I beg to differ.
CAR206 does not diferentiate between
"....transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally..."
Freight companies, agencies and Australia Post are offering to transport freight by air for
persons generally. The freight company or agency does not hold an AOC authorising air service operations; is their advertising of an air freight service in breach of CAR210?
A person must not give a public notice, by newspaper advertisement, broadcast statement or any other means of public announcement, to the effect that a person is willing to undertake by use of an Australian aircraft any commercial operations if the last‑mentioned person has not obtained an Air Operator's Certificate authorising the conduct of those operations.
(My bolding.)
If the freight company or agency offering to transport freight for persons generally - an "interposed entity" - does not hold an AOC, it is then incumbent on the aircraft operator they engage ("
the last-mentioned person") to hold an AOC authorising the air service being operated.
On interposed entities CASA Policy states:
In such cases, especially where the entity is a travel or booking agency that advertises and sells seats on the aircraft it has chartered to anyone who is prepared to pay the cost for a seat, it is CASA’s view that the operator and interposed entity are part of a single enterprise, effectively offering accommodation on the aircraft for use by persons generally.
Indeed, it is not unusual to find purportedly ‘closed’ groups that have been created solely for the purpose of providing a conduit through which members of the public (i.e., persons generally) might be funnelled onto an aircraft.
I suggest that CAR206 requires any operator that conducts scheduled freight services for persons generally, either by direct promotion and acceptance of freight from persons generally, or via an interposed entity that advertises and accepts freight from persons generally, would be required to hold an AOC authorising the conduct of RPT services.
I watch a light twin engine aircraft pass through the town where I live, on schedule, five days per week. I am able, as are
persons generally able to deliver freight to the local agent of a national freight company or the local post office, pay the prescribed air freight fee and know my freight will travel on that aircraft.
I am not advocating that bank runners etc should hold an AOC authorising RPT operations, rather highlighting the "bad law" and absurdity of the current CARs and in particular CAR206. It becomes even more absurd when CASA incorrectly and repetitiously consider CAR206 is a safety regulation when in fact, it is simply intended to classify the categories of operations.
But then, Senior Member Mr Egon Fice, has correctly shot CASA's policies full of buck shot and in my opinion, provided the correct interpretation of the meaning and intent of CAR206.
The next move is up to CASA. Watch this space!
