Doesn't CASA aver that it is not a regulator of Commerce? Doesn't CASA state that it is only a regulator of safety?
Could CASA please name and explain to the Aviation community the nature of the "Safety" issue that must have existed at APTA? The issue must have been specific to APTA and, like Covid, transmissible to APTA clients (Latrobe, Ballarat, etc) by APTAs infected (infectious?) business model.
This must have been a very sophisticated and subtle safety issue because CASA required that approvals be renewed at very short intervals - seven days? Exactly how did CASA develop and implement a seven day review cycle of the safety of APTA's operations? What did CASA monitor? How did they come to the conclusion that APTA was "safe' for another seven days? How did CASA reach the conclusion that the seven day restriction was operable for some 8 months? Surely a seven day restriction implies a high probability of immediate closure? Were CASA negligent by allowing this matter to continue for 8 months?
Perhaps most of all, how did CASA decide that the safety issue no longer existed after the business was sold?
I am concerned that our regulator should have closed the business completely on discovery of this issue, given the seven day time horizon of continuing approvals. I think the regulator must have been bullied into letting APTA stay open for eight months, after all this was a dire safety matter!