AOC or no AOC

[Squawk7700]

I recently made an enquiry and was given some information that I have taken at face value and presumably is subject to change depending on which employee of the department you ask.

What I’ll is write the questions I asked and you write what you think the answers are, then I’ll post what I was told the answers were.

AOC or no AOC.

1. The Channel X helicopter

2. The VicPol helicopter

3. Taking friends for a fly with you (cost sharing)

4. Taking a friend flying, cost sharing and he’s taking photos for his real estate business

5. Posting a YouTube video that goes viral and you make $1m from the advertising revenue

6. Posting videos on YouTube and selling a YouTube subscription to watch it

7. Selling a photo you took from your aircraft to a newspaper

8. Taking photos from your plane and selling them to a real estate agency

9. A grieving family pays you to look for a family members lost fishing boat

10. You find a missing fishing boat off Flinders Island and the owner gives you $500 for thanks

Enjoy!


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

[Stickshift3000]

I'll have a crack - just to see the real answers!

1. AOC
2. No AOC
3. No AOC
4. AOC
5. No AOC
6. No AOC
7. AOC
8. AOC
9. AOC
10. AOC

[Alice Kiwican]

I'll have a crack - just to see the real answers!

Me too...
1. AOC
2. AOC
3. NO AOC
4. AOC
5. NO AOC
6. NO AOC
7. NO AOC
8. AOC
9. AOC
10.AOC

[Capt Fathom]

Re Q5 & Q6....

Do you have to buy a subscription to YouTube?

I have watched the YouTube channel you have alluded to in the past, never had to pay for it!

Free to air.....

[Squawk7700]

Re Q5 & Q6....

Do you have to buy a subscription to YouTube?

I have watched the YouTube channel you have alluded to in the past, never had to pay for it!

Free to air.....

Re YouTube - You can watch it for free, or you can subscribe for premium content, say $5 a month.

If it helps.. a basic YouTube channel is often monetised and it contains adverts for which the creator is paid to have them displayed on their videos. So.... the pilot is still being paid by someone, even if the viewer isn’t paying.

[Look Mum - no hands]

1 AOC (if used for filming, no AOC if solely used to transport staff)
2 No AOC
3 No AOC
4 - 9 AOC
10 No AOC

[Progressive]

I'll bite - with my reasoning for added value:
1 - AOC
2 - No AOC (under CAR), AOC for Aeromed work under new CASR's - aerial work certificate for everything else.
3 - No AOC (<6 pax), AOC if more than 6 pax
4 - AOC
5 - No AOC - youtube is by its own definition about sharing information, the photographer has no control (when where how) over people paying to advertise on his site. The goods for sale are essentially the spaces between his videos not the videos themselves.
6 - AOC - the photographers product is access to his videos he owns and controls the product.
7 - AOC
8 - AOC
9 - AOC
10 - AOC

[Sunfish]

Is this a necessary subject for debate in any other country? What does this thread and the one about obtaining an AOC tell about Australian Aviation regulation?

[Squawk7700]

Thanks Captain obvious.


Now, I’ll make it a bit easier, or harder for some...

Again, with the disclaimer that opinions in the department can vary...

Only ONE of the above requires an AOC.

Which one is it?


(Note: Questions 9 and 10 are mutually exclusive. They are in no way related and are not a consequence of each other).

[olderairhead]

2 police helocopter

[Lead Balloon]

<Only ONE of the above requires an AOC.>I’m guessing you didn’t get the answer in writing from a Federal Court judge?

[tail wheel]

Interesting ... I'd seek a second opinion from a CASA employee, it may prove interesting.

The Police require an AOC, that became a requirement a few years ago.

7. Selling a photo you took from your aircraft to a newspaper

8. Taking photos from your plane and selling them to a real estate agency

CASA successfully prosecuted a PPL photographer a few years ago in North Queensland for taking photos of properties from his aircraft and selling photos, without an AOC.

Be interesting to see the justification for only Police (?) being required to hold an AOC?

[Squawk7700]

Oh dear, this just got messy.

For the purposes of continuation, let’s exclude the Police as an edge case for the time being.

[Lead Balloon]

It “got messy” about 30 years ago...

[olderairhead]

9 search and rescue

[andrewr]

CAR 206 is messy because people seem to interpret it as meaning what they think it should mean rather than what it actually says.
Reading CAR 206 I can see:

Only 2 of the sections mention payment: (1)(b)(i) the carriage of passengers or cargo for hire or reward and (1)(c) transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally, for hire or reward. Presumably other sections require an AOC whether or not they are being performed for money.
There is nothing that refers to the number of passengers

Aerial photography does not mention payment. My interpretation would be that it depends on the purpose of the flight - if you are flying for pleasure or recreation and take photos or video that is OK. If the purpose of the flight is to take photos or video, that should require an AOC.

[pcx]

Number 9 only.

[Sunfish]

OK, I’ll bite!

items 1,2, 9 and 10. AOC required - 1 (a) (ii) - aerial spotting. 1 (a)(ix) - ‘substantially similar” applies.

items 5,6,7 and 8 AOC required - 1 (a) (iv) - aerial photography and 1 (a) (v) advertising.

iems 3, 4 no AOC required.

[Squawk7700]

Number 9 only.


Bingo !! We have a winner.


The Police one is a curveball because a precedent may have been set that I was not aware of.

It is certainly an interesting discussion point and it comes up so often.

But go and change the wording of those ever so slightly and the context changes and then it becomes a different story completely.

[Lead Balloon]

And who is the source of this theory?

[Squawk7700]

And who is the source of this theory?

2 separate employees where you used to work.

Getting it in writing might be a different story. It makes perfect sense to me, but there will always be those that try and twist the scenarios to suit themselves.

