Yes, I always had an issue with terms such as 'borrowed' AOC etc. You are never loaning or borrowing an AOC, you are using it's authority, you can't give back the authority once used, you used it, it's done. The simple fix is not preventing AOCs from being used by other entities, rather the AOC holder is held completely accountable for the actions of the entities using their accreditation. If the operations are run safely and within the law, who cares, if not, the AOC holder gets a red hot legal poker stuck up their arse.
I don't see what major difference between what was being set up has to large flying schools with multiple satellite training facilities. As long as each operation has appropriate oversight there is no issue. It really is not up to CASA to say what is appropriate oversight, rather the operator to prove the operation is compliant and safe. I think what CASA is worried about here is they have withdrawn so much of their own responsibility when someone comes up with a system that threatens to replace the regulator as it represents the industries needs more than the regulator seems to understand. They have already delegated to RAA and other sports activities, why not delegate GA training to an individual entity, oops, too far, we might become irrelevant.
Why does a flying school/club have to employ a full time HOFO or such just to shuffle CASA's paperwork, why can't an organisation prove it can be done by an in-between. What use is an on site CP when all they are doing is administration, it's not like they can have any input on what is being done in the air away from the company building. Most airlines have centralised management with many bases across the country, why can't a string of small flying schools do the same. Could you restart this venture as an RAA like setup for training, where a single entity does all the work of HOFO, 217 etc etc and the clubs/schools just provide a liason CFI who runs the daily operation?
Last edited by 43Inches; 16th Mar 2022 at 04:30.