Quite right
It's time we looked at reality. CASA seems to think that a C210 or a caravan is the same as a Boeing, and they all require an army of people on the ground doing huge ammounts of useless paperwork to keep them going. The licencing system implies to the general public that they are the same, and that is wrong.
The distinction between RPT and Charter is backwards, and rediculous. It's major use appears to have been as a tool to prosecute whenever they feel like it, as nearly all charters can be said to be illegal RPT. The distinction is rubbery and not properly defined. It was used for withdrawing AOC's. Read the Phelan Papers. Look at the Coral Sea Airlines case.
And yet it is ok to carry schoolkids in a Caribou, and RPT pax in a hercules without an AOC.
It probably grew from the old days of protecting the govt airline from those pesky charter operators in those new fangled Pa32's that could carry five pax. So they made a rule that flying charter along an established airline route was only permitted once every 28 days. This was commercial regulation, not safety regulation. And I believe they still do commercial regulation by stealth, using (or misusing) the regs. More than one operator has had AOC problems for running "scheduled flights". Apparently it is less safe if an aeroplane flies at the same time every day over the same (or similar) route.
I would have thought it would be safer, as there would be less variables.
And economically it is difficult to sell all the seats in the aeroplane to one buyer. Airlines do not do it. But apparently that is safer than selling individual seats. It must be, because CASA have taken operattors to task for
selling individual seats, and they are the "safety" authority are they not? Is this not commercial regulation? Small operators would be on a better financial basis if they could sell seats, and not have to worry about big brother watching for some small commercial (not safety) glitch that could put them out of business.
Apart from the commercial aspect, this uncertainty causes stress which is not a healthy thing for safe operation. Some operators have done these things for years and others have had their AOC withdrawn for this.
I fail to see how this improves safety. Instead I believe it has hindered the proper and safe operation of GA operators for years. It is time this stopped.
Also, if light aircraft are to be used , the public should know. We should stop pretending and have "licenced light aircraft" services. The public would then know that the charter operator system is different from a Boeing, and different from Mulga Bill's private 172.
And do we really need to re-write our ops manual every time the FOI visits?
Let's stop pretending, and get it right.