Charter/Scenic Operations

[Azzure]

I have a question that has been bugging me, been through the regs and still cant answere myself.
How do scenic companies get around the legalities involved in operating "charter" flights which are sold by the seat and at fixed times? such as say the operations in the Kimberley who appear to sell individual seats at set times throught the day, especially the horizontal falls flights? My understanding is that, that would be an RPT operation because it a "fixed schedule" from a "fixed terminal". Im pretty sure I have overlooked something or are they operating under a form of exemption? If anyone can clarify this that would be fantastic. Also if anyone can clarify selling of empty sectors on charter flights and how it is made legal. :confused:

Best Regards, Azzure. :ok:

[Horatio Leafblower]

Empty legs are easy

... the aircraft is available to ONE charterparty, not to persons generally. Once ONE charterparty has engaged the aeroplane for that leg, THEY ALONE determine who rides.

It's only 'RPT' if you sell the seats, individually, and they are available to persons generally.

Harvey World Travel could charter the aircraft and sell the seats individually, of course... that's different! :ugh:

As for the Bungles/Uluru/H-Waterfall debate, I have often wondered this myself. I suppose that it's from "point A" to "point A", even if intermediate points are involved (eg: Bellburn, Argyle).

Doesn't get around the fact that the seats are available to "persons generally" and the flights happen at a time specified by the operator, not the client.

Would it be fair to say that CASA recognises the true nature of these operations - and perhaps that they acknowledge that, to be RPT, ALL arms of the test must be fulfilled?

[Azzure]

Thanks for the response Horatio. you definatly shed some light on it.

Theoretically then, if you charter company had a travel agent license, you could charter your own aircraft and sell the seats individually?

The only piece in the regs that I can see that may answere my question is that in the charter defination it states what you cannot do ie. "other than carriage in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals" and in the rpt definition it tells us what we can do, which is basically "carriage in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals" but also adds a bit too do with "fixed routes" is this the key perhaps? a fixed service from point A to point A may not constitute a fixed route and this doesnt get mentioned in what we cannot do in the charter catagory.

I am eagerly awaiting a response from casa, that should clarify.

Azzure.

[compressor stall]

Why the hell does it matter?

The real argument is why don't we have some rules that are common sense?

Why should I get a lesser trained pilot and aircraft maintained to lesser standards if I charter a light twin with my mates to go to some strip where there are no facilities and the pilot hasn't been to before, than if I had booked a seat on the 4:15 daily flight to the same place?

May I suggest your queries to CASA are not why is are the Bungles scenics allowed, rather why don't we have one blanket rule for commercial ops for say <5700kgs. Same maintenance standards, same min pilot C&T standards etc. Commercial ops include ALL paying passengers - no matter how the seats / aircraft is made available.

Then none of the Ord Air and Uzu sagas etc would have eventuated...

[Johnny_56]

Randomly i was coming to Pprune to ask/search a question regarding RPT, now i'll just jump on here.

What are the minimum requirements for operating RPT. The only thing i've been able to find after a brief internet search has been about the maintenance and design of transport category A/C (FAA)

Could you operate RPT with a PA-31 or would it have to be in something that could actually perform should you lose an engine? I read on the FAA site that transport category with props is anything > 19 seats, is it the same in oz?

Cheers

[SgtBundy]

May I suggest your queries to CASA are not why is are the Bungles scenics allowed, rather why don't we have one blanket rule for commercial ops for say <5700kgs

Simplification of rules that is less confusing and easier on everyone? From a government department? Surely you jest.

Next you will want them to action it in a timely manner.

[Tinstaafl]

RPT has several elements that *all* must be present for the flight to be categorised as such. From memory:

* Available to the public generally
* Fixed schedule
* To/from fixed terminals

The first two are clear but damned if I've ever been able to find a defination for 'fixed terminals. Always wondered what if today I'll operate from this end of the airstrip, tomorrow the other end, next day somewhere in-between...

RPT also is obligated to go (or else cancel) even with uneconomical loads. A single pax, anyone? When I've done scenics a condition for the flight to go was a certain minimum number of seats. Also the flights departed once the minimum limit was reached. No telling exactly when that would happen.

