The noble Art - Embuggerance.

GlenB embuggerance update - 4/02/21: DRAFT correspondence to the Ombudsman.

Via the UP refer from - HERE - for a 15,000 word DRAFT letter to the Commonwealth Ombudsman from GlenB. 

In response to that from LB and CO... Wink 

Quote:Lead Balloon

Quote:On the matter of the contracts. At the time of CASA sending that initial notification on October 23rd, 2018, calling on me to supply contracts, embarrassingly for CASA, they already held the contracts, and they had been supplied to CASA on multiple occasions, well before the date of October 23rd, 2018. CASA had “overlooked” that very important fact. This indicated to me that CASA had not provided a proper handover when APTA was transferred from CASA CMT 2 to CMT 3.

Had CASA realised that they already held the contracts, it is most likely they would not have placed the trading restrictions on the business, and they would not have called on me to provide contracts that CASA already held or acted in such a heavy-handed manner. The contracts were entirely my own initiative and had been supplied to CASA on numerous occasions. CASA had shown little or no interest on the multiple occasions that I previously provided copies of the contract. My reasonable assumption was that they had no interest in the business aspects, which understandably are outside CASAs remit, unlike regulatory compliance and safety, which clearly are.

Initially CASA denied that I had provided contracts. I directed them to the multiple emails that supported my contention. CASA then concurred that they did in fact hold the contracts. In Post #1448 there is evidence that a copy of our contract was provided to Mr Graeme Crawford, the second most senior person within CASA, over 1 year earlier. At the time of writing Mr Crawford is the Acting CASA CEO. The contracts were also supplied to multiple other CASA personnel on multiple occasions within CASA ...


Can you please post a copy of one of the contracts APTA entered with a Member. You can black out names and addresses and numbers and signatures etc, but I think it is essential to see a copy of what you say CASA had.

If you are not willing to do that, can you confirm that the contracts you say CASA had:

1. were signed on behalf of APTA and the Member concerned, and

2. contained clauses to the effect required by CASA.

I'm not saying the regulatory regime enabled CASA to refuse an approval if the above was not provided but, if the regulatory regime did enable CASA to do so, the terms of the documents that you say are contracts provided to CASA become critically important. 


Ombudsmans report

Quote:Originally Posted by [b]Flaming galah[/b] [Image: viewpost.gif]
So what did the Ombudsman say that you’re responding to?

Im somewhat reluctant to post it on here in its entirety, as I'm not sure if that would meet with the Ombudsamns consent.

I have tried to encapsulate it in my responses. Please note that the document posted is a work in progress, as I'm trying to juggle it around 13-hour shifts, and just wanted to get it out there.

If anyone wants a copy of his correspondence, please feel free to email me and request it. Cheers. Glen.

Heading off to work now, with no electronic access until 11 PM tonight. Day off tomorrow, so I shall return

Quote:Lead Balloon

I think I've figured where it went pear-shaped for you, Glen.

In your email of 21 February 2019, you quoted a clause that your lawyer suggested be added near the signatures page of the proposed contract between APTA and a Member. That clause should have satisfied CASA so far as the contract was concerned, with the only residual issue being demonstration of practical operational control by APTA of its Members.

But then CASA went full retard. In its email of 13 March 2019, CASA demanded:


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

When I read this bit of the email, I figured out who'd weighed in to drive you into the ground, Glen:


Quote:If CASA can be satisfied that the arrangements reflected in the contractual agreement(s) provide an effective and reliable basis on which APTA could be expected to fulful its obligations as an accountable holder of an authorisation under CASR Part 141 [and Part 142], and in the absence of any other reason not to do so, it is expected that CASA would make a favourable disposition of APTA's application. Such a favourable disposition could reasonably be expected to involve the inclusion of such conditions as CASA might reasonably consider to be necessary and appropriate in all the circumstances.

The clue is in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the email.

This is regulation conjured up in the mind of the author.

Let us for a moment accept that this assertion by CASA is what the law "contemplates" (noting that laws don't "contemplate" shit - laws don't think):


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

OK then, let's think that through.

In the "conventional business model", does CASA require the applicant for a Part 141 approval to provide "a tabular legend, showing how and where the actions called up under each applicable provision of the civil aviation legislation germane to the conduct of operations under CASR Part 141 are effectively addressed in the terms of the contractual agreement(s) with the applicant's employees?

Methinks not!

Yet, each employee is an entity separate from the applicant (that's why they can enter a contract of employment with each other) and may have no authority to be the agent of the applicant. Employees are not necessarily "in all respects acting as agents of" the employer, when doing their work.

And an incompetent and poorly supervised employee can pose the same risk to the safety of air navigation as posed by an incompetent and poorly managed independent contractor. (Of course, no air operator has ever taken on pilots or instructors on an independent contractor basis, have they, CASA...) Surely CASA must demand to see contracts of employment and a tabular legend showing how and where the actions called up under each applicable provision of the civil aviation legislation germane to the conduct of operations under CASR Part 141 [and Part 142] are effectively addressed, because the employees are the people doing a lot of stuff that affects the safety of the operations of their employer. Surely!

The fascinating question is: Why did [i]APTA[/i] get 'the treatment'?


Why did, allegedly, APTA got "the treatment"?

There is a concept in business called 'critical mass" - where business becomes self sustaining and ceases to require seed capital as it generates enough revenue to sustain itself and more importantly grow because it generates further capital that can be invested in the business.

Consider APTA's likely future, assuming it was economically successful under Glens management.

1. It offers a cost effective pathway for flying schools to comply with CASA's strict and voluminous requirements. That is the incentive to the schools.

2. Soon APTA grows nationally and builds a clientele of say 50 schools, assuming that Glens APTA model is scaleable as I expect it was.

3. As time marches , APTA invests in refining its model to achieve further efficiencies and to comply with the natural increase in CASA regulation, amendments, etc.

Pretty soon APTA is the ONLY way for a school to comply with CASA part 141/142 requirements UNLESS the school wants to duplicate APTAs investment in both money and time. The APTA knowledge base is now voluminous and constitutes a huge barrier to entry for new players.

We would call this business a raging success and it would deserve the title because its key success factor is the provision of regulatory compliance at a reasonable costs. APTA fights the battles (sorry, I mean negotiates) with CASA on behalf of everyone. ALL you have to do to run your school is to comply with APTA manuals and you are GUARANTEED to meet regulatory requirements.

Now loook at it from the perspective perhaps of a lower level CASA employee charged with regulating APTA.

1. You are now dealing not with one school but an organisation employing perhaps 2500 people directly and indirectly that teaches perhaps 5000 pupils per year.

2. Considering CASA staffing changes, APTA management now knows more about part 141 / 142 than you do because it has negotiated over every word of regulation written on the subject for the last five years.

3. This isn't a little tin pot business that you can push around any more, assuming you wanted to. APTA is now a major, perhaps THE major, provider of flying school services in the country. You cannot shut them down any more that CASA could shut Qantas or REX. They cannot be bullied. APTA has achieved critical mass.

The result? CASA has lost power and control of the training agenda because it can't change regulations at will without APTAs acquiescence. CASA has lost job opportunities because one negotiation with APTA replaces fifty or more individual negotiations with schools.

For CASA this adds up to loss of control, loss of power, loss of job opportunities. Furthermore APTA paves the way for AMPA (Australian maintenance providers alliance), AGAA (Australian GA Allliance) and ACPA ( Australian charter providers alliance).

As Sir Humphrey would have said: "Minister! This cannot be allowed to happen!".


That’s an easy question to answer Leady. ‘Someone’ from APTA will have done one or more of the following things (prior to receiving ‘the treatment’);

- stood up to a senior CASA employee and tried to ‘put them in their place’,
- complained to the industry complaints commissioner,
- complained to a local Member of Government,
- emailed a ‘shitogram’ complaint in writing to CASA,
- sought legal advice in relation to CASA (which came to CASA’s knowledge)
- a CASA employee or ‘associate’ stood to gain financially by APTA having its wings clipped.

Hell hath no fury like a scorned CASA. A very egotistical, arrogant, conceited, vengeful and sociopathic Government regulator.


You get it

All three of you make valuable and well considered input, and you get it. There is no doubt.

Whilst the concept was to grow to only 10 schools initially with an ultimate goal of 20, i’m convinced it would have worked.

i got to ten members right on schedule.

With the Part 141 and 142 and Cricos international student approval, and an RTO, an enormous capability would have been bought to Regional Aviation.

i had met with Australian Embassies overseas and we were well poised to give the foreign owned schools that now deliver over 50% of flight training in Australia, a real competitor.

Quote:Lead Balloon

And just so folks can understand why CASA's position is indefensible...

It is not true, as asserted by CASA, that the employees of a certificate/approval holder are "in all respects acting as agents" for the certificate/approval holder. 5 minutes googling will confirm that, if you don't have access to a second year law student.

If it were true that the employees of a certificate/approval holder are "in all respects acting as agents" for the certificate/approval holder, it would follow that, for example, any pilot from Qantas could, as agent of Qantas, bind Qantas to a contract for the purchase of 100 787s.

In effect, CASA required APTA to meet a higher standard than the so-called "conventional" applicants in order for CASA to be 'satisfied'.

CASA being 'satisfied'? Such a clear and concise standard.

MTF...P2  Tongue

The actions of CASA are explained well. We might add or emphasise the potential job and money losses for CASA by virtue of the success of APTA. Job losses from the great make work regulatory churning machinery would no doubt cost CASA a huge amount of cash.

I’m reminded of the senior and well qualified instructor who attempted to restart a popular flying school at a nearby regional centre. A fee of $8000 was required with the initial application, the applicant eventually gave up after three years. I’ve heard upwards of $100,000 in fees being paid to achieve a flying school permit, this being on top of the costs borne by the applicant.

Meanwhile in the USA, a fresh instructor can teach immediately and a Part 141/142 is a simple matter of following a template. Furthermore there are no instructor gradings 1,2 and 3 in the USA, and sensibly an instructor does not need a medical to teach students who have soloed.

Glen Buckley came up with an answer to confound the out of control juggernaut CASA and could not be allowed to threaten this big salary factory.

Our Government should hang it’s head in shame at the disgraceful and unjust treatment of an individual seeking to make the business of flying training more efficient, and more broadly this would be to the benefit of all Australians.

Ayup: a one choc frog post.

Good words Sandy, spot on and an excellent example of the contradictions between a great safety record, of an aviation orientated nation (despite their less than helpful climate) and a second rate one.

Sandy - “Our Government should hang it’s head in shame at the disgraceful and unjust treatment of an individual seeking to make the business of flying training more efficient, and more broadly this would be to the benefit of all Australians.” 

So true; but there is a dark side to this. Without a 'court' date and even with 'strict liability' it is 'difficult' to even take someone's driving licence without 'just cause' and (suitable) evidence to support. Yet CASA can roll up, decide all manner of things are wrong and just close down a million dollar a year operation and sack its 'critical' staff in a heartbeat, just on their say-so. It is just so ducking 'wrong'. This is 'the real crux' not the one St. Commodious alludes to. CASA's opinion v hard facts and the rule of law. Load of bollocks, unconstitutional, undemocratic and bloody unfair.

GlenB embuggerance update: 9/02/21

Via the UP:


My initial correspondence to CASA

I will refer to this document in more detail in an upcoming Post. The intention of posting now is to pre-empt the required "pending approval" process which I fully respect.

I will be referring to this correspondence in my finalized submission to the Ombudsman which will be finalized within 24 hours.

You will recall that with no warning I received the letter from CASA in Post 44 at PPRuNe.

I sent that letter within 24 hours. It's very significant, and as I say will be referred to later.




My first correspondence to CASA CEO, Mr Carmody

On 23rd October, I received the notification from CASA.

Within 24 hours I had responded to the CASA Regional Manager, Mr. Jones and that can be found above at post-1497.

The attached correspondence in this Post is a letter to Mr. Carmody the CASA CEO and the CASA Region Manager at the time (since resigned from CASA).

This was sent to Mr. Carmody on 29/10/18 i.e. 3 days of this matter beginning to unfold. Mr. Carmody never facilitated the meeting. This leads me to believe that CASAs actions may not have been well-intentioned.


