Policy is not law – AAT buckets CASA decision

[LeadSled]

Caper Pty Ltd T'a Direct Air Charter and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] AATA 181 (21 March 2011) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2011/181.html)

Folks,
Worth a very careful read. This leaves CASA 2009 (amended 2010) policy on Charter v. RPT rather in tatters.
"Policy" is not the law, as the old CAA found out the hard way, just ask Ron Cooper. But there is no corporate memory in CASA, hardly a revelation.
Tootle pip!!

[Kharon]

Well as the man said, in the Senate. It's a good example of "a bad law", translated "as you like it". Unpopular decision to shut down 50 operators, now it seems "his" interpretation is also illegal.

Finally, balls in the AAT, what next, contrition from CASA.

Baww, haaww haww!!. :ugh:

Selah.

[Torres]

In the AviationAdvertiser (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2011/03/policy-is-not-law-%E2%80%93-aat-buckets-casa-decision/) Paul Phelan writes:

Policy is not law – AAT buckets CASA decision

An Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision yesterday [March 21] declared a long-disputed CASA policy to be “unlawful,” raising questions over a host of past decisions and the CASA policies on which they were based.

The applicant in the AAT was Caper Pty Ltd, trading as Direct Air Charter, represented by aviation law specialists Maitland lawyers, with AAT Senior Member Egon Fice presiding.

In May 2010 CASA had served a “show cause notice” of its intent to suspend or cancel the company’s AOC saying it had reason to believe the operator was conducting regular public transport (RPT) operations between Darwin and Bathurst Island, which CASA said its AOC did not authorise.

The legal definition of the differences between charter and RPT, and the confusion surrounding the issue, have been the greatest single source of disputation between regulator and industry for over 25 years, and various interpretations have triggered numerous regulatory forays that resulted in the closure of aviation businesses.

Direct Air Charter is a general aviation operator headquartered in Melbourne, with bases and operations in Western Australia and the Northern Territory; and the dispute surrounded its air charter contract with tour operator Australian Adventure Tours (coincidentally AAT), which CASA considered constituted RPT flights.

On 7 September 2010 the Company had applied to the AAT to reverse CASA’s decision and to determine that the conditions on Caper’s Air Operators Certificate, authorising the Bathurst Island flights, should remain unaltered.

The automatic stay provisions set out in s 31A of the Act then automatically applied, and the decision was stayed for 90 days or for “such a period as the Tribunal might order.”

A month later, the Tribunal ordered that the decision be stayed until the application was heard or determined, or until further order of the Tribunal.

In a cogent, detailed and comprehensive analysis, Senior Member Fice’s decision examines the history and details of the contract between the parties, the concept of the “classification of operations,” witness statements, CASA policy documents, relevant legislation and case law reaching back to the 1920s, archived air accident enquiries, the legal language and even the grammar and dictionary definitions in the relevant Act and Regulations, Aussie Adventure Holidays’ publicity material, reports from a CASA investigator who flew on one of the tourist flights, and the Tribunal’s own interpretations of the spirit and intent of the law.

The Tribunal noted:

“CASA has published what is described as Regulatory Policy regarding the classification and regulation of closed charter operations under CAR 206(1)(b)(ii). That policy document is signed by Mr John F McCormick, who is the Director of Aviation Safety. It was issued in July 2009 and reviewed in July 2010. It is properly described as Departmental Policy as distinct from Ministerial Policy. In its reasons for making the policy, CASA has indicated that the current distinction between charter and RPT will soon disappear and be replaced by one category, Passenger Transport. However, this has not yet occurred. The policy document purports to provide clear guidance on the classification of operations as closed charter or RPT and the limitations and condition which may necessarily be imposed on certain kinds of closed charter operations.”

On February 25, Mr McCormick told a Senate Committee that CASA was cracking down on the practice of ‘borrowing AOCs and using other people’s activities:’

“We ….. have CAR 206, which is about ‘interposed entities’ – borrowing AOCs and using other people’s activities. That has resulted in quite a few operators who no longer can offer flights on a charter basis when in reality they were offering them on a schedule at a fixed fee, sometimes through a travel agent, and when in reality they were avoiding the sort of oversight they would get if they were regular public transport.

“We have gone out of our way to stamp that out. We have seen very good results on that. It has not been the world’s most popular program as you can imagine, but it is something we should have done, and [CAR 206] has been recognised as bad law for some 26 years.”

The Tribunal’s comments effectively confirm Mr McCormick’s assessment of CAR 206 as “bad law,” but are unflattering about CASA’s interpretation of that law as expressed in the policy document:

“What appears from CASA’s analysis of CAR 206(1)(b)(ii) is that unless the persons purportedly chartering an aircraft have some identifiable and close relationship, although that relationship may or may not be relevant for the purposes of characterising the charter, if the flight is conducted in accordance with fixed schedules and between fixed terminals, it is an RPT operation. That, in an unexplained way, is said to reduce the level of safety. Quite plainly, this makes no sense. Whether the passengers who fly on these aircraft have some pre-existing relationship makes no difference to the safety of that operation. If CASA’s concern is with the numbers of passengers carried or the frequency of flights, it can impose conditions on an AOC under s 28BB of the Act.”

Elsewhere he states:

“In my respectful opinion, CASA’s Regulatory Policy dealing with the classification and regulation of closed charter operations under CAR 206(1)(b)(ii) issued in July 2009 is simply incorrect and, accordingly, unlawful. It has relied on the wording used in Air Navigation Regulation 191(c) which uses words not found in CAR 206(1)(b)(ii). No reference is made in that policy document to the change in the wording or the reasons for that change. In fact, in support of the policy, CASA has quoted from cases that have dealt with Air Navigation Regulation 191. I decline to follow it.”

The Tribunal concluded:

“I find that the decision made by CASA on 7 September 2010 to cancel one of the authorisations contained in Caper’s AOC in respect of its operations between Darwin and Bathurst Island for the purpose of conducting the Tiwi Islands tours was incorrect. I set aside that decision and instead determine that the conditions on Caper’s AOC should remain unaltered. Caper should be permitted to continue with its charter operations between Darwin and Bathurst Island.”

A number of aviation businesses whose operations have been “stamped out” by regulatory policy, say they are now reconsidering their positions.

The full AAT Decision is published HERE (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2011/181.html) and is a worthy insight into the appalling and incompetent aviation regulatory process that has existed in Australia for many years.

This is a landmark decision in clarifying the definition of Regular Public Transport in Australia and defining CASA's power to regulate by Policy rather than Regulation and brings into question CASA's repetitious use of precedents (e.g. Seaview and Coral Sea Air) and incorrect internal policy interpretations of it's own regulations.

A significant number of Australian aviation operators have been forced out of business by CASA over the past 23 years, by "bad law", very badly interpreted and administered.

I am sure this situation would not have occurred had CASA efficiently and promptly provided new, simple, concise Regulations as soon as possible after 1988, rather than procrastinating for the past 23 years!

I suspect a number of operators forced out of business by CASA may now be considering their legal options.

[thorn bird]

The Skull will not be happy with this decision. How dare some "Judge Judy" court, who are supposed to follow the CASA line, question his warped vision of how aviation is to work in Australia.
His inflated ego has taken a severe battering, the reprisals I fear will be
severe.
If, as reported else where on these forums our "National Carrier" has difficulty in complying with the Reg's, what hope a impoverished GA outfit?
There will be something somewhere they can ping them for, and if not, there is always the "Lets make it up" scenario, after all they are in the end unaccountable.
I suspect these poor individuals are in for a torrid time, "Let the audits begin".
Strange that QF can get away with operating over weight, which would result in a "Show cause" to anyone else? Thread drift sorry folks.

[Air Ace]

The interesting aspect is that the Qantas charters over Antarctica were not lawful under CASA's interpretation of CAR206 and Policy, but are now lawful in accordance with the AAT Decision.

What is the difference between the Qantas charters over Antarctica being sold on an individual seat basis via an interposed entity being a travel agency, and Direct Air's tourist flights between Darwin and Bathurst Island with seats sold on an individual basis via the tourist operator interposed entity?

As far as I can see, the only difference is one of size, muscle and financial and legal resources?

[swh]

Strange that QF can get away with operating over weight, which would result in a "Show cause" to anyone else? Thread drift sorry folks.

By voluntarily reporting the matter to the ATSB, CASA would find it very difficult to have any evidence it can use to prosecute with.

As far as I can see, the only difference is one of size, muscle and financial and legal resources?

And the minor point that the QF AOC permits aerial work, charter, and RPT. QF also has their own travel agency.

[Air Ace]

And the minor point that the QF AOC permits aerial work, charter, and RPT. QF also has their own travel agency.

Your thinking is along similar lines as CASA. Whether QF holds an AOC authorising RPT services is irrelevant. The Qantas flight over Antarctica can not be RPT and must therefore be classified as air charter. CASA's policy in the past, predicated on their incorrect interpretation of CAR206, has been that individual seats on an air charter service can not be sold via an interposed entity. The AAT decision now determins that individual seats may be sold on an air charter, via an interposed entity, where there is a common interest amongst those travelling.

Read the AAT decision.

[dhavillandpilot]

This decision is probably the best news for the Industry in a number of years.

Companies such as Air Crusiing, Heron Airlines, Air Adventure, Dick Lang etc etc etc who have been operating for years can now get on with doing what the Australian Tourist Industry needs - providing bussiness for the thousands of small operators (motelliers, ground tour suppliers etc) that rely upon them to provide an income in what is a very sparse economic situation.

For example take Innamincka - Dick Lang operates in there virtually every week providing much needed dollars to the town.

Marree - both Heron Airlines and Air Adventure operate in there weekly and again provide regular income to the town.

Then you go to someone like Captains Choice, who operate overseas, using Qantas for a number of years and now competing against Air Cruising with Dash 8's. I wonder whether CASA would proceed against them??? The twist here is that Captains Choice is a Qantas Company in disguise.

Strange how CASA's mind goes after the weak, certainly not the strong.

[Creampuff]

I do laugh at the fact that the usual suspects cite the AAT as an authoritative source when it makes a decision with which the usual suspects agree, and dismiss it as unauthoritative when it makes decisions with which they disagree.

The word 'hypocrisy' springs to mind, for some reason.

It's academic, of course. Any decade now, CASA will action the 15 year old 'urgent' recommendation, in respect of CAR 206, made by Commissioer Staunton in the Seaview Inquiry.

[Torres]

Creamie. I don't recall an AAT decision in an aviation matter with which I disagree? Some decisions may be a tad subjective, but what would you expect with the self professed "bad law" that is our current CAR's?

The word 'hypocrisy' springs to mind, for some reason.

Yo're not unique. Most of us get the same thoughts in relation to CASA.

[Creampuff]

I must have misinterpreted your comments on this one: Coral Sea Airlines Pty Ltd and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [1999] AATA 329 (17 March 1999) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/AATA/1999/329.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(coral%20))

[aroa]

As someone who has been done over by Reg 206 (iv)..photography and 27(d)
..allowing an aeroplane to be used for a commercial purpose(photog), maybe now is the time to go for an AAT decision on the legality or otherwise of these issues, that are not "unsafe" but 'commercial'

The CAA Act 1988 says that CASA is not commercial regulator.. it is only a safety regulator. That has been stated on numerous occassions by various Ministers.

So, that is Government Policy. A meaning of the Act, no less.
The regs, upchucked by the wunderkind of OLC/ LSD and other parties, are the controlling policies that CASA wants.

I believe they are illegal, unconstitutional? and they certainly breach the common civil rights of photography, and deny me the right to earn a living in my chosen profession.

Time to rattle some chains...

[Jack Ranga]

The Screaming Skull........:D

One hopes that he is subject to the same type of 'justice' that was dished out all those years ago :ok:

[Torres]

I must have misinterpreted your comments on this one: Coral Sea Airlines Pty Ltd and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [1999] AATA 329 (17 March 1999))

Not at all Creamie. You really do missunderstand me! :{

There were a number of issues considered by Deputy President Dr. Gerber in that matter, including the crash of Shrike VH-YJT; alleged Failure to Record Defects on Maintenance Releases; Overloading of Aircraft; Pilot Experience and Competence; and Personnel and Management Structure; most of which are more than adequate justification in CASA's original decision to suspend the operator's AOC. The alleged RPT operations is not in my opinion, necessary to consider in justifying the decision by CASA and supported by the AAT, in revoking the operator's AOC.

That Staunton supported your view on CAR206 and Fice supports my view of CAR206 is merely indicitive of an appallingly drafted Regulation that lacks the definitions necessary to be intelligently and lawfully interpreted - as Staunton confirmed in his urgent recommendation 15 years ago to review and revise the classification of operations.

I don't disagree that RPT operations should be safely regulated but the mumbo jumbo of CAR206 fails to achieve that objective, to which by your comments you obviously agree.

[swh]

Your thinking is along similar lines as CASA. Whether QF holds an AOC authorising RPT services is irrelevant.

It is relevant, what CASA wants is that where a passenger buys space on an aircraft, they are afforded a common safety standard. This will eventually come into play when the new Passenger Transport classification comes into play.

I think CASA was on the right track with the publication of policy CEO-PN007-2009, however I think a number of the paragraphs fail to deliver (e.g. para 12 in my view is bad policy). The AAT decision I think is a very sensible outcome. Many mining charters do not fit the test used in para 12, as often the mine operator will charter an aircraft, however the passenger list may not only include workers from the mine, independent contractors, and other service providers (i.e. a train driver working for another company), and even government employees. However generally a lot of these charter operators also have a RPT AOC.

I think CASA were trying to clarify the standard of AOC (i.e. does the operator have a RPT AOC) that needs to be in place where regular charters (even if they are not an RPT service) are in place that the public can buy individual seats on. The RPT AOC is the highest standard AOC an operator can gain in Australia.

