caa shuts down s.i flight school
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
caa shuts down s.i flight school
the jist of the article is that some undercover blokes from caa came and had a look. they decided the operation was more part 115 than 141 despite more than 11 years (and how many audits?) of flying
no doubt theres 2 sides to the story, but a shame nonetheless.
why didnt caa just work with them to get a part 115 ticket?
online article
no doubt theres 2 sides to the story, but a shame nonetheless.
why didnt caa just work with them to get a part 115 ticket?
online article
One of those many distinctions that have no basis in objective safety.
Someone stumps up and says: “Teach me how to fly for an hour”, and that’s ‘safe’.
Someone stumps up and says: “Take me flying for an hour”, and that’s ‘unsafe’.
Same people, same aircraft, same skills and knowledge, so same objective risks.
The “TIF” scam has been around forever, for that reason.
Someone stumps up and says: “Teach me how to fly for an hour”, and that’s ‘safe’.
Someone stumps up and says: “Take me flying for an hour”, and that’s ‘unsafe’.
Same people, same aircraft, same skills and knowledge, so same objective risks.
The “TIF” scam has been around forever, for that reason.
Yes, it is a big shame it's come to this.
On the face of it I'd have to say it's a Part 115 operation certainly not a Part 141 operation. How many "Students' actually end up with an aerobatic rating. It would seem most "paying customers" only ever went for one flight, so really is a glorified joy ride. They should have had Part 115 certification.
For our Aussie brethren, Part 115 is for Adventure Aviation and covers Commercial Ops that don't fall under Part 135.
Prior to the existence of Part 115 there wasn't a lot of scope for operations like this. The only real option was Part 135, which I know some operators used.
Perhaps you could say Part 141 was an attempt to comply by another means, I don't think it was an appropriate way either before of after Part 115 came along.
I don't figure why they didn't certify under Part 115, they could still have a Part 141 as well if they needed it.
Where the real shame lies is that fact CAA had been auditing them under Part 141 and it would appear there were no concerns raised. For 11 years CAA gave been auditing and allowing them to operate in this manner. Then they come along an abruptly close then up.
It would seem the Audit and Enforcement branches don't talk to each other.
A chat about the situation and finding a way forward would have been the better outcome for all. After all it would seem they ran a good operation. Perhaps there was stuff that preceded this that we're not aware of.
It certainly doesn't paint CAA in a good light.
On the face of it I'd have to say it's a Part 115 operation certainly not a Part 141 operation. How many "Students' actually end up with an aerobatic rating. It would seem most "paying customers" only ever went for one flight, so really is a glorified joy ride. They should have had Part 115 certification.
For our Aussie brethren, Part 115 is for Adventure Aviation and covers Commercial Ops that don't fall under Part 135.
Prior to the existence of Part 115 there wasn't a lot of scope for operations like this. The only real option was Part 135, which I know some operators used.
Perhaps you could say Part 141 was an attempt to comply by another means, I don't think it was an appropriate way either before of after Part 115 came along.
I don't figure why they didn't certify under Part 115, they could still have a Part 141 as well if they needed it.
Where the real shame lies is that fact CAA had been auditing them under Part 141 and it would appear there were no concerns raised. For 11 years CAA gave been auditing and allowing them to operate in this manner. Then they come along an abruptly close then up.
It would seem the Audit and Enforcement branches don't talk to each other.
A chat about the situation and finding a way forward would have been the better outcome for all. After all it would seem they ran a good operation. Perhaps there was stuff that preceded this that we're not aware of.
It certainly doesn't paint CAA in a good light.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Zealand
Age: 37
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The auditors had been on their case for some time I from what I hear. A year or so maybe? They'd probably had enough. The CAA adventure aviation (CAR Pt.115) people are enthusiasts too in my experience, and I'd have imagined would have tried hard to help or convince them to get certified. If I were a certified adventure operator I'd be OK with this action TBH, because I'd paid up to get the paperwork done (at the new audit fee too. ouch). The CAA does plenty wrong, but I don't think this in one.
