Flying School Owner makes AFR rich list
While I dont want to comment on another flying school operator directly, I feel part of the issue with aviation traning is that there are too many regulators who dont talk to each other ... and aren't really competent in each others business
I.e., ASQA regulates Box Hill through the RTO (and would assess the legitimacy of the third party arrangement), Department of Education and Training (DET) manages the VET Student Loans ... potentially only dealing with Box Hill. CASA would talk to Soar (nothing to do with Box Hill) and I assume RAAus would be in the mix in some way shape or form ...
But no one regulator has the whole picture
Obviously I have a vested interest so I am a fan of VET Student Loans, it has expanded our business, I've put on more staff, more aircraft ... but I drive a Commodore and I still have a mortgage.
$75K certainly isn't a stupid amount to charge for a CPL if using GA ("modern") aircraft, proper staffing, proper maintennace, proper systems ... following the rules etc etc
But yes I think there could be greater transparancy, more input by the government and a process to make it easier for students to compare flying schools - ASQA is slowing going this way, but I'll believe it when i see it
Shannon
Swells:
That’s a feature, not a bug.
I.e., ASQA regulates Box Hill through the RTO (and would assess the legitimacy of the third party arrangement), Department of Education and Training (DET) manages the VET Student Loans ... potentially only dealing with Box Hill. CASA would talk to Soar (nothing to do with Box Hill) and I assume RAAus would be in the mix in some way shape or form ...
But no one regulator has the whole picture
But no one regulator has the whole picture
Surely the administrative costs of running a flying school have reduced since the introduction of Parts 61/141/142? That’s certainly what CASA told the government would happen!
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Refund precedent ?
Today (10th December) a decision was handed down in the South Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). Case #2016/2372 Crisp vs Secretary of yhe Department of Education and Bruce Hartwig Flying School. Simply put, The student, James Crisp, was awarded a refund of his VET fees paid. The reasons are spelt out in the decision of AAT deputy president Britten-Jones. I don’t wish to be disrespectful to the tribunal by giving a short version of the decision, so it needs to be read as a whole. In a nutshell however, the decision appears to be formed around the evidence that the school did not meet its obligations to deliver the course which was offered nor in an appropriate and timely manner. Its not quite that simple; look up the matter on the AAT website. The AAT appear to be running 6 to 8 weeks behind in publishing its decisions. I’m sure your legal representatives will be given instant access if they ask.
Surely the administrative costs of running a flying school have reduced since the introduction of Parts 61/141/142? That’s certainly what CASA told the government would happen!
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today (10th December) a decision was handed down in the South Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). Case #2016/2372 Crisp vs Secretary of yhe Department of Education and Bruce Hartwig Flying School. Simply put, The student, James Crisp, was awarded a refund of his VET fees paid. The reasons are spelt out in the decision of AAT deputy president Britten-Jones. I don’t wish to be disrespectful to the tribunal by giving a short version of the decision, so it needs to be read as a whole. In a nutshell however, the decision appears to be formed around the evidence that the school did not meet its obligations to deliver the course which was offered nor in an appropriate and timely manner. Its not quite that simple; look up the matter on the AAT website. The AAT appear to be running 6 to 8 weeks behind in publishing its decisions. I’m sure your legal representatives will be given instant access if they ask.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
))
Oh dear, this is not good...
https://www.raa.asn.au/storage/safet...0-00000002.pdf
If the manufacturer can’t prove that the aircraft comply with the ASTM requirements, they will be grounded and unable to be used for hire or reward. In theory they can be registered under LSA experimental but you’d have to think that CASA would not allow this if they believe that the aircraft type is unsafe.
I hope nobody has bought any of those used ones as that may raise a few concerns.
https://www.raa.asn.au/storage/safet...0-00000002.pdf
If the manufacturer can’t prove that the aircraft comply with the ASTM requirements, they will be grounded and unable to be used for hire or reward. In theory they can be registered under LSA experimental but you’d have to think that CASA would not allow this if they believe that the aircraft type is unsafe.
