Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
Here’s what happens when you have the kind of fight with CASA that Glen’s contemplating [...]
A good reminder of why proper legal advice and representation is not just recommended but a necessity.
Disclaimer: I don't have enough time to read through those court cases so I cannot appreciate how relevant those are and how they compare with Glen's case.
Common sense dictates here that Glen: a. didn't try to bend the rules, b. played the transparency card from the beginning, c. consulted the regulator before taking any action that could result in a fait accompli, d. showed exemplary behaviour (in my opinion).
I am the first to find CASA's initial approval and support for APTA's approach surprising. After all, what is to prevent all smaller flight schools from joining APTA and calling themselves Part 142? That is clearly not the intended purpose of the Part 141/Part 142 distinction (whether one agrees with its necessity is obviously a different matter). In a certain sense, I even agree that CASA has a right to take a second look and fix the situation it helped create. But there are certain ways in which parties are expected to behave. A respectful and considerate attitude would have been for CASA to acknowledge the significant changes that its new position would bring about and give APTA and its members
ample time to "fall back into the ranks" to avoid any major financial disruption to those involved. Some kind of "Mea culpa, mate, sorry".
I think Glen has a compelling case where next to nothing can be held against him and that's why I support him and believe his legal battle is one worth fighting for. His story also illustrates that no operator is immune to the regulator's whims. That's why Glen's battle is every operator's battle. This is Australia mate; everyone here gets a fair go.