Flying for charity - is it a commercial operation ?

[alex79]

Hi

At work they do a raffle ticket sale and the proceedings go to the
Movember charity. I thought I donate a scenic flight where I would cover the cost of the flight.

I would argue that this is not a commercial fight and that my PPL is sufficent.

Any comments ?!

Thanks!

[Creampuff]

Ask CASA, in writing.

Please let us know the answer you get. :ok:

[poonpossum]

Of course it is. Go for it. You're still paying for the flight. Think of it as a prize or something.

[jas24zzk]

Not sure on the new rules, but under the old rules I would say yes.

Forget which reg, but to remain in PRIVATE, the flight cannot be advertised anywhere. Putting it down as a prize constitutes an advertisement, and therefore the flight is Charter (Commercial)

It sucks I know...

There is a work around however. You donate a Gift voucher from an organisation with an AOC permitting charter and its a go....tho the Centre Against Serious Aviation may have buried a new rule to stop you from even doing this. CASA have no room for peoples goodwill :mad::mad::mad::mad:

[5-in-50]

This is both sad and ridiculous that the question even needs to be asked. What a state our rule system is in.

There is no commercial intent and you paying the whole cost of the flight. I don't see the issue myself.

If you're worried about the advertising part, just don't call it a scenic flight for the purpose of the raffle.

[Creampuff]

Don't worry: It will all become crystal clear in 1998 when the new rules are completed.

[allthecoolnamesarego]

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/464226-legal-implications-should-accident-happen.html

[tail wheel]

Creamie, I think you mean 2088 when the new Regulations are completed?

I wonder whether CASA celebrated the 26th Anniversary of regulatory reform last month?

[pineappledaz]

In NZ things like that are deemed to be commercial ops under part 135. This is purely because the raffle is advertised. The work around for a PPL and raffles used to be the cost sharing stuff but CAANZ but the boot into that as well. They determined that the raffle prize was a payment to the pilot and the pilot was the one gifting the raffle money to charity.

I would think that the ruling would be similar in Oz. At the end of the day CASA would not even know about the raffle unless something went wrong.

[Eddie Dean]

Here's a thought: If I fly old mate to his property and he gives me a side of beef, no other "payment", is that still Private flight.

[aerobatologist]

In NZ the rule for PPL is "Not or hire or reward", and while you can safely say you're not being rewarded you would have a hard time convincing anyone that you were taking a complete stranger for a ride but not being "hired" to do so. If anything went wrong (which is rare, I know), you would be wide open to a whole world of pain, starting with the insurance company.

I would say the best thing is to pay for a trial flight at the local aero club with an instructor. The raffle winner and their family would probably be more comfortable with that too.

[thorn bird]

Eddie,
and then you sell him back the side of beef???
Oh dear, why do we in Australia write regulations that take a team of lawyers and several judges to work out.
Come the revolution lawyers should be the first to exterminate.

[spindoctor]

In NZ it is most definitely seen as a commercial operation by CAA.
I know this because after raising 10's of thousands over the years for charities they told me to stop. Their way of thinking is that because the punter is paying for a flight, it is therefore hire and reward!
They wrote a vector article about it some time ago, their suggestion was that if you wanted to donate to charity, "then you should bake a cake" (greater risk from my baking than my flying!)
In fact I was told by the General Manager GA, that I should go ahead and do one of these flights so that they could test the rule in court!
My reply cannot be repeated here.......Muppet's.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Don't worry: It will all become crystal clear in 1998 when the new rules are completed.

......Creamy, that was so dry...almost warrants a line for blowing dust in the local ARFOR:D:D:D:=:ok:

On the subject at hand.
What about charitable work done by clubs in hosting and offering flights to kids from the likes of Make a Wish Foundation...There is a form of advertising within the foundations to even advertise the date and type of activity....is there nothing we can do that doesn't fall foul of the fun police?

We have been led so deep into the dark forest we no longer know the way back to freedom.

[Creampuff]

Here's a thought: If I fly old mate to his property and he gives me a side of beef, no other "payment", is that still Private flight.Ponder this, to understand how mule-stupid the current rules are: If old mate owns the aircraft, and pays you $$$$$ to fly him to his property, or anywhere else, that’s a private flight in Australia (see CAR 2(7)(d)(i).)

