All makes sense, Glen.
I seek just 1 clarification. You said in your most recent post:
"One member had already been approved formally by CASA through a significant change process."
This is very important. Did CASA write a piece of paper that said "Member X is approved to conduct flying training" or something like that?
Or did CASA write a piece of paper that said APTA is approved to conduct flying training using Member X's resources at Member X's location" or something like that?
It is very important to understand who was "approved".
The way in which Member X is "approved" to conduct flying training is that it is issued an AOC/Part 12X certificate.
The way in which APTA is "approved" to conduct flying training using Member X's resources at Member X's location is that APTA gets the approval (maybe a variation to its certificate?).
There can't be a half pregnant world in which an entity has an "approval" to conduct flying training but not an AOC/Part 12X certificate authorising it.
(PS: You might be able to quickly clarify another issue, Glen.
ASIC shows the current entity with the name “Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd” is ACN 119 046 285. ASIC says that that entity’s former names include “Melbourne Flight Training Pty Ltd”.
ASIC also shows ACN 612 834 152 as named “Melbourne Flight Training Pty Ltd” with the former name “Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd”. However, that entity is shown as having been deregistered on 23 January 2021.
Looks like two different corporate entities swapping identical names. Nothing too unusual about that, but I want to make sure I understand who’s who in this zoo.
What was the ACN of the entity of which you were CEO called “Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd” while you were dealing with CASA? I’m guessing it was ACN 612 834 152 – the one that’s now been deregistered – and ACN 119 046 285 then grabbed the name. But I’d rather not guess.)
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 19th Mar 2022 at 04:32.
Reason: To add PS.