Originally Posted by
josephfeatherweight
Clinton, your post above is truly eye-watering and does a great job of summarising (for just ONE example of the ridiculous Regulations) how nuts the entire suite of Regulations is.
Thanks for taking the time to put this together and for your relentless pursuit for clarity!
I’d like to say: “It’s a pleasure”, but that would be a lie. I’m trying to get my head around CASA’s opinion as to how provisions which directly affect me (and lots of others) work, so that I can then form my own view on whether CASA is wrong.
For example, if CASA’s opinion is that a flight is not a ‘cost-sharing’ flight if the PIC bears the entirety of the direct costs of the flight, CASA is effectively adding the underlined words to the legislation: “the pilot in command pays an amount of the direct costs of the flight that is at least equal to the amount
, but not equal to the total of the combined amounts, that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided between all persons on board
, and no person other than persons on board pays any amount of the direct costs of the flight. My erstwhile colleague Emeritus Professor Dennis Pearce AO writes Australia’s leading text book on statutory interpretation. On putting words in legislation that aren’t there, it says: yeah nah.
And, at least so far as the subject of this thread is concerned, I’m trying finally to kill, cremate and bury the folklore to the effect that there is, and always was, a 6 POB cap on private operations. CASA has already agreed, for example, that the PIC of my 9 POB ‘charity airline’ can be a PPL.