[Peetwo]

Timeline of miniscule corruption...err duplicity? - Part I

ToAR: Part IV 

Reference posts:

There are posts which are worthy of cribbing – then, there are posts which, in a nutshell, say all that needs to be said. Lead Sled, at cobbed throttle; spot on:-

Sunfish. This is one time I am going to have to disagree with you, and I am speaking from the point of view of "being there". As "on the spot", "in the room" (or wherever we were), often with the only notes taken by the Minister and/or me, or a colleague with me.

Both Sharp and Vaile set things up so the real decisions were made without the "benefit" of set-piece formal meeting with "industry", the basic program was set before the end 1996 elections. Look up "Soaring into Tomorrow.

Interestingly, John Anderson followed the same pattern, with a "big bang" shakeup of CASA planned, but he got blown out of the water by OPM&C politics, John Howard got cold feet, even though Kim Beazley supported the plan, he had no time for CASA either, based on his Ministerial experiences.

I have a far better opinion of Anderson as a Minister than most, because I know what he wanted to do would have sorted the CASA KULTCHA once and for all --- essentially a "scorched earth" and start again approach.

Interestingly Martin Ferguson, and principal and aviation advisors agreed, that the problems in CASA were so intractable and so entrenched, that anything less drastic would fail. How do I know, because I discussed the matter at length with them.

And look where we are, all these years later!!

Tootle pip!

John Sharp is running rings around ‘the system’ – could not beat it, so now he exploits it. Lessons learnt; well done that man.

A matter of some interest.

“The Australian understands another scheduled flight training session at Soar was cancelled because of unsuitable weather conditions.”

The average student has not got a blind clue about what the current ‘weather’ conditions mean. Traditionally, it has always been up to the student’s mentor to decide if Bloggs should or should not be let loose in the prevailing conditions. For example; the ‘hate-sheet’ reflects more practice at cross-wind landings – before solo operations. "Sorry mate, too much wind today" end of....Commercial considerations never, not ever, entered into that decision.

"At the time of the crash, just before 10am on Thursday the winds were between 10 and 12 knots, with a 12 knot crosswind."

10 to 15 knots across a runway ain’t a problem – for an ‘experienced’ student. Not one who has had the X-wind landing box ticked – but one who can actually manage such a thing. It ain’t difficult – but it requires training and practice. The decision to send a fellahin out in a gusty X-wind is subjective, based on the instructors assessment of progress – not a bloody box ticked; but competency – tested, proven and documented…..


Another crash involving a Soar student pilot and training instructor remains under investigation by the ATSB.

It is of concern that a first class operator like Buckley is fighting for survival after attempting to bring in a system which would not have allowed the injured child out alone in a breeze he could not handle. Yet this ‘Soar’ thing, using airspeed, weight and CoG ‘critical’ aircraft to mass produce ‘legally’ qualified (tick a box) pilots is allowed to continue? WTD?

CASA, part 61 and Part 141/2 have a lot to answer for; before the operator gets to answer some fairly prickly questions. It seems to me that the aircraft being used, whist ‘cheap’ are intolerant of the fumbles new pilots make – does a speed, weight and centre of gravity critical aircraft really suit a training environment; despite a CASA ‘tick’? I think not. Great for the weekend warrior – but as a suitable platform for training? Seems there are some deeper questions which demand answers here.

Toot - hate AP night shift – toot.  {P7 has matters ‘Christmas’ related to attend}. Hurrumph!

To begin here is a 'Soar' update...

From Ironsider on the Oz, via the AFAP on Farcebook: 

Soar Aviation sells aircraft as it faces loss of registration



The Melbourne-based flying school facing the loss of its registration to train pilots has put seven aircraft worth more than $500,000 up for sale.

Soar Aviation was informed last week that its Registered Training Organisation (RTO) status was being revoked following an audit by the Australian Skills Quality Authority.

ASQA is the national regulator for the vocational education and training sector and has oversight of the VET fee student loan program.

An ASQA spokesman said the audit found Soar Aviation was not compliant with the standards for RTOs, and had not supported the needs of individual students, or met the requirements of the aviation training package.

The company, which partnered with Box Hill Institute to deliver flight training, was also found to have inappropriate assessment processes and practices.

Box Hill Institute also lost its authority to deliver aviation courses and a spokeswoman said it would not be able to offer any further study for a diploma of aviation from late February.

“We deeply regret the impact this will have on our students and are committed to helping them navigate through this difficult period,” said the spokeswoman.

But Soar Aviation has rejected ASQA’s findings and applied for an internal review of the decision, due to take effect on February 24.

A spokeswoman said as a result of the ASQA decision, the company was having to realign its fleet and employee numbers.

“The fleet is being trimmed on that basis,” she said, in reference to the seven aircraft advertised for sale on www.planesales.com.au.

“Fifty-one planes are more than enough to meet the needs of the services the business provides.”

Among the aircraft up for sale are three Aeroprakt Vixens and three Aeroprakt Foxbats, and one BRM Aero Bristell, all painted in the distinctive Soar colours.

