Originally Posted by
andrewr
I think you are illustrating my point about people looking for loopholes.
A good starting point: Aerial photography (or substantially similar) is taking photos from an aircraft, whether they be film, digital, still, video. If you want an exception, justify why it should not be considered aerial photography (not just because you want to do it without an AOC).
Commercial? I'm not a lawyer but I suspect what is and is not commercial is well litigated. CAR(2) is a diversion because it defines Commercial Operations, not Commercial Purposes or simply Commercial.
An important point (explicitly spelled out in the regulation, not a loophole): The AOC is required for flying for the purpose of . Taking photos does not require an AOC. Selling photos does not require an AOC. Flying for the purpose of commercial aerial photography requires an AOC.
So ‘simple’ andrewr. Yet you and the two folk with whom Squawk has been corresponding seem to disagree.
As with so much of this complexity, it is useful to reflect on the history of the slow construction of the regulatory Frankenstein’s monster by CASA.
About 20 years ago, a change was made to section 27(9) of the CA Act. One word was deleted. The section was changed from this:
Subsection (2) [which prohibits the operation of aircraft except as authorised by an AOC] applies only to the flying or operation of an aircraft for such commercial purposes as are prescribed.
...to this:
Subsection (2) [which prohibits the operation of aircraft except as authorised by an AOC] applies only to the flying or operation of an aircraft for such purposes as are prescribed.
In short, the word “commercial” was deleted.
This enabled CASA to engage in the sophistry and empty rhetoric of pretending merely to be a safety regulator rather than what it was and remains.
As you have noted and quoted, the regs continue to reflect the original language of s 27(9). The phrase “commercial purposes” remains. Why weren’t the regs amended to reflect the amendment to s 27(9)? A complete lack of corporate competence and integrity on CASA’s behalf.
If you are correct and the word “commercial” in e.g. reg 206 has any meaning, it would seem to follow that someone can set up a high capacity RPT airline as a charity and no AOC would be required. That would seem odd, if it’s all about ‘safety’. (‘Bill Gates’s Free Poor People’s Airline’ - would be an interesting experiment.)
One can scratch merely the surface to discern another of the many distinctions that are made in the classification of operations scheme that have absolutely no causal connection with objective safety risk.
If I own an aircraft and also own and occupy land, I can pay someone to carry out agricultural operations in that aircraft on that land and the operations do not have to be authorised by an AOC: CAR 2(7)(d)(iii), noting that “remuneration” and “charge” and “payment” are expressly mentioned in other provisions of CAR 2(7)(d), but not (iii). If my neighbour also owns an aircraft and also owns and occupies the neighbouring land, my neighbour can also pay someone to carry out agricultural operations in that aircraft on that land and the operations do not have have to be authorised by an AOC. But if my neighbour and I then swap places - he occupies the land I own and I occupy the land he owns - those same operations in the same aircraft on the same land have to be authorised by an AOC. Go figure.