Also we also need to keep in mind that in cases such as these, the initial complaint may have come from industry. This would not be the first time in history where a competing operator may have made a complaint to CASA alleging that another operator is conducting operations not permitted by their AOC, knowing full well they stand to gain financially if they are shutdown by CASA. CASA is then in a position where they are dammed if they do investigate, and dammed if they do not, this abuse by industry to use the regulator for business gain I think should be legislated against.

I am not in favour of the "sting" performed, it does nothing but to promote distrust between the operator and the regulator. A more sensible way to promote safety is for the operator to work with the operator to develop the points outlined in paragraph 20 of policy CEO-PN007-2009.

Like check and training should have a small emphasis on the checking, and a larger emphasis on training, as a regulator they should have a small emphasis on enforcement (checking) and a large emphasis on safety promotion (training).

[Torres]

CAR206 is not about passenger safety and never was. That is the error CASA have been making for many years.

It is about the authorisation, classification and regulation of commercial flying operations.

Indeed, that section of the ANRs from which CAR206 originated (ANR190 to 203 from memory?), deals entirely with classification of operations, particularly in reference to the previous two airline agreement.

CAR206(1)(c):
....the purpose of transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally, for hire or reward in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals over specific routes with or without intermediate stopping places between terminals.

If CAR206 was solely about passenger safety, why then does is specifically include "....transporting cargo for persons generally"?

I wonder how many scheduled air freight operators, from Bank Runners to major trunk route cargo operators, hold an AOC authorising cargo only RPT services - and if not, why has CASA not pursued those operators for conducting scheduled cargo services which are not authorised by their AOC? :E

[thorn bird]

I am not in favour of the "sting" performed, it does nothing but to promote distrust between the operator and the regulator.


Distrust!!!..good grief where are you from??. Anyone who talks to CASA without their lawyer present is a fool. CASA is now so endemically corrupt
that any trust has long gone. Until CASA's charter is changed to reflect, as the FAA's does, that its decisions MUST consider the economic impact and well being of the industry it supposedly regulates then there will continue to be a total disconnect between the industry and the regulator.
These are not people with "Probity" we are dealing with, they are misfits and incompetents.

[TBM-Legend]

Mr Egon Fice is a former RAAF Mirage pilot. Smart cookie....

[swh]

CAR206 is not about passenger safety and never was.

It was to define the difference between commercial (RPT, charter, aerial work) and private operations. That was poorly drafted from day 1, it is at odds with their primary role which is safety management. The test should have never had been “commercial” or “hire or reward” which gives us the mess we have today where they are required to use that test, rather than an end user test, i.e. what level of safety would the end user expect, hence the push to have one passenger transport standard to cover todays “charter and RPT”.

CASA do not like the situation as much as the industry does, they "do not", and "cannot" regulate "commercial activities", that is not their role, hence the push for part 135 and 121. Under the new classifications, part 135 will be for small aircraft, and 121 for large aircraft. Under parts 121 and 135 and passenger transport be it schedule or non-schedule should have the same level of safety if it has be publically advertised or arranged by, or at the request of, others. That should terminate the open/closed charter and RPT commercial/non-commercial debate for good.

The sooner the new parts come into play the better, and the sooner all reference to "commercial" is removed from legalisation CASA administers the better. I would even like to see the SPL, PPL, CPL, and ATPL to be renamed to get industry stop thinking along “private”, “commercial”, or “non-commercial” lines.

Distrust!!!..good grief where are you from??. Anyone who talks to CASA without their lawyer present is a fool. CASA is now so endemically corrupt that any trust has long gone.

I am in industry, and when I was required by my position to talk with CASA, be it an AOC variation, audit, or flight test, I never had needed to have a "lawyer present", nor do I consider myself a fool. I have always had a good working relationship with them. At the same time I always made an effort to know the regulatory environment that I was working in, I had always been proactive, rather than reactive.

On two occasions I have been invited in for a cuppa tea and bikkies, both times the format of the formal meeting was providing information and education, we went back and amended the paperwork and/or procedures, they were happy. Both times we were obviously “dobbed in” by our competitors.

No further action taken. I am obviously from the other end of industry that does not get any press, where we far exceeded the minimum standards in the legislation, and CASA was not seen as the “enemy”.

CASA were complete gentlemen compared with ruthless independent industry auditors employed by our clients.

[Sunfish]

What appears to be totally missing in relationships between CASA and operators, by all accounts, is one essential ingredient that I have been trying to remember, but has just only sunk in.

That is the concept of Good Faith:

Good faith, or in Latin bona fides (bona fide means "in good faith"), is sincere, honest intention (even if producing unfortunate results) or belief. In law, it is the mental and moral state of honesty, conviction as to the truth or falsehood of a proposition or body of opinion, or as to the rectitude or depravity of a line of conduct. This concept is important in law, especially equitable matters.[1][2]

In contemporary English, "bona fides" is sometimes used as a synonym for credentials, background, or documentation of a person's identity. "Show me your bona fides" can mean: Why should I trust you (your good faith in this matter)? Tell me who you are. In this sense, the phrase is sometimes used in job advertisements, and should not be confused with the bona fide occupational qualifications or the employer's good faith effort, as described below.[3]

I think adherence to this concept is missing from the actions of some operators and, if allegations are true, also from the actions of some people in CASA.

For example, if the allegations made by Butson in the matter of Polar Aviation are true, then the actions taken against Butson do not seem to me to have been taken in good faith.

Similarly the actions in support of safety, of the operator whose AOC was cancelled in Sydney after a crash, as revealed by the AAT, do not seem to have been in good faith attempts to comply with regulation either.


If "Good Faith" is missing in relationships between regulated and regulators then God help all of us, because at some stage this lack of good faith is going to become known to the general public and then all of us, including CASA will suffer accordingly.

It was Thorn birds post that finally made me remember this little concept:

Distrust!!!..good grief where are you from??. Anyone who talks to CASA without their lawyer present is a fool. CASA is now so endemically corrupt that any trust has long gone. Until CASA's charter is changed to reflect, as the FAA's does, that its decisions MUST consider the economic impact and well being of the industry it supposedly regulates then there will continue to be a total disconnect between the industry and the regulator.
These are not people with "Probity" we are dealing with, they are misfits and incompetents.


While my own very limited dealings with CASA have always been satisfactory, I have yet to meet anyone in Aviation who has ever referred me to CASA as a source of advice, nor who have had a good word to say about them. While that is "negative evidence" it leaves open the possibility that CASA has a problem.

Furthermore, you don't get to jettison "Good Faith" on the grounds of "Safety" and protecting the general public. Anyone who thinks about the matter will quickly realise that a lack of good faith is counter-productive to safety, as I am sadly concerned that the public is going to learn the hard way.

[Creampuff]

Torres

You made my point for me (again) when you said this:The alleged RPT operations is not in my opinion, necessary to consider in justifying the decision by CASA and supported by the AAT, in revoking the operator's AOC.There was nothing ‘alleged’ about the RPT operations in Coral Sea: the AAT found the operations to be RPT, as a matter of fact. Your opinion about whether that finding was necessary to justify the decision is interesting, but irrelevant. The finding that the operation was RPT was taken into account by CASA and the AAT in their decisions, as a matter of fact.

Those facts may be inconvenient to some. But facts they remain.

It’s hypocrisy to shout from the rooftops when the AAT decides that CASA was incorrect in finding that an operation was RPT, on the one hand, then ignore or downplay an AAT decision that CASA was correct in finding that an operation was RPT, on the other

[knightflyer]

If CAR206 was solely about passenger safety, why then does is specifically include "....transporting cargo for persons generally"?

Torres the thing here is "persons generally". No bank runner / freight operator is carrying freight for "persons generally", they are chartered by say Freds Freight to shift the parcels dropped off to them. Even if this is to a fixed schedule it is not RPT. Nobody can walk up to the aircraft at port A and hand over a parcel and some money wanting said parcel taken to port B. If they could that is "persons generally" and now becomes RPT. This is the CASA interpretation of the rules the several times I have had the discussion. What they think now who knows - :confused: did I imply CASA thinks!?!

[Torres]

I beg to differ.

CAR206 does not diferentiate between "....transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally..."

Freight companies, agencies and Australia Post are offering to transport freight by air for persons generally. The freight company or agency does not hold an AOC authorising air service operations; is their advertising of an air freight service in breach of CAR210?

A person must not give a public notice, by newspaper advertisement, broadcast statement or any other means of public announcement, to the effect that a person is willing to undertake by use of an Australian aircraft any commercial operations if the last‑mentioned person has not obtained an Air Operator's Certificate authorising the conduct of those operations. (My bolding.)

If the freight company or agency offering to transport freight for persons generally - an "interposed entity" - does not hold an AOC, it is then incumbent on the aircraft operator they engage ("the last-mentioned person") to hold an AOC authorising the air service being operated.

On interposed entities CASA Policy states:

In such cases, especially where the entity is a travel or booking agency that advertises and sells seats on the aircraft it has chartered to anyone who is prepared to pay the cost for a seat, it is CASA’s view that the operator and interposed entity are part of a single enterprise, effectively offering accommodation on the aircraft for use by persons generally.

Indeed, it is not unusual to find purportedly ‘closed’ groups that have been created solely for the purpose of providing a conduit through which members of the public (i.e., persons generally) might be funnelled onto an aircraft.

I suggest that CAR206 requires any operator that conducts scheduled freight services for persons generally, either by direct promotion and acceptance of freight from persons generally, or via an interposed entity that advertises and accepts freight from persons generally, would be required to hold an AOC authorising the conduct of RPT services.

I watch a light twin engine aircraft pass through the town where I live, on schedule, five days per week. I am able, as are persons generally able to deliver freight to the local agent of a national freight company or the local post office, pay the prescribed air freight fee and know my freight will travel on that aircraft.

I am not advocating that bank runners etc should hold an AOC authorising RPT operations, rather highlighting the "bad law" and absurdity of the current CARs and in particular CAR206. It becomes even more absurd when CASA incorrectly and repetitiously consider CAR206 is a safety regulation when in fact, it is simply intended to classify the categories of operations.

But then, Senior Member Mr Egon Fice, has correctly shot CASA's policies full of buck shot and in my opinion, provided the correct interpretation of the meaning and intent of CAR206.

The next move is up to CASA. Watch this space! :E

[aroa]

SWH... states re Reg 206.' poorly drafted from day one'. And they know so.
McK recently says its been "bad law" for 26 years !!. The Aya -Toller said it was a "bugger's muddle" a decade ago
BUT NOTHING WAS DONE ABOUT IT.

So the poor operators/victims of any sort, have to ask the question..Why TF has NOTHING been seriously done about fixing it over all these years, of great trauma and distress for so many.. because of it. NO LEADERSHIP???
THEY SEE NO MORAL NECCESSITY?. SOME people go under because of it.. DO WE CARE...DWF!

There has been some'change' crap and fluff show up on the Web site and paperwork over the years, but it comes and goes like autumn leaves.
NEVER anything gets finalised.

And to say"..that CASA doesnt like the situation. ".. and cannot and do not regulate commerce"

Bullsh*t. They've loved it and have used it to great effect on many. And at the behest of competitor companies too.. corruption and cronyism, its called.

And how's this for a comment to a photography client, as they collect invoices and payment slips.."this is about commerce, nothing to do with safety... but dont say that in court"

But of course when it gets to court its all they say.. 'safety, safety, safety'.. the bs mantra of the illegitimate.

And after I'm severely busted by it, the mongrels send an email around the traps to each other about the penalties...."For your amusement"

Gives you an insight into the mindset of those in the "Conduct & Ethics Committee"..!

CASA has a 'code of conduct' that is meaningless to some of its employees.
They get away with bureaucratic buggery, because they can /allowed to/protected.

It will NEVER, EVER be an organistaion that you can deal with "in good faith"
because the lack of moral fortitude,honesty and integrity goes right to the top echelons, and that rot seeps right on down to the lower floors.

THAT is why CASA is ( in my humble opinion) the diabolical, dysfunctional, distrusted organisation it is today.

Its not about "SAFETY", its about POWER and PUNISHMENT
Mix CRAP regulation("bad law") with the BULLIES, and that's what we get

And that is why there never will be a vibrant GA sector, where the business individual can use his aircraft as an efficiency tool, and others can go about their flying jobs in peace.

Dream on....

[Frank Arouet]

It's interesting that mass murders and psychopaths share many of the same genetic traits as corporate criminals and corporate thugs. Starts with animal cruelty I understand.

Corporate psychopath's perhaps?


It would seem human resources are hiring people either based on their own standards or in dire need of a qualified independent psychologist to pass prospective employees as suitable for the job.

[Up-into-the-air]

CASA QUALIFICATIONS:

Maybe that is why the pHd title is as it is!!

For the record:

Author Aleck, Jonathan (http://library.anu.edu.au/search%7ES1?/aAleck%2C+Jonathan/aaleck+jonathan/-3,-1,0,B/browse) Title Law and sorcery in Papua New Guinea : a reconsideration of the relationship between law and custom / Jonathan Aleck Published 1996
Position:
Associate Director of Aviation Safety

[LeadSled]

Folks,
An extract from the the AAT case N0.2010/3851.
I have changed the colour of some sections to red to highlight some points made by the AAT Senior Member.
Tootle pip!!

PS: Dr. Jonathan Alex has first class graduate and post graduate law degrees from leading US universities, as well as later qualifications.
The conflicts between tribal (or religious) law and the British system of common and statute law is a quite legitimate field for a PhD thesis.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Folks,
I could not get the paragraph numbers to come up correctly, so I have deleted same.Please read para 36 through 42 very carefully, it is quite enlightening.
Tootle pip!!

