PPL Passenger Limit in Australia

[zegnaangelo]

Is there a passenger limit for a PPL holder in Australia? Looks like there was a limit of 5 passengers + 1 crew (i.e. 6 in total). But I cannot find this in the latest CAR Compilation 92?

Before
Compilation 91 (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2020C00784)
CAR 2 (7A) An aircraft that carries persons on a flight, otherwise than in accordance with a fixed schedule between terminals, is employed in a private operation if: (a) public notice of the flight has not been given by any form of public advertisement or announcement; and

(b) the number of persons on the flight, including the operating crew, does not exceed 6; and



Today

Compilation 92 (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021C01179) - I do not see see any more definition for "private operations" - in fact seems unhelpful to even figure out what a private operation is!




Edit and Update

Indeed that part has been repealed and the definition of private operation has been replaced and defined in the CASR Dictionary (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021C01179).
OK I had too much time on my hands...private operation: an operation of an aircraft is a private operation if the operation is not one of the following:

(a) an operation that is required to be conducted under the authority of an AOC under Part 119, 129 or 131 or regulation 206 of CAR;

(b) an operation that is required to be conducted under the authority of an aerial work certificate under Part 138;

(c) Part 141 flight training (within the meaning of Part 141);

(d) a Part 142 activity (within the meaning of Part 142);

(e) an adventure flight for a limited category aircraft;

(f) a specialised balloon operation that is conducted for hire or reward;

(g) an operation authorised by a New Zealand AOC with ANZA privileges that is in force for Australia;

(h) an operation under a permission under subsection 25(2) or (3) (non‑scheduled flights by foreign registered aircraft) or section 27A (permission for operation of foreign registered aircraft without AOC) of the Act.

So it does seem that there is no more passenger limit for a PPL holder (which brings it in-line with other jurisdictions)

[Squawk7700]

It used to be 5 pax if cost sharing.
Any more than that, the pilot would bear the full cost.

The saying as it went was that you could get hold of A380 and fly it on your PPL with 500 passengers as long as you paid for it all yourself.

[Lead Balloon]

Alas, as always, the answer is not so simple. (And, as always, the persistent folklore that there was a passenger limit on cost sharing flights under the 'old' rules is just that - persistent.)

Under the 'new' oh-so-simple rules, the answer also depends on whether the registered operator of the aircraft is or is not an individual. So, before you go on a jolly as PIC with a private licence and a large bunch of mates, you need first to know whether the registered operator of the aircraft is a human or not. (We all look up the register to check whether the registered operator of the aircraft we hire is a human or a company, don't we?) Be careful if the registered operator of the aircraft is a corporate entity rather than you as an individual. (1) A passenger transport operation is an operation of an aircraft that involves the carriage of passengers, whether or not cargo is also carried on the aircraft.

(2) Despite subclause (1), an operation is not a passenger transport operation if the operation is:

(a) an operation of an aircraft with a special certificate of airworthiness; or

(b) a cost‑sharing flight; or

(c) a medical transport operation; or

(d) if the registered operator of an aircraft is an individual—an operation of the aircraft:

(i) that involves the carriage of that individual; and

(ii) does not also involve the carriage of other passengers; or

(e) if the registered operator of an aircraft is an individual—an operation of the aircraft:

(i) that involves the carriage of that individual; and

(ii) involves the carriage of other passengers; and

(iii) for which no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the other passengers or cargo.And, Squawk, please let me know your view on the maximum number of passengers I can carry, as PIC with a private licence, on a Cessna 208:

- whose registered operator is a corporate entity, and

- whose registered operator is me as an individual.

[Office Update]

A type rated Boeing 747 PPL can fly with 400 POB so long as its a private flight ... no paying punters!

[tossbag]

Just ****en tell us LB, you're the lawyer.

[Squawk7700]

Seems pretty clear in my mind :-)

I read it that:

If I am the aircraft operator, the flight is private if I am onboard with no other passengers, but means I can be flown by my pilots and crew in my private C208.

I can also take other passengers on my private C208, as long as they aren’t paying for their seat and as long as I am onboard.

If the C208 is owned by my company, it is classed as a passenger transport operation.

LB, I’m thinking that there is no passenger limit for my privately operated C208. If it’s owned by my company it’s a moot point based on the above paragraph.

[Lead Balloon]

If the C208 is owned by my company, it is classed as a passenger transport operation.Yes (unless (a), (b) or (c) applies).

LB, I’m thinking that there is no passenger limit for my privately operated C208. If it’s owned by my company it’s a moot point based on the above paragraph.If it's classed as a "passenger transport operation", how can the PIC be the holder of only a private licence?

If the C208 is owned by a company, the only circumstances in which the aircraft can be flown with any passengers without the operation being classed as a "passenger transport operation" are those in (a), (b) and (c). Best to look at the definition of the term in (b).

A type rated Boeing 747 PPL can fly with 400 POB so long as its a private flight ... no paying punters!That's a circular argument. Whether it's a "passenger transport operation" in which a private licence is not sufficient depends on things like whether the registered operator is an individual or a corporate entity and, if the registered operator is an individual, whether that individual is being carried as a passenger.

Just ****en tell us LB, you're the lawyer.The new rules produce such bizarre outcomes for different scenarios with no obvious safety justification that my brain is no longer big enough to know.

(PS: Under the new rules, "passenger transport operations" are subject to either Part 121 or Part 135.)

[Lead Balloon]

It's all very simple. Here's the 'Q&A':

Can I, as a private pilot, lawfully fly a PC12 with 8 mates on board?

Yes, if one of your mates on board is the registered operator of the PC12 and no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the passengers.

No, if none of your mates on board is the registered operator of the PC12.

My mate was the registered operator of the PC 12 last week but, on his accountant’s advice, sold it to a $1 company of which I’m the sole director and now the company is the registered operator of the PC12. The company hires the aircraft to me at an arm’s length rate. Can I lawfully fly it as PIC this week with 8 same mates on board?

No. The registered operator is no longer an individual. The aircraft has a maximum seat configuration in excess of 6.

How did the change in registered operator from my mate to my $1 company make the operation unsafe?

Answer: [TBA]

Can I cost share a flight on the PC12 with me as PIC with only 1 passenger?

No. The aircraft has a maximum seat configuration of more than 6.

What if I remove 3 of the seats?

No. The aircraft still has a maximum seat configuration of 9.

So if the company sells the aircraft back to my mate who again becomes registered operator, it will again become ‘safe’ for me as a private pilot to fly my 8 mates around, provided my mate is on board and there’s no payment or reward?

Yes.

My $1 company buys a Bonanza, becomes registered operator and hires it to me at an arm’s length rate. Can I fly myself and 3 mates around as a private pilot?

Yes, provided you are not remunerated and you pay at least one quarter of the direct costs of the flight.

So I can be rewarded but not remunerated?

Yes, reward is not mentioned in the definition of cost-sharing flight.

Why’s it OK for me to be rewarded for a cost-sharing flight in an aircraft whose registered operator is someone else but not if I am the registered operator of the aircraft and didn’t cost share?

Answer: [TBA]

So just to be clear, provided the aircraft I hire has a maximum seat configuration of 6 or less and I am not remunerated for the flight and I at least pay my share of the direct costs, I can do that as a private pilot?

Yes.

What if all of my mates pay my $1 company e.g. double their share of the fixed costs of the flight?

That’s you being remunerated.

No it’s not. My company is being remunerated.

Well… you are one and the same.

