When is "Commercial" Commercial?

[Sunfish]

A friend rang this morning and told me he had to go to Wagga for a business meeting. He asked if I would fly him up and he could thus avoid the drive to and from Melbourne. He would pay the aircraft cost, I'd get a few more hours up.

As it turns out I'm tied up, so I referred him to YMMB and YMEN operators.

But niggling question remains, would such an arrangement actually constitute "commercial" flying? I think it would, even though no money would change hands, then there is also the little matter of liability.

[Islander Jock]

(1) Did he pay you personally for your services as a pilot?

(2) Did you contribute equally, in this case 50%, to the overall cost of the hire?

If you answere "no" and "yes" respectively, then I believe it would be classified as pvt ops. If however your pax only pay for the aircraft then it would not be classed as pvt under CARs

[notmyC150v2]

Why couldn't it just be two mates heading off to a certain destination. Does anyone really care where the money to pay for petrol and aircraft hire comes from???

Does it really matter if the reason for the trip was personal or business reasons?

What would the answer have been if the friend rang up and said "I want to see Uluru, can you fly me there".

[ROARING RIMAU]

It matters to your wife and family when the insurance company finds out from the businessman's wife how the flight was paid for........after you crash and burn.

[Walrus 7]

It's one of those grey areas that CASA has avoided clarifying until something happens by including in CAR206 the statement "and any other operations substantially similar to the above", referring to the list of ops definitely considered commercial. Who defines "substantially similar"?

Walrus

[takeonme]

I'm sure the wife would be more worried about things.

You get free hours.
He gets to Wagga.
Everyone kicks a goal.

[Torres]

Sunfish. When the lawyers get hold of it, just after the Coroners Inquest, the Courts will find the flight Commercial, thus elevating claims into the realms of liability under the Carrier's Liability Act.

The passenger was travelling on business to a specific destination. He paid a fee to hire the aircraft. Many new pilots fly for no pay.

It's commercial!

[sprocket check]

Torres

Many new pilots fly for no pay.

What do you mean?

sc

[Lasiorhinus]

Exactly like it sounds. New pilots are often convinced to work for no pay, under the guise of 'good experience'. They forget that no other industry would put up with operators demanding work-for-free.

Though the tide is turning, and operators are learning.

[tipsy2]

Torres................

CASA's business as the 'regulator', directly relates to how a flight is conducted between A and B, nothing more, nothing less. It is none of their business what happens once you have completed the flight.
Contrary to the view of a departed pilyk, conducting a flight and then, at the destination being involved in some business or a meeting or other matter, does not make that a commercial operation.
So if Ned Kelly and his gang jumped into his trusty 172 that Ned parks behind the Greta Pub and flew to Jerilderie, they then go and rob the local bank. Ned and his gang return to the airport and fly home to Greta. Are you telling me (as pilyk tried to) that Ned had conducted a commercial operation simply because bank robbing was Neds trade and he carried his brothers (his gang) with him on the aircraft.
tipsy:=

[WannaBeBiggles]

Tipsy

you are right, it does not matter why the flight was made, however it does matter if the passenger paid for the entire flight, a private pilot must always pay for their seat (in this case 50%), if the other person were to pay the lot they could be going to SYD to CrispyCreme to buy donuts and it still will be calssified a commercial flight.

[Torres]

Tipsy. Stop choking on your fur ball! :}

I don't give credibility to the many regulator's pilyks who have endeavoured to interpret CAR206 since 1988 and the repeal of the previous ANRs.

I was suggesting that in the event of an accident and a personal claim ending up in litigation, the Courts would possibly find the businessman specifically hired the aircraft for a fee, with the intention of traveling for a specific purpose, over a specified route - therefore a commercial flight, imposing far greater limits of liability on the aircraft owner and pilot/operator, than may exist if it were a private flight. The insurer may walk away, leaving Sunfish's estate exposed.

A common acquaintance once charged me $1 for an R22 ride in order the flight was deemed commercial for insurance purposes.

Some years ago, a PPL holder and commercial photographer took photographs on a private flight, which he subsequently sold. The regulator viewed the flight as Aerial Work, subsequently confirmed by the Court.

Be aware of the limits of a "private flight".

[sprocket check]

Lasio

New pilots are often convinced to work for no pay, under the guise of 'good experience'. They forget that no other industry would put up with operators demanding work-for-free.