[Kharon]

By our esteemed and respected colleague - Sunfish.

I have read many of your posts with delight and amusement, but, I always thought there was an element missing. No disrespect intended but, over the last few years dealing with the CASA has become a mind numbing, destructive exercise in bull dust, that beggars the imagination.

The Sydney company you allude to had, for 18 months been operated to a fairly inflexible standard, way above previous times, way.

Had the new 'authority' discussed it's issues with senior staff, changes would have been made; forthwith - no discussion - therefore no safety alert.

It is quite correct to say that it's sister company deserved and needed "regulatory management', probably shutting down. No great argument there it was crook; but had CASA asked and had CASA not gainsaid or ignored documented evidence, then perhaps, just perhaps, young Andy Wilson would be alive today.

I thought you perhaps failed to grasp that the CASA is not capable of acting in good faith, not for one minute. In days of yore, yes absolutely, but since 'the man' and 'MY policy over law" - etc. Not even close.

The best claim the current mob have is the rag they call the ASD has won a prize. Bugger ICAO, bugger` IOSA, bugger the FAA. The next audit will be interesting. Thou shalt have one God and I am a jealous God. Well we shall see about that.

Words fail. Welcome to the club Sunfish, finally you understand why there are people who risk their livelihood to get this information out there. It would surprise you to know just how little is said against how much anger there is, no one deliberately sets out to be in breech.

Selah

[Creampuff]

aroa asks:Why TF has NOTHING been seriously done about fixing [CAR 206] over all these years…These days, when I observe some ostensibly stupid situation with an ostensibly ‘no-brainer’ solution, I immediately attribute the situation to one primary cause: politics. My presumptive position is usually supported by subsequent analysis.

There is a ‘no-brainer’ solution to fixing CAR 206, but it’s politically unacceptable.

Fare paying passengers stepping on to any aircraft make the reasonable assumption that the standards applicable to the operation are the same, whatever they are stepping on to and wherever they are going. Most fare paying passengers wouldn’t have a clue about whether they are stepping on to a charter aircraft or an RPT aircraft, and most passengers wouldn’t know that different standards could apply, depending on the classification of the operation and the size of the aircraft. Most fare paying passengers would be surprised, if not alarmed, if they knew about the distinction and its implications.

The distinction was essential in the past, for technological, geographic and economic reasons. The distinction is no longer essential, especially in a country that feigns first-world aviation status.

The ‘no-brainer’ solution is to remove the distinction between charter and RPT, at least in respect of operations involving fare paying pax.

Dick Smith attempted, while Chairman of CASA, to make the distinction and its implications clear to fare paying pax. Dick had his head kicked in by, guess who? Those obstructionist bureaucrats in CASA? No. It wasn’t CASA. Ask Dick who kicked his head in on this issue.

If just one tenth of the amount of money wasted by incompetent government bureaucracies in Australia in the last 20 years had instead been invested in regional aviation infrastructure and flying machines, maybe Australia would now have lots more GA aircraft that were designed in the 1980s rather than the 1940s, more regional and rural airports that don’t look like moldering sets from movies about WWII, and fewer regulatory Frankensteins like CAR 206.

Unfortunately, not even one hundredth of that wasted money is going to be diverted to aviation.

Why not?

Politics.

Only the ‘J curve’ counts in Australia. Outside the ‘J curve’, Australia just ‘protects’ the ‘industry’ by maintaining the different standards. Operations relating to activities like coal mining outside the ‘J curve’ are very important, but they generally happen in real time, in the real world, against standards set by insurers and other people with real money at risk.

Cost savings in the aviation sector haven’t gone back to investment in aviation. They’ve gone to important stuff – you know, the stuff that governments think is important.

Unfortunately, lots of people in GA will continue to divert their energies to blaming CASA, arguing with CASA, and fighting amongst the various ‘representative’ organisations.

Why? Because those people either don’t understand that metaphor about monkeys and organ-grinders, or don’t know who the organ-grinders are.

As to the people who presume to implicitly criticise someone in CASA who’s attained a PhD, I’d observe that although it’s demonstrably possible for an ignorant illiterate to operate an aircraft as safely as it can be, the effective performance of lots of other jobs depends on, or is at least enhanced by, higher standards of education.

[aroa]

A fascinating read.

Those that live by the word, die by the word.

Amen.

[swh]

And how's this for a comment to a photography client, as they collect invoices and payment slips.."this is about commerce, nothing to do with safety... but dont say that in court"

Reading between the lines you were served notice for selling photos taken from an aircraft. However the operation of the flight that the photos were taken on was not under an aerial work AOC.

Is that an accurate 2 line summary of the issue ?

[havick]

I've noticed (even over the last 5 years), that many clients are jack of the ancient CASA regs and tend to self regulate through their contracts with operators (I'm from a helicopter world).. They are increasingly demanding higher standards and pilot requirements (and rightly so), and they're prepared to pay for it.. Audit companies are also employed to police compliance with their contract..

[Sunfish]

Creampuff:

Fare paying passengers stepping on to any aircraft make the reasonable assumption that the standards applicable to the operation are the same, whatever they are stepping on to and wherever they are going. Most fare paying passengers wouldn’t have a clue about whether they are stepping on to a charter aircraft or an RPT aircraft, and most passengers wouldn’t know that different standards could apply, depending on the classification of the operation and the size of the aircraft. Most fare paying passengers would be surprised, if not alarmed, if they knew about the distinction and its implications.

What a vicious attack on charter operators. You are implying that they operate to lower safety standards that RPT operators.

It appears, unless I'm mistaken, that CASA has decided on a "one size fits all" approach to the regulation of commercial passenger carrying activities. In other words, small operators are expected to replicate in miniature, all the systems and procedures applicable to a Qantas, Rex, etc. If that is the intent, it is lunacy. Thank God I'm not involved commercially in the aviation industry.

If this is true, then it appears that CASA has caught the same creeping occupational health and safety cancer that is slowly crippling our economy. That is a confusion between the existence of formal bureaucratic safety systems and actual safety.

Numerous examples can be provided on request. What is lacking is any consideration of economic effect - a subject that is normally part of a risk management approach.

[Creampuff]

You are implying that they operate to lower safety standards that RPT operators.It's not an implication. It's a fact. That's one of the consequences of the distinction between RPT and Charter.

[geo171]

This is a great decision but it doesn't go far enough..... In the "Changes to the ACT 1998" Anderson made no mistake when, in his second reading speech, (which sets the intent of any Bill in the lower house) removed the word COMMERCIAL from the Act and explained it with these words...Quote "IN RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT THE SEFETY REGULATION OF AVIATION ACTIVITIES SHOULD NOT BE BASED FUNDAMENTALLY ON THE COMMERCIAL NATURE OF AN ACTIVITY, IT IS PROPOSED THAT THE TERM COMMERCIAL SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE ACT BY REPLACING 'DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL FLIGHT' WITH 'REGULATED DOMESTIC FLIGHT."
I was a around when Leroy Keith, as the director, made this happen and have tried( along with several others) unsuccessfully to influence CASA to obey the parliamentary directions in this Bill and stop using commercial as a direct lever to regulate safety. Bruce Byron( give him his due) attempted to do this and consulting with many people from all avenues of aviation brought in a policy document called "CLASSIFICATION OF ACTIVITIES" which, if followed, would have done just that....... Unfortunately, we lost him and now have the ceo from hell who has decided he knows best and the past isn't relevant and all of the work done in the Byron years has seemed to have disappeared...... CASA has, not only disobeyed(and is still disobeying) the government's directive to stop using hire and reward or payment of any kind to regulate aviation safety but has cleverly changed CAR 206 to remove mention of commercial in the body of the rule although it's still in the heading but has inserted "functions" in their place. Somewhere between there and the coalface dollars rear their ugly head....... My whole point is this...... For 13 years there has been no "Head of Power" in the Act to allow CASA to use commercial means to regulate safety...... Yet they have continued, by fair means or foul, to do so at your's and my expense....... NOT ONLY IS CAR 206 INVALID FOR HAVING THE WORDS "COMMERCIAL PURPOSES" in it's heading but every other regulation which refers to commercial can also be said to be invalid..

How much longer do we have to wait for CASA to get a little honesty into it's operation and rewrite the regulations using a risk-based platform to regulate safety instead of commercial?

[Up-into-the-air]

Changes to the ACT 1998

Now doesn't that make some sense for where we need to go - Good post Geo171.

And maybe that is the pressure that needs to be placed on the Senator to get Parliament to ensure CASA undertakes what it was directed to do.

Problem we have is that CASA will say that there is "a review" being undertaken.

If that is the case, maybe the question is when is Parliament going to force CASA to do it's bidding.

It is the Parliament that ultimately makes the law - maybe the next one should be to just introduce the FAR's - be blowed to what CASA says and get on with safety management. :ok:

[Torres]

And maybe that is the pressure that needs to be placed on the Senator to get Parliament to ensure CASA undertakes what it was directed to do.

Problem we have is that CASA will say that there is "a review" being undertaken.

This review?

Senator MARK BISHOP—When do you think those regulations will go to the minister?

Mr Byron—I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. I do not see this delaying the overall program excessively. We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister.

Well, on 14 February 2005 that was the plan, to develop a plan about when they plan to forward the draft regulations to the Minister.

Don't rush things, that was only six years ago. :=

[aroa]

smh.. You are right, No AOC and No CPL either at the time.... and so what?
The AOC is an economic mechanism to "allow" you to work..and as a PPL I wouldnt get one. But I am a PPL /Photographer.. that is my profession.
So as the bum stated it was a commercial action that I did .. selling photos.. from a "safety" point of view, WTF has that got to do with CASA.

When this same ****** was asked What about Dick Smith PPL/photographer?
Ahh, but thats different.!!? ( They just dont have the testicular fortitude, do they?) So much for LAW and "bad law"

At the time on the CASA web site were all these new and exciting changes about to happen, to allow me get on with life... and a job. But as CASA usual, they never did eventuate, some dragging on until 2003.

As a PPL I can fly my aeroplane and take photos to my hearts content and that is not deemed to be an UNSAFE activity, but I can only give my pictures away for free.
How then to make a living? Become a bank robber? Join CASA (upchuck!):eek:
Then there was 27(d) ? allowing an aircraft to be used for a commercial purpose....? Not an unsafe purpose
So my acts of commerce, as far as CASA is concerned is the deciding "unsafe" factor...one which doesn't exist. And thus is a breach of a "safety" regulation.

Just like the Caper decision wth the Charter and /or RPT.. there IS NO safety implication being either one or the other.

For the GA industry its been schemoozle with CASA getting into the commerce of tools of trade, trying to mind other peoples' businesses and with SFA to do with safety.

Ever heard of CASA busting a PPL Barrister flying to a job with his para -legals, a trolley load of brief and law books (tools of trade), an the invoice to the client bills a/c time and etc.? Holy crap...a "commercial" flight
No... they wouldnt have the balls.

What about a CASA Canberra winter escape trips, travelling around the north, with a box of CARS ANRs and all the other "tools of trade" to refer to,..got an AOC, CP and a CPL? I dont think so.

They do it with a PPL LAME and his tool box flying into a job at some remote strip. WHAT ON EARTH HAS IT GOT TO DO WITH CASA THAT THE LAME IS GOING TO PUT A SPANNER ON ANOTHER AEROPLANE AFTER HIS FLIGHT.?? Quite frankly...its none of their fn business.!

What CASA ONLY needs know is that: the pilot has a valid licence and medical, the the aircraft has a current MR, and the flight was conducted ok under the VFR/IFR rules. Nobody has a problem with that. I certainly dont.

And if you think CASA, when doing a job for a competitor co./"mate" leave no stone unturned, you're right.
Before court first time around I carried on to complete my work schedule.
I was advised that by doing so, I was in contemp of court !!
Hullo... I havent even been to court yet, but of course, these are the people that like to be judge, jury and executioner! Their will be done.

They also looked at getting the AFP to seize the aircraft and do an arrest.!
Which would have meant the contract or balance of, probably would have gone the the competitor co.
No wonder "Starsky and Hutch" tailed me from PJKT to CityBeach.
Taking photographs for money must mean y're a very naughty boy.

During all this,it did make me begin to wonder what country I was living in..!!

At NO time over this period did CASA approach me about ANY SAFETY issue whatsoever.
Which kinda makes my case about "commerce" being the kill factor.

So thank you very much GEO 171 for yr post. Excellent.

It confirms, yet again, to me that which I believed all along... that "commercial" regs are illegal.

[Frank Arouet]

Can anybody tell me with certainty that CASA have an AOC for photographic missions in hired or rented aircraft?

This is not a frivolous question, I do have a motive for asking.

[Advance]

CASA has no AOC
They have no Chief Pilot
They have no Safety Management System
They do not have sufficient knowledge of aviation law to hold an AOC
As recent events prove.
And YES their staff conduct Aerial Work on a regular basis.
BUT they are above the law; just ask them

[Sunfish]

Creampuff:

You are implying that they operate to lower safety standards that RPT operators.

It's not an implication. It's a fact. That's one of the consequences of the distinction between RPT and Charter.

With respect, you are implying that what is required by way of procedures to produce safe outcomes in an organisation of of some 35,000 staff (ie qantas) is the same as what is required to produce safe outcomes in an organisation with perhaps Thirty Five members.

I say again, this is lunacy. In a Two or Three pilot organisation, I can replicate the outcome of a safety system over the bar in the pub. To say, let alone believe, otherwise is BS, and you know it.

What we have here is a fork between what is required by way of regulation to keep aviation safe, and what is actually required by way of action to keep aviation safe.

I have no doubt that there are evil operators that CASA should shut down. However I think CASA should adopt the precautionary principle.

To put it another way, I have to spend a few hours of my valuable time tomorrow getting "accredited" on a crane I have been using for Twenty something years.


