Although he looks alone, somebody wants him on the phone.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
The flight time requirements are less at a certified school because the curriculum is certified and the training audited by the FAA. Part 61 is not. But now this conversation is off track to the point.
So let's bring it back.
The point is that they do not have a certified flight school when they said they did, and the business plan calls for a substantial part of QASP's income to be based upon this. The question is pertinent in regard to stock price valuation, not student pilot flight time hours.
You are reading into this what you want it to say.
"What differentiates the two is structure and accountability. Part 141 schools are periodically audited by the FAA and must have detailed, FAA-approved course outlines and meet student performance rates. Part 61 schools don't have the same paperwork and accountability requirements."
Part 61 is uncertified, Part 141 is certified! Read it.
And the distinction is important.
I'm not going to contact the Feds. I have no ax to grind. I just feel this is an important element in trying to set a valuation on the shares of QASP.
I don't understand why trying to get to the bottom of what a company does, or represents themselves as doing, should be off-limits in a discussion of the company.
No, Mr. Jacksonville International, they may not represent themselves as a certified flight school unless they are one.
No, that is incorrect. A school can not be certified under part 61. A flight instructor can be, but not a business, not an entity. Not a school.
It is an important distinction.
Part 91 is general operating rules, and has not entered this discussion previously.
Okay, Part 61 deals with pilots, sorry. But occasionally pilots are found to be people.
Since the operation of flight school to train hordes of pilots from India at $66,000 a pop is a big part of the projected earnings for QASP moving forward, the lack of a certified flight school is a very important little point.
And yes, this is what I've been trying to point out all along: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=50785582
I want to thank SingleBrokeMom for helping me get to the bottom of this. And I also hope Mr. Bradley notes where some of his money, from the continuing expansion of the O/S count, is coming from.
Yes, that is exactly what I thought, and is exactly what I have been saying all along. They are operating under Part 61, and are not a cerified flight school. Thank you.
Part 61 deals with airmen (people). Part 141 deals with entities (a school).
Let Bill know next time you talk to him that it is a violation of FAR 141.3 to advertise that you are certified flight school when you are not:
"141.3 Certificate required.
No person may operate as a certificated pilot school without, or in violation of, a pilot school certificate or provisional pilot school certificate issued under this part."
The key words are operate "without" and under "this part" which is, of course Part 141. Not part 61.
So this web page here: http://www.atlanticaviationinc.com/stud_services.html
It is a violation of the rules they are trying to certify under.
So now I'll give something to think about which is worth even more than the $150.00 per hour for doing my DD for me: If they are playing fast and loose with the Federal Aviation Regulations, what makes you think they are particularly fastidious with the rules published by the Securities Exchange Commission?
OK, now in all fairness, we must drag out the standard disclaimer:
"Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results."
Just because that is what always happens is no gaurantee it will happen again. It's only likely to happen again.
It sounded like they were going to shop these assets among multiple banks in order to obtain loans from each. Kind of like getting multiple second mortgages on your house.
I kind of thought that financing disappeared sometime in 2008.
The financial audits are one of the carrots hanging from the stick that you see referred to here from time to time. They are always almost finished.
Not nearly as big as Columbia. But Greenville does have a very active General Aviation airport. Lot's of good technicians in that area. I'm very familiar with it.
We have a gap to fill today. Might be a good time to get into FAS again.
Uh oh. Those helicopter parts are probably worth about a nickel on the dollar from Manufacturer's list price.
Military aircraft parts manufactured for export often are in-eligible for installation in certificated civil aircraft registered in the U.S. because they were not manufactured under PMA. Another stupid rule, but a rule it is.
Hope Newby was smart enough to make sure these parts are all covered under order 8130 in one fashion or another. I have to doubt it a lot.
Then there is the fact that there are far more boneyard Hueys scattered around the country than are still flying. Huey parts are a dime a dozen.