Not correct. Every single industry where wannabes are ruled by heart's desire is subject to the same dilemma. In the music industry I have never met a muso or a sound engineer that hasn't done a free gig... just to get ahead. Here they call it paying your dues.

Same goes in Film, Television, but completely opposite situation of course in the construction industry, mining, accounting... who in their right mind would go digging for free? Who in their right mind would go flying for free? :hmm:

[Sunfish]

In any case, my mate got up at 3 am and has at least a fourteen hour day in front of him since he is driving.

I guess the simplest solution would have been for me to pay 50% and effectively receive four hours flying for the price of two. That would then be squeaky clean wouldn't it?


....Of course if we failed to return, how would the court know of the arrangement? But I suppose a file note by me would be sufficient.

[apache]

Sunfish....

sell him an orange (or something) for $800. fly him for free!(the profit you make on the orange will cover the cost of the flight)

If you give a friend a lift in your car, does that make you a taxi driver ?

[Dogimed]

Alternatively, you pay for half the flight, and he pays your beer costs for the next year?

[QSK?]

apache:If you give a friend a lift in your car, does that make you a taxi driver ?If your friend pays you for the hire or fuel, yes it does. Except you don't have a licence to be a taxi operator so, therefore, you'd be illegal.

The other point about sharing flight costs as a private pilot is that this arrangement under the CARs is limited to maximum of 6 people (ie costs can only be split 6 ways). In other words, a private pilot cannot take 7 pax and split it 8 ways (including the pilots contribution). Raises an interesting issue for pilots flying a whole group of mates on a fishing trip in a PA31 as a private flight.

[GADRIVR]

Torres is right...period...fullstop...underlined...QED.
Any other suggestion is either (a) naive (b)ignorant (c) plain dodgy and stupid.
Read the regs and orders boys.

[Hypo]

I am a private pilot and own my own aircraft .
I also import small inspection tools for industry.
I am prevented from taking some of these tools with me to sell when I travel to remote towns as carrying goods for the purpose of trade is deemed to be a commercial flight however I can take salesmen with me and pick up tools from local freight depot and then sell them . OK private flight.
Why? What is the safety implication of having a few tools on the back seat?

[Walrus 7]

I doubt that any of this would stand-up in court. As CAR206 doesn't cover how the costs are paid (only that the PPL must wear an equal share), you could easily argue that the businessman put the whole cost on his credit card and the PPL was going to give the businessman his share later on. I have done that before myself.

Walrus

[tipsy2]

What is the safety implication of having a few tools on the back seat?

None of course provided they are adequately restrained and not CASA tools :E

The 'tools' argument has been quoted to me as to also include, a laptop used for business, a mobile phone used for business and even a pen used to write business cheques.

But it is legal/OK for a PPL to drive a parachute drop aircraft. :\

Torres is of course correct, forgive me for simply highlighting the complete shambles of thought associated with the "Categorisation of Operations" from within CASA itself.

tipsy:yuk:furball:yuk:

[Islander Jock]

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 2

Interpretation

(7A) An aircraft (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s61.html#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).

Surely if all the above crteria of (a) thru (e) are satisfied, the operation is definately private?

GADRIVR, what other specific regs and/or orders are you referring to?

Torres, the case of the PPL holder taking up the photographer as we all know (or should) is airwork and therefore a commercial op. It would be an interesting argument though if the PPL holder was not made aware prior to the flight that the photos were going to be used for commercial purposes rather just some happy snaps being taken.

I am not convinced that Sunfish's scenario could be considered commercial (provided he paid 50% of the costs) although as mentioned by Torres, a berieved family would possibly try it on.

[VH-Cheer Up]

What is the safety implication of having a few tools on the back seat? Ask any CC about that when they're operating the last flight home or the return trip after a footy game.

Nobody likes the tools that sit in the back row.

[Lasiorhinus]

Raises an interesting issue for pilots flying a whole group of mates on a fishing trip in a PA31 as a private flight.

Not at all.


CAR 2
(7A) An aircraft (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s61.html#aircraft) that carries persons on a flight, otherwise than in accordance with a fixed schedule between terminals, is employed in a private operation if:
(b) the number of persons on the flight, including the operating crew, does not exceed 6; and

If the 'group of mates' including the pilot exceeds six people, its not a private operation. Doesnt matter who pays what.

[Torres]

IJ. In the instance I mentioned, the PPL pilot was also the photographer - 1 pob. His intention was to sell the photographs.

