[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 28/07/22

Via the AP email chains:

28th July 2022.
 
Useful Links
Civil Aviation Act                                 Civil Aviation Act 1988 (legislation.gov.au)
Civil Aviation Regulations                        Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (legislation.gov.au)
CASRs                                                         Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (legislation.gov.au)
 
COMPLAINT TO THE CASA INDUSTRY COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER (ICC) OF A CASA EMPLOYEE CHOOSING TO PROVIDE CLEARLY FALSE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION TO THE COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMANS OFFICE INVESTIGATION, WITH THE INTENTION TO PERVERT THE FINDINGS OF THAT INVESTIGATION.
 
Dear Mr Hanton,
 
I write to you in your dual roles within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), as both the Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC), and as the CASA Ethics and Integrity Officer (E&IO).

The purpose of this correspondence is to formally submit a complaint to your office of a CASA employee deliberately providing false and misleading information to an investigation currently being conducted by the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office. That investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman’s Office is into the closure of my two businesses and the subsequent direction from CASA to my Employer at the time, that my continuing employment was “no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”.

The person responsible for providing that false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office is Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.

Perhaps not coincidentally, Mr Aleck is also the sole decision maker within CASA that determined my business of more than a decade was suddenly operating unlawfully and forced it into closure on  23rd October 2018 when CASA sent the following notification to me.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/k3qn3qdgoa2uavx/App%20A%20initial%20notification.pdf?dl=0

As the investigation by the Ombudsman’s Office is about the processes and consequences associated with Mr Alecks decision making, it is a possibility that Mr Aleck may be tempted to provide false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office to coverup his alleged misconduct.

Importantly, this correspondence is not a complaint about Mr Alecks conduct. This is a complaint about the truthfulness and accuracy of information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office, and a further opportunity for CASA to act professionally and with integrity and simply tell the clear and concise truth to the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

As you are aware the ramifications of Mr Alecks “change of opinion” and determination to close down my businesses in October 2018 and with no prior warning, caused significant harm, as could be expected. The notification that my business was now operating illegally, caught me completely off guard, and was not expected.

My family has been significantly impacted by this matter. I have lost my home, and  I have been bankrupted. After CASA closed my businesses, and I obtained employment within the industry, CASA withdrew their approval of me to operate in the role of CASA approved Head of Operations, and directed my employer that my “continuing employment was no longer tenable”, there can be no doubt that I was forced out of the industry that I had spent the last 25 years in.

My wife and I have been left with total assets of $6000. We now rent, and if my wife or I were to stop working for more than 6 weeks, we would be facing homelessness. That is the plain and simple truth, and the inevitability of that situation is traumatic. My physical and mental health has been impacted and my poor wife has had a total of 6 days free of work in the last 1500 days, since CASA did this in October of 2018, as she tries desperately to claw back some level of meagre financial security for our future.

Like most small business owners in Australia, that business that CASA closed, was in fact my Superannuation. The future of my wife and I is bleak, and our latter years will be dependent on social housing. Our life changed significantly on receipt of the notification that the business I had operated for over a decade was suddenly illegal. We have been left destitute.

As the person impacted, by the conduct and decision making of the single CASA employee, Mr Jonathan Aleck, at the very minimum I believe I am entitled to a thorough and well-intentioned investigation, and a written explanation of why CASA took such disproportionate, unnecessary, unlawful, and totally avoidable action against my business. My reasonable expectation of CASA is that they will act professionally and honestly in providing information to the Ombudsman’s Office to facilitate a fair determination.

As you are aware there are three primary issues in that investigation.

1. The sudden reversal of CASA approval for my business, the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA).
   
2. The decision that my flying school of more than a decade, Melbourne Flight Training, was now suddenly operating unlawfully and shut down.
   
3. The direction by CASA to my Employer that I was not a fit and proper person to hold the CASA approved position as the Head of Operations (HOO), based on comments that I was making publicly, yet CASA refuses to identify the alleged comments that I made publicly to justify that direction from CASA.
   

As you are aware, CASA never made any allegations against any safety matter, CASA never stated that we did not have full operational control, never raised any concerns at all about any quality outcomes at all. It was simply a determination by Mr Aleck that my business had suddenly become unlawful against a regulation from 30 years prior. The very same business that had been operating for more than a decade with an industry leading level of safety and compliance.