I hope nobody has bought any of those used ones as that may raise a few concerns.
What is criminal is CASA taking so long to get to the stage where they are now concerned.
Some flight schools had stopped doing stalls in them quite some time ago. I wonder how people managed to pass a licence test in one after telling the examiner that they were forbidden to stall it. That sounds criminal to me too.
We are concerned that contrary to the formal declarations made by the manufacturer, the aircraft may not have been adequately tested for compliance with the ASTM standard for spin recovery.
Formal declarations? Is that all they need?
How about having the same level of safety for all aircraft used for training instead of giving exemptions on something as arbitrary as weight?
How about having the same level of safety for all aircraft used for training instead of giving exemptions on something as arbitrary as weight?
To an extent, it has worked... but at whose expense?
Has it worked though?
The whole RAAus thing shouldn't have been on the same playing field in the first place.
From what I've observed in the last 20 years or so, most LSAs just aren't tough enough for flying training and have sent some good operators to the wall.
I heard from a LAME that a certain Aquila, by the time it was imported and on the VH register, cost half a million bucks. Could have got 8 reliable second hand Cessnas or Pipers for that price, had a decent range and a sturdy reliable aeroplane with a steady resale value. I guess that's why some of us are still flying the dinosaurs.
The whole RAAus thing shouldn't have been on the same playing field in the first place.
From what I've observed in the last 20 years or so, most LSAs just aren't tough enough for flying training and have sent some good operators to the wall.
I heard from a LAME that a certain Aquila, by the time it was imported and on the VH register, cost half a million bucks. Could have got 8 reliable second hand Cessnas or Pipers for that price, had a decent range and a sturdy reliable aeroplane with a steady resale value. I guess that's why some of us are still flying the dinosaurs.
The whole system is about self compliance. A manufacturer has to build an aircraft to a set of standards and then the manufacturer needs to sign off that there aircraft meets or exceeds the said standards.
Generally, aircraft that are questionable are audited by different CAA's very quickly after they hit the market or when they have a couple of 'similar' incidents. I don't know how many aircraft CASA have audited and I know the FAA had done dozens in the category around the globe.
World CAA's are generally very happy with how self compliance works and now they are accepting the same system for part 23 aircraft where now a manufacturer can claim self compliance based on a similar set of standards.
If an aircraft manufacturer states compliance of an aircraft does not meet that standard then they are solely 100% responsible. This way grieving widow's and their lawyers go chasing the manufacturer who has stated their aircraft is compliant and meets a standard rather than chasing a CAA who accepted the aircraft based on their own, sometimes limited, testing and evaluation.
This is a system that allows aircraft to come her market much faster than would normally happen in a fully certified system which in turn makes the cost of aircraft cheaper.
If a manufacturer cheats the system and doesn't meet the approved and accepted standards then they deserve whatever they get.
This is not an RA-Aus issue, not an FAA issue, or a CASA issue because self certification is the way the industry has been instructed to proceed into the future of aviation, like it or not.
Generally, aircraft that are questionable are audited by different CAA's very quickly after they hit the market or when they have a couple of 'similar' incidents. I don't know how many aircraft CASA have audited and I know the FAA had done dozens in the category around the globe.
World CAA's are generally very happy with how self compliance works and now they are accepting the same system for part 23 aircraft where now a manufacturer can claim self compliance based on a similar set of standards.
If an aircraft manufacturer states compliance of an aircraft does not meet that standard then they are solely 100% responsible. This way grieving widow's and their lawyers go chasing the manufacturer who has stated their aircraft is compliant and meets a standard rather than chasing a CAA who accepted the aircraft based on their own, sometimes limited, testing and evaluation.
This is a system that allows aircraft to come her market much faster than would normally happen in a fully certified system which in turn makes the cost of aircraft cheaper.
If a manufacturer cheats the system and doesn't meet the approved and accepted standards then they deserve whatever they get.
This is not an RA-Aus issue, not an FAA issue, or a CASA issue because self certification is the way the industry has been instructed to proceed into the future of aviation, like it or not.