AOC or not? [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

longrass

1st Oct 2018, 21:01

Morning gents,

My business has just won a contract out in Arnhem Land. I’m led to believe that I can transport my own staff out to the job site and back, whilst being paid (my own wages) and it’s classified as private ops. Correct me if I’m wrong.

The confusing bit for me, is that I’m hiring the aircraft on an hourly rate from another company. Does that change things?

Next issue is, another contractor has approached me to fly his staff to the same community. How can I achieve this without requiring an AOC. The most logical answer for this would be for him to hire the aircraft from the hirer and I then fly it for free.

I approached CASA yesterday with this and was told, “we can’t give legal advice, it’s up to the courts to determine if we were ever to catch you, not that we are saying it’s right or wrong”

Lapon

1st Oct 2018, 21:17

Just my opinion (having been in your position years ago): Neither option really fits the criteria of a 'cost sharing' flight but unless you bend the aircraft in a high profile manner I doubt anyone is going to notice or care.
The later case you mention with the other contractor could get tricky of you have an accident and that contractor goes after compensation from someone as the someone will probably be yourself.

Legitamicy aside, I've completed such flights as a PPL years ago and I personally wouldnt worry about CASA, as you have already found they cant even give you an answer themselves. Just consider your own liability if there was to be an accident.

Alpha Whiskey Bravo

1st Oct 2018, 22:56

Squawk7700

2nd Oct 2018, 01:18

Your own staff is fine. The other contractor's staff is a charter as such. Unless he employ's you as their own personal company pilot. Doesn't matter how much he pays you as long as you have a contract and pay tax on your other income.

AWB

+1 for this answer (and not the one above it!)

longrass, just be mindful of your employees. I heard first hand of a situation where one of the employees of a small company was not happy to be flown by his employer as he didn’t feel like the pilot / employer was safe / qualified / experienced enough to conduct the flight safely and he was also concerned about the weight of the aircraft being over. Being an employee, he felt obliged to board the aircraft for the sake of keeping his job.

Nothing happened on any of the flights, however the employee was spot-on with his intuition in the matter.

*Most* life insurance companies only cover you in a chartered aircraft or RPT.

Clare Prop

2nd Oct 2018, 01:23

You'll probably find insurance companies will be the deciding factor. I have had a few hirers that were doing work like this, but had to stop because there was no compo cover for being "other than a fare paying passenger". Yes, the compo people would prefer that you drive your staff there through croc infested waters...it's nuts.

Duck Pilot

2nd Oct 2018, 01:40

Get an AOC if it looks and smells like it, which it does particularly with the transport of non company personnel.

If you can’t get an AOC use someone else’s, which probably would be a better solution in the short term.

peterc005

2nd Oct 2018, 01:59

Would it be easier/practical to operate under the AOC of an established Charter company?

megan

2nd Oct 2018, 03:05

You might talk to these folk for advice, they even own and operate a couple of Metros to support their bush work. Pilots work the tools as well when on site. Unless you're competitors. :eek:

Jetstream Electrical Darwin Electrician (http://jetstreamelectrical.com/)

Sunfish

2nd Oct 2018, 03:07

This is the sort of issue that destroys investment in aviation because it is not possible to remove uncertainty and manage risk. CASA won't help you by issuing a clear statement regarding legality and without that you are building on sand because you cannot get insurance cover for what might be found to be an illegal operation.

multiply be ten thousand business opportunities and you can understand why GA is dead.

Icarus2001

2nd Oct 2018, 03:51

So a corporate jet flying from Oz to pick up or drop of high rolling gamblers in Asia is a private operation.

Be guided accordingly.

Squawk7700

2nd Oct 2018, 04:24

So a corporate jet flying from Oz to pick up or drop of high rolling gamblers in Asia is a private operation.

Be guided accordingly.

Are you telling us Sunfish, that Crown Casino doesn’t have an AOC?

I’ll save you answering. Of course they do.

Which Casino / gambling institution are you referring to?

longrass

2nd Oct 2018, 11:24

industry insider

2nd Oct 2018, 13:15

As others have said, the issue will be insurance. You need to think of the "what ifs". Hypothetically and simplistically, you cross hire the aircraft, the engine fails and during the subsequent inevitable landing the aircraft crashes, you are killed and so is one of your passengers. It is unsure whether or not the fatalities have occurred because you messed up the landing or because the engine failed and you had nowhere to land except where there was a tree.

Does the passenger's family sue your dependents who have just lost their husband / father for your poor piloting? Do your dependents sue the owner of the aircraft and his maintenance organisation for poor maintenance? Who conducts the maintenance? The lawyers could take years to sort out the settlements. There are to many many combinations of liability to go through one by one.

If you survived but your one of your passengers didn't then the passenger's dependents could sue you. You could lose everything because your main business is not as an operator of as you have no AOC. Then another passenger says that they were all coerced into flying with you and around you go again. I don't know what type of license you have. I don't know if your workforce are contractors or staff. I don't know who your customer is but if its landing at a mine site or private airstrip, the customer may require insurance, evidence of your qualifications etc. How will you manage fatigue?