I am fast running out of enthusiasm for continuing to pursue recreational aviation activities. There are too many wankers, it appears, in this occupation and that includes the professionals at Qantas and perhaps elsewhere.

I'm beginning to think there are better places to spend my money, not that would or should influence CASA.

[Joker 10]

Yup time to go sailing

[Sunfish]

Joker 10:

Yup time to go sailing

Yup, and it appears Yachtsmen have been infinitely more successful in keeping regulators in line than aviators.

[swh]

So as the bum stated it was a commercial action that I did .. selling photos.. from a "safety" point of view, WTF has that got to do with CASA.

I think CASAs actions were justified in your case. CAR 1988 5.78 "What does a private pilot (aeroplane) licence authorise a person to do?", permits a PP(A)L holder to conduct private operations.

One can take photographs from an aircraft as a private operation, the conditions for that is set out in CAR 1988 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".

By your own admission you were the “pilot”, and “any person or organisation on whose behalf the photography is conducted” receiving remuneration for what you were doing. Therefore it was not a private operation.

This would be no different to you taking some of your photographer friends up flying and getting them to pay for all the costs of the aircraft even if you did the flying for free. It is no longer a private operation.

The other cases you mention can be private operations see CAR 1988 2 (7) and (7A).

And YES their staff conduct Aerial Work on a regular basis.

Care to provide examples where you think they conduct "Aerial Work on a regular basis" ?

I say again, this is lunacy. In a Two or Three pilot organisation, I can replicate the outcome of a safety system over the bar in the pub. To say, let alone believe, otherwise is BS, and you know it.

No one is suggesting that one needs the same organisational structure and manuals for a 2-3 pilot organisation than what one does for a large capacity RPT organisation. The systems and manuals in place should just reflect the way you do things. That is why just buying an operations manual off the shelf does not work in a lot of cases.

It is impossible to have "systems" in place just by discussing things in the bar at the pub."Systems" need to be documented, they may not be right, however what should done is that when the system breaks down, they should be reviewed, and fixed so that it does not happen again.

Nothing wrong with discussing organisations procedures down at the pub or any other venue, and even to come up with better ways of doings things. However whenever an operator changes their procedures, it should be documented, and that process should also be in the manuals.

[Frank Arouet]

One can take photographs from an aircraft as a private operation

Understanding this concept I can take a thousand photo's and then "hawke" them around to the owners of said photographed properties via motor vehicle and until I actually sell one. Only then it becomes an offense perhaps even ten years after the event? Does that make the property owner an accomplice? Is this a strict liability offense under the state motor vehicle acts if I sell my neighbor an old aerial photo of his property taken by Charles Kingsford Smith?

Are UAV owners taking photo's of "the enemy"without an AOC guilty of a strict liability offense?

If Dick takes photo's during his round the world helicopter flight, where it is OK everywhere else but Australia, but makes money from Australian magazines in Australia when he returns, guilty of a strict liability offense? Is the ALP, guilty of an offense of strict liability for taking photo's from a F-111 of the Franklin Dam and using them for political advertising?

Hang on a minute, does the RAAF have an AOC? Has the Commonwealth Government got an AOC?

Does CASA have an AOC that allows it to take "educational" photographs from a Navajo? (why do I ask, well they admitted to doing this in the Airtex matter).

Are they guilty of a strict liability offense?

If CASA started looking after the interests of the fare paying public instead of persecuting individuals on nebulous charges, just because they can, the whole place would be much better off.

Problem is it is run by fools.

[Brian Abraham]

One can take photographs from an aircraft as a private operation, the conditions for that is set out in CAR 1988 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".
swh, are you really trying to tell me that Joe/Jane Citizen can take a bunch of mates for a private flight, and if some passenger, unknowningly to the pilot, has a camera and takes a photo with which they (the passenger) subsequently manages to purloin for some dosh, the pilot is guilty of an offense? Who was being protected when, if indeed it is the case, this piece of idiocy escaped parliament.

[swh]

Are UAV owners taking photo's of "the enemy" without an AOC guilty of a strict liability offense?

You do need an UAV OC to take photos from an UAV for hire or reward.

If Dick takes photo's during his round the world helicopter flight, where it is OK everywhere else but Australia, but makes money from Australian magazines in Australia when he returns, guilty of a strict liability offense?

You are making a lot of assumptions with that loaded statement. You have provided no evidence to support those allegations.

Suggest you look up the word liable. I belive Dick Smith would have had everything above board, it is possible to structure such a flight as a private operation.

Hang on a minute, does the RAAF have an AOC? Has the Commonwealth Government got an AOC?

"State aircraft", i.e. military, are not "Australian aircraft" under the Civil Aviation Act.

Does CASA have an AOC that allows it to take "educational" photographs from a Navajo? (why do I ask, well they admitted to doing this in the Airtex matter).

That would be a private operation. CASA can hire an aircraft, they can have their employees flying it, and they can take photographs for CASA use.

If CASA started looking after the interests of the fare paying public instead of persecuting individuals on nebulous charges, just because they can, the whole place would be much better off.

CASA are just enforcing the rules, no different to say the transport department or police picking someone up at the airport for running a "private" taxi. In that case the car is registered, and the driver has an open licence, however to operate a taxi you are required to have the appropriate licences.

are you really trying to tell me that Joe/Jane Citizen can take a bunch of mates for a private flight, and if some passenger, unknowningly to the pilot, has a camera and takes a photo with which they (the passenger) subsequently manages to purloin for some dosh, the pilot is guilty of an offense?

No one would know unless it got tested in court. However in my view that would be a private flight. The purpose of the flight was not to go and take photos for remuneration. No contract was in place prior to the flight to pay the pilot, and/or aircraft owner, and/or passenger who just happened to have a camera. One can only deal with the facts that were know at the time the flight took place.

[SgtBundy]

I take aroa's point in that purely from a safety perspective it should not matter if a flight is private or commercial - safe operation of an aircraft in theory should be clearly defined and applicable to any operation. Naturally things would scale with different operations and requirements, but the type of operation should not change the safety requirement.

That said, its been shown time and time again that when money gets involved, corners are cut and the fight between safety and making a buck comes down to the scruples of the operator. If common sense were common, you would not need regulation. History has shown that regulation is needed.

So in that case, where do you draw the line? If you say one operation because it is close to private, is small scale, maybe is not even the focus of the business should be excluded, what happens when a less scrupulous operator frames their operations around that loophole? When does it go from flying some cargo for a mate for a slab to a cheap freight operation with overstretched aircraft and pilots? And when that happens who is watching to ensure that the almighty dollar is not overriding common sense.

And in that respect I do think there needs to be a commercial aspect to safety regulation - by regulating commercial operations you have a framework and oversight to enforce safety standards. Maybe what is defined as "private commercial" needs some refining, but its a grey area and I think if you loosen it up you will have operations using those loopholes to push the boundaries.

Maybe dollars are the answer - an operation is private if it is a single person, not hired or hiring others and below a certain yearly income value. There should be something that gives scope for PPLs more certainty they are not in breach and maintains the spirit of a safety regulation. I don't think its a simple question to resolve though.

Just my 2c.

[aroa]

The prosecutor made the grand pronouncement to the court... and I quote..

"No person can take a photograph from an aeroplane in Australia without a CPL and an AOC"

WE know that's bullsh*t of course, but when CASA is on a roll any old BS will do. ( Wow, Is that right !, thinks the magistrate, this is serious.!)

What they dont say is that "bugger's muddle" Reg 206... which makes the act of photography for money, illegal.ie a crime... Is a) probably illegal in itself
since CASA cannot be a regulator of commerce, so states the Act... and b) it does not even fit the Government guidelines on what constitutes a crime.
And of course, where is the "safety" case, that is required to apply to a Reg, if you can do exactly the same thing for free.!!!

There isnt one, but dont let that get in the way of fcuking someones livelihood when they can flex their penile power muscle, while pretending to save the world from falling aeroplanes.

As a taxpayer, you may be interested to know that while CASA was wasting 10s of thousands of dollars ' in hot pursuit' of one solo PPL photographer ...
in FNQ over the same period there were 7 fatal light GA Charter accidents and 22 fatalites. And these are the people that claim that the safety of paying passengers is their primary concern. Dont make me laugh.!

So like much of CASA's convoluted Reg rubbish... it becomes a grey area that is only hauled out for some.

Yellow pages lists over 5000 Photographers - Aerial.. and only 5 of those had AOCs..!!
And there was one I spoke to, who did low level pics from a powered pararchute around a city in controlled airspace.! He also flew hard stuff and had a CPL .. but no AOC.
But that's CASA for ya... different strokes for different folks.!

They might use the aurgument that they all hire an aeroplane from a Charter Co. with an AOC and a CPL. But they wouldnt know wtf they do....see above prosecutors comment... its just the crap of the day.

Until there is serious political will to drag CASA into the 21st century,
with a set of Regs for the Industry, by the Industry, that will allow the industry to flourish, GA is on the slippery slope to nowhere.

Currently,CASA is like the dropped bedpan in the hospital.. who wants to clean it up.?

[Joker 10]

Sunfish, Yup, and it appears Yachtsmen have been infinitely more successful in keeping regulators in line than aviators.

This is because Yachting Australia is a representative body for Yachtsmen/women and conducts itself inside International Regulation ISAF for the good of the sport.

Given the top end of the sport is now mostly professional sailors it would be really difficult to argue there is significant difference from General Aviation.

A 50 foot ocean racing boat costs the best part of $2.0 million in Carbon and is capable of cross oceanic sailing.

The Yachting Australia rule book ( compliant with International Regulations ) and the safety rules, medical/ 1st aid rules as well as the Racing rules of Sailing is the "Blue Book" re issued every 3 years and is a concise 30 mm thick.

Fundamental difference from Aviation where the rules are a couple of hundred mm thick and in the main meaningless.

[Sunfish]

I have some sympathy with Sgt. Bundy's comments about safety going out the window when serious money making is involved. However there must be a better way of regulating Aviation then criminalising all activity and then setting out exemptions?

[Brian Abraham]

Is it still the case that tourist tandem parachute operations don't require an AOC and can be conducted by someone on a PPL?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Bloody stupid this. If I got around to it and posted on a website all the photoes and details of all the aerodromes in Victoria...I would get into trouble with CASA because I...a PPL...took photoes out of the windscreen of an obviously airbourne aeroplane...and published them on the web?


Or...posting happysnaps from within a formation flight of warbirds?

Or....worse still...THE best repository of downunder aerial and aviation rerlated photography on this site is a breach under the regs because whilst it is free for us to peruse said photoes someone...the site owner is making money off selling advertising that is derived from said visits from us perusors????......Bludy rediculous!

[Frank Arouet]

swh;

I find it amusing that you would take my example/ question and accuse me of having no supporting evidence.

Who needs evidence if we are exploring a hypothetical?

As for the thread topic my focus was on the simple fact that CASA have demonstrated they work on premise of "how can we stop this happening" when they should be asking themselves "how can we make this happen".

Does a traveling Vet need an AOC to use his own aeroplane to attend rural clients? After all it is a commercial operation is it not. What would CASA do to Flynn of the inland today. We can't have Doctors flitting around the countryside can we.

[YPJT]

Is it still the case that tourist tandem parachute operations don't require an AOC and can be conducted by someone on a PPL? Only insofar as the aircraft and pilot side of the operations. The skydiving side is far more rigorously regulated. Charter operators would love to be able to turn over that sort of money.

[Brian Abraham]

Only insofar as the aircraft and pilot side of the operations.That only confirms the idiocy of the regs. There can be nothing more commercial than the use of an aircraft to conduct skydiving operations for profit as an adjunct to servicing the tourism industry.

[aroa]

A PPL skydiving pilot can actually earn a living from carrying pax that throw themselves out the door..! The skydiving company rounds up the paying jumpers and pays the PPL to go fly the plane. Its a sport activity. And not with out its hazards, either.

Someone from CASA! even wrote a letter to a newspaper asking how come a body dropper can be a PPL and you need a CPL to carry a box of crabs.?
Well, hullo...! why would you bother to ask?... CASA wrote the regs in the first place. Why not call it RPT?,..they're paying passengers and leave on a regular basis from the same terminal.
It depends on what word game you want to play ... about safety, generally

So when many people are involved you can have a thriving business, but if you are on yr own with a camera, you cant.

Having regs that need exemptions means its poorly thought out and probably badly written.
Its a problem with the legal wallies and reg writers, as non practicing
aviators there's little or no consideration to the downstream implications that the reg may produce. And if it has a safety implication or not, do they care?

No matter , it just becomes part of the Great Pile, where in "unique" Oz, we can have 350 pages covering something that in NZ or the US is 30 something.

Good for empire building and PS employment, bad for GA.

Ozbusdriver... I have heard of someone just back from a formation photo-sortie, being bailed up by a tarmac trawler, and threatened with prosecution.
His response to that was.. see you in court. And nothing ever eventuated.

If you the photograher derived no remuneration from the pictures posted, not a problem. But even if you did... would that have made the sortie any LESS SAFE. NO... but it would have been in breach of a "safety" (sic) reg... and you would have thus committed a criminal act, and when convicted, given you a criminal record.. which has downstream repercussions of its own.

A Clever Country... or a Really Really Stupid one? Its a no-brainer

[Creampuff]

Sunfish

The regulatory standards applicable to RPT are different, and in most cases higher, than the regulatory standards applicable to Charter, irrespective of the size of the organisations.

That’s why the questions as to what’s Charter and what’s RPT (and, what’s Aerial Work and what’s Private) are so controversial.

That’s one of the reasons ‘little’ operators try to squeeze every drop of legal blood out of the definition of Charter in CAR 206, and CASA frequently tries to work out whether a ‘charter’ operation is really an RPT operation.