In years gone by I have heard of DCA/CAA prohibiting Vets, motor mechanics and stock and station agents from using private aircraft in the conduct of their business as the operation would be in the aerial work category.

In the scenario outlined by Sunfish, I was not thinking of CASA's reaction, rather the reaction of bereaved relatives when they discover their dearly departed paid for the flight. I guess if the 50% - 50% financial arrangement were documented, Sunfish's estate has a modicum of protection against any subsequent claim.

Tipsy. Don't mention parachute operations by PPLs. :sad:

Maximum 6 POB eh? So how does, for example, John Travolta operate his B707 within Australia; the B707 ferry flight from the UK that ended in Longreach; the Queensland Premier's executive jet; certain State police forces and a number of Cessna Caravans operate in private category, with no AOC?

[Lasiorhinus]

M20E,

Its nothing to do with safety. The regulation prohibiting carriage of goods for trade on a private flight comes from the CARs, not the CASRs.

If you can get your tools to the destination by means unrelated to aviation, good on you - and the Civil Aviation Regulations don't apply. But if you aviate your tools up there for the purposes of trade, then you need to ensure compliance with the CARs.

Whether it sounds logical or not, its not permitted under the category of a private flight.

[tipsy2]

So, using the explanation above by Lasiorhinus it would seem as though the previously mentioned trip by Ned Kelly and his gang to Jerilderie and return did constitute a 'commercial' operation. All because they carried their tools of trade (pistols) on the aircraft with the intent to conduct their normal business (bank robbing).:confused:

OK Torres I wont mention parachute operations by PPL's as you request:ok:

I must say I am having a real difficulty with notion that CASA can in anyway see it is within their sphere of responsibility, the time I spend not involved in preparation for or the conduct of, flight. :=

tipsy:yuk:furball:yuk:

[telephonenumber]

>>Maximum 6 POB eh? So how does, for example, John Travolta operate his B707 within Australia; the B707 ferry flight from the UK that ended in Longreach; the Queensland Premier's executive jet; certain State police forces and a number of Cessna Caravans operate in private category, with no AOC?<<
I gather the 6 POB arose to block a loophole whereby some company was flying Metros around with large passenger loads and, based on a cost share, declared the flights private. No AOC required etc.
So, as I understand it the trap only snaps shut if you want to cost share with loads over 6 POB. You can fly a 747 with 300 POB as a private flight as long as you don't ask the pax to cost share.
In other words, costs sharing cannot involve more than 6 POB.
I know it doesn't really read that way, you have to read all the paras in sequence to make any sense of it.

[havick]

Do you think they would even bother prosecuting someone who flies their own plane upto a job? I think not, CASA hasn't bothered prosecuting some of the foolishness that goes on by AOC holders.. I can't see them trying to follow something through as trivial as this.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

How say you if........

You, as a PVT Pilot, arrange to hire the acft to fly to Woop Woop return, 2 POB or 3, or 4.... and on safe return, you pay for the trip at the counter.

Then, later, you and your friend(s) adjourn to the favourite bar where you sort out the differences......

Seemed to work Ok in 'dem good ole days'......:ok:

No accident - so no 'litigation risk' - you all got back safely.
Big Bingle! - PVT flight to all concerned, so no litigation / risk to the family home etc.

(You DO have to trust your friends...)

[Hypo]

Lasiorhinus
You are correct CAR2(7)(d) and CAR206(Act,s27(9))both define the carriage of goods.
CAR2(7)(d)(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 hirer of the aircraft." shall be taken to be employed in private operations.
Does this mean that I could take a friend for no charge on a flight and he could take goods with him for the purposes of trade?(he is neither the pilot ,owner nor hirer)

Are not the CAR's designed to regulate the safe operation of aircraft ,if not what is the purpose of the CAR's

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

M20E

"I am a private pilot and own my own aircraft .
I also import small inspection tools for industry.
I am prevented from taking some of these tools with me to sell when I travel to remote towns as carrying goods for the purpose of trade is deemed to be a commercial flight however I can take salesmen with me and pick up tools from local freight depot and then sell them . OK private flight."

I don't think you have this right. It would never occur to me that what you describe above is a commercial operation.

You have used your own aircraft to transport yourself and goods that you own from point A to point B.

What you may do with the goods once you arrive at point B is none of CASAs business.