I don't know enough details of your individual case but I get paid to provide aviation advice to companies, including insurance companies. My honest (if unpalatable) advice to you would be don't even think about this as being a sensible option.

aroa

2nd Oct 2018, 22:24

Sunny is right , of course...thats why GA is in such a schemozzle today.

All the advice, maybe well and good...BUT the complexity of the 'regs' and obscurity of some that can be dug out to kill off the operator boggle the mind..
The OP may well go for an AOC...and by the time he/she has played jump the hoops and survived the paperwork blizzard, paid out mega bucks..and the AOC approval finally turns up after 13 months...then the business opportunity is probably long gone, aircraft hire no longer available ...so its all for nought.
How the hell dopey Governments and its agencies can sqwark.about 'jobs and growth' when the system prevents anyone taking rapid advantage of a business opportunity.
Been there, been 'done' over that years ago. Had an Ops inspection for an AOC variation.adding .CHTR. All OK ..Final statement from the CAsA person departing..'Approval to operate be with you in 48 hrs'. Finally came thru SEVEN MONTHS later after some (expletives deleted) phone calls. But all was lost...business that was to hand initially and cross-hired a/c loong gone!
Over the years I have come across many companies carrying their own employees, or passengers for other than a charter..ie the cost of the week-end on a remote island made no mention of how they got there, being flown in by a PPL. But carry a camera only !!!! Kaboom !!
Its a minefield.!
Just be careful, grassy that you dont blow yourself up...financially and mentally.

WhiskeyKilo

2nd Oct 2018, 22:52

Are you telling us Sunfish, that Crown Casino doesn’t have an AOC?

I’ll save you answering. Of course they do.

Which Casino / gambling institution are you referring to?

As I’m sure you know Squawk you can still have an AOC but conduct private operations ;)

Almost all casino flights are private. Same with a fair few large scale bizjet operators, they have AOCs but all flights are conducted as private

LeadSled

2nd Oct 2018, 23:06

Folks,
"Industry Insider" nails it. I have been around quite a while, including for many matters concerning CAR 206, and possible insurance/employment law ramifications are the biggest threat. Without that coverage, with the precisely detailed operation being accepted for coverage, including "workers compo", you are betting your personal and business assets.
CASA is the lesser of your problems.
Tootle pip!!

Squawk7700

2nd Oct 2018, 23:17

As I’m sure you know Squawk you can still have an AOC but conduct private operations ;)

Almost all casino flights are private. Same with a fair few large scale bizjet operators, they have AOCs but all flights are conducted as private

So they can legally do that or they can’t?

The punters are getting a free ride? Insurance not an issue because the Casino’s have millions?

DrongoDriver

2nd Oct 2018, 23:58

So they can legally do that or they can’t?

The punters are getting a free ride? Insurance not an issue because the Casino’s have millions?

The Crown and Star ops would be 100% legal. I’m guessing the punters aren’t paying for the flight in so much as they’re ‘paying’ the casino for the experience by losing $$$$ at the roulette table. Hence private operation.

Insurance would cover the flights but might have stipulated they needed to be performed under an ops manual or something similar. Insurance companies will take your money if you offer it, just needs to be properly laid out. If a company owns/operates a plane then it needs to be covered like any other company vehicle.

Horatio Leafblower

3rd Oct 2018, 00:47

The punters are getting a free ride? Insurance not an issue because the Casino’s have millions?

I would suggest that there is an agreement between the casino and their high rollers about who covers what and under what circumstances. Private corporations carrying their clients and prospective clients as a courtesy or as hospitality is very common.

megan

3rd Oct 2018, 02:40

Toiled for many a year as a full time salaried pilot for a private operator who was engaged in the energy business. CASA were trying to make them subject to an AOC, but the company managed to fend them off, don't know the state of play today. We carried all sorts of people, company employees of course, contractors to the company, who I believe paid for the ride through some accounting system associated with the contract, politicians, town councillors, you name it.

thunderbird five

3rd Oct 2018, 04:09

And I'll bet not one of those people died from lack a of AOC.:E

601

3rd Oct 2018, 12:38

Toiled for many a year as a full time salaried pilot for a private operator.

Did the same for many years in what was a private operation.
But we did get an AOC because a PVT flight was last on the list into controlled airspace. We were based at a primary airport
What charter we did do covered the boss' costs.
Even getting a AOC would get over the insurance hurdles buy it would be a mine field juggling CP duties, flying and running the primary business. I would hate to see how you would manage your F&D.

industry insider

3rd Oct 2018, 14:33

Megan, that operator had every system in place which could have resulted in the granting of an AOC though, SMS, OM (all sections) HOFO, HOTC, fully employed or SLA contracted pilots and engineers, approved OEM and CASA maintenance schedules and insurance + self insurance and access to lawyers to settle any likely claim.

That company had similar (not quite the same) arrangements in the USA as do other companies today engaged in the same type of work. It’s gery different from the OP’s situation.

megan

3rd Oct 2018, 23:30

Oh, they had systems in place all right, just that a PROPER audit would have found a LONG list of questionable flying practices.

industry insider

4th Oct 2018, 00:58

Oh, they had systems in place all right, just that a PROPER audit would have found a LONG list of questionable flying practices.

