GlenB embuggerance update: 21/01/21
Via the AP email chains:
Dear Air Chief Marshall (Retd) Mark Binskin AC, Chair of the Board of CASA, and Members of the CASA Board.
My name is Glen Buckley. You will be aware of my matter, as it has been the subject of an ongoing investigation by the Ombudsman’s Office, and I have written to the CASA Board on multiple occasions.
Background Information
CASAs basis for shutting down my business with no warning, was not based on any identified safety concerns, nor concerns about operational control, or in fact, any identified quality outcomes at all. CASA has never made any assertions against any of those criteria.
CASAs basis for closing my businesses was simply an allegation that my business was operating unlawfully against CAA 27(8), this was even though I had been operating for over a decade, and the last six years in the same “structure” that you claim was unlawful. Importantly, this structure was designed and revalidated over a two-year period with 10 CASA personnel involved and was fully revalidated 18 months prior to CASA suddenly determining that it was now “unlawful”.
CAA 27(8) was the only single piece of legislation that CASA ever made an allegation against and was the basis for declaring my business “not permitted”, giving it only 7 days surety of operations, placing restrictions on its ability to trade, enforcing an administrative freeze on all pending CASA regulatory tasks, and then contacting and requiring all customers to leave my business. This allegation made by CASAs Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Department, can be found, on the upper half of page 2 of the attached initial CASA notification (Appendix- Initial Notification).
In that correspondence you refer to the legislation and state, “Section 27(8) of the Civil Aviation Act states an AOC is not transferable. “
The interpretation and application of that legislation as a basis for closing my business down, with no prior warning, is the first time in my 25 years in the industry that I have seen it applied by you in that manner and has absolutely no industry precedent. For complete clarity, I do not feel it had any lawful basis, and I do not believe it was well intentioned. It was yet another case of Mr Jonathan Aleck decimating somebodys life and their livelihood.
CASAs previous and consistent interpretation of CAA 27(8) “an AOC is not transferable”, has been that the CASA issued AOC, cannot be sold or transferred on its own. i.e.
From my perspective, that allegation of a regulatory breach is ludicrous, and a complete change by CASA in the way that they had applied that legislation and has no precedent at all.
I completely refute that I ever transferred my AOC or considered transferring my AOC. I believe that your opinion has no valid basis in law or precedent
My allegation against CASA Executive Manager Jonathan Aleck of deliberately providing misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office
To the purpose of this correspondence. I am fully satisfied that substantive and misleading information has been provided to the Ombudsman’s Office with the intention to pervert the findings of the Ombudsman’s Office.
That information was most likely provided by CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, Mr Jonathan Aleck. You will be aware that I have made an allegation of misfeasance in public office against him in Parliament before the Senate inquiry and followed up with correspondence to the Board and the office of the Deputy PM at the time, Mr McCormack, as the Minister responsible for CASA.
You will also be aware that many other individuals and Organisations have made similar allegations against Mr Aleck of misconduct, none of which have been addressed by CASA. The continued coverup of Mr Alecks conduct through to the very highest levels of CASA is despicable and continues. As recently as yesterday, I have been contacted by people who have similarly had their entire lives decimated by this man.
The purpose of this correspondence is to bring to your attention that clearly misleading information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office by Mr Aleck, and for the Board to take appropriate action to ensure that the information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office is corrected, and that truthful information be provided.
You will be aware that I have written to Ms. Pip Spence, the CASA CEO, and she has chosen not to correct this situation. I understand that as an appointed public servant she may have other considerations that prevent her from acting in the manner that I would expect. It then becomes a matter of ethics, integrity, and truthfulness, it is a matter of Governance, and I feel it appropriate that I write to the Board.
Ms. Spences response was that she did not want to correct the clearly false information provided by Mr Aleck because she did not want to “interfere” with the investigation. I am fully satisfied that if CASA chooses not to correct that situation, then CASA is in fact becoming complicit in facilitating that situation, and therefore actually “interfering” in that investigation by choosing to endorse Mr Alecks blatant misrepresentation of the truth.