You looked that up in your trusty FAR/AIM? Just give 'em the straight up answer. Conference call is at 8:00 PM zulu time.
Not quite. A more apt comparison: It's like buying a ticket at Fenway Park and having the Washington Redskins show up instead of the BoSox to take on the Yankees.
You're not getting what you pay for.
A major part of the projected earnings for QASP hangs on whether or not shareholders are getting what they paid for: A slice of ownership in a certified flight school which is going to train all these Indian students at $66,000 a pop.
Are shareholders getting what they are paying for?
As to whether some shareholders give one gosh dang, I already know how that poll is coming out, it's a foregone conclusion! LOL, we're talking about pink sheet investors here!
What's the PROVISIONAL certificate number for the fifth time? I'm not looking for an explanation of the rules. I know them well.
They are required to post it plainly for public inspection (FAR 141.19).
I'm not asking a lot if this certificate exists.
Yes, they say they are a certified flight school on the web-site as well.
The problem is that the certification authority (FAA) doesn't seem to know about it. What Bill may mean is that the instructors are certified under Part 61. What I am talking about is flight school certification under FAR Part 141.
What's the Part 141 certificate no. so that we all may look it up?
No, This is QASP's Atlantic Aviation: http://www.atlanticaviationinc.com/
This is the real Atlantic Aviation: http://www.atlanticaviation.com/
Excellent. That is straight to the point. Thanks for putting that together.
What's distressing is that the outstanding shares actually increased during the "buyback" period.
It creates a bit of a strain on one's belief in the sincerity of the P.R.s.
If I pick up the phone, it will be to the Orlando FSDO (407) 812-7700.
I mean, if you're going to go there, then might as well just go to the source. But I think it's apparent that someone in the company reads these boards. I'm patient. I'll let them produce evidence of the certification. I'm not saying they don't have it. It's just that they're saying they do, and I can't find it.
Confusing? LOL, no I find the financing topic being discussed by others here as confusing. I understand the FAA.
A good job for an aerospace cadet would be learning how to determine the regulatory status of a flight school.
In the case of investing, it matters because this is how the company plans to make a sizable chunk of it's projected revenue in the future.
You can help me since Dooley seems dis-interested. You'll get a two-fer. Investment and career knowledge.
Here is what I'm saying: I can't find any evidence of them being a certified flight school. In fairness, I'll admit that does not necesarily prove that they aren't. As an investor shouldn't you have some sort of curiosity about this subject? I mean, I don't get it. Everyone on this board seems so determined to act like the Toshogu monkeys.
I have been 100% unable to prove they have one. And by default, that means that I am 100% unable to prove they don't. Think about that for a few seconds.
It needs to be discussed. It matters, because this is a very large component of the projected earnings for QASP moving forward. You seem to have a little knowledge about these affairs. Maybe you could help on this project rather than denigrate the importance of this information for investors.
You may not represent yourself as a certified flight school if you are not a certified flight school. Note the key word "without" below.
141.3 Certificate required.
No person may operate as a certificated pilot school without, or in violation of, a pilot school certificate or provisional pilot school certificate issued under this part.
Either they are or they aren't. All you kept giving me the other day was the regs covering requirements and application. You're explaining that to the wrong person. You need to send it to Atlantic Aviation. Not the real Atlantic Aviation, the one owned by QASP.
OK excellent. That's pertfectly fine. There is no problem with that at all.
There is a problem with this though: http://www.atlanticaviationinc.com/stud_services.html
The second paragraph on that web page is a direct violation of FAR 141.3, and some of the agencies mentioned in the third paragraph might not care for the mis-representation either.
Hey, as a side note, does the place strike you as being a multi-miilion dollar facility?
So, are they a certified flight school as they claim to be, or are they instructing under Part 61?
They (RMDM) themselves said they were trading with North Korea.
The web page has since been modified.
