Originally Posted by Frank Arouet
Are UAV owners taking photo's of "the enemy" without an AOC guilty of a strict liability offense?
You do need an UAV OC to take photos from an UAV for hire or reward.
Originally Posted by Frank Arouet
If Dick takes photo's during his round the world helicopter flight, where it is OK everywhere else but Australia, but makes money from Australian magazines in Australia when he returns, guilty of a strict liability offense?
You are making a lot of assumptions with that loaded statement. You have provided no evidence to support those allegations.
Suggest you look up the word liable. I belive Dick Smith would have had everything above board, it is possible to structure such a flight as a private operation.
Originally Posted by Frank Arouet
Hang on a minute, does the RAAF have an AOC? Has the Commonwealth Government got an AOC?
"State aircraft", i.e. military, are not "Australian aircraft" under the Civil Aviation Act.
Originally Posted by Frank Arouet
Does CASA have an AOC that allows it to take "educational" photographs from a Navajo? (why do I ask, well they admitted to doing this in the Airtex matter).
That would be a private operation. CASA can hire an aircraft, they can have their employees flying it, and they can take photographs for CASA use.
Originally Posted by Frank Arouet
If CASA started looking after the interests of the fare paying public instead of persecuting individuals on nebulous charges, just because they can, the whole place would be much better off.
CASA are just enforcing the rules, no different to say the transport department or police picking someone up at the airport for running a "private" taxi. In that case the car is registered, and the driver has an open licence, however to operate a taxi you are required to have the appropriate licences.
Originally Posted by Brian Abraham
are you really trying to tell me that Joe/Jane Citizen can take a bunch of mates for a private flight, and if some passenger, unknowningly to the pilot, has a camera and takes a photo with which they (the passenger) subsequently manages to purloin for some dosh, the pilot is guilty of an offense?
No one would know unless it got tested in court. However in my view that would be a private flight. The purpose of the flight was not to go and take photos for remuneration. No contract was in place prior to the flight to pay the pilot, and/or aircraft owner, and/or passenger who just happened to have a camera. One can only deal with the facts that were know at the time the flight took place.