[Progressive]

CAR 206 is messy because people seem to interpret it as meaning what they think it should mean rather than what it actually says.
Reading CAR 206 I can see:

Only 2 of the sections mention payment: (1)(b)(i) the carriage of passengers or cargo for hire or reward and (1)(c) transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally, for hire or reward. Presumably other sections require an AOC whether or not they are being performed for money.
There is nothing that refers to the number of passengers

Aerial photography does not mention payment. My interpretation would be that it depends on the purpose of the flight - if you are flying for pleasure or recreation and take photos or video that is OK. If the purpose of the flight is to take photos or video, that should require an AOC.

You have fallen foul of the common problem of reading a reg in isolation - greater definition of classification of operations is provided in CAR 2 (7)(D), where you will see that which specifically states "(a) an aircraft that is flying or operating for a commercial purpose referred to in paragraph 206(1)(a) shall be taken to be employed in aerial work operations;" From the definitions commercial operations means civil air operations other than private operations.

Going back to CAR 2(7)(D) private operations are classified as 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 subregulation (7A);

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

(vii) flight training, other than the following:

(A) Part 141 flight training (within the meaning of regulation 141.015 of CASR);

(B) Part 142 flight training (within the meaning of regulation 142.015 of CASR);

(C) balloon flying training (within the meaning of subregulation 5.01(1)) for the grant of a balloon flight crew licence or rating; 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

Thus a flight can be conducted for the purposes of aerial photography as long as no remuneration is earned by the pilot etc.
Subreg 7A contains the requirements for passenger carrying private flight flights and limits passenger numbers to 6 and requires cost sharing - just for kicks there is NO provision for carrying pax WITHOUT cost sharing - except (viii) where this could be taken to be similar to (va).

[andrewr]

You have fallen foul of the common problem of reading a reg in isolation - greater definition of classification of operations is provided in CAR 2 (7)(D), where you will see that which specifically states "(a) an aircraft that is flying or operating for a commercial purpose referred to in paragraph 206(1)(a) shall be taken to be employed in aerial work operations;" From the definitions commercial operations means civil air operations other than private operations.

OK, but I don't see where Section 27 pulls in the definition of private operations from CAR 2(7). CAR 206 defines operations for section 27. CAR2(7) also refers to definitions from CAR 206, so if CAR2(7) is used for definitions for CAR 206 it becomes circular.

By your reasoning,
flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of (i) the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft
also never requires an AOC, so I can purchase an aircraft, employ a PPL to fly me to Sydney for a meeting every week, then take out advertisements and sell the extra seats for $500 each to the general public, or charge to carry freight.

CAR 2(7)(D)(i) would also trump all the arguments about whether you can carry tools of trade etc as long as you own the aircraft.

[Progressive]

OK, but I don't see where Section 27 pulls in the definition of private operations from CAR 2(7). CAR 206 defines operations for section 27. CAR2(7) also refers to definitions from CAR 206, so if CAR2(7) is used for definitions for CAR 206 it becomes circular.

By your reasoning,
flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of (i) the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft
also never requires an AOC, so I can purchase an aircraft, employ a PPL to fly me to Sydney for a meeting every week, then take out advertisements and sell the extra seats for $500 each to the general public, or charge to carry freight.

CAR 2(7)(D)(i) would also trump all the arguments about whether you can carry tools of trade etc as long as you own the aircraft.

CAR2 is applicable to all regs as it provides the definitions for the entire CAR: From CAR 2 preamble "In these Regulations, unless the contrary intention appears......."

With regards to your scenario you are correct up until "then take out advertisements and sell the extra seats for $500 each to the general public, or charge to carry freight" this would be "flying in the course of earning 500 buck from fee paying passengers/freight" because you may only carry person (other than the owner of the aircraft) in accordance with CAR 2(7A) which requires that you do not advertise.

So you can:
Fly a dead leg to pick pick up the owner of the aircraft (2(7)(D)(i))
Fly back with the owner on board (2(7)(d)(i)
Fly with any number of other people (friends/family) on board as long the flight is not generally advertised and no one is paying for their seat(2(7)(D)(v))
Fly with up to six people on board sharing the cost CAR 2 (7A)

[andrewr]

you may only carry person (other than the owner of the aircraft) in accordance with CAR 2(7A) which requires that you do not advertise.

You don't have to satisfy ALL the conditions in 2(7)(d), only any one of them.

2(7A) outlines the conditions for 2(7)(d)(va). 2(7)(d)(v) the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge or 2(7)(d)(i) the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft are perfectly acceptable alternatives to 2(7)(d)(va) to come under the umbrella of 2(7)(d)

[Stickshift3000]

I have never wondered why I’m so confused with the regs - they weren’t written for the lay person to understand. Appalled at their drafting actually.

Is it a legitimate defence to a crime of strict liability to not comprehend that law?!

[601]

Interesting ... I'd seek a second opinion from a CASA employee, it may prove interesting.

Better still, ask multiple CASA Staff in multiple offices and compare the answers.

What you have to remember is that CASA do not write the final draft of legislation but the Office of Legal Counsel (if I remember the name correctly) who have no idea about aviation. What CASA desire in legislation may not be what is in the final legislation.

OLC are just concerned with the legalise and if a penalty can be applied to a piece of legislation.

[Super Cecil]

Will you get an opinion from a CASA person or will they just refer you to the relevant legislation?

[Lead Balloon]

You have fallen foul of the common problem of reading a reg in isolation - greater definition of classification of operations is provided in CAR 2 (7)(D), where you will see that which specifically states "(a) an aircraft that is flying or operating for a commercial purpose referred to in paragraph 206(1)(a) shall be taken to be employed in aerial work operations;" From the definitions commercial operations means civil air operations other than private operations.

