[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update - 5/09/20

Via Oz Flying: http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...-apta-case

Update 3 September

A CASA spokesperson today issued the following statement.

"CASA’s position on ‘franchise-like’ arrangements is that they may be acceptable, so long as those arrangements ensure that the authorisation holder maintains ‘full operational control’ over the approved activities and is able to satisfy CASA that this is so.
"CASA will continue to cooperate fully with the Ombudsman’s investigation, which is not yet completed."

In response to that via the UP:

Bend alot

Originally Posted by thisishardtochoose View Post

A little update to the article

So a bit like the muddy waters of supervision being "direct" from afar. When that suits.

---

Sunfish

I note that, again, the CASA criteria are not objective. “may”, “acceptable”, “full operational control”, “satisfy”, ‘this is so”.

These are meaningless gibberish words whose meanings can be changed at a lawyers whim. This is the actual reverse of classic Weberian bureaucracy - a system of administration developed by the Prussians precisely to stamp out the kind of corruption (including noble cause corruption) that CASAs regulations deliberately facilitate.

‘’To put that another way, the CASA spokesman really said: “if we like you, we might let you franchise stuff, however if we feel we don’t love you any more, then your franchising is not permitted. Be nice to us or we will destroy you.”

---

glenb

POST 1186- The obligation on CASA.

---

Bendy and Sunfish, you hit the nail on the head. That is the crux of the issue.

But it is important to recap the Civil Aviation ACT. The ACT that establishes CASA. I will quote from PART II which deals with the establishment and functions of CASA, in sections 8 and 9)

“[i]CASA is a body corporate and may be sued in its corporate name……. The Public Governance, Performance, and Accountability Act 2013 applies to CASA. That Act deals with matters relating to corporate Commonwealth entities, including… the use and management of public resources……..CASA has the function of developing and promulgating appropriate, clear, and concise aviation safety standards.”[/i]

So if CASA, and specifically, Mr. Martin and Mr. Aleck, are unable to produce any supporting safety case after more than two years, then I have a reasonable expectation that they can direct me to a regulatory breach that is “clear and concise”. Surely they are obligated to do so. Especially when one considers the negative impact on safety and the loss of business and jobs that has resulted from their actions and decisions.

If I cannot be directed to a supporting safety case, then there must be a regulatory breach. If neither of those exists, then I reasonably have to assume that their motivation lies elsewhere.

CASA has thrown everything at me. They have tried the Aviation Ruling, bullying and intimidation, breaches of Administrative law, Procedural fairness, and natural justice. They have falsified audit results, made completely unsubstantiated allegations, placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade, etc etc. Nothing sticks.

They now move into “operational control”. It doesn’t appear in any CASA definition, so I will be dealing yet again, with the opinion of Mr. Aleck and Mr. Martin. I am sure they will have a “different opinion”.

I firmly believe my opinion to be correct, and relish the opportunity to challenge them on this one. They will be digging an even deeper hole, be assured!

Next via one of the PAIN_Net email chains...

Dear Mr. Buss, 

I have not had the opportunity to submit any documents for Phase Two of your investigation.

Please accept this document as an overview. It was prepared some time ago, however it does contain a significant amount of pertinent information. 

Thank you, respectfully, Glen Buckley

Ref: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...040619.pdf

Also via the email chain:

04/09/20

Dear Senator Susan McDonald,

My name is Glen Buckley,  you will have some knowledge of my current issues with members of the CASA Executive Management, whom I have made substantial allegations against. I have been impacted by the actions and decisions of those personnel.  

Allegations against those two individuals have been made before, and in fact, led to the ABC conducting an investigative report into the matter https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/dying-pilot-...l/10444126.

My allegations closely mirror previous allegations that have been raised, and against the same individuals.

The Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) has facilitated an opportunity for me via their Facebook Live conference at 7 PM on Tuesday 8th September. That presentation will open with a direct address to you, in your role on the current Senate Inquiry into Australia's General Aviation Industry. It will be my submission to that inquiry. 

If you are unable to accept an audiovisual submission, please advise me and I will provide a written transcript. I invite you to join the conference if you deem it appropriate.

I thank you sincerely for the open and professional manner that appears evident from the feedback  Ben Morgan from AOPA has provided me.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

In response to that, off the UP, Lead Balloon posted...

Lead Balloon:

Glen

You might want to contact the Committee Secretary to confirm (Phone: +61 2 6277 3511 or rrat.sen@aph.gov.au), but I'm pretty sure that anything published before submission to the Committee (e.g. an AOPA webcast or even a transcript of it) will not attract parliamentary privilege. Although that would not mean you can't participate in an AOPA webcast, it would mean that any e.g. potentially defamatory content of the webcast would be at your/AOPA's risk.

If you instead write down what you have to say about the CASA officers you've named and submit that to the Committee and the Committee publishes your submission [b]before[/b] any proposed webcast, the content will attract privilege and be 'out there'. But beware: You're starting a verbal streetfight with some of the best sophists in the game.

To which GlenB replied:

Lead Balloon.

---

As usual, sound guidance.

Unfortunately, I have been dealing with this, every woken moment in the last two years. I am time poor and need this bought to a head.

This needs to be actioned on, and promptly so. Everything I have said, I stand fully behind. In fact, such statements made without Parliamentary Privilege, carry more weight.

The person making the statements must be fully prepared to back them up with evidence and potentially face charges if they are vindictive or vexatious, not truthful, not in the public interest, unsupported with evidence, cannot be justified on the basis of aviation safety, etc. I'm fully aware of that, and accepting of it.

I know that seems naive, but quite simply the toll this has taken on me, must come to an end by whatever means.

By following CASA processes, this has already dragged on for two years. Enough is enough!

Provided both sides of the story are presented, I will be able to accept the outcome.

If I could delay a couple of weeks, type a submission (I'm a one-finger typer by the way) to the Senate, have it considered, potentially be involved in email ping pong, and accepted, would be weeks away. I simply don't have the time, mental capacity, or resources.

I will have to be fully accountable for my actions and decisions, and be truthful.

---

LB reply - 

More power to your arm, Glen. I look forward to Tuesday evening's webcast.

MTF...P2