Dr :8

[WannaBeBiggles]

....Of course if we failed to return, how would the court know of the arrangement? But I suppose a file note by me would be sufficient

Actually you'll find that most personal insurance policies are null and void if death or injury occures on a flight other than an RPT flight...

John Travolta operate his B707 within Australia

I believe JT has an ATPL...

I know of a lot of people that use their a/c as a business vehicle and I think as long as the person does not charge for the flight then there really isn't a problem.

I know of at least two people that use a/c that are capable of carrying more than 6pax, namely a PA31 and a PC12... Never asked what the loop hole was.

[Hypo]

Havick,
I have spoken with CASA legal office and they advise that my taking of goods for the purpose of trade would be in breach of the regulation however as you suggest they advise that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute however they advised that in the event of a accident my insurer may refuse a claim as many insurance policies can refuse a claim if an illegal act is being committed.
Any lawyer PPRUNER's care to comment?

[havick]

M20E, I'm not suggesting that you go an bust any rules.. But how would anyone know what the purpose of your trip was if you spear in?

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

This is complete drivel that would never stand up in a court of law.

Cretins Against Safe Aviation are self pleasuring again!

My "tools of trade" are my brain cells (hard to believe, I know, but true none-the-less)!

I have been carting them around the countryside for 35+ years, as PIC of various aircraft.

When I arrive at my destination, I generally put them to work for a period, then quite often reward them by killing a bunch off with alcohol. I guess I will eventually run out - but what the @#$%!

Dr :8

[Jabawocky]

Tools of trade........

Lets think about this for a moment, say you are a lawyer....or Dr or engineer and you make the mistake of taking your brain with you......and then you use it as a tool of trade:hmm:

I might need to read the regs closer, but if you use your own plane for work just as you would your own car, how is that not pvt ops.

J

[Hypo]

Havick,
I leave home and fly to town "A" sell some goods then fly on to town"B" and bend the plane but survive. Authorities inspect the plane and discover invoices for goods. Reasonable assumption they can conclude that I was busting the regs?

[Hypo]

FTDK & Jabawocky,
It is not actually "tools of trade" but "goods" for the purpose of trade so if the aforementioned Dr or Lawyer doesnt actually sell part of his brain he is probally OK

[Jabawocky]

Here ya go regarding goods carried....


PRIVATE OPERATIONS CAR 2 (7) (D)
The following are regarded as private operations:
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;
vi. the carriage of persons, but not in accordance with a fixed schedule
between terminals, provided that:
• public notice of the flight has not been given by any form of public
advertisement or announcement; and
• the number of persons on the flight, including the operating crew,
does not exceed 6; and
• no payment is made for the services of the operating crew; and
• the persons on the flight, including the operating crew, share equally
in the costs of the flight; and
• no payment is required for a person on the flight other than a the
cost sharing payment above;
vii. the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes of trade;
viii. conversion training for the purpose of endorsement of an additional
type or category of aircraft in a pilot licence; or
ix. any other activity of a kind substantially similar to any of those specified in
subparagraphs (i) to (viii) (inclusive).


Any lawyers care to commennt and decode section 5

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;

[TLAW]

M20E,

Imagine the difficulties involved with transporting prostitutes!

[Jabawocky]

OK when you read point 7 its clear


vii. the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes of trade;


So one has to wonder if I had already sold the goods to someone else, they now owned them. I then as a gesture of goodwill take them with me, when travelling via his town, and drop them off, for no freight charge, but as part of my trip to wherever and back......they were not my goods. I just dropped them off to a mate/customer on my way past.

Or...... travelling the bush on your pvt holiday, your plane breaks down and the LAME from a local town drops everything, fills his plane (pvt) with parts and comes to your rescue. He flies back, so you continue and a week or two later you get a bill for the call out. Now if he invoices you for labour....its all good, but what if he invoices you for a fuel pump!

J

[Hypo]

Jabawocky,
Sorry missed 7 . OK no goods to be carried for purpose of trade .
LAME cant charge for fuel pump without busting regs.

[dudduddud]

Basically it says it's not a pvt flight if goods carried on the plane are to be traded and are currently the property of the pilot, owner or hirer.

ie: you cant take things in a plane to a different place if you are going to trade/sell them.

[dudduddud]

In the first scenario where the item has already been sold and youre just being friendly and cool and taking it to them, I guess the court would be looking at things like market values of the items compared to what you paid and how closely the difference relates to the cost of the flight.

[Torres]

"I have spoken with CASA legal office and they advise..."

