Originally Posted by
Okihara
I find that the many examples given above just don't pass the common sense test. I'm fairly new to the whole AOC concept, so obviously no starting place other than "
Who needs an AOC" makes for a better read:
https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/who-needs-aoc
where two aerial work activities could remotely touch upon the issue at hand:
- Trade Operations
- Carriage, for trading purposes, of goods owned by the pilot, owner or hirer of the aircraft on schedules that are not fixed and terminals
Now I find it a bit of a stretch to consider medicine to be a "trade operation". If flagging the carriage of her own stethoscope is such, then so would the fuel in the wings because she paid for it and it's helping her get to where she wants to be. Or her white coat for that matter. If the issue was to boil down to personal items, she could formally bequeath them to her husband who will gladly let her use them indefinitely.
And that's just one cooked up example. The tradie could argue the nuts and bolts belong to his company, not himself.
Folks,
Some time back, "somebody" ( could name them, but will refrain) in a very senior position in CASA developed the "theory" re. CAR 206 that any use of an aircraft that resulted in qualifying for any deduction of expenses or depreciation on you or your company's tax return, as a result of operating an aircraft, required an AOC.
The idea didn't last long, but caused mayhem where it was "enforced".
This was the same genius that developed the proposal for a "Private Operations AOC", whose definitions would have covered about 50% of then private operations, including the "tradie and his (her) toolbox", "doctor with his bag", :"businessman with his laptop".
You get the drift.
Tootle pip!!