And thus the perennial arguments about distinctions which have no causal effect on objective safety risk continue. To ‘fast-forward’ to the conclusion, I’m confident I will eventually be able to get the folk tapping away in the CASA ‘Guidance Delivery Centre’ to concede that there is no set passenger limit on the privileges of a private pilot licence.
If we change the scenario from a cost-sharing flight in a 9 seat aircraft to a flight in exactly the same aircraft, with one of the passengers being the individual who happens to be the registered operator of the aircraft, the flight is, by definition, not a passenger transport operation if no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the other passengers (or cargo). The registered operator of the aircraft is just flying around a bunch of mates for fun, entirely at the registered operator’s cost.
If the flight is not a passenger transport operation (nor a cargo transport operation nor medical transport operation, which it isn’t in this case) it follows that, by definition, the flight is not an air transport operation, given that we now know from the CASA Guidance Centre’s response that no instrument relevant to this issue has been issued under CASR 201.025. (That is why I agree with the gist of what 43 said at #61.)
But I chose the cost-sharing example so as to tease out a specific point. Checkboard said:
The scenario flight [that is, a cost-sharing flight in a 9 seat aircraft] IS for hire or reward, because the passengers are paying you, and there are more than six seats. …
The first minor point to make is that the number of seats is irrelevant to whether a flight is conducted “for hire or reward”. The question whether an aircraft is being operated for hire or reward is not answered by looking to the maximum seat configuration of the aircraft (or the number of engines, or the fuel capacity….)
But to the more substantial point, you are effectively arguing that the pilot in command of a cost-sharing flight is not remunerated in the circumstances but the flight is nonetheless conducted “for reward”, are you not? (Perhaps that’s the CASA ‘Guidance Delivery Centre’s’ argument, too. We will see.) The reason I ask that question is that if the pilot in command is “remunerated” for a flight, the flight is, by definition, not a ‘cost-sharing’ flight.
So, the only way to remain within the scope of the ‘cost-sharing’ flight definition is to characterise the money the “passengers are paying” the pilot – your words - as
not being remuneration of the pilot but, apparently on your (and perhaps the CASA ‘Guidance Delivery Centre’s’) view, the flight is conducted “for reward”.
Are you able to define the “reward” in the cost-sharing example? Is it that the pilot is less out of pocket than s/he would otherwise have been?
Hang on a sec’. According to Angel Flight Australia’s website: “Angel Flight Australia subsidises fuel used on flights, negotiates the waiver of landing fees at many supporting airports around the country, and arranges the credit of any air navigation charges, thanks to the support of Airservices Australia. Donations to Angel Flight are used to subsidise fuel costs.” And bloody well done Angel Flight, its donors and volunteers.
But the pilots of those flights are less out of pocket than they would otherwise be, but for the fuel subsidy and other arrangements made by Angel Flight. Very few, if any, flights organised by Angel Flight fall within the exclusions from the definition of “passenger transport operation”. How can flights arranged by Angel Flight be lawfully flown by the holders of private pilot licences, if the flight is conducted “for reward” in the form of the pilot being less out of pocket than they otherwise would be? I would have thought that CASA would be licking its lips in anticipation at any opportunity to impose further regulatory requirements on flights organised by Angel Flight.
I find every flight from which I walk away to be personally very rewarding. I conduct every flight to get that reward.
Is “reward” in this sense confined to matters monetary”? If yes, that raises a whole lot of other interesting questions. I and a PPL mate, as an act of pure charity, utilise a 9 seat aircraft of which I am the registered operator to conduct twice-daily flights from A to B on which any member of the public may fly as passengers (along with me), on a ‘first-in, best-dressed’ basis. Those flights fall within the scope of exclusion 2(e) of the definition of “passenger transport operation”. I bear the entirety of the costs and the PIC receives not a cent. But we both get enormous personal satisfaction from our good works. If the flights are not conducted “for hire or reward”…
You (Checkboard) also say:
Before the cost sharing provisions came in, it was illegal for a new pilot to grab a Piper Warrior for a quick jolly with a couple of friends , and get them to throw in a few dollars for fuel, but it happened anyway.
Can you cite a judicial decision to that effect?
And how were and are flights arranged by Angel Flight ‘legal’ when they were not and are not ‘cost sharing’ and Angel Flight threw and continues to "throw in a few dollars for fuel”?
I’m always fascinated by the concept of a six seat “rule” when all it was, and remains, is an element of a definition. And I’ll give up pointing out probably the most important paragraph of the ‘private purposes’ deeming provision in the CARs 1988. I’ll try to put it this way. I’m the PIC of an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of 6 including the pilot seat, with 6 adults and one babe in arms on board. The 6 adults cost share equally and the baby gets a freebie. I reckon that flight was “substantially similar to” a flight that fell within the definition in CAR 2(7A). Others may have a different opinion. Absent an authoritative decision by a court or tribunal, these matters will remain the subject of perennial arguments.
And
note well: That flight could still fall within the scope of a ‘cost-sharing’ flight
under the current rules, because the definition
does not set a maximum POB number. It sets
a maximum seat configuration number. Maximum seat configuration, including the pilot, of 6, 6 adults including the pilot and 1 babe in arms by my maths equals 7 POB.