That’s why Commissioner Staunton recommended CAR 206 be urgently reviewed … 15 or so years ago.

Forget the size of the organisation. Let’s take equally sized organisations: one is authorised to conduct Charter and not RPT, and the other is authorised to conduct RPT.

The RPT operator will be obliged to have an approved system of maintenance and an approved maintenance controller for each aircraft operated in RPT; the Charter operator won’t be obliged to have either (unless the aircraft is already transport category – unlikely at the small end of town).

The aircraft operated by RPT operators will in most cases be built to higher airworthiness and performance standards than most of the aircraft operated by Charter operators. This is a whole world of regulatory pain about which Gaunty might like to opine.

The pilots flying RPT routes will have to be checked, on the routes authorised to be flown, before the pilots are inflicted on fare paying passengers; the pilots flying Charter won’t necessarily have ever flown the route before fare paying pax get on board (and in some cases, this is one of the conundrums facing regulators: by definition, an operator might be asked to take someone on a route the operator hasn’t been before).

The aerodromes to which RPT aircraft operate have to be certified to a higher standard than the aerodromes to which Charter aircraft are permitted to operate. (Again, a conundrum facing regulators: how to get people to places that haven’t been certified to that standard.)

So please Sunfish, come to grips with this fact: A punter walking on to a Charter aircraft flying from A to B is walking into an operation that is subject to lower regulatory standards than a punter walking into an RPT aircraft flying from A to B. It might be that the actual standards met by both operations are the same, and that both operators will get punters from A to B alive, but that outcome would be the result of a mere coincidence, not regulatory standard equivalence.

[thorn bird]

Creamie you waffle on about the "Regulatory" differences between charter and RPT, when in reality it is by and large regulatory "Piffle", has very little to do with "Safety" and just puts up "regulatory" road blocks to impede "Commerce" and costs everyone a fortune for no measurable improvement in Safety.
To CASA, get off your collective asses, piss off the lawyers and write regulations, preferrably in less than a million pages, that an ordinary person can understand and comply with, that meets worlds best practice, complies with ICAO, and follows what your government required you to do 20 odd years ago. You corrupt assh..les have blown hundreds of millions of taxpayers money to achieve nothing, Jeez people complain about the BER, you guys leave them for dead,and we still have a third world safety record.
If you are incapable of that, then get out of the game and lets subcontract Australian oversight to a "Competent" Authority, PNG comes to mind, or maybe the FAA would take it on, the savings we could put to reducing the national debt and we just might have an aviation Industry again.

[LeadSled]

36. The only remaining issue with CAR 206(1)(b) is whether the circumstances in which Caper carries passengers and or cargo to Bathurst Island fall within the description: in which accommodation in the aircraft is not available for use by persons generally. This expression is to be distinguished from that used in CAR 206(1)(c) which is: the purpose of transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally. These two adverbial clauses have been the cause of numerous disputes regarding the distinction which should be drawn between RPT and charter operations. Both clauses are governed by the word generally, an adverb. The word generally is defined as:

1. usually. 2. without considering details; broadly. 3. as a whole; collectively. (Chambers 21st Century Dictionary)
3. In a general sense or way; as opp. to specially. (The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary)
An adverb is a word which describes or adds to the meaning of a verb, adjective or another adverb. It does not qualify or add meaning to a noun, such as the word person or persons. As the authors of the text The World Book of Word Power (1991) Volume 1 state:
37. Having explained some elementary rules of grammatical construction, it should be apparent that the first clause (CAR 206(1)(b)(ii)) means that a closed charter is one in which accommodation on the aircraft must not be available to those people who are only using the aircraft to travel from destination A to destination B. Such persons do not have a common purpose for travel to destination B. Their reasons for using the aircraft are simply to arrive at a common destination and then to undertake any variety of individual activities depending upon what each passenger had in mind was the purpose of his or her travel.

38. To fall within the closed charter provision under CAR 206(1)(b)(ii), those persons who travel to a destination terminal must all have the same special purpose for travelling to that destination. In my opinion, that is what distinguishes a closed charter from RPT. For example, mining companies and off-shore oil companies in the north west of Western Australia operate charter flights to and from Perth for their employees on a regular basis. All of the persons on board those charter aircraft are being transported to their destination terminal so that they can conduct their work for the company which has chartered the aircraft or an associated entity. Their purpose is common even though their occupations may vary. The company may also allow non-employees to utilise the transport, so long as the use bears some relationship to the work being undertaken by the company. Other than the common purpose for undertaking a flight, those persons who travel by closed charter may have no other relationship with their fellow travellers.

39. Unfortunately, I have not come across any material which would indicate that the two clauses I have referred to above in CAR 206 have undergone any proper analysis having regard to their grammatical construction. It therefore comes as no surprise to me that the interpretation of those clauses by CASA, and by Tribunals and Courts, may not be in accordance with the opinions I have expressed above. It seems to me that this has led to distinctions being drawn between certain operations which, not only make no sense, but also have nothing whatsoever to do with aviation safety.

40. CASA has published what is described as Regulatory Policy regarding the classification and regulation of closed charter operations under CAR 206(1)(b)(ii). That policy document is signed by Mr John F McCormick, who is the Director of Aviation Safety. It was issued in July 2009 and reviewed in July 2010. It is properly described as Departmental Policy as distinct from Ministerial Policy. In its reasons for making the policy, CASA has indicated that the current distinction between charter and RPT will soon disappear and be replaced by one category, Passenger Transport. However, this has not yet occurred. The policy document purports to provide clear guidance on the classification of operations as closed charter or RPT and the limitations and condition which may necessarily be imposed on certain kinds of closed charter operations.

41. Quite correctly, CASA has identified that of all the elements which are required to support closed charter operation, the adverbial clause which I have analysed above has proven to be most problematic. CASA has also identified the problem of what it describes as the interposed entity. CASA describes the interposed entity as an entity placed between a charter operator and the passengers who travel on the aircraft. The interposed entity is said to sell individual portions of its accommodation on the aircraft to passengers. The policy document explains that the interposed entity may be unconnected with a charter operator and therefore the individual passengers who travel on such charters only have a contractual arrangement with the interposed entity, and not the charter operator. The policy document then states:

42. The policy document provides an example of charters which may genuinely be classified as charters, that is, although the passengers who fly are not necessarily the persons who have chartered the aircraft, the passengers will normally have a prior relationship involving elements other than the air travel. CASA cites the example of a church which organises regular trips for its congregants to a particular location for the purpose of attending religious retreats, where the attendance at the retreats is limited to church members exclusively. CASA considers those types of charters to fall with CAR 206(1)(b)(ii). CASA then expresses its concern about interposed entities in the following way:
Indeed, it is not unusual to find purportedly ‘closed’ groups that have been created solely for the purpose of providing a conduit through which members of the public (i.e., persons generally) might be funnelled onto an aircraft.
This statement clearly highlights the fact that CASA has mistakenly understood the adverb generally to qualify the noun persons. With the greatest respect, it cannot and it does not do that. It is simply a grammatical error to read the adverbial clause in that way. It is not surprising therefore that this has led to some remarkable contortions in reasoning when attempting to distinguish a genuine charter from RPT. CASA’s policy document provides the following example:
Even in otherwise straight-forward situations, problematic questions relating to the characterisation of the passenger group can arise. It is conceivable that a legitimately ‘closed’ group may consist of a large number of members. Conversely, a very small passenger group may well have a general and unrestricted membership. Demonstrably discrete, special and enduring characteristics shared by members of a group (e.g. hair colour) may have no real bearing on the propriety of characterising such a group as ‘closed’ for the purposes of classifying an aerial service operation. Characterisations based on arguably legitimate, social or economic purposes – for example, ensuring that members of remote communities are able to obtain the services of tradesmen on a regular and predictable basis; or facilitating visits of family and friends to miners located at a great distance from their homes for extended periods of time – may involve conflicting values. For example, while it surely a “good thing” to facilitate air travel to and from remote Aboriginal communities, it may not be such a good thing to allow what amounts to RPT services for members of those communities to be conducted at a reduced level of safety

43. What appears from CASA’s analysis of CAR 206(1)(b)(ii) is that unless the persons purportedly chartering an aircraft have some identifiable and close relationship, although that relationship may or may not be relevant for the purposes of characterising the charter, if the flight is conducted in accordance with fixed schedules and between fixed terminals, it is an RPT operation. That, in an unexplained way, is said to reduce the level of safety. Quite plainly, this makes no sense. Whether the passengers who fly on these aircraft have some pre-existing relationship makes no difference to the safety of that operation. If CASA’s concern is with the numbers of passengers carried or the frequency of flights, it can impose conditions on an AOC under s 28BB of the Act.
Folks,
The above is an extract from AAT Senior Member Fice's judgement.

It really is a good idea to read read the whole judgement, he goes into the history of this area of regulation back to 1947, to show it is all about limiting commercial competition, and nothing to do with satisfactory standards of operation of the aircraft --- and not just an argument about interpretations of grammatical construction.


Tootle pip!!

PS: In the US, things like aerial photography, cloud seeding etc., generally where no passengers are carried for hire and reward, aircraft operate just under Part 91, General Operating and Flight Rules.

Large slabs of our "safety" regulation had their origins in regulating commercial operations, a legacy of DCA days, and nothing to do with "safety", but once they are on the books, it is very difficult to get rid of them, no bureaucracy ever gave up power without a fight.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
No names, no packdrill, but I was talking to a long time ago former Assistant Director of CASA, his comment about the Fice view on whether most of CAR 206 was about safety or commercial regulation ---- that it was all about commercial regulation.

The comment was: "We always knew that".

Tootle pip!!

PS: Contrary to what quite a few in CASA think, that the Seaview Inquiry recommended one standard of operation for all air transport, that is not what Judge Staunton said in the final Royal Commission report of CAA & Seaview Airlines.

What Judge Staunton effectively said was that charter or RPT operations in the same type of aircraft over the same routes should be operated to the same standard ----- a very different thing to saying there should be one standard for all "public transport" ---- something that is simply not possible, unless you are going to abandon all charter and small aircraft RPT operations to most of rural, regional and remote Australia.

The then chairman of the CASA Board, also a highly respected judge, Justice William Fisher, well understood the meaning of the Seaview recommendations.

[Torres]

A number of CASA staff employed from the pre-1988 DCA era told me over a decade ago that CASA's interpretation of CAR206 was an "interpretation of convenience". They knew CAR206 had its roots in the pre 1988 ANRs, as Mr Fice suggests.

The internet provides various definitions of "aerial photography", including:

Photographs of a part of the earth's surface taken by a camera mounted in an aircraft for mapping purposes. This usually consists of a series of overlapping vertical photos taken in strips which can form the basis for mapping. (Canadian Government definition.)

A photograph of the Earth's surface taken with a camera that is mounted on the airplane. (US Government definition.)


Not surprising, neither the Civil Aviation Act 1988 nor the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 provide any definition of the term "aerial photography" used in CAR206(1)(a)(iv).

I suspect an arbiter of Mr Fice's logical and rational reasoning would find "aerial photography" means operating a specially modified aircraft with fixed camera for the purposed of topographical mapping, generally requiring advanced piloting skills.

"Aerial photography" has no relationship to a photographer taking a photograph with a hand held camera out the side window of the aircraft. The difference between whether that photographer is an amateur or professional is irrelevant and is merely economic regulation by CASA, not safety regulation.

[LeadSled]

"Aerial photography" has no relationship to a photographer taking a photograph with a hand held camera out the side window of the aircraft. The difference between whether that photographer is an amateur or professional is irrelevant and is merely economic regulation by CASA, not safety regulation. Torres,

You will just love this one.

The wonderful line of logic runs thus: Only aircraft with a standard C.of A can be used for CAR 206/AOC purposes (not true), therefor Limited Cat. C.of A. or Experimental Exhibition cat. aircraft cannot be used as camera platforms, therefor the two favorite camera platforms (because you can open the canopy in flight) a T-6/Harvard or a T-28 cannot be used.

Bill McIntyre went one further, he claimed he had legal advice that, not only did you need a standard cat. photo. platform, but you could only take pics OF other standard cat. C.of A aircraft.

Presumably making all involved in the thousands of pics. of "warbirds" in many magazines guilty of strict liability offenses.

Why make life difficult, if you can make it bloody impossible.

That kind of thinking is alive and well in CASA today.

Tootle pip!!

[aroa]

Thank you Torres. Good to see others also gets the economic reg thing.
So I can be proud of my piloting skills then.
Was all quite simple really, GPS and all that; Mk 1 eyeball being redundant.

Altho to CASAs belief it was extremely dangerous, because.. and I quote..
"...what would happen if Mr x crashed into a school house" Exactly the same as anybody else, presumably. ??

".. he puts the aircraft on autopilot and goes down the back to operate the camera." !! You have to give these bul****ters top marks for imagination, a statement totally false and without a shred of evidence to back it up. Like Ive said before... any old BS will do, when CASA wants to make a "safety" case. The camera was set for 'auto' and all you did was push the start button UP FRONT.

".. and think of Mr xs aircraft as something he got off the dump, would you let your kids fly in that"? And with three or four hundred hourlies a year.. the WA CASA person displaying a similar IQ to the NQ ones who didnt even know what they were looking at either. WTF do they get them from???.

Just as well I wasn't in THAT clients office to hear this crap.!

I dont think these people who make these statements really know how lucky they are to be living in a free (sort of) and democratic (?) country, with mostly law abiding citizens.
Justice in many other countries is gained by very unpleasant means.

But I'll move on...to deal with the latest set of "story tellers".. legally.

[swh]

Who needs evidence if we are exploring a hypothetical?

It is not longer "hypothetical" when one cites a natural persons identity.

