My particular interest in the relationship between the people trusted to remove the covers and the operator of the aircraft to which the covers are fitted arises from the requirements imposed by CASA on APTA, which requirements were justified by CASA on the basis that individuals responsible for safety-related activities were not APTA employees. CASA required APTA to provide very detailed evidence to show how APTA would ensure those individuals would do their job properly. At no point did CASA identify any instance of those individuals not doing their job properly.
But here we have two instances of individuals not doing their job properly - for whatever reason - in relation to a safety-critical pre-flight action on an aircraft full of passengers, and the individuals apparently have no legal relationship with the aircraft operator. (The individuals will owe a common law duty of care, but that wasn’t good enough for CASA in APTA’s case.) They’ll be employees of contractors to … somebody, but does the aircraft operator have any contractual power to direct the individuals involved?
And don’t forget: The failure to conduct a check to confirm these covers have been removed is a strict liability offence on the part of the PIC and the aircraft operator (at least in the case of Australian aircraft). For those who think that checking that some clearing endorsement on a piece of paper provides a defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact, remember: If you have to raise a defence you are, by definition, being prosecuted.