PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - PPL Passenger Limit in Australia
View Single Post
Old 11th Jan 2023, 20:33
  #60 (permalink)  
Clinton McKenzie
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Canberra ACT Australia
Posts: 716
Received 245 Likes on 124 Posts
CASA's 'Guidance Delivery Centre' provided this response on 11 January 2023:
Overall Question: 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’.



Question 1: Am I able to act as PIC with my private pilot licence (with the required rating)?
Answer 1. Yes, the holder of a private pilot licence (PPL) can operate as pilot in command (PIC) on single/multi-engine class or type rated aircraft provided, they hold the single/multi-engine class or type rating for the relevant aircraft category rating on their PPL. Additionally, a PPL holder must complete an approved course of training in multi‑crew cooperation to operate in a multi crew operation as PIC or co-pilot on multi-crew certified type rated aircraft (private operations only).

Background on privileges and limitations of a PPL
A private pilot licence holder is allowed to operate an aircraft in private operations or when receiving flight training. Regulation 61.505 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) 1998 refers.


The CASR Dictionary defines private operations must not be an air transport operation that requires to be conducted under the authority of an AOC under Parts 119, 129 or 131 of the CASR or regulation 206 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR).

The CASR Dictionary defines air transport operations as;


(1) An air transport operation is a passenger transport operation, a cargo transport operation or a medical transport operation, that:
(a) is conducted for hire or reward; or
(b) is prescribed by an instrument issued under regulation 201.025.
As the proposed scenario in this enquiry involves more than 5 passengers financially contributing to the cost of the flight, it is not a cost-share flight and is being operating for hire or reward.



For more information on the definition of hire and reward, the Part 119 of CASR Acceptable Means of Compliance presents general examples (on page 8) of operational scenarios that might be considered to be conducted for 'reward'. This list does not attempt to cover all circumstances, or all variations of a listed circumstances. One such example provides a scenario of a flight or operation where the operator (which can be a sole pilot) receives a reimbursement of expenses (any operating cost such as fuel, landing charges, maintenance).

Question 2: What operational standards apply to the operation?
Answer 2: Based on the scenario described in the enquiry, the flight is an air transport operation, and the flight must comply with Parts 91, 119 and 135 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR). This flight operation would also need to meet various other requirements in the CASR and Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR).

Question 3: 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?
Answer 3: The privileges and limitations placed on the holder of a private pilot licence are separate and distinct from the operational authority required to conduct certain types of flight operations. A person who holds an CPL or ATPL and employed by an operator that holds an air operator’s certificate is authorised the carry passengers or cargo for reward or hire.

Question 4: Has there been an instrument issued under CASR 201.025 covering this kind of circumstance?
Answer 4: While not being issued under CASR 201.025, CASA instrument CASA EX82/21 – Part 119 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2021 (legislation.gov.au) (CASA EX82/21) has been issued in relation to certain operations not being defined as air transport. This exemption allows AOC holders and non-AOC holders to conduct private operations with non-paying passengers.


Most applicable to the scenario described in this enquiry (if you are the owner of the aircraft) is subsection 7AA(c) of CASA EX82/21 exempts air transport operations from requiring an AOC for the following requirements:


· The owner of the aircraft, or
· A passenger directly associated with the owner


Provided that:
· The owner of the aircraft is not given any reward for the transportation, and
· The aircraft is flown by the owner, or by a professional pilot, and
· The passenger is being transported for recreational purposes.


This exemption does not have a limit on the number of seats but does require the pilot in command to comply with performance requirements set out in regulations 121.390, 121.395 and 12.420 of CASR and associated MOS requirements, even though you may be operating an aircraft that would ordinarily need to meet the Part 91 performance requirements.

Question 5: If I 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’?
Answer 5: The cost-sharing flight provision in the civil aviation legislation has always had a limitation of having a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6 seats, including the pilot’s seat.


The maximum seat configuration for cost-share flights ensures that the size and complexity of the aircraft is kept within reasonable limits for a private operations flight conducted under the provisions for Part 91 of CASR.

Question 6: 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.
Answer 6: The licence and operational requirements for private and air transport operations are mostly not the same. While private flights must comply with Part 91 of CASR, air transport flights must comply with most of Part 91 and all of the applicable Parts of CASR for air transport operations (i.e. small aeroplane air transport operator must comply with most of Part 91 and all of Parts 119 and 135 of CASR).

Question 7: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?

Answer 7: The two types of operations are not the same, one is private operations, and the other is air transport operations.

In summary, within the context of the example provided, the flight would be operated for reward, hence it is an air transport operation, hence it is no longer a private flight, therefore you are unable to operate this flight under the privileges of a CASA Part 61 private pilot licence.

This guidance is current at the time it has been provided, however may be subject to change over time or at the discretion of the policy holder.

If you require further clarification relating to this matter, please reply to this email.
I sent these supplementary questions and comments today:
Thanks for your comprehensive response. I have a some supplementary questions and one comment.

In response to my specific question 2, you say: “Answer 2: Based on the scenario described in the enquiry, the flight is an air transport operation, and the flight must comply with Parts 91, 119 and 135 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR). This flight operation would also need to meet various other requirements in the CASR and Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR).”

The scenario described in my enquiry does not involve any hire or reward. How can an operation that does not involve any hire or reward be an “air transport operation”, given the definition of that term you (and I) quoted?

You cite the “Part 119 of CASR Acceptable Means of Compliance” as if it is legislation. Have you read page 1 of that document? In any event, the scenario described in my enquiry does not involve any hire or reward.

Or are you in effect asserting that CASA’s position is that all flights that are “cost sharing” as defined are conducted for “reward” within the meaning of that term in the definition of “air transport operation”? (And I respectfully urge caution and very careful consideration before answering that supplementary question.)

You say in response to question 5: “Answer 5: The cost-sharing flight provision in the civil aviation legislation has always had a limitation of having a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6 seats, including the pilot’s seat.”

What you call “the cost-sharing provision” in the 1988 regulations did not operate to limit the number of passengers in private operations, even in ‘cost-sharing’ operations. Under the 1988 regulations, an aircraft flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of any of the kinds of activities listed in CAR 2(7)(d) was deemed to be employed in private operations. The carriage of persons in accordance with what you call the “cost-sharing provision” – CAR 2(7A) – was only one the kinds of activities on the list in CAR 2(7)(d). And, most importantly in the context of my questions, the (usually overlooked) last item on the list was “any other activity of a kind substantially similar to any of” the other items on the list.

Were your answers below cleared by Dr Aleck?
Clinton McKenzie is offline