Barwon Heads Airport Closed

[Rocket Rob]

You must be lukie boy himself, forever the dreamer.

[Rotor n Wings]

Hey Rocket is that a spelling error Lucky ?

[pol]

theinsider

You profess to having been a GAC bar fly, well in the last 10years some flies have flown.

There are two reasons for their flight.

1/ The committee secured the bar to prevent pilfering and the thieves buzzed off.

2/ Expulsion on the grounds of conduct unbecoming of a member and they got swatted.


Your reason ???

Must be 1 or 2 or both as there is no number 3 for ********

pol

[inbetweenthesheets]

The return of skydiving to BHA hogwash.

The CASA instrument prevents skydiving within 2nm of BHA and the only way it can be repealed is by a judgement in the Federal Court or a Determination by the AAT.

I think the fat old man has been smoking the garden clippings again.

sheets

[topview2]

theinsider

Seems to me you have a nasty taste in your mouth about Barwon Heads.

Could it be YOU are NOT ALLOWED BACK ?????

topview2

[Rotor n Wings]

TopView2 all I can say is "Top View" good post
"

[techrec]

Interesting Newpaper article

Skydive City head risks liquidation after failing to pay - The Geelong Advertiser

[pall]

What Rubbish!

I have to say that this thread has descended into a whole lot of rubbish. The main problem it seems is the ill-informed misinformation from THE INSIDER.

Any suggestion that BRS will become a DROP ZONE in the future is sheer fantasy. I agree with inbetweenthesheets as above.

Lets stick to the facts. Repeated breaches of safety (admitted in court) and a proven inability to stick to the terms of any agreement has led to the collapse of the working relationship between Skydive City, Airport Users and Management. Time has come for this operator to move on and stop perpetuating the farce.

[QNIM]

Gday
Well I think it is all told in this mornings article in the Geelong Advertiser, as follows.
Cheers Q


Skydive City head risks liquidation after failing to pay

Rebecca Tucker

September 16th, 2008
Share this article

* Digg this
* Post to del.icio.us
* Post to Stumble Upon
* Post to Facebook

SKYDIVE City boss Luke McWilliam risks liquidation of his business for failing to pay costs to Geelong Aero Club members after dropping a court case against them.

Mr McWilliam has three weeks to pay about $64,000 to Geelong Aero Club member Bryan Hawke, one of three people he was suing in the Federal Court.

He recently dropped the action against Mr Hawke, fellow pilot Les Tyack and Barwon Heads Heads Airport owner Barbara Begg, after a three-year process.

Federal Court documents show Mr McWilliam agreed to pay the costs by 9.30am on Monday, September 8.

But other documents show he did not make the payment and the court is now chasing him for the costs.

The court last week issued a notice for Mr McWilliam's company, registered in Nowra, New South Wales, to pay $64,000 to Mr Hawke, of Bellarine Highway, Leopold, within 21 days or his company could be placed in liquidation.

In documents filed at the Federal Court in Melbourne when he initiated the action, Mr McWilliam alleged a "concerted campaign" by club members and the airport's owner had lost him an estimated $3.74 million.

Mr McWilliam's statement of claim alleged Mrs Begg, who he said ran the airport as director of a company named Connair, had "wrongfully and maliciously conspired" with aero club members to damage Skydive City's business.

The documents alleged Mrs Begg contravened the Trade Practices Act and Fair Trading Act by not abiding by a lease that Mr McWilliam entered into with Mrs Begg's mother before she handed the land over to her daughter.

Mrs Begg and the aero club members were accused of having made "unjustified and incessant" complaints against Skydive City and Mr McWilliam to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Australian Parachute Federation, City of Greater Geelong, VCAT, and media outlets including the Geelong Advertiser.

[pol]

Skydiving to recommence at BRS

I DON’T THINK SO

SKYDIVE NAGAMBIE WERE SEEN REMOVING GEAR FROM SKYDIVE CITY’S OFFICE COMPLEX AT BRS TODAY. ( the boy was not to be seen)

McSkydive is starting to drown in his own shortcomings.


