Here is my response, dated 8 March 2023, to the above:
Thanks for that response, as far as it goes. Why CASA chose to answer just one of my most recent questions, and then in such an indirect way, is not obvious.
In any event, I interpret the response to mean, in effect, that, in CASA’s opinion, a flight will not satisfy the definition of a ‘cost-sharing’ flight if any portion of the direct costs of a flight are borne by any one or more or all of:
a. Angel Flight
b. One of the POB’s parents
c. Genericorp Pilot Supplies PTY LTD sponsorship fund, because the PIC has applied a Genericorp Pilot Supplies sticker to the aircraft
d. the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, because the PIC won an AOPA award,
rather than POB.
Please let me know if I have misinterpreted CASA’s response.
Further, your response omitted to answer 3 questions from my 19 February 2023 email and reiterated in my 1 March 2023 email. I ask them for a third time and repeat them here for convenience:
1. 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’.
If CASA’s opinion is that there is no hire or reward, in terms of the regulations, in that scenario, please just say so. If CASA’s opinion is that there is hire or reward in that scenario, please just explain the precise nature and source of the hire or reward that, in CASA’s opinion, is connected with the flight.
The scenario is a simple, real-world example and I – and many others - want to know the regulator’s opinion on whether there is any hire or reward connected to it. It cannot be that CASA does not comprehend the regulatory implications of the question, given that ‘hire or reward’ is an element of the definition of ‘air transport operation’. And it cannot be that CASA is not answering because CASA does not ‘like’ the implications of the answer. Regulators are supposed to regulate on the basis of a disinterested application of the rules, rather than whether the regulator ‘likes’ or ‘dislikes’ the way the rules operate.
Scenario for questions 2 and 3: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. The direct costs of the flight are borne by the POB, including the PIC, in whatever way CASA reckons satisfies that element of the definition of ‘cost-sharing’. There are 7 passengers. My partner in the front right seat, a couple of our friends are in the second row and their 4 children are carried in accordance with AC91-18v1.1 para 3.2 in row three.
2. Does CASA comprehend that the flight in this scenario is a ‘cost-sharing’ flight with 8 POB and, as a ‘cost-sharing’ flight, is not a ‘passenger carrying operation’ and, consequently, is not an ‘air transport operation’?
3. If CASA’s answer to question 2 is ‘no’, could CASA explain why its answer is ‘no’?
Again, a real-world scenario and I – and many others – want to know CASA’s opinion on whether it is a ‘cost-sharing’ flight or not, with the stated regulatory consequences. And to close off any potential distractions, I note that CASA has previously stated that it has not issued any instruments under CASR 201.025.