I wrote to the CASA Regulatory Guidance Centre in the following terms this morning:
Dear CASA Regulatory Guidance Centre
Operational standards and pilot licence requirements: passenger transport operations that are not for hire or reward
I seek guidance on what operational standards and pilot licence requirements apply to ‘passenger transport operations’ within the meaning of the definition at clause 75 of Part 2 of the CASR Dictionary, but are not ‘air transport operations’ within the scope of the definition at clause 3 of Part 2 of the CASR Dictionary because the operations are not carried out for hire or reward.
For example, if I hire an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of 9 for a trip with friends and ‘cost-share’, what licence must I hold to be PIC? (Assume I have the required class/type rating and the aircraft may be flown single pilot.) I will not be remunerated, I will pay an amount of the direct costs of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each of my friends if the direct costs were evenly divided between all POB. There will be no advertisement of the flight to the general public.
It seems to me that the operation will be a ‘passenger transport operation’ because the aircraft’s maximum seat configuration exceeds 6 and the registered operator will not be on board. But the operation will not be for hire or reward and, therefore, will not be an ‘air transport operation’.
In CASA’s opinion:
Am I able to act as PIC with my private pilot licence (with the required rating)?
What operational standards apply to the operation?
I cannot find a passenger number limit on my private pilot licence nor a prohibition on me being the PIC of an aircraft engaged in ‘passenger transport operations’ that are not for hire or reward.
Am I missing something?
Has there been an instrument issued under CASR 201.025 covering this kind of circumstance?
If am able to act as PIC with a private licence in these circumstances, can CASA explain the point of the maximum seat configuration limit in the definition of a flight that is ‘cost-sharing’?
If the licence requirements and operational standards are the same, when the other elements of the definition are satisfied in the circumstances, the seat configuration limit element of the definition seems to me to have no practical effect.
Or is it CASA’s opinion that it is possible for an operation to both satisfy the definition of a flight that is ‘cost-sharing’ (other than the maximum seat configuration element) and be for ‘hire or reward’, but that is not the scenario in this case?
Regards
I can't help but think I'm missing something fundamental in all this. However, because all of the relevant things are spread across Parts and Dictionaries and MOSs and other instruments these days, I don't know what I don't know about where else I may have to look.