Promotion of cost-share private ops on Facebook etc

[TwoTango]

I'm wanting to get some opinions on something I've seen. As we all know, the CARs permit flights where the costs are shared equally between all aboard to be classed as private operations:

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, Part 1, Regulation 2
(7A) An aircraft that carries persons on a flight, otherwise than in
accordance with a fixed schedule between terminals, is employed in a
private operation if:
(a) public notice of the flight has not been given by any form of
public advertisement or announcement; and
(b) the number of persons on the flight, including the operating crew,
does not exceed 6; and
(c) no payment is made for the services of the operating crew; and
(d) the persons on the flight, including the operating crew, share
equally in the costs of the flight; and
(e) no payment is required for a person on the flight other than a
payment under paragraph (d).

Recently I have seen a group on Facebook (a social networking site for those unfamiliar with it) which is promoting cost-sharing flights for the sake of building up multi-experience for the pilot. This is the blurb given on the group (I have removed some information to prevent indentifying the pilot, since this isn't really the place for that):
Come fly with me on a beautiful scenic flight over Sydney Harbour!
The flight will take-off from Bankstown Airport, continuing over Parramatta where we will turn right, heading straight for the coast. From there we will descend down to 1500ft where i'll receive clearance to enter the harbour which will unveil beneath us. Once orbits are complete we will descend down to 500ft over the northern beaches, flying over Avalon, Whale beach and Palm Beach...Bloody Fantastic!

Aircraft:
Twin engine, 4 seated (3 passengers), with a cruise speed of 300km/hr...Good Fun!

Equipment:
I will supply all my passengers with headsets for communication; this also will reduce the cost as you won't have to hire them.

Flight Duration:
1 hour to 1.5 hours

Cost:
-Share cost of $90 each for 3 passengers only...(with 3 friends lowers the costs, plus is more fun to share the experience)
- share cost of $120 each for 2 passengers
Compared to other sydney scenic flight which cost $225 each just for 20min flight time...this is great deal..as i will also be contributing to the cost of the flight.

Get into it guys as this will help me achieve my hours that i need to get to my goal, plus we can have heaps of fun...! Pass this opportunity on to your friends....and don't forget your camera! Thanks
My question is, by promoting his flights in such a manner, is the pilot violating the regulation quoted above, specifically paragraph (a)? Facebook requires you to become a member of the site before you can have access to any groups, however there is no restriction on who may join Facebook, and the group is able to be found by entering a fairly generic search, or by seeing it in any of your friend's profiles if they are a member of it. In my opinion, this would class it as a public announcement. Then again, paragraph (a) refers to "the flight", so by promoting his operation in general rather than a specific flight, does he remain within the bounds set by the regulations? In a nutshell, is what he is doing a violation of the regulations or not?

CARs aside, does anyone feel that by doing this, he is taking away work from legitimate operators and commercial pilots? Or do you think it is a fair thing to be doing, and not worth getting upset over?

[Islander Jock]

Tango Two,

Seems clearly in breach of sub para (a) to me.
I remember when I did my CPL flight test, one of the first questions the testing officer asked was "As a CPL, can you advertise yourself to take paying passengers in an aircraft".

In answer to your last question, maybe not taking away work from legit operators as the people he is attracting would perhaps not otherwise go on such a flight.

[Cap'n Arrr]

I asked CASA about this rule a while ago, and they explained that the way they interpret it is that it is designed so that those not operating under an AoC cannot take business away from legitimate businesses.

In this case:

Compared to other sydney scenic flight which cost $225 each just for 20min flight time...this is great deal..as i will also be contributing to the cost of the flight.essentially says to me that he is SELLING this way to build his hours for minimal cost to himself as a cheaper alternative to the public than to go through a legitimate operator, and is therefore, whether that is his intent or not, trying to take business away from commercial businesses.

(a) public notice of the flight has not been given by any form of
public advertisement or announcement;If this was just a comment to a friend saying "I'm going to HBB orbits this weekend, want to come?", then that would be ok, but this is being ADVERTISED/ANNOUNCED PUBLICALLY as a service to members of the general public, and thus IS ILLEGAL:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Yarr!

[BrazDriver]

I agree with the previous statements. That is advertising without an AOC.

[morno]

Why doesn't he just get a job? There's plenty at the moment.

