I find the content of the ICC’s response to be disturbing (but sadly unsurprising) Glen. The essence of your complaint in relation to CASA’s interactions with the Ombudsman is that CASA was bull****ting when it told the Ombudsman that CASA didn’t become fully aware of the specific nature of APTA’s operations until 2018.
CASA knew that applications submitted by APTA prior to 2018 for variations to its AOC to cover flying training operations would involve, for example, instructors who weren’t APTA’s employees. CASA also knew that the contractual arrangements put in place between APTA and anyone else did not contain provisions to the effect demanded by CASA in March 2019. CASA nonetheless approved those variations. Doesn’t make any difference what Dr A knew about any of that.
I suppose ‘CASA’ could try to pretend that it ‘just assumed’ that the operations covered by the approved variations would involve only personnel employed by APTA, utilising only premises and aircraft owned by APTA. I suppose ‘CASA’ could also try to pretend that it ‘just assumed’ that to the extent that the operations covered by the approved variations would utilise personnel not employed by APTA and premises and aircraft not owned by APTA, the arrangements would be covered by detailed contract provisions ensuring effective operational control. And I suppose ‘CASA’ could also try to pretend that ‘CASA’ woke up in October 2018 and slapped a palm on its forehead when the truth finally dawned on it. But those would be bald-faced lies.
My experience with the CASA ICC and Ombudsman on matters CASA is that they are not good at dealing with circumstances in which CASA is caught with its pants down, having behaved unlawfully and tried unsuccessfully to bull**** its way out of it. That’s a sad manifestation of the steadily weakening fabric of government institutions.