Originally Posted by Frank Arouet
Exactly what is your reason for standing up to "the law" as the bastard it is evolved to be written" ?
Let me get my position clear here, I am sticking up for a legitimate GA operator (the one at the start of this thread) who was penalised for abiding by the law, but was rolled by a CASA interpretation of the law put into policy.
We have had a tread drift here on here when another person claimed to have been rolled by CASA under the same policy, however it is clear they were not. They were operating outside of the law. I am not condoning a person who blatantly disregarded the rules, and I believe most people in industry would feel the same way.
Originally Posted by Brian Abraham
so the trucking operator could employ a pilot and have him/her on call 24/7/52 and flying 210 hours a month without CASA having any concern because they deem it it to be private?
That is correct, as long as all of their operations were all private. However the employer would also need to meet their normal obligations under workplace health and safety which in my view are more restrictive than what CASA regulates, as they also look at all the work related activities.
Originally Posted by Shell Management
it is inappropriate for a safety regulator to have an economic regulation role too.
CASA is not an economic regulator, i.e. it does not prevent any person or organisation from applying for an AOC (they are not required to approve every application) for activity which requires an AOC. It may seem like semantics, it is up to the applicant to determine if they are going to conduct an activity which requires an AOC.
CASA does however administer the regulations which require operators to obtain AOCs for various operations, and enforces those rules.
The requirement for operators to obtain AOCs comes from ICAO Annex 6, it is not something Australia dreamt up.
Originally Posted by Shell Management
I'm amazed at the implication that CASA treat charter safety less seriously than 'RPT' safety.
The distinction is not unique to Australia, schedule and non-schedule operations are incorporated from the various ICAO annexes. It is the same in the US and Europe, where the Federal Aviation Administration and the European Aviation Safety Agency issue AOCs.
Originally Posted by Sunfish
I think Frank an Aroa have a case in regard to photography and one or Two other matters..
No, for aerial photography to be private you need to look at the previous paragraph in CAR 2 (7)(d), there are 8 test in CAR 2 (7)(d) for various private activities.
CAR 2 (7)(d)(iv) "aerial photography where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the photography is conducted"
They were receiving remuneration for the aerial photography, how the record of the photography is presented is irrelevant, it could be a hard copy print, a negative, or data on a USB stick/SD card.
Similarly, if I take Fred the Real Estate agent for a flight to look at some properties from the air, what "goods" have changed hands?
CAR (7)(d) has 8 tests to determine if an operation is private. If it does not meet those tests, it is then either aerial work or charter depending on the actual nature of the flight.
A passengers occupation (i.e. Real Estate agent ) is irrelevant in determining the type of operation.