THE END IS NIGH

pol

[John Walters]

pol,
How long will it take those McSkydive supporters to get the message.
1.CASA say no jumping within 2 miles of Barwon Heads
2.The AAT say no jumping within 2 miles of Barwon Heads
3.The airport owner says you can no longer use my airport
4.The Council say you cannot use your road as a runway
5.CASA say you cannot use a road as a runway
6.Nagambie Skydivers say you can no longer use our refrigeration
7.Fletcher aircraft say you can no longer use our aircraft
8.Torqair say you cannot use our airport
9.Geelong say you cannot use our airport
10.Council say you cannot put a runway on your property
11.Court says you will pay compensation to two aero club members
12.Notices served demanding payment with 21 days
13.Notice served to wind up Skydive City if payment not made
14.Possibility McWilliam served with bankruptcy papers also
15.Government say you cannot put a runway on your land
16.VCAT say your objection to additional hangers on airport petty
17.and on, and on, it goes.

It is about time all those McSkydive supporters stepped back, considered the real facts and look at reality. There will be no return of skydiving at Barwon Heads by McWilliam.

Just think of the skydiving facity he could have been operating elsewhere with the financial imput into that, instead of into lawyers pockets.

Suggest he could have been operating a top tourist facility and making bucket loads, but he has decided to lose the lot including possible bankruptcy, and that will continue to effect him for the rest of his life.

[pol]

John Walters

If McSkydive supporters are so concerned with the current plight of DANCING BOY why haven’t they put their hands up offering him the opportunity to operate at their airport???

Could it be BECAUSE THEY DON’T WANT HIM??

They are all MOUTH no SUBSTANCE not a pair between the lot of them!!!

pol

[inbetweenthesheets]

pol

With the number of clowns that have been supporting McSkydive, knocking BRS and the “THUG CLUB” one would think the offers would be flooding in.

I think you’re right the pair is missing and the grey matter also.

sheets

[POQL]

pol,
maybe f***wit andy aka AAAT at nearby, might offer a recall to McSkydive seeing Bayles left town very quickly, rumor has it handy andy in training and would like another bout with either fists or shovel.
Been reported again the lance flying coastal at well below requirement.
Where have all McSkydive friends gone?????
Strange no posts from the friends when the truth starts to emerge other than s***stirrer insider.
The end is nigh???

[Rotor n Wings]

Childish rant over I hope!!

[theinsider]

Hi guys iam off to the UAE on a contract for 115 days just scored it ,boring but iam flying a Cit so that makes up for it Keep up the posts to keep me up to date ,
goodluck all and keep safe

[techrec]

updates

Any updates on the current situation?

[the fat lady]

Oh dear another breach and while he was on a good behaviour bond with the Geelong Magistrates Court.




Dr Jonathan Aleck

Manager, Enforcement & Investigations Branch

Office of Legal. Counsel

Civil Aviation Safety Authority

GPO Box 2005

CANBERRA ACT 2601

21 June 2005

Dear Jonathan,



I refer to your request, via Jim Marcolin, for "a clear. complete and accurate
statement, in writing (either in the form of an email from Graeme or from the APF on
their letterhead), explaining in detail the basis, disposition and current status of all
disciplinary actions taken by the Federation against and/or in relation to Luke
McWilliam/Skydive City since 1 January 2005.-

I have taken this opportunity to adjust my draft advice of 17 June 2005, -to address
further issues you raised in your email of today's date.

CHARGES BY DIRECTOR SAFETY-

On 10 May 2004, _The Director Safety lodged charges with the Discipline Committee
Chair against Luke McWilliam, Skydive City and Greg Bayly for breaches of

Sections 19.1 (a) and (c) of the Constitution, which state:-

"19.1 Members must not:

1. refuse to neglect to comply or be reckless as to whether they comply with this
Constitution or any Regulation (including the Federation's Code of Ethics),'and'


(c) act in a manner prejudicial to the Federation;

Shortly afterwards, at CASA's request, the APF engaged a mediator to sort issues out
between the owner of Barwon Heads airfield, and Luke Mc William, the owner of the
adjoining property and of Skydive City: Despite an agreement being mediated, -
Unbeknown to the APF and McWillliam, Barbara Begg notified CASA a few days
later that she no longer agreed to what had been mediated. The mediator's advice to
the APF was that any action taken by the APF in the .climate that "existed at that time
may prejudice the mediated outcome of a return to Barwon Heads by Skydive City.

This advice was adopted.

