ra-aus pilots being paid

[outlandishoutlanding]

James Ashby joins Pauline Hanson's entourage, as her pilot - ABC Sunshine & Cooloola Coasts Qld - Australian Broadcasting Corporation (http://www.abc.net.au/local/photos/2015/07/28/4282015.htm)

"... around the country on a busy schedule, for which she has contracted the services of a pilot named James Ashby..."

"Mr Ashby's business life has moved on, and he said he now made his living as a sign writer and a pilot."

[outlandishoutlanding]

Further: James Ashby wants to reach out to Peter Slipper's wife | Queensland Times (http://www.qt.com.au/news/james-ashby-wants-reach-out-peter-slippers-wife/2720554/)

"Mr Ashby has a new career as a pilot"

"In June last year, a court heard Mr Slipper has tried to commit suicide twice, his marriage has broken down and he has been struggling with alcohol."

[Squawk7700]

Presumably company aircraft, company employee.

Case closed, nothing to see here.

Poor wording by the media if my comments above are correct.

Same as if you were a PPL and flying a C172 as a traffic spotter for the radio station, NVFR single engine.

I am also aware of a pilot who held an AOC for commercial aerial photography in a RA-Aus registered Skyfox Gazelle.

There are legitimate ways to make these things happen.

[Tibbsy]

It's arisen again.

Pauline Hanson staffer James Ashby investigated for flying One Nation leader without proper pilot's licence - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-08/pauline-hanson-staffer-james-ashby-investigated-for-flying-plane/9524516)

If One Nation own the plane, I understand that there's a claim that it hasn't been properly declared as a donation to the party?

Is there any VH vs Recreational registration issues here?

[mostlytossas]

Agree with Squawk. Just a fuss over nothing. If he isn't being paid to fly her around then it is a private operation. Just as numerous operations around the country are. Glider towing is one that springs to mind. Angel flights another.

[601]

Obviously a slow news day at Aunty.

[Tibbsy]

Obviously a slow news day at Aunty.

Nice bit of Aunty bashing there :cool:

It's been widely reported by News Ltd and Fairfax et al, and primarily prosecuted by The Australian.

Reading some of the other articles it seems that Ashby may have unwisely claimed to have been employed by One Nation to fly Hanson around.

[Lead Balloon]

Even if Mr Ashby was being paid to fly Senator Hansen around, it does not mean it was a commercial operation.

[Eddie Dean]

Even if Mr Ashby was being paid to fly Senator Hansen around, it does not mean it was a commercial operation.I would say that this is correct, R22 that the Boss here owns is in Private category, is flown to town for business meetings regularly, the pilot doesn't have a CPLH.

[IFEZ]

Certainly wasn't an 'Angel' flight...:E

[no_one]

Which one did he break?

From CASR 206:

(1) For the purposes of subsection 27(9) of the Act, the following commercial purposes are prescribed:
(a) aerial work purposes, being purposes of the following kinds (except when carried out by means of an RPA):
(i) aerial surveying;
(ii) aerial spotting;
(iii) agricultural operations;
(iv) aerial photography;
(v) advertising;
(vi) balloon flying training (within the meaning of subregulation 5.01(1)) for the grant of a balloon flight crew licence or rating
(vii) ambulance functions;
(viii) carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft (not being a carriage of goods in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals);
(ix) any other purpose that is substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vii) (inclusive);
(b) charter purposes, being purposes of the following kinds:
(i) the carriage of passengers or cargo for hire or reward to or from any place, other than carriage in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals;
(ii) the carriage, in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals, of passengers or cargo or passengers and cargo in circumstances in which the accommodation in the aircraft is not available for use by persons generally;
(c) the purpose of transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally, for hire or reward in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals over specific routes with or without intermediate stopping places between terminals.

Clear as mud?

[StickWithTheTruth]

Perhaps the raaus registration is blurring things somewhat, as much as they operate under the same cao's etc as per GA, generally, with the exception of the exemptions.

[Lead Balloon]

An aircraft that is flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of, the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft is, for the purposes of the regulations, taken to be a private operation. So if, for example, Pauline Hanson is the owner of an aircraft, she can pay any pilot anything she likes to fly her around in the aircraft for her personal transportation, and it’s a private operation.

But not so if the pilot owns the aircraft instead of Pauline.

(It makes it easier to understand the classification of operations scheme once you realise that the factors which determine the various classifications have nothing to do with objective safety or the acceptance of understood risks.)

[no_one]

(It makes it easier to understand the classification of operations scheme once you realise that the factors which determine the various classifications have nothing to do with objective safety or the acceptance of understood risks.)