No I'm not. If I were, you’d treat me as the registered operator but you don’t.

And so on...

You see: Simple!

[Global Aviator]

LB…………

Brilliant! :D

Straya, the land of the free. I don’t confess to know a teeny weenie bit of the new rules and was easily enough confused with the old ones. These ones look like so much fun! Would an FOI give advice?

[fitliker]

Try getting insurance approval for a PPL for anything big . There is a reason why John Travolta got his commercial license. The insurance company requirements for approvals are tougher than the regulations . Unless you are rich enough to self insure . Then you only need post a few million in bond like the Government when they self insure .

[megan]

Straya, the land of the freeWe started off as convicts, they just want to return us to that state.

[megle2]

After decades in aviation I feel my knowledge of the Regs has never been lower

[zegnaangelo]

I dont have the source legislation and have not traced it through

1. But why is the 6 seater Bonanza not considered a passenger transport operation in this case? Is it because aircraft 6 seats or less do not fall under the regime of a passenger transport operation (but under your extract, it does not provide a carve out - so definitionally it captures me and grandma et al going out for a scenic joy flight)

2. Taking your scenario further, I would argue that even if the PC12 was owned by a company, it could legally be flown with you and your mate under the carve out for a (1) (b) "cost sharing flight"

[beached az]

This thread has given me a headache.

Under the "old regs" CAR206 I think it was, there was provision for operating and aircraft privately (PVT) for a business purposes,
(carriage of staff, tools, equipment) as long as it wasn't operated on an AWK, CHTR or RPT basis.
The aircraft had to be owned / hired by the business or individual doing the hauling. Worked well in the outback.

Does anyone know if such a provision exists in Part 61 land?
And yes I have tried looking but find the new simpered regs anything but. Good job CASA.

BAz :ok:

[Lead Balloon]

I dont have the source legislation and have not traced it through1. You need the source legislation and you need to trace it through.

1. But why is the 6 seater Bonanza not considered a passenger transport operation in this case? Is it because aircraft 6 seats or less do not fall under the regime of a passenger transport operation (but under your extract, it does not provide a carve out - so definitionally it captures me and grandma et al going out for a scenic joy flight)2. In the scenarios I gave, the operation of the Bonanza is not a passenger transport operation as defined, even though passengers are in fact carried in the scenarios I gave. So much depends on the individual facts. See answer to question 1.

2. Taking your scenario further, I would argue that even if the PC12 was owned by a company, it could legally be flown with you and your mate under the carve out for a (1) (b) "cost sharing flight"3. You evidently haven't read the definition of flights that are considered "cost sharing". I chose an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of 9, for a reason. See answer to question 1.

[Lead Balloon]

This thread has given me a headache.

Under the "old regs" CAR206 I think it was, there was provision for operating and aircraft privately (PVT) for a business purposes,
(carriage of staff, tools, equipment) as long as it wasn't operated on an AWK, CHTR or RPT basis.
The aircraft had to be owned / hired by the business or individual doing the hauling. Worked well in the outback.

Does anyone know if such a provision exists in Part 61 land?
And yes I have tried looking but find the new simpered regs anything but. Good job CASA.

BAz :ok:The definition of "passenger transport operation" I've quoted above is in the Dictionary in the CASRs.

If an operation falls within the definition of "passenger transport operation", it falls within the scope of Part 121 or Part 135. PPL PIC verboten.

If an operation does not fall within the definition of "passenger transport operation", the answer to the question whether a PPL can be PIC depends...

Good luck.

[compressor stall]

The definition of "passenger transport operation" I've quoted above is in the Dictionary in the CASRs.

If an operation falls within the definition of "passenger transport operation", it falls within the scope of Part 121 or Part 135. PPL PIC verboten.

If an operation does not fall within the definition of "passenger transport operation", the answer to the question whether a PPL can be PIC depends...

Good luck.

To expand / clarify that - a pax transport operation only falls into 121 / 135 land (or the 119 umbrella) only if there is Hire or Reward involved (see definition of Air Transport Operation).

[zegnaangelo]

The definition of "passenger transport operation" I've quoted above is in the Dictionary in the CASRs.

If an operation falls within the definition of "passenger transport operation", it falls within the scope of Part 121 or Part 135. PPL PIC verboten.

If an operation does not fall within the definition of "passenger transport operation", the answer to the question whether a PPL can be PIC depends...

Good luck.

Edit think I found the answer.

Per CASR Dictionary Part 1.
A cost-sharing flight can only be definitionally conducted in an airplane with 6pob or less on board,
Hence, If i rent a C172 plane from a commercial flight school and pay for at least my share, that is allowed.

[Lead Balloon]

Edit think I found the answer.

Per CASR Dictionary Part 1.
A cost-sharing flight can only be definitionally conducted in an airplane with 6pob or less on board,
Hence, If i rent a C172 plane from a commercial flight school and pay for at least my share, that is allowed.
You're nearly there.

The actual words used in the legislation are important. The element of the definition of "cost sharing" to which you referred is not about the number of POB. It's about the maximum seat configuration of the aircraft.

Thus, there is no such thing (under the new rules) as a "cost sharing" flight in an aircraft that has a maximum seat configuration of e.g. 9, even if there are only e.g. 2 POB on board. Again, that's why I chose the particular scenarios.

[zegnaangelo]

You're nearly there.

The actual words used in the legislation are important. The element of the definition of "cost sharing" to which you referred is not about the number of POB on the aircraft. It's about the maximum seat configuration of the aircraft.

Thus, there is no such thing (under the new rules) as a "cost sharing" flight in an aircraft that has a maximum seat configuration of e.g. 9, even if there are only e.g. 2 POB on board. Again, that's why I chose the particular scenarios.

Agree that "maximum configuration" is the operative term.
What is the definition of a maximum seat configuration though? Dang, now I am getting worried that I can't rent/fly a Piper PA-32 Piper Cherokee 6 under a PPL given that it technically accommodated to fit 7 seats?

[compressor stall]

Agree that "maximum configuration" is the operative term.
What is the definition of a maximum seat configuration though? Dang, now I am getting worried that I can't rent/fly a Piper PA-32 Piper Cherokee 6 under a PPL given that it technically accommodated to fit 7 seats?
The words "Maximum Seat Configuration" are notable in that they don't appear elsewhere in the dictionary. They are different to MCPSC, MOPSC and MPSC which are about certification and OM approved seat numbers of the aircraft.

I interpret "configuration" to be the number fitted that day. You'd need to pull one out to be legal. Much safer that way.:ugh:

[Lead Balloon]

To expand / clarify that - a pax transport operation only falls into 121 / 135 land (or the 119 umbrella) only if there is Hire or Reward involved (see definition of Air Transport Operation).Indeed.

This is what the definition in the Dictionary of CASRs says:Definition of air transport operation

(1) An air transport operation is a passenger transport operation, a cargo transport operation or a medical transport operation, that:

(a) is conducted for hire or reward; or

(b) is prescribed by an instrument issued under regulation 201.025.

(2) Despite subclause (1), an air transport operation does not include an aerial work operation or a balloon transport operation.Accordingly, if there is no instrument issued under regulation 201.025 covering them, it follows that e.g. a flight by me and 8 mates in a PC12 owned by a corporation with no hire or reward is a "passenger transport operation" as defined, but not a "air transport operation" as defined, subject to .... what rules?

So now it's necessary to track down whether any instruments have been issued under regulation 201.025.

Easy, isn't it?

