Originally Posted by
Sunfish
Glen, if this is a true statement of affairs, then it is utter crap on CASA's part. ..
Here is the key passage from correspondence from CASA to Glen:
The operational and organisational arrangement contemplated by CASR 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 behalf of the authorisation holder by persons employed by, and in all respects as agents of, the authorisation holder.
I note, as I noted earlier, that, remarkably, not a single legislative provision is cited to support that assertion. It is, in effect, merely an assertion about the 'vibe' of Parts 141 and 142.
It is regulation conjured in the mind of a complicator.
As you've noted, vast amounts of important, complex activity are carried out in the real world through subcontractors and the employees of subcontractors,
none of whom are in
any respect the agents of the prime contractor.
Glen added a clause to the contracts with APTA members, to make clear that APTA had regulatory aviation safety responsibility for their activities. CASA then 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).
That was, as a matter of practicality, the death knell for the APTA model.