For complete clarity, I allege that CASAs Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Branch under Mr Aleck has clearly misled the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that CASA was not aware of APTAs structure until just prior to the notification in October 2018 that led to the closure of the business.
This substantially misrepresents the truthfulness of the situation. There has been substantially misleading information on several topics provided to the Ombudsman’s Office although in this correspondence I am addressing only this one topic. That being the prior knowledge that CASA had of my business model.
In support of my allegations, and calling on you to rectify the situation, I am providing you with the following information, all of which you have the capability to satisfy yourselves as to the accuracy of, and then to act as the Board of most organisations would be compelled to act on.
Evidence that CASA was fully aware of the exact structure of my business model well before CASA assertion that they first became aware, “just prior to October 2018” when they acted and closed my business down.
In considering whether to correct this misinformation, I ask you to consider the following obligations placed on CASA which include, but are not limited to the following:
Purpose of the Board of CASA
“….to ensure CASA performs its functions properly, efficiently and effectively.
Obligations under the Public Governance, Performance and accountability Act 2013 (PGPA)
26. Duty to act honestly, in good faith and for a proper purpose
An official of a Commonwealth entity must exercise his or her powers, perform his or her functions and discharge his or her duties honestly, in good faith and for a proper purpose.
27. Duty in relation to use of position
An official of a Commonwealth entity must not improperly use his or her position:
(b) to cause, or seek to cause, detriment to the entity, the Commonwealth, or any other person.
28. Duty in relation to use of information
A person who obtains information because they are an official of a Commonwealth entity must not improperly use the information:
(b) to cause, or seek to cause, detriment to the Commonwealth entity, the Commonwealth or any other person.
CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy
Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
Aviation Safety consideration
The aviation safety consideration alone, should be enough to compel you to act. If my allegations are correct, and please be aware that there are many within industry would make the same allegations as mine, then you are compelled to act. Misconduct at the Executive Level of CASA cannot be facilitated by the CEO and Board.
Under the previous CASA CEO, Mr Shane Carmody there was a very vigorous campaign designed to crush me. Sadly, it has been successful. My mental and physical health is decimated. I have lost my home, and my two businesses, I have been left bankrupted and living week to week, terrified of how I will keep a roof over our head when inevitably My wife or I stop working, all without any safety case at all to support all the harm caused.
It is the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Australia’s National Aviation Safety Regulator operating under the Coat of Arms, the community is rightfully entitled to the very highest standards of ethics and integrity.
For complete clarity, Mr Jonathan Aleck has led the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that CASA was not fully involved in the design and approval of the business structure that I used.
I claim that CASA is deliberately and substantially misleading the Ombudsman’s Office in the investigation.
There is an overwhelming body of evidence to support my assertion that CASA had full knowledge of my structure, and to assert any other position is simply immoral, and most likely illegal.
I urge you to stand Mr Aleck aside on full pay until this matter can be fully investigated by CASA. By allowing the very person that substantive allegations have been made against to be the person responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman’s Office is not acceptable. I know of no organisation that would permit this to happen, and most certainly it should not be permitted within a Nations aviation safety regulator. The potential and ongoing risk to aviation safety of permitting a CASA Executive to remain in his position when such allegations have been made against him by so many affected individuals, cannot be justified on any level.
Should you choose not to stand him aside, I must insist that as a minimum he be immediately removed from any further involvement in this matter. An allegation of misfeasance in public office has been made against him, and he should not be the person nominated by CASA to be responsible for the provision of information to the Ombudsman’s Office. It makes no sense at all, on any level.
Without disclosing the current nature of my employment, I now work in a field in which many employees at any time are “under investigation”, some are permitted to remain operational during the investigation, whilst others are not. Most investigations find the employee has acted appropriately, and on occasions not.
Whilst I personally have not been under investigation, I will embrace the situation if it were to occur. It ensures a workplace with ethics and integrity. No doubt Mr Jonathan Aleck would welcome an investigation into his conduct, as I would in my own workplace. An innocent person has nothing to fear from a well-intentioned and well run investigation.