For complete clarity, I am fully satisfied that Mr Alecks decision making, and actions may not have been primarily motivated by the safety of aviation, but that they were in fact made for other less altruistic reasons, and his decision making may not have had the clarity that it should have had. There are reasons I say this, but they do not need to be attended to in this correspondence. This may be a contributing factor as to why he chose to bypass clearly stipulated procedures in CASAs own manuals, when CASA decide to:

A) Close a business down by cancelling, varying or suspending an AOC, or
B) CASA determine that a person is no longer a “fit and proper” person to hold a position as a CASA approved Head of Operations.

By choosing to bypass these stipulated procedures in designed to protect individuals such as myself from abuses of power by public officials, Mr Aleck was able to operate unchecked, and I was left with no appeal available to be to dispute his change of opinion

It is important, not only for me, but also for the wider industry, for the purposes of investigating if improvements in procedures can be adopted within CASA to ensure that this can never happen again to any other person. It does not seem reasonable that in any industry, the Regulator should be able to shut down a business, effective immediately without a sound supporting case, and particularly so when that owner of the business impacted, has no appeal process available to them against the Regulators determination, and always has shown a complete willingness to comply with any new requirements stipulated by the Regulator.

As you are aware on 23rd October 2018, and without any warning Mr Aleck determined that my business of more than ten years was somehow suddenly unlawful, and advised it was most likely I was to be prosecuted as a result.

Three years later, as the person impacted the entire matter remains inexplicable, in fact probably more so now than before.
There were never any allegations against by CASA against any safety matters, or any quality outcomes, just a determination that it was unlawful against a regulation from 30 years prior. The business had been operating for twelve years and was established almost two decades after that regulation was even written.

It was ludicrous and made absolutely no sense at all. Of more concern, it was totally unnecessary and totally avoidable. A well-intentioned discussion could have fully resolved this matter in less than half a day, and that is the plain and simple truth.
Had CASA intended to resolve this matter, there is no reason that it could not have been totally resolved and all the associated harm and trauma avoided. There is no reason that the entire matter could not have been resolved at any time by way of a 4 hour well intentioned discussion between CASA and me. Quite simply, someone in CASA did not want this matter resolved. They wanted my business shut down. It was personal. Whilst I appreciate the difficulty in proving that Mr Aleck acted vindictively and vexatiously against me is most likely not feasible, a genuine assessment of his decision making would have to raise some concerns.

Mr Aleck immediately implemented restrictions on my businesses ability to trade, from that first notification on 23rd October 2018. Those restrictions created an impossible environment to operate a business and deprived me of almost all revenue throughout the next 6-month period, until CASA confirmed their original position in the original document of 23rd October 2018, determined my business unlawful, and forced any remaining customers to leave, leading to the inevitable closure of the business, and significant material harm and trauma.

That trauma was most significant on me and my family but also extended to staff that lost employment and entitlements, to the foreign and domestic students who had their training impacted, to suppliers left unpaid, and businesses dependant on me that were forced into closure as a result.

I appreciate that Mr Aleck will likely try and contend that CASA took no action against my business. As the Owner of that business, and the individual directly affected, please let me be very clear that the restrictions on my businesses were devastating. On multiple occasions, in writing, CASA was made fully aware of the impact of Mr Alecks determination.

Throughout the 8 months between the restrictions on trade being applied, and CASA shutting down the business, CASA was repeatedly advised of the commercial impact. In fact within 24 hours of CASA reversing their approval and placing restrictions on my ability to trade, I had contacted CASA.

That initial notification sent by CASA can be accessed here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/k3qn3qdgoa2uavx/App%20A%20initial%20notification.pdf?dl=0

My initial response to that CASA notification can be accessed here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ke7rl708n9vrc2m/Initial%20response.pdf?dl=0

The impacts of that notification were significant. All restrictions remained in place for 8 months until CASA stood by their original determination and forced all my remaining customers to leave, despite that not being the customers preferred option.

• CASA advised I was operating unlawfully and subject to prosecution.
  
• CASA prevented me from accepting any new customers.
  