[compressor stall]

Assuming nothing in 201.025, it's a Part 91 op. Fill your tanks and go.

I'm looking at it from the "it's permitted, until there's something that places it into somewhere else (eg 119 etc)".

[compressor stall]

My quick and dirty summary.... and sure not complete, IANAL etc.
Ignoring medical transport and special airworthiness etc
Cost sharing doesn't apply for this as it's more than 6 seats fitted.

Cessna Caravan operated by Farmer Joe for a flight to town to get on the sauce.
Not Passenger transport if:

Farmer Joe covers all the costs of the flight and his mates don't pay or reward him in any way (Part 91)
Farmer Joe is on board alone (obvious) (Part 91)

Passenger Transport Operation if

Joe's mates cover the cost of the flight (Part 135)
Joe covers the cost of the flight but his mates pay for any item of food, drinks, accommodation, or offer him e.g. sexual favours etc (Part 135)
Farmer Joe is on board and all the other pax are given a free lift into town and do not pay in any way (Part 91)


Same Cessna Caravan operated by Joe's Farm Company.
ALWAYS a passenger transport operation

If no passengers pay for the ride in any way in money or Joe receives no reward from them - (Part 91)
If they are his employees and he (or his pilot) is getting them from town and picking them up* (Part 135)

*this is in the AGM, and an interesting one as I'm not sure what the "reward" is there for the employee?

[Lead Balloon]

If that's the case, it follows - for example - that the maximum seat configuration element of the definition of "cost sharing" flight has no consequences if there is no hire or reward.

My 8 mates and I are in fact sharing the costs of the flight in the PC12 hired from Aircraft R Us PTY LTD. Because of the maximum seat configuration element, the flight is not a "cost sharing" one as defined and, therefore, the flight is a "passenger transport operation". But it's not conducted for hire or reward. Accordingly, the applicable rules will be those that would apply if the flight did satisfy the definition of "cost sharing" flight (subject to the 201.025 instrument question).

It can't be that a PPL hiring an aircraft from someone to go on a flight of itself renders that flight one conducted "for hire".

Time to solve the mystery of whether any instruments have been issued under regulation 201.025....

[zegnaangelo]

Alright this mightily confusing.

So, if I am a PPL, am I able to rent a Cessna Caravan / PC12 (from a corporation) and bring my mates / family on a nice sight seeing trip without reward?

Seems like this is possible despite being a passenger transport operation as this operation does not need an AOC? Hence will be classified as a private operation.

[compressor stall]

Alright this mightily confusing.

There's worse in the CASRs...

[Lead Balloon]

Agree that "maximum configuration" is the operative term.
What is the definition of a maximum seat configuration though? Dang, now I am getting worried that I can't rent/fly a Piper PA-32 Piper Cherokee 6 under a PPL given that it technically accommodated to fit 7 seats?You could try asking CASA for its opinion on whether "maximum seat configuration" for an aircraft means how it happens to be configured, in fact, for a particular flight, or instead means how the aircraft could be configured as a matter of principle, irrespective of how that aircraft is configured in fact from time to time.

Let us know if you get answer.

[PubliusNaso]

I asked this specific question of my examiner when I got my CPL, given we were flying a PA-32 at the time, with its theoretical maximum configuration of 7 seats.

I can't remember his precise words but they boiled down, as I recall, to: "Hmm? Erm... huh. Yeah nah that's just silly, ignore it."

Not advancing us any closer to an answer but hey, that's the regs for you.

[Lead Balloon]

It would be downright funny if the folklore that there was a 6 POB limit on private ops under the old rules - based on one paragraph of one definition - persisted under the new rules for the precisely the same reason. Only in Australia...

[neville_nobody]

What do the insurance companies say? Surely there has to be a few privately operated C208s or PC12 around.

[Lead Balloon]

Insurance companies say: Pay us premiums.

When the insured makes a claim? That's when insurance companies run a fine-tooth comb through the rules.

The words "privately operated" merely beg the question. An aircraft engaged in "private" operations today isn't necessarily engaged in "private" operations tomorrow. Does the term "private operations" actually appear in the rules these days?

[First_Principal]

Not sure it contributes to the situation here much, but in a country not that far away, and in another age, I was rated on, and not irregularly flew, a 31-seat a/c with a PPL.

On various occasions different numbers of those seats were occupied and while it's sufficiently long ago that I don't now recall the numbers, I'm fairly sure the flights were 'legal' at the time. Certainly it was a specific topic of discussion and comments similar to Office Update re flying a 74 with a PPL came up and, given various factors not worth repeating here, I think that if there had been any significant issue it wouldn't have happened. This machine was >5700kg MTOW, so no longer a 'lighty' either.

I later gained a CPL and, were this in Oz at least, I suppose any technical issues around passenger numbers etc would have disappeared. However, what I think matters is that irrespective of the license I held I was deemed competent to operate the aircraft type at the time of being rated. I've not made any in-depth study of 'rating' but as I see it the aircraft type - and this specific aircraft - was well known to the examiner, as was my PPL, and that would have to have been taken into account. Said rating did not contain any limitation on seat occupation ipso facto I could take a group of mates into the wild blue for a jolly.

Coming to Oz; in the absence of any specific, or even implied, seat limitations on PPL holders, and assuming the pilot is appropriately qualified (ie. has a license and is rated, insured etc), and has carried out due diligence (a/c ok, wx etc) then s/he should be good to go. If there is any question over this then it should be up to regulator to clarify that - but from what I read here there isn't, so why all the hot air?

That said, and coupled with this age-old 'paying for flight' differential between PPL and CPL, I think it's long overdue for such things to be reassessed. To me payment in whatever form has little to do with competency, and a license to fly should be about competency - not commerce. If you want to gradate licenses for reasons of experience/risk/competence and for example that say a G3 can fly a/c with max 4 seats and < 2500kg, G2 8 seats and up to 5700kg, and G1 all above that's fine, but who pays for what shouldn't have any affect IMV.

FP.

[Clinton McKenzie]

I wrote to the CASA Regulatory Guidance Centre in the following terms this morning:Dear CASA Regulatory Guidance Centre

Operational standards and pilot licence requirements: passenger transport operations that are not for hire or reward

I seek guidance on what operational standards and pilot licence requirements apply to ‘passenger transport operations’ within the meaning of the definition at clause 75 of Part 2 of the CASR Dictionary, but are not ‘air transport operations’ within the scope of the definition at clause 3 of Part 2 of the CASR Dictionary because the operations are not carried out for hire or reward.

For example, if I hire an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of 9 for a trip with friends and ‘cost-share’, what licence must I hold to be PIC? (Assume I have the required class/type rating and the aircraft may be flown single pilot.) I will not be remunerated, I will pay an amount of the direct costs of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each of my friends if the direct costs were evenly divided between all POB. There will be no advertisement of the flight to the general public.

It seems to me that the operation will be a ‘passenger transport operation’ because the aircraft’s maximum seat configuration exceeds 6 and the registered operator will not be on board. But the operation will not be for hire or reward and, therefore, will not be an ‘air transport operation’.

In CASA’s opinion:

Am I able to act as PIC with my private pilot licence (with the required rating)?

What operational standards apply to the operation?

I cannot find a passenger number limit on my private pilot licence nor a prohibition on me being the PIC of an aircraft engaged in ‘passenger transport operations’ that are not for hire or reward.

Am I missing something?

Has there been an instrument issued under CASR 201.025 covering this kind of circumstance?