Surely the CASA Board must have a reasonable doubt as to the integrity of the information provided by Mr Aleck, and is compelled to act, and rectify the situation. Should the Board choose to facilitate this misinformation, my intention is to establish contact with Senator Susan McDonald and my local MP, Ms Gladys Liu requesting a two-hour meeting for me to fully brief them on the facts, and to bring this matter directly to the attention of Mr Barnaby Joyce, the Deputy PM, Leader of the Nationals and the Minister responsible for the conduct of CASA and its employees.
On February 11th, I will commence a group of sessions with a psychiatrist to attempt to repair the trauma caused by Mr Alecks conduct. I have finally accepted this option at the insistence of my GP and family. There is no doubt that Mr Aleck caused the financial harm, but CASAs continued coverup of this matter causes the psychological trauma. I am not the first to be impacted in this matter, but I must be the last.
I await a response from you, that you intend to clarify the truthfulness of CASA involvement and knowledge of the structure that I adopted with the Ombudsman’s Office.
Once again I extend my request to meet with any two Members of the CASA Board. The exact same request that I have made on multiple occasions over the last three years. That meeting should occur before the Ombudsman’s investigation is completed to ensure the accuracy of that investigation, and to ensure that the Ombudsman’s Office findings are based on facts and not blatant lies propagated by Mr Jonathan Aleck, to cover up his own misconduct.
Glen Buckley
MTF...P2
Via the AP email chains:
Dear Air Chief Marshall (Retd) Mark Binskin AC, Chair of the Board of CASA, and Members of the CASA Board.
My name is Glen Buckley. You will be aware of my matter, as it has been the subject of an ongoing investigation by the Ombudsman’s Office, and I have written to the CASA Board on multiple occasions.
Background Information
CASAs basis for shutting down my business with no warning, was not based on any identified safety concerns, nor concerns about operational control, or in fact, any identified quality outcomes at all. CASA has never made any assertions against any of those criteria.
CASAs basis for closing my businesses was simply an allegation that my business was operating unlawfully against CAA 27(8), this was even though I had been operating for over a decade, and the last six years in the same “structure” that you claim was unlawful. Importantly, this structure was designed and revalidated over a two-year period with 10 CASA personnel involved and was fully revalidated 18 months prior to CASA suddenly determining that it was now “unlawful”.
CAA 27(8) was the only single piece of legislation that CASA ever made an allegation against and was the basis for declaring my business “not permitted”, giving it only 7 days surety of operations, placing restrictions on its ability to trade, enforcing an administrative freeze on all pending CASA regulatory tasks, and then contacting and requiring all customers to leave my business. This allegation made by CASAs Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Department, can be found, on the upper half of page 2 of the attached initial CASA notification (Appendix- Initial Notification).
In that correspondence you refer to the legislation and state, “Section 27(8) of the Civil Aviation Act states an AOC is not transferable. “
The interpretation and application of that legislation as a basis for closing my business down, with no prior warning, is the first time in my 25 years in the industry that I have seen it applied by you in that manner and has absolutely no industry precedent. For complete clarity, I do not feel it had any lawful basis, and I do not believe it was well intentioned. It was yet another case of Mr Jonathan Aleck decimating somebodys life and their livelihood.
CASAs previous and consistent interpretation of CAA 27(8) “an AOC is not transferable”, has been that the CASA issued AOC, cannot be sold or transferred on its own. i.e.
- CASA permits an Authorisation Holder to sell his Company and AOC together.
- CASA does not permit an Authorisation Holder to retain his Company and transfer the AOC only, to another Entity. The AOC cannot be sold as a “stand alone” item.
From my perspective, that allegation of a regulatory breach is ludicrous, and a complete change by CASA in the way that they had applied that legislation and has no precedent at all.
