[thorn bird]

From CASA Regional Manager to New Owner of APTA:-

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

Oh my giddy Aunt!!!...sorry Aunt Pru not referring to you.

The HI sets the scene, Hi is a tad familiar, not Dear Sir, or Dear Mr/Ms........lack of respect? could be........ Best mate with the recipient? maybe. Arrogant disregard for protocol?....undoubtably. Hi is a bit touchy feely for me.

Where is the media for goodness sake?

This is a government employed bureaucrat directly trying to influence an Australian citizens employment rights and livelihood because they have been critical of a government agencies actions.

Many agree this is not just capricious, but diabolical. Embuggerence at its most venal.

"This is no longer tenable with the comments that Mr Buckley is making publicly."

In other words Mr Buckley is not prepared to accept US destroying his business and bankrupting him, and a few others (collateral damage), for no other reason than WE said so.

He chose to criticise US, therefore WE decree he is "persona non grata" and we will not allow him to participate in aviation again.

Oh and by the by this has nothing to do with safety, nor non compliance, we just didn't like his business model, which was only viable anyway because we buggered up our "reformed" regulations. We could not afford any light being shone on that cock up so Mr Buckley had to go. All he had to do was keep his mouth shut and if anything praise us for our actions and all would have been well, but he had to go and complain, therefore the fault is his not ours, how dare he criticise US.

Where is the industry for goodness sake? Mr Buckleys experience is embuggerence on a grand scale, even by CAsA standards, yet nothing from industry. Why?

There has been much said in support of Mr Buckley via several anonymous blog sights, obviously by industry participants behind anonymous "handles," but formal complaint, not a lot. Why?

A letter sent to Mr Buckley by the CEO of CAsA illustrates why. The subtle implied threat, dissent will not be tolerated by the regulator, what we have done to Mr Buckley we can do to you, we can destroy you any time we like.

Mr Buckley is a lone individual. Who would be prepared to risk their life work? can't blame them I guess.

The question still remains, why would a CAsA official put into the open an attempt to subjugate and censor a dissenter?

Their subtle modus operandi is usually off the record phone calls to CP's or CEO's or foreign regulators that employing So and So may not be in their best interest.

At best this illustrates the arrogance of senior management belief that CAsA is untouchable, unaccountable and omnipotent.

Or it illustrate that CAsA senior management has bugger all control over what its minions do, until it's done, when  the do do hits the fan they frantically mobilise large quantities of Mr sheen in a vain attempt to polish the turd.

They keep employing industry rejects or unemployable incompetents, many with large chips on their shoulders with delusions of grandeur or of revenge, let them loose on the industry to wreak havoc, with no oversight, then expend vast resources to cover it up.

Think I'm joking?

Then ask the question.

Embuggerences over the years and there are many, well documented, were any of those involved prosecuted for breach of regulation?

If not why not? Thats the way the LAW is supposed to work isn't it?