And my latest round of supplementary questions:
I do not understand to whom the word “other” in the first sentence of your answer to question 1 refers: “CASA does not generally answer questions about other operator’s affairs or other operations.”
Question 1: If I put my hand up to conduct a flight for which Angel Flight has called for volunteers, aren’t I the “operator” conducting the “operations” for the purposes of that flight?
Question 2: Is CASA’s opinion that, but for the stuff referred to in the last sentence of the answer provided to question 1, the flight would have to be authorised by an AOC if I now put my hand up to conduct a flight for which Angel Flight has called for volunteers and Angel Flight subsidises part of my fuel costs for the flight?
Question 3: Where do I find a copy of Part 119 Manual of Standards so I can find out what has been prescribed for the purposes of CASR 119.010(2)(d)? My search skills on CASA’s website and FRLI may be becoming a bit rusty, as I have been unable find a copy. My apologies if it’s there and my search skills are inadequate.
As background to my further questions, I note that in answer to my question 2 below, you say: “An air transport operation is not determined by whether the reward would be more or less than the amount than would be paid by a person if the costs were evenly divided by all persons on board. The cost sharing provisions, which have already been explained, also operate according to its own terms.”
Your explanation of the cost sharing provisions, in your email of 23 January 2023, said: “A “cost-sharing” flight that is conducted in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of 6 or less is still an operation for high or reward. [Your “high”] However, as it meets the definition of “cost-sharing” it is not a flight that is included in the definition of an Australian air transport operation.”
Scenario for questions 4 and 5: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I have 3 passengers. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. I bear the entirety of the direct costs of the flight.
Question 4: Do you comprehend that the flight in that scenario meets the definition of one that is “cost-sharing”? The “entirety” of the direct costs is an amount “that is at least equal to” the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided between all POB. It’s an outcome dictated by the laws of mathematics.
Question 5: Where is the “hire or reward” in that scenario?
Scenario for question 6: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I have 3 passengers. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. I pay an amount of the “direct costs” of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided by all persons on board. The passengers give me $150 to reimburse part of my fuel costs. Just to be clear: $150 is much, much less than 3/4ths of the direct costs (including fuel costs) of the flight in this scenario.
Question 6: Do you comprehend that the flight in that scenario meets the definition of one that is “cost-sharing”?
Scenario for question 7: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I have 3 passengers. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. I pay an amount of the “direct costs” of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided by all persons on board. Angel Flight gives the passengers $150 to give to me to reimburse part of my fuel costs for the flight. Just to be clear: $150 is much, much less than 3/4ths of the direct costs (including fuel costs) of the flight in this scenario.
Question 7: Do you comprehend that the flight in that scenario meets the definition of one that is “cost-sharing”?
Scenario for question 8: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I have 3 passengers. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. I pay an amount of the “direct costs” of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided by all persons on board. Angel Flight gives me $150 to reimburse part of my fuel costs for the flight. Just to be clear: $150 is much, much less than 3/4ths of the direct costs (including fuel costs) of the flight in this scenario.
Question 8: Do you comprehend that the flight in that scenario meets the definition of one that is “cost-sharing”?
I get it that your opinion is that e.g. the reimbursement of part of my fuel costs constitutes a “reward”. But you say that, even so, a flight that meets the definition of “cost-sharing” is not a flight that is included in the definition of an Australian air transport operation”. I concur with that conclusion. And all of the scenarios above fall within the scope of a flight that meets the definition of “cost-sharing”, do they not?
Provided the flight is conducted using an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot’s seat, the pilot in command is not remunerated for the flight, the flight is not advertised to the general public and the pilot in command pays an amount of the direct costs of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided between all persons on board, the flight meets the definition of one that is “cost-sharing”. It does not matter who bears the balance, if any, of the “direct costs”. That’s irrelevant to the operation of the definition.