Going back to CAR 2(7)(D) private operations are classified as 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 subregulation (7A);

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

(vii) flight training, other than the following:

(A) Part 141 flight training (within the meaning of regulation 141.015 of CASR);

(B) Part 142 flight training (within the meaning of regulation 142.015 of CASR);

(C) balloon flying training (within the meaning of subregulation 5.01(1)) for the grant of a balloon flight crew licence or rating; 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

Thus a flight can be conducted for the purposes of aerial photography as long as no remuneration is earned by the pilot etc.
Subreg 7A contains the requirements for passenger carrying private flight flights and limits passenger numbers to 6 and requires cost sharing - just for kicks there is NO provision for carrying pax WITHOUT cost sharing - except (viii) where this could be taken to be similar to (va).
Progressive

You have fallen foul of the common problem of reading reg 2(7A) as a “requirement” and failing to read all the way to the end of reg 2(7)(d).

Reg 2(7A) is just a definition of just one set of circumstances deemed to be private. And when you read all the way to the end of reg 2(7)(d) you will find that all activities “of a kind substantially similar to any of those specified in” earlier provisions reg 2(7)(d) are also deemed private.

Read that twice, Progressive: “of a kind substantially similar to any of those”.

I assume you are one - perhaps the only - remaining source of the persistent folklore that there is a six POB limit on private operations, as a consequence of reg 2(7A)? You should get a job in CASA.

Squawk: My presumptive approach to anything said by anyone from CASA is that they are wrong. It’s proved to be a sensible presumption.

[Torres]

My presumptive approach to anything said by anyone from CASA is that they are wrong. It’s proved to be a sensible presumption.

As it has been for over 30 years!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

It ALL just begs the question, don't it??

How are 'we mere mortals' supposed to understand these draconian rools, let alone abide by them, and ALL in the interest of "SAFETY"?????

I must be a 'crim' by now.....numerous times over..... a 'rap sheet' as long as yer arm Yer Honour........

BAH HUMBUG!!!!!!!!


p.s. 1,000 penalty points - strict liability fer spellin...................

p.p.s. I rekkon I'd accept gratefully the guys $500 for findin' his boat, he would just 'slip it' to me at 'the club' bar later......

[aroa]

The "Screaming Skull" at a few Senate Hearings Quote ..." I say again ( u dumb senators) CAsA is NOT a commercial regulator.!
Utter BS of course...Just ask me !
Done TWICE for the same thing ,,photography both 206 and 2 7 d. As one Prosecutor said ( not under oath) "No person in Australia can take a photograph from an aircraft without a CPL and an AOC." !!
Utter BS of course ( then again Im not Dick Smith)
I used to have a photography business capturing images from my own aircraft but the above was wiped out.by CAsA aided and abetted by a competitor company. ( cronyisn and corruption )
The evidence in court was payment slips and invoices etc..the paperwork of commerce. ( Altho at a later date they denied they had ever collected that..to a Minister and polllies/ See.?.any old lies and BS will do. Their only nefarious "safety" argument in court was that PPLs do all the killing in GA !
And at that time there had been a rash of light chtr accidents in FNQ and 21 fatalies..ALL by CPLS !
So you can see where their attention to any "safety" priority really lies.

All the above posts just indicate what a sh*t show the whole CAsA regulatory maze/ nightmare/rubbish is.
What on earth (or being above it) has the 'commerce 'of photography got to do with safety.

CAsA have stated over the decades that they will do something about it as R. 206 is 'ultra vires'
the Act. But they never have. Cant be bothered.? Institutional sloth.? Or Keep it...its a good catch all.
The Loonies are still in charge of 16 Furzer st , so I can only wish those who snap pics, search for fishing boats, carry mates for shares etc etc all the best ,,,and fly safe.!
YOU are the final arbiter of your safety and that of others.

[neville_nobody]

Better still, ask multiple CASA Staff in multiple offices and compare the answers.

Exactly. The other problem is noone actually takes CASA to court so we very rarely get any independent rulings other than CASAs'. I know of several cases where CASA have threated to take action for operations other than number 9.

I also fail to see how putting something on YouTube and making money does not fall foul of "aerial photography where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft" If your photos go in a Art Gallery then it's illegal but if it goes on the internet then that's OK?:hmm: It doesn't state how you get paid it just says you get remunerated for taking photos.

[Squawk7700]

The YouTube example was explained to me that the owner is being paid for the videos as that’s his “brand.” His name is on them and that’s what he does. He (or she) is not being paid to fly the plane, but rather is being paid for his video content.

Another example was that you’re flying over a raging flood, take photos of it then sell them to the newspaper. The newspaper is paying for the photos, not for the pilot to fly the plane. If aerial photography is what you do, then you can be paid for it, without an AOC.

Channel X was explained in exactly the same way.

The traffic helicopters over the CBD’s are also a private operation, or at least were on last check. They even fly single engine R44’s at night over the city areas and as we know, you’d have to be private for that.

Would any of that stand up in court?????

[Capt Fathom]

Is there a point to this thread? If so, can we get to it!

[Squawk7700]

Is there a point to this thread? If so, can we get to it!

Sunfish has summed it up nicely.

Seemingly a bunch of professional pilots with many years experience between them are unable to understand the rules as they are written!

[compressor stall]

This should be no surprise to anyone who’s been in the indiustry longer than 5 minutes.

the real question is how is it answered under part 91/119/121/135/138? I’d be keen to see replies for the same scenarios.....

[neville_nobody]

The YouTube example was explained to me that the owner is being paid for the videos as that’s his “brand.” His name is on them and that’s what he does. He (or she) is not being paid to fly the plane, but rather is being paid for his video content.

Another example was that you’re flying over a raging flood, take photos of it then sell them to the newspaper. The newspaper is paying for the photos, not for the pilot to fly the plane. If aerial photography is what you do, then you can be paid for it, without an AOC.

Channel X was explained in exactly the same way.

That isn't a plain reading of the law. It even specifically states that a third party cannot have you take aerial photos (say for free to build hours) then they receive remuneration for the photos or footage. The medium is irrelevant. Whether its a Movie, YouTube, or your own Art exhibition if anyone is getting paid you need an AOC.

Reality is now professional photography will be done in a Drone bypassing all this but that's another story.

[Checklist Charlie]

I look back on all the hot air and written words expended on the "Categorisation of Operations" over the last 50 or so years that probably are equal to if not in excess of that expended on the "Regulatory Revue Program".

I doubt whether I will live long enough to see an end to those exercises.

Oh well, it has at least kept hordes of regulatory career nupties employed and off the street.

CC

[Stickshift3000]

All the above posts just indicate what a sh*t show the whole CAsA regulatory maze/ nightmare/rubbish is.

This. Always will be.

[lucille]

Over 30 years of working overseas, I’ve noticed that Australian pilots have held a reputation for being tin pot bush lawyers of the lowest order. Always trying to be clever and yet always failing.

This thread pretty much confirms the prejudices held by the rest of the world.

So, a far more interesting question is :

Is this our recently acquired national trait or have we been trained by a dysfunctional regulatory authority to behave like this? Either way, it’s bloody sad. Nobody was this loopy 40 years ago.

[Sunfish]

Lucille, look up “Stockholm Syndrome”. Australian pilots appear to soberly debate regulations and regulatory behaviour that Stalin, Hitler or Mao might be proud of as evidenced by the Forsyth senate review and the alleged treatment of Glen Buckley. “Stockholm Syndrome” seems to me to be an explanation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

An extract......We see something like this on pprune sometimes.. “Abused children” also fits the Duntroon military model that views anyone other than the officer corps as “little children” that need to be led because they have no cognitive capability..... Hence the stunning performance of some RAAF Officers in civilian management roles.
Ronald Fairbairn wrote a complete psychoanalytic model in a series of papers (1940, 1941,1943, 1944) which are collected in his 1952 text Psychoanalytic Studies of the Personality[22] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome#cite_note-:1-22). His model explains the surprising psychological reality that abused children become deeply attached to their abusers. He saw that lack of love, chronic indifference and abuse led to a counter-intuitive emotional attachment to the very parent who was abusing them. The child’s unmet dependency needs from chronic emotional deprivation as well as the complete lack of other human alternatives in his/her environment, forces the child to focus intensely on the abuser, and paradoxically, to become concerned for the abuser’s welfare. This concern derives from the child’s sense of the danger that he is in, and the reality that his welfare is completely dependent on the whims, moods and emotional state of the abusive parent. Anything that he can do to placate, please or draw praise from the abuser increases the child’s chance of survival.

The neglected or abused child’s utter helplessness and absolute dependency upon the goodwill of their parents prevents him/her from “seeing” or remembering those interpersonal events in which they have faced indifference or physical abuse, as their anxiety would overwhelm them and submerge them in a torrent of dread. This feeling of dread is most often experienced as a massive abandonment panic during those moments when the child realizes that he/she is living in constant danger with no one to help him/her to survive. The solution to this enormous problem is for the child to encase himself/herself within a thick psychological cocoon of denial and fantasy that creates a false reality in which he/she believes that they are living in a loving and caring family.

The first way that the child protects itself is by using the greatest reality -altering defense that humans have at their disposal, which is the defense of dissociation. The dissociative defense mechanism is seen in adults who have suffered a life threatening trauma, and it prevents them from fully realizing what has happened. In children, the same defense forces intolerable memories of neglect, abuse or total indifference that they experienced in relation to their parents into their unconscious, where these memories will not disturb the child’s illusion that he /she lives in a safe and loving family. The dissociative defense is the basis of what is commonly called denial. The more frequent the abuse, the more frequently dissociation is required and the larger and larger the number of intolerable memories are forced into the unconscious. Once lodged in their unconscious, the child cannot remember the horrifying incidents that they previously experienced.

[aroa]

NevilleN...There are photographers these days doing just that from aircraft for Art exhibitions, payment for other uses..and not being prosecuted.
By FOI I am advied the last photographer prosecuted was 20 years ago .
So does CAsA now not worry about r 206.? Or is it just rolled out when there is an agenda to do someone in.
If its still on the books it can be used. Who would know. CAsA is the agency of "Different strokes for Different Folks"....and then some.
Consistency is not a word in CAsA's lexicon. About anything. (Except their own CYA)

[andrewr]

There are 2 reasons people find CAR 206 confusing:
1) People try to find loopholes and merge other bits of the regulations to try to make it say what they want, and
2) CASA also do #1

It seems pretty straightforward to me. On aerial photography:
CAA 27(9) says an AOC is required for the flying or operation of an aircraft for such purposes as are prescribed

CAR 206:
For the purposes of subsection (http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s191.html#subsection) 27(9) of the Act, the following commercial purposes are prescribed:
(a)....
(iv) aerial photography;

What is unclear or confusing?

[Sunfish]

AndrewR;
It seems pretty straightforward to me. On aerial photography:
CAA 27(9) says an AOC is required for the flying or operation of an aircraft for such purposes as are prescribed

CAR 206:
For the purposes of subsection (http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s191.html#subsection) 27(9) of the Act, the following commercial purposes are prescribed:
(a)....
(iv) aerial photography;

What is unclear or confusing?


’Andrew, you need some jewish friends who have had to parse the Torah and the Talmud for a couple of thousand years. They will do a better job of explaining and teaching than I can, but here goes:

‘’What does the term aerial photography actually mean? “aerial” from an aircraft? Probably. But what does the word “photography“ include? Digital? Electronic?

‘’Then there is the question; “photography of what”? Do we mean things on the ground? Things inside the aircraft? Other aircraft?