If am able to act as PIC with a private licence in these circumstances, can CASA explain the point of the maximum seat configuration limit in the definition of a flight that is ‘cost-sharing’?

If the licence requirements and operational standards are the same, when the other elements of the definition are satisfied in the circumstances, the seat configuration limit element of the definition seems to me to have no practical effect.

Or is it CASA’s opinion that it is possible for an operation to both satisfy the definition of a flight that is ‘cost-sharing’ (other than the maximum seat configuration element) and be for ‘hire or reward’, but that is not the scenario in this case?

RegardsI can't help but think I'm missing something fundamental in all this. However, because all of the relevant things are spread across Parts and Dictionaries and MOSs and other instruments these days, I don't know what I don't know about where else I may have to look.

[neville_nobody]

Insurance companies say: Pay us premiums.

When the insured makes a claim? That's when insurance companies run a fine-tooth comb through the rules.

The words "privately operated" merely beg the question. An aircraft engaged in "private" operations today isn't necessarily engaged in "private" operations tomorrow. Does the term "private operations" actually appear in the rules these days?

I would have thought this kind of thing is spelled out in your policy if you insured an aircraft and/or pilot.

[megan]

Can someone tell me how this regulatory mess has advanced the aviation industry since those in place in say 1960? Glad I'm out of it.

[PiperCameron]

Can someone tell me how this regulatory mess has advanced the aviation industry since those in place in say 1960? Glad I'm out of it.

Oh it's advanced it alright. Back then you could do pretty-much whatever you want so long as you didn't do anything wrong. Nowadays, it's roughly the same only because CASA's raison d'etre is close-monitoring your every move, they needed to implement a set of Rules (in Plain English) so innately complex even they don't understand them. This way, if ever they think you're not acting like a "True and Proper Pilot" should, they now have a comprehensive list of excuses to choose from from which to bust your ass (just ask Glen B).

No wonder so many of us are scared of flying... With CASA roaming around un-chained, we should be!

[josephfeatherweight]

A perfect example of what should be a straight-forward rule, made indescribably difficult under CASA regs.

[Sunfish]

So I buy a surplus A380 and remove all but five seats…. Can I now fly it (suitably endorsed) as a private operation? I’ll take my mate, also endorsed, as co pilot.

Could I also add a few hard points and set it up for sky diving?

Merry Christmas.

[Lead Balloon]

If you are the registered operator, you don't need to remove any of the seats. It won't be a passenger transport operation:(e) if the registered operator of an aircraft is an individual—an operation of the aircraft:

(i) that involves the carriage of that individual; and

(ii) involves the carriage of other passengers; and

(iii) for which no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the other passengers or cargo.And I don't think removal of seats gets you around the maximum seat configuration part of the definition of "cost-sharing" flight, if you want to go down that path. The maximum seat configuration of the aircraft remains the same, doesn't it, even if seats happen to be removed at a particular point in time?

[bloodandiron]

So with the new regs, basically as long as there is no reward or remuneration it is not an air transport operation therefore not a commercial operation. Where does being able to conduct an air transport operation link in to the privileges of a commercial pilot licence, and where does it say you can't conduct an air transport op on a PPL?

So I could fly a individuals plane on:
1) a regular timetable from fixed ports and;
2) carrying not only employees of the company but also contractors, sub-contractors and even other company's employees

And provided there is no reward or remuneration for their carriage (ie they are only paid for the job they do on the ground), it's a private operation?

What if the individual who owns the plane includes the an aircraft cost in response to a government tender, which is then paid out when they win the tender? The owner has quoted $500 per hour to get to the job site, and they are paid that on award of the tender or completion of the job. Is this still a private operation, because the owner is just covering the costs of running the plane, not the actual carriage of passengers or cargo? i.e. does the old rule of "in a private op you can carry employees and their tools around" still apply?

[compressor stall]

Where does being able to conduct an air transport operation link in to the privileges of a commercial pilot licence, and where does it say you can't conduct an air transport op on a PPL?
There are lots of holes in the regs but that’s not one of them.
I won’t do all your homework for you but start with part 61. Keyword “privilege”.

[Lead Balloon]

It may be a hole.

The holder of a private pilot licence is authorised to pilot an aircraft as pilot in command or co‑pilot if:

(a) the aircraft is engaged in a private operation; or

(b) the holder is receiving flight training.

The definition of "private operation" in the Dictionary is an operation that is not one on a list. We've already seen that if an operation is not for hire or reward it's not an air transport operation.

What's to stop me being the PIC of PC12, on a private licence, flying members of the public back and forward from Outbacksville and Suburbantown on the morning and afternoon of each working day, as a charity? No money changes hands. I'm doing it as an act of
philanthropic generosity. Advertised to the public; first in best dressed.

[compressor stall]

LB. That’s not what was asked in the first instance.

It’s very clear in the regs you can’t use a PPL for an Air Transport op.

Agree, the definition of Private is, however, more nuanced.

[PiperCameron]

What's to stop me being the PIC of PC12, on a private licence, flying members of the public back and forward from Outbacksville and Suburbantown on the morning and afternoon of each working day, as a charity? No money changes hands. I'm doing it as an act philanthropic generosity. Advertised to the public; first in best dressed.

As I understand it, if you've got the endorsements, absolutely nothing.. and is what organisations like Angel Flight et al base their entire operation around.

Of course the hole you mention may also be the one they fell into a year or two back:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-13/atsb-releases-findings-into-fatal-angel-flight-crash/11407294


It’s very clear in the regs you can’t use a PPL for an Air Transport op.

So i​​​​​​​s Angel Flight an Air Transport operation?
​​​​​​​

[compressor stall]

I don’t know how angel flight works but if there is no payment to the pilot owner by the passengers in any way, then no it doesn’t meet the definition of AT.

[Lead Balloon]

...So is Angel Flight an Air Transport operation?
​​​​​​​Not according to CASA. Otherwise, CASA would require the operation to be authorised by an AOC, wouldn't it.

[43Inches]

I don’t know how angel flight works but if there is no payment to the pilot owner by the passengers in any way, then no it doesn’t meet the definition of AT.

The reg was always worded that a pilot may not receive remuneration from any party for the flight in question, passenger or completely unrelated entity. Unless of course you fulfilled the cost sharing requirements. The point is whether you receive payment or reward directly for the flight operation.

You could get around that by being paid as an employee of a company for something else and conduct the flight for free in a certain way, or the company pays all costs for its aircraft etc...

[Lead Balloon]

The reg was always worded that a pilot may not receive remuneration from any party for the flight in question, passenger or completely unrelated entity. Unless of course you fulfilled the cost sharing requirements. The point is whether you receive payment or reward directly for the flight operation.

You could get around that by being paid as an employee of a company for something else and conduct the flight for free in a certain way, or the company pays all costs for its aircraft etc...Not quite true.

The transportation of the owner of an aircraft was always a private operation. Didn’t matter how much the pilot was paid.

[neville_nobody]

Not quite true. The transportation of the owner of an aircraft was always a private operation. Didn’t matter how much the pilot was paid.

If that's true why did/does CASA make all the operators of large business jets get an AOC? Many of which are for the sole purpose of transporting the owner and not used for charter.

[43Inches]

If the aircraft is owned by a company and flown by a company employee on a service for company only purpose where no revenue is earned on such flights then it can be considered private. However the stumbling blocks are when the aircraft starts to need multi crew, the issues come about when you may need a training and check process etc... Paying an independant pilot to fly your own plane starts to get into a grey area. The law does not stipulate the aircraft making revenue, rather whether the pilot receives reward/payment for the flight.

