Commercial Ops [Archive]

Gearup2

3rd Mar 2012, 10:38

*I was talking with a few mates today and this senario came up in conversation

A commercial pilot can work for hire or reward*

what is stopping a client or customer hiring "joes blogs" *aircraft for the day

Hiring a commercial pilot and asking him to fly Joe blogs aircarft from A to B

Joe blogs is paided for the hire of the plane seperatley and the pilot is paid separately.

There must be some clause or reg that stops this from being technically legitament ?*:ugh:

PilotKarl_777-300

3rd Mar 2012, 11:33

A commercial pilot can work for hire or reward

I honestly think you answered your own question. :rolleyes:

Did you guys specify what type of operation the 'client' was doing?

I remember during my training towards CPL i got asked by my instructor about the same topic. He asked "If you were working for a company, who privately owned an aircraft and asked you if you've got a pilot licence too transport our staff. Would it be a Commercial ops or Private?" I answered private. Which was correct, i honestly took a wild guess. :} This meant the pilot wasn't getting rewarded or remuneration for flying the staff but for employment duties on the ground. My instructor also tolled me that many companies do this too avoid obtaining a AOC from CASA. I wonder why? :E

I've read the CAR 206 Commercial purposes couldn't find anything, sorry! :(

tail wheel

3rd Mar 2012, 20:23

CASA (and the insurance company, in the event of an accident) would find both above operations were at least Aerial Work (and possibly charter, depending on circumstances) requiring an AOC.

scavenger

4th Mar 2012, 00:04

CASA (and the insurance company, in the event of an accident) would find both above operations were at least Aerial Work (and possibly charter, depending on circumstances) requiring an AOC.

It doesn't matter what CASA or the insurance company would call it, it matters what the court would call it.

The shambles that is CAR 206 and CASA's interpretation thereof is laughable...Check out Direct Air vs CASA in the AAT i think in 2010...the whole CASA policy on open and closed charter, 'incorrect and therefore unlawful', if memory serves. Well done Egon!

CAR 2 (7) and (7A) list private operations. (v) says carriage of people without a charge for the carriage being made is private. Hard to argue that there is not a charge for the carriage if the pilot is charging the passenger to be carried. How parachuting ops are private is beyond me, they're charging to fall out of the aeroplane, not be carried by it - get real.

The only type of private operation that permits the passengers to pay is 7A, where the costs must be shared equally etc.

The payment of the pilot or not is largely irrelevant in the distinction between private and charter (aerial spotting and photography excepted). It is whether the passengers are paying that usually makes the difference.

Your instructor's question and answer is perfectly valid: a company's employees, who are not paying to be aboard, may be carried as a private operation. The pilot can hold only a PPL and be paid.

With the info given, the operation is charter, and without an AOC, unlawful.

Brian Abraham

4th Mar 2012, 01:04

How parachuting ops are private is beyond meI don't know the legalities involved, but I'm guessing that the fact the tourist who wants to do a tandem has to join the Australian Parachute Federation as a paid up financial member prior to the jump has some thing to do with it.

Creampuff

4th Mar 2012, 01:43

The only type of private operation that permits the passengers to pay is 7A, where the costs must be shared equally etc.Not quite right.

I can pay a pilot to fly me around as a passenger in my own aircraft, and it’s a private operation: CAR 2(7)(d)(i) (noting, in particular, that the ‘no remuneration’ criterion in (ii) and (iv) is absent from (i)). No AOC or CPL required.

Brian Abraham

4th Mar 2012, 03:57

Spent the majority of my working life flying for a company who operated a largish fleet of aircraft engaged in private operations, carrying company employees and contractors to and from work. Had its own check & training cell and no AOC.

tail wheel

4th Mar 2012, 07:48

The shambles that is CAR 206 and CASA's interpretation thereof is laughable...Check out Direct Air vs CASA in the AAT i think in 2010...the whole CASA policy on open and closed charter, 'incorrect and therefore unlawful', if memory serves. Well done Egon!

Senior member Egon Fice was asked to determine whether a specific operation was air charter or RPT and in that respect, CAR206 leaves more than something to be desired. I believe Mr Fice got it correct, possibly for the first time since 1988!

The first two posts above seek to diferentiate between a private and a commercial operation, a totally different matter. Hiring an aircraft, hiring a pilot (whether separately or collectively) and transporting workers in the course of their work sounds like aerial work operations at the very least and quite possibly air charter.

Then one finds this confusing hubris (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/rulings/ar0303.pdf)!

Another example. You may fly a private aircraft on a PPL and take photos from the aircraft. However, If you sell one of those photos your flight must be authorised by an aerial work AOC and the pilot/photographer must hold a CPL.

Creamie is in the audience and is an expert on these matter.