Also from P377 (aka Gobbledock)... Wink 


Now would be the perfect time for Minister McCormack and Prime Minister Morrison to exercise their duty of care and right the wrongs committed by his Government upon Mr Buckley and authorise the CASA Board to pay Mr Buckley a multi million dollar ex gratia payment.

It would benefit the Government as they could action this before the new DAS commences his/her tenure, effectively throwing Mr Carmody under the bus. And he won’t care because he has taken his many millions and retired to a life of luxury and retirement. The new DAS starts with a relatively clean plate, the Government gets rid of a perceived thorn in its side, and Glen and his family get to receive the financial compensation they rightfully deserve, as well as some dignity returned and a chance to start a new chapter in life.

To Minister McCormack;
You and your Government have, and are, spending billions of dollars to supposedly save taxpayers ongoing pain during the COVID-19 pandemic. And in normal Government style you and your Government are also pissing away billions of dollars on fighter planes, submarines, international wars and other shite funded by taxpayers. My challenge to you is for you to prove you are actually a man with a decent set of testicles and the tiniest moral compass and for you to expedite an immediate payment to Mr Buckley and to right the wrongs that this man and his family have been put through at the hands of the Federal Government.

MTF...P2  Tongue

Invective aside anyone with a reasonable knowledge of Glen Buckley’s case will share a sense of frustration and sense of extreme injustice.

For many years General Aviation (GA) personnel have directed much attention to CASA for the many ills of GA as consequence of the disastrous trajectory by the ever more dictatorial CASA. The industry wasting application of a suite of rules designed to perpetuate the CASA salary factory at the expense of GA and the Nation as a whole is in plain sight and nowhere has this out of control excess been more visible than by the bastardisation of APTA and Glen Buckley.

What is evident is that effort to correct this situation should be directed to Parliament because that is where the responsibility lies. Appeals to the Board and CEO of CASA should be made pro forma but only political action will change anything for the better. This is surely what is learned after thirty three years of a failed method of governance, that of an independent and unaccountable Commonwealth corporate body that was set up naively expecting that altruistic motivation would prevail and a better result could be expected when responsibility for all things aviation was removed from the direct democratic process via Ministerial oversight.

The hard yards are how to influence Members of Parliament. Many a time I’ve heard that emails have been sent to lower House MPs, but less often to Senators, and heard that the response was inadequate and therefore not much use to follow up. We must change and devise a continuous program individually, and collectively through our various industry associations, to engage directly and constantly.

Often I’ve heard that GA is too divided to make a strong collective case, this is a poor excuse for inaction. It is precisely the competitive nature of all things political, human nature, that we elect those that govern in our name to sort out competing interests and produce the most acceptable outcome for the Nation. On the other hand there is certainly a far more common burning desire in GA for reform. And a common realisation that we are in the same boat that is sinking. There’s never been such strong collective understanding that Parliament is the key and that means persistent, persuasive, regular and personal engagement with MPs and their staff. This is not the stuff of shouting invective, this is the hard yards.

An aside twiddle.

Well said Sandy; mission impossible in a nutshell. But definitely food for thought.

If you take your analogy right down to grass roots – say to 'your family', property and impediments there is a duty of care. Food on the table, schooling, mortgages, etc; in short the 'well being' of those for whom you have the responsibility. How many men and women – today – are doing or trying their best to do that; sacrifices made, taking on any sort of work they are capable of doing to meet their obligations? There is little that will not be attempted or done to preserve 'the family'.

Take that up in size to say town council level; every possible avenue to make the town a better place should be explored; grants, business, transport, parks, sports facilities etc. Anything to make the 'town' that council is responsible for a better place and attract business should be done. It is after all a 'sworn duty' accepted by those elected by the townsfolk. It is an acknowledged fact that 'transport' (road, rail, air and sea) is an essential element to the prosperity of the town; business, goods and people in and out. The revenue being used to develop the town into a place people want to live in – or visit.

Kick it up to a federal level – apply the same principal. Take the transport portfolio. When a minister takes on the transport job; there is a duty implied, to make 'transport' as good as it can be. With the title goes great responsibility and power. At home, in your town or even in the 'big world' when something is wrong; you, being the one 'responsible' should get on with sorting the problem out. At home the dunny won't flush – you fix it or get it fixed; in town if a road is becoming dangerous, the council get it sorted, in transport if the system is collapsing you move heaven and earth to prop it up, it is essential to the nations well being. Aye, a matter of scale in every way bar one - the 'responsibility'.

At every level, abrogation of the responsibility which comes with 'the job' diminishes those affected, on a grand scale it has provoked revolution. Aviation has some extreme problems, problems which demand immediate dedicated attention. The responsibility for 'fixing' the problem, no matter the plausible excuses rest firmly and squarely on the shoulders of the incumbent minister. Perhaps it is time someone got of his backside and actually 'did' something about a collapsing industry, one this nation needs as a tool toward prosperity. Try facing up to the clearly defined and identified problems and do the job the nation expects a minister to – take care of those he is responsible for. Simplistic? No, it ain't; strap on a 777 full of people head off to the USA – you carry all that responsibility. Get the kids to school and make sure they have lunch – responsibility. No matter how one cuts it up -

“A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.”

Toot – toot...

GlenB embuggerance update: 11/02/21

Via the 20/20 thread:

(02-10-2021, 12:16 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Additional Docs correspondence 2 cont/- (Oz Flying catching up)

Via the Yaffa:

Quote: [Image: apta_mb1.jpg]

CASA rejects Allegations of Misfeasance
9 February 2021
Comments 0 Comments

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has written to Senator Susan McDonald rejecting allegations of misfeasance on behalf of three senior managers.

Former flying school owner Glen Buckley made the allegations against then Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody, Executive Manager Legal and Regulatory Affairs Jonathon Aleck and Group Executive Manager – Aviation Graeme Crawford in a public hearing of the Senate Inquiry into the General Aviation Industry in November last year.

In a letter signed by Shane Carmody and dated 10 December last year, CASA said that Buckley's allegations were "unqualified" and reflected adversely on the integrity of the individuals named.

"CASA, and each of the individuals named, unqualifiedly reject and refute Mr Buckley's entirely unsubstantiated allegations of misfeasance," the letter says. "As said, an allegation of misfeasance is a very serious claim, which, by its nature, directly impugns the personal integrity and good faith of the individuals against whom such a egregious claim is made."

Carmody went on to say that CASA considered that Buckley "has offered absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any acts or omissions on the part of the individuals to substantiate his sweeping and indiscriminate claims."

Buckley was the owner of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA) until it was forced out of business in 2019. CASA had issued APTA with a Part 142 approval that permitted the group to add new member flying schools that would share common managment and safety systems under the one AOC.

After a change of Certificate Management Team at CASA, APTA was issued with the seven-day notice for infractions that were later shown to be incorrect statements. The seven-day notice was later amended to three months whilst CASA tried to determine if the model was legal or not. During that period, CASA stopped processing APTA requests, which plunged the company into finanical strife.

Buckley believes that CASA's actions were reverse engineered, which is to say that CASA worked out what they wanted first and worked backward to achieve the result, an accusation CASA has also denied.

"The implication of this statement is that ... CASA perverted the process of administrative law and justice in order to achieve a pre-determined inequitable outcome," CASA stated in the letter. "This is manifestly false ... and Mr Buckley has offered no evidence or information to support this contention.

"CASA unqualifiedly rejects and refutes Mr Buckley's entirely unsubstantiated statement."

CASA also moved to defend Southern Region Flight Operations Inspector Brad Lacy after Glen Buckely told the senate committee that Lacy "has a very bad reputation as being somewhat vindictive and vexatious." Lacy was a member of the team that issued the original seven-day notice.

"Whatever Mr Buckley's personal opinion might be, and certainly without intending to lend any credence whatsoever to that opinion, CASA maintains that it was manifestly unfair and incorrect to aver that Mr Lacy as a 'reputation' of the kind described in the 'Victoria-Tasmania region' or anywhere else," CASA has said.

"CASA, and Mr Lacy, unqualifiedly reject and refute Mr Buckley's false and misleading claim about Mr Lacy's integrity or his reputation."

Glen Buckley is believed to be assembling formal allegations including supporting evidence for further action against the three CASA managers, which is expected to be lodged with the senate committee in the first instance late next month or early April.

Sandy in reply to Oz Flying... Wink

Quote:Mr. Carmody’s rebuttal of Glen Buckley’s accusations is remarkable in that it contains no detail for the reversal of CASA’s policy. There is no interpretation of the legalities or, heaven help the thought, any apology for the extraordinary treatment of an upright, well reputed and qualified General Aviation (GA) person going about the business of flying training within an ever more complex and difficult CASA regulatory environment. CASA has offered not one scintilla of evidence that required it to upset the system devised by APTA. A system that was put into motion with the full knowledge of CASA.

When one compares the regulatory environment for flying training that used to pertain in Australia, in which I made a living, with the enormous paperwork and extreme fee garnering set up of today one wonders how anyone would attempt to create a new flying school.

CASA has been progressively out of control since it was relieved of any direct Ministerial or Parliamentary oversight or direction. The model of an independent Commonwealth corporate monopoly regulator has failed by any measure and no one should believe that all will be well with a change of CEO, the position otherwise known fatuously as ‘Director of Air Safety,’.

Next GlenB via the UP: Post #1510

Quote:...I draw your attention to the ABC investigative piece that was aired on the ABC. A story about a gentleman by the name of Bruce Rhoades. The program was about the breaches of administrative law, being denied natural justice and procedural fairness. I had previously spoken to Mr Rhoades before he passed away from cancer while still trying to clear his name. Like me, he lost everything. I have spoken to his family and I have their consent to mention this matter. I urge you to utilise the resources of the Ombudsman Office and obtain a copy of the ABC 7.30 program that aired regarding the conduct of the “iron ring”. The program cannot be viewed here as it has time expired, although I have attached it for your reference. Dying pilot tries to clear his name after fatal plane crash - ABC News

Please find a link to current Youtube videos that Mr. Rhoades produced prior to his death.

These same individuals have caused enormous harm to me, my family and the people around me. They also caused so much harm to Mr Rhoades and his family. Since this matter commenced over two years ago, I have received overwhelming support from industry. Whether it be the 1500 Posts and ¾ million views on PPRuNe, or the less public support, it has been exceptional.

Several business owners and pilots have approached me with allegations against those same individuals. They will be willing to come forward and present their allegations if given the opportunity.

Several senior CASA personnel that have since left the organisation have come forward. They are not on the side of either CASA or me, but they are prepared to come forward and simply tell the truth. I have their consent and I can put you in contact with them, if you feel this would assist you at arriving at your determination.

The Members of APTA are prepared to come forward and make a written submission outlining how APTA increased safety and compliance, and how unparalleled levels of operational control was maintained, and in fact, several organisations have already made those submissions to CASA.

Personally, I have been devastated by CASAs actions. At 56 years of age I have lost my home, my two businesses, my life savings, my reputation, and my health. My family has been traumatised, and as we are imminently to be declared bankrupt, one must really question whether CASAs actions were reasonable in the circumstances when this all could have been avoided by a well-intentioned discussion that could have had this entire fiasco avoided had CASA acted in a well-intentioned manner, and in accordance with their own procedures

I hope that this additional material is of some benefit in bringing more transparency to the matter. I will forward through two additional submissions, as stated earlier.


Glen Buckley

MTF...P2  Tongue

Hypocrisy, writ large.

Hitch - "Whatever Mr Buckley's personal opinion might be, and certainly without intending to lend any credence whatsoever to that opinion, CASA maintains that it was manifestly unfair and incorrect to aver that Mr Lacy as a 'reputation' of the kind described in the 'Victoria-Tasmania region' or anywhere else," CASA has said.