Simple pub test, I can hire an aircraft and fly it privately for my own purpose and the owner can profit on from it. But I can't hire myself to somebody and call it a private flight.

[Lead Balloon]

If that's true why did/does CASA make all the operators of large business jets get an AOC? Many of which are for the sole purpose of transporting the owner and not used for charter.You’d have to ask CASA that.

I suspect the answer is that the “large business jets” weren’t actually used for the “sole purpose” of transporting the owner. But CASA and the operators will be of more assistance to you.

[megan]

I suspect the answer is that the “large business jets” weren’t actually used for the “sole purpose” of transporting the ownerSome large business jets in private ownership were used to transport gambling folks from overseas to the casino free of charge were they not?

Flew 27 years for a private operator with a large fleet flying company personnel and contractors, had an ops manual stating we would operate to charter standards, never did, nor to CASA standards for that matter, if reference was made to the ops manual the answer was "we're a private operation and don't require an ops manual", operation had its own check and training system. CASA was trying to have an AOC put on the operation, don't know how that went as retired quite some time ago, company had legal talent and political connections that could run rings around anything CASA could come up with.

[Advance]

Let me see if I have this correct?

From Lead Balloon up the top..................
(1) A passenger transport operation is an operation of an aircraft that involves the carriage of passengers, whether or not cargo is also carried on the aircraft.
(2) Despite subclause (1), an operation is not a passenger transport operation if the operation is:
(a) an operation of an aircraft with a special certificate of airworthiness; or

OK - I own an Experimental Aircraft which by definition has a Special Certificate of Airworthiness so according to the above...... nothing I do in it can ever be a "Passenger Transport Operation".

I load the aircraft up with paying passengers and go flying, perhaps on an advertised scheduled basis.

Lead Balloon also tells us:

Definition of air transport operation
(1) An air transport operation is a passenger transport operation, a cargo transport operation or a medical transport operation, that:
(a) is conducted for hire or reward; or


Conclusion: We have a passenger transport operation in the normal terms of the words as a flight carrying passengers but it is not a passenger transport operation because the regs say it can not be so in an experimental aircraft.
AND it can not be an air transport operation because it is not a passenger transport operation as defined above.

Thus I can legally do RPT ops in a homebuilt experimental. Wow, congratulations to CASA on changing the rules this way. Awesome. Look out Mr Joyce, you have another competitor!

But I am mightly glad I don't have to re-sit my aviation legislation exams under todays nonsense, sorry, superb rules!

Perhaps my learned friend Mr McKenzie can write another letter to CASA asking if I have this correct? Yeah, Na, they are on shut down over the no work season aren't they?

[Squawk7700]

I pretty sure under the experimental regs bit, you’ll find something about no hire or reward.

[compressor stall]

I pretty sure under the experimental regs bit, you’ll find something about no hire or reward.
yep. There’s that and then some, but don’t let that stand in the way of a good rant.

[bloodandiron]

yep. There’s that and then some, but don’t let that stand in the way of a good rant.

I think you are misunderstanding. It's not ranting, they are genuine questions. The new regs have introduced a handful of new terms which requires looking up the dictionary and completely different sections of regulations to find answers regarding the classification of my operation. I didn't even know CAR 206 had changed until I saw this thread.

[compressor stall]

I think you are misunderstanding. It's not ranting, they are genuine questions. The new regs have introduced a handful of new terms which requires looking up the dictionary and completely different sections of regulations to find answers regarding the classification of my operation. I didn't even know CAR 206 had changed until I saw this thread.
Well I can’t assist in your ignorance re the regulatory rewrite, it’s not as if it was done by stealth.
But I’d say it’s a rant when it takes Advance more time to write the post than download the CASR and a search for the word “experimental” to get the answer, or at least pose a cogent question (and there are many).

[nomorecatering]

Over a beer one day I asked this question to an experianced CASA FOI.

Scanario 1:
Money is no object. Husband buys a Gulfstream G800, wife is the co-pilot. Both hold PPL/IR-ME, MCC, type rating, class 2 medical. Aircraft is registered to the husband in private category and used as family bus.All other training is done as necessary.
Answer: Perfectly legal. - it's a private operation. No AOC required

Scanario 2
For longer flights the couple takes along the butler & garder (both full time emplyees of the household)....who just happen to have PPL/IR-MEA, class 2 medical and a type rating. etc etc etc.
Answer : No idea., CASA probably doesn't have a reg for this - do CASA do private rulings like the tax office does?

Scanario3:
Can a Cessna skycourier, which is certified for single pilot in cargo operations (eg Fedex), carry 18 pax in a private operation (same as above) but with single pilot.

[Clinton McKenzie]

CASA's 'Guidance Delivery Centre' provided this response on 11 January 2023:Overall Question: I seek guidance on what operational standards and pilot licence requirements apply to ‘passenger transport operations’ within the meaning of the definition at clause 75 of Part 2 of the CASR Dictionary but are not ‘air transport operations’ within the scope of the definition at clause 3 of Part 2 of the CASR Dictionary because the operations are not carried out for hire or reward.

For example, if I hire an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of 9 for a trip with friends and ‘cost-share’, what licence must I hold to be PIC? (Assume I have the required class/type rating and the aircraft may be flown single pilot.) I will not be remunerated. I will pay an amount of the direct costs of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each of my friends if the direct costs were evenly divided between all POB. There will be no advertisement of the flight to the general public.

It seems to me that the operation will be a ‘passenger transport operation’ because the aircraft’s maximum seat configuration exceeds 6 and the registered operator will not be on board. But the operation will not be for hire or reward and, therefore, will not be an ‘air transport operation’.



Question 1: Am I able to act as PIC with my private pilot licence (with the required rating)?
Answer 1. Yes, the holder of a private pilot licence (PPL) can operate as pilot in command (PIC) on single/multi-engine class or type rated aircraft provided, they hold the single/multi-engine class or type rating for the relevant aircraft category rating on their PPL. Additionally, a PPL holder must complete an approved course of training in multi‑crew cooperation to operate in a multi crew operation as PIC or co-pilot on multi-crew certified type rated aircraft (private operations only).

Background on privileges and limitations of a PPL
A private pilot licence holder is allowed to operate an aircraft in private operations or when receiving flight training. Regulation 61.505 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) 1998 (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2022C01214/Html/Volume_2#_Toc100063897) refers.


The CASR Dictionary (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2022C01214/Html/Volume_5#_Toc122342844) defines private operations must not be an air transport operation that requires to be conducted under the authority of an AOC under Parts 119, 129 or 131 of the CASR or regulation 206 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR).

The CASR Dictionary (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2022C01214/Html/Volume_5#_Toc122342843) defines air transport operations as;


(1) An air transport operation is a passenger transport operation, a cargo transport operation or a medical transport operation, that:
(a) is conducted for hire or reward; or
(b) is prescribed by an instrument issued under regulation 201.025.
As the proposed scenario in this enquiry involves more than 5 passengers financially contributing to the cost of the flight, it is not a cost-share flight and is being operating for hire or reward.


For more information on the definition of hire and reward, the Part 119 of CASR Acceptable Means of Compliance (https://www.casa.gov.au/part-119-australian-air-transport-operators-certification-and-management-amc-gm) presents general examples (on page 8) of operational scenarios that might be considered to be conducted for 'reward'. This list does not attempt to cover all circumstances, or all variations of a listed circumstances. One such example provides a scenario of a flight or operation where the operator (which can be a sole pilot) receives a reimbursement of expenses (any operating cost such as fuel, landing charges, maintenance).

