PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Private flights and CAO 48

19th Mar 2002, 05:54

#22 (permalink)

429 CJ

Join Date: Mar 2001

Location: Three Tors

Posts: 405

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

<blockquote>quote:<hr />it would seem that parachuting, as it is conducted at many of the major drop zones, could reasonably be classified as charter. That would indeed be a very interesting state of affairs. <hr /></blockquote>However, was that situation in fact covered by...... <blockquote>quote:<hr />......parachuting flights on Saturday and Sunday” were commercial and counted anyway, unless they all (including the pilot) shared the costs or the parachutist/s owned the aircraft).. . <hr /></blockquote>Hmmm. I'm having a bit of a "gudanken" here, but would there be a bit of a coincidence with the words parachuting, and clubs perhaps? At least as far as I am aware, a club has either due paying members, or indeed cost sharing equity based partners, who either own an equal share of the aircraft, buildings, airstrip (if owned) etc, or indeed are an equal cost bearing members of an organisation (with a committee who "runs" the operation for them)? What of the pilot who indeed is a dues paying member of the parachuting club him/herself?. .. .then..... .. . <blockquote>quote:<hr />The carriage of passengers or cargo. .for hire or reward . .to or from any place . .is charter: CARs 206(1)(b)(i) and 2(7)(b)..... . <hr /></blockquote>Which would effectively stymie the private flying bit re: inclusion in flight and duty times, because it would of course be employment. Then why would the regulator effectively contradict completely with.... . .. . . . <blockquote>quote:<hr />A pilot shall not commence a flight and an operator shall not roster him for a. .flight unless during the seven days period terminating co-incident with the. .termination of the flight he has been relieved from all duty associated with his. .employment for at least one continuous period embracing the hours between 10. .pm and 6 am on two consecutive nights. <hr /></blockquote>Which brings one back to the question, is it (parachuting) private or commercial? One reg would appear to say one thing, and yet another points to another interpretation being allowable, albeit under effectively a different set of rules? . .. .And on a completely different discussion..... .. . <blockquote>quote:<hr />"take into account" means to include as a factor in the calculation. Note the distinction between the obligations imposed on the operator and the obligations imposed on the pilot. <hr /></blockquote>Now what piece of legislation gives the regulator the power to make what would amount to being heresay, under the guise of (I believe the latest term is)...."A CASA FACT"? This, whilst I concede that the whole point of an investigation into someone, or their AOC, has to delve into the past and take on board various accounts of previous happenings and occurences, does this exclude the regulators team of investigators from what would amount to "natural justice" in the form of corroberating evidence to support what might amount to an "untrained observer" (perhaps a beered-up passenger, or a small child on the ground), making a claim of fact that indeed may have little or no basis in truth or even fact? Much is made as to the suitable "qualification" of someone to either forcast something, or even to make a determination against someone or thing, so how come it would appear that what is good for the goose may not neccessarily be good for the gander? . .. .How can the regulator maintain a "level playing field", that is touted as being an integral part of our society, when it is seen that they (CASA) can, or indeed will, act on a tale told out of school, effectively out of spite against an operator? Is it time to at least try and simplify the wording of some of the rules that would appear to confound many persons in the industry?. . . . [ 19 March 2002, 02:10: Message edited by: 429 CJ ]