Aussie jump pilot's cash

[stremair]

I have been flying a C206 in Adelaide Sth Aust for the past 2yrs and have clocked up 265 hrs and no money has been paid to me for flying,only for fuel costs to drive to the drop zone.It is not classed as a commercial operation,so it would be illegal to recieve money anyway.I have taken up the sport so I get some cheap jumps but if you dont jump you get nothing but experience,which is really what you want.Minimum hrs reqd are 200 total,100 command with 10 on type.These are requirements set by the Australian Parachute Federation and I have found that most operators req 250-300hrs due to insurance.Want more info?www.apf.asn.au/or email me.Cheers to a Happy New Year Fellow Flyers!

------------------
Dman

[BIK_116.80]

Sorry, but it is not illegal to be paid as a jump pilot in Australia.

Parachuting is expressly defined as a private operation, thanks to some very effective lobbying by the Australian Parachute Federation some years ago. But this does not place any restrictions on the financial relationship a pilot may have with a drop zone operator.

To illustrate, if BHP were to operate a bizjet for the transportation of their staff, and the accommodation on the aircraft was not available to persons generally (CAR 206 RPT) and no non-BHP legal entity was paying money for the accommodation on the aircraft (CAR 206 charter) then that would be classed as a private operation. The pilots would of course be paid for their services. This arrangement is entirely legal and bona-fide.

Now although your jumpers are paying big bucks to the drop zone, because of the special status of parachuting, it is still classed as a private operation. But that does not make it illegal for you to be paid.

It is of course your right to decide that you are happy to fly the jump plane for no pay. And it is of course the drop zone operators right to decide that the no pay arrangement suits him too.

But please be absolutely clear that it is in no way against the law to be paid as a jump pilot in any Australian jurisdiction.

[Anthony2107]

Hi BIK116.80

I had a posting previously asking how much jump pilots were getting paid here in Oz but was closed mainly because of my fault for double posting in the aircrew notices as well. Anyway I did not know that you're not suppose to have double posting.
On the subject matter,I totally agree with you. Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it that the only time this would make a pilot illegally being paid is when his license is only a PPL, because PPL's are allowed to fly this type of ops. ( CAO 29.1.0 (4.1) ) But a pilot with CPL can get paid ( of course with arrangement ) wether be it aerial work, charter/RPT or private ops.

A2107




[This message has been edited by Anthony2107 (edited 01 January 2001).]

[BIK_116.80]

Parachute operations in Australia are explicitly defined as a private operation. Even though drop zone operators can and do charge members of the public large sums of money for tandems and AFF courses parachuting ops are still classed as a private operation.

To pilot an aircraft on a private operation requires a PPL or higher licence. (Although some people may be able to argue that you can even fly parachute ops on a GFPT if you dont go too far from the airport.)

The employment arrangements between the jump pilot and the drop zone operator are none of CASAs business. A PPL jump pilot can certainly be paid for their services. This is not against the rules.

To go back to the BHP example, BHP could, if they chose to, employ PPLs to pilot their aircraft. This would be entirely legal since a bizjet which is not being used by other people or businesses in return for money is classed as a private operation and only requires a PPL or higher pilots licence. There would be no legal impediment to the PPL bizjet pilot(s) being paid for their services.

The only time that the Civil Aviation rules have any interest in the financial arrangements of the pilot(s) (and assuming that the pilot is not also the operator) is under the "cost sharing" rule which allows all the people on board a private flight (including the pilot) to contribute equally to the cost of the flight.

[stremair]

Well this is not the case at all! The only time you can be paid as a pilot in any operation is if the company has an AOC outlining the operation.CAR 206 specifies the catergories that an operation must fall under,if the operation is not one of those mentioned in CAR 206 then you can not operate it! Jump flying is classed as a private operation,so you can not be paid a thing. Any time you operate as a private pilot you can never make money,even in BHP,If you come to Oz expecting to make money jump flying don't do it!CASA will do you for it, I rang their office today and they told me so, ring your local CASA office and ask yourself, CASA quoted CAR 2 section7 & 7a

------------------
Dman

[BIK_116.80]

stremair, sorry mate but in all Australian jurisdictions you are incorrect.

Many people believe that a pilot can not be paid for their services when flying in a private operation. This is not the case. Many people also believe that the holder of a private pilots licence can not be paid for piloting services. This is also not the case. Indeed, there are a number of CASA staff who do not have a correct understanding of this area of the law.

Throughout the regulations the “for hire or reward” clauses almost always refer to charging money for the provision of “accommodation on board an aircraft” or for “the carriage of persons or goods”. These clauses affect the financial relationship between the aircraft operator and the people being carried aboard the aircraft. They do not refer to the provision of pilot labour or the financial or employment arrangements between the aircraft operator and the pilot. (The exceptions being aerial spotting, aerial photography and “cost sharing” private flights – see below.)

