Originally Posted by Brian Abraham
How is the photography case any different in essence than a business who uses an aircraft to support its operations and enhance the businesses profit making potential.
One is a private operation, one is not. It is not illegal to take photos from an aircraft as a private operation. When it is no longer a private operation, i.e. doing it for remuneration, you need the appropriate licences.
Originally Posted by Brian Abraham
Such as a trucking business owning an aircraft, and the manager flying a mechanic employee to fix a vehicle to get it back on the road right smartish, so it can get back to the job of generating revenue.
No different to the boss driving the mechanic in a ute, even if they hired the ute. Where it is different is if the boss was doing it professionally for other parties and charging them for the transport, then they become a taxi, and a licence is required.
Originally Posted by Brian Abraham
The employee mechanic does not have the protection of the operation being overseen by CASA, by way of an AOC, and the pilot need not have any professional aviation qualifications.
That is true, nor are they subject to CAO 48.0/48.1. They are covered under workplace health and safety rules as it is work related transport.
Originally Posted by Brian Abraham
Where is there any safety argument, or argument that the aircraft is not being used for commercial purposes?
There is a safety argument, which has already been made, one of the reasons why "charter' and "RPT" passenger operations are going to be replaced by a "Passenger Transport" category.
The transportation of the mechanic by road, sea, or air would be incidental to the business operation. How the vehicle is maintained internally would not be disclosed on an invoice to an external client. No different to other incidental services a trucking company may use, for example banking, accounting, and professional legal services.