The Australian rules are in many ways a complete and utter mess and often what the rule actually says isn't really what it means. For instance, have people here ever taken a mate for a flight just for fun, no money changing hands. Is that a private flight? Perhaps not if you didn't get some $$ out of them, read CAR 7A...

(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).

[Lead Balloon]

It’s a private flight. One definition is not the exhaustive rule.

But the rules are a complete dog’s breakfast.

[StickWithTheTruth]

You are all quoting GA rules and not referring to RAAUS regs... it has numbers on the side, not letters.

[no_one]

You are all quoting GA rules and not referring to RAAUS regs... it has numbers on the side, not letters.

Yep, StickWithTheTruth the aircraft in question does have numbers on the side. But that only makes things more complicated not less. Despite what some might say being registered with RAAus only grants an exemption from some of the CASA rules. The other rules and definitions still apply....

From "Civil Aviation Order 95.55 (Exemption from the provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 — certain ultralight aeroplanes) Instrument 2018"


3.3 In this subsection:
exempted provisions means the following provisions of CAR:
(a) Parts 4 to 4D;
(b) subregulation 83 (1), in relation to VHF equipment;
(c) regulations 133, 139 and 157;
(d) regulations 207 and 208;
(e) regulation 230;
(f) subregulation 242 (2);
(g) regulation 252;
(h) regulation 258.

[Lead Balloon]

So....

All that means is that the operation an RA Aus aircraft is not exempt from the requirement to have an AOC and some of the other requirements that apply to a prescribed commercial operation.

Which leads back to the question: Is it a prescribed commercial operation?

The answer to that question is so complex that there are individual staff members of CASA who have been paid - literally - over $1,000,000 to answer the question during the last couple of decades. Those staff are, naturally, highly motivated to come up with a new, simple and clear, classification of operations system.

[no_one]

It’s a private flight. One definition is not the exhaustive rule.

But the rules are a complete dog’s breakfast.

So if you were to charge a mate for all the cost would it still be a private flight?

[Lead Balloon]

If the mate owns the aircraft: Yes.

If you own the aircraft: Maybe. The provision you quoted just deems one set of circumstances to be a private flight. It does not mean that other circumstances are not a private flight.

Note that, in any event, the differences have no safety basis. That’s why the classification of operations scheme is a chronic dog’s breakfast on which folks being paid 6 figures in CASA have been feasting for decades.

[engine out]

I stand to be wrong, and usually am but I thought the issue was (according to the radio news) that he was flying into CTA airports when he wasn’t licensed to.

[outnabout]

The question must be asked:

Would funtimes with Pauline be considered hire, or reward?

I would think...not.

[5179]

The pics i have seen, ashby is seated RHS, hanson other, now he's not an "instructor" so please explain.

Other query.......reported he's frequented controlled air space, ( RAA pilot....hello )

[Ultralights]

love how the rules prohibit photography from aircraft, or class it as a commercial operation, since when did casa regulate the photography industry? if i take a pic, post it to instagram, and it goes viral, and i get payment of some kind for that photo some time in the future....or a sponsorship deal via instgram . etc etc...

[LeadSled]

Ultralights,
You clearly do not understand the threat to life and limb, the antipodean way of life, and the future of the human race, caused by taking photographs through a hole in the floor of an aeroplane.

Fear not, CASA is here to protect you and your fellow citizens.

Do not despair, you are in good company, the USA hasn't ever realised the need to "regulate" aerial photography either, beyond the aircraft complying with the normal rules of the air, airworthiness etc.

Australia has so often shown the way to the rest of the world in the "they should pass a law/there should be a rule" --- and not only for aviation.
This gets quite funny at times, it is often pointed out that CASA and its predecessors have never "had a go" at Dick Smith for his many magnificent books of aerial photography, but relentlessly pursued a chap in FNQ for fundamentally doing the same thing.

At one stage, many years ago, a particular Assistant Director of CASA developed the theory that, as only an aircraft that has a full ICAO Annex 8 C.of A can operate on an AOC, therefor photographs could only be taken from such an aircraft, and by some magical extension, and a leap of unfathomable "legal" logic, our laws covered "of", not just from.

That is, he stated that it was a criminal standard of naughtiness to take a picture of an aircraft that did not have a full C.of A. All in the interests of safety, you understand.

Just think of all those lovely air to air pics of, and taken from "Warbirds".

When I personally asked him what was he going to do about "enforcing the law" (his boss had just recently and very publicly announced that "all aviation law breakers had to be punished) given that photos of an "Experimental" aircraft had been very prominently been feature in the popular press and national TV news, that very day, contrary to (in his view) " the law", and presented to him proof of the "offense", the result was hilarious ---- for the rest of us.

