CAR206 (1) (viii) is the Reg CASA use to catch out the private pilot mechanic, Vet or ---
Folks,
Twice, over the years, I have been a fly on the wall when a CAA/CASA person advised a well known professional person they could no longer fly themselves about their business.
One was a very well known renal surgeon, with an extensive rural practice, without whose services, there would have been no choice but for many people but to come to Sydney for treatment, the other was a very well known barrister, an QC.
Without going into detail, both made it abundantly clear to the CAA/CASA person that they had no intention of curtailing their professional practices, and would be quite happy to see the regulator in court. Nothing eventuated --- but---
Buried away in some draft legislation of the early 2000s, was a proposal for "Private Operations AOCs", and as with any proposal for "more regulation", they never quite die. Witness Part 132.
McCormick is well aware of the FAA approach to all this, let's hope we go that way, with many things that are now "airwork" no longer requiring an AOC, just ACs to cover the requirements.
One thing is very clear, there is a group in CASA who want to "redefine" private flying away to almost nothing, limiting it to "recreational flying involving the pilot and his immediate family".
That there is absolutely no pressing safety problem, to which this is the answer, makes not the slightest difference to the "regulaholics", for whom the cubic volume of regulation can never be too great, to solve a problem however small, or even existing only in the fevered imagination of the regulaholic --- particularly when the then Director of Aviation Safety say
"absolute safety" is the "policy".
One such CASA person ( I hope he is reading this) went so far as to "re-define" CAR 206 requirements for an AOC as ==="Any use of an aircraft that created a tax deduction". One of this chap's close mates is known to let anybody who wants to know, that there should only be two kinds of aviation permitted === Military and airlines.
With such a balanced approach, and obvious respect for the intent of the Act and Regulations, is it any surprise we get a proportion of ratbag decisions from CASA.
Tootle pip!!
PS: One of the hilarious arguments is:
What is aerial photography, for the purposes of CAR 206? ---- One dingbat, now retired from CASA, claimed that you could not take a photograph
from or of an aircraft unless it had an ICAO Annex 8 Standard Cat. C.of A., and operating on an AOC. I personally invited him to take action against Boeing Corp, who had just done a photo shoot over Sydney Harbour, of a B 777 certified Experimental, with the camera ship on a Restricted Cat. C.of A. ---- and not an AOC in sight.