But if you or someone other than you and old mate own the aircraft, it's not private. Same people, same aircraft, same flight, same risks, same understanding of the risks, yet one flight is private and the other commercial.

The classification of operations rules in Australia are mostly about politics and industrial relations.

[JustJoinedToSearch]

How about this one. I hire a 172 or something and go for a burn around the bay. It's a lovely clear day and I take some pictures as I go. I land, taxi in, shutdown, pay and go home.

I have a licence and current medical, the W+B, fuel etc was all ok, I had all my required charts and documents, the aircraft has a MR and everything is in order.

My flight was safe and completely legal (actually just re-reading 206 it seems it might not have been).

If I then 3 weeks later decide to sell one of the photos my flight retroactively becomes illegal (assuming it was legal in the first place). With absolutely no difference in safety.

In the back of my mind I remember reading something buried deep in the regs somewhere about aerial photography only being for when you are selling the photos but now I can't find it.

Does that mean if you take photos on a private flight it suddenly becomes AWK?

[Frank Arouet]

Ask Richard Rudd.

[Squawk7700]

Richard Rudd ? The Wilga | Assistance to the Aviation Industry (http://vocasupport.com/casa-and-actions-against-the-industry/richard-rudd/)

[Eddie Dean]

Joinedtosearch: If I then 3 weeks later decide to sell one of the photos my flight retroactively becomes illegal


Seeing as the flight wasn't for photography I would think that it is still private.
Selling a couple of photos shouldn't make the flight now airwork.

[pineappledaz]

Spin doctor..yeah I read that article too..and I would concur about the use of language would not be appropriate on here..I muttered the same. And to do what you did ..you are a legend.

JustJoinedToSearch Selling your photos after the fact would not make your flight unlawful. At the time of your flight it was a private flight and your intention (Mens Rea) was to take scenic photos for yourself.

That's why the cost sharing things is valid in NZ, and it appears that the changes in regs in Oz are sort of in line with how things are done in NZ.

Using Cynicals example if the total cost of the flight and accommodation was proportioned evenly then it is all good. If that proportion happened to be equal to the cost of accommodation then so be it.

For the people/person that wins the raffle..give them a toy plane for the raffle prize, then mention in passing conversation that you are going on a little joy flight for which you are paying all the costs..then invite them along.

[rutan around]

My reply cannot be repeated here.......Muppet'sLet me guess. You freely offered advice as to the manner of his departure so he could go and enjoy a quiet interlude with himself.:}

[Creampuff]

How does any of this make sense?It makes perfect sense once you realise that classification of operations in Australia is mostly about politics and industrial relations, and has little to do with the objective risks of the activity. :ok:

[JustJoinedToSearch]

pineappledaz I'm no legal eagle but assuming it's a strict liability offence (i.e. Pretty well all Aus civil air law) isn't proving Mens rea not required?

[Cirronimbus]

I've seen a few ads in the employment section of the paper looking for "Salesmen" who have a PPL. The deal is to fly the company aircraft, loaded with company products, to remote communities and sell the stuff. Fair bit of "hire and reward" involved in paying the "salesman"; so how do these people get around that one if selling a photo taken on a private flight means the pilot is in breach of the regs?

For crying out loud, anyone who flies for charity (Angel Flight etc) isn't doing that to try to beat the system. Why does the Corporation Against Sensible Aviation spend so much time and energy on trying to curb such activities? Have they really lost the plot that badly or am I missing something?

[thorn bird]

Na Thundery,


they really have lost the plot.

Just try making sense out of Part61, should be enough to convince you.

[rutan around]

I've seen a few ads in the employment section of the paper looking for "Salesmen" who have a PPL. The deal is to fly the company aircraft, loaded with company products, to remote communities and sell the stuff.Quick Cirronimbus find out what they are selling and if the substance is legal.It must be pretty high value stuff if it can be stuffed into a single engined aircraft,flown several hours to the customer,then return empty and still make a profit.:ugh::ugh::ugh: They may well sell the stuff but do they deliver the stuff?

