Repeated and consistent requests have been made. I am very strongly of the opinion that you are deliberately frustrating my efforts. There can be no other explanation as my request is entirely reasonable. Can you please clearly address my queries, by the end of the day. You have obligations placed on you by the PGPA Act, and I call on you to act professionally and act in accordance with those obligations. Failing an answer to my questions, I will have no option but to initiate a further ICC complaint about the approach that you have chosen to adopt with my business. 

Glen



04/04/19


The purpose of this letter is to ascertain the status of the alleged breach of CASR 117 made by CASA against APTA. I am hoping that the variations to our operating conditions will be soon lifted. I want to ensure there are no outstanding concerns that could delay this. 

17/05/19

[i]Dear Owen/Jason, 

On 3rd September 2018, CASA conducted an audit at Latrobe Valley. The verbal debrief on site on the day identified some suggestions regarding our exams, and those suggestions were immediately embedded. No other concerns were raised.

Then at a subsequent meeting with CASA new allegations regarding Latrobe Valley “forms” was raised by the Regional Manager. This differed to the verbal debrief on the day of the audit. CASA further identified that unfortunately the audit results had not been provided to APTA. Months after the audit, notes were finally presented. They were not dated and obviously written up months after the audit was conducted. The new allegations of breaches appeared for the first time. These results differed entirely to the exit interview, and the meeting in the CASA office with the executive manager and Regional Manager then emerged for the first time, and no mention had been made prior. These “newly written” audit results now claimed breaches of 
CASR 141.310 (1)

CASR 141.310 (5)

CASR 141.310 (6)

CASR 142.390 (1)

CASR 142.390 (5)

CASR 142.390 (6)

CASR 117

CASR 141.260 (g)

142.340 (g)

Flight and Duty exceedances. 

I have made repeated and well documented attempts to resolve these allegations, and CASA has chosen not to respond. As you are aware CASA have varied by AOC and reduced the date of approval. It is critical that I resolve this matter, as the commercial impact is significant, as I have outlined previously. CASA is working on its requirements in the contracts for more than 7 months now, and there is nothing that I can do from that side. My concern is that once CASA finalise the contractual requirements, these allegations will reappear and further impact on my business, by delaying our start.[/i]Could you please clarify which of the allegations I need to attend to, and which ones can be withdrawn. You will appreciate that I am obligated to resolve these matters, and that is my only intention. I encourage CASA to assist me by providing guidance. Thanking you in anticipation of your assistance, Respectfully, Glen Buckley

21/05/19


Dear Mr McHeyzer, 

Could I respectfully request clarification of the status of the allegations of regulatory breaches made by CASA. 

Respectfully, Glen


21/05/19 Email to Mr Crawford

I have made repeated and well documented attempts to resolve these allegations, and CASA has chosen not to respond.

As you are aware CASA have varied by AOC and reduced the date of approval. It is critical that I resolve this matter, as the commercial impact is significant, as I have outlined previously.

CASA is working on its requirements in the contracts for more than 7 months now, and there is nothing that I can do from that side. My concern is that once CASA finalise the contractual requirements, these allegations will reappear and further impact on my business, by delaying our start.
 Could you please clarify which of the allegations I need to attend to, and which ones can be withdrawn. You will appreciate that I am obligated to resolve these matters, and that is my only intention. I encourage CASA to assist me by providing guidance. Thanking you in anticipation of your assistance, Respectfully, Glen Buckley

11/06/19

Dear Mr Martin, 

As you are aware CASA conducted an audit of Latrobe valley. I wish to clarify an incorrect statement in the “structure review” of APTA.

CASA records will clearly indicate that in fact APTA has two CASA approved CEOs, two CASA approved HOOs (with a third on hold due to the current CASA action, and two CASA approved Safety Managers.

This is a misunderstanding on behalf of my CMT, and I would like the opportunity to clarify that.
 As you are aware we submitted an application on 22/06/18 for the addition of Latrobe Valley as an APTA base.

On 03/09/18 CASA attended and conducted an audit. 
It was identified that CASA had not provided the audit results and they were provided to us on 20/11/18, months after the audit. On provision of those audit results there were allegations that we were misrepresenting APTA.

Specifically I was concerned about the CASA allegation of breach CASR 117. These were entirely new allegations that we had not seen before.
 As a precaution, I called a halt to our extensive advertising of APTA and that has continued on for many months.

As you will appreciate that is effectively placing a restriction on my trade. I have made multiple requests to have this resolved and none have been responded to. 


I have not done an exhaustive check due time constraints although I did make the following requests in an attempt to resolve the allegation of a breach by CASA 
28/11/18 Email to David Jones asking for information to attend to the CASA allegation of a regulatory breach. There was no response to my request

05/12/18 Email to David Jones. Second request. No response to my request.

10/12/18 Email to David jones. Third request. No response to my request.

11/12/18 Email to Will Nuttall requesting meeting to sort out Latrobe Valley audit results. There was no response to my request.

28/11/18 Email to David Jones. No response to my request.

07/01/19 Email to David Jones urging him to respond to my emails regarding audit findings. No response to my request.1

6/05/19 Email to Graeme Crawford. 

21/05/19 Emailed to Jason McHeyzer and he advised me to contact Craig Martin.
21/05/19 Emailed Graeme Crawford.
22/05/19 Emailed to Craig Martin. No response to my request.
27/05/19 Emailed to Craig Martin. No response to my request. Craig, please, if CASA make allegations of regulatory breaches, they do impact on my business. After nearly 8 months, can you please respond to my request, to assist me to resolve the allegations made by CASA.

One finalised, that will allow me to recommence marketing. 
As you can see there have been at least 12 requests. They are reasonable requests. The impact of CASAs allegations is significant, please meet your obligations and assist me to resolve this matter. 

Respectfully, Glen Buckley.

13/06/19

Dear Mr Martin, 

As you are aware CASA raised a number of allegations of regulatory breaches, and there have been multiple recorded attempts by me, to resolve those issues which have been completely ignored by CASA. These requests have been frequent and been made over many months. You are obligated in your role to assist me. Mr Martin, I must insist that you immediately stop frustrating my attempts to resolve these matters.The approach by CASA is totally unacceptable, and by doing so, you are preventing me access to fair processes. As I have maintained since October 2018, there are no regulatory breaches, and no safety concerns. Not one of my requests has been responded to. By refusing to assist me in resolving these matters I am of the opinion that you are deliberately frustrating my attempts to resolve these matters, and are deliberately protracting time lines. You are not acting in accordance with your obligations.The failure by you to respond, restricts me from conducting my business, which is my common law right. My strong preference is to avoid lodging a formal complaint to the ICC about your conduct, hence I will make one further attempt to receive a response in 24 hours to my fair and reasonable request Mr Martin, I call on you in your role to meet your obligations and assist me to resolve the matter. I call on you to minimise the commercial impact on me and my business to respond. I look forward to your response, 


Glen



Ballina Base saga

The Ballina base saga.

The APTA team travelled to Ballina for the establishment as a temporary location.

We used the exact procedures that CASA suggested to us, provided to us, CASA approved for use by us, audited by CASA, and in fact CASA had previously used this procedures on previous bases.

In October 2018, when CMT 3 headed by Will Nuttall elected to apply a complete change of policy based on opinion only, the pilots at that base became concerned about continuing operations. I assured them our procedures were approved, but they elected not to fly, as is any pilots option if they are not comfortable.

I was concerned as the owners had made a significant investment of the belief that CASA had approved APTA (as they had), and future options would be secure, provided levels of safety and compliance remained high.

Unfortunately, once again despite my attempts to get resolution on this, CASA steadfastly refused to reply. Eventually as in my own case with MFT, the business could not sustain continuing operations and the Ballina base stopped delivering GA flight training.

The financial impact on persons who had invested in the base was significant and totally unnecessary. Whilst I don’t intend to include all the emails, I have included a sampling that clearly show CASA frustrating processes. I never received an answer, and 9 months later, still haven’t.

