Fatigue Management in Private operations

[Dash8capt]

Hi Everyone,
There are numerous private operators out there which employ pilots for internal operations, some have recently been advertised on the AFAP website. A lot of these positions involve work outside of flying, and may be fly in - work and then fly out type jobs. Since these operations are private and not under an AOC, no flight or duty times need be applied. Has anyone worked in one of these positions where management of their duty time occurred, and what limits where put down if any.
Regards,
Dash8capt

[Move On]

If you are working, you are a Commercial pilot whether it's a private outfit or not, you are governed by the flight and duty times CAO 48.1.

Does not matter if they have an AOC or not. What you have is a Commercial pilot licence and a future.(you do have a cpl?)

There's alot of trickery with these "so" called operators...

You can PM me or just ring CASA and speak to a FOI who can point you in the right direction.

Take care mate and fly safe:ok:

Move on

[pcx]

I don't think so

CIVIL AVIATION ORDERS
PART 48
SECTION 48.0
Issue 7
FLIGHT TIME LIMITATIONS — GENERAL
SUBSECTIONS
1 Application and responsibility
2 Definitions
3 General conditions
4 Exemptions
1 APPLICATION AND RESPONSIBILITY
1.1 These Orders shall apply to aerial work, charter and regular public transport service operations unless otherwise stated.


I can't find anywhere that ropes in private operations.

[wishiwasupthere]

Move On, i'd be interested if you could provide a reference to that. My understanding and interpretation of the CAOs is that if you are flying for a private op, irrespective of licence held, you do not need to abide by CAO48.

[Dash8capt]

Yes this is my understanding as well. If it is Private it is Private. CAO 48 does not apply. :hmm:

[Lancair70]

Yes that is true if its private CAO48 does not apply. BUT Private also means without reward or renumeration does it not ?

How does one get paid for flying services when the employer does not hold an AOC ?

If, as a technician or specialist in say mine equipment, can you fly to and from work sites, in an aircraft provided by your employer, the same as a work vehicle would be provided. You're provided with a means of transport and paid for your time in transit as any other employee. You're not paid for your piloting skills. Is this legal ? Can you transport other people employed by the same company ? Where do you cross the line ?

[pcx]

So how does it become " aerial work, charter and regular public transport service operations" without an AOC.

Please show me where the words reward or remuneration appear in respect of private operations.

[Lancair70]

pcx, I dont have a reference, I seem to recall it when I did my training many years ago. And for some reason it makes sense to me, that a PPL can not be paid for flying services. There are many many loopholes Im sure and some people have done very well out of aviation, owning and operating aircraft without an AOC.

[JustJoinedToSearch]

Lancair70,

You can be paid a million dollars a year to do a job that contains nothing other than flying someone around and it can be private.

Look at any paid jump pilot as an example. That is a private op, so you only need a PPL and CAO48.0 doesn't apply.

Sure it is confusing, contradictory and doesn't make sense, but welcome to Aus aviation rules:}

[eocvictim]

I'd be careful there, private hours do count towards your commercial hours. If you fly 900 private, you have 0 commercial hours. I've got a few friends who work commercially and fly, manage and operate a privately owned aircraft for the owner on the side. While the FOI (in this particular case and this particular FOI) didn't have a problem that the side work was in fact private, he did have an issue when said pilot exceeded 900 flt hrs for that year. He was then in a situation where he was unable to operate privately or commercially.

The very grey area on hours is your duty limitations between private and commercial rest periods. I believe in common sense and discretion others believe that if its legal (even if its grey) then its open to manipulation.

PS. As for the anecdote: I don't particularly care if you agree with the ruling, it was an official ruling from a CASA representative, enforced by CASA, regardless of anyones personal interpretation. Personally, I agreed and had warned this person of their folly.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Ah, but if you are only flying pvt ops, then you don't have to worry about awk or commercial ops.
"Loophole" in the case of ops, such as mentioned, where you are not being paid as a pilot.
When I return, say, from a ferry having conducted 40 hrs flight in a one week period, I either need a dispensation from CASA or have to wait until the rolling flight periods elapse to allow me to continue with a commercial employer.

Duty periods, likewise are not a grey area at all. You can't fly yourself six hours to your place of duty and expect to complete a full shift!

Look at any paid jump pilot as an example. That is a private op, so you only need a PPL and CAO 48 doesn't apply.
Fcuking well should. (Old argument.)
Wonderful to see CASA has acted on the findings of the Willowbank accident that killed 5 people.......NOT.:mad:

Not keen to see a civil case that is based on crossover pvt flying and fatigue, though.

Lancair, CAR's define private ops.

CAR 7
(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; (va) the carriage of persons in accordance with subregulation (7A);

eocvictim,
So if I fly 900hrs in 11mths, I can't even fly privately for the next month, just because I hold a CPL? Don't think so, I just can't fly anything other than privately.