The aircraft in question (this dates the period) was a prototype B777, long before certification, on its first visit to Australia, doing a bit of casual record setting --- I wonder, if it's VH- you need an AOC for that?? After all, isn't sponsorship just getting paid, therefor caught by CAR 206??

Tootle pip!!

[StickWithTheTruth]

The pics i have seen, ashby is seated RHS, hanson other, now he's not an "instructor" so please explain.


You do not need to be an instructor to fly right-hand seat in a dual control aircraft. Nothing to be seen here.

[aroa]

Aah Photgraphy... The Safety agency's fcuk up

What was it Angry Man McComic said in a Senate hearing...
..' I say again ( thinks; you dumb arse senators) CaSA is a safety regulator not a commercial regulator.'
Wins the 2011? Golden Dog Turd award for the best BS statement of the Year !

Reg 206 (4) Photography. If you get paid for it, its a criminal offence doing it using an aircraft....its a commercial operation. Must have a CPL and an AOC !

Second bust for the same thing/ different dates 2(7) d Allowing the use of an a/c for a commercial purpose... which in my case was...photography.

And if you really want to know what a corrupt, vindictive and venal bunch of absolute bastards we are dealing with here...after all my fines for breaches of the above ...the CAsA round-robin email crowing their success was headed "For your amusement"
I kid you not.

Interested to see p 79 last Australian Flying Carbody spiel about the brave new medical world and etc an air to air? picture of a Baron, door off and a guy taking pictures..or holding a camera. Hope HE had an AOC and a CPL..!

In my case, the prosecutor (not under oath, so any old BS will do) told the Magistrate ...and I quote... ' No person in Australia can take a photograph from an a/c without an AOC and a CPL.'

CAsA attempted another prosecution years later on a different issue, failed due false CAsA sworn statements ...but what it was really about was the fact I had the temerity to tell the CAsA person...who had made a bad call...' why dont you take your bull**** regulations that deny people there rights and liberties and **** off. Which he did.

And the theatre went on from there.

A recent reminder of his earlier perfidy to one of the perjuring AWs ( Retski Cns office) got me an obscene phone call and a bashing threat.!

Yes, folks these are the SAFETY people !
And all overseen by legal acrobats and BS artists, that wil say and do anything to make a case ...or protect their evil doers/ in house criminals.

The Fat Lady hasn't finished her song yet.

[Tibbsy]

I stand to be wrong, and usually am but I thought the issue was (according to the radio news) that he was flying into CTA airports when he wasn’t licensed to.

Ah, well I guess that makes more sense. :)

[no_one]

It is worth pointing out that an RAAus aircraft can be flown into controlled airspaces provided some conditions are met. Amongst these conditions is that the pilot has a CASA part 61 license. From the Exemption (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L00070)

7.3 A person must not operate a relevant aeroplane in Class A, C or D airspace, or an active restricted area, unless all of the following conditions are complied with:

......................

(d) the aeroplane is flown by the holder of a pilot licence with an aeroplane category rating:

(i) issued under Part 61 of CASR; and
(ii) that allows the holder to fly inside the controlled airspace;

............

Perhaps this is where he has transgressed?..

Edit: Interestingly reading further you only have to have been issued a part 61 license and have done a flight review but there is no requirement to have a valid medical....

[StickWithTheTruth]

The article mentioned that his licence (aka certificate) didn't allow him to fly into certain airports / controlled airspace, however it stopped short at alleging that he actually did. We're still in the dark until we hear the charges.

Edit: Interestingly reading further you only have to have been issued a part 61 license and have done a flight review but there is no requirement to have a valid medical....

I'm guessing this doesn't happen very often.

[no_one]

I'm guessing this doesn't happen very often.

Im sure it doesn't, but if you asked CASA if their intention was to allow it, they certainly wouldn't have. They have made things so complex and difficult when looked at overall that there are inconsistencies everywhere.

[Lead Balloon]

Those who’ve been paying attention to the whole-of-government approach to aviation would have noticed the amount of time that was dedicated to scrutiny of the regulatory response to a drone that hovered over a parliamentary / press gallery rugby match a few months ago. That drone was controlled by - it is alleged - none other than James Ashby.

It’s abundantly clear that the focus of the committee is on the dire risks to aviation safety in the circumstances, rather than the wish to dispose of a political enemy. :rolleyes:

It is, after all, about ‘safety’. :rolleyes:

[LeadSled]

Folks,
The whole issue of RAOz pilots and "controlled airspace" is another anomalous nonsense brought about by our ratbag rules and the peculiarly Australian anal approach to "flight in controlled airspace".

Needless to say, the Australian approach to controlled airspace is worldwide unique.

