Significant progress! CASA’s latest response agrees that a flight can be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight, even if there are
8 POB.
Short point:
There is not, and there has never been, a 6 POB limit on ‘cost-sharing flights’. Any assertion to the contrary remains folklore.
(And note that a flight can be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight under the current definition, even if the PIC meets the entirety of the fixed costs of the flight. That is an improvement on the previous CAR ‘deeming’ provision.)
Further, CASA has also agreed that the PIC of my ‘charity airline’ using a 9 seat aircraft can be a private licence holder.
I’m confident that the answer to my final question on the subject, involving an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of 15, is that the flight can be conducted by the PIC under the authority of a private licence alone.
Short point:
There is no specified maximum passenger limit on the privileges of a private licence.
However, beware: CASA always has the option to change the ‘goal posts’ when it feels like it, using the various mechanisms built into the rules to avoid the inconvenience of legislative change. CASA can issue an instrument under CASR 201.025 or prescribe an operation in the Part 119 MOS, with the outcome that flights which could otherwise have been conducted lawfully by the holder of a private licence alone would cease to be lawful.
Here is CASA’s most recent response:
Question 1: 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.
Answer 1: This understanding of CASA’s position is correct.
Question 2: 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’.
Answer 2: Such a flight is a private operation. The pilot is not receiving any reward.
Question 3: 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’?
Answer 3: The flight is a cost-sharing flight, as whilst the persons on board exceed 6, the definition of cost-sharing flight only applies the maximum seat configuration. Whilst the latter term is not defined, CASA considers it refers to the number of seats as distinct to the number of persons that can be placed in the seats. Please note the total number of persons carried on an aircraft may be limited by its type certificate of flight manual.
Here is my follow-up:
Thank you. Those responses are clear and understandable.
One final scenario and question on this subject.
Scenario: I as PIC meet the entirety of the direct costs of a flight in an aircraft I own with a maximum seat configuration of 15 (King Air 350ER), with the corollary that no one else is meeting any of the direct costs of the flight. I receive nothing from anyone for anything connected with the flight. There is nothing in the type certificate or flight manual prohibiting the carriage of 14 passengers in the aircraft.
I note that CASA has agreed that that there is no “reward” if the PIC meets 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 the PIC receives nothing from anyone for anything connected with the flight.
Question: May I lawfully conduct the scenario flight as PIC under the authority of my private licence alone, assuming I have the necessary ratings/endorsements for the aircraft?