Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
When you say “[w]ithout CASA EX82/21 it would be an air transport operation”, you don’t specify what “it” is.
By "it" I mean the scenario [QUOTE]
If i work for a non-aviation related company who hire out a plane and get me to fly them to and from job sites, does the company (or me) require an AOC?[/QUOTE] in the opening post of this thread.
But you omitted to acknowledge that the definition has more than one exception. As is obvious from the definition you quoted, there are actually 5 exceptions (assuming my counting of (a) to (e) inclusive is correct). (Those 5, plus the overarching hire and reward criterion in the definition of 'air transport operation', mean - at least in my mind - that there are 6 criteria that can have the effect of excluding a scenario from the definition.)
I'm trying to keep the reply concise, which is why I omitted the other options.
What are your thoughts on this scenario:
One of the partners in a business is the owner and registered operator of an aircraft. That partner is being carried with other passengers – who happen to be some of the other partners and employees in the business – on the aircraft for a flight from A to B. The pilot is paid muchos dollars by the owner/registered operator to fly the aircraft from A to B. The owner/registered operator was going to pay that to the pilot, whether or not the other partners and employees were on board. The owner/registered operator claims the cost on her tax return, as a work-related expense.
Walk me through why that scenario doesn’t satisfy the criteria in paragraph (e) of the exception to the definition of “passenger transport operation” you quoted at #31.
The owner/registered operator of the aircraft is an individual. That individual is being carried as a passenger. There are other passengers on board. But no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the passengers other than the owner/registered operator. Remember: The owner/registered operator was obliged to and going to pay the same amount for the flight, anyway.
The key question is how the court system interprets
(iii) for which no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the other persons or cargo.
I can't answer that one - I simply don't know.
And you can’t cheat by pretending that some definition in a CASA exemption is relevant to the interpretation of CASR. That would be naughty. Ditto not understanding what a partnership is (and - perhaps more importantly - is not).
I concur that the definitions in the exemption is not relevant to the interpretation of the CASRs. I don't have enough knowledge about partnerships to be able to comment from that perspective.