Hahahahahahaha! :} Now you're trying to cash in on Tipsy and my joke!!! :E

OLC does not have the delegation to decide whether a prosecution is in the "public interest". The Act and CARs directs them to act in the event of a breach of the law.

"My "tools of trade" are my brain cells (hard to believe, I know, but true none-the-less)!

I have been carting them around the countryside for 35+ years, as PIC of various aircraft."

In that case, forget the Bonanza and hire a micro light!!! :} :} :} :} :}

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

:ooh::confused::\:{

[squawk6969]

Imagine the difficulties involved with transporting prostitutes!

I can think of a great way they can share costs:E :ok:

SQ

[Torres]

But who would pay the Fringe Benefits Tax? :} :}

[havick]

So a bunch of LAME's I know own their own aircraft and contract themselves out.. ie fly themselves and their tools out to remote area's to fix break downs, once everything is fixed, they fly themselves back home etc.. Sure it would be nice for charter companies to pick up the flights, but if said individual owned his/her own plane and was a pvt pilot, surely this can't be illegal..

[Lasiorhinus]

I believe JT has an ATPL...


Don't make the mistake of thinking Private Operation = Private License.

[Peter Fanelli]

I really don't see what John Travolta has to do with this topic, but....

From the FAA Database he has....

Private Pilot certificate for
single and multi engine land aircraft
with instrument rating.

He has type ratings in

B707, B720, CE-500, G1159, HS-125 and LR-JET

Limitations on his certificate are

CE-500 VFR Only
B707 SIC priveleges only


That is from the FAA on their own website.

He also employs a professional crew to fly the aircraft when needed or when he prefers to be with his guests in the back.

[tipsy2]

As I said earlier

forgive me for simply highlighting the complete shambles of thought associated with the "Categorisation of Operations" from within CASA itself.

Based on the discussion here since I posted the above, I see we can safely add that "the Industry" is just as confused as CASA is.;)

tipsy.........:{

[QSK?]

Lasiorhinus:If the 'group of mates' including the pilot exceeds six people, its not a private operation. Doesnt matter who pays what.Absolutely correct according to the regs, but we have all seen any number of "private category" flights over the years using PA31s/C208s/bizjets carrying more than 6 persons. How does Dick Smith using his C208, for example, qualify as a private operation when he could be carrying 8+ pax (regardless of who's contributing what)? According to the regs, Dick's flight under this scenario could not be a classed as private category operation and, if he proceeded with such a flight, he could potentially be in breach of the regs (as I currently interpret them).

The implication of CAR 2 (7) (D) (vi) as itcurrently stands is that, as a private pilot, I can't fly anything bigger (with a full pax load) than a BE58? If this is the case what is the point of any private pilot either owning a larger aircraft or seeking the associated type endorsement? How do the corporate high flyers get around in a Challenger 601, as a private operation, carrying more than 6 company employees?

I'd really like to know the answers to these questions from a qualified source.

[SeldomFixit]

Great - it's finally come to this. He wants the answers from a " QUALIFIED SOURCE"
So an answer from the 14 year old asking in R&N about whether or not an A330 being quieter than an A320 as it roars above his cubby house is using FLEX Thrust wouldn't be good enough for you then Mr " I want a qualified source on PPRuNe "
This party is over.
Qualified sources indeed!!! :p :p :p

[tipsy2]

QSK, licence category is irrelevant, it is the "Categorisation of Operations" being discussed here. I have a CPL and have conducted both commercial and private operations.

It is also irrelevant as to how many seats are in or occupied on an aircraft, specifically if there is no remuneration/cost share/contribution from any non crew occupants. I have been a guest on Dicks Citation and have never been asked or felt obliged, to contribute.

tipsy:=

[Hypo]

tipsy2,
If you look at page 31 of the CAR 1988 Amdt 14 March 2007 (7A(b)I think you will find any flight with more than 6 pob is not private.

[Walrus 7]

Tipsy2,

M20E is unfortunately correct. Not that long ago there was no restriction on the number of people. Hence rich people could buy their Caravans, Citations and even Chieftans and Navajos and cart their mates around free. Not anymore. Someone told me that the change was prompted by the GA8, which can carry eight and is well within the capability of the average PPL. Sorry, I can't remember who it was that told me, so I can't verify.

Walrus

[tipsy2]

Missed that in my amdts:{

There goes my DC3 days I guess (even though there is no payment).