Question 2: What operational standards apply to the operation?
Answer 2: Based on the scenario described in the enquiry, the flight is an air transport operation, and the flight must comply with Parts 91, 119 and 135 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR). This flight operation would also need to meet various other requirements in the CASR and Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR).

Question 3: I cannot find a passenger number limit on my private pilot licence nor a prohibition on me being the PIC of an aircraft engaged in ‘passenger transport operations’ that are not for hire or reward. Am I missing something?
Answer 3: The privileges and limitations placed on the holder of a private pilot licence are separate and distinct from the operational authority required to conduct certain types of flight operations. A person who holds an CPL or ATPL and employed by an operator that holds an air operator’s certificate is authorised the carry passengers or cargo for reward or hire.

Question 4: Has there been an instrument issued under CASR 201.025 covering this kind of circumstance?
Answer 4: While not being issued under CASR 201.025, CASA instrument CASA EX82/21 – Part 119 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2021 (legislation.gov.au) (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2023C00009) (CASA EX82/21) has been issued in relation to certain operations not being defined as air transport. This exemption allows AOC holders and non-AOC holders to conduct private operations with non-paying passengers.


Most applicable to the scenario described in this enquiry (if you are the owner of the aircraft) is subsection 7AA(c) of CASA EX82/21 exempts air transport operations from requiring an AOC for the following requirements:


· The owner of the aircraft, or
· A passenger directly associated with the owner


Provided that:
· The owner of the aircraft is not given any reward for the transportation, and
· The aircraft is flown by the owner, or by a professional pilot, and
· The passenger is being transported for recreational purposes.


This exemption does not have a limit on the number of seats but does require the pilot in command to comply with performance requirements set out in regulations 121.390, 121.395 and 12.420 of CASR and associated MOS requirements, even though you may be operating an aircraft that would ordinarily need to meet the Part 91 performance requirements.

Question 5: If I am able to act as PIC with a private licence in these circumstances, can CASA explain the point of the maximum seat configuration limit in the definition of a flight that is ‘cost-sharing’?
Answer 5: The cost-sharing flight provision in the civil aviation legislation has always had a limitation of having a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6 seats, including the pilot’s seat.


The maximum seat configuration for cost-share flights ensures that the size and complexity of the aircraft is kept within reasonable limits for a private operations flight conducted under the provisions for Part 91 of CASR.

Question 6: If the licence requirements and operational standards are the same, when the other elements of the definition are satisfied in the circumstances, the seat configuration limit element of the definition seems to me to have no practical effect.
Answer 6: The licence and operational requirements for private and air transport operations are mostly not the same. While private flights must comply with Part 91 of CASR, air transport flights must comply with most of Part 91 and all of the applicable Parts of CASR for air transport operations (i.e. small aeroplane air transport operator must comply with most of Part 91 and all of Parts 119 and 135 of CASR).

Question 7: Or is it CASA’s opinion that it is possible for an operation to both satisfy the definition of a flight that is ‘cost-sharing’ (other than the maximum seat configuration element) and be for ‘hire or reward’, but that is not the scenario in this case?

Answer 7: The two types of operations are not the same, one is private operations, and the other is air transport operations.

In summary, within the context of the example provided, the flight would be operated for reward, hence it is an air transport operation, hence it is no longer a private flight, therefore you are unable to operate this flight under the privileges of a CASA Part 61 private pilot licence.

This guidance is current at the time it has been provided, however may be subject to change over time or at the discretion of the policy holder.

If you require further clarification relating to this matter, please reply to this email.

I sent these supplementary questions and comments today:Thanks for your comprehensive response. I have a some supplementary questions and one comment.

In response to my specific question 2, you say: “Answer 2: Based on the scenario described in the enquiry, the flight is an air transport operation, and the flight must comply with Parts 91, 119 and 135 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR). This flight operation would also need to meet various other requirements in the CASR and Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR).”

The scenario described in my enquiry does not involve any hire or reward. How can an operation that does not involve any hire or reward be an “air transport operation”, given the definition of that term you (and I) quoted?

You cite the “Part 119 of CASR Acceptable Means of Compliance (https://www.casa.gov.au/part-119-australian-air-transport-operators-certification-and-management-amc-gm)” as if it is legislation. Have you read page 1 of that document? In any event, the scenario described in my enquiry does not involve any hire or reward.

Or are you in effect asserting that CASA’s position is that all flights that are “cost sharing” as defined are conducted for “reward” within the meaning of that term in the definition of “air transport operation”? (And I respectfully urge caution and very careful consideration before answering that supplementary question.)

You say in response to question 5: “Answer 5: The cost-sharing flight provision in the civil aviation legislation has always had a limitation of having a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6 seats, including the pilot’s seat.”

What you call “the cost-sharing provision” in the 1988 regulations did not operate to limit the number of passengers in private operations, even in ‘cost-sharing’ operations. Under the 1988 regulations, an aircraft flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of any of the kinds of activities listed in CAR 2(7)(d) was deemed to be employed in private operations. The carriage of persons in accordance with what you call the “cost-sharing provision” – CAR 2(7A) – was only one the kinds of activities on the list in CAR 2(7)(d). And, most importantly in the context of my questions, the (usually overlooked) last item on the list was “any other activity of a kind substantially similar to any of” the other items on the list.

Were your answers below cleared by Dr Aleck?

[43Inches]

I thought that part was clear, that the 6 seat limit is for cost sharing flights. Any more than that and the pilot/owner has to foot the entire bill themselves. Still does not answer if there is a limit on passengers for a non cost shared flight, which the answer most likely is no. In theory you could fly a Saudi prince privately in their (Australian registered) 747 with 300 members of the harem if you had the appropriate ratings.

[Checkboard]

The scenario flight IS for hire or reward, because the passengers are paying you, and there are more than six seats. The fact that you have under-costed the flight, and are having to stump up your own cash is not CASA’s place to monitor. They don’t regulate whether you are running a profitable business, they only determine that you are asking for, and getting, money for the flight.

Before the cost sharing provisions came in, it was illegal for a new pilot to grab a Piper Warrior for a quick jolly with a couple of friends , and get them to throw in a few dollars for fuel, but it happened anyway. This reg recognised that, and the six seat rule kept those operations out of the Navajo/C402 small airline world, to close an obvious loophole.

[Clinton McKenzie]

And thus the perennial arguments about distinctions which have no causal effect on objective safety risk continue. To ‘fast-forward’ to the conclusion, I’m confident I will eventually be able to get the folk tapping away in the CASA ‘Guidance Delivery Centre’ to concede that there is no set passenger limit on the privileges of a private pilot licence.

If we change the scenario from a cost-sharing flight in a 9 seat aircraft to a flight in exactly the same aircraft, with one of the passengers being the individual who happens to be the registered operator of the aircraft, the flight is, by definition, not a passenger transport operation if no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the other passengers (or cargo). The registered operator of the aircraft is just flying around a bunch of mates for fun, entirely at the registered operator’s cost.

If the flight is not a passenger transport operation (nor a cargo transport operation nor medical transport operation, which it isn’t in this case) it follows that, by definition, the flight is not an air transport operation, given that we now know from the CASA Guidance Centre’s response that no instrument relevant to this issue has been issued under CASR 201.025. (That is why I agree with the gist of what 43 said at #61.)

