Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
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.
I agree that the word "commercial" is somewhat awkward in the context of the regulation. Thanks for the information about how it came to be there. It would be easier to pretend it wasn't there, but I am assuming if the word is there we need to to take notice of its meaning.
Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
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.
You are suggesting that all activities by a charity are by definition not commercial. I'm not sure that is true. I have been to an Op Shop, they appeared to be engaging in commerce to me. Also:
Myth: A charity can’t undertake commercial activities
Fact: A charity can undertake commercial activities
A charity can undertake commercial activities but must do so with the aim of advancing its charitable purposes
https://www.acnc.gov.au/for-public/u...ing-not-profit
Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
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)
We are back to CAR 2(7) again!. I see no link between CAR 2(7) and AOCs. At best, CAR 2(7) indirectly defines Commercial Operations, not Commercial Purposes. 27(9) refers to flying for certain purposes.
CAR 206 absolutely 100% says that an AOC is required for the purpose of
agricultural operations; with no qualification about who owns the land.
It seems that someone decided that is inconvenient so we will pretend that an AOC is not required. A better solution would be to make it easy to get a simple AOC, e.g. "I want to fly agricultural operations on my own land." "No problem - here is your AOC with standard terms and conditions."