I have to consider the possibility that I have been taken in by a master storyteller. The question is which one of the protagonists is it? CASA or Glen?
I believe we have all been bogged down in a "can't see the woods for the trees" mindset for most of this saga. The real, aviation-critical issue at stake is whether what Glen was doing was good for flying training, and therefore the future of aviation in this country, or not.
CASA's involvement in this, as far as I can tell, has been a narrow application of so-called franchised AOC provisions, with the whole argument hinging on legal interpretation. But was the business plan going to work effectively and safely? I say yes, as a concept, so CASA should've been supportive, not the opposite.
I don't know anything about the inner workings of Glen's business dealings or his ambitions, but a multi-tiered flying training enterprise with sound standardisation, shared documentation and effective oversight procedures (as the plan definitely appears to have been) sounds bloody good! Whoever in CASA has roadblocked this idea should be publicly shamed, unless they have real, concrete, verifiable evidence of wrongdoing.