05/12/18

“Dear David, We had Ballina operating as a temporary location, after the entire APTA team travelled to Ballina to execute our procedures, strictly in accordance with our approved procedures. 

The nature of the location is temporary as it will be awaiting CASA acceptance or rejection, and the Ballina base understands that is the procedure.

No surety of operations can be guaranteed until CASA processes are finalised.
This base elected to cease operations shortly after the initial CASA action 6 weeks ago.

There hope was that this matter would be finalised by now, although as you will appreciate it is taking somewhat of a long time to resolve. 
My preference is to reactivate the base.

We followed all CASA approved procedures and I am fully satisfied that it should run as a temporary location until CASA makes a determination as to whether it will become a permanent training base.
Therefore, in order to minimise the impact on APTA can we reactivate the Ballina base with me accepting full responsibility under APTA for that operation?Cheers. Glen.” 


05/12/18

“Hi Dave, Just for further clarity regarding the previous email, can you confirm that Ballina is legal to operate? Yes or no,?Cheers. Glen”



12/12/18

Dear Mr David Jones, Please distribute within CASA as required. You are the only CASA recipient. 

The Ballina operation is requiring a response as to their ability to reactivate operations. I emphasise again that we strictly followed all CASA approved procedures in activating this as a temporary location. It can only be a Temporary location as CASA may veto it as they did with Ballarat and Latrobe valley. We followed all procedures, and invested heavily in the induction process. This included onsite visits to Ballina over consecutive days with attendance by CEO, HOO, GSM, Internal Co-ordinator, two supporting administrative support workers and our HOO in Training.

There has been no breach. As an APTA base, I am very strongly of the opinion that the base should be operational. I must also respect the pilots rights to only fly on operations that they are 100% comfortable with. I need to be able to assure the pilots that they are not acting in breach of any CASA legislative requirements.Ballina has advised that if this matter is not fully resolved by Friday the base will be permanently closed. Three onsite staff are affected, and the costs associated with running a base that has ceased operations is obviously not economically viable. 

Your assistance in providing guidance would be greatly appreciated. I am available at any time for a face to face catch up at the CASA office if my onsite presence will assist in a mutually acceptable outcome.Cheers. Glen. 

07/01/19

“Dear Mr Jones, This email query was sent through a month ago, and you have chosen not to respond. Can you please provide an estimated timeline” 

20/02/19 

Sadly, I received this email below from the investors in the Ballina base.

Good evening Glen, I am writing to advise that White Star Aviation, having now grounded GA Operations since November last year and having now lost all of the students we had enrolled, have made the decision to focus on RAAus operations and as such cancel our membership with APTA.
We appreciate how incredibly disruptive and damaging the action taken by CASA has been on your organisation, as it has on ours and others. I truly hope APTA and CASA find a solution to allow your other not-yet approved bases to commence/re-commence operations as soon as possible. 


08/04/19 

After discussions with the Ballina investors I sent the following email to CASA.

Dear Jason and Regservices, I am writing to you regarding this Regservices task. I received the email from White Star on 20/02/18. I have established contact with the Director of White Star today, as a further 6 weeks has passed, and as could be reasonably expected, the additional delay has only made their situation worse. They will not be continuing with their APTA membership, and we will remove all reference from the APTA website within 24 hours.

Could you please cancel the task. 
I must point out that multiple requests were made by APTA to clarify the status of this base, and Mr Will Nuttall undertook to write to us.

Numerous written requests were sent to CASA and they were repeatedly ignored over almost 6 months, and it is important that is noted. 
Respectfully, Glen.



CASA personnel looking after each other

Regarding the Ballina base.

CASA had an issue with the procedure that we adopted in activating Ballina.

The truth of the matter is that CASA personnel had absolutely no idea because they elected to shoot first, and ask questions later.

My matter was slowly being accelerated up the chain and I had the opportunity to meet with Mr Craig Martin.

As a precursor to that meeting I made a suggestion to him, which I have included below.

Had Mr Craig Martin availed himself of that opportunity I presented to him, he would have realised CASAs deficiencies back in December 2018, and I may not be dealing with this, 9 moths later. His decision not to interview the named personnel, and bring his own independent determination to the matter demonstrates to me that there was no intent to resolve this matter. Mr Martin made a decision not to avail himself of the opportunity.

Email I sent to Craig Martin below
"...…….Can I make a well intentioned suggestion that will demonstrate quite clearly to you, the deficiencies within CASA.


Ask either Mr Brad Lacey or David Jones to explain how we introduce a new base.


A good example would be to ask them to describe how we activated the Ballina base and the procedures we adopted? Who attended on site for training from APTA? How long did we stay? Did APTA personnel meet with the CAGRO for the airport? Did we meet with the fire and emergency services. Were the Prof checks conducted in Melbourne or were they conducted in Ballina and why? How we attend to the FSM training. Was our Group Safety Manager able to attend on site. Seriously Mr Martin, please ask them anything, i believe that no-one from my CMT has got absolutely any idea, and quite seriously, I mean nothing. That was done many months ago, so I would expect that they have at least some idea. 
I have absolutely no intention whatsoever to ask of you what their answers are. But I would ask that you compare answers with mine.

You will have a very clear understanding of the deficiency, very quickly.

Unfortunately the misunderstandings and confusion exist within CASA, and not within my own organisation, and that is why we are in this current situation.

If you decide to ask either Brad Lacey or David Jones could I respectfully request that you give them some time to consider their response to you, and I have no concerns with you giving them a heads up today of your requirements.

Thankyou again for your approach, regards. Glen Buckley.

Some comments in reply:


Quote:The name is Porter: Ho-lleeee Shit!



thorn bird: Of all the CAsA embuggerances we've heard about over the years this one is just diabolical.
Based on Glen's experience I cannot see any doubt that CAsA is corrupt and rotten to the core.
A judicial enquiry at the very least is required, but I'm not holding my breath.
Where the hell is the media??????



aroa: How casa contributed to the demise of my operation...XXXXX..poisoned it with the connivance of a competitor company, and heaps of casa bs and lies to clients..
Corrupt and rotten to the core is right. Criminals too, some of them, just not in jail yet.
Keep beating that drum JI, JI and save GA ! Maybe



Global Aviator: Truck me!!! Did they make you provide the rub and tug as well. As you have written it this is simply amazing. How can they get away with it? 

Did you consider the go fund me option?

For years I’ve thought about getting my old file from them for a laugh, I gave up in the end and walked away. Think I’d enjoy a read of it some 15 years later over many beers.....

Good luck champ.

Erm don’t let them beat you down..........




IFEZ: Hi Glen,
I'm struggling to think of words that adequately describe what has been done to you and your business. Outrageous, disgraceful, shameful, disgusting, reprehensible, appalling....none of them seem strong enough, even with the word f**king in front of them..! If you still have the will to keep fighting (and I wouldn't blame you if you don't), then please don't give up. They can't be allowed to get away with this. There are many in the industry who will support you via a fighting fund like go fund me. 

Time to take a stand everyone. You could be next.

MTF...P2  Dodgy
Reply

Catching up on latest from GlenB embuggerance -  Blush

Courtesy a PAIN email chain:

Quote:Tuesday 27/08/19,           2.14PM             CASA Regional Manager to New Owner of APTA


Hi (new owner of APTA), I understand that Mr Buckley remains as APTA deputy HOO. This is no longer tenable with the comments that Mr Buckley is making publicly.

Please confirm APTA’s intentions in relation to Mr Buckley as deputy HOO and whether Mr Buckley is authorised to speak on behalf of APTA. Thanks again Jason.
 
Tuesday 27/08/19 on direction from the CASA Regional Manager, the new owner of APTA approaches me on receipt of this email and my employment is terminated.
 
Wednesday 28/08/19        1.46AM               Glen Buckley to CASA Regional Manager

Dear Jason,

May I respectfully request if you make any determination regarding my continuing employment with my current employer, or have any concerns that may have an impact on my families welfare, or my ability to derive an income. that I be involved in that correspondence.

