Reply Tailwheel post 289
APTA had endured the restrictions on its trade for a period of 9 months, and there was uncertainty regarding its continued operations. It had little value as a business, and was sold for a contracted nominal 5% of its agreed value. With the CASA restrictions and uncertainty, it had no value. I sold it for the value of the debt, and at that time CASA had still not made a determination on APTA despite repeated calls for CASA to do so. Had they at least made a decision I would have had something to appeal, and perhaps even a business that had some value.
I had a meeting with the Chair of the CASA Board requesting compensation on behalf of myself and affected parties. That meeting is summarised in my correspondence in posts 147 and 148 that I sent to him after the meeting.
The letter you refer to in post 287 is his response to my requests for consideration of compensation. Its CASA effectively saying NO!
During the last 9 months with the uncertainty over continuing operations, some members have had to cease operations i.e. Simjet in Brisbane , and Whitestar in Ballina. Other Members began working towards their own 141 approval i.e. LTF, ARC. Members that wanted to join were placed on hold, and were impacted, with some now having ceased operations while awaiting a CASA determination. CASA has insisted that all staff are paid by APTA in a model they call "direct operational control". I have asked CASA to define that, because that's what we had in my opinion. As expected they have not replied.
CASA insisted on this DOC Model. All MFT students and staff were transferred to APTA, and effectively my business MFT has been transferred to new ownership with all revenue and operational costs met by APTA. That's all well and good, but I have had to effectively transfer my business of 15 years to the new owners of APTA, depriving my business and me of any income. CASA have this insistence that all salaries must come from APTA and everyone must be an APTA employee. This is an unusual stipulation, and in my opinion flies in the face of accepted industry practice.
On 30/06/19 I sent the following email trying to get CASAs interpretation of an "employee" in the APTA context. Email to follow'
Dear Mr Craig Martin, I refer to your email on 20/06 where you made the following statement;
“ “For the avoidance of doubt, this would allow flight training to be contacted by APTA employees only – not employees of affiliates”
As you are aware there is only one Authorisation, and all personnel operate under that Authorisation. I note you state that “training can only be conducted by employees only”.
Personally I am of the opinion that I am 100% responsible for all personnel operating under the APTA approval, irrespective of where they draw their income, and in fact I feel that is the safest and most compliant option. However, whilst I have a different perspective, you are the regulator, and I am willing to comply. My concern is that you are actually making the situation less clear and concise, and may actually create a less safe situation, but obviously that is your determination.
I have tried to access the CASA definition of an employee, and am having difficulty locating it. In the CASR dictionary, I found the definition for an “employee” which stated;employee, in relation to an approved maintenance organisation, includes: (a) a maintenance services subcontractor; and (b) a CAR maintenance activities subcontractor.It appears that this definition fits in with my perspective on the situation i.e. accepting responsibility for all personnel operating under an Organisation including contractors.
It appears that your preference is to tie the definition of an employee, with where that person derives their income.. I also viewed the CASA Drug and Alcohol Management Plan (DAMP) guidance, and it makes the following comment; “It is important to remember that DAMP obligations extend to all individuals (including contractors, subcontractors and volunteers) who perform SSAAs for your organisation, regardless of whether they are directly employed by your organisation.” Once again it appears that the CASA definition was more in line with my own preferred approach.
In fact, my very strong preference is this definition as it is clear and concise, and covers all situations.As you will be aware, one of my major concerns is the failure of CASA to provide clear and concise aviation safety standards. Therefore, for me to finalise this matter, may I request provision of a definition of an “employee”, for the purposes of what you are trying to achieve. I suggest the clarification of this will help me to move forward. Yours thankfully, Glen
I sent a follow up request on 21/08, neither of those requests has been answered. It appears that CASA are working towards a new model tying responsibility to where they derive income rather than the Authorisation Holder. Its an interesting model, but fraught with danger and confusion in my opinion. I await there definition, but will not be holding my breath.