[Move On]

Make it happen is on the money and so is eocvictim.

However have a look at CAO 48.1 Issue 9.



PCX.....Love your "CAPITAL" letter's. By the way have a look at Issue 9 not 7 as you refer! And by the way it's CAO 48.1:ok:

check this out....



1.1 Each pilot of an aircraft in which the flight crew includes not more than 2 pilots engaged in other than aerial agricultural operations shall be subject to the limitations specified in these Orders.

It's no longer what you state PCX>>>>

1.1 These Orders shall apply to aerial work, charter and regular public transport service operations unless otherwise stated.



Let's just be safe.....

You are responsible for your own fatigue management system with all pvt operators. The only thing you are going to know is the basic template of CAO 48.1. They will govern you and give you boundaries...be smart!:ok:



You crash, CASA uses this reg to snag you...

Very simple and straight forward.


move On:ok:

[pcx]

Para 1.1 of CAO 48.0 defines the aplicability of the whole series of CAO 48.

Private operations are not regulated by any of these orders.

Just for clarity, the paragraph that you quoted is from CAO 48.1, however you have to read it in conjunction with the CAO 48.0 Flight Time Limitations General.

You are correct regarding the use of Issue 7 but for some reason I can neither download nor access the current issue on the CASA web site so I just used the issue I has available. I would be prepared to bet that this paragraph has not changed.

I don't like the capitals and bold either. It was a cut and paste from my electronic copy and I am not sure how to fix it. Sorry.

By the way I am not arguing that unlimited private duty hours are a good thing or safe however what I thought we were discussing here is the legal situation.

Actually to complicate the situation even further have a look at some operators FRMS programs.

The approval of the FRMS will exempt the operator from complying with CAO 48 generally.

The ones I have seen do not have any 7, 30 or 365 day limits. In other words, if you are working for one of these operators, there are no flight time limits applicable to commercial ops so long as the roster does not exceed any of the FRMS limits. These limits are usually calculated using a computer program called FAID. I am not saying that there are not FRMS programs that do have flight time limits, just that the programs that I have seen do not.

Also the 1000 hours per year limit that did effect private operations was removed from the CAR's years ago.

[Horatio Leafblower]

he was unable to operate privately

...because he flew more than 900 hours in a year? Horse****. :mad:

Some of you blokes are getting Commercial Purposes (CAR 206) mixed up with Commercial licences.

I might have an ATPL but flying my wife and kids around doesn't come under CAR 206, doesn't require an AOC (or an ATPL for that matter) and is not subject to flight and duty limitations.

Nor does flying David Lowy's/Jamie Packers/any other rich bastard's wife, kids, friends fall under CAR 206, or require an AOC, or become subject to CAO 48.

There are three types of Commercial Pupose described in CAR 206:

RPT
Charter and
Airwork.


The only category of airwork remotely close to these ops is:
(viii) carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft...;

...so transporting your employees, technicians etc around in YOUR corporate aeroplane is not Aerial Work.

I think the OP is referring to Tek Onsite, a company that uses pilots as site technicians to do something or other. They just use Aerocommanders and Barons like a work ute.

If their stock-in-trade is an intangible, such as the expertise of the technician, not goods, then does clause (viii) come into effect?

There is another whole argument about "Best practice" vs "minimal compliance", but surely Workcover is a more fierce regulator than CASA?:uhoh:

[mickjoebill]

Does this rule apply to a private operator with CPL who pilots his aircraft for aerial filming?

A related question in regard to what is or isn't regarded as a break.
I understand that in respect to split shift, that a break does not include being "on call", one has to be completely removed from hanger activities.

So imagine a pilot who is engaged to do some aerial filming at sunset using his own aircraft.
He spends most of the day doing paperwork, hammering the mobile phone drumming up business ect.. then jumps in for the sunset shot having been working on the ground for 12 hours.

Legal?


Mickjoebill

[Mach E Avelli]

Standard work week now is 38 hours, so a wages-only employee could find that worth using as a guide, perhaps with CAO 48 as the upper limit for overtime. If our wages-only employee chooses to do excessive overtime or night shift and goes to sleep after a 60 hour week while driving home and has a head-on with another car, under the law he IS liable. Fatigue is up there with drink driving as an offence.

If an aircraft accident occurred and fatigue was implicated, a good litigation lawyer could make mincemeat of CASA's pathetic indifference to private operations.

[neville_nobody]

If it's Company Personnel on company business in company aircraft it is Private ops and CAO 48 and the Dangerous Goods regs do not apply.

[Ejector]

Post number 2 is wrong my friend.

It is true how ever, that when doing airwork RPTor charter etc, your private flying hours count towards that total.

[Move On]

Mach E Avelli,

You are so right about the litigation side of things. And guess what...CAO 48 will be used in the litigation process...

Just need a couple more FATIGUE related accidents....

As I mentioned, be smart.

PCX, good point....and I also agree.

Move on:ok: