[thorn bird]

The law is a strange beast, words and wording carrying so much weight. What can be done, what may be done, what Might be done, what should be done, what must be done and on and on it goes. Then the big question what is the "Intent" of the law, what was it enacted for and what was it meant to achieve?

Therein lies the rub, keeps lawyers in a style they have grown accustomed for centuries arguing, for a fee, just exactly what was it "Intent" of the law as writ? There lies the schism between intent and the words. Our regulations are written by lawyers for lawyers, in legalise language, rather than for the understanding of them that must "comply" with them. Unfortunately for the GA industry nobody could afford to pay for lawyers to provide advice on the meaning of the words or ask via the courts, for more learned "advice" or judgement as to the meaning of the words. Intent gets completely lost in argument over words. Our bureaucrats know this, that was their "intent". It follows the prime objective of the bureaucratic class, that of control.

There is no doubt poor Glen Buckley's business model would not have existed but for the convoluted gobbledygook regulation provided by CASA. Buckley's business model created a workaround for rules that killed off small regional flying schools and aero-clubs because they simply couldn't afford the enormous cost of "Complying", perhaps not with the law so much, rather the competing egos and interpretations of the various "experts" within CASA of the meaning of the law. Bureaucrats hate it when someone with the smarts finds a workaround, it dents their ego's and all their sociopathic tendencies for control, thats why poor Glen had to go.