Can't comment on that, I didn't fly for them. I don't know if they have external audits and if they do who provides them.

neville_nobody

4th Oct 2018, 01:39

Sunfish

4th Oct 2018, 02:52

the difference is that car and truck operations don't require an AOC and associated micro management to be legally driven and insured. My neighbour has a forty foot boom spray rig on the back of his toyota ute at the moment and i can either borrow it and use it myself, pay him to spray my cape weed, pay for fuel and weedicide, and ride with him while he sprays. No thought on legality even necessary, unlike aviation.

Icarus2001

4th Oct 2018, 03:15

the difference is that car and truck operations don't require an AOC and associated micro management to be legally driven and insured.

....and neither do private operations, which is the whole point of this thread. What constitutes a private operation.

Shall we start on again about parachute operations...?

megan

4th Oct 2018, 04:47

Shall we start on again about parachute operations...? Aaaahhhh, but that's different, you have to be a paid up member of the Parachute Federation before you can step outside. You're a member of a club, see. :rolleyes: It was a good system to have when we first started parachuting because then activities all revolved around a club. It was the advent of tandem that what can only be described as commercial operations began. In the club days we jumped at air and agriculture shows, but no money was involved, remember jumping from a 180 flown by one of the Hazeltons at an air display, all donated, but he did demand at the BBQ that night that he be given a jump the next day, put him out on a static line.

LeadSled

4th Oct 2018, 08:25

Aaaahhhh, but that's different, you have to be a paid up member of the Parachute Federation before you can step outside. You're a member of a club, see. :rolleyes: It was a good system to have when we first started parachuting because then activities all revolved around a club. It was the advent of tandem that what can only be described as commercial operations began. In the club days we jumped at air and agriculture shows, but no money was involved, remember jumping from a 180 flown by one of the Hazeltons at an air display, all donated, but he did demand at the BBQ that night that he be given a jump the next day, put him out on a static line.

megan,
There have multiple legal challenges to Skydiving as it is conducted, up to and including Supreme Court of Appeal , none have overturned the system.
That the classification is "private" has been confirmed multiple times.
I would remind you that money changing hands is not a sole determinant of when an AOC is required in Australia, it is whether you are roped in by CAR 206 or not.
Indeed, some years ago, consumer law was amended to exempt operators of "adventure sports" from a large slab of the normal "duty of care" responsibilities that bind most businesses.
Multiple challenges to the "liability waivers" involved in Skydiving was a major consideration in the legislative change, to put the validity of "blood chits" beyond legal doubt.
With the advent of Part 135, I think the fight is going to start all over again --- as the dreaded "hire and reward" make a re-appearance in Australian air law after around 40(??) years --- I believe due largely to an amazing lack of understanding in CASA of the subject, particularly on the part of a recent CEO/DAS.

industry insider

4th Oct 2018, 12:58

So what's the difference between this and people dying in a car crash in a work truck and the driver only having a Private license?

Sorry Nev, I honestly don't know anything about truck driving or what type of license you need to drive one. I have no idea if the OP has a Commercial license or a Private license. But trying to make the holes in the Swiss Cheese line up to find a way to make something legal and OK means that those same holes could also potentially align more easily the other way and to continue with the food analogy, the resulting mess will be a dog's breakfast.

Torres

4th Oct 2018, 20:35

I’m led to believe that I can transport my own staff out to the job site and back, whilst being paid (my own wages) and it’s classified as private ops. Correct me if I’m wrong.

In the past that would be classified Aerial Work, requiring an AOC. CASA already have Court precedence to win that one. Some may recall some years ago the guy taking aerial photographs out of (from memory) Far North Queensland with a hand held camera and his own aircraft and the other I recall was a diesel fitter flying out to repair station property equipment. If you catch their jaundiced eye, or have an accident, it could be very expensive for you. Alternatively and possibly equally, they may totally ignore what you are doing.

Next issue is, another contractor has approached me to fly his staff to the same community. How can I achieve this without requiring an AOC. The most logical answer for this would be for him to hire the aircraft from the hirer and I then fly it for free.

CASA would view that as Air Charter.

Read CAR 206 and keep in mind that CASA have at least one interpretation of CAR 206 for every day of the week, every set of circumstances and can easily obtain a new interpretation to specifically ensure a conviction in your case, all of which are accepted by the AAT in the interests of "air safety".

Eddie Dean

5th Oct 2018, 00:55

One could say that the OP and others on here are looking for a way to circumnavigate what, to me at the least, is a straight forward regulation. If one flies for reward one requires an AOC of some description.

But worry not, this is the Australian way, from loaning a neighbours ear tags for moving cattle, to not paying helicopter engineers their contract rate.
FWIW

outnabout

5th Oct 2018, 00:57

Sunfish, if you pay your neighbour to spray your weeds, then he should have all the appropriate licences and insurances in place to operate as a spray contractor. This includes accreditated training to show he can identify weeds and use the appropriate spray at the appropriate level to control the weeds. Otherwise, the possibility exists that he can spray your weeds with the wrong spray at the incorrect level and poison you, your family, Aunt Ethel who is visiting (and asthmatic). And if so, you would be well placed to sue the pants off him.

