The management of IAA have, indeed, attempted to contract out some of the training. I doubt any of the operators approached will take up the offer in this current climate.

She’ll be right mate, they have a couple of DA42s & a clapped out old Duchess. If they do it like the NVFR, anyone with a MECIR will be able to train them.

Before COVID they planned to have 600 students training in Mildura by now, so they must have something up their sleeve.

Rather than grow one school they bought four presumably to get around CAAC student number limits for the first year. Doesn’t sound like a long-term plan, a school that size would need a lot of senior instructors with ME & IFR training, Flight Examiners too, where were all the staff coming from?

The whole thing seems a bit odd, maybe there is nothing up their sleeves and the original plan never included being in business this long.

Maybe the linked in the ABC news reports to embezzlement and maybe there is more to this than a flying school

Parking money out of reach of the CCP and or immigration motives?

Four Schools?
 

You're saying they bought 4 Schools. Can you name these schools please?

Thanks Staffypilot. Had found all except Clamback & Hennesy. Had found the other 3. IAA is the registered holder of 48 planes but Pearson, Aero Dynamic Flight Academy and Air Queensland are listed as the Operators. Have not seen any flights with regos relating to Clamback & Hennesy. Time for some more searching. Have found one IAA Skyhawk listed for sale. It's difficult getting any concrete facts about IAA.

Sounds like abfabaus might be one of the narcissistic fruitloops that frequents this place from the Residents Against Pesky Flying Schools facebook page.

Sorry to disappoint Strainer. No narcissism and no Pesky Planes. After facts, not gossip

I agree 100%. Absolute fruitloops the lot of them, group filled with bunch of racists who have no clue about what they are on about.

Fruitloops would be a compliment to them, at one stage they were accusing IAA and FTA of spraying local crops with COVID 19 to help spread the Chinese made disease.

That accusation was answered in about three seconds flat. Strainer must’ve been over the target.

Well the MRCC approved the additional $$ for the ILS at a meeting this week.
Would you believe it is proposed to be on runway 09 and not 27.

The prevailing wind at MQL is from the W/SW and runway 27 is used around 90% of the time by the RPT operators due to the wind. An ILS on 09 would not be any advantage when there is fog, as in the early morning you would be landing into the sun which is not very conducive to making the most out of what visibility there may be. As a result of this decision it seems that the installation of the ILS is for the prime benefit of the flying school training operations and not for assisting RPT and other operators to land when the weather is poor such as in a dust storm which occur when there is a wind from the W or SW.
Having an ILS on 09 will by its nature and use by the flying school generate traffic issues in the circuit and cause delays to other operators. The additional time for a backtrack for a departure 09 or to wait for a gap in the traffic for enter and backtrack for a 27 departure will be a significant inconvenience and cost to the RPT operators especially.

Where is the common sense in this equation?

One has also have to ask what the value of an ILS will be over its expected life. The new runway at the Sunshine Coast is jet capable and does not have an ILS, but GPS based approaches that everyone seems happy about. Why cant the proponents of this waste of money think into the future and consider something similar and spend the money more wisely?

One must also ask what or who is driving this proposal.......

See also: https://www.pprune.org/australia-new...wrong-way.html

The future is overseas airline cadets and they must train on an ILS.

As widespread as you think it may be, JFK, Heathrow and LAX etc are all still ILS and will be for a long time due to Cat 2 and 3 approval.

Which only goes to show that the ILS is there for the school and not to assist others landing when the weather is poor!

I don't disagree but someone had said the ILS is redundant now because of GNSS.

Hi guys :) its me !!
First of all not racist, couldn't care less what race is flying the planes. But definitely are heading towards the fruitloop status from the constant noise pollution.
We only started the page because we were fed up with the constant drone, but seem to have uncovered a myriad of illegal and unsafe practices, and mind-blowing incidents that certainly make me want to sell up our family land and move far away.
I am collating as much information as possible (and learning a lot about the aviation industry as I go!) so if there is anyone who would like to get anything off their chest please let me know. Happy for you to remain anonymous, as I have lots of whistleblowers currently. I would particularly welcome actual documentation or photos. For example, if you submitted a report about tail strikes, but nothing was done about it, please send me the details. You can find me on the Facebook page or group.
Please no negative attacks on me, this has all been too much for my mental health as it is.
Im after facts, not rumours. I am sorting fact from fiction.

The obvious choice for an ILS would be 27 for all the reasons previously mentioned and of course most of the inbound RPT and Air Ambulance traffic is from the south east. But I can’t help wondering if the Airport management, Board and MRCC councillors are confused as to the actual approach direction for the proposed ILS. Most of them probably have no idea what an ILS is or what 09 or 27 mean. If it was planned for 27 the Localiser antenna would be at the 09 end where they own more land beyond the airport boundary, the 27 threshold is closer to the road and land they don’t own. Maybe they don’t understand their own plans.

I imagine the aerodrome was there before you were...

Have you ever flown in a jet airliner?

Talking sense to the fruitloops doesn't work :ugh: