Please note that in our previous correspondence, Question 4 "Do you comprehend that the flight in that scenario meets the definition of one that is “cost-sharing”?" should have been yes. The text associated with this answer was consistent with a no answer, we apologise for any confusion this may have caused. Please find below responses to your most recent questions:
Question 1: Can you please confirm that CASA’s opinion is that a flight will not be ‘cost-sharing’ if the PIC meets the entirety of the direct costs of the flight?
Answer 1: The answer to previous Q.4, should have said “Yes.” The remainder of the answer text is consistent with a yes answer.
Question 2: Can you please confirm that CASA’s opinion is that a flight will not be ‘cost-sharing’ unless at least ‘some’ of the direct costs of the flight are met by POB other than the PIC?
Answer 2: CASA’s previous answer did not intend to express that some of the direct costs of the flight must be met by POB other than the PIC. That is not an element of the definition of ‘cost-sharing.’
Question 3: Can you please confirm that CASA’s opinion is that a flight will not be ‘cost-sharing’ if any person other than POB meets any of the direct costs of the flight?
Answer 3: CASA provided answers to two different questions whereby monies for the flight came from a third party, one being Angel Flight. You are now asking a more general question.CASA affirms its two previous answers on the issue and cannot provided a general answer to your question because it depends on all the circumstances of the arrangement.
Question 4: If it is CASA’s opinion that a flight will not be ‘cost-sharing’ unless at least ‘some’ of the direct costs of the flight are met by POB other than the PIC:
(a) what is the minimum amount of the direct costs to be met by POB other than the PIC?
(b) do each of the POB other than the PIC have to meet some of the direct costs?
Answer 4: Not necessary to answer – see answer to Q.2.
Question 5: For example, in CASA’s opinion, can a flight with 3 passengers be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight if I, as PIC, meet at least a quarter of the direct costs of the flight and:
(a) only one of the 3 passengers meets the balance of the direct costs of the flight?
(b) only two of the 3 passengers between them meet the balance of the direct costs of the flight?
(c) all 3 of the passengers between them meet the balance of the direct costs of the flight?
Answer 5: On any of these scenarios, the flight is a cost-sharing flight. The definition of
cost-sharing is silent as to the amount of contribution, if any, by a passenger.
Question 6: If CASA’s opinion is that more than one of the 3 passengers, or all of the 3 passengers, must meet the balance of the direct costs of the flight in order for it to be ‘cost-sharing’, what is CASA’s opinion as to the ratio of those passengers’ payment? For example, must they share, equally, the balance of the direct costs?
Answer 6: See previous answer.
Question 7: Does it make any difference to CASA’s answer to questions 5 or 6 if the balance of the direct costs of the flight is $1?
Answer 7: No.
Question 8: If the answer to question 7 is ‘yes’, what is CASA’s opinion as to the minimum balance – expressed in dollar or percentage terms - of the direct costs to be met by one or more of all of the passengers, in order for the flight to be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight?
Answer 8: Not necessary to answer.
Question 9: Where does CASA find all these nuances in the plain words of the definition of a ‘cost-sharing’ flight?
Answer 9: It is unclear what nuances are being referred to.
If you would like to suggest a change to the rules, this may be submitted to CASA following the links on this webpage -
Suggesting improvements to civil aviation safety rules | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au).