And if you use an unlicensed contractor to apply spray to your crop, and he accidentally wipes it out, then you have no chance of claiming insurance.

alternatively, the spray he is applying could drift across to a neighbouring property (which might be organic), cause that property to lose their commercial crop, and their organic accreditation....which means they are well placed to sue the pants off him.

see, not so different from Aviation after all.

(These spray scenarios all come from a family member who was a licenced spray contractor, who went out of business because clients chose to use cheaper, “mate from up the road”, and then bitched because Old Mate didn’t know what he was doing. Shonky Brothers Operations are what the law and insurance companies are trying to deal with. And given the fact that Australia is now number one for litigation, we suffer endless red tape as a result.)

Sunfish

5th Oct 2018, 01:15

mate we are spraying capeweed, it's not rocket science and no crops or aunt ethel's involved, but perhaps i chose the wrong example to illustrate the relatively free use we make of terrestrial vehicles vs airborne.

LeadSled

5th Oct 2018, 04:59

CASA would view that as Air Charter.

Read CAR 206 and keep in mind that CASA have at least one interpretation of CAR 206 for every day of the week, every set of circumstances and can easily obtain a new interpretation to specifically ensure a conviction in your case, all of which are accepted by the AAT in the interests of "air safety".
+

Folks,
Ain't that the truth.
Tootle pip!!

LeadSled

5th Oct 2018, 05:29

If one flies for reward one requires an AOC of some description.
FWIW

Eddie,
I never ceased to be amazed at how hard it is to change perception.

"Hire and reward" is a bit like the "give way to the car on the right" road rule, in NSW at least, it,(like hire and reward) was dropped something like 40 years ago, but based on driver behavior, the actual/real/ current rules for "major/minor" roads and roundabouts have never caught on. We have many crashes in NSW from the driver "on the right" enforcing his/her/its "right of way", particularly at roundabouts.

Likewise "hire and reward", CAR 206 was an attempt, many years ago, to define when an AOC was required without the mire of imaginitis in ways of getting around whether a "hire" or a "reward" was involved.

In this case, the Australian approach is quite different to most other countries, said "other countries" getting themselves entangled in all sorts of legal knots.

Sadly, CAR 206 was badly written, and far too easily interpreted/misinterpreted by CASA and others. This is one of the few area where I believe the Australian approach, or at least the intent, was right.

The FAA "rules" are so draconian in interpretation that, if you take an aeroplane to an airshow, and you are a PPL, and the organizers give you a cold drink, or a hamburger, you and they have committed an offence. At Oshkosh, if an aircraft is flying in the display, and the pilot is a PPL, they can't even accept free smoke oil (off spec diesel donated to by oil companies) but have to trudge off to a truck stop with a couple of cans --- and EAA can't even supply the cans.

For those of you who continue to advocate for "hire and reward" to be the determinant, how does that fit into a genuine risk management framework. If the mechanic flies to fix his own tractor, that's private, but if he flies to fix his neighbor's tractor, that needs all the expense and aggravation of an AOC. How does that decrease which risk??

What he does is break the law ---- as various investigations into CASA have pointed out ---- we create "inadvertent criminals".

At least, in the FAA case, many things that require an AOC, (mostly aerial work) here is Australia have no corresponding US requirement. Such as the famous FNQ aerial photography matter.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Many years ago, a well known Sydney QC was pulled up by CAA, on the way to a country case, CAA (an AWI) claimed that his briefcase and a box with his wig were "tools of trade". Wiser heads, further up the CAA food chain, dropped the matter like a red hot brick.

Lead Balloon

5th Oct 2018, 05:53

If one flies for reward one requires an AOC of some description.Not correct.

If Bob owns a Cessna 172 and I have a private pilots licence to fly 172s, I can charge Bob anything I like and Bob can pay me anything he likes for me to fly him around for his personal transport, and that’s a private flight for which no AOC or commercial pilots licence is required.

There are many other examples (which points up why the classification of operations scheme draws distinctions that have little-to-no causal connection with safety).

Eddie Dean

5th Oct 2018, 06:23

Not correct.

If Bob owns a Cessna 172 and I have a private pilots licence to fly 172s, I can charge Bob anything I like and Bob can pay me anything he likes for me to fly him around for his personal transport, and that’s a private flight for which no AOC or commercial pilots licence is required.

There are many other examples (which points up why the classification of operations scheme draws distinctions that have little-to-no causal connection with safety).Wrong I be then, but at least you have pointed out that it is not as difficult as some imagine to get a definitive answer to the question.
Cheers

Lead Balloon

5th Oct 2018, 06:26

The context of the OP’s question was a little more complex than the scenario I gave.

andrewr

5th Oct 2018, 08:31

"Hire and reward" is a bit like the "give way to the car on the right" road rule, in NSW at least, it,(like hire and reward) was dropped something like 40 years ago

Still appears to be there to me:
CAR 206 (1)
(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;
...
(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.

CAR 206 actually looks pretty straightforward to me. I think the problems people have are twofold:
1) CASA has made some decisions based on "the vibe" rather than what CAR 206 actually says, then tried to interpret the rule to match their decision
2) People try to mash CAR 206 and CAR 2(7) together into one rule and/or are unsure of the difference between them.