Probably have to sell the A380 as well:rolleyes::rolleyes:

tipsy:O

[Sunfish]

I wish somebody in CASA would write regs in plain (plane?) english.

From what I can gather a reasonable person would have to assume that "Goods for Trade" would be defined as "goods for sale or exchange", because if it wasn't defined that way a Doctors taking his bag, or an engineer his calculator flying themselves to a workplace would be an offence....

In fact, it would make that famous aerial Pastor who flies around the Outback ministering to his flock a criminal if he took his Bible, if he didn't have a commercial licence.

[QSK?]

M20E and others:If you look at page 31 of the CAR 1988 Amdt 14 March 2007 (7A(b)I think you will find any flight with more than 6 pob is not privateSo, if I want to fly more than 6 people (including the operating crew) from A to B for no charge, what category of flight is it? Can't be RPT as no money is involved and its not a scheduled flight, can't be charter as no money is involved, can't be aerial work as the flight is only going between 2 ports and is not involved in airwork type activities, can't be military, medical or SAR - so under what category of operation can I do this flight?

[Creampuff]

One of the many factors that exacerbate the classification of operations confusion is that many people in the aviation industry are poor readers.

Read regs 2(7)(d) and 2(7A), twice.

Reg 2(7A) is merely a deeming provision. Its effect is to deem a flight that satisfies all of the criteria of reg 2(7A), including the 6 POB limit, private. However, that does not mean that only those flights that satisfy the criteria are private.

There's still reg 2(7)(d). Any flight that satisfies the criteria in any one or more of the sub-paragraphs in reg 2(7)(d) is deemed to be private, whether or not the flight satisfies the criteria in reg 2(7A).

Note that any activity of a kind 'substantially similar to' any of those specified in 2(7)(d) (excluding conversion training) is deemed to be private, and one of the specified 'activities' is reg 2(7A). So, if an operation is 'substantially' similar to one that satisfies reg 2(7A) - let's say there are 8 POB rather than 6 - it's deemed to be private.

The flight could also fall within, or be substantially similar to a flight within, reg 2(7)(d)(v).

Note, for example, that if I own an aircraft, I can pay a pilot to fly me around in that aircraft, and the operation will be private.

Note, as another example, that if I own an aircraft, I can pay a pilot to carry out agricultural operations on land I own, using that aircraft, and the operation will be private.

There's a difference between carrying goods you own for the 'purposes of trade', and carrying goods you own - tools - for the purposes of your trade. People who buy and sell goods are 'trading'.

Most of the complexity in these rules is caused by politics, not safety. At the heart of most of the issues discussed in this thread - which is merely discussion 1,000,423,002 in an ongoing series - is the underlying intention of the regs to protect commercial pilots' 'patch' and keep cow cockies in marginal, gerrymandered electorates, happy.

But don't worry - the 'new' 'simple' classification of operations 'rules' will be out 'soon'. Numerous head dabblers at CASA have said so, many times.

[QSK?]

Creampuff:

I've only got 2 words to say to you and that is:

Thank You!

[tipsy2]

I wish somebody in CASA would write regs in plain (plane?) english.
Unfortunately the Reg's and the like are written by lawyers or others who can only think that way.
None of the aforementioned 'writers' have yet to write anything that remotely comes close to the one and only primary law/rule/regulation that we all must adhere to.

That is the law relating to the relationship of and the management of Lift, Weight, Thrust & Drag.

All the rest is peripheral fluff of punitive measures and strict liability trickery. Also most fail the simple test of "Do they add to the safety of flight" test. They regulate flight but it's another thing to try and regulate safety. The road rules are a classic demonstration of that sort of regulatory failure.

But don't worry - the 'new' 'simple' classification of operations 'rules' will be out 'soon'.

I doubt it. :{

tipsy:yuk::yuk:
Not trying to upset creamy who does add value to these sorts of discussions. Pity he had to work with pilyks though:ok:

[bushy]

The rules are rubbery, continually changing, and are often made for commercial reasons rather than safety reasons.
That is one reason why they have little credibility within the industry.

[tnuc]

I know an aircraft owner that lives in a remote location, he owns and sell accomodation (holidays) at the remote location and then offers to pick the guests up from civilisation and fly them out and back for free. The same guy owns a shop at the remote location and he regulary takes his own stock out to his own shop(several flights each week) . no doubt some of the items he transports are pre-ordered but at the time of transport the goods are his own.
CASA has been trying to stop this pilot for years and nail him but have been unable to get enough/any evidence to do him over, the airworthiness inspectors use terms like "what he is doing is not illegal but is not within the spirit of the rules"

[Creampuff]

On the facts as you describe them, tnuc, the classification of the operation is clear.