Respectfully, Glen

 
Wednesday 28/08/19         7.57AM               CASA Regional Manager  to Glen Buckley

Glen,

I acknowledge your email. I have asked the accountable manager (new APTA owner) to clarify whether you continue to operate as Deputy HOO, and whether you are authorised to speak on behalf of APTA.I will leave it to Mr XXXXXXX, as the accountable manager, to communicate his decisions to you.

Regards. Jason McHeyzer Region Manager

 
Wednesday 28/08/19            8.04AM             Email Glen Buckley to CASA Regional Manager

Hi Jason, sorry my inquiry isn’t actually specifically regarding APTA or my role within APTA. Im trying to plan for my family going forward. Im simply asking for you to consider my reputation when contacting any employers or potential employers.

Can you clarify if CASA has concerns about me in a Key Personnel role only?

I was about to get my instructor rating active but will change my plans if you are opposed to me having a wider involvement in the industry.
I don’t think the question really needs to involve (New Business Owner), because it’s a query about my wider employability.

Thankfully, Glen

 
Wednesday 28/08/19        3.51PM          Glen Buckley to CASA Regional Manager.

Hi Jason, just after an acknowledgement of the previous email regarding my wider employability,

cheers. Glen

 
Wednesday 28/08/19        4.51PM        CASA Regional Manager to Glen Buckley

Hi Glen, I have been in a meeting all day. I acknowledge your email and I am not aware of any concerns in relation to your flight crew licence, instructor privileges or employment in the industry.

Regards Jason

 
Thursday 29/08/19             5.14AM         Glen Buckley to CASA Regional Manager

Dear Jason,

Can you please advise or confirm that during the last 3 days you have not sent any correspondence to any Employer or potential employer that could potentially impact on any current or future employment for myself. Please advise by 5PM today, to assist me with future plans for me and my family. I call on you to provide that, rather than require me to make a request under FOI. Glen.

 
Thursday 29/08/19                6.09PM                CASA Regional Manager to new APTA Owner

Dear Mr XXXXX

I refer to your email exchange with Jason McHeyzer on Tuesday afternoon 27th August 2019, and in particular to Mr McHeyzers email to you of 2.14PM on that day.

I understand that MrMc Heyzer spoke to you in a telephone conversation later in the afternoon of 27 August 2019 to clarify his intentions. I confirm here that Mr Mc Heyzer sought to ensure that APTA was aware that Mr Buckley was representing his views as the views of APTA. The proprietary or impropriety of this was and is entirely a matter between you and Mr Buckley.

Please be assured CASA has no issue with Mr Buckley being or remaining an employee of APTA, and it is a question for you to decide whether he should be or remain so.

Mr Mc Heyzer also sought your advice in relation to Mr Buckley’s role.

In the event Mr Buckley, or anyone else for that matter, should be nominated by you as a person to hold a position in APTA for which CASAs approval would be required, we would consider any such nomination fairly, on the merits and according to the applicable requirements at that time, having regard to the relevant considerations.

For now, I apologise for any confusion Mr Mc Heyzers email may have created, and I trust his follow up telephone advice of 27 August 2019 coupled with his message clarifies CASAs position.

Yours sincerely,

Craig

 
P2 comment - Presumably this is the Craig ( c/o Dubious Court  Aviation House) responding to the APTA owner? 



Friday          30/08/19    4.53AM. Glen Buckley makes Freedom of Information Request,

Dear Mr Gobbitt,

I believe that at some stage during the week commencing 26/08/19, the Regional Manager, Mr Jason McHeyzer may have initiated and sent correspondence to my employer that has affected my continuing employment, and my families welfare. If that correspondence exists, as it primarily affects me, can I call for a copy of any such correspondence.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

 
 
Saturday 31/08/19    9.42AM      Email simultaneously sent to CASA Regional Manager and CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner.
 
Subject : Potential impact of CASA actions, on Glen Buckley’s livelihood.
Saturday 31/08 19

Dear Mr Jason McHeyzer.

I am writing to you in your role as the Regional Manager for CASA.

I note that you are also a Subject Matter Expert (SME) on my matter. You have perhaps, the most comprehensive knowledge of any person within CASA. You have been involved since the very beginning and been involved throughout. The handwritten notes that you left with me after our meeting way back on the 29/11/18, clearly indicate that you were acutely aware of the impact on me and my business back then.

You will not refute; all my engagements with  CASA personnel on all matters regarding my employment as the CASA approved CEO, a CASA approved HOO, and currently  in the role of Standby HOO,  have been conducted by me, in a highly professional manner.

My primary concerns are “safety, compliance, and the very best outcome for anyone affected by this current issue”.

I have significant “personal” differences with CASA at the moment, but my professional conduct in the work place in all CASA engagements has been exemplary.

I have been warm, engaging, courteous, respectful, supportive, and professional. I have not compromised my professional integrity at any stage. You will not disagree.

You are aware of my view on Organisational ethics. I have an expectation, in any organisation including my own, and CASA, that when ethics, safety, or procedures are being compromised; as Professionals, we must make a decision. A decision to stand aside from that process and show  leadership and integrity, or a decision to become complicit.

I sent the following email to you last Thursday morning. It has not been acknowledged, and I do require it acknowledged.
 
“Dear Jason,
 
Can you please advise or confirm that during the last 3 days you have not sent any correspondence to any Employer or potential employer that could potentially impact on any current or future employment for myself.
 
Please advise by 5PM today, to assist me with future plans for me and my family.
 
I call on you to provide that, rather than require me to make a request under FOI.
 
Glen”
 
To be frank. If you have made such a decision and taken such a course of action, then you have over stepped the mark. You are aware that this process has cost me everything. If you have taken any action to affect my future employment, I have a reasonable expectation that you can justify that on legitimate grounds.
 
Therefore. In the interests of protecting my reputation, I have advised you that I have made a Freedom of Information request for that information to see if any such correspondence exists.
 
This correspondence is also being submitted simultaneously to the Industry Complaints Commissioner. I will provide CASA the “first right of refusal”. If the CASA ICC chooses not to deal with it, I will go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
 
My complaint. If the Regional Manager,  has taken action that may affect my opportunity to derive a livelihood, that should be based on justifiable grounds related to
·        Safety, or
·        Compliance, or
·        My professional conduct, or
·        Medical grounds.
 
I should be involved in any such correspondence, and I should at least be made aware of it.
 
Expected results from the ICC
 
I be  provided with a copy of such correspondence if it exists.
 
If it exists, CASA issue a public apology to protect my professional reputation.
 
The ICC clearly state if this action by the Regional Manager is a breach of any stipulated procedures.
 
Thankyou, Glen Buckley
 
Please note. I will be publishing this correspondence


For the latest refer HERE to the UP thread now re-badged (Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA ) and moved to the main Oz and NZed Forum...MTF - P2  Tongue

P9 - MTF - Seems to me Glen got lucky – at least the ‘new owner; had the balls to show him the letter. Buckley; Lucky?  No way howls the mob. I beg to differ; this sort of shit goes down the tubes from CASA on a weekly basis. As close at last week, another I know was refused employment in much the same manner as Glen was; but no one had the guts to say so, let alone provide evidence. Ayup, Glen got lucky, he was told his employment was not ‘tenable’. This one element of CASA behavior needs to be exterminated, with prejudice, the sooner the better.
Reply

(09-10-2019, 05:15 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Catching up on latest from GlenB embuggerance -  Blush

Courtesy a PAIN email chain:

Quote:Tuesday 27/08/19,           2.14PM             CASA Regional Manager to New Owner of APTA


Hi (new owner of APTA), I understand that Mr Buckley remains as APTA deputy HOO. This is no longer tenable with the comments that Mr Buckley is making publicly.

Please confirm APTA’s intentions in relation to Mr Buckley as deputy HOO and whether Mr Buckley is authorised to speak on behalf of APTA. Thanks again Jason.
 
