Yes, Seabreeze, that p16 is a practically useless way of explaining what a PPL holder is allowed to do. Apparently a PPL holder is supposed to go off to Part 119, 129 and 131 of CASR and reg 206 of CAR, to work out what operations have to be authorised by an AOC, then go off to Part 138 of CASR to work out what operations require an aerial work certificate, then go off to Part 141 of CASR … then Part 142 of CASR …then work out what an adventure flight for a limited category aircraft is, then work out what…, then work out what …, and having worked all that out, then come to the conclusion that, because the PPL holder is not planning to do any of that, the PPL holder can go ahead and do ‘something else’ under the authority of their PPL.
What would be useful guidance is an explanation of CASA’s opinions as to the scope of the exclusions from the definition of ‘passenger transport operation’. Those exclusions are fundamentally important for PPL holders to understand.
But for this thread, would anyone outside CASA have realised that CASA’s opinion – with which I happen to agree - is that a flight will be a cost-sharing flight even if the PIC meets the entirety of the fixed costs of the flight (and the other elements of the definition are satisfied)? Or that CASA’s opinion – with which I also happen to agree – is that a flight for which the PIC meets the entirety of the fixed costs and is not remunerated is not a flight ‘for hire or reward’? Some important stuff falls out of that.
But for this thread, would anyone outside CASA have realised that CASA’s opinion – about which I am very dubious – is that a flight will not be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight if, for example, one of the POB’s parents – who was not on board - kicks in $1 to cover the direct costs of the flight? Some important stuff falls out of that.
I’ll make a prediction, though: I’ll bet folding money that the folklore about there being a 6 POB limit on a PPL will persist, notwithstanding the number of examples of scenarios with more than 6 POB I’ve put to CASA and the number of times CASA has conceded that the operation can be carried out under the authority of a PPL, culminating in the statement from CASA that there is no passenger limit on the privileges of a PPL.
(Most of the good bits of the VFG – now VFRG – were written a loooong time ago and have merely been massaged to cite the new location of an old rule or to accommodate wherever a particular rule happens to be in the prescriptive versus outcomes-based cycle.)