Definition of an "Air Service Operation"

[glekichi]

Can anybody point me to a CASA definition of an "Air Service Operation"?

To me, going on the title only, it sounds like CAOs 20 to 29 should only apply to charter and RPT, but looking at the rules themselves it is quite clear that some are aimed and private flying.

I gather its just a golden example of poor rule writing and structure by CASA?

[Mach E Avelli]

The definition of 'air service' should be in CAR somewhere around CAR 210 to 212 - not sure exactly and don't intend searching it when you will learn more by doing it yourself.
If a CAO specifically states that it relates to an air service operation, it should not apply to private flying. Just be sure that the flying is kosher private. Many have come unstuck on that score.
The beauty of the clusterf...k that is our mishmash of CARs, CAOs, CAAP etc is that if you are sharp you can usually find a loophole to suit your circumstances. But, you may need a good lawyer on your side if you give CASA reason to decide to apply the opposite reasoning.

[LeadSled]

glekichi,
If you look into the formation/framework of Australia's rules (unlike ICAO/most other places) as a general principle, all the rules apply to everybody, with something called "private flying" exempted from some of them. Largely, one size fits all.
Regardless of what definition you find for "air service operation" (you will have to read all the court decisions in conjunction with whatever you find) CAR 206 has rather wide coverage.
Remember, "hire and reward" is NOT necessarily part of the equation/answer, that fell out of the rules years ago.
Tootle pip!!

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

To me, going on the title only, it sounds like CAOs 20 to 29 should only apply to charter and RPT

Good luck trying to explain for example why you ran out of runway on a strip that had enough length by the factory POH (specified for a new clean aircraft, properly rigged, with fresh engine and prop and a factory test pilot), but not enough for the safety factor required by say, CAO 20.7.4 for your 30 year old dirty worn cessna.

Insurance would absolutely p:mad:ss themselves laughing with that claim.

Read the first paragraph of say 20.7.4. That is under the Air Service Operations section and should answer your "question".
These rules are put in place to stop people killing themselves. Would it not be prudent to follow them?:ugh:

[Mach E Avelli]

The devil is in the detail. Look at the 'application'of CAO 20.3 and compare with 20.9. The latter clearly captures every flying device from a powered hang glider on up and at every aerodrome whether registered or not.
But then read 20.9 para 5.1.4. Taken literally, it is the engine which has to be the distance from the sealed/unsealed building etc, not the wingtip. So, I can legally start my DC3 with one wing actually 3 metres INSIDE the hangar? I doubt it.

[glekichi]

Cheers for the replies.

No need to bang the head against the wall MakeItHappenCaptain, I am well aware that the CAOs in question each individually specify to which operations they apply.

I know I'm preaching to the choir, so to speak, but have searched for a definition of an Air Service Operation and cannot find one, and while I am aware of the application of the rules, their structure frustrates the hell out of me.

For example, I would not be surprised if a foreign PPL holder in Oz for some flying looking for our rules simply could not find them, because being a private flyer, personally I would not even look through a section of rules titled "Air Service Operations".

As Mach E Avelli so well said, though, the clusterf..k does have its advantage at times.

[Mainframe]

Glekichi,

the new NZ CAR's dont define "Private Operations".

Try scrolling through the various parts.

Contacted NZ CAA to discuss, they agreed, "yes, private ops are not defined".

So by reverse engineering, in NZ you need to see if your ops meet any of the criteria of air services (commercial / rpt),
if they dont, then by default they are assumed to be private ops.

As for Oz rules, the CAR's are the rules, the CAO's are merely amplification of the rules, not legislation, and CAAP's are suggested methods of compliance.

NZ, PNG and the rest of the South Pacific were clever enough to adopt the US FAR's
(led by NZ, then assisted other Sth Pacific nations to incorporate).

Oz has been conducting a regulatory review for over twenty years with very little progress,
NZ and the others changed to and adopted / adapted US the FAR's in a matter of months.

[LeadSled]

---the CAO's are merely amplification of the rules, not legislation,

Mainframe,

Be careful of that one, the "idea" behind the creation of CAOs was to produce an enforceable "whatever you want to call it" without having to run the gauntlet of Parliamentary dis-allowance, and all the processes required in "rule" development, including "consultation", and general justification of the "order".

I am please to say that the Parliament soon put a stop to that, CAOs are dis-allowable, and it has been determined that "Manuals of Standards", as CASA has chosen to write them, are also dis-allowable. CASA can't help themselves, always winding up with super detailed prescriptive regulation, regardless of its formal name.

The public service mind-set that always tries this is not new, it's had about 400 years of refinement in the British parliamentary system of government.

It's all defined by Hewart's Law: "Executive Government will always act to isolate itself from the Parliament and the Judiciary". Fortunately, in the Australian version, the Senate Scrutiny of Bills committee does a quite good job of thwarting attempts to action Hewart's Law. CASA (and others) keeps trying.

Lord Hewart of Bury was Lord Chief Justice of UK in the 20's, his book, "The New Despotism" is surely the textbook for Yes, Minister. He is undoubtedly the most quoted jurist of all time: "Not only must justice be seen to be done, but justice must be seen to be well and truly done" --- that is the full quote, often shortened.

Tootle pip!!