More unintended consequences and crap drafting…
According to the Part 119 materials, the definition of “passenger transport operation” is:
(1) A passenger transport operation is an operation of an aircraft that involves the carriage of passengers, whether or not cargo is also carried on the aircraft.
(2) Despite (1), an operation is not a passenger transport operation if the operation is:
(a) an operation of an aircraft with a special certificate of airworthiness; or
(b) a cost-sharing flight; or
(c) a medical transport operation; or
(d) if the registered operator of an aircraft is an individual—an operation of the aircraft:
(i) that involves the carriage of that individual; and
(ii) does not also involve the carriage of other passengers; or
(e) if the registered operator of an aircraft is an individual—an operation of the aircraft:
(i) that involves the carriage of that individual; and
(ii) involves the carriage of other passengers; and
for which no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the other passengers or cargo.
Note that the exceptions in (2)(d) and (2)(e) apply only in the case of the operation of aircraft whose registered operator is an individual. Accordingly, in the many cases in which a private pilot hires an aircraft from e.g. a flying club or school and the registered operator of the aircraft is a corporate entity, neither of those exceptions apply.
The only way in which the operation of an aircraft whose registered operator is a corporate entity can involve the carriage of passengers without the operation being a “passenger transport operation” is if one of the exceptions in (2)(a), (2)(b) and (2)(c) applies. Most ‘ordinary’ private operations do not involve an aircraft with a special certificate of airworthiness ((2)(a)) nor constitute a medical transport operation ((2)(c)). That leaves one and only available exception: cost-sharing flights ((2)(b)).
There is no definition of “cost sharing flight” that I can find. The ‘old’ deeming provision in CAR 2 deemed one specific set of circumstances involving equal sharing of costs by POB to be the operation of an aircraft for ‘private purposes’. But there were many other kinds of aircraft operations for private purposes involving passengers, which operations did not require equal cost sharing.
The bottom line appears to be that if you want to go for a private jolly with friends or family in an aircraft whose registered operator happens to be a corporate entity, the only way it can be done without falling within the scope of the definition of “air transport operation” is if it’s a “cost sharing flight” – whatever that happens to mean.
And it also seems that gone are the days of mum, dad and the kids being flown in an aircraft owned by e.g. dad and flown by a pilot hired by the family constituting a private purpose.
Oh, it also looks like a lot of those “private” parachute operations just became air transport operations. Or maybe the pile of exemptions that I couldn’t be bothered wading through deals with the issue. Or maybe we’ll continue with the fiction that the meatbombs aren’t passengers.
(The drafting is either rushed or the product of an inexperienced drafter. If the “that” at the start of (e)(i) is necessary, there should be one at the start of (e)(ii) too. And (e)(ii) should end with just a comma, not a semi-colon and “and”. Poor quality control...)