I had three options available when I read the CASA statement above; laugh, howl or throw something. I settled for a quiet chuckle and a head shake. For sheer breathtaking audacity this statement from the masters of reputation destruction takes the cake. Anecdotes aside; rock solid evidence of the persecution of individuals can and has been presented, through several avenues – all came to nought. Whispers, direct intervention, email, telephone and personal visits to prospective employers have all been used in some vicious, vindictive campaigns to prevent a selected individual being considered for a position. There is even sworn evidence of 'check flights' being made into 'chop-flights' at CASA behest etc. The art of embuggerance is but one of the CASA bag of dirty tricks.

Buckley was 'untenable' – consider the implications of that statement. Not even a whispering campaign there; a bare faced threat to his employer, in writing. Who now dare offer Buckley a flying job? You know the answer.

Toot – toot.

GlenB embuggerance update: 17/02/21

[Image: glen_buckley_senate-inquiry_20nov20.jpg]

Via AP email chain: 

Formal submission of an allegation of misfeasance submitted to Mr. Anthony Mathews, Chair of the Board of CASA

Copied in: Senator Susan McDonald, Chair of the Senate RRAT Committee.

Attachment: Phase One of Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Report.
                     Australian Flying Magazine- APTA before CASA action
                     Australian Flying magazine- APTA after CASA action
                     Further information on misfeasance Legal briefing No. 98 | AGS
14th February 2021,

Dear Mr. Anthony Mathews, Chair of the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
Dear Senator Susan McDonald and RRAT Committee. (for the attention of the Deputy PM if you deem it appropriate),
My name is Glen Buckley and I am writing to each Member of the Board of CASA, and the Senate RRAT Committee of Inquiry.

Employees of CASA, like all Government employees, occupy positions of trust. They are entrusted by the Government and the community to undertake important aviation safety work on the community’s behalf. With this trust comes a high level of responsibility which should be matched by the highest standards of ethical behavior from every employee of CASA.

These obligations placed on every employee of CASA by way of administrative law, criminal law and legislation, and CASAs own procedures are intended to provide the public and industry with confidence in the way CASA employees behave, including in the exercise of authority when meeting the responsible Ministers objectives. Strict adherence to these obligations will ensure CASA has a safe, well-intentioned, and effective organizational culture, and ensure that its employees act lawfully, which will optimize aviation safety.

The obligations placed on every CASA employee are found across several documents but not limited to the following.
·       CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy,
·       the APS Values, that CASA undertakes to comply with.
·       the APS Code of Conduct, that CASA undertook to comply with. Refer Note below.
·       the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. This in particular is one area where a direct link exists between specific legislative obligations and the Code. The PGPA Act provides, through the duties of officials, a set of expected behaviors necessary for high standards of governance, performance, and accountability,
·       CASAs Enforcement Procedures Manual, and CASAs own Enforcement Policy
·       Administrative Law, Natural Justice Procedural Fairness and the Rule of Law
Note regarding CASA Employees and their obligations to the APS Code of Conduct.
·        In November 2013, the Deputy Prime Minister at the time announced an independent review of aviation safety regulation.
·        One of the recommendations of that Review was that “CASA adopts the Code of Conduct and values that apply to the Australian Public Service”.
·        CASA agreed to this in principle and advised; “The Governments new Statement of Expectations to the CASA Board will reaffirm the requirement that CASA Staff adhere to a Code of Conduct and set of values consistent with those that apply to the APS.”
·        In the Implementation Report dated 31st July 2017, CASA advised that this matter was “Completed: The latest update to the SOE issued to the CASA Board in March 2017 continues to require CASA to have a code of conduct and values consistent with those of the Australian Public Service. CASAs Code of Conduct was amended in late 2014 and aligns with the APS Code of Conduct and Values.”

The purpose of this correspondence is to formally submit allegations of Misfeasance in Public Office in support of my presentation to the Senate Estimates Committee on November 20th, 2020. A link to that presentation can be accessed here on AOPAs website Senate RRAT General Aviation Inquiry Commences – AOPA Australia

Justice Deane in the High Court determined that misfeasance in public office requires an intentional but 'invalid or unauthorized act' to be committed 'by a public officer in the purported discharge' of their public duties which causes loss to a person. It requires that the person committing the act did so deliberately. In making this formal allegation I understand that the following criteria are essential in making that allegation. I am fully satisfied that the criteria have been met.
  • the defendant must be the holder of a public office.
  • the defendant must have purportedly exercised a power that was an incident of that office.
  • the defendant's exercise of power must have been invalid/unlawful.
  • the exercise of power must have been accompanied by one or other of the following forms of 'bad faith':
    • the defendant must have exercised the power knowing that he or she was acting in excess of power AND with the intention to cause harm to the plaintiff (sometimes referred to as targeted malice)
    • the defendant must have been recklessly indifferent to whether the act was beyond power AND recklessly indifferent to the likelihood of harm being caused to the plaintiff
    • the defendant must have acted with reckless indifference to whether the act was beyond power AND there must have been, objectively, foreseeable risk of harm to the plaintiff. This third form of bad faith is very controversial.
    • the exercise of power must have been productive of loss.
At the time of my presentation to Senate Estimates, I made allegations against 3 CASA employees. Mr. Carmody, Mr. Crawford, and Mr. Aleck. I note that Mr. Carmody is no longer an employee of CASA.

I do however fully stand behind, and formalize my allegations made in Senate Estimates against current CASA Employees.

·       Mr Graeme Crawford the current Acting CEO of CASA and previous Executive Manager of the Aviation Group.
·       Mr. Jonathan Aleck the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs.

After a review of my information and careful consideration, I am also including Mr. Craig Martin the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance in my allegations of misfeasance in public office.

I am fully satisfied that these three individuals worked complicity and collaboratively.

·       They have made considered decisions and taken considered actions that cannot be justified on the basis of safety or any regulatory breaches. The detriment caused by those actions and decisions has occurred. The conduct was unlawful, and that is supported by Stage One of the Ombudsman Report.
 ·       The actions and decisions of these CASA employees have caused harm to me and my family. It has caused mine and other businesses to close, and employees to lose their livelihoods. The detriment caused is significant and extends to many millions of dollars. These actions and decisions were deliberate and calculated, and the CASA employees were fully aware of the commercial and reputational impact that would, and did result.
 ·       Together they have made decisions that demonstrably reduce aviation safety. Each of the entities that were removed from APTA now has access to a significantly less resourced safety department, they have lost access to group expertise, and the sharing of group information to draw on a larger data pool and enhance safety outcomes. I am able to prepare a comprehensive safety case supporting my contentions. I note that CASA has been unable to provide any supporting safety case for their actions, which would normally have been part of their preparatory work.
 ·       They have breached Administrative Law obligations specified in CASA Enforcement manual particularly with regards to procedures for canceling, suspending, or varying an Air Operator Certificate (AOC) that can be found in CASAs Enforcement Manual. It is most likely that CASA will try and justify their actions by claiming that it was not a cancellation, variation, or suspension of an AOC. To all intents and purposes, it clearly was. Enforcement manual | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (
 ·       The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s report has found that CASA erred, and that detriment could have been caused. From my own personal experience, there can be no doubt that significant detriment has occurred.
·       Have provided false or misleading information, and willfully failed to disclose relevant information to the Ombudsman during his investigation, which was intended to affect the findings of the Ombudsman, Similarly information provided to the Senate Estimates Committee was “misleading”.
·       Failure to act with honesty and integrity, and with a callous disregard for the impact of their actions on my wellbeing, and that of my family, and other persons impacted by the conduct of these personnel. Their actions and decisions were not necessary, they were not compelled to make those decisions. Their conduct has been bullying and intimidating in nature.
 ·       Choosing not to follow clearly established CASA procedures.
 ·       When presented with options, those CASA personnel would choose the option that was more likely to cause harm to me and my business, when a less harmful option and the arguably more effective and safer option was available.

I request that CASA, or preferably the Deputy Prime Minister appoint someone who is independent and unbiased to conduct an investigation into the alleged misconduct of the named Employees. The purpose of that investigation would be to ascertain the lawfulness of the actions and decisions made by these individuals, and the "intent".


Also via Oz Flying:

Buckley calls for Investigation into Misfeasance Claims
16 February 2021
Comments 0 Comments

Former Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA) CEO Glen Buckley has formalised his allegations of misfeasance against CASA managers and in the process called for an independent investigation into his claims.

Buckley leveled the accusations in his testimony to the senate inquiry into the general aviation industry in November, allegations which CASA later rejected stating that Buckley had presented no evidence.

In a letter sent to CASA Chair Tony Mathews and copied to Senator Susan McDonald on Monday, Buckley added detail to his claims before raising the idea of an independent investigation.

"When presented with options, those CASA personnel would choose the option that was more likely to cause harm to me and my business, when a less harmful option and the arguably more effective and safer option was available," Buckley declares in the letter.

"The actions and decisions of these CASA employees has caused harm to me and my family. It has caused mine and other businesses to close, and employees to lose their livelihoods. The detriment caused is significant and extends to many millions of dollars. These actions and decisions were deliberate and calculated, and the CASA employees were fully aware of the commercial and reputational impact that would, and did, result.

"Together they have made decisions that demonstrably reduce aviation safety. Each of the entities that were removed from APTA now have access to a significantly less resourced safety department, they have lost access to group expertise, and the sharing of group information to draw on a larger data pool and enhance safety outcomes.

"I am able to prepare a comprehensive safety case supporting my contentions. I note that CASA has been unable to provide any supporting safety case for their actions, which would normally have been part of their preparatory work."

Phase One of an ombudsman's inquiry released in August 2020 concluded that CASA had dealt with APTA in a way that had the potential to cause detriment. Phase Two, which is still in process, deals with CASA's informing Buckley's new employer that his role was "untenable" due to comments Buckley was making publicly.

Despite the ongoing ombudsman investigation, Buckley believes that another investigation into his misfeasance claims is needed.

"I request that CASA, or preferably the Deputy Prime Minister, appoint someone who is independent and unbiased to conduct an investigation into the alleged misconduct of the named employees. The purpose of that investigation would be to ascertain the lawfulness of the actions and decisions made by these individuals, and the intent."

Originally, the three named were CASA Director of Aviation Safety and CEO Shane Carmody, Executive Manager of the Aviation Group Graeme Crawford and Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs Jonathan Aleck.

With Carmody no longer at CASA, Buckley appears to have dropped the allegations against him, but maintained accusations against Crawford and Aleck, and raising new misfeasance claims against Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance Craig Martin.

"Rather than seeking to punish any employee, I believe an investigation will provide the individuals I raise allegations against with the opportunity to defend their conduct and this process will protect the integrity of CASA and maintain public and industry confidence in the reputation of CASA," Buckley said. "As Australia’s aviation safety regulator, this must be an important consideration.

"My hope is that an investigation would proceed with as little formality and as much expedition as proper consideration of this matter allows. This matter has continued for over two years, and it is time now to bring both transparency and resolution to the process.

"I’m sure that the CASA Board will also appreciate the opportunity to bring good governance to the matter in as short a timeline as practical.

"By making these substantive allegations, it may have an adverse effect on the nominated employees’ ability to carry out their duties, and on the workplace in general. I appreciate that the CASA Board, and Mr Anthony Mathews in his role as the Chair of the Board, in consultation with the Deputy Prime Minister, will have to consider whether it is appropriate to stand these personnel aside on full pay pending an investigation, which I believe appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances."

Graeme Crawford is currently the Acting Director of Aviation Safety and CEO whilst the CASA board searches for a replacement for Shane Carmody.

CASA has been contacted for comment.

MTF...P2  Tongue

Perhaps, just maybe:-

It is time the industry, across the board, let 'the government' have (so to speak) both barrels; fair and square.

'Industry' has for decades now been 'dancing – around- the Daisy's'. In short not game to speak up and tell, in no uncertain terms' just how bloody bad CASA have become. If every case like Buckley's was aired in the same manner; openly, honestly without fear of repercussions – in short – the bloody truth. IMO not only would the PM be forced to act, quickly and responsibly  his department would be incensed enough to light a rocket and aim it at the black heart of this 'out of control' agency which is, and has been for a while taking the Mickey Bliss out of the not only whatever lame duck minister sits his arse in the seat (acceptable) but the long suffering public.

