I think I've figured where it went pear-shaped for you, Glen.
In your email of 21 February 2019, you quoted a clause that your lawyer suggested be added near the signatures page of the proposed contract between APTA and a Member. That clause should have satisfied CASA so far as the contract was concerned, with the only residual issue being demonstration of practical operational control by APTA of its Members.
But then CASA went full retard. In its email of 13 March 2019, CASA demanded:
[A] tabular legend, showing how and where the actions called up under each applicable provision of the civil aviation legislation germane to the conduct of operations under CASR Part 141 [and Part 142] are effectively addressed in the terms of the contractual agreement(s).
Yeah, right.
When I read this bit of the email, I figured out who'd weighed in to drive you into the ground, Glen:
If CASA can be satisfied that the arrangements reflected in the contractual agreement(s) provide an effective and reliable basis on which APTA could be expected to fulful its obligations as an accountable holder of an authorisation under CASR Part 141 [and Part 142], and in the absence of any other reason not to do so, it is expected that CASA would make a favourable disposition of APTA's application. Such a favourable disposition could reasonably be expected to involve the inclusion of such conditions as CASA might reasonably consider to be necessary and appropriate in all the circumstances.
The clue is in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the email.
This is regulation conjured up in the mind of the author.
Let us for a moment accept that this assertion by CASA is what the law "contemplates" (noting that laws don't "contemplate" **** - laws don't think):
The operational and organisational arrangements contemplated by CASR Part 141 [and Part 142] are based on a conventional business model, under which all of the operational activities conducted by the authorisation holder are carried out, for and on behalf of the authorisation holder by persons employed by, and in all respects acting as agents of the authorisation holder.
OK then, let's think that through.
In the "conventional business model", does CASA require the applicant for a Part 141 approval to provide "a tabular legend, showing how and where the actions called up under each applicable provision of the civil aviation legislation germane to the conduct of operations under CASR Part 141 are effectively addressed in the terms of the contractual agreement(s)
with the applicant's employees?
Methinks not!
Yet, each employee is an entity separate from the applicant (that's why they can enter a contract of employment with each other) and may have no authority to be the agent of the applicant. Employees are
not necessarily "in all respects acting as agents of" the employer, when doing their work.
And an incompetent and poorly supervised employee can pose the same risk to the safety of air navigation as posed by an incompetent and poorly managed independent contractor. (Of course, no air operator has ever taken on pilots or instructors on an independent contractor basis, have they, CASA...) Surely CASA must demand to see contracts of employment and a tabular legend showing how and where the actions called up under each applicable provision of the civil aviation legislation germane to the conduct of operations under CASR Part 141 [and Part 142] are effectively addressed, because the employees are the people doing a lot of stuff that affects the safety of the operations of their employer. Surely!
The fascinating question is: Why did
APTA get 'the treatment'?