• CASA contacted all my existing customers within 30 days and advised them that I was operating unlawfully, and that their continuing involvement with my business would subject them also to regulatory action.
  
• CASA restrictions prevented me from marketing my business at a critical time for the business i.e., end of the school year.
  
• CASA placed several short terms “interim approvals to operate” of as little as 7 days. With 7 days surety of operations, it was impossible and unlawful for me to enrol students into our 15-month courses with those 7 days surety of operations. These short-term interim approvals to operate made business difficult and created anxiety on employees, suppliers, and customers over the lack of certainty regarding continuing operations.
  
• Placed an “administrative freeze” on the business whereby CASA refused to process any regulatory tasks including approving personnel, renewing flight simulators, adding on any new courses etc.
  
• Caused enormous reputational damage to the business and to me personally
  
• Bought enormous organisational instability.
  
• Starved the business of income.
  
• CASA allowed the business to remain open, but it was unable to access new customers or retain existing customers. By acting in this way, CASA had not formally “decided”, but rather they were “thinking about it”. As no decision was ever made, the restrictions were never lifted, and I had no appeal process open to me. I was at the complete mercy of Mr Aleck, who may not have been acting with good intent.
  

With those restrictions being in place for over 6 months, Mr Aleck then stood by his initial determination and closed the business down when he forced all remaining customers to leave, despite that not being the customers preferred option.
The business was obviously forced into closure by CASA. On that matter there is no question.

All of this was done without CASA ever providing any supporting safety case.

It was a reversal of CASAs previously issued approvals, that had been held by me for over a decade.

CASA never issued any documentation throughout this entire process that gave me the right to appeal or challenge the change of opinion by Mr Aleck. I was completely denied procedural fairness and natural justice. These are clear breaches of CASAs obligations in administrative law, as outlined in CASAs own procedures. These include thespecified  procedures to be followed when CASA  close down a business by “suspending, cancelling, or varying an AOC’ as they did with mine. CASA completely bypassed these stipulated procedures. These procedures can be accessed via CASAs Enforcement Manual located here.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/960oiyktzvgqi99/Appendix%20E%20CASA%20Enforcement%20Manual.pdf?dl=0

Similarly, CASA also completely bypassed all of their own procedures in that same Manual, when they determined that I was not  a “fit and proper person” to hold the formally CASA approved position of Head of Operations (HOO) and directed my Employer that my continuing employment as the HOO was “no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”, although CASA fails to identify to me what those “ comments that I was making publicly”   were, despite CASA using those “comments” as the basis to force me out of the industry. Once CASA had declared that I was not a “fit and proper person”, I was effectively unemployable in the flight training industry where I had worked for over 25 years. Having lost my two businesses, I was now forced to exit the industry I loved.

The entire matter of closing down my business is absurd. I had been operating in that same structure for the last six years, until Mr Aleck suddenly declared it unlawful in October 2018. I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck was the sole decision maker throughout this entire matter, and that he was abusing his significant power.

What made this even more absurd is that two and a half years earlier, CASA had worked side by side with me, for hundreds of hours, as I invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars in systems, procedures and personnel to become one of Australia’s first schools to get  CASA accreditation as both a Part 141 and 142 organisation in April 2017, and we were operating in the same multi base structure that CASA would later, suddenly determine to be illegal in October 2018, and deceptively claim that they were not aware of. It is such a ludicrous assertion, and so clearly false and misleading.

As you are aware, I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck, the sole decision maker in closing my business. drew on no supporting safety case, no regulatory breach, no identified concern against any quality outcome whatsoever. You simply need to ask him, to put forward his arguments clearly and concisely. The tenuous nature of Mr Alecks opinion will become immediately obvious. Despite my repeated requests for an explanation, none has been forthcoming. CASA is extremely evasive in providing an explanation for Mr Alecks decisions and actions, and this has been my experience throughout the last three years. To be frank, I believe that there is an attempt to cover up this matter, at the highest levels of CASA.

It is important to understand that I was not disputing CASAs safety case because there was never any safety case put forward by CASA to dispute. CASA have never put forward any safety case at all in support of Mr Alecks decision making. Surely one would expect that such substantial decision making within CASA, such as the decision to shut down a business of more than a decade would be driven by decisions on based on safety with supporting safety cases and evidence-based data. Surely that failure to have any supporting safety case at all, must raise concerns as to the quality of his decision making, and more so when I have made formal allegations before the Senate that he was acting vindictively and vexatiously against me.

That presentation to Senate on 23rd November 2020 where I raised these allegations of misfeasance in Public Office against Mr Aleck, can be accessed here.

https://youtu.be/b_VZCixKm3c

This entire and exact structure that I had been using for 6 years and that that Mr Aleck suddenly declared unlawful in October 2018, had been re-designed from the ground up and formally revalidated 18 months earlier by CASA in April of 2017. Yet inexplicably,18 months later, in October 2018, CASA declare it unlawful and shut it down, then assert to the Ombudsman that they weren’t fully aware of my structure. The level of deception being propagated by Mr Alecks Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Department is substantive, and easily proven to be so.

Mr Hanton, please note that I have also included by new Local Member for Chisholm in this correspondence, as I anticipate seeking her assistance on this matter.

For Ms Carina Garland my local MP, and other relevant recipients. At this stage it may be worth reviewing two magazine articles from the Australian Flying magazine. One written when APTA was revalidated by CASA and the other after APTA was closed down by CASA. They provide a fairly plain English overview of the background to this matter. The first article was published in early 2018. This is 10 months before Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman’s office believe that CASA “first became aware of APTA”, and further indicates that perhaps Mr Aleck is being deceptive. It is highly unlikely that a respected industry magazine is publishing a story a year before CASA claim that they first became aware of my business that CASA had themselves approved through a revalidation 6 months earlier.

Those two magazine articles can be accessed here

• APTA before CASA action https://www.dropbox.com/s/5xdbzhba4l4v93j/APTA%20BEFORE%20CASA%20ACTION.pdf?dl=0
  
• APTA after CASA action
  

https://www.dropbox.com/s/k12d43vtnhek75l/APTA%20AFTER%20CASA%20ACTION.PDF?dl=0

For reference for Ms Carina Garland. This matter has attracted widespread industry interest on a discrete pilots forum referred to as Pprune. My particular thread has had over 1,000,000 views and encouraged robust discussion. My particular thread can be accessed via this link. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums

When CASA acted to shut down my business, the industry established a crowd funding page, and that can be accessed here. The comments associated with donations make interesting reading. Fundraiser for Glen Buckley by Cale Johnston : Glen Buckley vs. CASA (gofundme.com)
  
I provide the above information as background information to the lodgement of formal complaints that follow.
The response to the three complaints in this correspondence is simple and really only requires the very briefest of responses, and possibly as short as a yes or a no from CASA.

It requires only statements of fact and requires no judgement applied to it. It is not a complaint against a person, it is a complaint against truthfulness, and requiring only clarification of clear statements of fact. There is only one truthful response to each complaint.

To the “trigger” for these three complaints.

I recently had the opportunity to receive a telephone update from the Ombudsman’s Office on progress of the three-year investigation into the closure of my two businesses by CASA in October 2018, and the subsequent written direction to my Employer from CASA that my “continuing employment was no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”, and my subsequent termination of employment as a result of that directive.

That telephone call with the Ombudsman’s office left me in no doubt, that a CASA employee has been responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman Office as part of the investigation that is “false and misleading”, substantially so, and is integral to this entire matter.

Furthermore, that recent communication with the Ombudsman’s office has left me in no doubt that the false and misleading information provided by the CASA Employee has had the effect that the CASA Employee intended when he knowingly provided that false and misleading information. That being to pervert the findings of the investigation.

There is an overwhelming body of well documented evidence to support my allegation, and I look forward to presenting that evidence in full to you, if the evidence provided here is insufficient.

In this correspondence I will limit myself to only the most pertinent supporting information to assist you in an initial assessment of the validity or not of my complaint, and whether you are able to investigate my allegations.

There can be no doubt that the single CASA employee responsible for providing that information, Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASAs second most senior employee, was fully aware that the information was false and misleading at the time of providing that information to the Ombudsman’s Office. It was a considered decision and deliberate.