Tuesday 27/08/19 on direction from the CASA Regional Manager, the new owner of APTA approaches me on receipt of this email and my employment is terminated.
 
Wednesday 28/08/19        1.46AM               Glen Buckley to CASA Regional Manager

Dear Jason,

May I respectfully request if you make any determination regarding my continuing employment with my current employer, or have any concerns that may have an impact on my families welfare, or my ability to derive an income. that I be involved in that correspondence.

Respectfully, Glen

 
Wednesday 28/08/19         7.57AM               CASA Regional Manager  to Glen Buckley

Glen,

I acknowledge your email. I have asked the accountable manager (new APTA owner) to clarify whether you continue to operate as Deputy HOO, and whether you are authorised to speak on behalf of APTA.I will leave it to Mr XXXXXXX, as the accountable manager, to communicate his decisions to you.

Regards. Jason McHeyzer Region Manager

 
Wednesday 28/08/19            8.04AM             Email Glen Buckley to CASA Regional Manager

Hi Jason, sorry my inquiry isn’t actually specifically regarding APTA or my role within APTA. Im trying to plan for my family going forward. Im simply asking for you to consider my reputation when contacting any employers or potential employers.

Can you clarify if CASA has concerns about me in a Key Personnel role only?

I was about to get my instructor rating active but will change my plans if you are opposed to me having a wider involvement in the industry.
I don’t think the question really needs to involve (New Business Owner), because it’s a query about my wider employability.

Thankfully, Glen

 
Wednesday 28/08/19        3.51PM          Glen Buckley to CASA Regional Manager.

Hi Jason, just after an acknowledgement of the previous email regarding my wider employability,

cheers. Glen

 
Wednesday 28/08/19        4.51PM        CASA Regional Manager to Glen Buckley

Hi Glen, I have been in a meeting all day. I acknowledge your email and I am not aware of any concerns in relation to your flight crew licence, instructor privileges or employment in the industry.

Regards Jason

 
Thursday 29/08/19             5.14AM         Glen Buckley to CASA Regional Manager

Dear Jason,

Can you please advise or confirm that during the last 3 days you have not sent any correspondence to any Employer or potential employer that could potentially impact on any current or future employment for myself. Please advise by 5PM today, to assist me with future plans for me and my family. I call on you to provide that, rather than require me to make a request under FOI. Glen.

 
Thursday 29/08/19                6.09PM                CASA Regional Manager to new APTA Owner

Dear Mr XXXXX

I refer to your email exchange with Jason McHeyzer on Tuesday afternoon 27th August 2019, and in particular to Mr McHeyzers email to you of 2.14PM on that day.

I understand that MrMc Heyzer spoke to you in a telephone conversation later in the afternoon of 27 August 2019 to clarify his intentions. I confirm here that Mr Mc Heyzer sought to ensure that APTA was aware that Mr Buckley was representing his views as the views of APTA. The proprietary or impropriety of this was and is entirely a matter between you and Mr Buckley.

Please be assured CASA has no issue with Mr Buckley being or remaining an employee of APTA, and it is a question for you to decide whether he should be or remain so.

Mr Mc Heyzer also sought your advice in relation to Mr Buckley’s role.

In the event Mr Buckley, or anyone else for that matter, should be nominated by you as a person to hold a position in APTA for which CASAs approval would be required, we would consider any such nomination fairly, on the merits and according to the applicable requirements at that time, having regard to the relevant considerations.

For now, I apologise for any confusion Mr Mc Heyzers email may have created, and I trust his follow up telephone advice of 27 August 2019 coupled with his message clarifies CASAs position.

Yours sincerely,

Craig

 
P2 comment - Presumably this is the Craig ( c/o Dubious Court  Aviation House) responding to the APTA owner? 



Friday          30/08/19    4.53AM. Glen Buckley makes Freedom of Information Request,

Dear Mr Gobbitt,

I believe that at some stage during the week commencing 26/08/19, the Regional Manager, Mr Jason McHeyzer may have initiated and sent correspondence to my employer that has affected my continuing employment, and my families welfare. If that correspondence exists, as it primarily affects me, can I call for a copy of any such correspondence.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

 
 
Saturday 31/08/19    9.42AM      Email simultaneously sent to CASA Regional Manager and CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner.
 
Subject : Potential impact of CASA actions, on Glen Buckley’s livelihood.
Saturday 31/08 19

Dear Mr Jason McHeyzer.

I am writing to you in your role as the Regional Manager for CASA.

I note that you are also a Subject Matter Expert (SME) on my matter. You have perhaps, the most comprehensive knowledge of any person within CASA. You have been involved since the very beginning and been involved throughout. The handwritten notes that you left with me after our meeting way back on the 29/11/18, clearly indicate that you were acutely aware of the impact on me and my business back then.

You will not refute; all my engagements with  CASA personnel on all matters regarding my employment as the CASA approved CEO, a CASA approved HOO, and currently  in the role of Standby HOO,  have been conducted by me, in a highly professional manner.

My primary concerns are “safety, compliance, and the very best outcome for anyone affected by this current issue”.

I have significant “personal” differences with CASA at the moment, but my professional conduct in the work place in all CASA engagements has been exemplary.

I have been warm, engaging, courteous, respectful, supportive, and professional. I have not compromised my professional integrity at any stage. You will not disagree.

You are aware of my view on Organisational ethics. I have an expectation, in any organisation including my own, and CASA, that when ethics, safety, or procedures are being compromised; as Professionals, we must make a decision. A decision to stand aside from that process and show  leadership and integrity, or a decision to become complicit.

I sent the following email to you last Thursday morning. It has not been acknowledged, and I do require it acknowledged.
 
“Dear Jason,
 
Can you please advise or confirm that during the last 3 days you have not sent any correspondence to any Employer or potential employer that could potentially impact on any current or future employment for myself.
 
Please advise by 5PM today, to assist me with future plans for me and my family.
 
I call on you to provide that, rather than require me to make a request under FOI.
 
Glen”
 
To be frank. If you have made such a decision and taken such a course of action, then you have over stepped the mark. You are aware that this process has cost me everything. If you have taken any action to affect my future employment, I have a reasonable expectation that you can justify that on legitimate grounds.
 
Therefore. In the interests of protecting my reputation, I have advised you that I have made a Freedom of Information request for that information to see if any such correspondence exists.
 
This correspondence is also being submitted simultaneously to the Industry Complaints Commissioner. I will provide CASA the “first right of refusal”. If the CASA ICC chooses not to deal with it, I will go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
 
My complaint. If the Regional Manager,  has taken action that may affect my opportunity to derive a livelihood, that should be based on justifiable grounds related to
·        Safety, or
·        Compliance, or
·        My professional conduct, or
·        Medical grounds.
 
I should be involved in any such correspondence, and I should at least be made aware of it.
 
Expected results from the ICC
 
I be  provided with a copy of such correspondence if it exists.
 
If it exists, CASA issue a public apology to protect my professional reputation.
 
The ICC clearly state if this action by the Regional Manager is a breach of any stipulated procedures.
 
Thankyou, Glen Buckley
 
Please note. I will be publishing this correspondence


For the latest refer HERE to the UP thread now re-badged (Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA ) and moved to the main Oz and NZed Forum...MTF - P2  Tongue

P9 - MTF - Seems to me Glen got lucky – at least the ‘new owner; had the balls to show him the letter. Buckley; Lucky?  No way howls the mob. I beg to differ; this sort of shit goes down the tubes from CASA on a weekly basis. As close at last week, another I know was refused employment in much the same manner as Glen was; but no one had the guts to say so, let alone provide evidence. Ayup, Glen got lucky, he was told his employment was not ‘tenable’. This one element of CASA behavior needs to be exterminated, with prejudice, the sooner the better.

Ps Sandy on the UP:

Quote:Reasons

Just to reinforce why CASA has taken the action against Glen. Years ago I attempted to hand over my flying school AOC permit to a couple that had been operating it for some time, one being Chief Flying Instructor already, and using their own aircraft. In other words everything exactly the same except the ownership name of the permit on a piece of paper. Would CASA transfer the AOC?

