Private Vs Airwork
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 43
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the US or elsewhere have similar constraints on commercial operations other than RPT? I can understand the need to have oversight and regulation of commercial operations because when money is involved the first thing for unscrupulous operators to drop is safety. But when the scale you are talking is sole operator / non-advertised services, I agree it seems like unnecessary confusion and overhead.
Righto,
apart from all this crap about "it's private" and whining that "CASA has no right", get over it and start a class action if you feel that strongly.
Easy way to think of it.
If you stuff it up, you will be liable for the loss of good that were being transported for the owner of the goods who was going to make money from them. Operating under an AOC, you will have insurance to cover the liability action that will be coming your way for the loss of such goods.
If you own the goods youself, you can't sue yourself.
QED.
apart from all this crap about "it's private" and whining that "CASA has no right", get over it and start a class action if you feel that strongly.
Easy way to think of it.
If you stuff it up, you will be liable for the loss of good that were being transported for the owner of the goods who was going to make money from them. Operating under an AOC, you will have insurance to cover the liability action that will be coming your way for the loss of such goods.
If you own the goods youself, you can't sue yourself.
QED.
Just make sure you say to your friend, "I will only take these fish for you if you promise you aren't going to sell them".
You can't be held responsible if he lies to you.
*
*You actually can, yay! freedom
You can't be held responsible if he lies to you.
**You actually can, yay! freedom
Mixed messages...
T28 sees it as 'straight'...no wriggle room?
I beg to differ, the permutations of what some are allowed to do, but not others are many. 206 has got more wriggles in it than a bait tin.
Some folk got prosecuted for 'regular charter', others didnt. At least the good Mr Fice has put that sham to bed.!!
Depends on whether yr local FOI 'had a bad night' or is feeling a bit pumped with testosterone today or whatever, does it??? Or a competitor co. wants a favor from a mate?
Inconsistency is CASAs other name.!
So not only is 206 a bloody shambles... its unlawful. !!
Azzure sees potential. CASA only sees CONTROL, the POWER, the PAPERWORK (their employment) and the FEES and CHARGES that go with it.
Safety is irrelevant in the regulatory context.
Its what we all strive for (to keep our ar$e intact), but "safety" for CASA is just a buzz word for bull****ting politicians for more bucks.
Pray do tell...what is the "safety benefit" if the diffence in any operation is only that some money was made.
And nobody has yet been able to tell me... what is it that a CPL does on a flight from A to B that differs from a PPL?. Same hrs, same aeroplane, same box of fish.
Which is SAFER ??? And WTF has "commerce" got to do with it...Or CASA.?
I beg to differ, the permutations of what some are allowed to do, but not others are many. 206 has got more wriggles in it than a bait tin.
Some folk got prosecuted for 'regular charter', others didnt. At least the good Mr Fice has put that sham to bed.!!
Depends on whether yr local FOI 'had a bad night' or is feeling a bit pumped with testosterone today or whatever, does it??? Or a competitor co. wants a favor from a mate?
Inconsistency is CASAs other name.!
So not only is 206 a bloody shambles... its unlawful. !!
Azzure sees potential. CASA only sees CONTROL, the POWER, the PAPERWORK (their employment) and the FEES and CHARGES that go with it.
Safety is irrelevant in the regulatory context.
Its what we all strive for (to keep our ar$e intact), but "safety" for CASA is just a buzz word for bull****ting politicians for more bucks.
Pray do tell...what is the "safety benefit" if the diffence in any operation is only that some money was made.
And nobody has yet been able to tell me... what is it that a CPL does on a flight from A to B that differs from a PPL?. Same hrs, same aeroplane, same box of fish.
Which is SAFER ??? And WTF has "commerce" got to do with it...Or CASA.?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 43
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aroa - playing devils advocate here.
Where do you draw the line? At some point flying for commercial gain goes from being a favour for a mate to part of a business and hence a cost of operation. If you leave a loophole to fly for business as long as the pilot is not paid for it, you can bet someone will exploit that - "He is was not a pilot, your honour, he was a fish handler with a PPL". Maybe the flying is no different, and there is nothing to stop a PPL being suitably qualified, but a CPL sets a higher benchmark expected for someone operating an aircraft day in, day out, in line with a commercial operation.