On 1 March 2005, the Discipline Committee Chair became aware that the 'Federal

Court ~ad found that CASA acted unfairly when imposing restrictions on. parachute
operations at Barwon Heads airfield, and Skydive City was back at the airfield.




CASA had indicated to the APF that the proposals as outlined in a "show cause"
notice issued on 23 December 2004, would not be acted on, although further action to
address safety concerns at Barwon Heads was being contemplated.

The APF Disciplinary Committee Chair (DCC) therefore decided there was no further
reason to suspect that processing the complaints against Luke in accordance with the
provisions contained in Section 19 of the Constitution would create any prejudice.

Following receipt of that advice, the DCC advised Luke McWilliam on 1 April 2005
that the charges would be heard by a DC Board of Review on 28 April 2005. Luke .
was also advised by the DCC that he had decided not to proceed with charges in
respect of Greg Bayly, as they had already been addressed elsewhere.

This decision was taken by the DCC in consultation with the APF Director Safety and
is presumably based on action taken by the Victorian ASO against Bayly over the
signing of a "B" licence application for Jesse Brewer without verifying the details of
the application. A penalty of 28 days Chief Instructor privileges was imposed, but was
suspended for 6 months on the proviso that no other breach of any Op Reg occurs. If
such a breach did occur it would have resulted in the imposition of the 28 day
penalty? plus any other penalty that would apply. The 6 months probation was served
without incident. It also took into account the main reason for the charges was the
airing of some Today Tonite TV footage that depicted Luke jumping through solid
cloud whilst maintaining that he never did.

The DC BOR found Luke guilty of the charges and imposed the following penalty:

1. Loss of IB rating for 12 months. A full application process to be followed for
reinstatement;
2. For 12 months, all instructional jumps to be under direct supervision of the CI;
and
3. The CI to be present 100% of operational time at any DZ in which Luke has a
pecuniary interest.


Luke appealed the BOR's decision. The grounds of Luke's appeal are attached as
Appendix 1. Despite the fairly limiting nature of appeals in the APF Constitution, the
subsequent Appeal Board determined that;-

1. There were mitigating circumstances surrounding the charge under 19.1 (c),
and no sanction should b~ imposed for this breach. The attached minutes of
the Appeal Board hearing (Appendix 2) are provided on a strictly confidential
basis. You will note that all grounds of appeal were rejected, so he was found
to have committed the offences.
2. The sanctions imposed by the BOR be amended to:-
i. "Loss of all DZSO privileges effective from the~ 2ath April
2005 for a 12 month period.
ii. In order to regain those DZSO privileges at the end of the 12
month period you will be required to provide a
recommendation from your CI and the IPC of the state in
which you are registered at the time.
iii. You are entitled to exercise all other privileges of your IB rating
throughout this 12 month period subject to compliance with APF
Operational Regulations.







SUSPENSION OF LICENCE PRIVILIGES

On April.16th, the Victorian Area Safety Officer grounded Luke McWilliam and. another
Skydive City employee for 28 days, after receiving a report that tandem descents
had been conducted through cloud earlier that day, during a display jump. The tandem
masters denied the claim, but served the suspension without lodging an appeal.

COMPLAINT BY A MEMBER

On 5 May 2005, Luke McWilliam, among other matters, made claims that he was in receipt
of anonymous complaints relating to parachute operations involving cloud jumps at Tooradin.
Luke's request for an investigation was responded to in the following terms:-

“in respect of your comments concerning cloud jumping at Tooradin, please forward all
supporting evidence that you may have including videos, documents, statements

etc …... by this Friday, 13 May 2005, so that/may have the matter fully investigated

by our Director Safety.”

The DCC noted that I had received no response and followed up the request to Luke
to provide all supporting evidence to me by 3 June 2005. No response was received

from Luke.



In the meantime, a complaint was lodged with the Victorian Board of Review Chair
by the CI, at Tooradin over the allegation by Luke, and, his subsequent failure to
provide supporting material. The Victorian Board of Review Chair, Neil Cheney has
commenced action to hear the complaint against Luke McWilliam. In other words,
the complaint is over the failure of Luke McWilliam to substantiate his claims of
cloud jumps at Tooradin.