Horatio Leafblower

4th Mar 2012, 09:45

Wasn't the "...hire or reward" bit of the CARs deleted some time ago? :confused:

PilotKarl_777-300

4th Mar 2012, 11:12

Wasn't the "...hire or reward" bit of the CARs deleted some time ago? :confused:

CAR 206
1 (b) charter purposes, being purposes of the following kinds:
(i) the carriage of passengers or cargo for hire or reward to or from any place, other than carriage in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals or carriage for an operation mentioned in subregulation 262AM (7) or under a permission to fly in force under subregulation 317 (1);
(ii) the carriage, in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals, of passengers or cargo or passengers and cargo in circumstances in which the accommodation in the aircraft is not available for use by persons generally;
(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.
(1A) However, the commercial purposes prescribed by subregulation (1) do not include:
(a) carrying passengers for hire or reward in accordance with subregulation 262AM (7); or
(b) carrying out an activity under paragraph 262AM (2) (g) or 262AP (2) (d).

Guess Not! :E

tail wheel

4th Mar 2012, 13:05

Wasn't the "...hire or reward" bit of the CARs deleted some time ago?

You are probably thinking of the fact that CASA can not economically regulate aviation.

Horatio Leafblower

5th Mar 2012, 02:07

Actually, it used to be part of the "privileges and limitations" of the CPL; but now the relevant part says:

5.105 What does a commercial pilot (aeroplane) licence authorise a person to do?

(1) A commercial pilot (aeroplane) licence authorises the holder of the licence:
(a) to fly a single pilot aeroplane as pilot in command while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation; and
(b) to fly a multi‑pilot aeroplane as pilot in command while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation other than a charter operation, or a regular public transport operation; and
(c) to fly an aeroplane as co‑pilot while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation.

...mind you when I look at the oldest available version of the CAR1988 (dated 1992) I find the wording is exactly the same as it is today.
Yet another student pilot misunderstanding/misinterpretation on my part I suppose :rolleyes:

Sarcs

5th Mar 2012, 04:29

How parachuting ops are private is beyond me, they're charging to fall out of the aeroplane, not be carried by it - get real.

Coroner Barnes in the Willowbank fatal accident made a very strong argument that tandem parachuting should be regarded as commercial ops! http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/86726/cif-willowbank-aircrash-20081124.pdf

Here are some quotes from his report:
“I have no doubt that part of the fee paid by tandem jumpers is for the air carriage to the jump height - this is why they are charged more if they jump from higher. Accordingly I am of the view a court could conclude tandem jumpers are passengers carried for reward and CASA has misinterpreted the legislation when determining such activities can be carried on without an AOC.”
Barnes then went on to say:

"A court could conclude the occupants of the incident aircraft, other than the pilot and the tandem masters, were passengers who were to be carried for reward from the airstrip to the jump site. Accordingly, I consider CASA misapplied the provisions of the CAA s27 and CAR206 when it concluded that the Brisbane Skydiving Centre and other similar operators could offer tandem jumps to members of the public without holding an AOC.

I consider the oversight of tandem jumping operations by the APF was and remains insufficient to overcome the safety risks posed by the unsafe practices of operators such as the one involved in this case. "

...finally Barnes heaps a bit more on the regulator!:ok:

"Even without requiring them to obtain an AOC, CASA could audit skydiving operations offering services to untrained members of the public and continue to allow genuine parachuting clubs to be regulated through the APF. It chooses not to on the basis of flawed logic and a doubtful interpretation of the law, in my view.

CASA has submitted the danger of allowing members of the public to inadvertently ride with an unsupervised, private aircraft operator could be reduced by the APF requiring its members to bring this to the attention of their customers. I am inclined to the view that to be effective, this would need to be done in the operators advertising material, not at the point of sale after the customers have driven significant distances to the jump centre. The “happy snaps” of tandem jumpers smiling down from bill boards would need to be balanced by photographs of what eventuates when things go wrong: an option that I anticipate neither the industry nor the public would welcome.

I readily accept that CASA believes its policy is consistent with the law and is an appropriate way to delegate the oversight of sports aviation to interested bodies. However, as a result of considering the evidence gathered during this case, I have concluded CASA’s continued withholding of its flight operations, maintenance and safety experts from the surveillance, audit and oversight of publicly offered activities is contrary to the interests of public safety"./

Job well done Barnesy!:D:D Pity they ignored you anyway:ugh::ugh:

aroa

5th Mar 2012, 06:42

Reg 206.. or is it what drops from the other end.?
A "buggers muddle"...The Aya Toller. "Bad law".. the Skull
So WTF has CASA done about it to clarify the situation over the decades.
SFA and then some ??? They have a jeezus great "legal" office in Fort Fumble dont they.?:mad:
The use and abuse of, or the inactivity..selective by CASA about this reg is a legend.
Supposed to be dealt with after Seaview...how long ago ????

This commercial/private argument will just keep recycling itself in threads until something is done about the reg itself.

Well done, E Fice to put the RPT?charter? schemozzle to bed.:ok:

We know CASA is a reg sewerage farm.. 206 is just one one the nasties floating there.
And no CASA body wants to touch it.:eek:

Up-into-the-air

5th Mar 2012, 22:04