Then there is the question of “commercial purposes”? What if no money changes hands? Barter for example? A few images of my house in exchange for two drums of avgas?

Now we get to specifics: Youtube videos taken by passengers and posted for money? Instruction videos touting books and flying schools? Formation flying? Videos by parachutists in free fall - an extra $50 on the cost of your tandem jump for your personal video? An Australian equivalent to Todd Petersens flying channel on youtube?

I’ve just scratched the surface.

The slovenly written regulations are full of holes, it perhaps suits CASA that way because they have deep pockets to argue and you don’t.

The biggest legal lie: “It means what it says”.

For example, what does CASA mean by “acceptable? “Appropriate”? “Fit and proper person”?

Lest you or anyone else thinks I am making a frivolous, flippant (being a fish) argument, I am deadly serious.

These ill defined regulations have an infinity of meanings. That simple fact massively increases both costs and risk of investing in aviation in Australia because it increases transaction costs of doing business. This translates into perhaps double the costs compared to American aviation and that translates into less investment and jobs - usually referred to as opportunity costs.

[andrewr]

‘’What does the term aerial photography actually mean?.

I think you are illustrating my point about people looking for loopholes.

A good starting point: Aerial photography (or substantially similar) is taking photos from an aircraft, whether they be film, digital, still, video. If you want an exception, justify why it should not be considered aerial photography (not just because you want to do it without an AOC).

Commercial? I'm not a lawyer but I suspect what is and is not commercial is well litigated. CAR(2) is a diversion because it defines Commercial Operations, not Commercial Purposes or simply Commercial.

An important point (explicitly spelled out in the regulation, not a loophole): The AOC is required for flying for the purpose of . Taking photos does not require an AOC. Selling photos does not require an AOC. Flying for the purpose of commercial aerial photography requires an AOC.

[Lead Balloon]

I think you are illustrating my point about people looking for loopholes.

A good starting point: Aerial photography (or substantially similar) is taking photos from an aircraft, whether they be film, digital, still, video. If you want an exception, justify why it should not be considered aerial photography (not just because you want to do it without an AOC).

Commercial? I'm not a lawyer but I suspect what is and is not commercial is well litigated. CAR(2) is a diversion because it defines Commercial Operations, not Commercial Purposes or simply Commercial.

An important point (explicitly spelled out in the regulation, not a loophole): The AOC is required for flying for the purpose of . Taking photos does not require an AOC. Selling photos does not require an AOC. Flying for the purpose of commercial aerial photography requires an AOC.So ‘simple’ andrewr. Yet you and the two folk with whom Squawk has been corresponding seem to disagree.

As with so much of this complexity, it is useful to reflect on the history of the slow construction of the regulatory Frankenstein’s monster by CASA.

About 20 years ago, a change was made to section 27(9) of the CA Act. One word was deleted. The section was changed from this:Subsection (2) [which prohibits the operation of aircraft except as authorised by an AOC] applies only to the flying or operation of an aircraft for such commercial purposes as are prescribed....to this:Subsection (2) [which prohibits the operation of aircraft except as authorised by an AOC] applies only to the flying or operation of an aircraft for such purposes as are prescribed.In short, the word “commercial” was deleted.

This enabled CASA to engage in the sophistry and empty rhetoric of pretending merely to be a safety regulator rather than what it was and remains.

As you have noted and quoted, the regs continue to reflect the original language of s 27(9). The phrase “commercial purposes” remains. Why weren’t the regs amended to reflect the amendment to s 27(9)? A complete lack of corporate competence and integrity on CASA’s behalf.

If you are correct and the word “commercial” in e.g. reg 206 has any meaning, it would seem to follow that someone can set up a high capacity RPT airline as a charity and no AOC would be required. That would seem odd, if it’s all about ‘safety’. (‘Bill Gates’s Free Poor People’s Airline’ - would be an interesting experiment.)

One can scratch merely the surface to discern another of the many distinctions that are made in the classification of operations scheme that have absolutely no causal connection with objective safety risk.

If I own an aircraft and also own and occupy land, I can pay someone to carry out agricultural operations in that aircraft on that land and the operations do not have to be authorised by an AOC: CAR 2(7)(d)(iii), noting that “remuneration” and “charge” and “payment” are expressly mentioned in other provisions of CAR 2(7)(d), but not (iii). If my neighbour also owns an aircraft and also owns and occupies the neighbouring land, my neighbour can also pay someone to carry out agricultural operations in that aircraft on that land and the operations do not have have to be authorised by an AOC. But if my neighbour and I then swap places - he occupies the land I own and I occupy the land he owns - those same operations in the same aircraft on the same land have to be authorised by an AOC. Go figure.

[andrewr]

As with so much of this complexity, it is useful to reflect on the history of the slow construction of the regulatory Frankenstein’s monster by CASA.

I agree that the word "commercial" is somewhat awkward in the context of the regulation. Thanks for the information about how it came to be there. It would be easier to pretend it wasn't there, but I am assuming if the word is there we need to to take notice of its meaning.

If you are correct and the word “commercial” in e.g. reg 206 has any meaning, it would seem to follow that someone can set up a high capacity RPT airline as a charity and no AOC would be required.

You are suggesting that all activities by a charity are by definition not commercial. I'm not sure that is true. I have been to an Op Shop, they appeared to be engaging in commerce to me. Also:
Myth: A charity can’t undertake commercial activities
Fact: A charity can undertake commercial activities
A charity can undertake commercial activities but must do so with the aim of advancing its charitable purposes
https://www.acnc.gov.au/for-public/understanding-charities/charity-money-myths-facts-about-operating-not-profit

If I own an aircraft and also own and occupy land, I can pay someone to carry out agricultural operations in that aircraft on that land and the operations do not have to be authorised by an AOC: CAR 2(7)(d)(iii)

We are back to CAR 2(7) again!. I see no link between CAR 2(7) and AOCs. At best, CAR 2(7) indirectly defines Commercial Operations, not Commercial Purposes. 27(9) refers to flying for certain purposes.