Mr Aleck has also chosen to omit providing pertinent information highly relevant to the investigation to the Ombudsman’s Office. I am fully satisfied that this was also a considered decision and deliberate.

I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck acted in this way to pervert the findings of the Ombudsman’s Office investigation, and most likely, in part, to coverup his own misconduct, and his sub optimal decision making.

These are not “matters of opinion” or “grey areas” that I am referring to. These are gross misrepresentation of facts that have been presented to the Ombudsman’s Office. The complaints that I will put forward will only require short but truthful responses. The answers are either black or white. There are no grey areas.

Truthful responses will clearly indicate that the information previously provided by CASA to the Ombudsman’s Office was false and misleading.

Any CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) with more than 10 years’ experience with CASA will be able to assist you in arriving at the truth, alternatively the CASA CEO Ms Spence would have prompt access to truthful information, should she choose to obtain it.

These are matters where the truth can be readily obtained. The matters can be easily clarified so that there can be no doubt. I urge you in this investigation to cross check any information that is provided to you by Mr Aleck. Unlike the Ombudsman’s Office you have the advantage of access to more than one point of contact, so accessing truthful information and fact checking will be more easily achieved by your office, rather than the Ombudsman Office, which is dependant only on information that Mr Aleck is responsible for providing.

Due to the substantive nature of the false and misleading information, I have been compelled to request that the Ombudsman hold off releasing any final report until these matters can be clarified by CASA. At this stage the Ombudsman Office is holding off finalising the report, based on my request, and to provide CASA the opportunity to be truthful.

It is not reasonable or fair for the many people impacted by Mr Alecks alleged misconduct, that the Ombudsman’s office arrives at a determinations or findings based on significantly false and misleading information, provided by that same CASA employee, and potentially to cover up his own misconduct.

Understandably the Ombudsman’s Office is likely to have trust and confidence in information provided to it by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and particularly so when one the most senior and highly experienced CASA Executive Managers is providing that information.

It would be a reasonable expectation that the Ombudsman’s Office should be able to depend on the truthfulness and good intent of any information provided by CASA. The Office is likely to receive that information, reasonably believing it to have those qualities. The perceived “trustworthiness” of CASA may require a lesser amount of supporting evidence. i.e., CASA may be trusted on their word, and that has been my experience.

The CASA employee would be fully aware of that credibility imbalance between an individual such as myself, and information provided by himself as the second most senior executive at CASA. If the senior CASA Executive was aware of that credibility imbalance, he could potentially use it to his advantage, and most especially when providing information to the Ombudsman’s Office that is false or misleading. It could not reasonably be expected that the Ombudsman’s Office would be able to easily identify the truthfulness or not of the information provided, and more so when it is provided by someone of Mr Alecks senior position as the second in charge of CASA.

My only reasonable assumption is that this grossly false and misleading information has been provided with the intention to alter the findings of that investigation The information provided is substantially and materially misleading and false. I am fully satisfied that I have an overwhelming body of evidence to support that allegation.

I have personally witnessed this same CASA Employee be responsible for providing false and misleading information to the current Senate Inquiry, and now also to the Ombudsman. This employee has had allegations made against him previously. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. As I have witnessed it previously, as others have, it is reasonable that I have concerns about the intent to with which information is provided to the Ombudsman’s office, and most especially when it is provided by the same person that I raise allegations of misfeasance in public office against.

I appreciate the seriousness and substantive nature of my allegation. I stand fully behind it, and I understand that I am fully liable if my allegations are found to be false or vexatious. An investigation would clarify the situation one way or another.
I have approached the CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence directly bringing this complaint of false and misleading information to her attention and calling on her to act and correct any substantial misunderstandings that the Ombudsman’s Office may have developed based on false and misleading information that CASA has previously provided.

Ms. Spence, the CASA CEO has chosen not to correct the misleading information provided; this is despite her having ready access to the truthful information. Some of that correspondence with the CASA CEO on this topic be found via the following link.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1wkdinj8avsyl8j/APPENDIX%20TWO-%20SPENCE%20EMAILS.docx?dl=0

If the CASA employee that I make allegations against is prepared to mislead the Ombudsman’s Office, and the Senate Inquiry, it is possible that they would also be prepared to mislead the CASA CEO. Ms Spence also may be acting on disinformation, although she does have access to other personnel that can promptly advise her on the tenuous nature of CASAs information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office to date, and I again refer her to any CASA Flight Operations Inspector with more than 10 years’ experience, as they will be able to confirm that previously provided advice is false and misleading and provide her the opportunity to intervene, and act appropriate to her senior role within Government.

