Redcliffe Flight Training/Access Airshare Lose Court Case

[Dacman767]

Redcliffe Flight Training has been successfully taken to court for advertising GA training, and selling Access Airshare memberships based on this claim, all while not having an AOC. Some people might remember my first few posts about the matter when it first happened.

So far CASA have done nothing about it. When I spoke to them I was told that while RFT has breached legislation, taking the matter to court usually always fails, and that was the extent of CASA's help. So if you're in the same boat as me, I wouldn't waste your time with them. (Casa has since decided to award RFT and AOC, even after receiving several complaints about the matter :ugh:.

If you are an ex-student of RFT, and are unhappy about the fact that you were sold an Access Airshare membership on the basis that GA training was available, between 28/02/2010 to November 2011, go to QCAT.

Lodge the matter with the Queensland Civil Administrative Tribunal.You will need to provide evidence that RFT advertised GA training, things like brochures, website printouts, and anything at all from RFT that says that GA training is available. After that it's pretty simple, just show how much you paid and how many hours you flew and it's a pretty straight forward affair. If you need any help or direction, please inbox me.

The process is a little lengthy, but completely worth it.

[Up-into-the-air]

I have heard of a number of people who have reported to casa a series of people advertising or touting for business without an AOC.

casa refused to do anything about it at all.

There was one particular one where I heard of a FOI who was advertising on the web for business, did not have an AOC and was"borrowing an AOC".

The borrowing falls under CAA 28BD, which is an illegal act.

casa told the reporter that it was not going to do anything.

Further, an applicant for an aoc [training]- see the GFTC thread at:

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/468812-goulburn-flight-training-centre.html

Well casa - Answer the question please.

[jas24zzk]

I just don't why people 'borrow' AOC's when it is possible to legally operate under another companies AOC, provided you go through the right process.

Its a very easy process, and as such there is NO excuse for operating outside of the regs.

If you got a misrepresentation, then go for it, claim and cash in.

The organisation I watched go through the 'operating under' AOC process was a new company, taking over an existing school with students and aircraft as the package. The organisation that permitted the start up Co. to operate under their own AOC was very helpfull, CASA were extremely helpful in ensuring that everything was in place for both companies to operate under the one AOC short term. 1 CP, 1 Chief Pilot, 2 ATO's.

CASA's helpfulness in the matter might have been encouraged in that the new start up company was going through the process of obtaining its own AOC, and had a highly respected ATO on board.

End result, whilst this was all going on, 4 GFPT's, 2 PPL's, 1 CPL and 1 Gr3 instructor rating issued, school thriving, and no student inconvenienced further than having to sign out twice.

[notaplanegeek]

Question, Would it be legal for a flying school like the one described above to provide GA flight training if they employed an outside instructor who was working under another flying school that had an AOC and approval from the CFI?

[jas24zzk]

That question is a little open ended.

Which CFI are you talking about?

To my mind you are talking about the CFI of the instructors normal Employer.
He cannot just go and moonlight for another company that doesn't have it's own AOC, hiding behind his own employers AOC. His CFI CAN give him permission to fly for another operator (actually cannot stop him), but the CFI cannot give him permission to hide behind that AOC.

The example i mentioned in my previous post, was a highly detailed process, that even saw the company offering the AOC services have to update its own Operations manual to include the types being operated by the new start up.

All instructors had to go through the AOC holders employee induction including SOP checks, check flights etc.

Once setup, it operates the same way as Royal vic was able to run Dual locations (YMMB & YCEM) under the one AOC.

Despite being quite willing to bag CASA, i have to commend the way they allow this to happen. It was almost a 6 month process for the start up company to get their own AOC, and it is purely a paperwork exercise. Without the ability for an AOC holder to umbrella another company in this manner, would probably see more GA training companies go bust.
I'm pretty sure the existing students at the said company were grateful for what transpired, as it ensured continuity of their training.
The downtime for training whilst the process to operate under the other companies AOC was less than 3 days.....and it pissed rain all week lol.

[sroddick]

Dacman

could you tell me any history about the Court case with RFT?

I am involved with a reputable flying school in Sydney and a certain individual is promoting a scheme to us which I am dubious of, sounds very similar to RFT.

Steve

[5-in-50]

Stay with the reputable flying school and you won't find out how dubious the scheme is/was...

[Aussie Bob]

Redcliffe Flight Training has been successfully taken to court for advertising GA trainingSorry I don't understand, who took them to court?

So far CASA have done nothing about itWhat should they do about it? I gather it wasn't CASA them who took it to court then?

What is an Access Airshare membership?

The process is a little lengthy, but completely worth it.Why is it worth it?

Sorry for the questions Dacman but this is an international forum and you seem to be talking about a very local issue. Unfortunately it seems that you also bear a grudge. I don't agree with non AOC holders advertising this sort of stuff but is it any different to the local RAA school who advertise "all hours flown with us count towards a PPL and CPL"?

[Dacman767]

Hi Bob,

This is an international forum, with sub-forums for different areas. If there was a more specific sub than Australia, I'd use it, but there's not.
I took them to court.
I do bear a grudge, and so do plenty of RFT's ex-students, and I'm sure you would too if you were in our shoes.
CASA should have done something because RFT was in clear breach of civil air law, and quite possible criminal law.

'Access Airshare' was a membership that you bought, that entitled you to training and aircraft hire at a reduced rate. You paid $8,800 for a three year membership, and in return you paid about $77 less per hour. It made sense to do if a) if you're not financially savvy and don't know what discounting is, and b)If you plan to do a lot of hours of flying in three years, say, to get your commercial licence.
Bad for the student if for some reason they don't want to train with RFT any more (maybe because the CFI is a :mad:), or there aren't any aircraft available, or RFT suddenly goes out of business.

RFT were saying that they could do GA and get people their commercial license, and selling the membership as a good way to reduce the long run costs. However, all they could offer was RA. No training in anything heavier than 600kg, no twins, etc.

It was all good if you just wanted to do RA, but for someone wanting to get their anywhere near a commercial licence, it was a con.

It's worth ex-students taking him to court, because they can win back a chunk of the money they paid, and then use it learning to fly with someone reputable/still in business/actually able to offer what hey advertise.

Does that make more sense?

[VH-XXX]

... and that, ladies and gentleman is why almost everyone here always warns about not paying up front for flying training regardless of who it is with !!

[Dangly Bits]

Dacman did you win? Did you get your money back?

DB

[Dacman767]

Yeah, not all of it. But enough.

[Aussie Bob]

Thanks Dacman for the explanation. Perhaps they started with good intent but things got tough. Very sorry to hear of your experience.

[emergency000]

Perhaps they started with good intent but things got tough.

The best laid plans of mice and flying schools and all that...

[Dangly Bits]

Thanks Dacman.
I think I remember the guy. Used to do 11,000 radio calls each circuit and would often cutoff others in the circuit.

Cheers
DB