[ovum]

I did a similar sort of thing on two company intranets a few years ago (two major banks to be precise). Even though it was able to be accessed by thousands of employees from either bank, it was still not available to the public and therefore perfectly legit.

Facebook is totally public however, if anyone can create an account, sign in and view this message - then it's public.

It doesnt matter how CASA hope the regulation will be interpreted, or the 'spirit of the regulation' (cr@p I've heard before from CASA) when they wrote it. No court of law would say "oh well thats not what they meant when they wrote it". Look up the definition of public http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/public If the ad can't be accessed by any and every member of the public, then it's not a public advertisment is it?

[GUARD]

I reckon old mate multi-boy wants to watch himself on this one.

The Oxford Dictionary ( used by the courts I might say ) defines public as "adj. of, for, or known to people in general "

I think the intent of the legislation ( which is how it WILL be interpreted ) would envisage multi boy asking some family or work colleagues to share the cost of a harbour scenic and would specifically exclude him from making a PUBLIC announcement on Facebook.

Anyway, why put yourself through litigation with CASA just for the sake of 20 or 30 twin hours:ugh:

GUARD:ok:

[*Lancer*]

Groups on facebook can be created as 'invite only', in which case it would not be considered public but more of a club. In this case though, it's an 'open group', meaning anyone can join without invitation.
I think CASA would probably still have to prove that flights were actually taking place as a direct result of the facebook blurb. :oh:
BUT, given that facebook is a social networking site, in theory what he is doing is no different to soliciting at the local aero club, or here!

[Peter Fanelli]

Look up the definition of public http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/public If the ad can't be accessed by any and every member of the public, then it's not a public advertisment is it?



By publishing your ad on an intranet you made it "not private" and accessible to persons unknown to you. Being read by every member of the public is not a requirement for something to be public, or in public.

I also suggest that the people who had access to the intranets concerned being bank staff formed a community or common interest group as per definitions 11 and 12 of the website you cite.

In my opinion you broke the law, but that's just my opinion. You don't have to believe it.

[Icarus53]

the way they interpret it is that it is designed so that those not operating under an AoC cannot take business away from legitimate businesses

I would have thought that this is less about threat to certified businesses than it is about risk to the consumer. As the regulator, CASA has a responsibility to the travelling public to ensure a standard of flight proficiency and training, (as well as aircraft maintenance standards etc.) If the guy doesn't hold a CPL, then he presents a greater risk to a public person, who may or may not be aware of the degree of training this pilot has undergone.

Additionally, where is he getting the aircraft? If he is effectively doing charter operations using a aircraft operating under an AOC that does not specify charter ops, again he is circumventing the risk assessment process that would be applied if he were to do the same flight under an AOC. This has flow on consequences in terms of liability for insurance purposes if the aircraft owner/operator is not aware of what the pilot is actually doing.

Any legal types care to offer an opinion as to what would happen here in any civil case arising from injury sustained by a paying passenger???

Way too close to the sun for my liking,

Icarus

[StbdD]

I think one of the important terms here is "share". If he gets ramped he better have a receipt or two showing he paid into the kitty.

In the bigger picture, IMO the rule is to make certain that the paying passenger is being flown by someone appropriately trained and checked for exactly that.

Otherwise there would be no need for either the Commercial license or the ATP.

[scrambler]

After about 5 mins of searching I found the "AD" in question, definately in the public domain, for certain an ad selling flights (whatever the cost or arrangement). Certainly would need an AOC for commercial operations.

[Reverseflowkeroburna]

Agreed, easily found on the facebook webbie and thus making for very ready 'public' perusal.

IMO it seems to be quite blatantly flouting sub-paragraph (a) and aimed directly at nabbing the business of legitimate operators/CPL holders.

If I was in SY trying to make a living from this mugs game, I'd have something to say about it! :=

[thrustmax]

So assuming that the post on Facebook is private and only visible to your friends that would be ok?

[VH-XXX]

So assuming that the post on Facebook is private and only visible to your friends that would be ok?

Can't see why not... they are your friends after all and it's not visible to the public. No different to emailing them. If you have 1,000 friends then it seems a little grey. It would be hard for anyone to truly know the answer to the Facebook scenario until it's been played out in a court of law.