No.

Why? because they would have lost out on the money, some $ thousands in application, scrutinising and vetting backwards and forwards of a one off Operations Manual. CASA personnel would also have lost salary justification. These are the factors that have lead to the CASA change of policy towards Glen’s logical system to spread the administrative burden over a number of schools. Glen’s successful model was a direct threat to the make work money machine of CASA, the whole house of cards topped off with the fatuously titled Director of Air Safety on $600,000 pa.

Real reform requires political action, ring write contact your federal MP and Senators.

Flying school permit Australia; months? years? $50,000? $100,000? Several approved personnel, including graded instructor.
Flying school USA; No permit required.
Gain Instructor Rating (no gradings) $15.99 book and start immediately anywhere. (Yes the AIM price has risen $1.04 since last posted).

[Image: cb1b70bb_909a_47b6_b7c7_922c434ada8a_321...6af4af.png]
Reply

Snap, Crackle and POP.

Aircraft electrical systems are often complex, with layers of protection and ‘By-Pass’ built in to prevent fire and to provide a redundancy alternative to keep the essential systems powered and running. When a system is overloaded, or at risk; the ‘popping’ of circuit breakers signifies that although out of action, system integrity has been preserved and normal service will resume once ‘the fix’ has been effected.

I note there is a marked similarity within political systems. Once the level of heat rises to a ‘dangerous’ level: pop goes a circuit breaker. For one example – from the Mandarin:-

Senator (Sic 'em) Rex Patrick was not quite as understanding towards Parkinson’s situation.

He argued the investigation was “either a demonstration of a lack of competence … or a carefully crafted sham which purports to be an investigation but was, in reality, a political fix”.

“The report epitomises what many people see as a public services cancer whereby the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct is cast aside and replaced with a new code which states, ‘Protect the Minister’,” he said.

The first example is quite subtle and professionally done; the second however is less so. It smacks of the terminal arrogance an untouchable system has, with multiple layers of protection available. From Glen Buckley:-

"Well since this process has started some of the "main players" seem to have "departed" CASA.

First to depart was the Regional Manager.

Then another senior executive left who was heavily involved,

and I hear on the grapevine that the CMT leader, who lead the initial action has resigned to join another company in a "safety role".

Mr Crawford, as I said to you before. Good ethics will prevail, and you will be left standing alone!!!!!

Give the Buckley statement a moment’s consideration; three heavy duty circuit breakers between Crawford and a ministerial embarrassment popped before the heat gets anywhere near the top layer of CASA; let alone the minister ultimately responsible. The check list for such matters is elegant in it’s simplicity.




Toot - toot.
Reply

(09-19-2019, 09:03 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  For and on behalf of GlenB -  Wink

Ref: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...0919-1.pdf



[Image: GB-MR.jpg]

[Image: GB-MR-1.jpg]

[Image: GB-MR-2.jpg]



GlenB embuggerance update: 11/10/19

Via the UP:

Quote:Game On!!!!


Popping my head up again.

The GoFundMe is up and running again, after an administrative delay that was a result of my reluctance to move any funds into my own account. With some exceptional support from GoFundMe, we are up and running.Thanks again for the support.

The background work has begun, and immediately on achieving the goal I will move to stage one and see if I have a valid basis for a claim. Ultimately it is the CASA Board that is accountable for the conduct of the personnel within CASA and that is clearly stated on their website;

“CASA Board The CASA Board is appointed by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. The Board is responsible for deciding the objectives, strategies and policies to be followed by CASA and for ensuring that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner.”

I have met with the Chair of the CASA Board, and there can be no doubt that they have been fully briefed by me on the topic. The Chair has enough information to determine if the Board will stand behind the

· Aviation Group-Executive Manager
· Executive Manager- Regulatory Services and Surveillance
· Regional Manager
· Flight Operations Inspector

The Board has obviously elected to support the four personnel against

· The Ministers Statement of Expectations.
· CASAs Regulatory Philosophy
· Administrative Law
· The PGPA Act
· decency and ethics
· My allegations of unlawful conduct i.e. Regional Manager directing my Employer to cease my employment based on my public comments which have been restricted to Prune.

Well, that time is coming. We will find out if im just some little pain in the arse, or am I the victim of gross malpractice. The opportunity approaches for those four CASA personnel to defend their conduct, and for the Minister and Board to stand behind those personnel.

I cannot wait for the opportunity for both sides to present their case.

Click on the link for posts in reply... Wink

Also related from Sandy off the PAIN Net email chain... Rolleyes


Quote:Pertinent to the treatment of Glen Buckley by CASA as being effectively designated as persona non grata, rule by bureaucrat instead of rule by law. This CASA attitude is nothing new but arguably the actions of CASA are becoming much worse. 


Glen Buckley’s treatment is an example of CASA arrogance, hubris and a careless disregard for the natural expectation of any citizen for fair treatment, let alone freedom of expression. 

The illustration is of my notes taken during a meeting with CASA regarding Non Conforming Notices (NCNs) issued by a CASA Airworthiness Inspector (AWI) who had undertaken a surveillance of my licenced aircraft maintenance engineer(LAME). In his written report about his surveillance this AWI accused the LAME of “anti-casarism” because the LAME had pinned to his office wall some cartoon or newspaper clippings that insinuated criticism of CASA.

(My LAME had also approached the Ombudsman to intervene in regard to his dispute with CASA. Thin skinned CASA was not happy)  

At the time I could hardly believe such ridiculous comment written into an official document by a CASA employee, but there it was in writing and for some time it became a running joke. 

No joke now of course, anti-casarism is the General Aviation industry wide standard, its not just “festering” its well and truly festered, if that’s a word. 

“Festering anti - casarism”

[Image: Sandy.jpg]

Finally and also somewhat related, I note that a fellow IOS member has picked up on my recent pooh tube addition...



...with this nailed it comment -  Wink 


Quote:[Image: photo.jpg]
See Level
 2 days ago

Shocking!  CASA is well known as the worst aviation regulator in the world, and this is just another example of why.  CASA have placed Australian aviation at a huge disadvantage to other countries and with that we are seeing a dramatic decline in general aviation in Australia today.  CASA wont be happy until the entire aviation industry in Australia is destroyed.

We MUST hold these people accountable, run them out of town.  Its time for a complete overhaul of aviation regulation in Australia.  The FAA is the correct and proven model, that would be a good start.
    
I second the See Level motion - "All those in agreement say AYE! I think the AYEs have it?"  Shy


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

ROTFLMAO.
The inestimable Lead Balloon; post of the month – cribbed from Pprune. Tim-Tams in the post.
 In order for "it" to go to court, "it" has to be a cause of action recognised in law.

 
A regulator changing its mind is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
 
A regulator being incompetent is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
 
A regulator being stupid is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
 
A regulator being an arsehole is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
 
A regulator being a pompous prick is not, of itself, a cause of action recognised in law.
 
What you have to do, for example, is apply for a certificate and have it refused by the regulator, then seek judicial or merits review of that refusal. The refusal by a regulator to grant you something you've applied for and the regulator can grant you is a cause of action recognised by law. It may well be that in the course of the review some relevant matter about the lawfullness and the merits of the regulator's decision arises as a consequence of the regulator being incompetent, stupid, an arsehole or a pompous prick.
 
As another example, someone may have reasonably relied, to their detriment, on representations made on behalf of a regulator. Someone may make very important and expensive business decisions on the basis of representations by a regulator - which representations may include silence when the regulator should have said something - to the effect that the person's arrangements were in compliance with the law and would be certified. If it turns out the regulator led the person down an expensive 'garden path', the person may have an action in negligent misstatement. It is here that the prevaricators, the incompetents, the stupid, the arseholes and the pompous pricks occasionally get regulators into trouble.
 
Purely hypothetically of course.
Reply

Update to the update -  Shy

(11-01-2019, 01:22 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Glen Buckley v CASA embuggerance update - 01/11/19.

From glenb, via AP email chain:


Quote:To;  Mr Shane Carmody- CEO- Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

To; Mr Anthony Mathews- Chair of the CASA Board.
To; Mr Jonathan Hanton- CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner.
 
My name is Glen Buckley, of 6 Susan Court, Mount Waverley, 3149.

I consider myself a Subject Matter Expert (SME) on matters of aviation safety in the flight training environment.

In making that statement, I draw on 25 years’ experience. I have operated in the roles of CASA approved Flying Instructor, CASA approved Chief Flying Instructor (CFI), CASA approved Head of Operations (HOO), a CASA approved CEO, and business owner of 15 years.

I am fully aware that my allegations are perhaps the most substantive that have ever been levelled against CASA employees.

My allegations are not vindictive or vexatious, and I am acting solely on matters of aviation safety. If my claims are found to be unsubstantiated, I understand I can be fully held to account in law.

For clarity I will re-state my allegations against the following four CASA personnel.

The personnel are;
  • Mr Graeme Crawford
  • Mr Craig Martin
  • Mr Jason Mc Heyzer
  • Mr Brad Lacey.
 
Regarding their conduct, and their decisions, and in plain English, I allege;
  1. Decision making that compromises aviation safety, and in fact creates a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety
  2. Improper, wrongful, and unlawful conduct.
  3. Those personnel have made decisions that a well-intentioned person would not make, if they were making their decisions on considerations of safety and/or compliance.
  4. Breaches of Administrative Law, and Procedural Fairness.
  5. Breaches of CASAs Enforcement Manual.
  6. Breaches of the Ministers Statement of Expectations
  7. Breaches of CASAs Regulatory Philosophy
  8. Those personnel have not acted with honesty, consistency, and integrity.
  9. Those personnel have not acted with care and diligence.
  10. Those personnel have not acted with impartiality, respect and courtesy.
  11. Those personnel have acted in a bullying and intimidating manner.
  12. They have mismanaged public resources in breach of their obligations under the PGPA Act and have consciously and deliberately used public resources in a manner that is not fiscally responsible.
  13. I allege those four personnel have made calculated decisions that have caused detriment to me and my family, my business, and other businesses and, that they have deliberately avoided attempts to work collaboratively and resolve those issues.
  14. I allege that their considered decisions and actions potentially bring harm to the integrity and good reputation of their fellow Employees and CASA in general, which can only degrade safety.
  15. I allege that one of those four personnel, has improperly used inside information.
  16. Those personnel have provided misleading information.
  17. Breached obligations under their respective Position Descriptions.
  18. Abused their  authority associated with their respective positions as CASA employees.
  19. Are making decisions and choosing courses of action to avoid public scrutiny.
  20. Are placing their respective personal interest above the public interest.
  21. They are deliberately frustrating democratic principles.
  22. They are deliberately not upholding the values, of the Australian Coat of arms, and in fact, their conduct is unbecoming to the Australian Coat of Arms, and brings it into disrepute.
 
The purpose of this letter.
 
As you are aware, I am trying to bring my allegations to a legal determination, but timelines are unacceptably long. I have identified a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety, and I am confident that I can substantiate that.

In the interests of aviation safety, I must insist that these four personnel are stood aside from all safety sensitive activities until my substantive allegations can be “tested”.

Such action would not be perceived by me, as any admission of guilt, and I will not claim that to be the case. It is the only responsible decision that can be made in such circumstances.

I will be pursuing a legal determination in as prompt timelines, as I can manage.

In order to expedite processes, I would encourage CASA to take any action that they deem appropriate, including legal action. My assumption is that you will have access to greater resources than I do alone, and if that expedites processes, I sincerely encourage that approach.

My sincere hope is that lawyers are not required and good intention will prevail.

The allegations are important, there is a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety, you are aware of it, and are compelled to act.

Drawing on my personal experience over the last 12 months, I believe there is a “managed” system operating within CASA to supress my concerns. I have not observed any “well intentioned “ actions by the CASA personnel that I am dealing with.

For that reason, and to ensure CASA act promptly on this matter, I am now going public.
I  await acknowledgement of this correspondence, from Mr Carmody’s office.
 
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
 

And the acknowledgement... Confused


Quote:Dear Mr Buckley


I acknowledge your email received at 10:24am today outlining your claims of “…grave and imminent risk to aviation safety” against the four named CASA staff members.

You did not provide information to substantiate your claims of a “grave and imminent risk to aviation safety”. I note your advice in today’s email “…am confident that I can substantiate that.” Should you have such evidence, I ask that you provide it to me urgently.

I have previously advised you that you should raise these matters with the Commonwealth Ombudsman, which you have elected not to do, or through the appropriate legal channels. I reiterate my advice to you of 23 August 2019 that I will not enter into ongoing dialogue with you on the issues you have raised previously, as they have been dealt with and considered closed from CASA’s perspective. I also remind you that making false and disparaging public allegations against individual CASA officers leaves it open to them to pursue individual action for defamation.

Regards

Shane

Shane Carmody
CEO and Director of Aviation Safety
Civil Aviation Safety Authority



And then glenb's substantiation... Rolleyes
 


Quote:03/11/19.

Dear Mr Carmody.

I am making a direct appeal to you in your role as the CEO and Director of Aviation Safety (DAS), of Australia’s national aviation safety regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). I have a reasonable expectation that you will make decisions in a well-intentioned manner, and primarily in the interests of aviation safety.

My name is Glen Buckley, 6 Susan Court, Mount Waverley, 3149.

During my career of 25 years in pilot training, I have operated in the following roles, each requiring a CASA initial assessment, and CASA renewals.

• Grade One Instructor,
• Chief Flying Instructor (CFI),
• Chief Pilot (CP)
• Head of Operations (HOO)
• CEO

CASA records will demonstrate that throughout the last 15 years of operations, as a business owner, I have consistently demonstrated, industry leading standards of safety and compliance. Those operations were well intentioned.

I have also operated for 10 years as the Principle Executive Officer of a Registered Training Organisation. ASQA records will indicate an industry leading level of compliance. Those operations were well intentioned.

For 15 years I have been delivering training to international students under a CRICOS approval. There have been no complaints ever, by any of the hundreds of international students that I have had the pleasure to work with, and those operations were most certainly well intentioned.

I have employed over 50 pilots, and administrative staff, during the last 15 years of operation. I have treated them with fairness, and respect, and in a well-intentioned manner.

In my opinion, and by making those statements above. I believe that I have run a safe, compliant, well intentioned business for 15 years. That business was a flight training organisation.

Taking the above into account, I am qualified to make the statements that I am about to make. They are substantive:

I sincerely believe that there is a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety. I have written to you repeatedly on this matter, providing the basis for that assertion.

You are also aware that I have made substantive allegations against four CASA personnel, and it is in fact, their conduct that has created this unsafe situation. They are;

1. Mr Graeme Crawford in his role as CASA Aviation Group Executive Manager.
2. Mr Craig Martin in his role as CASA Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance.
3. Mr Jason Mc Heyzer in his role as CASA Region Manager Southern Region.
4. Mr Brad Lacey in his role as a CASA Flight Operations Inspector.

In naming them, I do it to protect the reputation of the personnel within CASA that choose to act professionally, and towards safe outcomes.