CAR 206 absolutely 100% says that an AOC is required for the purpose of agricultural operations; with no qualification about who owns the land.

It seems that someone decided that is inconvenient so we will pretend that an AOC is not required. A better solution would be to make it easy to get a simple AOC, e.g. "I want to fly agricultural operations on my own land." "No problem - here is your AOC with standard terms and conditions."

[Lead Balloon]

So it looks like an aircraft can be “taken to be employed in private operations” when flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of one of the operations listed in with CAR 2(7)(d) and at the same time those operations may have to be authorised by an AOC? You have reached regulatory nirvana, andrewr! Private operations that have to be authorised by an AOC!

I know just the place where you could engage in busy work indefinitely.

And what of the charity airline that does not engage in commercial activities? Bill Gates buys jumbo jets and starts scheduled services between Sydney and Melbourne for poor people for no charge to anyone. Bill’s just burning his billions. AOC or no AOC?

[Sunfish]

AndrewR, your “simple AOC” proposal leads directly to the utter destruction of what’s left of aviation in Australia. What you are doing is proposing that the requirement for possession of an AOC for flight operations, which is now limited to aviation businesses, be extended to ALL operations, private flight included.

Furthermore you must know that nothing involving bureaucrats remains “standard” for more than a microsecond. This proposal is the same as the dreaded “private AOC’ idea floated and thankfully killed years ago. You should also understand that he’ll will freeze over before CASA unconditionally issue anything.

[andrewr]

So it looks like an aircraft can be “taken to be employed in private operations” when flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of one of the operations listed in with CAR 2(7)(d) and at the same time those operations may have to be authorised by an AOC?

If I own an aircraft and use it to fly regularly to Sydney, and decide to advertise and sell the spare seats to the public I would say yes, it requires an AOC despite CAR 2(7)(d)(i). Commercial operations and commercial purposes can refer to different things.

And what of the charity airline that does not engage in commercial activities? Bill Gates buys jumbo jets and starts scheduled services between Sydney and Melbourne for poor people for no charge to anyone. Bill’s just burning his billions. AOC or no AOC?

This is where the "commercial" word is awkward and probably should have been removed as you pointed out. If someone wants to try it we can find out. The closest we are likely to get is Angel Flight.

[andrewr]

AndrewR, your “simple AOC” proposal leads directly to the utter destruction of what’s left of aviation in Australia. What you are doing is proposing that the requirement for possession of an AOC for flight operations, which is now limited to aviation businesses, be extended to ALL operations, private flight included.

No - only what is listed in CAR 206.

Commercial purposes and commercial operations can be different things.

E.g. a DAME owns an aircraft and flys himself from place to place to do aviation medicals. The purpose is clearly commercial, but is not listed in CAR 206 so an AOC is not required.

It is a private operation according to CAR 2(7)(d) so he can do it with a PPL.

However CAR 206 prevents him from selling the spare seats without an AOC.

[Lead Balloon]

Since when is travelling to work - a DAME flying from place to place to do aviation medicals - “commercial”?

[andrewr]

Do you reckon he claims the cost on his tax?

If he's travelling TO work i.e. from home to his work location, not commercial. If he's travelling FOR work i.e. from one work location to another then I would say the purpose of the travel is commercial.

[Lead Balloon]

I would say it isn’t. You seem to be suggesting that the earning of a living is a commercial activity.

What do you say about “agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft”? CAR 2(7)(d)(iii) says the aircraft “shall be taken to be employed in private operations”. If the owner of that aircraft conducting those operations pays the pilot, is an AOC required?

[andrewr]

Are you suggesting that anyone simply earning a living should be excluded from CAR 206 because earning a living is not commercial?

What about the farmer who once a month flies to the livestock sales to purchase stock? Again I would say that is a commercial purpose, but private operation.

What do you say about “agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft”?

Are "agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft" "agricultural operations"? If yes, then according to CAR 206 an AOC is required.

27(9) doesn't say anything about CAR 2(7)(d) so I don't see how it is applicable. Also, CAR 2(7) relies on CAR 206 for it's definitions, so if CAR 206 relies on definitions in CAR 2(7) it is a problem.

[Lead Balloon]

So you say that “agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft” are private operations for which an AOC is required.

Again: Congratulations on reaching aviation regulatory nirvana!

And you haven’t even got to CAR 2(6) or 2(8) yet!

CAR 206 is headed “commercial purposes (Act, s 27(9))“. Section 27(9) has not included the phrase “commercial purposes” for over twenty f*cking years.

You are trying to make sense out of the product of decades of abject incompetence.

[andrewr]

I'm just reading it, I didn't write it. But why shouldn't an AOC be required for a private operation that falls under CAR 206?

What about someone selling seats on their private 2(7)(d)(i) commuting flight?

My logic: You need an AOC.
Write an Ops manual...
Conditions applied to the AOC: Commercial Pilot... Maintenance... etc.

Your logic: It's a private operation under CAR2(7)(d)(i), so... ?

[andrewr]

Lets look at the overlap between CAR 206 and CAR 2(7)(d) i.e. private operations that (I argue) require an AOC:

agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft
the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft where it is combined with the carriage of people or goods for hire, or other purposes listed in CAR 206
the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes of trade, where a charge is made for carriage
flying for hire without a public advertisement or announcement and paying an equal share under 2(7A) i.e. hour building for hire

It doesn't seem like a huge issue if an AOC is required fro these operations. I suspect agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft was the motivation to claim CAR 2(7)(d) overrides the need for an AOC. The confusion arises because they are trying to use CAR 2(7) to allow one but not the others.

