The info sheet supports the FOI's interpretation and guidance on how to satisfy the intent of 61.385.
Of course they do!! This is "CASA's opinion" of what the bugger's muddle of Part 61 means. Maybe that is an improvement, at least some FOIs agreeing with their employer/themselves.
The crunch comes when such matters are adjudicated on by a court, and it would be a brave person who relied on the info. sheets as legal interpretation documents.
Re. "Instructor's Ratings", the policy, embodied in the plain language drafts of the original Part 61, said that all present C&T, by whatever name, would AUTOMATICALLY get "Instructor's Ratings" limited to precisely what they were qualified for in the airline training department, CAR 217 organisation of whatever. It would be a change of name, not function.
The policy never was that an airline C&T could suddenly conduct basic flying training, unless he/she was otherwise qualified. It is the b###sh1t interpretations of the FOIs (most of then ex-GA/Mil) that have shafted the intent, and are now not differentiating between "instructors" at flying school level, and airline/CAR 217 level.
This is a problem generated entirely within CASA, as a result of the shambles of the final version of Part 61.
Tootle pip!!