that ballpark sounded about right

I always wondered how unkosher it was to charge the full whack when most of the actual flying outside of initial type rating was paid by clients.

almost as good as a vic operator that had:
the clients pay
the government pay
and the pilots paying for icus.

how many industries can you sell the same thing 3 times?

Based off my albeit brief reading of it, it says type or class rating which the van wouldn’t fit into would it? Just a flight review required if no time on type? Also I doubt you could argue any revenue flying could be included.

I never signed a bond/loan or whatever other creative ways they tried but I made gentleman’s agreements, and adhered to them. Anytime someone did the wrong thing it just made life more difficult for me and everyone else. In saying that I think the ways it’s been included, it’s a good thing. Everyone knows where they stand now.

Nothing wrong with a bond for a "TYPE" rating.

But a certain operator in this country making you sign a "loan agreement" for $15,000 for a 2 year commitment flying a Caravan is a tad extreme!

The Van is a Type Rating within the Class. Any Pilot qualified to deliver the type rating would have to have developed a CASA approved course, that cost will have to be passed on. Do your initial GTE on a PAC750 for example, different story.