I anticipate that CASA’s ‘C-Suite’ position on the lawfulness of the APTA structure will in effect be: Two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because other personnel arrangements similar to those of APTA were approved, doesn't may the approvals right. I say ‘C-Suite’ because this mess was caused by differences of opinion between C-Suite and other CASA staff.
My prediction is that the C-Suite will eventually have to concede that similar personnel arrangements were approved for other flying training organisations but were also, in the C-Suite’s opinion, unlawful. That’s why those arrangements are being undone, very, very quietly.
I’ll give Ms Spence and Mr Binskin the benefit of the doubt for the time being and assume they have been advised that no other similar arrangements were ever approved, but in that case they’ve been deliberately misled. Or maybe it will be on the basis of weasel words: “Well boss, I am not aware of any evidence of any other approvals”, leaving out: “By the way, I have not tried to find any evidence.”
Of course, the C-Suite’s position on the implications of the definition of ‘personnel’ in Parts 141 and 142 and CASA’s requirements as to the level of evidence demanded to demonstrate ‘operational control’ have never been tested. However, the risks and potential costs of getting an authoritative interpretation exclude that as a practical option for most if not all ‘little’ industry players.
Let’s assume the C-Suite’s position is the correct one. It follows that the requirements eventually imposed on APTA were not unlawful. But it also follows that APTA was led up the garden path into unlawfulness by CASA staff – those friendly FOIs – who encouraged APTA to believe its original structure was lawful. CASA approved it all.
That’s why the C-Suite eventually went to all the trouble it did to try to get APTA to fit into the rules as the C-Suite interpreted them: they knew – and they still know – that CASA stuffed up by leading APTA up the garden path, even if the personnel arrangements in the APTA structure were unique.
Sadly – as we know – Glen was broken at least financially by the process. And CASA is never going voluntarily to admit any liability for its stuff up in leading APTA up the garden path by approving a structure which CASA subsequently decided was unlawful. CASA will continue to admit that the ‘manner’ in which the mess was made and the attempts to tidy it up were implemented was unfortunate or whatever other euphemisms they choose, but that’s not an admission of liability for the mess.