Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
CASA doesn’t have the right to ‘interfere’ in the ‘legal, financial and commercial arrangements of an aviation business’, but it certainly has the right to ‘know’ how those arrangements may affect the business’s capacity to discharge its regulatory obligations and, if the business is not inclined to provide information relevant to that assessment, CASA has a right to refuse to issue a certificate etc. (The CA Act provisions relating to financial viability of AOC applicants have been in there for decades, and CASA has been prying into the financial arrangements of AOC holders - to the extent those arrangements are relevant to financial viability - for that long.)
Very true. Among the many ‘risks’ that CASA consider to be relevant to the industry, CASA consider an operators lack of financial stability as being of a safety risk. A genuine lack of financial stability is often met with the cutting of corners and the committing of other shonky practises. I’m not suggesting that Glen’s business was in any way, shape, or form enduring financial distress, but if it was and CASA got wind of it, they would certainly start poking around the fringes to see what popped up.
I’ve mentioned it several times throughout this thread, but the issue with Glen had nothing to do with his actual business. Glen chucked a hissy fit when CASA was dicking about and he publicly called out CASA as being unsafe. By doing that Glen basically poked the bear in the eye with a bayonet and the end result was a Friday 16:59 pm email from CASA. From that point on it was game over. I like Glen as he is tenacious, logical and is a justice seeker. All respectable qualities in their own right, but those qualities don’t mean a thing to a conscienceless Frankenstein like CASA. Glen has a moral compass, CASA doesn’t .