I completely refute that I ever transferred my AOC or considered transferring my AOC. I believe that your opinion has no valid basis in law or precedent
My allegation against CASA Executive Manager Jonathan Aleck of deliberately providing misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office
To the purpose of this correspondence. I am fully satisfied that substantive and misleading information has been provided to the Ombudsman’s Office with the intention to pervert the findings of the Ombudsman’s Office.
That information was most likely provided by CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, Mr Jonathan Aleck. You will be aware that I have made an allegation of misfeasance in public office against him in Parliament before the Senate inquiry and followed up with correspondence to the Board and the office of the Deputy PM at the time, Mr McCormack, as the Minister responsible for CASA.
You will also be aware that many other individuals and Organisations have made similar allegations against Mr Aleck of misconduct, none of which have been addressed by CASA. The continued coverup of Mr Alecks conduct through to the very highest levels of CASA is despicable and continues. As recently as yesterday, I have been contacted by people who have similarly had their entire lives decimated by this man.
The purpose of this correspondence is to bring to your attention that clearly misleading information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office by Mr Aleck, and for the Board to take appropriate action to ensure that the information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office is corrected, and that truthful information be provided.
You will be aware that I have written to Ms. Pip Spence, the CASA CEO, and she has chosen not to correct this situation. I understand that as an appointed public servant she may have other considerations that prevent her from acting in the manner that I would expect. It then becomes a matter of ethics, integrity, and truthfulness, it is a matter of Governance, and I feel it appropriate that I write to the Board.
Ms. Spences response was that she did not want to correct the clearly false information provided by Mr Aleck because she did not want to “interfere” with the investigation. I am fully satisfied that if CASA chooses not to correct that situation, then CASA is in fact becoming complicit in facilitating that situation, and therefore actually “interfering” in that investigation by choosing to endorse Mr Alecks blatant misrepresentation of the truth.
For complete clarity, I allege that CASAs Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Branch under Mr Aleck has clearly misled the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that CASA was not aware of APTAs structure until just prior to the notification in October 2018 that led to the closure of the business.
This substantially misrepresents the truthfulness of the situation. There has been substantially misleading information on several topics provided to the Ombudsman’s Office although in this correspondence I am addressing only this one topic. That being the prior knowledge that CASA had of my business model.
In support of my allegations, and calling on you to rectify the situation, I am providing you with the following information, all of which you have the capability to satisfy yourselves as to the accuracy of, and then to act as the Board of most organisations would be compelled to act on.
Evidence that CASA was fully aware of the exact structure of my business model well before CASA assertion that they first became aware, “just prior to October 2018” when they acted and closed my business down.
- CASA own Industry Complaints Commissioner stated the following in his own investigation: “CASA had an awareness of the APTA business model for a significant period of time prior to its compliance with regulation being called into question. In changing its position so drastically, the circumstances were such that CASA’s actions weren’t fair, given APTA’s likely to have relied on CASA’s failure to highlight any concerns when conducting its operations and planning.”
- CASA had always permitted, and formally approved, more than one flying school entity to operate under a single AOC provided that the Authorisation Holder accepted full responsibility and accountability for all persons operating under the AOC irrespective of where they drew their salary. That was the case throughout my entire 25-year involvement in the industry, and in fact that was the case for decades prior. Any CASA Flight operations Inspector with experience prior to October 2018, will be able to verify the truthfulness of that situation to you. The CASA Board will be able to ascertain the truthfulness of that statement easily and promptly, and therefore becomes compelled to act.
- CASA was fully aware that I had been delivering a multi base, multi entity approach to flight training for at least 6 years before CASA claim that they first became aware of it. With full CASA approval, and by way of formal processes, I had taken over operational control of AV8 (a Darwin based flying school), 6 years earlier. It is simply ludicrous for CASA to suggest that they had no knowledge of this operation, as a formal and comprehensive CASA process was required. This clearly demonstrates the precedent that CASA permitted such activity and was fully aware of what I was doing for at least 6 years before Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman’s office believe.
