Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
The decision was that the structure was unlawful absent legally binding and effective means for APTA to control the operational activities of personnel who were not APTA’s employees.
APTA’s structure was lawful in principle because Parts 141 and Part 142 make express provision for certificate holders to conduct operations through people who are not employees of the certificate holder. But the certificate holder in that case has to demonstrate how it has legal and effective control over the non-employees. That should have been made clear by CASA from day one and, as I’ve said, the tragedy is that the issue could have been dealt with through a deed signed by ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel (and their employer if they had one) on ‘induction’ to APTA operations. I’ve put these kinds of ‘short circuiting’ deed obligations in many (many) legal structures.
Gents a question if I may....should these questions and articulate answers actually be on a public forum? I rightly or wrong feel that it could harm Glen B's case!