How long or well do you have to know someone before you can take them flying and cost share and does it even matter? eg. I'm standing airside leaning over the fence at the Marree airport during wet season. A family of 3 drive up and I start talking to them and we hit it off... we all agree to share the cost of the flight equally and off we go as friends in my rented 172. Lucky for me as I couldn't afford to fly around the lake on my own.

[Kelly Slater]

He has calculated his costs based on what would appear to be him paying an equal share, assuming the aircraft hire is $360, so at least he is not profiteering. I do, however, see him cutting into the business of legitimate operators. I think that the intent of cost sharing is taking your mates for a fly, not your "Facebook Friends" but as far as his legal standing goes, I wouldn't venture to speculate

[sgenie]

I have a question wrt to the original one - what if the advertiser of the flight held CPL? Would it be legit then?

[Andy_RR]

His "advertisement" needs only subtle reworking to turn it away from an offer, to just a description of what he occasionally does with his mates from time to time and why he does it. Then it legally becomes nothing more than bragging about what he can do in his spare time, rather than soliciting for paying passengers.

Punters who are game will probably ask him if they can come along too sometime.

Job's a carrot!

[Ralis]

you cannot advertise full stop
the only way this is allowable is if the general public cannot see this post ie, is only allowed to be seen by "friends". (btw you have to be able to establish this fact)

Just remember "its not what you know its what you can prove in court"
if it sounds dodgy, it is........... and there is a reason why people don't do this.

[poonpossum]

If he gets ramped he better have a receipt or two showing he paid into the kitty.

There would be no requirement for this in a ramp check. It's not a required document for flight.

[Andy_RR]

That's not true, Ralis.

He can say "I go flying with friends and acquaintances from time to time and we share the costs"

He can't say "I'm going flying next Wednesday, wanna come?"

BTW, according to (7A) if the pilot goes flying with his/her mates and pays for it all by him/herself, then technically it is no longer private ops because condition (d) is not satisfied.

edit: but it is satisfied with (7)(d)(v) - my bad. God, these regs are a steaming crock...!

[Andy_RR]

(slight diversion)


(v) the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made other than the carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft;


should be parsed as:

(the carriage of persons) or (the carriage of goods without a charge...)

whereas everyone assumes it says:

{(the carriage of persons) or (the carriage of goods)} without a charge...

The punctuation is truly shte!

[Ralis]

He can say "I go flying with friends and acquaintances from time to time and we share the costs"

He can't say "I'm going flying next Wednesday, wanna come?"

sorry Andy you are correct I did not make my point clear enough or with correct context, my bad

[VH-XXX]

I wonder if the pilot advertising for cost sharing has got his ATPL's by now as a good 6 years has passed since this thread was created :ok:

[DaVeAU]

Just ran into this topic (I see, this is an old one), and I have to realise that once I almost broke this rule. Maybe it's a bit too strict? Let me share with you what happened:

During my time building for CPL, I've got flight hours from my wife for my Birthday, and she flew with me. So strictly speaking point (d) (the persons on the flight, including the operating crew, share equally in the costs of the flight;" wasn't fulfilled.

Thank God she is my wife and we are on the same budget, this has saved my skin. Also it did not happened in Oz... :=

Anyhow make sure that you're getting an AoC before going for a flight with your fiancee she/he is paying for. :ok:

[Clare Prop]

He'd be more likely to get pinged by an insurance company if he injured one of his, er, mates during the flight and it came to light how the guy had got on the flight in the first place.

Saw a similar thing on a public group here, a bit sneaky the pilot got his girlfriend to do the posts so that it wasn't "him" that was advertising them. CASA were informed but no action was taken.

[LeadSled]

Certainly would need an AOC for commercial operations.

Folks,
A very common misconception, an AOC is required for operations that are prescribed by CAR 206,
There are "commercial operations" ( defined by money changing hands) in aviation that do NOT need an AOC.
Tootle

[aroa]

Yes.
And the smiling prosecutor said to the magistrate..." No person in Australia can take a photograph from an aircraft without having an AOC and a CPL."
Cop that. !! True or False.

But like I have always said, with CAsA any old Bullsh!t will do.

[RobRW]

Not just Facebook I might ad, I saw this advertised recently on gumtree, verbatim, the ad was word for word.

If CASA doesn't consider Facebook as a public domain, Gumtree sure as **** is - next step is auctions on eBay!