We have already seen organisations that push pilots to skirt bad weather or fly overloaded, stretch maintenance to the limit or adopt dodgy practices just to save a buck, and these are organisations primarily concerned with aviation. What would happen if any business could just buy a plane and use it with just 40 hours of flying experience, no oversight, no check on procedures, no systems to ensure they were not cutting safety for an extra buck. Some oversight is better than none.
I don't disagree with you - at the low adhoc end a flight with a commercial purpose is no less safe than any other, but what is the transition point from helping a mate to a commercial operation?
Where do you draw the line? At some point flying for commercial gain goes from being a favour for a mate to part of a business and hence a cost of operation. If you leave a loophole to fly for business as long as the pilot is not paid for it, you can bet someone will exploit that - "He is was not a pilot, your honour, he was a fish handler with a PPL". Maybe the flying is no different, and there is nothing to stop a PPL being suitably qualified, but a CPL sets a higher benchmark expected for someone operating an aircraft day in, day out, in line with a commercial operation.
We have already seen organisations that push pilots to skirt bad weather or fly overloaded, stretch maintenance to the limit or adopt dodgy practices just to save a buck, and these are organisations primarily concerned with aviation. What would happen if any business could just buy a plane and use it with just 40 hours of flying experience, no oversight, no check on procedures, no systems to ensure they were not cutting safety for an extra buck. Some oversight is better than none.
I don't disagree with you - at the low adhoc end a flight with a commercial purpose is no less safe than any other, but what is the transition point from helping a mate to a commercial operation?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with aora, it has NOTHING to do with safety here's why, using situations as example:
Situation A: One of the engineers, whose job it is to do engineering, says to boss: I have a PPL, why don't we get a 206, me a and 5 of the the boys will fly there, do the work and fly back, saving us a lot of time.
Situation B: Same guy works at a fishery and offers to fly some prize catch closer to town quicker.
A puts 5 innocent lives at risk and is completely legal because he's only transporting employees to the place of work. He does not need a CPL because he has not been *hired* as a pilot nor is an AOC required because it is a private operation.
B puts only himself and a box of dead fish at risk, but the company needs an AOC and he (possibly?) a CPL because he's carrying goods for trade.
Similarly, an acquaintance of mine would love to use an aircraft in his equine AI business, but legally can't because technically he's transporting goods for trade and not only that, people would hire him because he's got the aircraft and can get the stuff to them fresher and quicker. So it would be charter! He only wants and needs a little RA-Aus STOL aircraft...
That is complete and utter madness!
I agree a line needs to be drawn, but at this point is is being drawn in completely the wrong location.
Situation A: One of the engineers, whose job it is to do engineering, says to boss: I have a PPL, why don't we get a 206, me a and 5 of the the boys will fly there, do the work and fly back, saving us a lot of time.
Situation B: Same guy works at a fishery and offers to fly some prize catch closer to town quicker.
A puts 5 innocent lives at risk and is completely legal because he's only transporting employees to the place of work. He does not need a CPL because he has not been *hired* as a pilot nor is an AOC required because it is a private operation.
B puts only himself and a box of dead fish at risk, but the company needs an AOC and he (possibly?) a CPL because he's carrying goods for trade.
Similarly, an acquaintance of mine would love to use an aircraft in his equine AI business, but legally can't because technically he's transporting goods for trade and not only that, people would hire him because he's got the aircraft and can get the stuff to them fresher and quicker. So it would be charter! He only wants and needs a little RA-Aus STOL aircraft...
That is complete and utter madness!
I agree a line needs to be drawn, but at this point is is being drawn in completely the wrong location.
Where do you draw the line? At some point flying for commercial gain goes from being a favour for a mate to part of a business and hence a cost of operation. If you leave a loophole to fly for business as long as the pilot is not paid for it, you can bet someone will exploit that -
The point that Aroa is making, that seems to be lost on most of you, is that the Civil Aviation Act 1988 was amended, over 10 years ago, to eliminate "commercial" regulation from CASA's hands, CAR 206 is a carryover from another Act ---- CASA CANNOT make regulations based on commercial considerations ---- it is SUPPOSED to be about risk management.
Interestingly, CAR 206 was (in part) the result of a previous legislative change, to eliminate the "hire and reward" principle from a determinant in classifying operations ---- which is why a jump pilot with a PPL can be paid ---- but has become a legal minefield in it's own right, as is the "definition" of RPT, anything but defined ---- and again an unintended consequence of aborted regulatory change in late 1980s through early 1990s'.
