Thanks Glen.
Those copies of versions 6 and 7 of the AOC show that CASA was on notice that there was no change in the legal entity holding the AOC. The entity remained ACN 119 046 285. The name change from Melbourne Flight Training Pty Ltd to Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd made no difference to the legal entity holding the AOC. Accordingly, unless there was some change to the annexes as between the two versions of the AOC, ACN 119 046 285 continued to be authorised under that AOC to conduct, in the name “Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd”, exactly the same operations as it was authorised to conduct in the name “Melbourne Flight Training Pty Ltd”.
So the mystery remains as to why CASA alleged, in its 23 October 2018 letter, that “MFT” was not operating under the authority of an AOC. And this is why it continues to be very (very) important to get (crystal) clarity about who’s talking about whom when they say “MFT” and you talk about “my” flying school.
I’ll try this set of questions, first, to try to solve that mystery. They only require a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer.
When you originally started ‘your’ flying school, was that the flying school which became generally known as “Melbourne Flight Training” or “MFT”?
Was the AOC for ‘your’ original flying school issued to corporate person ACN 119 046 285? If the answer is ‘no’, was the AOC issued to you personally?
In the year up to 23 October 2018 (though the precise period does not matter) were any flying training activities being engaged in by instructors at the school generally known as “Melbourne Flight Training” or “MFT”? If the answer is ‘yes’, were those “MFT” flying school instructors employees of corporate person ACN 119 046 285? To be crystal clear: Did ACN 119 046 285 pay those instructors directly for the instructing work they did at “MFT”?
Please: Just a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (or ‘don’t know’) in response to each.