Originally Posted by
Sunfish
LB:
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.
Not only that, but the entire question begs the next question - what the hell does this say about the internal systems and processes of CASA that one group actively encouraged this business model, even, allegedly, suggesting smaller schools talk to APTA about joining and saving themselves the cost of obtaining a Part 142 approval - I believe it's clear based on this entire thread, that this actually happened.
What does it say about the integrity of CASA surveillance and assessment processes that this was not addressed in the initial approval - in fact, I believe this thread explains several times at the beginning that not only did CASA endorse the APTA model but actively encouraged it and provided input into the contracts that were in place, only later to say they were inadequate and not realise the previous CASA personnel had suggested them.
This rests at CASA's feet. An organisation responsible for regulation and oversight of aviation safety that either; a) did a u-turn on it's own decision v.v. APTA for reasons unknown; or b) has such poor assessment and surveillance procedures that what they basically were saying was a 'huge' problem sailed past the keeper at the initial approval stage.
It's either one or the other and I believe this thread contains multiple examples of CASA throwing up reasons for their actions and each one was effectively refuted by Glen using CASA's own instruments and determinations, of which the surveillance team were not aware or did not understand - but Glen did. Again, what does that say about CASA??
It is difficult to read the above mentioned and not conclude that each time Glen neutralised one argument, CASA just moved on to another argument until they found one that they thought might 'fly' so to speak. How is that
not a determined effort to shut someone down for any reason they can find, followed by apparently utilising the overwhelming bureaucratic heft of the Commonwealth to effectively squash any complaint or call for recompense.
In a country that has in the last ten years; raided journalists and news organisations for evidence of whistleblower sources when a reporter wrote a story accusing instruments of the government of alleged murder (the alleged Afghanistan incidents), exposing allegedly corrupt practices in the ATO, someone in Defence whistleblowing details about Afghanistan and of course, the most prominent case; Witness K and his lawyer Bernard Collaery being subject to a 'secret trial' - the sort that belongs in Soviet era spy novels, not modern Australia - I have no direct information about CASA's intentions but in this country right now, although logic and decency has prevailed and the Collaery trial has been abandoned, I would not put it past government to be vindictive and merciless in destroying someones life and career - if the foregoing doesn't convince people, look at what the High Court said about Robodebt.