And yet, many of you, in this thread and many previous, keep bringing up "hire and reward" as a factor, it ain't, as it ain't anywhere (any longer --- because it was repealed) in the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[CODE][/T28D
Simple answer is no, the FAA is a safety regulator, only CASA is a Commercial Activies Regulator.
CODE]
The CASA board(s) and CEOs have known of the unlawfulness of R 206 ever since the minister made the removal of "commercial" the essence of his second reading of the amendment to the Act in 1998. 14 years later like that other too difficult revision program NOTHING. At least their non action cost CASA nothing. GA losses in the millions if my own is anything to go by. I need to change that the internal and contract legal costs probably run into $millions!
CASA being the Model Litigant par example naturally has always followed such rules religiously
Overal change is blocked by CASA's eventual residual liabilities for having persecuted so many into oblivion. Their actions to date have been deliberately criminal under several laws. Especially when their several Directors have gone on record in their admission. Is this deceit, stupidity or deliberate?
The worst would have to be knowledge that Charter flights are dangerous when compared to RPT. Where is their concern for safety. Duty of Care comes to mind. Doesn't that make CASA responsible for the like of the Mt Hotham fatal and many others. They knowingly condoned such operators. "imminent risk" comes to mind.
Maybe it is time that at least GA is nationalized (like in many other third world burocracies) so that the CASA control freaks can further run it into the ground.
Getting back to the Pvt vs Charter the only safety angle is the knowledge of dangerous goods carriage? Most Pvt/company aircraft used for business will also carry replacement parts which are a form of trade. The labour and part will naturally be paid for-charged out!
Fish rots from the head down!
Simple answer is no, the FAA is a safety regulator, only CASA is a Commercial Activies Regulator.
CODE]
The CASA board(s) and CEOs have known of the unlawfulness of R 206 ever since the minister made the removal of "commercial" the essence of his second reading of the amendment to the Act in 1998. 14 years later like that other too difficult revision program NOTHING. At least their non action cost CASA nothing. GA losses in the millions if my own is anything to go by. I need to change that the internal and contract legal costs probably run into $millions!
CASA being the Model Litigant par example naturally has always followed such rules religiously
Overal change is blocked by CASA's eventual residual liabilities for having persecuted so many into oblivion. Their actions to date have been deliberately criminal under several laws. Especially when their several Directors have gone on record in their admission. Is this deceit, stupidity or deliberate?
The worst would have to be knowledge that Charter flights are dangerous when compared to RPT. Where is their concern for safety. Duty of Care comes to mind. Doesn't that make CASA responsible for the like of the Mt Hotham fatal and many others. They knowingly condoned such operators. "imminent risk" comes to mind.
Maybe it is time that at least GA is nationalized (like in many other third world burocracies) so that the CASA control freaks can further run it into the ground.
Getting back to the Pvt vs Charter the only safety angle is the knowledge of dangerous goods carriage? Most Pvt/company aircraft used for business will also carry replacement parts which are a form of trade. The labour and part will naturally be paid for-charged out!
Fish rots from the head down!
Last edited by Stan van de Wiel; 2nd Feb 2012 at 09:30. Reason: More appropriate salutations
How about most CPLs having paid over 30K to have the right to earn money for what they do and some twit deciding they'll do it for free so they can wrongly call it private and stealing a professional pilot's work?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple answer is no, the FAA is a safety regulator, only CASA is a Commercial Activies Regulator.
In the OPs scenario, if he holds a PPL only, then the operation he proposes would definitely be illegal, as someone is paying for the a/c hire. If CPL, then fine (AFAIK at least).
gosh!... heck!... sorry
Using my aircraft in a business... not paying passengers /charter, and Im stealing some poor CPLs job. Give me a break. CASA as some dopey employment agency said I had to employ one... and any CPL that I might find did not, and would not have had the skills for my particular business...of which the flying was the idiot simple bit.
Thats an old CASA logic, if it flys then a CPL must be in the left hand seat.
Because really PPLs are second class citizens and dangerous.
Many business owners and coporations run sophisticated aircraft, and can be with a PIC PPL as its an 'in house'/ pvt operation.
In the case of the dumb CASA person letter the crab carrier was a charter operator anyway, and transporting sea food was only one mission of many others in the business, people hauling as well.