You can have a GFA pilot certificate/license (not a PPL/ ICAO license) and fly in controlled airspace. There are several other examples. This includes flying a motor glider in "controlled airspace".

The RAOz case rose from a historical mistake in drafting so long ago that everybody has forgotten about it, so now it is some fundamental "safety" issue that has become a huge stumbling block, with a solution "real soon now" being the status for about 20 years.

God forbid anybody in CASA makes a decision, and approves a training package and "CTL rating", that would be too easy.

Tootle pip!!

[FAR CU]

Post #27


And if you really want to know what a corrupt, vindictive and venal bunch of absolute bastards we are dealing with here...after all my fines for breaches of the above ...the CAsA round-robin email crowing their success was headed "For your amusement"
I kid you not.


Of course they thought they would have the last laugh. Pedantic, puerile and punative and diseased to the core. In the main GA is knackered by these knobs. Forget any age of aquarius it's age of nefarious .

In the fifties and sixties there was a widespread sense of fellowship and goodwill. Dead. Dead in the water. Except perhaps in some isolated pockets that hardly count.

[Iron Bar]

Multiple fines and prosecutions hey.
Must have cost a few Eagle bitters.
Perhaps James cold use your sage advice?

[Jetjr]

RAA in CTA pilots is one issue, easily solved, but bulk of aircraft aren't allowed due to self maintained or "unrecognized" type
Then even some self maintained are OK but others aren't............

[StickWithTheTruth]

The good thing about RAA and CTA (if you can call it a good thing) is that the regs haven't changed from day dot... you still need an approved / certified factory built aircraft and a PPL to enter CTA under raaus, or in the GA exp world you can do it with an amateur built with PPL.

Those that want to do this, generally, go and get themselves a PPL and the right aircraft and away they go into CTA. CASA have been great and made it even easier and introduced the RPL which is a piece of piss to obtain.

However... I don't think it's a gen Y thing, but there seems to be an ever increasing number of RAA pilots wanting to enter CTA. A heightened sense of entitlement? ... but I don't know why.

There's process and procedures for entry so people need to learn them!!!

[LeadSled]

SWTT,
The "negotiations" with CASA (and predecessors) so that RAOz (ne.AUF) aircraft can operate in "CTA" actually pre-date the formation of CASA, and have made no real progress in all that time.
All it needs is the training package and rating agreed to.
As for the "airworthiness" issues, that is just another unjustified smokescreen, which is not risk based, but prejudice based.
Tootle pip!!

[Jetjr]

Much of RAA push is for the alignment of regulation. Doesn't make sense that a glider or VH reg experimental can enter CTA but a RAA aircraft cannot.
Similar for pilots, of course they need training and endorsement.
Bit simplified to argue just get a different plane?
Many just want to transit CTA and as non CTA airfields are built out and close it will become a bigger deal.

[LeadSled]

Jetjr,
You'r getting there.
It is the ratbag Australian rules, which means that two functionally identical Jabiru, both "Experimental", both "owner maintained", different only in that one is 19-, the other VH-, are treated differently re. airspace.
There is no shortage of other examples, and NO risk management justification re.the type of aircraft, type of engine or system of maintenance restrictions, that is all straight out prejudice.
As I have said, it dates back to early days of AUF, and has nothing to do with the great god, "Safety", but all that is long lost corporate knowledge in CASA, where the excuse for all inaction, all refusal to change (or the reason for restrictive change) is S.9A of the Act as a crutch.
Tootle pip!!

[aroa]

Iron Bar... yes, a severe strain on the budget indeed.

CAsA conned my log book from the solicitor, and had a great time going back thru it , counting the lines incomplete. Bang , Gotcha ! Strict liability and all that, multiplied.

Never heard of an incomplete log book line bringing down an aircraft, but there they go.
I read recently the the penalty for this is now $10.7 K..!! Are they for real???

And for smoking in an Airline toilet . CAsA recently had a 'chest puff' on that.. getting tough ... Fine now $900. !! Thats if the overseas pax ever respond..!
And if any fire so caused was contained, and as has happened the aircraft crashed.!
Try that with a log book.!

I was advised 15 ? years ago that non-safety offences eg log book lines were to become civil penalties, minor fines. But as you can see the only changes are ...worse !
CAsA loves the 'big hit' and the big money.!

All very amusing !

[LeadSled]

--- and introduced the RPL which is a piece of piss to obtain.

Provided you met the medical standard??
Which is often why RAOz pilots are quite safely flying with, and have been flying safely with, the same medical standard for them to drive their motor cars, or for non-PPL or up holders from other self administrative orgs. to fly in CTA.
After all, many RAOz pilots would just like to be able to fly along the, say, NSW coastline instead of having to fly inland over severe tiger country.
Tootle pip!!