Statement Regarding Matters with Sydney Helicopters

As a professional in IT infrastructure, network management and software engineering, I take great pride in my work, the relationships I build and the reputation I uphold. I believe it is important to address the circumstances surrounding my former professional relationship with Sydney Helicopters, including the redevelopment of its systems, the subsequent commercial dispute and the accusation of hacking that had a lasting personal and professional impact on me.

Through SKIZCorp, I undertook extensive infrastructure engineering, software development and website work for Sydney Helicopters. The systems supported thousands of bookings and involved much more than maintaining a conventional website. My work encompassed server infrastructure, internal network security, operational technology and the development of specialised software. The systems operated on SKIZCorp's proprietary technology, developed through years of engineering experience, and I believed the work had considerable potential beyond the immediate engagement, provided its architecture and capabilities were properly understood and developed further.

The Scope and Complexity of StrikerM

The redevelopment involved StrikerM, a fully fledged WebOS controller, rather than a straightforward website redesign. It coordinated complex processes through underlying PHP systems and supported thousands of bookings. Its role extended into operational functionality that could not be adequately represented by the appearance of a website alone.

The original scope was associated with an estimated value of approximately $100,000. That figure reflected an assessment informed by a verbal investment discussion involving Melbourne Helicopters, understood at face value. The proposition under consideration there was substantially simpler, involving a WordPress theme replacement. The work I undertook for Sydney Helicopters was fundamentally different in scope and technical complexity.

The redevelopment required the transformation of an older table-based layout into responsive layouts suitable for different devices, while preserving the underlying functionality and operational processes. I developed a lean implementation using a streamlined version of Bootstrap and a view-controller approach, minimising the additional class names developers would need to learn. The lead programmer assigned became disorientated by the system's complexity and withdrew from the redevelopment. I subsequently took on the principal redevelopment workload myself, undertaking approximately eleven months of work. The complexity was largely beneath the visible interface, in the architecture, implementation decisions and processes that enabled the system to function.

The Commercial Arrangement and Outstanding $38,000

I ultimately invoiced $50,000 for the redevelopment work. The invoice was met with considerable disagreement, and the client indicated that he was prepared to pay $12,000. During our subsequent verbal discussion, I recall agreeing to accept that amount on the condition that the engagement continued, with the original $50,000 amount applying if the client chose to leave. The client left after I agreed, and the difference between the $50,000 invoice and the $12,000 amount discussed forms the basis of my $38,000 outstanding claim. The dispute remains unresolved.

The client departed shortly after requesting changes to the system and discussing the revised payment arrangement. This was a verbal arrangement, and I present my account of that discussion as I recall it. I recognise that the terms of a verbal agreement may be disputed, which is why I distinguish my recollection of the discussion from matters that can be independently established through invoices, correspondence and other records. My position remains that the conditional nature of the arrangement was material to the amount I understood to remain payable when the client chose to leave.

The broader work also included website migration to a next-generation platform, internal systems upgrades, the vectorisation of web assets and other technical projects. I also understood that additional remuneration and a reference letter had been discussed, but these were not ultimately provided as I had expected. I continued to account for my work on an hourly basis where applicable. My concern was not simply that the client disagreed with the invoice, but that the commercial relationship ended without what I considered a satisfactory resolution of the work completed, the payment arrangement discussed and the wider obligations between us.

The Potential Commercial Value of StrikerM

In my assessment, the value of StrikerM extended far beyond the amount of the redevelopment invoice. Had its capabilities and underlying architecture been fully understood and developed further, I believe the platform could have represented an asset worth considerably more than the cost of an entire fleet of twelve helicopters. This is my assessment of its potential value, not a formal valuation or an independently established market price. It reflects the distinction between the cost of a defined period of engineering work and the potential long-term value of the technology produced. StrikerM also demonstrated capabilities beyond the immediate client engagement, including supporting aspects of information delivery.

The comparison with a specialised aircraft such as an Apache helicopter illustrates the principle. Its value cannot be fully understood by looking at its exterior, nor can its engineering be reproduced merely by copying what is visible. The same applies to complex software: reproducing the appearance of a system is not the same as reproducing its capabilities, and its commercial potential cannot be fairly assessed without understanding what it does, what it enables and how difficult it would be to recreate.

I believe this was an important failure of understanding in the commercial relationship. The discussion became focused on the immediate invoice and what the client believed the redevelopment should cost, rather than on the questions that might have revealed the complexity, performance and potential of the technology itself.

An Opportunity for Shared Commercial Value

My vision was never limited to delivering software, invoicing for the hours involved and walking away. Had StrikerM been developed further around the specific needs of Sydney Helicopters and the way its operations could evolve, my intention would have been to explore an arrangement in which the company shared in the benefits of that development. If Sydney Helicopters' operational knowledge helped shape that development, I would have wanted the company to receive a share of the value it generated. That possibility depended on a continuing working relationship, mutual trust and a willingness to look beyond the immediate cost of the engineering.

The Accusation of Hacking

In 2012, I identified what I understood to be external attempts to access the network from Chinese IP addresses. I reported what I had observed rather than taking further action myself. My intention was to raise a security concern with the client, not to interfere with its systems or access anything without authorisation.

