Was the pilot trained by your organisation, hired from your organisation / “endorsed” for the hire and subsequently re-trained after the event by your organisation?
That's a bit raw - one accident does not a systemic problem make, and a pilot trained and released into the wild is no longer the responsibility of the AOC holder, unless you can show negligence in both training AND testing.
Explain to me how APTA gets a ‘rogue’ instructor or CFI under control at ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ X, when APTA has no legally binding agreement with either the instructor or CFI.
I honestly don't understand this argument of yours, LB. What if a directly employed instructor was told to stop training, and they "went rogue" and simply continued training a student without telling their boss. Logged it under a private flight and took cash for the instruction?
A rogue operator is always a possibility and a problem. I don't see any problem with Glen's setup. On detecting the error, the instructor is directed to correct it, or stop training. If they don't (detected under the same system that detected the problem in the first place), then Glen would contact the business owner and state that ALL AOC approval for that business will be withdrawn - and if that happens (and the whole business is rogue and training continues) then the CAA is contacted explaining that there is a business with no AOC conducting "training" which is legally invalid.
If that doesn't work - then no business in Australia needs an AOC. I could buy an old warrior and train people (I was a Grade two 25 years ago), and if the CAA won't stop me training without an AOC then it doesn't matter if I am the holder, or Glen was the holder, and I "went rogue". So I really don't get your argument.
Seem pretty obvious and simple to me. There's no need for a direct financial involvement to meet regulatory requirements.