For too long has industry 'gone along – to get along with the puerile rubbish CASA call 'governance'.It is not. Please look at the 'data' – a declining industry and an increased budget. Don't make sense do it?. GA industry with barely a 'safe' aerodrome to land on; diminished returns, etc. And yet the CASA budget has increased exponentially, despite a vastly diminished industry to foot this bill.

Please, someone tell me how that is logical – 'cos I'm beggared if I can see how the maths stand up.

Speak out, tell it like it is – enough of weasel words and subtle hints. It may well not dent the polish on the CASA chrome mudguards; but at least the blame may be sheeted home to where it belongs. Where's that you ask – with you; that's where. For it is industry which allowed the chimera to control business, jobs and a declining global reputation. Do not believe that Australia is held in 'high regard' – it ain't.

Buckley is but the tip of an incredibly ugly, venal, vexatious con game. You, dear reader were safer 20 years ago when 'operators' ran their own risk matrix; than you are now. Mostly because we taught pilots to 'fly' – not comply and pass exams. It is game of shadows – the looser? This poor nation, which is becoming aviation poorer by the day. Want to go flying? The fight the latest DFO for a parking spot, before you can even find a righteous flight school, let alone gain entry.

The current situation is untenable; You know it CASA know it; the government know it; all they need is a little right rudder to get 'em back on track; so push the bloody pedal.

Phew! - Thirsty now; perhaps a pint now would slake a thirst – but will it quell the anger? I think not.

[Image: offices-meetings-businesses-mocking-deri...30_low.jpg]

GlenB embuggerance update: 20/02/21

Via the AP email chains:


Correspondence to Ombudsman regarding the forced closure of Melbourne Flight Training, my business of 13 years. Submission three of four.

Dear Mark, Complaints Resolution Officer, Commonwealth Ombudsman Office,

Thank you for the offer of a telephone call to further discuss this matter, and I am confirming that I would like to accept the offer. Could you please advise some options that would be suitable for you?

Relevant Information

Attachment: “Employees and Direct Operational Control” This contains approximately a number of emails on the topic with a short summary below.

· Email 30/06/2019- My response to Mr. Martins email of 20/06/19 where he directed that “for the avoidance of doubt, this would allow flight training to be conducted by APTA employees only- not employees for affiliates.” I believe that this was an unlawful direction, and my perspective is supported by the Ombudsman Office. CASA seemed to determine to tie responsibility for pilots to where they derived their salary. This was clearly not accepted industry practice and would demonstrably reduce safety. My perspective was that I was responsible for all pilots, irrespective of where they derived their income, as was accepted industry practice, and continues to be. In this correspondence, I also call on CASA to define “employee” and draw on existing CASA definitions that support my perspective i.e., responsible for all pilots irrespective of where they derive their income.

· Email 16/08/19- My direct appeal to Mr. Crawford (current Acting CEO of CASA) to provide a definition of “direct operational control”. Mr. Martin copied in.

· Email 21/08/19- Email requesting Mr. Martin to acknowledge receipt of my email 16/08/19 and a further email, requesting CASA to meet with me and the Pilots Union to determine an acceptable definition of employee and direct operational control. My hope was that such a meeting could be mutually beneficial.

· Email 22/08/19- A further request to my previous emails requesting a definition of direct operational control, and confirmation that I have complied with CASAs direction that I had to transfer all MFT staff, MFT resources, and financial control to the new owners of APTA, effectively giving away my business of 13 years that had a multimillion-dollar value for absolutely nothing.

· Email 16/09/19- This is a follow-up email to my previous and still unanswered email of one month earlier.

· Email 25/09/19- Email to Mr Martin and Mr Mcheyzer (since left CASA) calling on them to define operational control. I am now in significant financial distress and am seeking an explanation from CASA

· Email 26/09/19- Email from Craig Martin that still provides no definition of Direct operational control. This email does also make some statements that I am obviously aware of a CASA Approved Head of Operations, CASA-approved CEO, an RTO Principal Executive Officer, and a business owner of 13 years, who has been a pilot for 25 years. Importantly this correspondence makes an incorrect statement, Mr. Martin writes “In October 2018, CASA advised that it would finally assess the matter on the basis of the information available on July 1st, 2019. That wording could perhaps lead the reader to believe that CASA gave me 9 months to resolve this matter. Recall that in fact, CASA gave me only 7 days surety of operations. A number of short-term interim approvals to operate were issued, over the 8 months but the restrictions on the business's ability to trade remained. With me, and my parent's funds exhausted, including the sale of the family home, APTA was by now sold as of June 30th (the day earlier)

· Email 10th October 2019 Further request for a definition of direct operational control.

· Email 20th November 2019 a further email to Craig Martin seeking a definition of Direct operational control. Legal issues are now developing with suppliers and staff who have been affected, and I am desperate to get an explanation for upcoming court appearances as a result of MFT being closed down by CASA.

Link to Prune: A chat forum on my matter that has over 1500 comments, and ¾ million visits; Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums

Executive Summary

As you are aware, there are three separate and distinct issues.

Issue 1. CASA closing down APTA without any prior notice by placing restrictions on its ability to trade that deprived it of revenue, and that the CASA personnel involved would have been fully aware that those restrictions would lead to the business's closure. As you are aware, I am firmly of the belief that had no basis in law, and that is clearly supported by the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Report, where he identified that CASA had no basis in law and that CASAs actions had the potential to cause detriment, which I clearly contend that it has. This was a complete reversal of my business overnight, which had been designed with CASA over a two-year period, approved, audited, and recommended by CASA. I have attended to this in my second submission. I have contacted the Chair of the Board of CASA, Mr. Anthony Mathews, but he has advised CASA will not interact with me until the Ombudsman Report is finalized.

Issue 2. The CASA direction that my flying school of was an “unauthorized operation. The business that had been trading for 13 years was closed by the actions and decisions of some CASA personnel., and the subject of this correspondence. Of all the action that CASA took against me and my businesses, I feel this is the most inexplicable, and arguably caused the most damage.

Issue 3. The direction that the CASA Region Manager sent to my Employer that my continuing employment was “not tenable.” The impact of that on my reputation and my ability to remain in the aviation industry. I am firmly of the opinion that this direction had no basis in law. It certainly had no basis in safety. It had a significant impact on me financially, reputationally, and on my wellbeing, and obviously that of my family. I have attended to this matter in my first submission.

I have now made a submission against issue 1 and Issue 3.

In this correspondence I am referring specifically to Issue 2, being the closure of my established business, Melbourne Flight Training by the actions and decisions of a limited number of CASA personnel.

To clarify the chronological order, this was the second stage, and occurred just prior to CASAs direction to my Employer that my continuing employment was not tenable, but after the forced sale of APTA at nominal value due to restrictions on its ability to trade. i.e. no surety of operations from July 1st 2019.

This correspondence is my third submission, with the fourth and final submission to follow, that being the impact of CASAs action on my staff, my students, my suppliers, the flying schools, other businesses, and me and my family. In my opinion that final submission is significant. I am alleging that CASA personnel, made deliberate and considered actions and decisions, they were fully aware of the commercial implications on mine and other businesses. This applies to their conduct from the date of sending that initial correspondence on 23rd October 2018, through until the loss of the business 8 months later. Throughout the 8 months, I made repeated please to CASA to resolve this matter due to the commercial impact.

To the purpose of this current correspondence, which requires an appreciation of the following underpinning knowledge.

· The initial notification from CASA of 23rd October 2018 had a paragraph titled “unauthorized operations”. (that document is attached)

· It listed 5 companies that were allegedly conducting “unauthorized operations”.

· One of those 5 companies listed was Melbourne Flight Training (MFT)

· MFT was my own flying school that I had been operating for the previous 13 years.

My question on this topic. How could Melbourne Flight Training possibly overnight become an “unauthorised operation”, when it was operating EXACTLY the same way, and with the same structure that it had for the previous 13 years? This was incomprehensible. It made absolutely no sense at all. How could my own flying school that had delivered industry-leading levels of safety and compliance, with absolutely no allegations against it at all by CASA, suddenly become an unauthorised operation, and advised that it was to be shutdown. All of this with only 7 days’ notice. This was truly incomprehensible. On that basis, CASA should have written to every flying school in Australia. It was truly absurd. I have made multiple requests to CASA to have this clarified, all have been ignored. My hope is that the Ombudsman’s Office is able to obtain an explanation from CASA, if indeed there is one, and determine if CASA conduct seemed lawful and reasonable in the circumstances.

The initial impact of the CASA action

As you can imagine, the notification that my own school MFT, where my family derived their livelihood was now threatened with cessation of operations in 7 days, and that CASA was likely taking enforcement action came as a shock and was totally unexpected. I could not understand why I was being targeted, and not every other school in Australia. This was extremely traumatic, and more so because CASA was in the process of shutting down APTA, a CASA-approved structure that many businesses depended on for their continued operations.

There were no aircraft accidents or incidents at all. There were no regulatory breaches. I knew this school backward, after all, I had set it up over a decade prior. For some inexplicable reason, my business had become an unauthorized operation as deemed by CASA overnight and with no prior warning.

The impact of that initial action on MFT was commercially fatal.

My flying school was immediately unable to enroll new students. It was unable to conduct any marketing. The existing staff immediately become concerned about ongoing employment, I was unable to recruit new talent to the organisation, ongoing contractual obligations to suppliers are in doubt, obligations to financial institutions become difficult to meet with revenue streams restricted. Its reputation was decimated as word spread that CASA was shutting down MFT. Potential customers assume that CASA is closing down the business on safety concerns when that is clearly not the case.

The business was instantly and immediately crippled. The costs remained i.e., rents, leases, contracts, salaries, insurance, etc but revenue was halted. This determination that MFT was an unauthorised operation was inexplicable, but the damage was very real.

Further Information

It's important to understand the difference between APTA and MFT. Whilst APTA was the CASA approved system that was authorised by CASA 18 months prior, my “business” where my family derived their livelihood was in fact Melbourne Flight Training, the flying school that I had established 13 years earlier with my closest friend and had been my source of income throughout that time. APTA was the overriding system to ensure my flying school and initially, nine others could continue operations in the more burdensome Part 141/142 legislative environment that was only just introduced.

This matter was never resolved with CASA. MFT operated as best it could over the 8 months, as an unauthorised operation, and once I had sold APTA under duress, CASA directed their attention to my remaining business, my flying school MFT. In a previously undefined CASA term, the CASA Region Manager (who had no experience in the flight training sector of the industry) directed that in order for CASA to be assured of Direct Operational Control, I had to transfer my staff, students, resources, and financial control of the business MFT to the new owners of APTA, or MFT would have to cease operations.

I complied with CASAs request. By now, I was financially and emotionally drained after 8 months of trying to bring common sense and good intent to the process. I was not in a good place so to speak and resigned myself to the loss of the business. Any peace of mind came from the fact that the new owners of APTA would keep me on as an employee. At this stage, I did not know that only weeks later, CASA would send a direction to my new Employer that my continuing employment was untenable. But I have covered that in my first submission.

Ongoing Impact of CASA Action

After I complied with the CASA direction to transfer my school MFT to the new owners of APTA. When CASA made the direction that I had to transfer all my staff, students, and full financial control to the new owners of APTA. This direction had no basis in law. As you can imagine, as soon as I transferred my staff, students, and full financial control to the new owners of APTA, I was left with nothing. I no longer had any way to derive my livelihood. A Business

This created a number of difficulties for me. The first priority was that I had to minimise the impact on staff. If I was to transfer all of my staff as CASA required, what happens to their accrued annual leave, long service leave etc. I was being forced to transfer my staff to another Company. The attached correspondence shows my attempts to resolve this matter. I was effectively being forced to terminate my staff.

Many students elected to continue on their training with other providers, but their training was significantly impacted by the closure of APTA.

I have a number of impending court cases as a result of this. My business was forced into closure by CASA, but many contractual obligations remain for printers, telecommunications, internet etc. I have been left with no way to meet these contractual obligations, and it highly likely that I will be declared bankrupt. You will recall that CASA sent the direction to my Employer that my continuing employment was no longer tenable.