[gassed budgie]

A very common misconception, an AOC is required for operations that are prescribed by CAR 206,
There are "commercial operations" ( defined by money changing hands) in aviation that do NOT need an AOC

That's something that's bugged me for a long time. Someone can roll into town in their limited category, non certified aircraft, load up some of the locals, take them for a run and charge them for the privilege of doing so, and that's fine. I don't have a problem with that.

But if I was to pull out the 172 (the most produced certified aircraft on the planet, with one of the best safety records) on a sunny Sunday afternoon, run someone around the local patch and get a few dollars out of it, I run the risk of being vilified by CAsA if they get wind of it.

[rutan around]

In the bigger picture, IMO the rule is to make certain that the paying passenger is being flown by someone appropriately trained and checked for exactly that.

Otherwise there would be no need for either the Commercial license or the ATP. This is the part I've never understood. Apparently it is quite safe and legal for Old Mate to take passengers anywhere anytime so long as HE pays. The moment a passenger contributes it becomes unsafe and illegal.What's the difference? The weight of gold that changed hands? Who is safer a 6,000 hour private pilot or a 200 hour commercial pilot?

It appears on the face of it Casa is not so much running a safety organization. It's more of a protection racket for commercial operators.

The proof of that is shown in the case AROA alluded to. Aircraft with only the pilot on board is used to take some aerial photos. All perfectly legal till Mr Pilot sells one of those photos. Suddenly ( traveling back in time) the flight becomes dangerous and requires a commercial pilot with an AOC. 27 years and $400 million dollars still haven't removed illogical lunacy like this from our regulations. :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:






http://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=3489794) http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/quickreply.gif (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3489794)

[IFEZ]

'Its more of a protection racket for commercial operators'


Same principal with 7A(b) where you can't have more than 6 including crew. Designed to stop someone loading up 8 of their mates into a Chieftan and heading off somewhere on a cost share basis, thereby undercutting some commercial operator offering the same service, presumably.

[Lead Balloon]

I don't know why I bother to read and participate in the same ol' same 'ol folklore-based 'discussions' of classification of operations any more, but as an act of purest optimism to try to reduce the spread of the noxious weeds....

There is no 6 POB limit on private operations.

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[Stanwell]

Correct.
Thank you, LB. :ok:

[LeadSled]

Folks,
I have this wonderful letter from CASA telling me that, not only can I not take photographs FROM an aircraft that does not have a standard category C.of A., and is operated on an AOC, BUT ---- (think of all those lovely pics. of "warbirds" in Flightpath etc) I cannot take pictures OF an aircraft that does not have a standard category C.of A.

The specific alleged offence against CAR 206 was taking pics. of the HARS Connie from the back seat of an AT-28D --- a great camera ship, given the limiting IAS available with the canopy open. Both aircraft had Limited Cat. C.of As.

Just think of all those offences committed by visitors to airshow.

I simply do not understand the mind workings of somebody (in this case, an FOI) who thinks up such way out there waccy waccy interpretations, ( unless he/she is on the waccy baccy)much less a system that actually takes it further, to the degree of the threat in writing to proceed against me.

aspices juris non sunt jura

Tootle pip!!

[601]

flight becomes dangerous

Should read

"flight becomes commercial"

[rutan around]

"flight becomes commercial" CASA stands for Civil Aviation SAFETY Authority not Civil Aviation Commercial Regulation Authority.:ugh:

[Lead Balloon]

I have this wonderful letter from CASA telling me that, not only can I not take photographs FROM an aircraft that does not have a standard category C.of A., and is operated on an AOC, BUT ---- (think of all those lovely pics. of "warbirds" in Flightpath etc) I cannot take pictures OF an aircraft that does not have a standard category C.of A.Bull****.

You do not have a letter from CASA telling you that. :=

[LeadSled]

Lead Balloon,
Suite yourself, the whole matter was, in my opinion, instigated by one W. McIntyre, with whom I would think you were well acquainted.
He and I had certain "doctrinal" differences, you may recall.
You may also recall his proposals for a "Private Operations AOC" ??
The said FOI no longer works for CASA.
Am I going to publish it for your benefit, no!
Tootle pip!!

[Lead Balloon]

More bull****. :=

The only person who would benefit from the publication of the letter would be you, because you would thereby prove that what you said about the content is true, and completely embarrass me for calling BS.