PS: In the US, things like aerial photography, cloud seeding etc., generally where no passengers are carried for hire and reward, aircraft operate just under Part 91, General Operating and Flight Rules.

And that is the plan in Australia as well. The requirements under FAR Part 91 for aerial photography, and under the proposed Australian Part 91 are essentially identical as the requirements for aerial work now. It is illegal in the USA for a PP(A)L holder to take photographs from an aircraft as a business.

Large slabs of our "safety" regulation had their origins in regulating commercial operations, a legacy of DCA days, and nothing to do with "safety", but once they are on the books, it is very difficult to get rid of them, no bureaucracy ever gave up power without a fight.

They actually stem from Australia being signatory to ICAO, and the requirements set out in most of our regulations come from various ICAO standards and recommendations. That is why the requirements in Australia are essentially very similar to overseas requirements as they are in the main adding the ICAO requirements to the Australian legal framework.

I suspect an arbiter of Mr Fice's logical and rational reasoning would find "aerial photography" means operating a specially modified aircraft with fixed camera for the purposed of topographical mapping, generally requiring advanced piloting skills.

"Aerial photography" has no relationship to a photographer taking a photograph with a hand held camera out the side window of the aircraft. The difference between whether that photographer is an amateur or professional is irrelevant and is merely economic regulation by CASA, not safety regulation.

I disagree with your comments. As you are aware the Act and Regulations in the main are incorporating various ICAO annexes which Australia is a signatory to into law.

ICAO "Annex 6 - Operation of Aircraft", describes aerial work as "An aircraft operation in which an aircraft is used for specialized services such as agriculture, construction, photography, surveying, observation and patrol, search and rescue, aerial advertisement, etc."

I do not think it is necessary to define what each of these operations are when the common meaning and usage of the words is more than adequate to cover the broad range of activities. The Chambers 21st Century Dictionary defines aerial as "relating to or using aircraft" and photography as "the process of making a permanent record of an image on light-sensitive film or some other sensitized material using visible light, X-rays, or some other form of radiant energy. "

To try and limit photography to "topographical mapping" would exclude a lot of the technology that is used today, and future technological advances, for example multi spectrum scanners and receivers are used for vegetation density index mapping (i.e. used in farming to decide when to harvest crops or by police looking for drug crops in a natural reserve) and LADIR.

ICAO does not refer to only "operating a specially modified aircraft" for any aerial work operation. You are claiming "interpretation of convenience" by CASA, your comments I would argue are also an "interpretation of convenience" to suit the stance you are taking.

The rules for taking photos from an Aircraft in Australia are no different to what is required overseas, and the requirements are not onerous. Aroa could easily legalise their work under the rules by hiring an instructor and aircraft from a flying school. Most flying schools are permitted to conduct photography and surveying under their AOCs.

The requirements to conduct aerial work extend beyond just "commercial" regulation, the aircraft needs to have a different airworthiness standard, and the pilot needs to have a different licence category, and fuel requirements are differnt. To ensure that the aircraft and pilot meet this requirement, CASA (as well as ICAO) require aerial work to be undertaken under an AOC, and the AOC holder is required to have adequate insurance.

This thread has drifted somewhat from a discussion on charter operations being hired by an interposed entity that advertises and sells seats, to trying to justify the blatant disregard of the rules by a PP(A)L holder wanting to conduct single pilot photography business.

The former is clearly a case of an organisation trying to work within the rules, the latter is a blatant disregard for the rules for their own economic gain that could potentially be putting the populated areas when they are flying over at risk.

Only aircraft with a standard C.of A can be used for CAR 206/AOC purposes (not true), therefor Limited Cat. C.of A.

It is not the CoA that is the issue, it is the maintenance release that has been issued. Aircraft being used for aerial work should have a maintenance release certified for "aerial work", not "private" operations.

That would be like using an "aerial work" aircraft for "charter" operations, the requirements (e.g. instruments installed and needing to be serviceable) are different. BTW some T6 aircraft can have a normal CoA, they are covered under the Type Acceptance Certificate A253 http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/casadata/cota/download/a253.pdf .

[Creampuff]

Tut, tut swh

You're letting facts get in the way of prejudice. :=

[Frank Arouet]

swh;

If Dick takes photo's during his round the world helicopter fligh

Bloody pedant. The word "if" makes it hypothetical and to pander, (look that word up), to your ego, it was Stan, not Dick if you prefer.

I understand CASA were once given charge of a case where incriminating evidence strangely went missing. Perhaps if that person had the presence of mind to take photo's of it he may be able to wipe some smug looks off some smug faces. But then again, that would probably be a strict liability offense by some retrospective measure today.

One can't help but wonder about Wilga elevators and CASA claims when discussing incriminating photographs and arrogance.

[rutan around]

Is it just me or do others also think SWH is stark raving mad ?

[LeadSled]

Folks,
In part SWH is correct, but it is not the whole story, as a careful reading of the Fice decision shows --- read the history lesson about protection of TAA, which had precisely naught to do with ICAO, and everything to do with post WWII Labor believing in Government owned monopolies for large slabs of the commercial activities of the nation, including transport (rail, air and sea), telecommunications, power and banking, not an exhaustive lift.

No country is required to implement all ICAO SARPs for domestic operation, although it is convenient for air transport. Don't forget "filing a difference" make Australia "compliant", and Australia files probably more than any other country.

The FAA approach to "hire and reward" is significantly different to Oz, for example a jump pilot here can be paid as a PPL, not so the US. Indeed, the FAA takes such a narrow view that a member of a formation team at Oshkosh cannot accept free "smoke oil" from sponsors, unless the pilot has a CPL, even if the aircraft is experimental exhibition certificate aircraft.Indeed, a PPL cannot even accept a free can of Coke and a hamburger from the organizers of an airshow.

The comments about C.of A./Certificate v. MR is off beam for the aircraft to which I was referring, and the curious interpretations of a former CASA senior exec.

All Limited Cat. aircraft in Oz. are maintained to a CASA approved maintenance schedule specific to the individual aircraft, and only one MR can be issued.

Last time I noticed, some aircraft used for SkyTyping had dual cat. C.of As, Limited and Restricted, the aerial work operations were/are conducted on the Restricted Cat. C.of A.

Another example of where our regulations are hellishly complicated and very subject to much variable "interpretation".

Tootle pip!!

[Frank Arouet]

I think I get it now.

We are ICAO compliant if we file a notice of being non compliant?

:)

[LeadSled]

Frank,

Spot on.

If we are non- compliant, the non-compliance notification makes the non-compliance a compliance, which then is in compliance with the ICAO compliance section of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, that says we should be ICAO compliant. So notifying non-compliance makes us compliant, thereby meaning that the non-compliance with the Act is in fact, not a non-compliant, but a compliance.

All too easy and straightforward, just like the rest of the "rules".

A favorite example is how we have (unless you employer has another system, say QANTAS) screwed young pilots by not letting them log hours the same way as their competitors for jobs in international jobs market.

Specifically, current Australian "rules" on logging ICUS - In command under supervision. The filed Australian difference results in a system that is fundamentally different to ICAO Annex I. It was not always the case, but some bureaucrat could not leave it alone.

In the rest of the aviation universe, a co-pilot/First Officer can log ICUS (aka. P1 u/s. Command Practice, term of choice in a particular country) as per ICAO Annex 1.

Not so Australia, so a young Oz pilot doesn't have the same clear experience record as a Pom, Kiwi, Canuck or even a Singaporean, to quote a few. Needles to say, the US system is even more simple and straightforward.

Just another way that the Aviation( and Australian bureaucracy in general) bureaucracy makes Australia increasingly uncompetitive.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I have no way to verify, I don't have time to go through all the ICAO Docs., but I was recently told that Australia now has almost 2000 differences.

[aroa]

SWH... you miss the point.

I am a Photographer-Aerial, (once) with my own business and my own aircraft. So why the hell would I want to hire an unsuitable aeroplane and a non-photography qualified instructor ...to do MY job. And most remote area places I went to, no such thing would have been available, anyway.

People used to contract me to take the photgraphs.. because I was good at it, and produced the required photographic results.

It's a one person operation. and I am the qualified photographer to know about producing the required photographic result. These days an autopilot, a monkey or even CASA person could do the flying bit.
But what do they know about the specialist photgraphic reqirements...
NOTHING.
CPLs are paying passenger qualified pilots, sure... but they also know SFA about the photographic requirements.

And pray, do tell me, what is it that a CPL does on a flight from A to B that a PPL doesn't do.? After 50 +years I have yet to find out.

CASA is a safety regulator (ha ha). Since it is my ar$e up there, I'm as interested in the safety aspects as anyone.

And if I can do that ok without recompense, then WTF has CASA got worry about if I make a dollar out of it.?

As Ive said before, quite frankly it (commerce) is none of their fn business.! they are supposed to be in the "safety" business...ONLY.

Ministers say it, The CAA Act says it, CEOs say 206 is a fcuk up, and now we find there was no "head of power" for there it to be commerce "law" either.

But why would any of the inmates of the (non) Aviation House LSG/OLC/ LSD funny farm do anything to rectify the long standing situation of wrong regulation,or bad law.
Cant be bothered? tied up in some other reg "brain snap"? or just too busy playing the para-legal parasites over the years, decades of, see below.

After 23 years of dicking about with the regs at great taxpayer expense, most of it ignoring Government requirements re simplicity, strict liabilty,the definition of a 'crime' and commerce, we, the industry has (to suffer) the monumental clusterfcuk that the rotten place is today.

Many individuals, businesses.. and Aviation in Oz are all the poorer for it.

A "Safety" Regulator,... my AR$E! :E

[aroa]

Just re-read you post again....
You are either of CASA, or have their genetic disposition... to attempt to bring in issues to make a "safety" case..

You say..Re AWK.. a different airworthiness standard, differrent licence
category and different fuel requirements.
I say .. rubbish.

You say, blatant disregard of the "rules" for economic gain..!!
Wohooa.. capitalism?.. is that a strict liabilty "crime" as well. ?
So I say.. rubbish.
Because on the CASA web site then, and for many years after I got done, there were changes mooted there.. that what was "illegal" today would have been "legal" tomorrow.

If it ever was "legally" illegal in the first place..!!

SO... where was the fn Safety case.! There isnt one and there never was.!
And under the dead hand of a truly bereft bureaucrazy...Alas, the changes never came to pass.

And top marks for your "safety" "CASAerism"... re "potentially putting populated areas when flying over at risk." ( Cry Wolf, wolf... unsafe, unsafe!)

Well, bugger me... one would have thought EVERY aeroplane passing over any built up area presents a risk, however great or slight... whether flown by a PPL, CPL or ATPL. PVT, AWK, CHTR, RPT... the lot.
So, by definition, your implication is rubbish..conforming to CASA type.

IT IS CASA'S IMPERATIVE, BY WHATEVER MEANS OR STATEMENTS, TO IMPLY/ DEFAME/LIE ABOUT ANY ISSUE THAT THEY ARE CONFRONFRONTED WITH, THAT IT IS "UNSAFE". :E

[Henry The Octopus]

Dear rutan around,

Unfortunately, it would seem to be you I'm afraid. However, don't worry as I see you have a number of similarly minded friends on this thread.

Seek help ASAP.

All the best

Henry

[SIUYA]

LeadSled...

I have no way to verify, I don't have time to go through all the ICAO Docs., but I was recently told that Australia now has almost 2000 differences.

With the greatest of respect LeadSled, differences aren't actually published in ICAO Docs. They're published in the Supplements to the Annexes.

To save you time and bother looking through the Supplements to the Annexes, Australian differences are summarised in AIP Supplement H22/10 at:

Airservices Australia - Aeronautical Information Package (AIP) (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/aip.asp?pg=50)

I don't think there's 2,000 differences listed in the AIP SUP.

However, having said that, there still seem to be a huge amount of published differences for a Contracting State such as Australia, and which therefore seems to reflect the effete regulatory authority (CASA) that we are cursed with, and which seems to be totally incapable (unwilling or intransigent may be more accurate?) of making any headway whatsoever in accomplishing any meaningful regulatory reform that will/can align Australia's civil aviation regulations with 'best practice'. :mad:

[swh]

The word "if" makes it hypothetical and to pander, (look that word up), to your ego, it was Stan, not Dick if you prefer.

I took it to read the "if" was in relation to possibility of selling the photos to "Australian magazines". You were referring to Dick Smith and his around the world helicopter flight in your post, like you referred to other natural persons, organisations, government departments and events elsewhere in the same post.

It is possible to conduct around the world flights as private operations, it is done frequently with business jet style aircraft. Likewise a number of companies have their own aircraft and conduct private flights domestically.

I will not be drawn into commenting about specific flights or natural persons.

If we are non- compliant, the non-compliance notification makes the non-compliance a compliance, which then is in compliance with the ICAO compliance section of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, that says we should be ICAO compliant. So notifying non-compliance makes us compliant, thereby meaning that the non-compliance with the Act is in fact, not a non-compliant, but a compliance.

Australia is fully complaint to Annex 6 with regard to aerial work operations. Most of the non-compliance areas in Annex 6 are with equipment installed on aircraft like TCAS, CVR, FDR, GPWS etc. For example once area of non-compliance is that Australia does not require a FDR to be installed on an aircraft below 5700 kg.

Your post is somewhat misleading as it would suggest that the aerial work requirements are unique in Australia, that is not the case.

I am a Photographer-Aerial, (once) with my own business and my own aircraft.

You were/are a PP(A)L holder with an aircraft and a camera, nothing more.

As a PP(A)L holder you are permitted under CAR 2 to take photographs from an aircraft, and to take passengers, but only as a private operation.

The restriction on any PP(A)L does not permit one to conduct aerial work, charter, or RPT. I do not know what operational category the MR was issued on their aircraft you had, possibly that could have also been restricted to private operations only.