- CASA approved via formal processes referred to as a Significant Change, the addition of other bases including, Melbourne Flight Training (my own school), Learn to Fly and AVIA. The latter two schools being Moorabbin flying schools not owned by me. The addition of these two additional bases occurred approximately two years before Mr Aleck claims CASA first became aware of the structure. This involved my business submitting manuals and procedures that were fully approved by CASA. It involved CASA visiting the sites to assess their suitability, and me having to pay fees for those CASA tasks.
- CASA conducted the highest-level audit referred to as a Level One Audit. This occurred in November 2017, approximately 1 year before CASA claim that they first became aware of the structure. This involved visits to the CASA approved bases. It is not reasonable to claim that CASA auditors visited these bases and engaged with my Key personnel at those sites and addressed correspondence to my organisation about those audits at those sites. It would simply be ludicrous for CASA to maintain that they were not aware.
- Many CASA employees attended our weekly Group Meetings, and minutes of those meetings and attendees can be provided. Ten CASA personnel attended those meetings 18 months before Mr Aleck claims that CASA first became aware. During the CASA attendance at those group safety meetings it was very clearly apparent that we were operating a multi base, multi entity structure. Furthermore CASA personnel attended and delivered briefings to meetings with all bases in attendance.
- Mr Alecks false assertions also disregard the fact that APTA underwent a substantial process over a two year period as we attended to the revalidation of the structure as a Part 141/142 Organisation and was formally approved by CASA in April 2017, being 18 months before CASA claim that they first became aware. The design process with CASA was substantial and required an investment by me, of several hundred thousand dollars.
- Whilst I cannot expect you personally to be a Subject Matter Expert on the topic, you do have access to resources within CASA to determine the truthfulness of the situation. I would encourage you to verify this information directly with Flight operations Inspector Naomichi Nishizawa, as he was the CASA employee directly involved in the process, at the time. He can verify that apart from a name change only from Melbourne Flight Training to APTA, the identical structure had been adopted with formal CASA approval for at least 6 years.
- Similarly, Mr Nishizawa will also be able to confirm that the structure was fairly commonplace within the industry with many operators including Latrobe valley Aero Club which operated under the AOC of Bairnsdale Air Charter (BAC). When Latrobe Valley decided to change from operating under BAC to my business. It was my business that was declared unlawful and shut down with no prior warning.
- In June 2016 I wrote to CASA advising that I intended to significantly expand this structure, and I sought CASA involvement in completely overhauling my operation and investing significantly in designing a system that was engineered and designed from the ground up to improve on what we we already doing. At the time CASA was very supportive of the concept, and you will be able to verify that by contacting the CASA employees involved in that process, and specifically current employee, Mr Naomichi Nishizawa. A number of past CASA employees have also contacted me offering to come forward and tell the truth on this matter. I worked side by side with 10 CASA personnel over a two-year period to redesign the business for the exact purpose of delivering this multi base multi entity structure. This required an investment of many hundreds of thousands of dollars.and the revalidation as a Part 141/142 Organisation occurred in April 2017 (18 months before CASA claim that they first became aware of APTA. At the time of this revalidation, I was operating in the multi base, multi entity structure, and had been for many years.
- I invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars in a head office facility, personnel, manuals, and IT systems to continue delivering a far improved version of the multi base, multi entity structure that I like many other flying schools had been delivering throughout my 25-year involvement in the industry. This investment occurred many years before Mr Aleck asserts CASA first became aware.
In considering whether to correct this misinformation, I ask you to consider the following obligations placed on CASA which include, but are not limited to the following:
Purpose of the Board of CASA
“….to ensure CASA performs its functions properly, efficiently and effectively.
Obligations under the Public Governance, Performance and accountability Act 2013 (PGPA)
26. Duty to act honestly, in good faith and for a proper purpose
An official of a Commonwealth entity must exercise his or her powers, perform his or her functions and discharge his or her duties honestly, in good faith and for a proper purpose.
27. Duty in relation to use of position
An official of a Commonwealth entity must not improperly use his or her position:
(b) to cause, or seek to cause, detriment to the entity, the Commonwealth, or any other person.