For that reason, I once again make the same offer I have since Ms. Spence commenced in the role over 12 months ago. I have requested a meeting with Ms. Spence to brief her on the facts and have a well-intentioned discussion. Ms Spence has chosen not to take advantage of that opportunity. That invitation remains in place. I have no doubt that if Ms. Spence were to provide me that opportunity, the truth could be promptly ascertained, and Ms Spence would be compelled to act. If the CEO of CASA is unable to meet with me, my only option is to submit my complaint via your Office for assessment.

It is not possible for me to proceed with costly litigation in pursuit of the truth and a determination if I have legitimate concerns as to whether CASA will act truthfully and as a model litigant. By CASA demonstrating that it is prepared to mislead both the Senate Inquiry and the Ombudsman’s Office it must be reasonably assumed, that the CASA employee would be likely to repeat that behaviour in a courtroom scenario, in fact it is more likely that the individual would further propagate that disinformation, rather than act honestly and risk highlighting the falsehoods previously propagated. It is this very misconduct that denies me an opportunity for procedural fairness, and natural justice. I trust you can appreciate my position.

CASA has an obligation to act as a model litigant and whilst I certainly don’t intend to go through the entire charter here, I would like to highlight some of the relevant commitments given. The first of these being particularly salient in this matter, as that is in fact the crux of the three formal complaints that follow later in this correspondence.

• “Not requiring the other party to prove a matter which the Crown knows to be true.
  

• Act honestly and fairly
  
• Not causing unnecessary delay.
  
• Endeavouring to avoid litigation wherever possible.
  
• Not taking advantage of a claimant who lacks the resources to litigate a legitimate claim
  
• Apologising where the Crown is aware that it or its lawyers have acted wrongfully or improperly,
  
• The Court also traced the model litigant obligation back to the traditional relationship between the Crown and its subjects and noted that the Commonwealth and its agencies have no legitimate private interest in the performance of their functions and frequently also have greater access to resources than private litigants. For these reasons, the Court held that Australian Government Agencies and their legal representatives should act as moral exemplars when engaging with private litigants.”
  

Quite simply I am asking the CASA to tell the truth. CASA knows the truth of the three complaints that I submit. If CASA acts honestly, I can avoid any further ongoing stress and pressure on myself trying to prove matters true, which CASA already knows to be true, yet claims to the Ombudsman’s Office that they are not. This matter has dragged on for three years. The cumulative stress has taken a toll not only financially, but mentally and physically. It is in fact CASAs continuing deceptiveness on this entire matter and attempts to frustrate any investigation that have caused so much unnecessary and additional cumulative trauma. This is an opportunity for CASA under the CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence to bring it to a well-intentioned conclusion by simply being truthful and well intentioned.

---

 
Conclusion
I trust that you can appreciate the significance of the Ombudsman’s Office being very clear on the outcome of these three complaints, but may I put the importance of truthful responses into context.
If CASA always permitted on every occasion, and had done since the inception of CASA, more than one flying school to operate under a single CASA authorisation, exactly as I did,
and;
If CASA was fully aware that I had adopted that exact CASA approved structure for at least 6 years,
and;
If CASA has no supporting safety case at all to support their decision to close my businesses.
and;
If CASA can identify no regulatory breach to support their decision to close my businesses
and;
If CASA claim that their regulatory approach is outcome based yet cannot identify any concerns against any quality outcomes at all to support their decision to close my business
 
and;
if CASA have shown a flagrant disregard for their own procedures and obligations under Administrative Law in their Enforcement Manual , and shown total disregard for their own Regulatory Philosophy Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
and;
if the Owner of the business closed down by CASA maintains that all of the harm caused by CASAs decision to close the business could have been avoided by a well intentioned 4 hour discussion, and CASA is unable to challenge that assertion.
and;

If you consider the enormity of the trauma caused to me and my family, not only financially but also the impact on our mental and physical health,

Then you will appreciate that responses to my complaints are essential in any determination by a third party such as the Ombudsman or some other forum. I look forward to hearing from you.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

Via the UP comments in reply...