I note that in Chegwidden v. White (1985) 38 SASR 440 (a South Australian Supreme Court case) a private pilot arranged to carry a group of people from Parafield Airport to Kingscote on Kangaroo Island and back again, with a week’s holiday accommodation on the island and the use of a car while they were there for an overall price of $500. The defence argued that the transport was free, the customers only paid for the holiday house and the use of the car. The prosecution said that it was a package deal, the transport was an essential part of the arrangement, and the pilot was paid for it. Judge Cox said:I am satisfied, on principle and authority, that if an aircraft operator agrees to provide, and does provide, a customer with a number of different services in return for a single overall charge, one of those services being a carriage of passengers or cargo on the aircraft, this will be enough to satisfy the hire or reward element. … It seems to me that there might also be a reward or recompense of the required kind where the operator of an aircraft flys a customer or his goods from one place to another in return for some substantial commercial benefit seemingly disengaged, in formal terms, from the active carriage. I may give a man a ‘free’ plane ride to Melbourne in return for an option to purchase his house or business, for instance, or offer to fly him to Kingscote and back if he undertakes to rent my holiday house while he is there. It does not matter that the benefit attributable to the act of carriage is intangible and difficult to assess in money terms, as long as it is substantial and actually provides the motivation for the flight in question.The judge decided that there were two possible interpretations of the facts, both of which meant that passengers were carried for ‘hire or reward’. Either:there was a package deal which included the plane trip as a significant component, or that the arrangement between the respondent and the holiday group was confined to the accommodation and car on Kangaroo Island but that the respondent’s motive or purpose for providing the ostensibly free transport was the valuable and substantial advantage he was to obtain by letting his holiday house, with a car, at the not inconsiderable figure of $500 a week. On either view this was enough to make out a case for the respondent to answer.This AAT matter deals with one of the more recent (failed) attempts to squeeze a charter into the private classification: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/1998/783.html

[Sunfish]

What if I casually ask a gorgeous girl if she would like to go for a flight and land and lunch at the excellent restaurant at Tooradin Airstrip (this mission aka: surf and turf, or "pretty woman" lite) , and afterwards........????????

Is that commercial? After all the judge says:

as long as it is substantial and actually provides the motivation for the flight in question.

The lady in question being "substantial" in certain respects.

Please explain.

[Creampuff]

Well Sunfish, it will be you, and not your 'substantial' female companion, forking out all the time, money and effort. She'll be the one at risk of being perceived as doing it for 'hire and reward', not you.

[ga_trojan]

Here is a scenario I know of where the owner got legal advice that contradicted CASA but had to close the business due not wanting to start paying enormous legal fees challenging it. I have changed a few things however the principles are the same:

Company owned aircraft, flying company employees on company business.

One employee happened to have a commercial license but was not employed in that capacity.

The company was not selling products to the customer however they did carry "Tools of the trade" For instance a carpet cleaning company flying company products/equipment out to a job then using these products and not selling any extra products in the process. The products carried on the aircraft were completely dispensed during the job. The aeroplane was used the same as a tradesmen would use his truck.

CASA deemed this to be commercial as they believed that by using his products he was selling goods for trade. The legal advice taken said that CASA were wrong. Suffice to say that service is no longer on offer as a result. Would have been an interesting one to see in court.


Another interesting scenario would be James Morrison. He has a company aircraft and his brother flys the band around when required. They carry the instruments on the aircraft. What's the go there?

Similarly if a singer is flown to a gig with just them on the aircraft is that private or commercial? In the town they fly to they are promoted as such, and their voice is the tools of their trade.

Food for thought!:}

[Jabawocky]

The Morrison gig is private.....its not a carter, its his plane etc etc....

The singer, if its his plane, refer above, if its chartered.....its not. Pretty simple example.

The post above I think is not so simple, but to me its private. Silly rules!:ugh:

[ga_trojan]

Pretty simple example.

Not really if CASA say that a hypothetical carpet cleaner who flies his tools to a job is commercial then if you were to fly a professional band around with all their instruments what is the difference? Both make money of out the use of their tools. One cleans carpets the other plays music.

However this wasn't tested in court so ultimately everybody is whistling in the wind.