I was subsequently accused of hacking the internal network. I strongly dispute that accusation. I understood that there were unresolved commercial issues, including disputed invoices and remuneration, but I did not believe those issues justified treating my security concerns as evidence of misconduct.

I recall comments to the effect of “I'm not paying you to learn”, alongside discussions about payment and whether prosecution would be pursued. I also understood that the service arrangement had changed without the notice I expected. Subsequently, my Domain Management account appeared to have been accessed, and all Sydney Helicopters domains were missing without any accompanying explanation or notification that I could identify. I was only able to retrieve the top-level domain (TLD) because the domain was under concierge management through MakeYourNetwork, our domain registration services division. As far as I can determine, the domain remains held and frozen.

I provided information relating to server logs in support of my account. I also offered a complete backup, with the client's data exported and handed over, so that the client could retain access to its information and continue its operations. I maintain that I acted in good faith and that the accusation of hacking was unfounded.

The accusation was deeply distressing and affected me both professionally and personally. The company principal knew of my cultural background and had referred to me as “Chinese”. I spent many years, including my life savings, studying abroad, and I did not do so in order to hack my own client or anyone for that matter. I do not raise that personal context to suggest that a person's background determines whether an allegation is true or false, but because the accusation had a profound personal impact, coming from a professional relationship into which I had invested years of effort, technical expertise and trust. I believe these circumstances should be assessed on the evidence rather than on assumptions about my intentions or background.

Unpaid Work and the End of the Engagement

I also undertook additional work involving filtering and related technical matters, for which I understood approximately two days of work remained unpaid. My position is that the engagement ended without a satisfactory resolution of the outstanding commercial issues. The $38,000 claim is a significant part of that dispute, but it sits within a much broader history of engineering work and professional dealings.

Company Changes and the Red Flags They Raised

Since the events described above, I have observed changes in the company's name and the legal representation associated with it, including the transition from Sydney Helicopters to Sydney Helicopters Group and the involvement of different legal firms. Against the background of the unresolved $38,000 commercial claim, the accusation of hacking and the circumstances in which our professional relationship ended, these developments raised questions that I believe deserve to be acknowledged rather than overlooked.

My concern is not that a company changing its name or engaging different legal representatives is, in itself, evidence of wrongdoing. Businesses restructure and appoint different legal advisers for legitimate reasons. However, when such changes occur against the backdrop of a longstanding commercial dispute, they can reasonably prompt questions about continuity, accountability and how earlier obligations and disagreements are being addressed.

I cannot independently establish the reasons for those changes, nor do I claim that they demonstrate an attempt to avoid obligations, conceal information or evade accountability. I am not presenting the changes themselves as proof of misconduct, but explaining why, when viewed in the context of my own experience, they raised red flags and reinforced my concern that the underlying dispute had never been satisfactorily resolved. I believe the appropriate way to assess these circumstances is to establish the relevant company identities, the timing and nature of any changes, the parties' respective legal positions and the documentary history of the dispute, alongside the invoices, correspondence, technical records and other available evidence. Where there are legitimate explanations, they can be considered on their merits. Equally, the existence of changes should not mean that the history of the professional relationship, the outstanding commercial claim or the hacking allegation is simply forgotten.

The Lesson: Value Is Not Always Visible

Complex engineering cannot always be judged by the appearance of its interface, the number of visible components or the time someone expects a redevelopment to take. The engineering that makes a platform fast, adaptable and capable of handling demanding operational workloads is often the least visible part of the finished product. When a commercial discussion becomes narrowly focused on the immediate cost, without sufficient curiosity about the underlying work, an opportunity can be missed.

The lesson I took from this experience is not that every invoice must be accepted without question. Clients are entitled to scrutinise costs, ask for explanations and disagree about commercial terms. Equally, engineers deserve to have their work assessed in light of its actual scope and complexity, and verbal arrangements should be recorded clearly enough to minimise misunderstandings. The price of engineering is not necessarily the measure of its value: what appears expensive to someone who sees only the surface may be inexpensive compared with the capability being delivered.

Moving Forward

I remain proud of the technical work I undertook and the systems I helped develop. The experience reinforced the importance of clear written agreements, transparent payment conditions, documented project scope and a shared understanding of the value each party expects to receive. Had the relationship continued constructively, I would have been willing to explore ways for the client to participate in the value of the technology. Instead, the engagement ended with unresolved financial and professional matters that continue to concern me.

I am now more focused on SKIZCorp's future and on the continued development of its technology platforms. I believe in building systems that connect people, businesses and services, and in approaching professional relationships with integrity and transparency. This statement reflects my account and recollection of events. Where matters remain disputed, I acknowledge that other parties may have a different account. I welcome the opportunity for relevant records, invoices, correspondence and technical evidence to be considered in resolving those differences fairly.

Having shared my side of the story, I can move forward knowing I have also stood up for the professionals who worked alongside me. I take pride in having assembled a team whose expertise and ambition have continued to grow, with one going on to establish a specialist cybersecurity company. Their achievements reflect the calibre of people I chose to work with.

Now that this account is on the record, I can move forward with a vertical focus on SKIZCorp's future.

Christopher B. Sarich
Principal, SKIZCorp Technology

— Our success is measured upon your success.