[Lead Balloon]

I’ve gotta get some of whatever you’re takin’ or smokin’, andrew!

If someone wants to take regulatory action because there is no AOC authorising the agricultural operations being conducted in an aircraft I own on land I own and occupy, bring it on!

If someone wants to take regulatory action because there is no AOC authorising me to fly my wife and 5 kids on a sight-seeing trip around Australia in a C208 I’ve hired from my mate, bring it on!

If someone wants to take regulatory action because there is no AOC authorising me and 3 mates to ‘hour build’ by taking turns as PIC while on a sight-seeing trip around Australia, in an aircraft we hired from another mate and for which we do not share costs equally, bring it on!

I could do with the light entertainment.

[andrewr]

If someone wants to take regulatory action because there is no AOC authorising me to fly my wife and 5 kids on a sight-seeing trip around Australia in a C208 I’ve hired from my mate, bring it on!

That's not an example I gave. My example (which you keep ignoring) was someone purchasing an aircraft for a regular trip to Sydney (2(7)(d)(i)), then publicly selling the spare seats.

If someone wants to take regulatory action because there is no AOC authorising me and 3 mates to ‘hour build’ by taking turns as PIC while on a sight-seeing trip around Australia, in an aircraft we hired from another mate and for which we do not share costs equally, bring it on!

Again, not my example. My example would be a businessman who says to his mate who just got his PPL "Hey, I have to go to Mildura every week, how about you fly me there, I'll pay 1/2 the cost and you can build up your hours?" I would call this flying for hire.

If someone wants to take regulatory action because there is no AOC authorising the agricultural operations being conducted in an aircraft I own on land I own and occupy, bring it on!

Here I think you would have a problem. But we know CASA want to allow this particular operation so the likelihood of it being tested is minimal.

[Lead Balloon]

That's not an example I gave. My example (which you keep ignoring) was someone purchasing an aircraft for a regular trip to Sydney (2(7)(d)(i)), then publicly selling the spare seats.And are you aware of anyone on the planet who claims to be able to do that without an AOC?

Again, not my example. My example would be a businessman who says to his mate who just got his PPL "Hey, I have to go to Mildura every week, how about you fly me there, I'll pay 1/2 the cost and you can build up your hours?" I would call this flying for hire.If the businessman purchased or hired the aircraft, I’d call that the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft. (Read reg 2(9).)

Here I think you would have a problem. But we know CASA want to allow this particular operation so the likelihood of it being tested is minimal.You evidently don’t know how law works. What CASA “wants to allow” is neither here nor there.

[andrewr]

And are you aware of anyone on the planet who claims to be able to do that without an AOC?

I thought you were claiming an operation that was classed as private under CAR 2(7) never required an AOC.

If the businessman purchased or hired the aircraft, I’d call that the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft.

Who said anything about purchasing an aircraft? And I doubt that the hirer is considered the owner of the aircraft for the purposes of the regulation.

You evidently don’t know how law works. What CASA “wants to allow” is neither here nor there.

On the contrary, what laws CASA choose to enforce absolutely affects what people can and can't do in practice.

[Lead Balloon]

I thought you were claiming an operation that was classed as private under CAR 2(7) never required an AOC.Indeed I am - although, to be accurate, I’m claiming an operation classed as private under CAR 2(7)(d) never required and does not require an AOC. None of those operations includes charging for seats advertised as available to any member of the public.

Who said anything about purchasing an aircraft? And I doubt that the hirer is considered the owner of the aircraft for the purposes of the regulation.Now you’re just taking the piss! I cited the regulation for you: Reg 2(9). It says: “Any reference in these Regulations to the owner of an aircraft must, where under a contract of hire or charter agreement the control, maintenance and operation of the aircraft is vested in the hirer, be read as a reference to the hirer.” I mentioned it because the classification of the operation you raised depends on who is the owner of the aircraft for the purposes of the regulations.

On the contrary, what laws CASA choose to enforce absolutely affects what people can and can't do in practice.So are you suggesting that CASA reckons that there are operations that are classified as private under the regulations that nonetheless must be authorised by an AOC, but chooses not to enforce those obligations? And nobody has ever successfully shown CASA to be wrong in choosing to enforce something that turned out not to be enforceable?

[andrewr]

A contract where "the control, maintenance and operation of the aircraft is vested in the hirer" is not your everyday private hire agreement. Sure, in those cases you assume many rights and responsibilities of the owner.

I'm talking about a PPL walking into their local aero club and hiring an aircraft. In that case they do not become the operator, and they do not become responsible for the maintenance (beyond the daily inspection etc).

[Sunfish]

If your PPL hirer then goes and charges three people to be transported somewhere then she is in AOC territory.

[Squawk7700]

How about this scenario?


A pilot of Chinese origin with a PPL or CPL, private hires an aircraft from an establishment.

The pilot advertises the flight on social media and websites in China. The flight experience consists of a 20 minute flight to an airport with a restaurant onsite. The passengers are dressed in airline captain 👨‍✈️ 👩‍✈️ clothing and Ray-ban sunglasses and fed a large meal of the local cuisine. They then return to origin in the same aircraft.

The pilot accepts remuneration for the flight into their Chinese bank account.

[aroa]

What we lost all those years ago.!
From theClassification of Operations Policy adopted by the Minister and the CAsA Board, 15 April 1997.
'the payment of monies to an aircraft pilot, owner or operator, either to re-inburse him/her for expenses, or allow him/her to make a profit, is possible in all classes of operations' (their bolding)
Should have been dated April1st.
Altho CAsA spend squillions and years producing mod. material it all blew away like dust in the desert without change.. So here we are today...the same old confusing, inconsistent sh*tshow./ mish mash of BS regs , ad nauseam.

