Originally Posted by Frank Arouet
Who needs evidence if we are exploring a hypothetical?
It is not longer "hypothetical" when one cites a natural persons identity.
Originally Posted by LeadSled
PS: In the US, things like aerial photography, cloud seeding etc., generally where no passengers are carried for hire and reward, aircraft operate just under Part 91, General Operating and Flight Rules.
And that is the plan in Australia as well. The requirements under FAR Part 91 for aerial photography, and under the proposed Australian Part 91 are essentially identical as the requirements for aerial work now. It is illegal in the USA for a PP(A)L holder to take photographs from an aircraft as a business.
Originally Posted by LeadSled
Large slabs of our "safety" regulation had their origins in regulating commercial operations, a legacy of DCA days, and nothing to do with "safety", but once they are on the books, it is very difficult to get rid of them, no bureaucracy ever gave up power without a fight.
They actually stem from Australia being signatory to ICAO, and the requirements set out in most of our regulations come from various ICAO standards and recommendations. That is why the requirements in Australia are essentially very similar to overseas requirements as they are in the main adding the ICAO requirements to the Australian legal framework.
Originally Posted by Torres
I suspect an arbiter of Mr Fice's logical and rational reasoning would find "aerial photography" means operating a specially modified aircraft with fixed camera for the purposed of topographical mapping, generally requiring advanced piloting skills.
"Aerial photography" has no relationship to a photographer taking a photograph with a hand held camera out the side window of the aircraft. The difference between whether that photographer is an amateur or professional is irrelevant and is merely economic regulation by CASA, not safety regulation.
I disagree with your comments. As you are aware the Act and Regulations in the main are incorporating various ICAO annexes which Australia is a signatory to into law.
ICAO "Annex 6 - Operation of Aircraft", describes aerial work as "An aircraft operation in which an aircraft is used for specialized services such as agriculture, construction, photography, surveying, observation and patrol, search and rescue, aerial advertisement, etc."
I do not think it is necessary to define what each of these operations are when the common meaning and usage of the words is more than adequate to cover the broad range of activities. The Chambers 21st Century Dictionary defines aerial as "relating to or using aircraft" and photography as "the process of making a permanent record of an image on light-sensitive film or some other sensitized material using visible light, X-rays, or some other form of radiant energy. "
To try and limit photography to "topographical mapping" would exclude a lot of the technology that is used today, and future technological advances, for example multi spectrum scanners and receivers are used for vegetation density index mapping (i.e. used in farming to decide when to harvest crops or by police looking for drug crops in a natural reserve) and LADIR.
ICAO does not refer to only "operating a specially modified aircraft" for any aerial work operation. You are claiming "interpretation of convenience" by CASA, your comments I would argue are also an "interpretation of convenience" to suit the stance you are taking.
The rules for taking photos from an Aircraft in Australia are no different to what is required overseas, and the requirements are not onerous. Aroa could easily legalise their work under the rules by hiring an instructor and aircraft from a flying school. Most flying schools are permitted to conduct photography and surveying under their AOCs.
The requirements to conduct aerial work extend beyond just "commercial" regulation, the aircraft needs to have a different airworthiness standard, and the pilot needs to have a different licence category, and fuel requirements are differnt. To ensure that the aircraft and pilot meet this requirement, CASA (as well as ICAO) require aerial work to be undertaken under an AOC, and the AOC holder is required to have adequate insurance.
This thread has drifted somewhat from a discussion on charter operations being hired by an interposed entity that advertises and sells seats, to trying to justify the blatant disregard of the rules by a PP(A)L holder wanting to conduct single pilot photography business.
The former is clearly a case of an organisation trying to work within the rules, the latter is a blatant disregard for the rules for their own economic gain that could potentially be putting the populated areas when they are flying over at risk.
Originally Posted by LeadSled
Only aircraft with a standard C.of A can be used for CAR 206/AOC purposes (not true), therefor Limited Cat. C.of A.
It is not the CoA that is the issue, it is the maintenance release that has been issued. Aircraft being used for aerial work should have a maintenance release certified for "aerial work", not "private" operations.
That would be like using an "aerial work" aircraft for "charter" operations, the requirements (e.g. instruments installed and needing to be serviceable) are different. BTW some T6 aircraft can have a normal CoA, they are covered under the Type Acceptance Certificate A253
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...nload/a253.pdf .