I am aware of CPL 'twits' flying commercial ops for free, to clock up the hours...thieving buggers, dont they know they're stealing some other CPLs job.
Yes, indeed. where to draw the line? I always thought it was fare paying passengers, and those that live beneath the airways, so the chorus goes.
CASA has had decades in which to pull its collective head out of its ar$e and sort something out ... but here we are in century 21 still battling on with the clusterfcuk which is 206. And the example of the AI business, that doesnt use an aeroplane, is a sad indication of that and how CASA has crippled GA.
And I'll leave you with this sobering statistic: over the period CASA was pissing away mega dollars chasing a PPL around the GAFA, in North Queensland over that same period there were 7 light GA charter accidents and 21 fatalities.
So you can see that CASA really do have their hand on something... and its not "safety".
Thats an old CASA logic, if it flys then a CPL must be in the left hand seat.
Because really PPLs are second class citizens and dangerous.
Many business owners and coporations run sophisticated aircraft, and can be with a PIC PPL as its an 'in house'/ pvt operation.
In the case of the dumb CASA person letter the crab carrier was a charter operator anyway, and transporting sea food was only one mission of many others in the business, people hauling as well.
I am aware of CPL 'twits' flying commercial ops for free, to clock up the hours...thieving buggers, dont they know they're stealing some other CPLs job.
Yes, indeed. where to draw the line? I always thought it was fare paying passengers, and those that live beneath the airways, so the chorus goes.
CASA has had decades in which to pull its collective head out of its ar$e and sort something out ... but here we are in century 21 still battling on with the clusterfcuk which is 206. And the example of the AI business, that doesnt use an aeroplane, is a sad indication of that and how CASA has crippled GA.
And I'll leave you with this sobering statistic: over the period CASA was pissing away mega dollars chasing a PPL around the GAFA, in North Queensland over that same period there were 7 light GA charter accidents and 21 fatalities.
So you can see that CASA really do have their hand on something... and its not "safety".
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about most CPLs having paid over 30K to have the right to earn money for what they do and some twit deciding they'll do it for free so they can wrongly call it private and stealing a professional pilot's work?
Yes, indeed. where to draw the line? I always thought it was fare paying passengers, and those that live beneath the airways, so the chorus goes.
There are many truck operators that would love to run a few metros, D0228, cheiftains or vans on a 'private' basis to move goods that little bit further for less. Being a private op there would be no need for an AOC, CP, paid pilots, no duty limits and private level maintenance on aircraft a freight runners paradise. Train up a couple of the truck drivers to PPL level and blast them off in a 40 year old PA31, private IFRs all thats required. There would even be a line of new CPLs to work for free to gain hours, oh, but you would have to drive and clean the trucks as well, for free that is.
If you are transporting any goods for sale or trade its a commercial operation.
If you are transporting yourself or workers for your company they are not 'goods' and it is a private operation. If you go somewhere to work you are providing a service to a customer. The companies insurance may be more restrictive on this however than CASA will ever be on a charter, you just have to see some of the mining companies minimum requirements for pilots for this.
RPT vs Charter, the only difference is the sale of individual seats by the operator when it comes to classification.
Last edited by 43Inches; 2nd Feb 2012 at 20:41.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many truck operators that would love to run a few metros, D0228, cheiftains or vans on a 'private' basis to move goods that little bit further for less.
Though your case is relevant to the OP, as he would be transporting commercial stuff for a friend, I think the thread has moved on to the absurdity of every good being moved for trade being commercial. Like my mate's AI business would do.
That you can move people for a commercial reason in a private op but not something you want to hand over to a customer is absurd.
I know a doctor that flies himself to rural town to do clinics. I guess that is fine until he charges someone for some medicine he leaves with them. Then he'd need an AOC and CPL, right?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
If you are transporting any goods for sale or trade its a commercial operation.
Optometrist....travels around checks peoples eyes, prescribes new glasses. The glasses come later...so no trade.
Doctors, GP travels around, gives you a flu shot.....
Hang on carried goods which is now jabbed in your arm, and his bill is $70 consultation and $30 for the vaccine.Vet.....preg testing cows......ArmUpACowsBum might be able to comment here, but thats no problem.