Torres

5th Oct 2018, 21:03

If Bob owns a Cessna 172 and I have a private pilots licence to fly 172s, I can charge Bob anything I like and Bob can pay me anything he likes for me to fly him around for his personal transport, and that’s a private flight for which no AOC or commercial pilots licence is required.

Correct. The executive aviation division of very large Australian mining company employed and paid pilots and operated a fleet of executive aircraft for many years, domestic and international, as a private operation, no AOC. A Police Air Wing employs non Police officer pilots and operated what was effectively a scheduled air service as a private operation, no AOC. Non Police Government passengers, witnesses etc were carried and the cost recovered from other Government Departments.

Perhaps Longrass should look at Aerial Work definitions in CAR 206 (1) (a):
(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);

"substantially similar" would include employees of "..the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft.." if CASA so wished.

andrewr

5th Oct 2018, 22:46

(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);

"substantially similar" would include employees of "..the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft.." if CASA so wished.

Trade in human beings is illegal, likewise you couldn't really argue they were "the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft" so I don't see it as substantially similar.

Particularly when there are sections that explicitly deal with carriage of passengers.

StudentPilot479

6th Oct 2018, 01:58

Not to mention you quoted viii but ix refers to sections i to vii

Torres

6th Oct 2018, 05:14

The "substantially similar" would relate to the fact that both tools of trade, goods and staff are substantially connected to the conduct of a commercial business.

StudentPilot. I suggest you actually read CAR206. Sections (i) to (ix) are subsections of para 206 (1) (a).

aroa

6th Oct 2018, 07:40

andrewr..people try to mash 206 and 2 7 d into one rule .

Industry /flying people might but CAsA legal acrobat people dont....they can see two distinct strict liability criminal offences...
eg... re206... Photography, a commercial activity, requires an AOC and a CPL
... re 2 7 d Photography, using an aeroplane for a commercial purpose, as above.
Bang gotcha with both barrels.!!
Separate ways of dealing with the same offence... twice.

Dont ya love em for keeping the world safe from falling aeroplanes and cascading people...and cameras..!!

LeadSled

6th Oct 2018, 08:17

Still appears to be there to me:

Andrewr.
True, but only because the intended reforms of the time were never completed,(where has that happened before in AU aviation) and CAR 206 has been the subject of legal battles for as long as it has been there.
However, the intent at the time was as I described, "hire and reward" was not the sole determinant for an AOC, or requiring a pilot to have a CPL.
Tootle pip!!

andrewr

6th Oct 2018, 23:06

The "substantially similar" would relate to the fact that both tools of trade, goods and staff are substantially connected to the conduct of a commercial business.

The rule says nothing about tools of trade, staff, or the conduct of a commercial business. It says "carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft". It doesn't even include goods that are not "the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft".

Clearly, it is intended to prevent someone from buying an aircraft and setting up a business bringing in seafood from King Island etc. without an AOC on the basis that it's their own aircraft and the are not charging anyone for transporting the goods. It's not a general prohibition on commercial businesses using aircraft without an AOC. There are plenty of circumstances where you can use an aircraft in the conduct of a business without an AOC.

andrewr

6th Oct 2018, 23:17

people try to mash 206 and 2 7 d into one rule .

Industry /flying people might but CAsA legal acrobat people dont....they can see two distinct strict liability criminal offences...
eg... re206... Photography, a commercial activity, requires an AOC and a CPL
... re 2 7 d Photography, using an aeroplane for a commercial purpose, as above.
Bang gotcha with both barrels.!!
Separate ways of dealing with the same offence... twice.

Neither CAR 206 nor CAR 2 specify an offence. They are both simply definitions, referred to elsewhere in the regulations.

Certainly, operating without an AOC when one is required is an offence. So is flying without a commercial license when one is required. I'm not sure how those could NOT be 2 separate offences.

The difference between CAR 206 and CAR 2 is this:

Operations listed in CAR 206 require an AOC.
Everything requires a commercial license, except what is listed in CAR (2) 7 d or CAR (2) 7A.

Torres

7th Oct 2018, 04:59

andrewr. You are obviously trying to be logical. Whilst logical thinking is not prohibited in the CARs, it is prohibited in the hallowed CASA halls of power.

Some years ago CASA successfully prosecuted a diesel fitter who flew himself to station properties, carrying his tool box, in his privately owned Cessna and on a PPL. They contended he required a CPL and an Aerial Work AOC.

If you feel you understand CAR206 and particularly 206 (1) (b) and (c) perhaps you could give a definition of the terms "fixed terminals" and "specific routes"?

Lead Balloon

7th Oct 2018, 05:33

Fixed it for you, andrewr: Everything requires a commercial license, except what is listed in CAR 2(7)(d).

CAR 2(7A) is merely a deeming provision for the purposes of one of the paras on the list in CAR 2(7)(d).

And don’t forget: Any kind of activity that is “substantially similar” to something elsewhere on the list is also private.

Torres nailed a key issue: Don’t try to reconcile any of this stuff on the basis of safety. Some of the distinctions drawn in the classification of operations system have no causal connection with safety.

LeadSled

7th Oct 2018, 07:22

If you feel you understand CAR206 and particularly 206 (1) (b) and (c) perhaps you could give a definition of the terms "fixed terminals" and "specific routes"?
Torres,
That is very naughty of you, to ask that, for reasons you and I know well.
Tootle pip!!

LeadSled

7th Oct 2018, 07:27

Everything requires a commercial license, except what is listed in CAR (2) 7 d or CAR (2) 7A.
[/list]

Folks,
I know no other country that defines private operations by what they are not.
Tootle pip!!

andrewr

7th Oct 2018, 09:44

You are obviously trying to be logical. Whilst logical thinking is not prohibited in the CARs, it is prohibited in the hallowed CASA halls of power.
Some years ago CASA successfully prosecuted a diesel fitter who flew himself to station properties, carrying his tool box, in his privately owned Cessna and on a PPL. They contended he required a CPL and an Aerial Work AOC.

As I said in post 41, I think CASA has made some decisions based on "the vibe" rather than what CAR 206 actually says, then tried to interpret the rule to match their decision.

Prosecuting someone for carrying tools of trade is a disgrace, the rule obviously refers to goods for sale not tools of trade. If you require an AOC for tools of trade things get very difficult very quickly. A commercial pilot has tools of trade (headset, GPS, maps, charts, EFB...). If they are not allowed to carry them without an AOC it presents some practical problems. (Whereas they are not tools of trade for a private pilot so may be carried freely?) What about an OzRunways developer - do they need an AOC to carry an Ipad or laptop?

Unfortunately, the actual rule only matters if you are prepared to go to court to fight. Otherwise you have to live with whatever interpretation CASA come up with.

If you feel you understand CAR206 and particularly 206 (1) (b) and (c) perhaps you could give a definition of the terms "fixed terminals" and "specific routes"?

I sense a trap. Any definition creates edge cases where you can say "but what about..." However, I will give it a go.

I would say fixed schedules, fixed terminals and specific routes refer to the case where the schedules, routes and terminals are fixed by the operator, as opposed to the case where they can be varied at the request of the passengers and/or hirer of the aircraft.

Torres

7th Oct 2018, 22:06

As I said in post 41, I think CASA has made some decisions based on "the vibe" rather than what CAR 206 actually says, then tried to interpret the rule to match their decision.

Ain't that the truth! I believe their contention was that the diesel fitter was receiving payment for his time (as a pilot flying the aircraft) and payment for his aircraft flying time, which if not shown as a separate charge, must be part of his total charge for the service rendered - thus in the view of the FOI constituted a commercial air service. I think I vaguely recall a Vet being questioned on a similar basis, but it would be at least 20 years ago.

No, not a trap at all and your assumption matches one of the CASA definitions. They are critical phrases which must/must not exist and are directly extracted from CAR206, however they are not included in the Definitions. They are the expressions CASA interpret in any way they see fit to suit the circumstances. There was a time they did have logical definitions, refer the pre 1988 Air Navigation Regulations from approximately ANR197 to ANR203.

From a aviation media article of 20 years ago:

At the direction of CASA's Canberra office, two investigators and one ... FOI conduct an investigation with the following terms of reference: "Determine the extent of operations in the Torres Strait region which are being conducted for fare paying passengers that fall into the definition of RPT and which are currently being conducted as charter." The TOR directed that: "The differentiation between RPT and charter that is to be used for this investigation shall be drawn from the "draft" paper prepared by ......... (a CASA lawyer) as attached."

The draft opinion ......... attempted to define the five elements which must exist to constitute RPT. However it provided no definitions of two of the critical elements: "Specific route" and "fixed terminal". The (CASA) investigators had thus been instructed to investigate whether operators were in breach not of a regulation or rule, but of a draft opinion, which failed to provide critical definitions.

longrass

8th Oct 2018, 10:11

So when it comes to hire and reward. Hire is obvious, but reward? Does profit come in to play with reward. It’s not much of a reward if you aren’t making a profit.

”Steven was rewarded with the ability to go flying and not make any money. Like his marriage, Steven was left feeling flat and without purpose”

andrewr

9th Oct 2018, 07:08

Reward does not need to involve profit. I think it's a catch-all for any benefits that wouldn't be considered "hire", especially non-monetary benefits.

Why would you want to fly someone else's staff? I think you would need to mount a pretty convincing argument to show why the reason was not some form of "reward".

LeadSled

10th Oct 2018, 04:21

Folks,
One of the more idiotic "determinations" years ago was that, as an AOC required a Standard Category C.of A aircraft, and as aerial photography was Airwork, therefor (in AU) required an AOC, photographs/filming could only take place from a Standard Cat. Cof A aircraft, therefor approximately 100% of pics. taken from/of "Warbirds" (and of many other aircraft) constituted evidence of an offence under Reg.206.

All in the interests of : "Safety Is Our First Priority", you understand. Nothing to do with: "We're not happy 'till you'r not happy".

"Interestingly", the CASA perX who pursued this was of the view that the determination extended to the subject --- ie: It was only "legal" to take photographs of Standard Cat. C.of A. aircraft in the air.

Gaaawwwd!! What a lawless lot we are in this country, with wholesale committing of such criminal acts. I wonder if the "offense" is per pic.? Is there a statute of limitation??