The point that is trying to be made is that the investor relations firm just pumps out fiction without bothering to necesarily check to see if the fiction refers to a business which is plausible, or even legal. They just bet on the ignorance of the sucke... wait, sorry, I mean investors to fall for a bunch of important sounding claptrap.
Someone's called them on it, that's a good thing.
End of the story.
I beleive you are correct Fire Lane. Electronic gear, most especially computer related stuff remains prohibited. It's a felony.
Cripes, look what the State Department did to Bobby Fischer, my boyhood hero, who violated trade sanctions by playing chess in what is now Serbia.
Violating these rules is a serious felony offense.
Hmm, did I say Serbia?
OK, now you're getting it.
Good ol' G.W. Bush in yet another dazzling display of his uncanny intelligence actually removed N.K. from the list of terrorist nations because he thought they were behaving with their "nucaloor" (that's a Bushism) program.
IN FAS again today. I'm wondering if the VIX isn't just going to maintain a range for a while. I would rather be in FAZ puts. It's not so much a problem that the VIX is elevated as long as it remains so. The problem lies in holding those puts if the VIX was to drop.
I'm getting antsy about being on the side.
You better hope not. Last CEO I knew that said Branson was on board was touting his company to investors as building a "vintage" airline to fly DC-3s around down south and to the islands.
Last time I saw him, said CEO was a stoner bopping around the country dropping skydivers from his Cessna Caravan.
To his credit though, I don't see Mr. Bradley going there.
From the "investor relations" firm? That's just a guess, of course.
Now that is a detail that has never troubled any one here before!
You don't invest in start-ups by buying stock in a hermit crab's shell. Buy stock in a company which has completed a legitimate IPO.
Shareholders in this will not have a stake in future earnings, future earnings will belong to the lein holders. You'll be frozen out.
But you'll learn, and that has some value in it I guess.
That's fine. But PRs are not financials, and you must avoid confusing them.
Anything with a disclaimer is pro-forma and must be ignored when valuing stocks. You've got to be disciplined and when you find yourself trusting, hoping, and wishing then you are not investing. You're getting fleeced.
Sell into news, someone with a lot of shares is.
I thought I mentioned fuzz. In case I didn't, that PR is fuzz.
I need facts not fuzz.
"The loans ( 110 million dollars from Newby) are backed by 165 million dollars of assets.(very conservative)"
Where do you come up with $165 million in assets? From the (non-existent) audited financials?
The only assets I can come up with are four airplanes registered to AA, and I have no way to tell if they are owned outright, or if there is a lein holder involved. Everything else, Tigerfish, VLJs, helicopter parts, etc. is just a bunch of fuzz.
Help me out... Please.
"If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that Dean has been tapping other sources of funds as well. Perhaps some of the os increases were collateral on other smaller loans that he hasn't chosen to tell us about."
Huh?? You think that the shareholders are getting screwed secretly in addition to publicly, and that it is a good thing!
Doesn't anyone here reaize that debt is an obligation against share value? Venture capital loans are always pure poison to share value.
Actually the best place to get that information about certification is directly from the source: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/orl/contact/
Just e-mail them the links to the web-site, and ask them flat out. It's their business to tell you.
I'm not going to do that, because my intent is not to cause anyone trouble. I'm just trying to find out if these guys have a certified flight school like they say they do. I'm not saying they don't. I just can't find anything that indicates they do.
Maybe tomorrow we will change the subject to the fact that military aircraft parts manufactured for export often are in-eligible for installation in certificated civil aircraft registered in the U.S. because they were not manufactured under PMA. Another stupid rule, but a rule it is. That and the fact that there are far more boneyard Hueys scattered around the country than are still flying, calling into question the value placed on such parts in that CC you made me listen to today.
Well here, now everyone can read Part 141. And I don't see where 141.19 says what you say it does. How old is your FAR/AIM?
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr141_main_02.tpl
Hey but this is all obfuscation anyway. Back to the original question: Do they have a certificate? If you don't, it is a violation to say you do.