The loss of MFT had a significant impact on me, as it was more than just a business to derive my livelihood, it was far far more to me than that, although I will attend to that in my next correspondence.

For clarity on this matter, I do not believe that CASA had any basis at all to direct me to advise that MFT was an unauthorised operation or to direct me to transfer my staff, students and resources to another entity. The impact on me has been significant, and as you can imagine impacted the future security of me and my family.

Thank you for considering this matter, and I look forward to the opportunity to chat on the phone.

Cheers. Glen Buckley

Plus via the UP:

Quote:Lead Balloon


Quote:Originally Posted by Sunfish [Image: viewpost.gif]
Glen, if this is a true statement of affairs, then it is utter crap on CASA's part. ..

Here is the key passage from correspondence from CASA to Glen:

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

I note, as I noted earlier, that, remarkably, not a single legislative provision is cited to support that assertion. It is, in effect, merely an assertion about the 'vibe' of Parts 141 and 142.

It is regulation conjured in the mind of a complicator.

As you've noted, vast amounts of important, complex activity are carried out in the real world through subcontractors and the employees of subcontractors, none of whom are in any respect the agents of the prime contractor.

Glen added a clause to the contracts with APTA members, to make clear that APTA had regulatory aviation safety responsibility for their activities. CASA then demanded:


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

That was, as a matter of practicality, the death knell for the APTA model.

Next Sunfish nails it -  Wink


(Cross posted)

Quick question. I understand CASA is looking to recruit and appoint a new DAS/CEO...

I assume anyone contemplating accepting such an appointment would do due diligence.

What person would take the job with this steaming turd of the Glen Buckley/APTA case hanging overhead?

I would want it resolved before I took the job because otherwise it would fall to me to resolve it which is likely going to require a public apology by CASA, the payment to Mr. Buckley of a very large sum and a full blown strategic review and restructuring of CASA itself.

And LB's reply:

Quote:The sort of person who will be able to say, with a straight face, that what was done to Glen was necessary in the interests of the safety of air navigation. Might even believe it (which would be scary).

MTF...P2  Tongue

Let’s hope this saga plays out in Glen Buckley’s favour because any reasonable judgement will assuredly come down heavily in his favour and against the runaway craven behaviour of a bureaucracy that exhibits tendencies that might be described as psychopathic.

“Might be” in that, by definition, psychopathic means undiagnosed mental deficiency and it could well be argued that many, if not most us, would have diagnosed the problems of CASA leadership as stemming from hubris and the unbridled desire for the degree of control of every system of State for all matters Aviation that justifies, ensures and maximises their salaries and marvellous working conditions.

As a classic example of the deliberately intransigent, not to say brazen ‘up you Minister’ attitude and the message to any who dare suggest any improvements should be implemented, the following quote should leave no one in doubt of the colossal affront embedded in Aviation Hearse (House).

“CASA agreed to this in principle and advised; “The Governments new Statement of Expectations to the CASA Board will reaffirm the requirement that CASA Staff adhere to a Code of Conduct and set of values consistent with those that apply to the APS.”

Nota bene; “in principle” and “a code of conduct” not ‘yes we will abide by the normal Public Service code as recommended.’

Of course the next “Statement of Expectations” written by CASA will naturally conform to a big fat zero intention to change anything that might upset this salary factory’s smoothly advancing dollar increases, COVID notwithstanding. Our Minister McDonaught looks the other way hoping and hoping his next show at the Wagga Elvis Look-Alike pantomime will put all real problems of governance into the background.

GlenB embuggerance update: 25/02/21

[Image: srp-ph.jpg]

Via the UP... Wink


According to CASAs 2019/20 annual report, CASA has an Aviation Safety Committee (ASC), and that Committee is responsible for the "governance of aviation regulatory and safety risk". This sounds like a high-powered committee overseeing the "governance" of these matters. I have no doubt that the Closure of APTA would have been a topic at one of these meetings. Therefore I have sent a Freedom Of Information (FOI) request.

Provided that the public is entitled to know the membership of that committee, I look forward to being advised of the membership. I am quite confident that the names Aleck, Crawford and Martin will appear on that Committee, and may be the only members. Time will tell. I suspect CASA will have a reason not to advise the public of the Committee Membership.

"24/02/21 Please accept a Freedom of Information Request from Glen Buckley.

In this correspondence, I am making a request about CASAs Aviation Safety Committee (ASC), referenced in CASAs 2019/20 Annual report, with an excerpt below. Please note my bolding.

Under Freedom of Information can you please advise

1. The membership of the ASC.
2. Can I request the minutes of the meeting or any associated documentation from the meeting that APTA was discussed at. My assumption is that my matter would have been considered at the ASC level, and there would be correspondence reflecting that.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley
In the CASA 2019/20 Annual Report the following comments are made.On track

CASA’s Aviation Safety Committee (ASC) continually reviewed data from a variety of sources to inform its decision-making[b] [/b]and approach to surveillance and proposed policy development. Aviation safety data and trends were presented and discussed at ASC and CASA Board meetings.

The ASC produced 11 sector safety risk profiles, which are in various stages of completion in accordance with the Sector Safety Risk Profile Program. The program further informs surveillance planning through the National Surveillance Selection Plan. The governance of aviation regulatory and safety risk is managed by the ASC. The ASC met 11 times during the reporting period. The ASC reviews civil aviation safety incidents and accidents and surveillance findings which can lead to the revision of the sector safety risk profiles and/or the launch of sector-specific education activities.

[Image: 2018_0109c_.jpg]

MUCH..MUCH..MTF!!?? -  Cool

An opening gambit at endgame?.

“Chess Gambit is an opening where one side sacrifices material, hoping to achieve an advantageous resulting position. In most cases, in exchange for the material that side gets better development, weakens the opponent’s king, or opens some lines for an attack”.

PCX - “I'm wondering if it would be possible to subpoena some one from CASA to appear in one of your upcoming court cases to assist the court in understanding how this whole situation came about”.

I'm wondering why this move was left until one day before the scheduled hearing. Considering the requirements imposed on subpoena and the serving of same. 'Please explain' is a central issue to all of Buckley's woes; in a court, with jurisprudence on deck. With good legal counsel and a carefully prepared brief; it should be possible – in theory at least, to get to the radical cause. Or at least provide some sort argument for counsel to examine. I am curious as to why this was not done 'in the beginning' or at least, as a strategy, allowing the least possible time for CASA to prepare a case which could withstand clinical examination – in court. In the AAAT CASA get away with blue murder; but in court, things are different, particularly with a lawyer/barrister who understands the 'guts' of the case. 

Let's hope Glen can now run fast enough now to catch the bus which he should have been on, early. Just my two bob's worth......

Toot – toot.

GlenB embuggerance update: 4/03/21

Via the UP:

Quote:A petition

Great to see a few of the old posters back, and a couple of new ones. The support on PPRuNe has been overwhelming. I will endeavor to get a couple of posts up here over the coming days.

One of those is a response from Mr. Mathews the Chair of the CASA Board. It's quite frustrating how CASA consistently say that I have not produced any evidence, yet it is CASA that denies me the opportunity to present the evidence. Therefore I will call for an investigation. It would be a brief and relatively straightforward matter provided it is an oral presentation, with CASA participating. It would take no more than one day for CASA and I to present the matter, with another day for questions and deliberation. At the end of the second day, there would be a very clear indication for the requirement or not, of a full investigation into the contact of these three CASA employees.

You will recall that over two years ago as this matter began to unfold, I kept quiet and tried to resolve it with CASA for 6 months before I went Public. You may recall that for 6 months I also wrote to the Board of CASA on multiple occasions seeking the opportunity to meet with any two members of the Board (to maintain integrity) and present my evidence. Those requests were consistently ignored, only exacerbating the commercial and emotional damage being caused.

You may recall that after 6 months of repeated requests, Mr. Anthony Mathews the Chair of the Board of CASA eventually facilitated a meeting. Not with two members of the CASA Board, as I had requested, but himself and the CASA Region Manager. That same individual only weeks later sent an email to my Employer that my employment was no longer tenable.

The fact is that both CASA and I want the same thing. The opportunity to present our stories in full. Submitting documents and playing email ping pong is unnecessarily complicated and highly ineffective. A face-to-face oral presentation will rapidly finalize this matter.

To those of you that have suggested the Go Fund Me again. Thankyou.

The existing fund has ample remaining funds to meet its intended purpose which was to build an investment prospectus. The next call will be for an investment opportunity and not a donation. Provided that "prospectus" put together by the large law firm indicates a high likelihood of success, the legal firm can arrange litigation funding at about 1/3 of the "win". My first option will be to go out to the industry and seek a group of investors seeking a potential return slightly lower than what the law firm is able to offer.

Thanks agin everyone, and copied below is a letter to my Local Member Ms Gladys Liu

"To the Honourable Ms. Gladys Liu, Member for the Electorate of Chisholm

My name is Glen Buckley, a 55 year resident of this electorate.

On 20th November 2020, I raised formal allegations of misfeasance in Public Office against three CASA employees, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Aleck. The link to that presentation can be found here

I intend to raise a petition and present it to the Deputy Prime Minister via your office, calling for an independent investigation into the conduct of these personnel. This will also allow me the opportunity to present my supporting evidence. That investigation would only require two days and would need to be conducted by an appropriate individual with expert knowledge of the flight training industry. A suitable individual could be selected from the CASA shortlist of applicants for the recently filled position of CASA CEO.

My intention would be to submit that to your Office once it has 20,000 signatures on it.

Can I respectfully request that your Office provide me any guidance on the best way to present a petition of this nature and the associated requirements.

As this is also a matter of aviation safety, my intention is to commence this as soon as practical.

The matter can be accessed in detail via the following link which today will reach 3/4 million views on this subject. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums

Respectfully, Glen Buckley 0418772013


Quote:Response from the CASA Board

In Post #1556 above i sent a letter to the CASA Board. Not surprisingly, their response follows

Dear Mr Buckley

I refer to your email of 24 February 2021 addressed to the Chair of the CASA Board, Mr Tony Mathews, and to other members of the CASA Board. The Chair has asked me to respond on behalf of him and the other CASA Board members.

In keeping with the advice that has been provided previously in response to your requests of the Board, unless and until you have credible new and relevant evidence and information to offer in respect of your concerns, the Board is not inclined to consider the unsubstantiated allegations you have repeatedly made against CASA and certain individual CASA officials. Neither is the Board inclined to respond to questions clearly premised on the purported validity of claims and assertions of the same nature, regardless of the reasons for which you say you require such responses.

If, in the context of any legal proceedings in which you may be involved, there is a legitimate basis on which information might properly be sought and obtained from the CASA Board, there will be processes and procedures in accordance with which the provision of such information might be required. In this instance, as in any other, should a request or demand for the provision of certain information from CASA (or the CASA Board) be made formally, under the auspices of a judicial authority or as may otherwise be authorised by law, such a request or demand, duly served on CASA, would naturally be considered and dealt with accordingly.

In the meantime, the Board is satisfied that, insofar as CASA’s dealings with you have been concerned, and to the extent the principles of the Regulatory Philosophy have been germane to particular aspects of those dealings, CASA’s actions have been consistent with its commitments under the Regulatory Philosophy, including principle 6. On that basis, the Board is satisfied that, in substance, variants of the six (6) questions raised in your email of 24 February 2021 have previously been considered and effectively addressed by CASA on many occasions.

Responses were provided to your various related and repetitive questions on behalf of the Board previously. CASA’s Industry Complaints Commissioner also addressed your related concerns on occasions.

In addition to the advice offered to you by CASA’s Industry Complaints Commissioner, beyond this, CASA provided responsive information and advice to you on at least eight (8) occasions:
  • 23 October 2018

  • 21 December 2018

  • 25 January 2019

  • 12 February 2019

  • 20 March 2019

  • 24 March 2019

  • 2 April 2019 and

  • 21 May 2019.
This chronology is illustrative, but by no means exhaustive, of CASA’s repeated efforts to convey to you precisely how and why CASA was not satisfied that your organisation was operating, or contemplated operating, in a manner consistent with the fundamental operational control requirements specified in the legislation for flying training activities under CASR Parts 141 and 142.