To illustrate the difference, if a friend of mine rings me and says “can you organise a plane and take me to Broken Hill” then I would be the aircraft operator (over and above being just the pilot) since I have organised for the “carriage of persons or goods on board an aircraft”. If I charge him money for carriage on board the aircraft then this would of course be classed as a commercial operation. I would need all the requisite ingredients (AOC, CPL, passenger carriers liability insurance etc). To charge money for the carriage of persons or goods on board the aircraft without any one of the required pieces of paper would be against the law.

HOWEVER, if I am a PPL and my mate owns his own aeroplane, and he wants me to fly it somewhere for him, then there is no legal impediment to me charging him money for my labour. The flight might be simply a positioning flight, my mate and/or his family might be on board, or maybe he runs some sort of business and needs to transport his staff somewhere. He has provided the aircraft and he has organised “the carriage of persons or goods on board the aircraft” so he is the operator. I am merely the pilot and am quite entitled and allowed to be paid for my labour. What my mate is NOT allowed to do is charge other people money for carriage on board the aeroplane. If he did charge other people money for carriage then it would be a commercial operation.

stremair, your friendly CASA officer has referred you to CAR 2, sub-regulation 7 and 7A. Sorry for the length but I feel it is important to quote those two sub-regulations in their entirety. You can also find them for yourself at http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pastereg/0/51/0/PR000050.htm

Australian Civil Aviation Regulations (1988) Section 2 {quote}

“(7) For the purposes of these regulations:

(a) an aircraft that is flying or operating for a commercial purpose referred to in paragraph 206 (a) shall be taken to be employed in aerial work operations;

(b) an aircraft that is flying or operating for a commercial purpose referred to in paragraph 206 (b) shall be taken to be employed in charter operations;

(c) an aircraft that is flying or operating for the commercial purpose referred to in paragraph 206 (c) shall be taken to be employed in regular public transport operations; and

(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 sub-regulation (7A);

(vi) the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes of trade;

(vii) conversion training for the purpose of endorsement of an additional type or category of aircraft in a pilot licence; 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.


(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).” {end quote} (again, sorry for length)

There is nothing in sub-regulation 7 which prevents a private pilot being paid, or which prevents a CPL or higher licence holder from being paid whilst engaged in private operations for any flying of a type described in 7 (d) (i), (iii), (v), (vi), or (vii). Please note that each of the paragraphs in sub-regulation 7 section (d) are in the alternative. You must only satisfy ONE of the descriptions 7 (d) (i) through 7 (d) (viii) in order to be classed as a private operation.

The BHP example used in an earlier post is described by 7 (d) (v).

My mate with his own aircraft is described by 7 (d) (i) if he were on board (and arguably if his family were on board as well), or under 7 (d) (v) if his staff were on board.

Sub-regulation 7A is known as the “cost sharing” regulation. It allows people on board a private flight (including the pilot) to pay an equal share toward the cost of the flight. Prior to 7A being introduced (in about 1991??) a passenger on board a private flight was not allowed to make ANY contribution to the cost of the flight, or it would have been classed as a commercial flight. Sub-regulation 7A does not have any effect if your operation is described by ANY ONE of the other paragraphs in 7 (d).

And finally, do understand that I have been around the block on this one. But please don’t trust me, go and ask CASA to clarify exactly which regulatory instrument disallows private pilots being paid for flying of the types described in 7 (d) (i), (iii), (v), (vi), or (vii) or even parachute ops. There isn't one.

[stremair]

Thank you for your explanation Bik,I can see where you are coming from and it is important for me and other pilots to know what the rules are on this one.I will call CASA again and ask for thier reasons on why they call it illegal,will let you know.(hey if i can get paid ,i will!!!!)

Cheers Dman

[BIK_116.80]

No worries mate. But I do suggest that different people in CASA have different levels of understanding of what the rules actually mean.

I have had a couple of cases where CASA has said, "We cant tell you what the rules mean. The only way to find out for sure is for us to prosecute you and see what the judge says."

Thankfully, it usually does not get that far. But isn't it a silly situation when the organisation charged with "development and promulgation of civil aviation regulations in Australia" can not understand their own bumf!

[Tinstaafl]

Well said, BIK.

I've previously had this discussion with others as well.

Another common misunderstanding I've found concerns the 90 hr duty limitation concerning flight duties. Even some CASA FOIs have thought this prevented working past 90 hrs duty even though there was no flying involved after the 90th hour.

[Anthony2107]

Bik - thank you for clarifying that one. I have had second thoughts about taking up jump flying because of this, because it meant more money laid out to do the check ride on the C206 plus 10 hours on the type on your own expense, and if you can't get paid or at least get compensated for your petrol getting to the drop zone then what ? I guess I can look at it as hour building but where will I get the money for the rent?

Thanks mate

A2107