Originally Posted by Frank Arouet
I regularly see CASA claim the legal high ground when it was them that made those bad laws in the first place.
I disagree with the premise that CASA "made those bad laws in the first place", our laws are made by politicians (often written by the Attorney Generals Department). It is parliaments role to debate their merits before they are enacted, if we have bad laws, it is the politicians that dropped the ball.
Government Departments administer the law, they are to some extent just the messenger and facilitator, they are also limited under the law as to what they can do.
Originally Posted by Torres
Would that not imply CASA is exercising economic regulation, contrary to it's legislative mandate?
No, they are tests the operator (for a private operation the operator is the PIC ) needs to apply
before conducting the activity. The law stipulated the tests, and stipulates the requirement an operator needs to comply with.
CASA is not restricting anyone from doing any activity. It is the operator that needs to determine if the activity is being done for hire or reward before the event. If an activity requires an AOC, CASA are not restricting any operator from applying for an AOC. CASA does not have to approve every AOC application, and most fail due to the documented systems and procedures (i.e. the internal self regulation) not being adequate.
CASA therefore is not regulating any operator from performing any activity, as I said before it may seem like semantics.
People think when CASA collect evidence after an activity that includes invoices, bank statements, affidavits etc that they are "regulating" economic activity. They are in fact collecting evidence on past events, they did not prevent (i.e. regulate) an operator from conducting the activity. It is up to the operator to determine the type of activity before the event, and if they need an AOC to perform it prior to the event.
The evidence is used to determine if the operator applied the correct tests prior to the activity, if the operator failed to apply the correct test, they maybe subject to prosecution, again after the event.
Originally Posted by Torres
It would appear to me that the only difference between a PPL taking a photograph from an aircraft and a commercial photographer taking a photograph from an aircraft, is a financial transaction that occurs at some time post flight, with no impact on the safety of the flight?
Aerial photography is a prescribed purpose under the Act.
A private flight would have no contract in place prior to flight, an aerial work flight would have a contract in place. The contract would include the invitation to treat (i.e. the operator would advise their capabilities, and the client would advise the photo location) as well as the terms of settlement (in exchange for taking the photo the client will agree to give consideration to the operator).
The operator can therefore make an assessment prior to commencing the flight if it is a prescribed purpose requiring an AOC.
A private flight is not required to meet a number of requirements that aerial work flight needs to meet, I have covered that earlier.
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...ml#post6347015