Originally Posted by
Sunfish
Lead Balloon, you are over complicating matters.
Q: How does an employer maintain control of an employee?
A: By the simple operation of firing them if they do not comply with the employers instructions.
Q: How does the employer enforce the firing?
A: By physical measures:
-1) All aircraft are secured per CASA/Whatever instructions - throttle lock, wheel clamp, padlock. etc.
-2) The keys to all the aircraft are securely held by the owner/manager and are not released without a valid booking to a valid instructor.
-3) The instructor may have a swipe card that can be deactivated on firing. In addition, company email access is normally terminated within microseconds of firing. The students must also be advised.
….The rogue now has no legal access to the schools aircraft or facilities.
As for the school “going rogue”, I would have thought a simple termination clause in the agreement with APTA to the effect that AOC coverage can be withdrawn and what will happen if it is should be enough.
‘’The power to terminate activities is the ultimate power to enforce compliance.
You made my points for me, albeit I suspect inadvertently, Sunfish.
It seems I continue to be failing to make what seems to me to be (and was clearly for CASA) a fundamentally important structural distinction.
In the APTA model, most if not all of the ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel are NOT APTA’s employees. APTA is NOT the owner or lessee of the premises the ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ utilises for ground training. APTA is NOT the registered operator of the aircraft utilised by ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ to deliver flying training. Absent some form of binding legal agreement that ‘bridges’ these gaps, APTA has no legal and effective control over a bunch of moving parts in flying training being conducted under APTA’s AOC. CASA (eventually) asked for APTA to provide evidence of how those ‘gaps’ would be ‘bridged’.
A clause in a contract giving APTA a right to ‘withdraw’ ‘AOC coverage’ does not make that ‘coverage’ ‘disappear’ just because APTA says so. CASA decides what AOCs ‘cover’ and do not ‘cover’. Unless and until CASA varies the AOC (or suspends or cancels it) flying training at the ‘rogue’ ‘base’ continues to be authorised by APTA’s AOC.
No Alpha: My point is not about who notifies whom of what.