he was unable to operate privately
...because he flew more than 900 hours in a year? Horse****.
Some of you blokes are getting Commercial Purposes (CAR 206) mixed up with Commercial licences.
I might have an ATPL but flying my wife and kids around doesn't come under CAR 206, doesn't require an AOC (or an ATPL for that matter) and is not subject to flight and duty limitations.
Nor does flying David Lowy's/Jamie Packers/any other rich bastard's wife, kids, friends fall under CAR 206, or require an AOC, or become subject to CAO 48.
There are three types of Commercial Pupose described in CAR 206:
- RPT
- Charter and
- Airwork.
The only category of airwork remotely close to these ops is:
(viii) carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft...;
...so transporting your employees, technicians etc around in YOUR corporate aeroplane is not Aerial Work.
I think the OP is referring to Tek Onsite, a company that uses pilots as site technicians to do something or other. They just use Aerocommanders and Barons like a work ute.
If their stock-in-trade is an intangible, such as the expertise of the technician, not goods, then does clause (viii) come into effect?
There is another whole argument about "Best practice" vs "minimal compliance", but surely Workcover is a more fierce regulator than CASA?