28. Duty in relation to use of information
A person who obtains information because they are an official of a Commonwealth entity must not improperly use the information:
(b) to cause, or seek to cause, detriment to the Commonwealth entity, the Commonwealth or any other person.
CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy
Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
Aviation Safety consideration
The aviation safety consideration alone, should be enough to compel you to act. If my allegations are correct, and please be aware that there are many within industry would make the same allegations as mine, then you are compelled to act. Misconduct at the Executive Level of CASA cannot be facilitated by the CEO and Board.
Under the previous CASA CEO, Mr Shane Carmody there was a very vigorous campaign designed to crush me. Sadly, it has been successful. My mental and physical health is decimated. I have lost my home, and my two businesses, I have been left bankrupted and living week to week, terrified of how I will keep a roof over our head when inevitably My wife or I stop working, all without any safety case at all to support all the harm caused.
It is the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Australia’s National Aviation Safety Regulator operating under the Coat of Arms, the community is rightfully entitled to the very highest standards of ethics and integrity.
For complete clarity, Mr Jonathan Aleck has led the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that CASA was not fully involved in the design and approval of the business structure that I used.
I claim that CASA is deliberately and substantially misleading the Ombudsman’s Office in the investigation.
There is an overwhelming body of evidence to support my assertion that CASA had full knowledge of my structure, and to assert any other position is simply immoral, and most likely illegal.
I urge you to stand Mr Aleck aside on full pay until this matter can be fully investigated by CASA. By allowing the very person that substantive allegations have been made against to be the person responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman’s Office is not acceptable. I know of no organisation that would permit this to happen, and most certainly it should not be permitted within a Nations aviation safety regulator. The potential and ongoing risk to aviation safety of permitting a CASA Executive to remain in his position when such allegations have been made against him by so many affected individuals, cannot be justified on any level.
Should you choose not to stand him aside, I must insist that as a minimum he be immediately removed from any further involvement in this matter. An allegation of misfeasance in public office has been made against him, and he should not be the person nominated by CASA to be responsible for the provision of information to the Ombudsman’s Office. It makes no sense at all, on any level.
Without disclosing the current nature of my employment, I now work in a field in which many employees at any time are “under investigation”, some are permitted to remain operational during the investigation, whilst others are not. Most investigations find the employee has acted appropriately, and on occasions not.
Whilst I personally have not been under investigation, I will embrace the situation if it were to occur. It ensures a workplace with ethics and integrity. No doubt Mr Jonathan Aleck would welcome an investigation into his conduct, as I would in my own workplace. An innocent person has nothing to fear from a well-intentioned and well run investigation.
Surely the CASA Board must have a reasonable doubt as to the integrity of the information provided by Mr Aleck, and is compelled to act, and rectify the situation. Should the Board choose to facilitate this misinformation, my intention is to establish contact with Senator Susan McDonald and my local MP, Ms Gladys Liu requesting a two-hour meeting for me to fully brief them on the facts, and to bring this matter directly to the attention of Mr Barnaby Joyce, the Deputy PM, Leader of the Nationals and the Minister responsible for the conduct of CASA and its employees.
On February 11th, I will commence a group of sessions with a psychiatrist to attempt to repair the trauma caused by Mr Alecks conduct. I have finally accepted this option at the insistence of my GP and family. There is no doubt that Mr Aleck caused the financial harm, but CASAs continued coverup of this matter causes the psychological trauma. I am not the first to be impacted in this matter, but I must be the last.
I await a response from you, that you intend to clarify the truthfulness of CASA involvement and knowledge of the structure that I adopted with the Ombudsman’s Office.
Once again I extend my request to meet with any two Members of the CASA Board. The exact same request that I have made on multiple occasions over the last three years. That meeting should occur before the Ombudsman’s investigation is completed to ensure the accuracy of that investigation, and to ensure that the Ombudsman’s Office findings are based on facts and not blatant lies propagated by Mr Jonathan Aleck, to cover up his own misconduct.
Glen Buckley
MTF...P2