Remarkable Glen,

How to pedal a bike backwards methinks.

Indeed. One wonders who drafted such an exquisitely precise piece of sophistry in an attempt to make the reasonable implications of Mr McHeyzer's original words, in context, go away. (Actually, I don't wonder.) It's not about GlenB's apprehension. It's about what any reasonable person would have inferred from the words used, in context.

He really said that (if we assume - as is reasonable - that the Committee is quoting from evidence given by Dr Aleck to the Committee).

They can - and do - "make such sweeping statements" and go forth and make regulations on the basis of what may be a purely coincidental cluster. And in the case of the imposition of more maintenance requirements upon aircraft involved in Community Service Flights, there is no evidence of any causal connection between a lack of maintenance and either of the Angel Flight accidents but plenty of evidence to show that more time-based mandatory meddling increases the risk of 'infant mortality'.

The ghastly irony is that CASA has probably made CSFs more risky. Fortunately, for those exposed to the increased risks, the risks remain remote.

Why does CASA regulate in this way to achieve these outcomes? In the interests of "safety" of course.

I think Flaming Galah is correct. The corro has nothing to do with contempt of Parliament.

I think having contempt of Parliament is our right and well justified. It is not an offence. Most of the citizens of this country would likely agree that politicians are useless.
However this is irrelevant to Glen's matter.

The effect on APTA members
 

Much of this has been about the effect on me, but perhaps its worth recapping on the effect on some of the other businesses. Obviously, I would have to take legal advice, but my intention will be to involve all parties effected by the action undertaken by Mr Crawford, Mr Martin, and Mr Mc Heyzer.

APTA had a number of members and these included MFT, AVIA, LTF, ARC, BLT Aero Club, LTV aero club, Sim jet, Chartair, White star, and had another two members about to join.

By joining APTA these organisations came under the one authorisation. Systems were standardised and centralised. The systems were robust.

As these members have been forced into breaking away from APTA, they have lost significant capability. Lets look at the BLT and LTV aero clubs.

As a member of APTA they had access to

A robust and well funded safety department, able to gather and act on group statistics.
Registered Training Organisation approval to deliver a Diploma in Aviation.
The ability to enrol international students
Ability to deliver the integrated 150 hour CPL as opposed to the 200 course with GST.
Ability to deliver contracted check and training to charter operators
High levels of redundancy through 3 X CASA approved HOOs, 2 X CASA approved Safety Managers, and 2 x CASA approved CEOs.

By Brad Lacey initiating a complete reversal of the previous CASA approval, the aero clubs are substantially effected,

The aero clubs will be "cut loose" and have to find their own way as Part 141 only, with the loss of capability that comes along with that.

All so totally unnecessary, and avoidable had my FOI, Mr Lacey acted with a modicum of good intent. Could be done. Far more satisfying obviously for him to act in a more clandestine manner, and bring harm.

Seriously, Mr Carmody, where do you find these people, seriously. Horrible people, how can they hold their head high as they skulk around the industry wreaking havoc. Hang your heads in shame

Glenn,

In regards to "crash Lacey" were you still at GFS when "crash" pranged the bosses C-90 King Air?

The King Air Incident
 

No, I wasn't. That's why I am absolutely flawed that Brad Lacey elected to pursue the initial action on me without any warning whatsoever. I had heard from Industry about his reputation, and in fact he had made an inappropriate comment about me to Industry. I was sure there was going to be an issue, and that's why I formally registered my concern, prior to him transferring to take over APTA.

However, I had never worked with him, and to the best of my knowledge, I never even had a conversation with him. Maybe he thought I was a soft target. That's how bullies normally operate.

Unfortunately he let his own fears and insecurities influence his decision making, but I certainly never worked with him, and in fact wasn't even aware that he had crashed an aeroplane. Was it a "gear up"?

Legal action against Jason Mc Heyzer
 

My main matter will continue on, and that is the main issue.

I do however have another case bubbling away, and that is the unfair dismissal claim, due to my employment being terminated on Mr Mc Heyzers instruction to my Employer. I have visited an employment lawyer, and received initial advice. I have given CASA 14 days to sit down and meet with me in a well intentioned manner. CASA history suggests that isn't going to happen, but I will sit out the 14 days. In another 10 days as that counter ticks over, and assuming that Mr Carmody hasn't taken action, against Mr Mc Heyzer, which well know he would never do, I will just have to do it myself.

The point of the email. I get the feeling that some people viewing this may be lawyers, or at least have knowledge on the subject. I want to keep the unfair dismissal separate from the larger case.

So if anybody knows a lawyer, or is a lawyer, and would be able to run with the unfair dismissal case, could you please contact me on [email protected]

Cheers. Glen.

Quite keen to send a strong message to people such as Mr Mc Heyzer, that insist on using bullying and intimidation as one of their "tools"

Glen, I do not know you and you do not know me. I have had a bit to do with CASA re AOC approvals, waivers, Aviation Med for eyesight problems, etc, during my flying career and a lot more dealings with Government contractual matters outside of aviation.

I understand the emotional aspect of this situation in which you find yourself, however, having read most of the saga here and elsewhere, I suggest that it is a lost cause. CASA is just a box ticking machine staffed by people with limited time, and the way to feed the machine is with dull mundane compliance, plentiful cheap coffee and even cheaper biscuits, and a play to their egos which are significant and based on their not inconsiderable level of education and experience, eg. Aleck, in many thing excluding (fortunately) actually being able to fly. I did this on numerous occasions by picking the brains of both FOIs and OLC at every opportunity, and knowing backwards the legislation and regulations (and the rest of the rulings and other made-up crap). I was fortunate in having prior legal training outside of aviation.
You have been doing the opposite and word would have come down from above for the lower level CASA minions to get you out of their hair and timesheets.

You seem to have spent a lot of money so far and want to get some return for that by spending more. I'd suggest that unless your legal advice states the cost of obtaining some probability of financial compensation and by when, or you will get and be satisfied with a simple (without prejudice) apology, that you pack it up and start from scratch with a new flying business. It's always hard to de-emotionalise stuff like this and stop the action-response loop running in your head, but I suggest that starting something new will work out better in the long run despite the current bitterness.

Buyer beware
 

You're hardly bending over or jumping to tunes unless you've really stuffed things up with them, but merely playing to their ego's as part of a suite of tactics to get what you want - if they are happy they'll give it to you.
CASA is ruled by fear just like the rest of aviation. CASA people have a fear of being blamed for adverse events within the section of industry that is under their purview, plus they are subject to internal politics as always, and want to cull out the 20% of operators found in the 80/20 rule (Pareto Principle) that will make their lives worse off. Keep out of the 20 and jam yourself well into the 80 and they'll go someplace else to spread their misery.

You are talking about black and white viewpoints, not the spectrum between them on which transactions actually happen.
Living like what ? Regulatory compliance is as much a fact of life as are human relationships other than friendship.
Big investors have very little sovereign risk because they initially reach for their lawyers and political contacts, and if the political benefits are there then CASA will be called in to sit down with the Minister's staff to sort out the details prior to any applications for approvals. The biggest current sovereign risk will come from surprise attacks on politicians by Greta Thunberg and her mass hysteria-generating friends.
Small investors are within the (GA) AOC's management structure and have a sensible chief pilot or CFI to protect them and their wildest ideas from the CASA Man (isn't that an interesting observation ?), within the mechanism of the 80/20 rule that I mentioned above.