STATUS OF SKYDIVE CITY

A message was sent on Thursday 2 June 2006, to all instructors registered under

. Skydive City, advising them that they were unable to remain registered to this

organisation, as it had no Chief Instructor, and was not therefore a registered training
organsiation.

Forms enabling them to register under a new Chief Instructor were forwarded with the
message.



Yours sincerelyGraeme Windsor
Chief Executive OfficerYours sincerelyGraeme Windsor
Chief Executive Officer



tfl

[the fat lady]

Oh oh look at this

Appendix 1

McWillam Grounds of Appeal

1. The Chair Person Allen Gray stated in his introduction that in South Australia -
channel 7 did not indicate which drop zone they were retraining and it was his belief
that his consumers believed it was his drop zone and as a result he was financially
affected. This gives grounds of appeal on the basis of bias whether the bias was
deliberate or not.
2. The punishment handed down was severe in particular that of the cancellation of my
Instructor B rating. When this is compared to the Chief instructors suspended
sentence for the same offences other than Channel 7's Today Tonight program where
the chief instructor was also the DZSO on the alleged offences.
3. The tribunal did not take evidence into account that responded to the T documents.
4. The tribunal did not give Skydive Citys staff and customers opinions balanced
weight.
5. The tribunal relied on the fact that Skydive City was jumping near cloud in effect not
in breach of a regulation.
6. Double Jeopardy. The tribunal in effect punished Skydive City for what has already
been determined in a higher court.
7. Difficult person. The tribunal took comments by Greg Bayly out of context and did
not take into consideration the communications between Luke McWilliam and
Barbara Begg in relation to this accusation.
8. Difficult person is not a breach of the regulation or a breach of the constitution.
9. Harmans case. My legal advice has suggested that the T -documents should not have
been used by the APF before the APF sought relief from the AAT to do so. The legal
advise that the APF sought was also inaccurate in that the case between Skydive City
and CASA is still current and on going not closed.
10. The tribunal did not allow evidence (video tapes) in relation to accusations
made by Andrew Ward on the 7th of January 2004 to be included.
11. The tribunal did not give due consideration to the actions taken by CASA were
unlawful in relation to both, the CAR92 direction and materials collected.
12. The tribunal did not take into account that the complaints were not presented to
members of Skydive City until after the commencement of the AAT hearing and that
Skydive City could not therefore respond to the accusations: without knowing the
content.
13. The tribunal in effect charged Luke McWilliam and Skydive City with matters
and events that occurred outside the point of jurisdiction of 3 years by CASA
and 1 year for the APF.
14. The tribunal took into account matters that were not expressed in the tribunals
written notice in particular that of recent grounding by Nigel Brannon.




15. In effect the tribunal has acted upon unsubstantiated reports from individuals of
parties who have attempted to gain financially by the demise of Skydive City. The
APF is well aware that complaints investigated since the AAT hearing which have
been grossly exaggerated and lack substance all together.


It was inappropriate of. the tribunal to give due weight to the accusations in the T -documents
knowing full well that the people that have made them have all since been discredited for
making false and misleading complaints.


tfl

[the fat lady]

The coup de grace

Appendix 2

Minutes of Appeal Board for Luke McWilliam's

Appeal 19th May 2005 Cairns

Documents attached as Appendix A are those presented by Luke McWilliam to all members of
the panel

1. Meeting Commenced 5.50pm
Members of the Appeal Board (AB) present: G. Hill, F. McEachern, D. Cross, S.
Cowcher (minutes), T. King (chair).