The other option was for a group /family to charter the plane and go when they liked, no different to normal charter.



----------------------------
blody tipos

[Azzure]

Compressor Stall, I completly agree with you, and my understanding is that when we adopt the FAR Part 91/135 etc in the near future this should be the case, the requirements are based on acceptable risk instead of rpt vs charter. I was just curious too the situation as it is. When this will occur, who knows but it is on casa's website to be occuring in the near future.

Johnny 56, there is at least two examples where RPT occurs with a PA-31 that I can think of, the FAA stuff you have been looking at is the system I believe we will be adopting in the future. I am pretty sure u can operate RPT with an approved single engine aircraft as well, such as a c208 or pc12? someone will possible correct or add too that.

One would think that it should be much simpler, but not holding my breath! :( I even have found a lawyer to have a look, and he has come back too me with it being a very grey area as too how far you can take the charter before its RPT.

[Horatio Leafblower]

I'd love to hear Torres' opinion on this, although perhaps we don't want to open old wounds?

The Agent thing supposedly requires that there is a bona fide "Agency" at arm's length to the provider of the aircraft. Can't provide a reference for that, sorry.

The good news is that you only need to be a trained, registered Travel Agent if you earn more than $x. Perhaps I should call Mrs Leafblower a travel agent and pay her a very very small commission? :E

(...and the first person to say she's already used to receiving very very small things from me ... :suspect: )

I like Comp Stall's suggestion that there should be uniform regs for Charter and RPT below 5700kg - and there will be - but it will be the same standard as for QANTAS and everyone else.

IMHO there will be no small CHTR operators in 10 years, we'll all be gone :(

[Tinstaafl]

Bwah ha ha ha! "...in the near future..." . Azzure***, stop. Please. My belly is killing me from laughing too much. And with"...it was on CASA's website...." too. You're not a stand up comedian, are you? Or write humour? Your brilliance was to mention CASA's regulatory reform propaganda on their website with such a straight face (or rather, straight sentence).

It's only been around 20 years since they first stated that FAR based regulations were on their way (soon). In the mid-90's I was even able to claim my US ATP on my Oz tax thanks to that (professional education, y'know. Couldn't expect to conduct my CP/CFI responsibilities without being familiar with the system)



I wonder how Oz companies will like Part 135 rules? Pros & cons. Approach bans if the weather isn't above minima, more limited pilot maintenance (try reconfiguring from freight back to pax), numerous ops-specs and the like.

On the plus side, current F&Ds are a lot more permissive than Oz, and what the FAA wants is laid out chapter & verse online in 'FSIMS', their database of procedures & standards.



***Not getting at you, Azure. More at CASA's incompetent reform program.

[black sparrow]

Azzure

Read and beware! It is not as simple as it seems.

http://www.casa.gov.au/corporat/policy/notices/CEO-PN007-2009.pdf

This issue has been around since the birth of CAR 206 and will remain until the gods bestow upon us some more workable legislation. CASA in their infinite wisdom have put out this policy notice but still have not bothered to fix the problem. :ugh:

It is hard to say what a court would say if you went against the CASA position (after all a policy notice is not law) but I wouldn’t want to be caught with my pants down!

[43Inches]

The fixed terminal issue is a minefield as it seems to be only defined by the states transport regulations. I vaguely remember a civil case where a pilot was sued for damages for injuries caused during landing. Aparently because the flight returned to the point of origin it did not travel between terminals and was deemed to not be a charter or RPT and was not covered by carriers liability act.

Charter can be between fixed terminals and fixed schedule as long as the seating is not individually available, mining charters, tour company booked flight for sightseeing etc...

If there is no fixed schedule then seating may be available on a charter, but this is where it gets very grey.

RPT can be done in any aircraft which complies with the rules, PA31 and C402/4 types have been doing it for years and continue to. In the USA PA31 RPT still occurs under commuter category rules. There are minimum performance requirements that these aircraft must meet. Whether the aircraft can actually achieve these figures is another debate and is still a valid thought for some much larger transport category aircraft I know.