Tootle pip!!

PS: As I expect most of you know, NA T6/Harvard or a NA-T28 are favorite camera platforms. With the exception of a couple of Canadian built Harvards, none have a Standard Cat. C.of A.

Sunfish

10th Oct 2018, 06:27

No wonder Aviation is dying.

Pilotette

11th Oct 2018, 05:17

Longrass, if you can’t get a difinitive answer out of the regulator, you’re definitely not going to get a definitive answer out of the pprune society.
If this whole idea all becomes too hard, you could always approach an operator like us who has everything you need. Good planes, good pilots, an AOC, all of the insurances and we fly to Arnhemland almost daily.
Benefits of this include:
- Not having to look over your shoulder for CASA.
- The ability to focus on the job you have been contracted to do.
- Not having to deal with an aircraft owner who wants a minimum amount of hours on their aircraft to make it worth their while.
- No insurance setup/issues with who covers what.
- No parking/hangarage/airservices fees.
- No account setup with fuel suppliers in Arnhemland.
- No issues with staff who may (rightly or wrongly) think that you’re not experienced enough / focussed enough to be flying them around.
- No maintenance scheduling.
etc etc

Negatives:
- You don’t get to fly / get the hours.
- You have to pay a charter operator.

Just a thought, good luck with whichever way you decide to proceed.

megan

11th Oct 2018, 06:28

Hope you're not flying when the temp is over 40°C Pilotette. :* Twelve months and no answer from our expert safety organisation. Comical and Stupidly Asinine.as·i·nine
[ as- uh-nahyn]

ADJECTIVE
1. foolish, unintelligent, or silly; stupid: It is surprising that supposedly intelligent people can make such asinine statements.

2. of or like an ass

neville_nobody

11th Oct 2018, 07:45

Some years ago CASA successfully prosecuted a diesel fitter who flew himself to station properties, carrying his tool box, in his privately owned Cessna and on a PPL. They contended he required a CPL and an Aerial Work AOC.

Did CASA actually win a court case or were they just threatening legal action?

I met a pilot who was in a similar situation to the above but caved when CASA threatened him with his license because he and his boss didn't want the hassle of a court case. So his boss ended up driving everywhere in a company 4WD instead of flying in a company aeroplane with a massive loss to productivity.

Squawk7700

11th Oct 2018, 10:56

The mechanic one is an interesting story if true... because if that is the case, it would be difficult to use your private aircraft and PPL for any form of work.

An IT technician flying to customers with his laptop bag?

An electrician... needs his tools.

A doctor carrying his doctor bag.

How about a comedian or motivational speaker, Pauline Hanson perhaps, attending a venue with no tools (other than the obvious one, lol)

neville_nobody

11th Oct 2018, 12:30

The issue revolves around what constitutes goods for the purposes of trade. Interestingly services are not included in the CAR, only goods. So your comedian would be safe. What about a band with musical instruments? And what's the difference between that and the diesel fitter or builder for that matter assuming they are not carry any spare parts or materials for sale.

andrewr

11th Oct 2018, 22:09

The issue revolves around what constitutes goods for the purposes of trade. Interestingly services are not included in the CAR, only goods.

That is one clue that this is not intended to cover tools of trade.

What constitutes goods for the purposes of trade?

1) I would argue that "goods for the purposes of trade" is different to "goods for the purposes of working a trade".

2) maybe it's worth looking at a dictionary definition of goods. Examples:

possessions and personal property
articles of commerce, merchandise
merchandise when transported
freight
things that are made to be sold

Again, I would argue that the qualifier "for the purposes of trade" points to the intended meaning of merchandise, things that are made to be sold etc. rather than the more general possessions and personal property definition

3) "goods for the purposes of trade" is only part of the rule. CAR 206 is a definition for section 27 of the Act, section 27 says "the flying or operation of an aircraft for such purposes are a prescribed". So it only applies if the purpose of flying the aircraft (or one of the purposes) is for the carriage of goods for the purposes of trade. I would argue that in the case of the mechanic the purpose of flying the aircraft was to transport a person (the mechanic), or maintenance and repair of equipment, and carriage of any tools of trade or spare parts that he might charge for was incidental - they are not a purpose on their own.

My view is that the prescription of "carriage of goods for the purposes of trade" is to prevent you from setting up an airfreight business where you buy goods, transport them in your own aircraft then sell them, as a private operation. It is not intended to stop someone using an aircraft as their own transport to get to work.

Here's a thought exercise:

You are a commercial pilot, and have been working in the outback. You just left the job for a new job in Melbourne that lets you be closer to family. The new job starts in a month, in the meantime you are having some time off.

Your old boss calls you. Roads are closed due to rain, they are getting slammed with tourists needing transport, and half their pilots have the flu and are unfit to fly. Could you hire an aircraft, fly out and work for him again for a week? He will pay you for transport costs and time, and short term contract rates. You agree, the money sounds good and relaxing is more boring than you thought it would be.

A (good!) mate says why don't you take my RV7, I won't be able to fly it for a month and it needs a run.

Are you allowed to carry your tools of trade as a pilot with you in the RV? Every pilot would say "of course" and be outraged at the suggestion it might not be allowed, but change it from a pilot to a mechanic and suddenly it's not allowed.