Sandy Reith

GlenB All cards on table. AerialPerspective Comment 2234

Glen, a tour de force of the whole sorry saga, I hope CASA answers in a positive and constructive manner with view to compensation. The CASA CEO should lead because that is her job and if there was ever a case that demands action this is it.

AerialPerspective comments on the negative side of our political landscape and in general will get no argument from many people but ask ourselves a a question.

How do we improve if not through individual effort within the democratic institutions that we’ve inherited?

---

Sunfish

Sandy:

Glen, a tour de force of the whole sorry saga, I hope CASA answers in a positive and constructive manner with view to compensation. The CASA CEO should lead because that is her job and if there was ever a case that demands action this is it.

Sadly no. If "they" can discover one statement by Glen that is capable of being construed to his disadvantage, eg. an error in dates, something that might look like a threat, etc. they will take it and weave a story around it that portrays Glen as a malcontent nutcase who refuses to take "no" for an answer and can be safely ignored.

Unfortunately such sad cases do exist and regularly pester officials about imagined grievances and conspiracies**. I would imagine that Glen has already been labelled as such.

As I have written more than once, Glens complaint would have ended up on Dr. A's desk and he would be writing the letters for the DAS and Board to sign together with the brief to them explaining the situation as Dr. A sees it and asking for their signatures.

Neither the Board nor DAS will know anything about Buckley except what was written in the brief and they will follow the departmental advice contained therein to the letter.

** For example, I was once asked to deal with a nut who kept at the Premiere about a nuclear power plant for Victoria. Since no municipality would permit such a power plant, his solution was to build it on a barge to be anchored in the river Yarra. He complained to the Premiere (Kennett) that he had everything lined up to proceed except that BHP refused to manufacture 200 mm armor plate that he calculated he needed for his barge - they were part of a conspiracy against him and would we help? I forget how I fobbed him off, I think I asked him for details of his patents or something.

---

Sandy Reith

What the CASA Board knows

Quote Sunfish:-

“Neither the Board nor DAS will know anything about Buckley except what was written in the brief and they will follow the departmental advice contained therein to the letter.”

With respect that might be likely but maybe they do have some additional knowledge and it’s a prospect that we should endeavour to build upon. There would be few, if any, more prominent cases of bureaucratic incompetence and completely unjustifiable action against an individual.

In particular the declaration of “not a fit and proper person” and preventing Glen to work in GA would have to be the lowest act of all.

---

Lead Balloon

No, I think the lowest act was Carmody’s accusation, under parliamentary privilege, that Glen had stalked and assaulted CASA staff. So far as I am aware - Glen will correct me if I’m wrong - Glen has not been charged with or questioned by police about either allegation.

---

Paragraph377

Originally Posted by Sandy Reith View Post
Quote Sunfish:-

“Neither the Board nor DAS will know anything about Buckley except what was written in the brief and they will follow the departmental advice contained therein to the letter.”

With respect that might be likely but maybe they do have some additional knowledge and it’s a prospect that we should endeavour to build upon. There would be few, if any, more prominent cases of bureaucratic incompetence and completely unjustifiable action against an individual.

In particular the declaration of “not a fit and proper person” and preventing Glen to work in GA would have to be the lowest act of all.

The CASA CEO and Board will be acutely aware of who Glen is and what the current status of his complaint is. CASA may be all and powerful, but they exist as a barrier between industry and the Minister. A protective cocoon if you will. However Glen has shone a spotlight on several Ministers by going public about CASA and not letting go - speaking on radio, speaking in the media, writing to many politicians etc. It hasn’t gone unnoticed by numerous testicle deficient ministers. And the proof of that is by way of several scalps that have already been sacrificed by CASA - Crawford, Martin, McHeyzer, all rolled/pressured to leave. And if rumour is to be believed, Aleck was also strongly encouraged to retire. Frau Spence is slowly picking them all off one at a time. But all for naught as Glen is all about justice and I imagine that an apology and adequate compensation is the only thing that will make Glen go away.

MTF...P2