But I chose the cost-sharing example so as to tease out a specific point. Checkboard said: The scenario flight [that is, a cost-sharing flight in a 9 seat aircraft] IS for hire or reward, because the passengers are paying you, and there are more than six seats. …The first minor point to make is that the number of seats is irrelevant to whether a flight is conducted “for hire or reward”. The question whether an aircraft is being operated for hire or reward is not answered by looking to the maximum seat configuration of the aircraft (or the number of engines, or the fuel capacity….)

But to the more substantial point, you are effectively arguing that the pilot in command of a cost-sharing flight is not remunerated in the circumstances but the flight is nonetheless conducted “for reward”, are you not? (Perhaps that’s the CASA ‘Guidance Delivery Centre’s’ argument, too. We will see.) The reason I ask that question is that if the pilot in command is “remunerated” for a flight, the flight is, by definition, not a ‘cost-sharing’ flight.

So, the only way to remain within the scope of the ‘cost-sharing’ flight definition is to characterise the money the “passengers are paying” the pilot – your words - as not being remuneration of the pilot but, apparently on your (and perhaps the CASA ‘Guidance Delivery Centre’s’) view, the flight is conducted “for reward”.

Are you able to define the “reward” in the cost-sharing example? Is it that the pilot is less out of pocket than s/he would otherwise have been?

Hang on a sec’. According to Angel Flight Australia’s website: “Angel Flight Australia subsidises fuel used on flights, negotiates the waiver of landing fees at many supporting airports around the country, and arranges the credit of any air navigation charges, thanks to the support of Airservices Australia. Donations to Angel Flight are used to subsidise fuel costs.” And bloody well done Angel Flight, its donors and volunteers.

But the pilots of those flights are less out of pocket than they would otherwise be, but for the fuel subsidy and other arrangements made by Angel Flight. Very few, if any, flights organised by Angel Flight fall within the exclusions from the definition of “passenger transport operation”. How can flights arranged by Angel Flight be lawfully flown by the holders of private pilot licences, if the flight is conducted “for reward” in the form of the pilot being less out of pocket than they otherwise would be? I would have thought that CASA would be licking its lips in anticipation at any opportunity to impose further regulatory requirements on flights organised by Angel Flight.

I find every flight from which I walk away to be personally very rewarding. I conduct every flight to get that reward.

Is “reward” in this sense confined to matters monetary”? If yes, that raises a whole lot of other interesting questions. I and a PPL mate, as an act of pure charity, utilise a 9 seat aircraft of which I am the registered operator to conduct twice-daily flights from A to B on which any member of the public may fly as passengers (along with me), on a ‘first-in, best-dressed’ basis. Those flights fall within the scope of exclusion 2(e) of the definition of “passenger transport operation”. I bear the entirety of the costs and the PIC receives not a cent. But we both get enormous personal satisfaction from our good works. If the flights are not conducted “for hire or reward”…

You (Checkboard) also say: Before the cost sharing provisions came in, it was illegal for a new pilot to grab a Piper Warrior for a quick jolly with a couple of friends , and get them to throw in a few dollars for fuel, but it happened anyway.Can you cite a judicial decision to that effect?

And how were and are flights arranged by Angel Flight ‘legal’ when they were not and are not ‘cost sharing’ and Angel Flight threw and continues to "throw in a few dollars for fuel”?

I’m always fascinated by the concept of a six seat “rule” when all it was, and remains, is an element of a definition. And I’ll give up pointing out probably the most important paragraph of the ‘private purposes’ deeming provision in the CARs 1988. I’ll try to put it this way. I’m the PIC of an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of 6 including the pilot seat, with 6 adults and one babe in arms on board. The 6 adults cost share equally and the baby gets a freebie. I reckon that flight was “substantially similar to” a flight that fell within the definition in CAR 2(7A). Others may have a different opinion. Absent an authoritative decision by a court or tribunal, these matters will remain the subject of perennial arguments.

And note well: That flight could still fall within the scope of a ‘cost-sharing’ flight under the current rules, because the definition does not set a maximum POB number. It sets a maximum seat configuration number. Maximum seat configuration, including the pilot, of 6, 6 adults including the pilot and 1 babe in arms by my maths equals 7 POB.

[43Inches]

You are grossly overthinking this. Various companies have used private aircraft under private rules throughout the years for many uses that would qualify as a private operation in which way more that 6 passengers were on board. The reason the cap is 6 for cost sharing is that those pilots who like to 'undercut' the industry would come up with ingenious ways to build hours for next to nothing flying Chieftains etc on regular routes charging half of what an airline does. Even making a bit of cash with dodgy accounting. Basically what Uber is doing to the taxi/hire car industry. 6 is a nice limit to say, yeah get some friends and hire a plane for a holiday share the cost no problem, good chance they are all aware that its a private flight and know the pilot and that its not some quasi airline operation.

And note well: That flight could still fall within the scope of a ‘cost-sharing’ flight under the current rules, because the definition does not set a maximum POB number. It sets a maximum seat configuration number. Maximum seat configuration, including the pilot, of 6, 6 adults including the pilot and 1 babe in arms by my maths equals 7 POB.

That's one smart infant to have enough cash to contribute to the flight willingly.

But here's a link to another part of law possibly to come in to effect; Why is 6 seats cost share acceptable safety wise, but 4 seats will be say a limit on drivers licence standard medicals. But I can drive a 12 seat road vehicle on a standard drivers licence and medical... That's where the arbitrary nature of these rules start to stand out. I'm allowed to jeopardize 12 people on the road, 4 people in flight for the same medical requirements or 6 people if i want to cost share, 2 people if i want to build my own small plane and so on....

[Clinton McKenzie]

Costs do not have to be shared equally by all POB in order for a flight to satisfy the current definition of 'cost sharing'. That element of the definition is: "the pilot in command pays an amount of the direct costs of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided between all persons on board".

I know the answer to the question put by the OP (as do you). I just have to go through the drudgery of getting CASA to provide the answer in writing.

[Clinton McKenzie]

Why is 6 seats cost share acceptable safety wise, but 4 seats will be say a limit on drivers licence standard medicals. But I can drive a 12 seat road vehicle on a standard drivers licence and medical... That's where the arbitrary nature of these rules start to stand out. I'm allowed to jeopardize 12 people on the road, 4 people in flight for the same medical requirements or 6 people if i want to cost share, 2 people if i want to build my own small plane and so on....There is no coherent reason. That's one of my points.

[PiperCameron]

And note well: That flight could still fall within the scope of a ‘cost-sharing’ flight under the current rules, because the definition does not set a maximum POB number. It sets a maximum seat configuration number. Maximum seat configuration, including the pilot, of 6, 6 adults including the pilot and 1 babe in arms by my maths equals 7 POB.

FWIW, I believe some of the reasoning behind them using "maximum seat configuration" in the Rules is to ensure backyard skydiving and freight-type crowds can't just strip a medium-capacity turboprop of all but a few seats and claim "cost sharing" for a now 2-4 seat aircraft. The number of SOB is thus kinda irrelevant.

[Clinton McKenzie]

That may well be "some of the reasoning" behind the max seat configuration element of the definition. But, as always, the solution to one problem almost invariably creates at least one other problem. The plain words of the current definition of a flight that is 'cost-sharing' do not set a POB limit on 'cost-sharing' flights.

What's to stop a "backyard skydiving" "crowd" from stripping a C206 and cramming 8 skydivers into it?