Another thought exercise:

Another pilot from the operation rings you and says "I need a new headset - would you mind buying one for me and bringing it out with you? I'll pay you for it when you get here." Are you allowed to do it?

LeadSled

11th Oct 2018, 23:50

Folks,
You can argue all you like, but the reality is that, like much other aviation regulation in Australia, ( and Australian Cth regulation generally) CAR 206 means whatever some CASA perX decides it means, for whatever purpose at the time some poor sod has become a CASA target.
CASA "enforcement" is and has always been very selective and seldom related to "Safety Is Our First Priority".
There is no dissection and analysis of CAR 206 that will yield a definitive answer.
As I said in a previous post, as far as I know, Australia is the only country that defines all of aviation as (for what of a better word) commercial, then defines "private" as an exception ---- which is generally typical of our aviation rules, written in the negative, then all the exceptions.
Tootle pip!!

andrewr

12th Oct 2018, 01:39

CAR 206 means whatever some CASA perX decides it means, for whatever purpose at the time some poor sod has become a CASA target

In practice, unless you are prepared to go to court that is always true. However, particularly if CASA decline to give an opinion in advance, the best we can do is to try to comply with the regulations as written. Not to mention that we are expected to be able to answer questions on this in exams.

I'm an IT guy and PPL. In the past, I was away on a weekend trip when the weather closed in and I was unable to fly home for several days. I ended up catching the bus home and returning with my laptop (tool of trade) so I could work while I waited for the weather to clear. Are you saying I needed an AOC to then carry the laptop home with me?

After that experience, I am in the habit of taking my laptop with me on overnight trips so that if I get stuck, I can keep up with work (support emails etc.) What kind of ridiculous system would say that is illegal?

Tools of trade:
Pilot - maps, charts, headset, EFB
Salesman - mobile phone
IT person - laptop, ipad, mobile phone
CASA inspector - clipboard, pen

How can it be sensible to require an AOC to carry tools of trade?

Squawk7700

12th Oct 2018, 02:21

Being away on a weekend trip with a laptop, is not the same as flying away to visit your cus

aroa

12th Oct 2018, 02:24

andrewr...Not sensible at all. Just a sign of Cretins against Sensible aviation.
With the power to make you have an AOC, you are then in the CAsA 'squirrel grip'. Argue with or upset a CAsA perp and they will squeeze for yr pain or cancel to put you out of business. Now that's power !

Lawyers fly off to a case, along with their brief boxes...but CAsA stays away. And so they should.
To deny a person going about their lawful business, just because they use an aircraft is rampant stupidity, and a denial of yr civil right.
If it stops you working, its a denial of yr right to earn a living.
It has SFA to do with "safety"
All CAsA has to worry about is that the pilot conducting the flight is duly licenced , that the a/c has an MR and the appropriate flight rules are adhered to. NOTHING MORE. That is their only interest ...or should be.
CAsA is "a safety agency, not a commercial regulator "..so past DASs have BS-ed away merrily to Senate Hearings over the decades.
But its a great shining LIE.

How to deal with ,and rectify all these bureaucratic hide-bound stupidities that have bought GA to its knees...that is the question.

Sunfish

12th Oct 2018, 02:59

Oh Jeeze! Maybe I'm a criminal! On my Piper Lance endorsement flight I was asked" Do you mind if we take a mechanic, tools and a fresh battery to Xxxx? One of our aircraft is stuck there with a flat battery."

All I can say in my defence is that I was young and impressionable.

neville_nobody

12th Oct 2018, 03:40

My view is that the prescription of "carriage of goods for the purposes of trade" is to prevent you from setting up an airfreight business where you buy goods, transport them in your own aircraft then sell them, as a private operation. It is not intended to stop someone using an aircraft as their own transport to get to work.

That was how it was explained during Airlaw however CASA don't see it that way. They seem to be of the belief and as demonstrated here with some of the comments that if you have anything in the aircraft that is used in a transaction then its a commercial operation.

How to deal with ,and rectify all these bureaucratic hide-bound stupidities that have bought GA to its knees...that is the question.

You deal with it by going to court. From what I have witness over the years is that anyone who actually takes CASA on over some of their rulings usually end up with CASA folding like cheap lawn furniture when they actually have to front up to a judge. However the issue is that CASA essentially has a unlimited budget and most businesses don't, so the business/individual just caves in most of the time.

LeadSled

12th Oct 2018, 07:25

You deal with it by going to court. From what I have witness over the years is that anyone who actually takes CASA on over some of their rulings usually end up with CASA folding like cheap lawn furniture when they actually have to front up to a judge. However the issue is that CASA essentially has a unlimited budget and most businesses don't, so the business/individual just caves in most of the time.

Neville,
I would agree with the above, with the emphasis on "court" as in a real court, and not the AAT --- where all sorts of atrocities that would never be permitted in a proper court are a regular feature of CASA representation.
Remember, the rules of evidence do not apply in the AAT, and heresay can be admitted.
If you are able, always go to a "real" court, it will probably be cheaper in the long run, and the probability of "justice" is much greater.
Tootle pip!!