Prices range from $59,950 to $120,000.

ASQA’s audit of the flight training offered by Soar Aviation and Box Hill Institute followed complaints from students and concerns raised by a former aviation manager at the TAFE college about the partnership.

His report alleged sloppy billing practices that had disadvantaged Box Hill Institute, including a requirement to pay upfront for services from Soar Aviation Flight Training (SAFT) before they had been delivered.

The report also observed that “most students pay in advance to SAFT for the full 200 flying hours and associated training but never finish the course”.

“Only 19 students have graduated from our CPL (commercial pilot licence) course since May 2016 to the current date yet over 950 students have enrolled,” said the report written in April 2019.

“Of these 19 students, only two were ‘novice’ pilots, the rest entering the course with previous flying training qualifications.”

It went on to point out that no student had ever been recorded as “failing” the course.

“All students who are not currently enrolled are recorded as ‘withdrawn’,” the report said.

“This enables SAFT to receive full payment without incurring the expenses associated with delivering training services.”

Melbourne law firm Gordon Legal is now acting for 15 former students of Soar Aviation left with huge debts but no qualifications after undertaking the CPL course.

Principal lawyer James Naughton said in many cases the students had raised concerns and complaints about the course.

“I believe it’s with a sense of frustration they’ve got lawyers involved now and there’s still been no response from Box Hill or Soar in relation to these concerns and that’s a worry,” Mr Naughton said.

The Soar spokeswoman said they had not been contacted by any students’ legal representatives.

Plus an update from Clare Prop, via the UP...

One guy on the Pilots Lounge fb page said 100% of the students were on the VET loans.


This corruption geos all the way to the top, see the video with McCormack. "That's what this government is all about...Neel's doing a fantastic job" etc. There is no way that they didn't know what was going on, another massive money laundering exercise using VET loans and vulnerable aviation students with stars in their eyes.

Pride comes before a fall, and putting yourself on the rich list worth 66 million was probably not such a great idea because he can hardly plead bankruptcy three months later...can he?

RA-Aus must have been glad of 950 memberships, too.

I would make an offer for some of those avionics, they are probably worth more than the aircraft.

Next I have a QoN for Hitch off Oz Flying - http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...n-approval - in relation this para??

..ASQA's decision is being seen as another blow for Soar after a string of incidents including crashes of Bristells at Stawell and Moorabbin and another incident at Drouin, Victoria, on Christmas Eve when a Bristell struck trees during a practice forced landing...

Where did you get the underlined information from? The reason being that I have checked both the RAAus - Accident & defect summary - and the ATSB aviation occurrence database without any success in tracking down that particular incident??

However as an aside, while trolling through those latest RAAus incidents, I was disturbed by the number of a) reported incidents (30 from 1 December 2019 to today) and the naive admissions of b) very poor airmanship, basic aeronautical knowledge and blatant disregard for the rules...  

This one was most disturbing:     

...Inadvertent flight into IMC: The aircraft departed Narromine into significant smoke haze. At 500' the pilot could see objects out to about 10NM but could not see the horizon. At cruise altitude of 4,500' visibility became worse. The visual cues indicating the aircraft's attitude became degraded. The pilot could judge pitch and roll only by looking at the paddocks and roads within a 45 degree cone beneath the aircraft. When they were head-down looking up the latest weather details for their next stop at Griffith the pilot glanced sideways at the ground to see if they were still wings-level and all seemed OK until they saw the artificial horizon on the EFIS which indicated that they were in a 15 degree bank. The pilot knew then what IMC was they then engaged the autopilot so the next time they were head-down in the cockpit they weren’t going to give themselves another fright. The smoke progressively thinned out towards Griffith and visibility entering the circuit was satisfactory until initiating their turn to base. The pilot seemed to have descended into a lens of smoke which totally blocked their view of the runway, but views crosswind and downwind were relatively clear. The pilot estimated where the extended centreline of the runway was and turned final only to find, when exiting the smoke lens, that they had turned too soon, requiring a dog-leg correction to get back on the centreline...

 
Now I know that the basic RAAus aircraft are only allowed to carry two POB outside of radar CTA but in hindsight if you were the miniscule responsible for oversighting aviation safety would you be prepared to actively promote an aviation business flogging around in aircraft not properly certified for the purposes of training young pilots to fly, while overflying large built up urban areas adjacent to secondary airports that you are also ultimately responsible for...  

TBC - Part II to follow...

Ps I get the impression that one of Mick Mack's predecessors John Anderson, some 20 odd years ago, would never in a million years have allowed the festering Soar imbroglio to remain on his desk unattended to for the minimal amount of time it took to get his head around the serious safety issues before firing off a 'please explain' to both St Commode and the Hooded Canary:

An interesting letter from John Anderson regarding ultralights

---

I was recently going through some material from the old days and found a letter from John Anderson dated 16 March 1999. Surely this can start some interesting discussion on PPRuNe.

---

16.3.99 - Minister John Anderson to DS CASA Chairman re ultralights