Challenging though the effective implementation of an alliance model of the kind you seem to have envisaged might be, recognition of the feasibility of such arrangements was implicit in CASA’s ongoing efforts to advise, guide and assist you to rectify the shortcomings and deficiencies in your attempt to execute your plan.

On this basis, the Board believes the concerns reflected in your questions have been fully and fairly addressed.

Yours sincerely

Colin McLachlan

Colin McLachlanBoard Secretary

Civil Aviation Safety Authority|16 Furzer Street, Philip ACT 2606

GPO Box 2005, Canberra ACT 2601
p (02) 6217 1318 | m0478 302 047 *

And in reply and with sound advice from Lead Balloon & Seabreeze... Wink

Quote:Lead Balloon

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

CASA's position

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

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

APTA's position

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

The practical problem

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

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

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


I think I have written this before.

Glen, CASA does not need to respond to you because their do nothing option leaves matters in limbo forever. They do not need to negotiate.

You will need to instigate legal action to recover lost funds. Only when a court date is set might you be able to negotiate an outcome. Even then they will estimate how little might buy you off and make absurd offers. You must be firm and ready to outlay for a court case, then an appeal etc. See for example the battle Peter Ridd (an individual) is having with James Cook University (large organisation with deep pockets). That one is going to the High Court.

Good luck fighting city hall.

MTF...P2  Tongue

GlenB embuggerance update: 16/03/21 

Via the UP and AP email chains:

11th March 2021.

To the Chair of the Senate RRAT Committee, Senator Susan McDonald, and Members of the RRAT Committee.

My name is Glen Buckley, the past owner of a business that was shut down by CASA. I had the opportunity to present before Senate Estimates on 20//11/20.

This is an allegation that the CEO of CASA at the time, Mr. Carmody substantially mislead the Senate Estimates Committee, and specifically in his additional submission to the inquiry. I  will provide supporting evidence.

You are aware that I have raised allegations of misfeasance in public office against CASA employees, Mr. Carmody, Mr. Aleck, and Mr. Crawford in Senate Estimates on 20/11/20 and followed that up with a written submission.

In my follow up written allegations submitted to the Senate Estimates I had withdrawn allegations of misfeasance against Mr. Carmody. My rationale in that decision making was that he had retired from CASA, and I was of the opinion that any associated safety risk was therefore reduced. Whilst I have withdrawn the formal allegation of misfeasance against Mr. Carmody, I am compelled to bring this matter to your attention.

Please note that I have included the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Mr Michael McCormack, as the Minister responsible for CASA on this correspondence for his information only. I do not require a formal response from his Office, at this stage. I anticipate submitting substantial separate correspondence to him on this matter shortly.

I have also included the Commonwealth Ombudsman as that office is currently investigating this matter. I have included the Ombudsman as it is reasonable for me to assume that if Mr. Carmody in his role as the CEO of CASA has misled the Senate Estimates Committee, it is feasible that he or one of his employees may also have provided that same misleading information to the Ombudsman's Office.

I have also included Mr. Anthony Mathews as the Chair of the Board of CASA, and the person responsible for the governance of CASA.
In the supplementary submission to the Committee dated 29/12/20, Mr. Shane Carmody made the following statement to the Committee, note my bolding.
“During that time, CASA provided Mr. Buckley with substantial guidance, advice, and individual support to assist him to satisfy CASA that organizational arrangements of the kind required were, as he claimed, effectively in place. This, as said, was something he was persistently unable or unwilling to do”

Mr. Carmody’s comments may lead the Committee to believe that I was “persistently unable or unwilling” to produce contracts that satisfied CASA, when that is most definitely not the truth, and is in fact very far from the truth. Evidence to support my contention will follow later in this correspondence, and by way of the attachments.

Mr. Carmody would have been fully aware that he was misleading the Committee when making that statement and I am fully satisfied that he mislead the Committee with the intention of deflecting the Committee from obtaining the truth. The Chair of the Senates Committee has already admonished Mr. Carmody for “less than fulsome answers” and I have made several subsequent submissions drawing your attention to those matters.

The clarification of this matter is in fact integral to my  entire matter, and perhaps the single most important issue.

Several businesses have been forced into closure, many employees have lost their job, and many millions of dollars have been lost. If I am alleging misfeasance in public office, then the question of “intent” is fundamental.  

At all times I needed the CASA required contracts issuer fully resolved by CASA in as short a timeline as practical. It was in fact the CASA employees that I have raised allegations against, who were frustrating the entire matter. Mr. Carmody's inaccurate statement creates the impression that the resistance was coming from my end when that is clearly not the case. It was in fact a small group of CASA personnel who were frustrating and unnecessarily delaying matters.

To the purpose of this correspondence:

Regarding Mr. Carmody’s untruthful submission to Senate Estimates, and for complete clarity.

Mr. Carmody in his role as the CASA CEO stated that my approach to the resolution of the contracts “was something he was persistently unable or unwilling to do”

The truth is that at ALL times I and my management team was ready to immediately implement any changes that CASA required from the date of 23rd October 2018 when CASA placed initially placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade. I was persistently willing to comply with any CASA requirements in the contracts. That was APTA's position from October 2018 until it could no longer continue operating with the trading restrictions in place, in June 2019.

For CASA to suggest that I was “persistently unable or unwilling” is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. 

You will recall that other operators doing the same thing as I, were not required to have contracts. It was a new and unique requirement placed on my business only, that I was fully prepared to comply with, despite the fact that I thought it grossly unfair that CASA placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade at the same time they made the request. on my business only.

It was essential for the business that the matter was resolved expeditiously. Consider that CASA had placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade that cost me in excess of $10,000 per week. I fully understood my responsibilities, as they were the same responsibilities, I had been exercising for over a decade as the Authorisation Holder over multiple entities. 

There is absolutely no reason either commercially or for safety and compliance reasons that I would demonstrate any reluctance at all to fully comply with CASA requirements of anything at all in the contracts that they required. ALL current legislative requirements were already met. On this matter, both CASA and I had exactly the same interest. There was absolutely no reason for me not to comply. Any suggested CASA changes would have been embedded into the contract and returned within 24 hours. i.e. at any time this matter could have been resolved within 24 hours.

If Mr. Carmody the recently retired CASA CEO, or Mr. Crawford the current CASA CEO, as someone heavily involved in this matter from the onset seriously contends that I was persistently unable or unwilling to comply then I call on the Committee to ask for one single piece of evidence in support of that contention. Can CASA produce an email, a phone conversation, a handwritten note, or anything at all to support their statement? They will not be able to do it. I can do nothing else than call it out for what it is. A blatant lie and a blatant lie made directly to the Senators and most likely to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office. It also clearly demonstrates the complete lack of integrity that the CASA Senior Executive are prepared to demonstrate in pursuit of their objectives.

Evidence that at all times I was in fact, eager to comply can be found in the following emails that are attached. Please note that I have numerous other emails that can be provided that express the same willingness and ability to comply with whatever CASA wanted in the contracts. For Mr Carmody or CASA to assert anything else, is not truthful.

It is critical that this misleading information is clarified. For complete clarity.  Mr. Carmody the CASA CEO stated that the finalization of the contracts was something that I was "persistently unable or unwilling" to comply with. That is so far from a truthful representation of the facts that it must be challenged. CASA has continually and substantially
Below are excerpts from the full body of the emails which are attached for your reference. If you require further emails supporting my contention, please advise.

Email from Glen Buckley to CASA Executive Manager Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs dated 4th March 2019

“Thank you for the opportunity to meet last Friday, As you will appreciate I was extremely disappointed as I had hoped the suggested changes would suffice. My hope is that by CASAs lawyers meeting with my Barrister that we can arrive at a solution that fully satisfies CASA and that will be my intention. As this matter has now continued on for well over four months, it is now time to bring this matter to a close”.

“APTA wants to ensure that CASA is fully satisfied”

Email from Glen Buckley to CASA Executive Manager Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs dated 15th March 2019
“I am and have been from the onset of the process prepared to write absolutely anything into the contract that CASA requires. As the Authorisation Holder, I accept full responsibility for all operations under my Part 141 and 142 Approval. I am fully aware of that responsibility, and welcome anything that clarifies my responsibilities.”
“I assure you, that if CASA have a clear idea of what they require, they will meet no resistance from me.

Email from Glen Buckley to CASA Executive Manager Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs dated 26th March 2019
…………..“For clarity, I remain committed to a resolution, CASA has advised dissatisfaction with the current APTA contract. I am willing to place any CASA-required text into the contracts that will fully satisfy CASA.. If CASA is of the opinion that the contracts are deficient, it is incumbent upon CASA to advise what they require. A fundamental principle of determining that something is wrong, is that must know what is in fact “right”………… “simply tell me what you want, and it will happen”

Email from my father to CASA Executive Manager Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs 28th March 2019
“Glen has made it abundantly clear that he will include anything you require in his contracts. CASA wrote the regulations, is it really impossible for you to write a suitable proforma contract…?

Email from Glen Buckley CASA Executive Manager Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs dated 28th March
“I remain open to any additional text that CASA prefer or require”

Email from myself to Peter White 9th April 2019
“no need to respond, but my frustration is not all about CASA wanting to satisfy themselves with contracts, my frustration comes from the severity of the action taken by CASA to resolve this matter, the many and still unsubstantiated allegations that CASA threw at APTA, the freeze on processing regulatory tasks, the wasted weeks arguing about the aviation ruling, and the disregard for the Regulatory Philosophy”

Additional information
CASA initiated the restrictions on the APTA's ability to trade in October 2018. With those restrictions costing me in excess of $10,000 per week. That fact was highlighted to CASA in writing repeatedly. i.e. CASA personnel were acutely aware of the commercial impact of their actions and decisions. The CASA action was also significantly damaging the business's reputation in the wider aviation community and with any potential students.

It took a totally unacceptable timeframe of almost 6 months until 9th April 2019 for CASA in an email (attached) from the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and surveillance to write,  ……… “I can confirm the content is acceptable to CASA. Finally, CASA had worked out what they wanted in the contracts, and I had fully embedded CASAs requirements that had only been provided days earlier.  With the business now almost beyond repair I finally believed that this matter was over. CASA had finally resolved their confusion. I could now focus the business's attention on rebuilding and repairing.

Then approximately 5 hours later I get another email from the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and surveillance reversing his previous email only hours earlier and stating  “Can I ask that you hold off.” That email is in the attachments. The entire matter then started up all over again.

Importantly at the time of CASA placing the restrictions on the businesses ability to trade, in October 2018 and CASA demanding contracts,  CASA later realized that they already held the contracts that had been supplied to CASA on multiple occasions before they made their demand and placed trading restrictions on the business.

As a side note, could I respectfully request clarity as to whether  CASAs additional submission to Senate Estimates, dated 29th December 2020, is signed by Mr. Carmody in his position as the CASA CEO at the time, or were those his personal views. Noting that Mr. Carmody advised Senator Susan McDonald that he was “retiring from CASA no later than the 24th December, Senator”.

Thank you for your consideration of the matter regarding clarification of my business and I, being “persistently unwilling or unable” to comply with CASA requirements. This matter clearly highlights that CASA has not been well-intentioned in their dealings with the Committee or I.

Respectfully Glen Buckley relation to the part in BOLD (above) refer here: Footnote: Dots & Dashes in the DAS office? &  Oz aviation, safety compromised by political and bureaucratic subterfuge ? & #SBG 14/03/21: Comedia? No, not divine; not even funny.

Quote:Ps P2 coment - Besides the fact that this supp submission is a perfect follow up to the CM submission, as to how CASA do 'embuggerance' business (and that this is classic Dr Aleck legal gobbledy gook), I find it intriguing that everyone knows that the former DAS/CEO Shane Carmody's last day in the DAS office was the 24th December 2020 and yet here he is (apparently) on the 29th December 2020 trotting out a supp submission to the Senate RRAT Committee?? - Yeah right... [Image: dodgy.gif]  

Quote: Wrote:Thank you, Chair and members. I'm very happy to take questions, and I have a copy of the statement to table if you wish.

CHAIR: Thank you very much, Mr Carmody. I understand that you have resigned from CASA. When do you finish up?

Mr Carmody : No later than 24 December.

MTF..P2  Tongue

Bristell Aero embuggerance update: 17/03/21 - AOPA Oz OP.

Via AOPA Oz... Wink


March 17, 2021 By Benjamin Morgan

AOPA Australia Chief Executive Officer, Benjamin Morgan, provides an opinion on the unfolding debacle between CASA/RAAus and BRM Aero.

[Image: BristellLSA-1170x500.jpg]

It does not matter where you travel in the world, aircraft owners, pilots, aviation business and professionals would all agree that aviation is a science that relies on the understanding of facts to make decisions.  There can be no guesswork or assumptions in our industry, lives depend on doing the job right.  Yet despite our industry’s deep understanding and adherence to this fundamental principle, it appears CASA, our national aviation safety regulator, does not understand.

Enter CASA’s dispute with light sport aircraft manufacturer BRM Aero.

In February of 2020, primed with emotion and assumptions, CASA’s strong-arm of ‘safety’ was lined up on a runway to failure, encouraged by its staff and RAAus representatives into launching a bitter and protracted public attack on the Bristell aircraft type. This followed an administrative dispute that had been burning for 18 months. On 19th February CASA issued a ‘Safety Notice’ warning owners and operators of Bristell aircraft not to carry out ‘intentional or unintentional’ stalls in their aircraft.

Just five months later in July of 2020, CASA would double down by imposing operating limitations on the aircraft type, creating significant public concern and calling into the question the safety of the aircraft design.

At the centre of this debacle is the now infamous and amateurish test flight report carried out in December 2017, authored by a pilot in Victoria, that cast considerable shade on the aircraft.  The report was commissioned at the request of the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited. It then found it’s way to CASA and was used by them as the basis for requesting certification data including spin testing.

The owner of the aircraft used to conduct the test flight, was informed that the test and subsequent report had been requested by the Victorian Coroner and that RAAus were simply complying with that request. The Victorian Coroner’s office has subsequently confirmed in writing, that no such request was ever made. In fact the aircraft owner was advised by the RAAus representative present on the day that the Coroner would be arriving to oversee the tests, that never happened of course.

Exactly what the RAAus motives were to entangle itself in this mess remains a mystery.  But what we can assume, is that following several accidents involving flight training aircraft, the self-administration would have been eager to distance itself from any criticism of its pilot training and licensing standards.  You can only assume it would be better if the aircraft was the problem.

The consequences of CASA’s actions are both predictable and devastating for all involved, with BRM Aero suffering enormous brand and reputational damage, causing millions in lost aircraft orders and undermining both confidence and value in the aircraft fleet worldwide.

But despite CASA’s public concerns for aviation safety, away from the cameras and public stage it’s clear the regulator had little no evidence to support their position.  In fact, in their  letter to all Bristell aircraft owners accompanying the July revision to the original Safety Notice and the imposition of the Operating Limitations, CASA stunningly admitted:

Quote:“there is no conclusive basis to presently find that the Bristell Light Sport Aircraft does not comply with the spin recovery requirements…”

Without direct evidence that the aircraft did not comply to the ASTM standards, CASA instead attempted to justify their reasoning by presenting 112 points of discussion to owners.  These points were recently responded to by BRM Aero in a 5th March 2021 submission to CASA, their aircraft customers and to industry.

[ Click here to download a copy of the BRM Aero submission ]

A review of the BRM Aero submission makes clear that the Bristell aircraft is designed, built and tested in full compliance to the ASTM standards for Light Sport Aircraft.

Contrary to CASA’s misleading statements and public stance, the aircraft was subject to extensive spin testing, a fact that has been repeatedly confirmed by the manufacturer, communicated by the qualified test pilot involved, and subsequently re-verified by an EASA certified independent aircraft design and certification organisation.

And, if the above is not enough, the US FAA have communicated in writing that they have no concern with the aircraft type.

The facts and evidence unequivocally contradict CASA’s position and there is no question that the BRM Aero Bristell aircraft meets and exceeds the required design, manufacture and testing standards.

The problem here is not BRM Aero.  If there is a risk to aviation safety, then it’s CASA in it’s current form.

What this situation loudly communicates is that CASA senior management and executives have failed to maintain a professional and impartial organisation, capable of working productively with industry and it’s partners.  Instead, a toxic environment has been fostered, driven by staff and external parties who are allowing ego to drive outcomes.

The CASA and RAAus representatives involved in this mess have significant conflicts of interest that should have precluded these individuals from being involved in this matter.  Yet nobody sought to intervene.  There is no framework to protect industry from such concerns.

From the outset the BRM Aero message has been simple.  CASA have been aggressive, have demonstrated an unwillingness to communicate, have failed to remain objective and balanced and have acted in a manner that is not proportionate.

I believe them.  The evidence supports their claim.

But can anyone be surprised with the outcome?  When a matter such as this is handled so unprofessionally, when the industry and its representatives are treated with such contempt, when those holding power over our industry have such blatant conflicts of interest, when the national safety regulator is able to exercise its powers so dishonestly, was any other outcome other than disaster even possible?

At this juncture a full and independent investigation needs to be conducted, seeking to understand the true motives of both the CASA and RAAus representatives involved in this mess, along with seeking to understand how easily it was that CASA’s safety enforcement powers were manipulated by persons who quite possibly were driving an agenda that had nothing to do with safety at all.

The question now is do we have a Deputy Prime Minister willing to stand up for the industry to do the right thing?  Or will he and his government simply turn their backs and allow this disgraceful mess to be swept under the carpet?

Whilst we wait to see the outcome, all industry participants should take a long hard look at the CASA/RAAus partnership and ask themselves, exactly who is looking after your interests?

MTF...P2  Tongue

There's a shit storm a' coming... Rolleyes  


1st a follow up to last, via Oz Flying... Wink

 [Image: bristell_classic1.jpg]

BRM ups the Ante in Bristell Controversy
19 March 2021
Comments 0 Comments

Aircraft manufacturer BRM Aero has enlisted a German certification firm as the latest weapon in its battle with CASA over operational limitations placed on the Bristell LSA.

The company–Aircraft Design Certification GmbH (ADC)–was asked by BRM Aero to assess the existing spin test reports for four variants of the Bristell NG5, after which it furnished BRM with a letter stating that they considered the aircraft complied with the relevant part of ASTM 2245 covering spinning.

BRM Aero forwarded that letter to CASA on 9 March this year, accompanied by a statement from the Federal Aviation Administration saying the FAA also considered the Bristell to be compliant, and a submission demanding the operating limitations be removed.

CASA issued a ban on stall training in Bristells in July last year, stating that they had no received sufficient assurance from BRM Aero that the aircraft complied with the standard for light sport aircraft (LSA), a contention that the manufacturer has disputed consistently.

CASA has pointed to some fatal accidents around the world, including in Australia, as indication that the aircraft is not appropriate for stall training.

Boris Kolmel, Managing Director of ADC, wrote to BRM designer Milan Bristella in February saying his company found the stall test data showed the Bristell complied with the standard.

"We have reviewed the provided data (report and ref. videos) and conclude: For the LSA-class of aircraft the flight test method, data and reporting according REPORT ON THE SPIN TESTING OF BRISTELL LSA AIRCRAFT COMPLETED, dated 22nd Feb. 2020 is sufficient to be used for compliance demonstration to par. 4.5.9 "no intentional spins"of ASTM F2245 for the tested configuration."

BRM's techncial representative in Australia, Bob McGillivary from Edge Aerospace, made the submission to CASA in early March demanding the regulator remove the operational limitations, citing the ADC and FAA determinations as proof the BRM does comply.

"This submission is made on behalf of BRM Aero to address issues raised by CASA and used to justify the imposition of the Safety Notice and the Operating Limitations imposed on Bristell Light Sport Aircraft operating in Australia," McGillivray states.

"In addition to data previously supplied to CASA by BRM Aero, additional evidence is now provided in this submission. BRM Aero maintains that the previously supplied information, together with the additional information and evidence provided herein fully supports the case that all Bristell Light Sport Aircraft meet the requirements of ASTM F2245, para 4.5.9."

McGillivray also notes that in the July 2020 Safety Notice issued to aircraft owners, CASA itself stated that there "is no conclusive basis to presently find that BLSA do not comply with the spin recovery requirements ..."

"On the basis of the above CASA statement it is clear that CASA has no justifiable basis for imposing the safety notice and operating limitations," McGillivray says. "The Bristell LSA aircraft are self certified under the LSA system. BRM Aero has carried out sufficient spin testing and aerodynamic analyses to satisfy themselves that the NG 5 Bristell aircraft do comply with the requirements of ASTM 2245 ...

"If CASA do not agree, our opinion is that the onus is on CASA to prove that the aircraft does not comply, not the other way around."

The submission was sent with a covering letter from aviation law experts Maitland Lawyers on behalf of BRM Aero demanding the Safety Notice be rescinded.

"You will see from the enclosure that there is incontrovertible evidence that the Bristell NG5 LSA and its variants meet the requirements of ASTM F2245 para 4.5.9," Maitland Lawyers states.

"We are instructed that our client now demands that CASA now removes the Safety Notice and operating limitations imposed by CASA on 28 July 2020 without further delay."

A CASA spokesperson told 
Australian Flying today that the matter was under consideration.

"CASA is carefully reviewing the latest submission from BRM," the spokesperson said. "Our decisions will always be based on available evidence and data in the best interests of aviation safety."

The matter is also still before the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

And then...via the LMH:

Quote:That Airservices would come back to the aviation community with a revised proposal for Class E airspace on the eastern seaboard was predictable. Their original plan to lower the 8500-foot bases to 1500 AGL was a disaster that so few in the community supported. The new idea is to revert to an AMSL reference (smart move) and now bases of either 4500, 6500 or 8500 depending on the terrain below. It's a better idea, but still has some cracks in the welding. The revised concept will still result in some pretty funky airspace design, with polygons of Class E tacked onto the airspace design that will make VNCs and VTCs look like Picasso paintings. For example: most of the airspace west of Melbourne will have a A045 base to the E, except that sitting over the Grampians, where the E base will be lifted to A065. And if you're tracking Albury to Canberra, you can expect to have an E base of A045, A065 or A085 depending on your heading. It seems a complex answer to a problem that is really yet to be defined. Reading between the propaganda, it seems Airservices wants to make the changes simply because they now have the technology and want to use it, not to solve any identifiable safety issue. That would certainly account for the ongoing absence of a safety case.

Plus via the UP: 


Rather than just quote letters with plus / minus that remind me of my academic exam scores 40 years ago...and then attach a country like US / CANADA / UK as if to give more credence......

Why don’t you describe what you want as a service below A100 outside C....

It is obvious we have a variety of issues but given the disingenuous Airservice Plan B “Confidence Trick” would have done nothing to prevent:

- Mangalore accident, or

- Ballina A320 / Jabiriu incident.

The change to E at Mangalore / Ballina only extend down to 6500 AMSL, well above the altitude of both accident / incident.

VH-TNP still haunts Airservices for the wrong reasons....

Mention RAM and MSAW and it elicits interesting reactions who were in the know at the time.

it would appear the Minister has been badly misled.

But then in the Canberra bubble everything is about spin and not what is safe in the cockpits or ATC consoles.

Are all the posters here fully aware of the constraints that the low level airspace controllers opoerate to at the moment?

Are all the posters that seem to have the answer with a defined simplistic name really so confident their solution would actually work?

It is incredibly arrogant of Aiservices that seems to presume an outcome from the MNG coroner’s inquiry.

‘Be curious rather than judgemental...”

Why has AsA had the capability of 3 Supplementary Air Situation Displays per console (additional to the “Main and Second Windows ASDs” ) that were specifically designed to allow a controller to have a display zoomed right in on a conflict, whilst still maintaining the Main Window covering all the airspace they are responsible for plus some (due to so called automated coordination) but never allowed the controllers to use them???

