SOAR VS APTA?
Thread Starter
SOAR VS APTA?
Could somebody explain why apparently the SOAR flight training business model is acceptable to CASA yet Glen Buckley’s APTA business model isn’t?
Thread Starter
So the APTA model allowed integrated training and SOAR can’t do that? I would have thought that made the APTA offering more comprehensive or am I missing something?
40+ Foxbats operating out of YMMB? LSA’S in controlled airspace? That must have required lots of exemptions mustn’t it?
40+ Foxbats operating out of YMMB? LSA’S in controlled airspace? That must have required lots of exemptions mustn’t it?
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I'm aware, no, Soar cannot offer integrated courses of training.
Sure 142 is more comprehensive, however surely also more onerous and expensive to get and maintain approval for
Also worth saying that Glen's original intention was to actually train pilots. Soar is a money making exercise.
Sure 142 is more comprehensive, however surely also more onerous and expensive to get and maintain approval for
Also worth saying that Glen's original intention was to actually train pilots. Soar is a money making exercise.
Why can’t LSA’s operate in CTA?
I feel like you are either seriously lazy Sunfish and can’t be bothered to research this stuff yourself, or you’re listening to too much aeroclub bar talk.
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would they need an exception to operate 20’ish Foxbats, a dozen Bristells and a half dozen Tecnam LSA’s out of Moorabbin?
Why can’t LSA’s operate in CTA?
I feel like you are either seriously lazy Sunfish and can’t be bothered to research this stuff yourself, or you’re listening to too much aeroclub bar talk.
Perhaps Sundish doesn’t realise that LSA’s come in GA and RA-Aus rego and many in their fleet are GA registered.
I see Soar feature in todays “ Australian “. Lots of unhappy students it seems.
A good deal of it is probably due to the fact that Soar is operating a Part 141 operation versus APTA Part 142.
Part 141 requiring 200-hour CPLs would surely give more lattitude than 150 hour integrated CPL
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair point - sorry I forgot this thread pre-dates Friday's report in the Australian.
That said, I don't know why the greater level of management, supervision and assurance delivered by a Part 142 organisation wouldn't make APTA perfectly OK.
BASAIR operates bases at Bankstown, Cessnock and Archerfield - do they have HOOs and Safety & Quality managers at each location?
That said, I don't know why the greater level of management, supervision and assurance delivered by a Part 142 organisation wouldn't make APTA perfectly OK.
BASAIR operates bases at Bankstown, Cessnock and Archerfield - do they have HOOs and Safety & Quality managers at each location?
Never did end up hearing what this mob was all about. Looks like a closely related operation.
Thread Starter
Yet APTA gets closed down, destroying Glen Buckley, while SOAR prospers despite the allegations made in “The Australian”? Can someone tell me why an apparently reputable flight training organisation is closed while an alleged dubious operation owned by a very rich gentleman prospers?
But Shirley unhappy students do not good safe pilots make?
CASA? Where are you? CASA? CASA? (crickets)
Leafblower:
What a coincidence.
But Shirley unhappy students do not good safe pilots make?
CASA? Where are you? CASA? CASA? (crickets)
Leafblower:
Fair point - sorry I forgot this thread pre-dates Friday's report in the Australian.