Regarding their conduct, and their decisions, and in plain English, I allege;

1. Decision making that compromises aviation safety, and in fact creates a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety
2. Improper, wrongful, and unlawful conduct.
3. Those personnel have made decisions that a well-intentioned person would not make, if they were making their decisions on considerations of safety and/or compliance.
4. Breaches of Administrative Law, and Procedural Fairness.
5. Breaches of CASAs Enforcement Manual. https://www.casa.gov.au/publications-and...ent-manual.
6. Breaches of the Ministers Statement of Expectations.
( https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00977 )
7. Breaches of CASAs Regulatory Philosophy ( https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-...philosophy )
8. Those personnel have not acted with honesty, consistency, and integrity.
9. Those personnel have not acted with care and diligence.
10. Those personnel have not acted with impartiality, respect and courtesy.
11. Those personnel have acted in a bullying and intimidating manner.
12. They have mismanaged public resources in breach of their obligations under the PGPA Act and have consciously and deliberately used public resources in a manner that is not fiscally responsible
( https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013A00123 )
13. I allege those four personnel have made calculated decisions that have caused detriment to me and my family, my business, and other businesses and, that they have deliberately avoided attempts to work collaboratively and resolve those issues.
14. I allege that their considered decisions and actions potentially bring harm to the integrity and good reputation of their fellow Employees and CASA in general, which can only degrade safety.
15. I allege that one of those four personnel, has improperly used inside
information.
16. Those personnel have provided misleading information.
17. Breached obligations under their respective Position Descriptions.
18. Abused their authority associated with their respective positions as CASA
employees.
19. Are making decisions and choosing courses of action to avoid public scrutiny.
20. Are placing their respective personal interest above the public interest.
21. They are deliberately frustrating democratic principles.
22. They are deliberately not upholding the values, of the Australian Coat of arms,
and in fact, their conduct is unbecoming to the Australian Coat of Arms and
brings it into disrepute.
23. In contrast to the Prime Ministers Speech to the Institute of Public
Administration 19/08/19 where he outlined his “guideposts.”
https://www.pm.gov.au/media/speech-insti...nistration
24. In contrast to CASAs “values”. https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-weare/
our-vision-mission-and-values

Those are substantial allegations, I stand behind them, and understand I am fully
accountable for them. They are truthful, and in the public interest.
Decisions have been made, and continue to be made, by those four “named”
personnel in CASA, that cannot be justified on a safety, or regulatory basis.

Their decisions have been, and continue to be, made on personal interest
considerations ahead of aviation safety considerations, those decisions measurably,
and unacceptably compromise aviation safety.

You personally, as the CEO hold “information” that would be “concerning”, and
clearly supports my assertions. That information is;

1. From within your own organisation by way of “workplace feedback” and
possibly suggests a culture “highly inappropriate”.
2. Statistical information your personnel have gathered.
3. Assertions made repeatedly by me, in writing over a 12-month period, alerting
these staff to the safety ramifications of their decisions.
4. Feedback from industry.

You are compelled to make a decision.

Those four personnel cannot remain operational, and certainly not in any safety
sensitive activities. I have called for it repeatedly, it is reasonable. It makes no
suggestion of innocence or guilt, it takes those personnel out of an operational role,
in what may be a stressful situation for them, and shows appropriate respect to
processes, and most importantly, maintains or improves safety.

At least one those named personnel has had substantial claims against his conduct
previously. That is public knowledge, and was bought to light as result of a recent
ABC TV investigative news piece. https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/dying-pilot-tries-toclear-
his-name-after-fatal/10444124 of which he was integral to. I raise the same
allegations against his conduct, that were previously bought against him. There is
potentially a “pattern”, it cannot be reasonably ignored.

One other, of the four has been found by CASA ICC processes to have acted, at
least “unreasonably and inappropriately”.

If you choose not to stand these personnel aside, you will need to justify your
decision making, as the CEO of CASA.

It is negatively impacting on safety and clearly increases the likelihood of an aviation
incident or accident. If you choose an alternative course of action, and cannot
reasonably justify it, I will bring a formal allegation of gross misconduct,
unconscionable conduct, or malfeasance, as appropriate against you. I will be
compelled to do so. You would be choosing to compromise safety, ahead of
personal interest.

I will call on widespread industry support if I you require it of me.
I am simultaneously including the CASA Board in on this correspondence, as they
may be called upon to support your decision making and are responsible for the
good governance of CASA.

I have insufficient trust or confidence that CASA will attend to my safety concerns in
a well-intentioned manner, and in the required timelines, so I am publishing this letter
to ensure public scrutiny over the decisions you as the CEO make, going forward.
This will also expedite timelines in attending to important safety matters.

Quite simply, I will not accept those four personnel making operational decisions for
other operators whilst my allegations have not been discredited. It potentially poses
an unacceptable risk to aviation safety.

I respect that in your correspondence you clearly stated the matter is closed,
however it is an aviation safety matter, so I steadfastly refuse to let it be closed, until
it is resolved.

Can I offer one final alternative at a dispute resolution
I am a 54-year resident of Chisholm, and my representative is Ms Gladys Liu, from
the Liberal Party. I have previously provided Ms Liu with information on my concerns.
She understands the basics of them, and has demonstrated herself to be
professional, and diligent.

Could I meet with Mr Carmody and his nominated attendees at Ms Lius Canberra
Office, at the soonest practical opportunity.

Both CASA, and I could present our respective safety cases, with Ms Liu as an
independent observer.

At the end of that meeting, she could confidentially provide feedback to the PM or
Deputy PMs office for a final determination of the Governments position, going
forward.

As I have stated repeatedly, these are significant matters of aviation safety, and
must be addressed. An independent assessment by someone external to CASA, and
acting with good intention, such as Ms Liu, could be invaluable.

I do not mean to come across as combative, but you must understand my
determination, and resolve. My interests should be well and truly “in tune” with every
CASA employee, as they are primarily about safety, and the integrity of CASA. My
hope is you share those values.

Glen Buckley.

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Lead Balloon; Respect.

- HERE – is post of true understanding, real knowledge, great advice offered freely, patience and pathos combined with experience and wisdom. Plus, you saved me the task of writing similar, if not so adroit an essential message. Bravo LB, the key to the Tim-Tam cupboard is yours.

Buckley is being led on a merry dance by a well practiced band leader. So busy chasing rabbits, he’ll be useless come muster, knackered. There is but one issue which requires immediate attention. Focus on that and that alone will save the day. Read the Polar case. Save energy, save time, stay focused; deliver the patient into expert hands, then go home and wait. Drink if it pleases you, pray if you believe – but wait you must. That, believe it or not is all that can be done, it takes energy and willpower to sit quietly, patiently and stoically while the experts do their job – assuming there is an expert available.

Tragedy - It is a thing we have all witnessed, or been a part of. In one form or another, it is almost impossible to live your life without being ‘touched’ in some way by it, ‘tis part and parcel of the gift. Buckley is one being so affected, by matters over which he no real control. There are several ways to explain what needs to, must be done; the simplest way is to use an example which is easily understood.

Just imagine, someone near and dear has a massive car crash; first aid, followed by ambulance, followed by hospital, followed by surgery. What the surgeon must do is brutal, cold blooded and ruthless, if that life is to be saved. The local plumber cannot perform this task, this is a specialist job. The surgeon does not, nor may not consider the emotional upheaval of the event, no past or even future is considered – just the one subject on the table; now. That and that alone is the only consideration. Outside of the theatre is of no concern, the worry, the stress, the anxiety, the heartaches, the cost, the hair tearing, chest beating and hysterics – all are irrelevant. Single point, cold blooded focus on the one task is all.

Buckley needs to be consigned to the waiting room now – there is but one matter in hand, this demands surgical precision. What is radical? What is peripheral? Does a heart surgeon need to be concerned with a wart on the patients arse, or that the patient had severe flatulence? No: one problem, one time critical shot at fixing it. How this is achieved is a matter of skill, focus, knowledge, practice and a dollop of luck.

Define the target, pull the trigger and let the bullet do it’s work; for once released, there is no control; your one chance of hitting the target was during the aiming. Careful aim requires a calm mind, a steady hand and patience. The longer the shot, the steadier the aim must be.

Despite good intentions, Buckley walks alone on a dark, winding, dangerous road of an uncertain length, facing down the chimera and abominations lurking in the bushes. There is only one place which can provide him the help he will need -- the law; and even that’s a gamble. The crux of the matter is will that that help arrive in time and be up to task? For the government will protect it’s own arse end first. Would you shoot a top class guard dog? No, you would not is the short answer; well not unless it attacked you. So, you keep it well fed, carefully tended and fully protected; even when it is a proven sheep killer. Bipartisan, mutually beneficial relationships help to keep both protected.

It all begs many questions – will this government step up and examine the serious, on going claims of deep seated industry problems with the regulator? Will this minister declare an open examination of complaint? Will the Senate, after the spanking it got after Forsyth have the guts to ‘bring it on’? Not since John Sharpe have we had a minister who could see that sooner or later, the ministerial guard dog would turn feral. I’d love to believe there was a modicum of honesty left in government; a genuine concern for the well being of this nation, but then I look about me; Hells Bells, we hardly own any of this once proud, independent nation, let alone control it.

May the force be with you.

Reply

GlenB embuggerance latest - 05/11/19: St Commode email account - WTD??

Top post and well said "K" -   Wink


Slight thread drift but there is a point... Shy 

Remember this?

[Image: D8sgMShU8AU0_HC.jpg]
Reference: https://auntypru.com/quiet-reflections-a...ndulgence/

And: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...29#pid7029


Quote:{Note: 1) Dr A has sent the letter officially from the DAS office and that he was at the time apparently the 'Acting' DAS?? 

2) Dr A acknowledges that the Finance Dept request was sent nearly two months before.
3) 12 December 2014 - Correspondence from manager legal branch Joe Rule indicates that the CASA submission would be forwarded by him within the next week. Yet the submission was ultimately addressed by Dr A - err why?}     

Good to see the good Dr has moved on from the embarrassment of the diabolical PelAir cover-up inquiry - NOT... [Image: dodgy.gif]

See HERE for the full text of one of the most vindictive, nasty documents from IMO the true centre of evil and instigator of FASA embuggerances... [Image: angry.gif]



Now consider the following dots and dashes taken from the glenb UP posts and the continued email communications purportedly coming from the official St Commode (DAS/CEO of CASA) email account... Rolleyes 



[Image: St-Commode.jpg]



Then despite St Commode saying... 


..We consider this matter closed and neither I nor the Chair will enter into any ongoing dialogue with you on the issues you have raised...


...we get this rather terse response from the St Commode email account??

...I acknowledge your email received at 10:24am today outlining your claims of...

...I reiterate my advice to you of 23 August 2019 that I will not enter into ongoing dialogue with you on the issues you have raised previously, as they have been dealt with and considered closed from CASA’s perspective. I also remind you that making false and disparaging public allegations against individual CASA officers leaves it open to them to pursue individual action for defamation...


But then the disconnection, yesterday we get this from the St Commode email account.. Huh

Quote:>
> From: "Carmody, Shane" <shane.carmody@casa.gov.au>
> Date: 4 November 2019 at 6:21:25 pm AEDT
> To: Glen Buckley <glen.buckley@mft.edu.au>
> Subject: FW:  Allegations of CASA conduct creating a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety. Glen Buckley [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
>
> 
>
> UNOFFICIAL
>

>
> Dear Mr Buckley,
>
> Your email of Friday 1 November states that you have “identified a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety, and I am confident that I can substantiate that.”
>
> However, your email fails to state what that grave and imminent risk is that you have identified. A serious risk is one where conduct has caused, or is reasonably likely to cause an aviation accident.
>
> Chapter 7 of the CASA Enforcement manual outlines a number of examples of such serious risks;
>
>    Conduct indicating the use of, or an intention to use, an aircraft that was unairworthy on passenger carrying operations
>    The carrying out, or failure to carry out maintenance, in a manner that would result in that aircraft becoming unairworthy
>    A pilot in command flying or indicating an intention to fly, when not authorised to do so due to lack of licence, rating, endorsement, medical certificate, or other necessary authorisation
>    The occurrence of an accident or serious incident has occurred where evidence exists that a significant breach of CASA legislation, or a lack of competence, was a causal factor
>    The carriage of passengers for hire or reward, or conduct indicating an intention to carry passengers for hire or reward, without the operator holding an AOC authorising such carriage
>    A pilot in command engaging in conduct, or showing an intention to engage in conduct, that constitutes dangerous flying.
>

>
> It should also be noted that the risk must not only be serious: it must also be imminent. Imminent is defined as likely to occur at any moment.
>
> If you are able to identify and substantiate such a serious and imminent risk, I have requested that you provide that evidence to me urgently.
>
> Nevertheless, if your concerns do not meet the threshold of a serious and imminent risk as outlined above, you are able to take those concerns to the Commonwealth Ombudsman or have them considered via the appropriate legal avenues as you have been advised on a number of previous occasions.  Your issues have also been considered by the ICC and I note that you have also have met with the Chairman of the CASA Board on a number of occasions to discuss them without resolution.  As such I see no utility in a meeting with myself and I reiterate that the appropriate avenue for further consideration is via either the Commonwealth Ombudsman or determination via the legal system.   
>
> Regards 
>
> Shane

Now I am not in anyway shape or form an expert at examining such things as written prose or such correspondence as the above but even I can pick the very different manner and style between the two emails purported to have been sent from the St Commode email account. But on top of that there is also the passing strange disconnection that in fact the email 2 reply is totally unnecessary given the context and finality of the email 1 reply sent three days before? There is also within email 2 no recognition or at least acknowledgement of the glenb 3 November email correspondence (post #197) substantiation and reply to email 1?

Idle speculation but could it be, much like in December 2014 with former DAS/CEO Skidmore, that Dr (I've lost my marbles) Aleck has open access to the St Commode office and email account? 

"While the Cheshire Cat is away the Iron Ring King Rat will play..." -  Dodgy     
  
MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

As the man with a wooden leg said -

Aleck - '"..Our objective here is not to specifically address what caused those two accidents; it's to address what kinds of things can cause incidents and accidents of this kind. We're being prospective. If we were to wait for sufficiently robust data to support an evidence based decision for every individual decision we took in this space, we would have to wait for a dozen or more accidents to occur..."

"It’s a matter of a pinion."

IMO – I never heard the like before -

IMO, this half baked type of ‘supported lunacy’ is what Buckley is dealing with. Opinion. We are all entitled to one of course – but.

I believe CASA was most satisfied with the shambolic ‘new’ method of ‘training pilots. Despite the fact that since Pontious, the basics have never, ever changed. Up – Down - Left – Right – Don’t hit ‘nuffin. What has changed, significantly, is the way pilots are ‘legally’ demonstrated to have ‘ticked all the boxes’ during training. CASA’s new system is an excellent example of how to waste valuable training time, and instructor time, filling out reams of ‘paperwork’.

Now them some, like Buckley went to a lot of trouble and expense to meet and comply with the ‘new’ system. Buckley went through the hoops, worked hard and long with ‘accredited’ CASA ‘subject experts’; together, they got the business over the approval line. Job done – time to recoup the horrendous costs.

Meanwhile, back at the asylum, someone has had a brain fart – an ‘opinion’ – with as much logic and tenable legal support as the fatuous remarks made by Jonathon (where’s me marbles) Aleck – (above) created doubt, fanned into outright paranoia; leading to Buckley’s ticket of leave being cancelled – Sine Die.

It is the validity of this ‘opinion’ which must be tested. The Aleck (no marbles) approach to safety is based on a risk matrix which any insurance company would love to use. “There is chance that we may have a regulatory risk here; if the Moon is upside down and a Zebra gets hit on a crossing in Bourke at 0137, on any Tuesday, which falls on the thirteenth and the Bogan moths fail to appear before dawn; then CASA and all who feed in the Cornucopia provided will be at risk of penury – you should have seen that loophole. No matter, we can all relax – I have a cunning plan.

Buckley must – categorically challenge the root cause of his troubles. Have the CASA ‘opinion’ tested – in court. Keep it simple, impersonal and to the pertinent points of law. Alek’s opinion is just that – an opinion. Be interesting to see what a crackerjack legal mind makes of it. There are some brilliant ones out there you know; they all don’t work for CASA. They will however toil in the very pits of Hell – if the money is right.



And: IMO it is not my shout.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)