Thank you for the correction and apology for the confusion caused by the reversal in your answer to one of my earlier questions. We are now both of the opinion that a flight for which the PIC bears the entirety of the direct costs will be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight (provided the other elements of the definition of ‘cost-sharing’ are satisfied). However, CASA omitted to answer question 10. That question was:
“If I as PIC meet the entirety of the direct costs of a flight, with the corollary being that no one else is meeting any of the direct costs of the flight, and I receive nothing from anyone for anything connected with the flight, what, in CASA’s opinion, is the precise nature and source of any ‘hire or reward’ connected with that flight? And to close off any potential distractions: I’m flying my own aircraft, so please focus on ‘reward’.”
Please answer that question.
CASA also omitted to answer my questions 12 and 13. Please answer those questions.
In response to my general question about whether, in CASA’s opinion, any of the direct costs of a flight could be borne other than by POB and still satisfy the definition of ‘cost-sharing’, CASA answered:
“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.”
That does not make sense to me. Either the definition of ‘cost-sharing’ covers circumstances in which part of the direct costs of a flight are borne by someone other than POB or it does not, unless there is some nuance to the definition that is no obvious to me. It was for that reason, among others, that I asked: “Where does CASA find all these nuances in the plain words of the definition of a ‘cost-sharing’ flight?”, the evasive answer to which was: “It is unclear what nuances are being referred to.” CASA understands the point of the question and its practical consequences. But as it appears CASA will not confront these issues unless forced to, square on, I ask whether, in CASA’s opinion, a flight can satisfy the definition of ‘cost-sharing’ if $100 of the direct costs of the flight are borne by:
- Angel Flight
- One of the POB’s parents
- Genericorp Pilot Supplies PTY LTD sponsorship fund, because the PIC has applied a Genericorp Pilot Supplies sticker to the aircraft
- The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, because the PIC won an AOPA award,
assuming in all cases the PIC meets at least an amount of the direct costs that would be paid of they were divided equally among the POB.
These are all ‘real world’ examples.
I note that CASA provided, unsolicited, a link where I can suggest improvements to the civil aviation rules. As I anticipate that CASA will not take up my suggestion to improve the rules by cremating and burying the current ones, I have little choice but to try to work out what the current ones mean. I am far from alone. Hopefully CASA understands that it is difficult to suggest specific improvements to rules unless one first understands what the regulator enforcing the rules thinks they mean. That is why I am asking these questions and, presumably, why CASA has a ‘Regulatory Guidance’ centre.