The Mangalore accident and issues surrounding it seemed perfect for the utilisation of the SUP ASD capability???

When has any G airspace controller ever received “compromised separation training” where the scenario consisted of two TAAATS Eurocat coupled tracks were in G Airspace??? ie as was the situation at MNG...?? Could the answer be never??

When did any G airspace controller get comprehensive training in the utilisation of the STCA list Window in the management of STCA alerts, where 99,9 % of the alerts are operationally false???

Lots of interesting questions to be answered....someday or maybe never like some around VH-TNP...

Could any controller list any TAAATS Eurocat enhancement specifically commissioned for low level sectors in the last 20 year after the initial G airspace commissioning?

How many AsA ADSB receivers have been commissioned to specifically cover low level sectors?

We are all being told how good ADSB is but its really a waste of time if its not used (yep a remarkable statement in itself ) but what do you expect when CASA seems to think ATC is done with situational awareness.... sorry but its done with conflict detection (stupid) and on rare occasions saved by the ground based safety net called STCA and finally another airborne based safety net called TCAS.

How good your conflict detection is dictates your target level of utilisation of safety nets allowed....

How good your total resultant level of safety in an ATM system is includes conflict detection plus the two safety nets as per above...

Does anyone in AsA, CASA or ATSB understand that??????

That is the concept in A and C airspace...

For MNG the first two concepts failed and the third wasn’t probably on either aircraft....

Ballina the first two failed and the third ie RA failed also...

Does anyone who proposes a solution for low level D, E and G airspace want to disregard the concepts that safety nets are supposed to offer?

As always I am happy to be curious AND educated on any errors on my part...

Let’s keep out of the Canberra bull*&@# and start in the cockpit and console.

And don’t assume everyone here understands everything!

it’s obvious I certainly don’t ....

And again via the LMH:

Quote:...Angel Flight was back in court in Melbourne this week in its own long-running battle with the regulator. After a couple of fatal crashes, CASA applied restrictions to who could and couldn't fly community service flights. To name a couple: a minimum of 400 hours or a CPL, and increased maintenance for the aircraft. Ironically, neither of those would have prevented either of the accidents. So, Angel Flight wants the restrictions struck out arguing that CASA acted ultra vires, which is to say outside their power. The question is one of whether or not CASA has to power to tell you who you can and cannot carry as passengers in your aeroplane. Unfortunately, this week's court case did not wrap up the matter as the legal arguments are deep and many, extending as they will to examine the very perimeters of CASA's head of power. In the meantime, the industry is left to examine the motivations of an action that CASA has admitted will have no impact. We'll keep you updated on when the matter returns to the Federal Court...

Finally back to the GlenB embuggerance, via the RRAT Secretariat:

Quote:From: RRAT, Committee (SEN) <>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 at 11:00 am
Subject: FW: Submission to Senate Estimates RRAT Inquiry. Commonwealth Ombudsman matter 2019-713834
To: <>
Cc: RRAT, Committee (SEN) <>

Dear Mr Buckley

Thank you for your email to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. The committee held a private meeting this morning in which your correspondence was provided to and noted by the attending members.


MTF...P2  Tongue

GlenB embuggerance update: 15/04/21

Via the UP: Correspondence to Deputy PM and all members of National Party

And a follow up today via the AP GlenB email chain:

Quote:Dear Mr. Michael McCormack the Honourable Deputy Prime Minister, and Mr. Anthony Mathews the Chair of the Board of CASA. 

Mr. McCormack, I am calling on you to apply any pressure you can to encourage the CASA Board to act with integrity, in accordance with CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, and your own Statement of Expectations of the Board of CASA.

Mr. Mathews, you appear to have misunderstood my reasonable request.

I am not seeking to make any allegations, and this particular request has nothing to do with the Ombudsman's Office. I am not seeking a determination, I am merely seeking an explanation. 

I am seeking an explanation from CASA as to how the flying school that I owned, with my own employees operating fully in accordance with all CASA approved procedures in place, operating from my building as it had for over a decade, is determined by CASA  to be an "unauthorized operation", and forced into closure. This notification came with no prior notification or indication at all from CASA. It is inexplicable, from my perspective.

The Ombudsman's current investigation is not related to this matter and irrespective of this, the Ombudsman's Office has advised that an ongoing investigation does not prevent me from seeking an explanation from CASA, as I am doing now. It is not reasonable that CASA takes action against a business, fails to explain the basis of that action, and will not explain it to the individual affected, but will to the Ombudsman years later. Surely that can't be fair.

It is likely that CASA has provided that explanation to the Ombudsman's Office, so I can see no reason that the same explanation would not be provided to me, as I have been requesting for more than two years.

It is important that I am very clear. 
  • On 23rd October 2018, CASA wrote advising that my business, Melbourne Flight Training was deemed to be an "unauthorized operation."
  • There was no significant change during the business's 12 years of operation that I am aware of that would deem it an "unauthorized operation" by CASA.
  • CASA has never explained this action to me in any manner whatsoever. I have no understanding of how CASA arrived at that determination.
  • I am not making an allegation, I am merely seeking an explanation
I am fully satisfied that CASA has erred and that they have acted unlawfully. I believe that the CASA Board is aware of this. I believe that there is an attempt by the Board to cover up this matter. 

I have firmly bought this matter to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister, and all members of the National Party. My reasonable expectation is that I will be provided with an explanation by CASA, or directed to a previously supplied copy of an explanation if one exists.

For clarity, I am asking CASA to provide an explanation of this particular determination i.e. that my flying school became an UNAUTHORISED OPERATION.  This is a fair and reasonable request.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 14:48, McLachlan, Colin <> wrote:
Dear Mr Buckley
Thank you for your email dated 14 April 2021 addressed to Mr Mathews and the CASA Board in which you discuss your intent to pursue a ‘Statement of Explanation in accordance with (your) rights under Administrative Law.’ Mr Mathews has asked me to respond on his behalf.
With regard to each of the matters raised, you have provided no new evidence for consideration and CASA is satisfied your allegations fall within the scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation currently underway. The Ombudsman’s office has not yet concluded their investigation or finalised their report on that investigation.
We await the outcome of that process and the Ombudsman’s advice to discuss these matters further.
Your sincerely
Colin McLachlan
Colin McLachlan | Board Secretary
Civil Aviation Safety Authority |16 Furzer Street, Philip ACT 2606
GPO Box 2005, Canberra ACT 2601
p (02) 6217 1318 | m 0478 302 047 | *

Finally some comments in reply to GlenB's UP posts... Wink


I'm no Lawyer for sure,.....but is that last correspondence essentially trying to say 'we are not going to address specifically what you are requesting because we alluded to it in the past, but will not be drawn to saying anything specific?'


What average Joe would be expected to understand this?

Pinky the pilot

No-one, Fliegs. It would be almost certain that the whole letter would have either been written by, or certainly approved, by CASA Lawyers!

Chronic Snoozer

And it is a response worthy of a John Clarke sketch!

Mr Approach

CASA, in it's replies to Glen, refers to the Regulatory Philosophy. This is an artifact created by CASA to justify it's actions. The SOE from the MInister <> is more relevant. See 2 - Last para, 3 a, b and c, 5 (a) & (b).

Breaching their own aims is par for the course, breaching a ministerial directive should see heads roll.


Would be nice to see people held accountable but they have, a) either departed the locality b) do not give a flying “F” as it is not their business/company/name or c) hide behind the system.


Honestly this is the meat and potatoes of everything here. Everything else is periphery, but adds to your remedy.

even if CASA does finally provide you an explanation, it is totally unreasonable to not provide that explanation when they deemed your operations unauthorized. They left you no way to respond or make acceptable changes.

That itself is simply a miscarriage of their authority or simply incompetence that is finally brought to light publicly.

Pinky the pilot

Quote:And it is a response worthy of a John Clarke sketch!

Indeed! And I suspect that he would have referred to CASA's actions as being 'a fustercluck of mammoth proportions!'[Image: evil.gif]

MTF...P2  Tongue

GlenB embuggerance update: 21/04/21

Via the UP:


Carmodys blatant lies about assault and stalking


To the Honorable Mr. Michael McCormack, Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the Nationals and Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

I have included you in this correspondence to Mr. Graeme Crawford, the acting CEO of CASA. Should Mr. Crawford decide not to comply, my intention will be to write directly to you, requesting your assistance in the matter.

May I request an acknowledgement of receipt of this correspondence.


Glen Buckley



Dear Mr. Graeme Crawford, acting CEO and Director of Aviation Safety (DAS),

On 20/1120 in Senate RRAT Estimates Committee, Mr. Shane Carmody (CASA CEO at the time), made allegations to Parliament that I had, “assaulted and stalked CASA staff”.

These comments can be located at the 6 minute 30 second mark, via the following link.

For complete clarity, I have never stalked or assaulted anybody, anywhere, at any time in my life. The allegation that I have stalked, and assaulted CASA employees is a blatant lie, made by Mr. Carmody in his presentation to the Senate Inquiry.

These are serious allegations of criminal misconduct with terms of imprisonment of up to ten years.

My reasonable assumption is that his allegations were an attempt to damage my reputation and discredit allegations that I have made against CASA personnel of misconduct. Irrespective of the motivation behind Mr Carmodys allegations they are a blatant lie.

In support of my allegations, I offer the following

· First and foremost, I am clearly stating that at no time, have I ever stalked or assaulted any CASA personnel. That is the truth.

· Second. I have made a Freedom of Information (FOI) request for any information in support of Mr. Carmody’s vindictive and vexatious allegations. Predictably, CASA could offer no document in support of the allegations of either stalking or assault.

· Thirdly, I would suggest that if a CASA Employee had been assaulted and/or stalked by me, that matter would have been reported to the Police by CASA. Prior to CASA closing my business, I had my own employees, and I am fully aware of the Employers “duty of care” to his or her Employees. The fact that no police report was ever made, would indicate that Mr. Carmody was being misleading in his statements to Parliament. Mr. Carmody has made several clearly untruthful statements about me and my situation, to the Senate Inquiry, and I have bought some those to the attention of the Senate Inquiry recently.

To the purpose of this correspondence.

If CASA stands by the assertion that I have assaulted and stalked CASA staff, I insist that CASA contact Police, assuming that they have not done so previously, submit the allegations, and let the Police determine if Mr. Carmody’s statements were truthful, and I have a case to answer. If the Police determine that I have potentially stalked or assaulted any CASA employees, that will provide me the opportunity to defend myself and steadfastly refute those allegations in a Court of Law and protect my reputation. If Mr. Carmody was blatantly lying in his presentation to the Senators, as I suggest, the matter will go nowhere.

If CASA elect not to pursue the allegations, I believe it entirely reasonable that CASA publicly fully retract those false allegations.

I do need this matter resolved by CASA either by CASA pursuing, or alternatively retracting the allegations.

I left the industry over 18 months ago, when CASA wrote to my Employer advising that my continuing employment was “not tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”

My hope is to return to the aviation industry one day, but that would require me to be deemed a “fit and proper,” person by CASA. Until this matter is resolved, these comments would preclude me from re-entering the aviation Industry, as it is reasonable to assume that CASA would not deem me a “fit and proper” person, if I have previously stalked and assaulted CASA employees.

Should CASA determine that they will not pursue the allegations, and refuse to publicly retract those comments, I will write directly to the Deputy Prime Minister requesting his intervention.

I am also aware that another option available to me is to write directly to the President of the Senate, submitting a formal response, and requesting that be incorporated into the Parliamentary record.

Mr. Carmody, referred to me by name, and I believe that his untruthful comments could adversely affect my reputation. After the direction by CASA to my Employer that my continuing employment was “no longer tenable”, I was forced to leave the aviation industry. In my current employment, those alleged charges would lead to the termination of my current employment.

I appreciate that Mr. Carmody was protected by Parliamentary privilege, and that I have no recourse in law against his blatant misrepresentation of the truth, nevertheless, my hope is that you will act with integrity and good intent, and pursue or retract the allegations.

Mr. Crawford, thankyou for consideration of my request.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

MTF...P2  Tongue

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)