This is very different to what started the discussion on this thread, we were discussing a legitimate GA operator with an AOC working within the rules as they are written, with CASAs interpretation of that law published as policy preventing them from conducting legal operations.

You trying to claim you were in the same boat, however you were not even close. You chose to conduct operations that were illegal for the class of licence you had, you chose to conduct operations that required an AOC. To use a colloquialism, you were a “dodgy GA operator”, and your actions undermined legitimate operators who have gone to the effort to get an AOC, and people who have earned a CP(A)L.

If you had a legitimate business, you would have had all the licences required to conduct the business legally, that includes a CP(A)L and an AOC. As you conducted an illegal business, you have left yourself open to being prosecuted not only by CASA, also by state and federal police for fraud. By your own admission, you have received money by deception, i.e. claiming that you are an aerial photography business and receiving money for the photos that you took.

You are either of CASA, or have their genetic disposition... to attempt to bring in issues to make a "safety" case..

No, not in CASA at all. Like most people in industry, we have a “genetic disposition” to “dodgy GA operators” that think they are better than everyone else and do not need to follow the rules.

You will not get sympathy from legitimate AOC holders or CPL/ATPL holders for your actions. As this is a professional pilots forum, that would be most people here.

You say..Re AWK.. a different airworthiness standard, differrent licence category and different fuel requirements.
I say .. rubbish.

One cannot conduct aerial work in an aircraft that has an airworthiness category permitting only private operations. Even if an aircraft has the same airworthiness category as an aircraft permitted to conduct aerial work, the maintenance release may not be endorsed for aerial work as a permitted operational category.

A PP(A)L holder is only permitted to conduct private operations, a CP(A)L or higher can conduct private, aerial work, charter, and RPT operations.

As a private operation one is not required to carry any fixed or variable reserve fuel under CAR 234, the recommended fuel is listed in CAAP 234. Operations conducted under an AOC (i.e. aerial work) are required to carry the fuel as published in their operations manual as required under CAR 220.

[Brian Abraham]

If you had a legitimate business, you would have had all the licences required to conduct the business legally, that includes a CP(A)L and an AOC. As you conducted an illegal business, you have left yourself open to being prosecuted not only by CASA, also by state and federal police for fraud. By your own admission, you have received money by deception, i.e. claiming that you are an aerial photography business and receiving money for the photos that you took.How is the photography case any different in essence than a business who uses an aircraft to support its operations and enhance the businesses profit making potential. Such as a trucking business owning an aircraft, and the manager flying a mechanic employee to fix a vehicle to get it back on the road right smartish, so it can get back to the job of generating revenue. The employee mechanic does not have the protection of the operation being overseen by CASA, by way of an AOC, and the pilot need not have any professional aviation qualifications. Where is there any safety argument, or argument that the aircraft is not being used for commercial purposes?

[gobbledock]

CASA QUALIFICATIONS:
Maybe that is why the pHd title is as it is!!
For the record:
Author Aleck, Jonathan (http://library.anu.edu.au/search~S1?/aAleck%2C+Jonathan/aaleck+jonathan/-3,-1,0,B/browse) Title Law and sorcery in Papua New Guinea : a reconsideration of the relationship between law and custom / Jonathan Aleck Published 1996
Position:
Associate Director of Aviation Safety
Perhaps sorcery is how CASA decides on its regs and policies ?? Aleck is a most exciting character, perhaps he has interests also in 'watching paint dry' and 'counting the grains of sand at Bondi beach' ?


Why TF has NOTHING been seriously done about fixing [CAR 206] over all these years…
This is exactly the problem. Individuals like the two mentioned who have been ingrained within the 'fortress of stupidity' for far too many years. GET RID OF THEM.


It's interesting that mass murders and psychopaths share many of the same genetic traits as corporate criminals and corporate thugs. Starts with animal cruelty I understand.
Corporate psychopath's perhaps?
It would seem human resources are hiring people either based on their own standards or in dire need of a qualified independent psychologist to pass prospective employees as suitable for the job.

Frank, you are the man, nailed it in one ! CASA HR are notorious for their poor decison making and poor employment and promotion techniques. I have been assured by several inside the upper echelons that HR are equally as mentally challenged and pyscopathic as the rest of senior management. The word sociopaths has also been strongly associated with the same people.

[swh]

How is the photography case any different in essence than a business who uses an aircraft to support its operations and enhance the businesses profit making potential.

One is a private operation, one is not. It is not illegal to take photos from an aircraft as a private operation. When it is no longer a private operation, i.e. doing it for remuneration, you need the appropriate licences.

Such as a trucking business owning an aircraft, and the manager flying a mechanic employee to fix a vehicle to get it back on the road right smartish, so it can get back to the job of generating revenue.

No different to the boss driving the mechanic in a ute, even if they hired the ute. Where it is different is if the boss was doing it professionally for other parties and charging them for the transport, then they become a taxi, and a licence is required.

The employee mechanic does not have the protection of the operation being overseen by CASA, by way of an AOC, and the pilot need not have any professional aviation qualifications.

That is true, nor are they subject to CAO 48.0/48.1. They are covered under workplace health and safety rules as it is work related transport.

Where is there any safety argument, or argument that the aircraft is not being used for commercial purposes?

There is a safety argument, which has already been made, one of the reasons why "charter' and "RPT" passenger operations are going to be replaced by a "Passenger Transport" category.

The transportation of the mechanic by road, sea, or air would be incidental to the business operation. How the vehicle is maintained internally would not be disclosed on an invoice to an external client. No different to other incidental services a trucking company may use, for example banking, accounting, and professional legal services.

[LeadSled]

With the greatest of respect LeadSled, differences aren't actually published in ICAO Docs. They're published in the Supplements to the Annexes.

My sincerest apologies to all those thousands of readers who have been looking in the wrong place for Australia's filed differences. In future I will be more careful to not use an abbreviation for a generic word, document, when it can be confused with the ICAO number series "documents".

Re. the AIP, last time I looked at the AIP differences ( or the equivalent in the Jep. text) only a small selection (possibly) relevant to day to day operations were listed.

The larger number came from within CASA ---- and I would be very hesitant to say Australia is "fully compliant" anywhere ---- speaking in a "spirit of the law" sense, rather than notional compliance.

Having said all that, when it comes to a modern approach to aviation regulation, ICAO is no shining example, being almost entirely highly prescriptive, with little of no recognition of the value of "outcome" or "performance" based regulation ---- a Government (still) and (former) CASA policy, that has gone missing completely since the departure of Bruce Byron.

Tootle pip!!

[Brian Abraham]

Thanks swh. What about if the business expanded to the point that the boss was no longer able to handle the flying required and employed a person to handle the flying side as his/her only task, flying the companys employees and others incidental to the business, bankers, accountants, and professional legal services. ie full time pilot.

[aroa]

Am I missing something here.?

swh:... claims there IS a safety case between CHTR and RPT and that will be
certified as the same but different with a name change to "Passenger Transport"
In reading the AAT decision, I got the gist that there was NO safety case/ difference in the Caper Case from today CHTR : and tommorrow RPT.
Same aeroplane, same pilot(s) same route etc... just a different job lot of pax. So what???
All this CASA crap about "interposed entities", and other "legal" wankery is LSD users trying to muddy the issue. And they were banging on about 191, when the reg was 206. ANYTHING to make a "case" will do.

Someone a lot smarter found that it didnt.!

The control freaks in CASA have really lost the plot.. the original wherewithall
WAS that CASA is a SAFETY regulator. But by their "regulations" that has evolved into economic regulation as well, doing untold damage to businesses, individuals and the prosperous development of any GA industry.

I had a good chuckle at yr bs statement... PPL holder with an a/c and a camera, nothing more. Tertiary educated with overseas Photographic qualifications, actually..ie a Professional Photographer.

And.. "therefore by being paid for producing specialist photographs I could be prosecuted for obtaining money by deception and fraud" How very CASAist.

By State and Federal Police?... dont make me laugh.! The AFP are not even interested in prosecuting CASA persons who have perjured themselves and conspired to pervert the course of justice.!
A bloody sight more serious that a photgrapher being paid for a photograph, dont you think?
And from past experience I do know where all the real frauds/ makers of fraudulent statements are: those that say and do anything to make a "safety" case.

Perhaps I could charge some CASA persons claiming to be AWIs, and dont even know what they're looking at, so their claims as "experts" are obviously fraudulent, and they should be dealt with by the State or Federal police.
I wish.

MY point is,and it seems for some its a hard concept to grasp, CASA is way beyond its true mission of safety and harm minimisation, and is heavily into economic regulation. NOT its territory, suposedly..or by Act

In the totaly fcuked up CASA regulatory environment, some businesses can use an aeroplane as a business tool, some can't.
And its my belief that the legal basis/bases in my case are wrong /illegal /whatever.

It breaches my civil rights as a Photgrapher, it denies me the right to free trade, it denies me the right to earn a living... AND it has absolutely SWEET FCUK ALL to do with "safety." The "crime" is in the commerce.

CASA "investigator" to a client. "this is all about commerce... its got nothing to do with safety... but dont say that to the jury" !

So there was one honest one amongst all the lying b*****s!:E

[aroa]

And swh.. in yr final para re transport, you are trying to be too clever by half... re "not being disclosed in the invoice" Does that alter CASA's interpretation of commerce then ??

Pvt helicopter pilot flies shipping pilot to ships and back, both the ships pilotage fees and helicopter times listed on Invoice. PVT operation.
( hope to goodness he didnt take a beaut aerial photo of the ship to sell to the shipping company as well ..!!)

PPL LAME flies to YWOOP for maint. job, a/c time listed on the invoice and maintenance times itemised. Pvt.operation? Just hope he didnt carry his toolbox with him, or if he did, no tarmac trawlers were at the other end.
Otherwise that would be????? OMG..!! CPL and AOC reqd.. the bleedn criminal!
Safety case, there... Nah !

State Government Dept has several aircraft, flown by IFR CPLs, carry folk from a variety of Depts, who can book seats on, and the other Depts are invoiced for the carriage of those pax. No CP or AOC. PVT operation.

Different strokes for different folks.? Or a bucket of regulatory worms?
Or just a monumental legalistic nightmare/ aka a clusterfcuk.?

And the Aviation industry at whatever level, suffers from it all.
Life's a bitch.!

[swh]

What about if the business expanded to the point that the boss was no longer able to handle the flying required and employed a person to handle the flying side as his/her only task

Still a private operation, see CAR 2 (7)(d)(v) "the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made other than the carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft"

A friend of mine is a captain on a 744 business jet (not Australian registered) that is flown as a private operation. I also know of a couple of companies that use PA-31s to fly their staff around in Australia.

Tertiary educated with overseas Photographic qualifications, actually..ie a Professional Photographer.


Your degree means absolutely nothing, it is not a CP(A)L and it is not an AOC. Anyone in Australia can call themselves a "professional photographer", it is a self proclaimed title.

For aerial photography the only relevant points are to get paid for taking aerial photos, the pilot needs to hold a CPL or higher, and the work is conducted under an AOC. The photographer does not need to hold any form of qualification, and the photographer does not need a pilots licence.

Does that alter CASA's interpretation of commerce then ??

No idea, however for your case, a private operation for aerial photography exists if "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".

You admitted that you received money, you would have former clients with photographs and invoices. CASA has all the evidence it needs to demonstrate that you were not conducting private operations. You were performed operations not permitted by the licence category you held (PP(A)L), and were doing so without an AOC.

Pvt helicopter pilot flies shipping pilot to ships and back, both the ships pilotage fees and helicopter times listed on Invoice. PVT operation.

I am aware of no such operation, and I find it very hard to believe. I have seen the contract requirements stipulated for transfer of pilots to ships at some Australian ports, a PP(H)L holder would not be acceptable by a long way.

PPL LAME flies to YWOOP for maint. job, a/c time listed on the invoice and maintenance times itemised.

see CAR 2 (7)(d)(v)

State Government Dept has several aircraft, flown by IFR CPLs, carry folk from a variety of Depts, who can book seats on, and the other Depts are invoiced for the carriage of those pax. No CP or AOC. PVT operation.

That would depend on the Government Department, and if the aircraft are considered state aircraft or Australian aircraft. Military, police, and customs are treated differently, that is standard internationally.

[Frank Arouet]

swh;

Exactly what is your reason for standing up to "the law" as the bastard it is evolved to be written" ?

Did you perhaps write it, or help in that bastardization of the regulatory reform process?

Is your income dependent upon it.

Or are you just another out of control, arrogant, Corporate Psychopath?

[Brian Abraham]

swh, 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?

[Shell Management]

aroa

Yes, it is inappropriate for a safety regulator to have an economic regulation role too.
:(
I'm amazed at the implication that CASA treat charter safety less seriously than 'RPT' safety.
:mad:
But I supose that two tier system does allow those fanciful Rain Man style claims for Australian air safety supremacy.
;)

[Sunfish]

SWH, I think Frank an Aroa have a case in regard to photography and one or Two other matters..

Still a private operation, see CAR 2 (7)(d)(v) "the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made other than the carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft"


Is information acquired a "good for the purposes of trade"?

If someone gives Joe the photographer a memory card, and Joe flies off and fills it with images, and then returns it, exactly what "trade" has taken place?

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?

[swh]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Frank Arouet]

swh;

As a private pilot with a private aeroplane, CASA rolled me when I had no interest in making any money out of flying. My crime was to just be there for them to abuse. My crime was to claim an injustice for a wrong done to me by some mates of a senior CASA identity. My crime was complaining about CASA "loosing" incriminating evidence so it could not be used against their mates. My crime was to politicise the matter. My crime was get to a Commonwealth Ombudsman's recommendations against them. None of these justify being treated as a criminal.