But while he is there a cow has a dose of three day.....out comes the big needle...
goods 
Now I really do not want to get into a legal "dung fight", but if and I say IF common sense were to apply it would go something like this.
Private = YOU, YOUR BUSINESS, YOUR OWN GOODS, MATERIALS AND FAMILY STAFF/CONTRACTORS whether or not the pilot is you or one of your staff, and no matter whether the goods/materials are being billed to your customer as part of your work or not.
Commercial = Everything else, such as taking someone elses goods that have nothing to do with you, your work or business, and being paid for it. In other words taking regular work away from freighters.
The catch with the last one is, when young Johnny gets asked by his neighbour to rent the flying school 172 and fly a coil of copper tube out to a cattle property near Thargomindah, and there is no such thing as a regular freight run there let alone overnight service. Young Johnny does not get paid for it, it is just a favour and he loves flying out bush, and the neighbours business reimburses Johnny for his flying school hire. Is this now commercial? What is the neighbour wants to go along as well, to install the air con and takes the copper tube and his tool box with him?
Kinda mucks up the "simple rule" a bit doesn't it.
You may complain that CASA will not do anything about CAR 206. What you are doing is shooting the organisation that has the job of applying the legislation. The arrows should be aimed a little higher - try the politicians.
CASA do not change legislation. They can have an input into the making, but the OLC has a say and the politicians pass it into law or not.
So if you wish to have the legislation changed or clarified, lobby the politicians.
CASA do not change legislation. They can have an input into the making, but the OLC has a say and the politicians pass it into law or not.
So if you wish to have the legislation changed or clarified, lobby the politicians.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA do not change legislation
CASA do not change legislation. They can have an input into the making, but the OLC has a say and the politicians pass it into law or not.
You show your "ignorance" at
They can have an input into the making, but the OLC has a say and the politicians pass it into law or not
So now we have Politicians, few of whom have any aviation knowledge, fielding material to be the basis of legislation. Does CASA even bother (given their workload) commenting on such proposed legislation.
Do you really believe your own statement or are you so "brain"?washed by the system. There is such a thing as "duty of care" - if in traffic you observe a danger to the public I take it you feel no responsibility to report this to those that are in a position to act (fill the hole), just leave it to somebody else.
In your position with CASA you may be able to access the work already done in respect of R 206 since 1998 or at least the advice to the "politicians" in regard a much needed overhaul which only they can provide. If we the public could be provided with such information it would resolve some of these matters. F.O.I. has been unable to unearth anything of relevance!
Maybe you and your colleagues should stick to the safety concerns and leave the "commercial" aspects alone. or as appears the intent just nationalize and show the world how good you are at ruining business. but what ever you do please don't fly whilst in your confused (mental) condition.
THE fish rots from the head down!
Aroa,
I was (jokingly....) referring to Commercial ops, such as the original scenario, that are undertaken by non commercial persons. Couldn't give a sht if you own the plane and goods because THAT'S PRIVATE!
As for hour builders, yup, and many of those are meat bomber pilots who fly for nothing. Perpetuates the attitude of the jump oprators who won't pay because there are plenty who'll do it for nothing to get the hours.
Baswell,
You house, your labour, private op. So what?
I was (jokingly....
) referring to Commercial ops, such as the original scenario, that are undertaken by non commercial persons. Couldn't give a sht if you own the plane and goods because THAT'S PRIVATE!As for hour builders, yup, and many of those are meat bomber pilots who fly for nothing. Perpetuates the attitude of the jump oprators who won't pay because there are plenty who'll do it for nothing to get the hours.
Baswell,
You house, your labour, private op. So what?
OK Guys and Gals, here's a 'hypothetical'.....
The local charity wants to raise some funds, so I offer a ride in say, a Tiger Moth, as a prize in a local raffle.
I am not making anything out of this, and no money is changing hands.
Now this Tiger is in the Charter Cat., and the operator has an AOC, so it is 'covered'.
The question is - Can this flight be operated as a 'Private ' flight , or is it classified as 'Charter'?
Cheers
The local charity wants to raise some funds, so I offer a ride in say, a Tiger Moth, as a prize in a local raffle.
I am not making anything out of this, and no money is changing hands.
Now this Tiger is in the Charter Cat., and the operator has an AOC, so it is 'covered'.
The question is - Can this flight be operated as a 'Private ' flight , or is it classified as 'Charter'?
Cheers