[pineappledaz]

JustJoinedToSearch - Yeah I reckon you are correct..bit like speeding tickets..doesn't matter if you didn't consciously think about the offence.

[Cirronimbus]

They may well sell the stuff but do they deliver the stuff?

Hey Rutan Around,

I've got no idea, nor any concerns, about whether they do sell or deliver. I just wonder why these operators can keep advertising (and presumably employ people) for these sorts of operations over and over again.

The operation itself does not sound legitimate to me regardless of the legality of the "stuff" being transported or sold. If taking a photo and selling it after a private flight has complications, and conducting private flights for charity are under the microscope, how does this type of operation keep popping up time after time without any apparent concerns from the regulators?

If this was dodgy, surely the mob against aviation would have acted before now? If it isn't dodgy, why do others get such heavy scrutiny?

Just doesn't sound reasonable to me.

[rutan around]

If it isn't dodgy, why do others get such heavy scrutiny?

Just doesn't sound reasonable to me. In the case of photography I hear whispers that it all came about as a part of a vendetta against a particular pilot CASA didn't like.

However if a Real Estate agent takes his aircraft up and sells heaps of land from the photos but doesn't sell the photos it's ok.Go figure.
(It may be estate agents are friends of CASA as they sell airports for housing estates thus reducing flying thus increasing safety.):{

What has being reasonable got to do with CASA rules?


If an employer flies a team of say plumbers to a job in his own plane it's a private flight as it should be. If in order to complete that job they sell one tap washer that they carried with them it's a commercial operation.

The current government claims to be busy helping business by removing outdated stupid laws.

Perhaps Mr Truss will sort this mess out. HA HA HA HO HO HO COUGH COUGH!!!!! Sorry about that. I know it wasn't funny.:ugh:

[Eddie Dean]

Rutan: If an employer flies a team of say plumbers to a job in his own plane it's a private flight as it should be. If in order to complete that job they sell one tap washer that they carried with them it's a commercial operation.

Are your sure?
I have flown a LAME out to field job in the 206 as private flight.
He does the job, including "selling" the parts and oil.


I would think that there would have to be commercial gain for the pilot before it became airwork or closed charter.

[mostlytossas]

I know of many LAME's that fly out to remote properties to carry out maintenance etc on the clients aircraft. That is a private flight. No different to loading the van and driving to the job,tools, parts and all, and done every day of the year.

[rutan around]

Why then is an AOC required to take photos?

[Creampuff]

Because Baron Bernstein of Leigh didn't like people flying over his land taking pictures of his stately manor.

Seriously.

Don't try to apply objective safey criteria to try to explain the classification of operations rules. You will go barking mad.

[alex79]

Thanks for all the comments. I really think it's sad that pilots need to have a legal background.

I have just emailed CASA. Let's see if they respond and what they say.

Will let you know about the outcome!

Cheers

[rutan around]

Creamy
As you know Baron Bernstein's case relied on :-

Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (whose is the soil his is also that which is above and below it).As you also would know he LOST his court case thus giving great comfort to coal miners and bringing forth the dawn of a Golden Age in Australian General Aviation. Seriously.

[Creampuff]

He did indeed lose the battle about trespass.

But, as is so often the case in these matters, he didn't lose the war.

He went on to ensure that aerial photography became a strictly regulated activity, so that there was more 'appropriate' 'control' over the people permitted to engage in this 'dangerous' activity. :ok:

[rutan around]

He's dead now. Does that extinguish the ills he has thrust upon us?

[Jabawocky]

And with all the rule changes, is an AFR for the VFR guys/girls and a instrument renewal for the IFR guys/girls PRIVATE or AIRWORK ? Or does it depend on….??

(yes I am being lazy….but when rules change you never know where all the answers are hidden) :O

[Creampuff]

Actually, I may have incorrectly attributed the current aerial photography rules to Baron Bernstein (Deceased). The current words were inserted into ANR 191 in 1973. (ANR 191 was the predecessor to CARs 206 and 2(7).)

Baron B’s case wasn’t decided until 1978.