Folks,
There is a large degree of unrealistic train of thought, here, when it comes to dealing with CASA.
It is NOT a level playing field, and the tilt only starts with CASA being reluctant to take on anybody who is large and well funded, particularly if they are NOT an Australian operation.
It goes well beyond just lawyers at 10 paces, CASA are very wary of Qantas, for example, because Qantas lawyers, over the years, have proved to be more effective than CASA lawyers, not because Qantas owns CASA.
Not flying training, but one example from a little while ago involving an airworthiness matter involving US certified aircraft, and CASA making life difficult, "because they could"..
An approach to the aviation liaison at the US Embassy in Canberra, and in the blink of an eye (in public service terms), Foreign Affairs is onto "the Department" ----- demanding explanations from US State Department complaint about Australia (aka CASA) violating an Australia/US aviation treaty ---- citing deliberate bureaucratic obstruction as restraint of trade, contrary to WTO rules.
And that is exactly what was going on!!
Needless to say, CASA pulled their collective head in, quick fast, but, as always, nobody took responsibility in CASA (responsibility ---what;s that??) and the poor sodding business might have won the battle, but the war went on until a change of DAS/CEO.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Dick, My memory tells that Citic, a HK based company nominally, but Beijing controlled, is at the end of the daisy chain of who owns FTA. If it is not Citic, it is one of several very similar companies.