[Lead Balloon]

Private pilots are allowed to make a profit out of private operations. I can pay a private pilot anything I like to fly me on a sight-seeing trip around Australia in an aircraft I own, and it’s a private operation for which an AOC is not required: 2(7)(d)(i).

Chief Justice andrewr will no doubt have a dissenting view.

[DrongoDriver]

Private pilots are allowed to make a profit out of private operations. I can pay a private pilot anything I like to fly me on a sight-seeing trip around Australia in an aircraft I own, and it’s a private operation for which an AOC is not required: 2(7)(d)(i).


I’d hope so. Otherwise 90% of corporate pilots in Aus would be in the slammer!

[Lead Balloon]

Sshhhhh! andrewr may reading this!

Who’d have thought that commercial businesses could buy aircraft to fly their execs around and pay the pilot handsomely, yet no AOC is required.

[andrewr]

I can pay a private pilot anything I like to fly me on a sight-seeing trip around Australia in an aircraft I own, and it’s a private operation for which an AOC is not required: 2(7)(d)(i).
Chief Justice andrewr will no doubt have a dissenting view.

No, I would agree with that.

Can you take a box of 20 headsets with the hope of selling them to pilots you meet at airfields along the way?

[Lead Balloon]

As usual, you omit an important fact from the scenario on which your question is based.

Who owns the headsets?

(Naturally, there is no causal connection between safety risk and who happens to have legal title in the headsets. But it does affect the classification of the operation and, therefore, whether an AOC is required. That’s classification of operations for ya!)

[aroa]

Squawk..The Government would advise CAsA not to stick their bib in.
Upset the Chinese and there will be trade tariffs imposed.

[andrewr]

Who owns the headsets?

That aircraft owner, who is paying the PPL pilot owns the headsets.

But I can see where you're going here. You are going to tell me that despite no change to the status under CAR 2(7)(d)(i) - so it's still a private operation - an AOC is required because of 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

So it looks like an aircraft can be “taken to be employed in private operations” when flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of one of the operations listed in with CAR 2(7)(d) and at the same time those operations may have to be authorised by an AOC? You have reached regulatory nirvana, andrewr! Private operations that have to be authorised by an AOC!

I guess we both reached regulatory nirvana.

[Lead Balloon]

No, that’s not what I’m going to tell you. If the 20 headsets are owned by the aircraft owner and being carried for the purposes of trade, it’s no longer a private operation. That’s because the aircraft is no longer being flown for a purpose that falls within the scope of 2(7)(d).

(In the crazy world that is classification of operations, if the 20 headsets were instead owned by the sister of the aircraft owner, no problem! Private and no AOC required! The stark difference in risk caused by the difference in title to the headsets is obviously the justification for the different classification.)

[andrewr]

That’s because the aircraft is no longer being flown for a purpose that falls within the scope of 2(7)(d).

It's still being flown for the primary purpose (you can have multiple purposes) of the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft. The headsets are just a side hustle.

[Lead Balloon]

You say that with such confidence. CAR 2(6) says:(6) For the purposes of these Regulations, an aircraft shall be classified in accordance with the type of operations in which it is being employed at any time, as follows:

(a) when an aircraft is being employed in aerial work operations, it shall be classified as an aerial work aircraft;

(b) when an aircraft is being employed in charter operations, it shall be classified as a charter aircraft;

(c) when an aircraft is being employed in regular public transport operations, it shall be classified as a regular public transport aircraft;

(d) when an aircraft is being employed in private operations, it shall be classified as a private aircraft.

Walk me through how you work out “when” the aircraft carrying the owner of the aircraft and headsets for sale is being employed in the private operations (the personal transportation of the owner) and “when” the the aircraft is being employed in aerial work (carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft). Everything’s happening at the same time.

Let’s go ‘full retard’ and say that it is possible for an aircraft to be simultaneously employed in aerial work operations and charter operations and regular public transport operations and private operations.

Go for it, andrewr!

[andrewr]

Let’s go ‘full retard’ and say that it is possible for an aircraft to be simultaneously employed in aerial work operations and charter operations and regular public transport operations and private operations.

CASA have ruled that an operation can be classified for more than one purpose at the same time (CASA Ruling 3/2004). While it refers to operations under CAR 206, it confirms that more than one purpose can (or must!) be considered when classifying the operation, and there's nothing there that rules out a private purpose. It certainly means that an operation can fall under more than one classification in CAR2(6).

An operation classified for more than 1 of the purposes in CAR 206 must comply
with the requirements applicable to both classifications. Generally, a person who
complies with the higher level classification (e.g. charter) will also comply with the
lower level classification (e.g. aerial work). Guidance should be sought if there is
any inconsistency between 2 (or more) sets of applicable regulatory
requirements.

[Lead Balloon]

That’d be the ‘ruling’ that says:A user of aviation rulings should also be aware that a ruling is only a statement of CASA’s policy. It is not a restatement of the law. Accordingly, while rulings are drafted to be consistent with the law referred to in the ruling as understood by CASA from time to time, they cannot displace any inconsistent legal requirements.In short, it’s just someone’s opinion, just like yours and mine.

Anyway, it’s all academic because the new, simple, outcomes-based classification of operations scheme will come into effect in 1998.

[aroa]

Another stupidity If I go to FL200 take a shot and GIVE it to the customer, that operation is safe. NO commerce has occurred.
BUT if I give them an Invoice , charging them for it... then I am an unsafe criminal, having engaged in the commerce of photography..
Its a terible offence that a Photographer, who happens to use an aircraft doing his job that has NO relation to the safety off the flight ( as admited by a CAsA plonker) becomes a criminal.
Oh the humanity,!! Think of the poor kiddies on the ground...they must be protected from falling aircraft.