If it's a letter written by an FOI in his or her capacity as an FOI, there can be no impediment to publication (other than that you might be shown to be bull****ting about its existence and content).

[uberfleiger]

'Its more of a protection racket for commercial operators'


Same principal with 7A(b) where you can't have more than 6 including crew. Designed to stop someone loading up 8 of their mates into a Chieftan and heading off somewhere on a cost share basis, thereby undercutting some commercial operator offering the same service, presumably.

A friend of mine does own a Chieftain, and we are aware of the 6 seat rule and the court case involving the owners of a Metro. It is therefore necessary for my friend to have legally registered organisations charter the aircraft. If a CPL wants to costshare a Chieftain he has to go through the drama of setting up a company. So then all such flights become "corporate".

[Checkboard]

Dick Smith was appointed by Prime Minister Bob Hawke to be Chairman of the Board of the Civil Aviation Authority from February 1990 to February 1992. He also served as Deputy-Chairman and Chairman of the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Aviation_Safety_Authority) from 1997 until his resignation in 1999.

In October 1991 Smith was the second person to fly over Mount Everest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest).[30] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Smith_(entrepreneur)#cite_note-everest-30) Dick and Pip Smith circled the summit, taking photographs. In Australian Geographic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Geographic) (January–March 1993) Dick wrote: 'The experience was unbelievable and I felt privileged to be one of the very few people to obtain permission from the Nepalese government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_government) to fly over the summit."[31] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Smith_(entrepreneur)#cite_note-Makers_page_46-31)
In 1992 Smith made another helicopter flight around the world, this time with his wife Pip. He bought a twin-engine Sikorsky S-76 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-76) helicopter. At their journey's end, Dick and Pip had completed the first east to west (i.e. against prevailing winds) helicopter flight around the globe, flown more than 39,607 nautical miles (73,352 kilometres) in the process and taken more than 10,700 photographs as a record of what the planet looked like in the last decade of the 20th century. He said, "I hope that many of the areas will be photographed again in 10 years' time from exactly the same positions"


... So if it's good enough for the Chairman... ???

[tail wheel]

I asked CASA about this rule a while ago, and they explained that the way they interpret it is that it is designed so that those not operating under an AoC cannot take business away from legitimate businesses.

In this case:


Compared to other sydney scenic flight which cost $225 each just for 20min flight time...this is great deal..as i will also be contributing to the cost of the flight.

essentially says to me that he is SELLING this way to build his hours for minimal cost to himself as a cheaper alternative to the public than to go through a legitimate operator, and is therefore, whether that is his intent or not, trying to take business away from commercial businesses.

If that is the advice CASA gave you, it is not correct. CASA must not/can not regulate on economic grounds (refer to the Act).

Any advert on Facebook (or any public media) contravenes:

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, Part 1, Regulation 2
(7A) An aircraft that carries persons on a flight, otherwise than in
accordance with a fixed schedule between terminals, is employed in a
private operation if:
(a) public notice of the flight has not been given by any form of
public advertisement or announcement; and

But watch out for that "and" as the factors from (b) to (e) must also exist.

[Lead Balloon]

Folklore built on folklore, as usual.

Reg 2(7A) is not a rule. It is a definition that deems one specific set of circumstances to be a private flight for the purposes of the regs.

It is not - repeat not - an exhaustive definition of the only circumstances that can be a private flight for the purposes of the regs. It is one set of circumstances out of a list of nine:(7) For the purposes of these Regulations:
....
(d) an aircraft that is flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of:
(i) the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft;
(ii) aerial spotting where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the spotting is conducted;
(iii) agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft;
(iv) aerial photography where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the photography is conducted;
(v) the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made other than the carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft;
(va) the carriage of persons in accordance with subregulation (7A);
(vi) the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes of trade;
(vii) flight training, other than the following:
(A) Part 141 flight training (within the meaning of regulation 141.015 of CASR);
(B) Part 142 flight training (within the meaning of regulation 142.015 of CASR);
(C) balloon flying training (within the meaning of subregulation 5.01(1)) for the grant of a balloon flight crew licence or rating; or
(viii) any other activity of a kind substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vi) (inclusive);
shall be taken to be employed in private operations.Bolding added by me.