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.

Perhaps what you and I are at odds with, is the fact that you may well be legally right, but I see CASA as corruptly administering bad laws that they can and do exploit to allow them to do whatever they feel like. I regularly see CASA claim the legal high ground when it was them that made those bad laws in the first place.

I am arguing about the morality and interpretation of the laws.

It would therefor appear we are in agreement on this matter.

I sincerely apologize if I intimated you were a CASA stooge especially if you aren't.

That insult is simply too much.

[Torres]

"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"

Would that not imply CASA is exercising economic regulation, contrary to it's legislative mandate?

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?

Indeed, that commercial photographer has not committed an offense until some time after the flight - which may be in days, months or years - when he receives remuneration for sale of the photograph? How can an economic transaction at some time in the future change the nature and safety implications of a flight that took place at some stage in the past? :confused:

Of course, we may not be having this debate twenty three years after the Australian aviation regulatory reform process commenced, had CASA spent the estimated $200 million cost of regulatory reform far more wisely and completed the task in a prompt and efficient manner as soon as possible after 1988.

[Up-into-the-air]

The point of this - CASA Reg 152 Interpretation and Instrument 405/09:

This is a great discussion, but behind all this is the fact that the Regs. are not crystal clear. What is worse, CASA are not dealing with this correctly by fixing errors in the regs. at Government level.

CASA, as the AAT points out can not vary regs.

This can only be done by Government.

Reg 152:

I have just been working with matters arising from this reg:

152 Parachute descents
(1) A person must not make a parachute descent if the descent is not:
(a) authorised in writing by CASA; and
(b) conducted in accordance with the written specifications of CASA.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
(3) It is a defence to a prosecution under subregulation (1) if the parachute descent was a necessary emergency descent.
Note A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subregulation (3) (see subsection 13.3 (3) of the Criminal Code).

CASA have issued an Instrument - CASA 405/09, which does not meet the requirements of reg 152 [in fact it changes the requirements of Reg 152].

As a result, the Parachute Federation appear to be in breach of reg 152.

The recent AAT decision, [ Caper Pty Ltd T/a Direct Air Charter and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] AATA 181 (21 March 2011) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2011/181.html) ] tells CASA that it must use the regs correctly or face the consequences.

In Instrument 405/09, at section 11, the instrument is incorrect, as there must be a written agreement in place where a parachute operation occurs between the operator of a registered airport, CASA and AirServices for the operation to occur regularly from controlled airspace.

The instrument is not clear in this requirement, and does not appear to call for the signed agreement. There must be some insurance implications as well for operators.

Another CASA bungle??

[swh]

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.

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.

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-aviation-questions/446465-policy-not-law-aat-buckets-casa-decision-4.html#post6347015

[Frank Arouet]

our laws are made by politicians (often written by the Attorney Generals Department)

What then do The Office of Legal Counsel do to justify their budget, their insurance cover, their staff numbers and their consultative costs.

Why do we have ex CASA OLC people working for The Attorney Generals Department and some working as consultants?

I believe CASA make the laws that are then "rubber stamped" by ignorant politicians bereft of aviation knowledge, and understanding, after Attorney General "rubber stamping" and processing for Parliamentary consideration.

The word "safety"guarantees this process as nobody, who is answerable to anybody, wants anything to happen that may come back to bite them on the bum.

Civil Aviation Authority should never have had a name change to Civil Aviation Safety Authority. I believe that word, (SAFETY), in the name change was put there for the purpose of misuse.

[Sunfish]

SWH:

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.

LIKE HELL THEY DO!

Government Ministers will not do ANYTHING without receiving advice from the public service!!!!! The Fcuking Minister who introduced the laws giving CASA its powers would know that they were written, if not by, in deep consultation with, CASA.

Furthermore, Ministers and back benchers do not have a snowballs chance in hell of finding the time to debate such weighty matters as whether a private pilot should be allowed to carry a commercial photographer for hire and reward. There probably isn't even a single pollie in any Australian Parliament with a pilots licence.

The proposed legislation is given to the Parliament by its drafters as a complete package and that is the end of it unless it is going to have some wide ranging effect on the average mug punter, like a GST or carbon tax. The laws and regulations governing CASA were most probably presented and debated by a half empty chamber at 10.00 pm on a winters night.

To suggest otherwise reveals either a deep misunderstanding of legislative process or an intent to deliberately mislead.

It is perfectly clear that the regulations are deliberately vague and stated in their current convoluted format because it maximises CASA powers while minimising their accountability for their behaviour in terms of equity and natural justice. Look no further than the "treatment" meted out to Butson and Polar Air, which I believe is still the subject of a lawsuit.

[PLovett]

Chaps, most of what is being debated here are regulations which do not get debated in Parliament. All regulations stem from an Act of Parliament, in the case in point, The Civil Aviation Act of whatever year.

That Act gives the Gov Gen the power to make regulations for the prescribed purposes set out in the Act. Now, I doubt that Her Excellency spends much of her day worrying about what regulations she should make affecting aviation. However, the regulatory authority, otherwise know as the dark side or CASA will occasionally decide that some regulatory changes should be made. They will set out in a form of instruction as to what they want to achieve and the Parliamentary Counsels' office will put that into an acceptable form. Their job is to both draft the regulation and ensure that its consequences on other legislation is accounted for. They do not have any input on what is contained therein other than to make sure it complies with the existing legislation.

The draft regulation is then tabled (literally, the big table in the centre) in the House of Reps and sits there for a certain number of days (don't ask I can't remember) and if no pollie picks up on it the thing then goes to the Senate for a similar number of days. Same thing there, if not challenged then the thing goes to the GG for enactment and the thing becomes law.

The pollies have next to nothing to do with regulations except those that affect their hobby horses, unfortunately, aviation ain't really one of those.

[Creampuff]

So Sunny,

CAR 206 (and its predecessor in the ANRs) slipped under the radar, and no federal politician has ever turned their mind to the problems it causes.

No federal politician has ever had a letter written to them about the problems CAR 206 causes, no one’s ever complained to the Ombudsman about the problems it causes, no report made to parliament has ever referred to it, no court or AAT decision has every turned on it, and no parliamentary committee has ever been made aware of it.

CAR 206 continues to say what it says, ad nauseum, because there’s no real pressure from the organ grinders to change it.

Arguing with and attributing blame to the CASA monkey is pointless. That’s precisely the reason the organ grinders set up CASA.

[Sunfish]

Creampuff:

So Sunny,

CAR 206 (and its predecessor in the ANRs) slipped under the radar, and no federal politician has ever turned their mind to the problems it causes.

No federal politician has ever had a letter written to them about the problems CAR 206 causes, no one’s ever complained to the Ombudsman about the problems it causes, no report made to parliament has ever referred to it, no court or AAT decision has every turned on it, and no parliamentary committee has ever been made aware of it.

CAR 206 continues to say what it says, ad nauseum, because there’s no real pressure from the organ grinders to change it.

Arguing with and attributing blame to the CASA monkey is pointless. That’s precisely the reason the organ grinders set up CASA.


That again is simply untrue Creamy. I have explained years ago on this forum exactly what happens when you write a letter to the Minister about CASA. The Minister does not respond to the complaint, CASA does.

- The Minister hands the letter to CASA and it goes right down the chain of command to the person responsible for the alleged action (or inaction) who writes the reply.

Naturally the reply tells CASA side of the story, and any arse covering required is also performed at this time. This arse covering, if severe bruising is inflicted, may involve an interview with the accusing party.

The writer also supplies the Minister with a covering brief explaining their reply, detailing any corrective action taken (or not taken) and recommending the Minister sign the letter. A copy of the brief, your letter and the Ministers reply are placed in your file at CASA and you are now officially branded as a "troublemaker".

..And I speak from experience in this matter as I've answered letters to the Premiere of Victoria and Ministers myself, as have many other public servants.

Please stop this rubbish that CASA is merely channelling the wishes of our elected representatives. All that Politicians know of aviation is the location of the Chairman's lounge, how to buckle a seatbelt and how to work the in-flight entertainment.

[Creampuff]

I know how government really works, Sunny.

I didn’t say CASA is merely channelling the wishes of your elected representatives. What I said was your elected representatives know about the problems, but don’t see any benefit to them in making CASA fix the problems.

All that politicians care about is attaining and retaining power. Fixing CAR 206, or completing the ‘reform’ of the regulations generally, isn’t going to make or break any government. That’s why the ‘reform’ is where it’s at.

[SIUYA]

Creampuff...

No federal politician has ever had a letter written to them about the problems CAR 206 causes...

Care to make a bet on that? :E

[aroa]

Glad I mentioned photography and commerce because it has opened up some vigorous and interesting commentary...all good.

As a PPL/criminal/photographer.. of a crime that does not meet the Government standards for what constitutes a crime, has no safety case, but to CASA what does that matter... I'll move on.
And see what I can do from the legal perspective.

HERE's another prime example of the stupidy of the application of "commerce" as a crime.... and the outcome for GA.
During the Dry season the local electrician loads all his tools, cables and light bulbs into his ute, to drive off to a remote homestead, for a rewiring job. No problem. In his ute, he is carrying his tools of trade and goods for sale. Along the dusty road or at his destination he is NOT stopped by The Dept of Main Roads, charged and fined for going about his normal business... as a highway safety implication.

During the Wet season, since all the roads are impassable, the electrician PPL who also owns a C-172 ( his flying ute) loads all the same material into his Cessna. It has a current MR and he has a valid Medical and Licence, and with all the appropriate maps and charts, fuel and flight plan, wx, he intends to FLY VFR to the job. ALL as the Regs require.

But NO.. a tarmac trawler appears on the scene and he gets busted for
carrying his tools of trade and goods for sale... YOU must have a CPL (at much study and cost ... and he doesnt want a job in airlines)and an (at great expense) an AOC... in order to conduct his NORMAL business.
IE.. being an electrician where the commerce is something that happens AFTER the flight.
Jeezuz ..oh the unsafetiness of it all,! oh, think of the children on the ground,! oh !think of the countryside..the GAFA already littered with broken aeroplanes, busted cameras and smashed light bulbs.

WTF has this got to do with safety.?..NIX..NOUGHT... NOTHING... SFA

What is the implication for GA?... just even less of it.
SO...2 aircraft not operating, no fuel sales, no maintenance services required, no parts sales, no electronic updates/radio sales... need I go on?

No point in carrying on the argument with swh re the Regs, he's obviously a card carrying CASAist. I am the proud holder of Anti -CASAist badge #3. Life Member.

But I will mention fraud... as he did.

THe Australian public do NOT know, (or care?) of the VERY MAJOR FRAUD that is the Regulator. CASA.:E
Ex Airline jockeys posing as CEOs of a major Govt "department" others in the upper echelons fraudulently posing as "ethical" and of "good conduct".

Hundreds? of employees thru the OLC/LSG/LSD/AGD posing as legal whizzbangs scribbling up "regulations" that they fraudulently claim will benefit safety, and save Oz from falling aeroplanes.
Poorly trained staff arguing with knowlegible people in GA, fraudlently claiming they are right.... except the CASA Manual they are quoting from hasn't been updated since 1992.
And AWIs... "Senior", no less,checking an aeroplane and dont even know what they're looking at, and fraudulently making nonsensical claims, and posing as "experts'
NOW ALL THATS a FRAUD.! A VERY BIG ONE.:\

THIS FRAUD has cost the Aviation Industry and the taxpayer dearly: a dying GA sector, mega-millions of dollars... and still counting !

[SgtBundy]

aroa - where do you draw the line between using a private aircraft for business and having a business based on using an aircraft? What is the difference between one guy being a fly and fix electrician and an entire company being fly and fix electricians?

If you decide one guy, flying one plane is ok, next thing you have an operator who says "no mate, we are not a flying company. I just happen to have 12 electricians with PPLs and some aircraft they use. Why should I have to maintain fatigue and maintenance programs or operations manuals, its all private operations."

That fact is once money is involved, common sense starts to get eroded and corners get cut to make a buck. The guy who flew to a few jobs to get by in the wet season soon starts flying tired to make those extra jobs he lined up or stretching out the next service to save some cash. Next thing you have some C172 speared in somewhere and people asking how he was allowed to operate like that and why didn't CASA do anything about it?

I am not saying the current state of play is right. I agree being able to use a PPL to transport yourself and some tools to job should be a reasonable thing to do. But there has to be oversight when money is involved and the only way to do that properly is regulation and regulatory definition of what constitutes commercial flying. Maybe that definition needs to be able to separate occasional aircraft use in business from an ongoing commercial operation, but I think you need to be careful how you do that as someone will always use the loopholes.

[desert goat]

The guy who flew to a few jobs to get by in the wet season soon starts flying tired to make those extra jobs he lined up or stretching out the next service to save some cash. Next thing you have some C172 speared in somewhere and people asking how he was allowed to operate like that and why didn't CASA do anything about it
Hmmm so if that same dog tired electrician isn't allowed to spend an hour in his 172 to get a job done, he still needs the money, so he's probably going to spend three hours on the road instead to do exactly the same thing...and that is somehow safer? :uhoh:

[SgtBundy]

Its harder to pull over and take a nap at 5000ft.

[Frank Arouet]

Old Joh as a PPL flew an Auster around QLD maintaining contact with his constituents.

I hope this helps.:uhoh:

[Joker 10]

Frank, truth always helps, and bugger me wasn't Joh earning his keep whilst private flying ??

But then one would have to sit and establish double standards politician vs Electrician.

How would Creamie's law handle that ???

Maybe the Democrats Disalowance motion of long ago would have fixed it , but hold the bus wasn't creamie a CASA stooge at the time ???

Farting in the bath, no matter how hard you try the truth will out, it smells !!

206 is a dogs breakfast, always was, future is, always will be.