LB:
[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.
If that is the case, then how is it APTA’’S responsibility to enforce compliance? It’s CASAs responsibility. You cannot have responsibility for an action without authority to control the action.
An employee is under the control of the employer. That is settled. If an employer stands to lose access to APTA resources if they transgress, surely that is enough?
This argument is tautological BS.