2. The AB requested to AI Gray to brief them on the complaint and the Disciplinary
Committee Board of Review (DCBOR) process. Al Gray as Disciplinary Chair &
Chair of PCBOR gave a brief on the changes, the actions and the decisions of the
DCBOR, then discussed the process the DCBOR went through to determine the
penalty. Members of the AB asked AI Gray about the process and the manner of tI1e
DCBOR and appellant and then thanked AI for his explanation.
3. The AB determined that they required Luke McWilliam to explain his points of appeal.
Luke was invited to address the AB at 6.25pm. Luke asked "What are the grounds of
appeal?" Terry King indicated that the AB would like Luke to explain what he was
appealing against. Luke asked the rhetorical question of "What was the reason for this
process? Was it 'to appease the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)?" He also
indicated that the hearing details had been released to the media through a website.
Graham Hill indicated that the AB and the APF did not have powers to control such
websites as pprune.
4. Luke indicated all the accusations had been dealt with and he had no case to answer.
"How many times do you need to kick somebody?" Luke queried.
5. Luke supplied documents and spoke to each of his points of appeal as well as the
points of complaint (see attached documents supplied by Luke). Luke stated that only
2% of jumps would touch cloud.
6. Luke indicated that this all seemed to be an issue to appease CASA.
7. Luke indicated that Barbara Begg commenced complaints against him from vested
interests.
8. Shirley Cowcher asked if the evidence obtained by CASA during their raid contained
evidence that was incriminating in terms of the APF rules and regulations - given
documentation supplied by Luke indicated they would only approve the release of the
information seized by CASA if it would not be used against Skydive City. Luke
admitted that some of the evidence would have been incriminating.
9. Luke indicated that he got no complaints from his operations outside of Barwon Heads.
10. Luke thought that the.problems are all to do with land disputes, and outlined the land
issues.
11. Luke was thanked for his time and told the AB may need additional information from
him during their deliberation.
12. The AB then considered the 15 points of appeal made by Luke McWilliam.
13. Point 1: .The AB did not consider Point one as a justifiable point of appeal because a
complaint of acting in a manner prejudicial to the Federation could cause all members
appointed to the DCBOR or the AB to be biased.




14. Point 2: The AB believed that the apparent leniency of one person's punishment should
not be used as a defence or comparison for another person's punishment, because
circumstances are to be considered for each, and therefore cannot be used as grounds
for appeal. However, the CI .must bear some responsibility for the breaches to
operational regulations as this is their role on any dropzone. They must appoint an ill
DZSO who, in the absence of the CI will also respect the operational regulations.
15. Point 3: Brad Turner & AI Gray were called to AB and asked about their
considerations of evidence presented in terms of evidence responding to the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) documents. Both indicated that the DCBOR
looked at individual documents presented by Luke, but large volumes of documents
were presented by Luke that were not all looked at.


Luke was recalled & confirmed that he brought large volumes of documents and not all the
documents were presented to the DCBOR. AI & Brad confirmed that all items sighted by the
DCBOR were considered in the deliberations. During the AB's inquiry to Luke regarding all
the evidence provided, Luke acknowledged that one of the AAT documents specifically
mentioned in the complaint did not have a documented response and so this could not have
been considered by the DCBOR.

16. Point 4: The AB is of the opinion that it is possible the DCBOR may not have given
balanced weight to the opinions of staff and customers as presented by Luke. However,
AI Gray indicated that all documents of this nature were read by DCBOR but further
comments from others to support or negate these opinions were not sought.
17. Point 5: The AB rejects this because Luke did admit to the AB that he has jumped
through cloud, which does breach regulations.
18. Point 6: The AB rejects this as the complaint relates to the APF's rules and regulations.
19. Point 7: The AB rejects this as the DCBOR did take into consideration many
communications between Luke and Barbara Begg including those presented by Luke.
20. Point 8: The AB rejects this as riot being releva.i1t as a point of appeal.
21. Point 9: Advice obtained by the APF indicated that Harmer's case is not relevant in this
process. It was the opinion of the AB that the AAT documents in fact did more to
support his case of harassment than go against it.
22. Point 10: The AB rejects this as the DCBOR gave Luke the opportunity but he did not
make .the evidence available on the day, even though he provided significant volumes
of additional evidence.
23. Point 11: The AB rejects this as the actions of CASA whether lawful or otherwise has
no bearing on this process.
24. Point 12: The AB rejects this as the complaint was deferred to prevent possible
prejudice of the CASA matters before the Courts at the time the complaint was made.
25. Point 13: The AB rejects this, as there is no time limitation for the APF complaints and
disciplinary process. Refer to page four of disciplinary handbook.
26. Point 14: The AB accepts that the DCBOR did discuss this matter with Luke and
afforded him an opportunity to show videos of jumps conducted on the day, but this
information was offered by Luke (point 7 of DCBOR minutes) and the DCBOR
minutes provides no evidence that this matter influenced the decision in this complaint.
27. Point 15: The AB rejects this as it is of the opinion that the complaint was sufficient to
warrant a Board of Review and this provided Luke with the opportunity to refute the
claims laid in the complaint.



tfl