[PiperCameron]

That may well be "some of the reasoning" behind the max seat configuration element of the definition. But, as always, the solution to one problem almost invariably creates at least one other problem. The plain words of the current definition of a flight that is 'cost-sharing' do not set a POB limit on 'cost-sharing flights'.

Sure... but since you could only, eg. legally fit 6 people in a 4 seat aircraft (2x "Adults" in the front, either 2x Adults carrying 2x babies or 4x children in back) and they know that babies/children won't be paying anything, it kinda already does.

[Clinton McKenzie]

Please slow down and read the bits of the legislation I'm posting. Under the current definition of a flight that is 'cost-sharing' it is not necessary for each and every one of the POB to share the costs equally.

I say again:

That element of the definition is: "the pilot in command pays an amount of the direct costs of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided between all persons on board".

Please read that twice.

You work out the direct costs (as defined), divide them by the number of POB, and to satisfy that element of the definition the pilot in command has pay at least that amount.

Example: The direct costs of a flight are $7,000 and there are 7 POB on board including a babe in arms. To satisfy the element of the definition, the PIC has to pay at least $7,000 [sorry: at least $1,000]. Full stop. It's irrelevant that the babe in arms pays nothing.

[43Inches]

What's to stop a "backyard skydiving" "crowd" from stripping a C206 and cramming 8 skydivers into it?

Parachute ops are not cost sharing flights, the customer pays to drop from a parachute, the plane is a private operation to get them to the drop point at the cost of the skydiving operation. The cost of the plane is considered a cost that comes out of the payment to hang from a chute so the flight is not a hire/reward flight. Which is why jump pilots are paid next to nothing.

[Clinton McKenzie]

That's some of the most concentrated folklore I've read in long time. Thanks for the belly laugh, 43!

Anyway, back to the PPL passenger limit. Another example...

Take an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of 6 including the pilot’s seat. Along come two couples with two children each. By my maths that equals 8.

AC91-18v1.1 says, at para 3.2, citing Part 91 MOS sub-section 20.03(2):3.2 Restraint of two children occupying one seat

3.2.1 Two children may occupy one seat and be restrained by one seatbelt, provided the following applies: [footnote reference to MOS sub-section 20.03(2)]

− the children are seated side-by-side

− their combined weight is not more than 77 kg

− the seatbelt is a lap belt that restrains both children in the seat when fastened.So we have a six seat aircraft in which one of the adults is the PIC and holder of a PPL, her husband is in the front right seat, the other couple occupy the two second row seats, two children are seated side by side in the left seat of the third row and the other two children are seated side by side in the right seat of the third row, in accordance with the AC and MOS.

The direct costs of the flight are $8,000. The PIC pays $1,000 of the direct costs. The PIC is not remunerated. The flight is not advertised to the general public.

I reckon that’s a ‘cost-sharing’ flight within the scope of the current definition, even though there were 8 POB and the children didn’t contribute a cent towards the direct costs of the flight, and the PIC can be the holder of just a PPL. Please tell me why I’m wrong.

For convenience, here’s the current definition:cost‑sharing: a flight is a cost‑sharing flight if:

(a) the flight is conducted using an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot’s seat; and

(b) the pilot in command is not remunerated for the flight; and

(c) the pilot in command pays an amount of the direct costs of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided between all persons on board; and

(d) the flight is not advertised to the general public.Do I need to go through the exercise using the same aircraft but with two adult friends with 4 children each, two to a seat in accordance with the AC and MOS, to show that there is no 6 POB limit even on flights that are cost-sharing?

[43Inches]

APF rules state you only need a PPL to conduct their jump operations, with some restrictions on minimum hours. There are no rules on aircraft capacity only that it must have restraints/seating suitable for the amount of occupants. Unless CASA has introduced some new rules that PPLs can work for commercial operations.

[Clinton McKenzie]

After reading this in CASRs, I resolved not to bother to try to work out what rules apply to parachute operations. Life is way too short.202.502 Transitional—parachute descents authorised by CASA

(1) Despite regulation 202.501, Part 105 does not apply in relation to a parachute descent if the descent is authorised by, and conducted in accordance with:

(a) instrument CASA 263/02 or instrument CASA 36/19 (as either is in force from time to time); and

(b) if the descent is being undertaken by a trainee parachutist or tandem parachutist—instrument CASA 11/17 or instrument CASA 84/18 (as either is in force from time to time); and

(c) subsection 15 of Civil Aviation Order 20.16.3 (as in force immediately before 2 December 2021).

(2) If Part 105 does not apply to a parachute descent because of the operation of subregulation (1), Part 105 also does not apply to any other parachuting activity undertaken for the purposes of the descent.

(3) Despite the repeal of regulation 152 of CAR by Schedule 2 to the amending regulations, instruments CASA 263/02 and CASA 36/19 (as in force immediately before the commencement of Schedule 2 to the amending regulations) continue in force (and may be dealt with) after that commencement as if that repeal had not happened.

(4) This regulation is repealed at the end of 1 December 2023.Summary: Dog's breakfast.

[PiperCameron]

So I'm sure it's not just me that suspects CASA spent tax-payer $$$ producing the PEGs just so they could understand their own regulations..

[compressor stall]

CASA parachuting MOS (part 105) are up for public consultation.

https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulatory-program/cd-2213os/?utm_source=Swift%20Digital&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Fatigue

[Cedrik]

After reading this in CASRs, I resolved not to bother to try to work out what rules apply to parachute operations. Life is way too short.Summary: Dog's breakfast.
Just like anything to do with CASA!

[Clinton McKenzie]

CASA parachuting MOS (part 105) are up for public consultation.

https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulatory-program/cd-2213os/?utm_source=Swift%20Digital&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=FatigueThe end of that web address is “=Fatigue”

Ironic.

[Clinton McKenzie]

Hot off the press (yesterday):Question 1:
In response to my specific question 2, you say: “Answer 2: Based on the scenario described in the enquiry, the flight is an air transport operation, and the flight must comply with Parts 91, 119 and 135 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR). This flight operation would also need to meet various other requirements in the CASR and Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR).”
The scenario described in my enquiry does not involve any hire or reward. How can an operation that does not involve any hire or reward be an “air transport operation”, given the definition of that term you (and I) quoted?

Answer 1:
The concept of “hire or reward” is a very broad concept. This concept is discussed in the CASR Part 119 Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC):
The key criteria for an air transport operation is that it be conducted for hire or reward. In most cases, the concept of hire will be clear, so that if the operator is receiving payment to conduct the flight, that element is met. It can be difficult however to identify if an operation is conducted for reward, though that is a broad concept. The receipt of a reward could involve, but is not limited to, any of the following:
• where the operator receives anything of value
• goodwill in the form of current or future economic benefit.
A reward need not require a profit or profit motive or the actual payment of monies.

If your passengers are giving you money (or other compensation) towards the expenses of conducting the flight, you are receiving a reward for that flight, whether or not a profit is made. Such a flight is being conducted for hire or reward. If, however, the flight is a “cost-sharing” flight (as defined in the Part 1 Definitions of the CASR) it is an operation that is not required to be under the authority of an AOC under Part 119 (as it is expressly excluded from the definition of “passenger transport operation” under CASR Part 2 Dictionary, clause 75(2)(b)). A “cost-sharing” flight is a flight that is conducted using an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilots seat. If a bigger aircraft is used, the flight is not defined as a “cost-sharing” flight. If you are conducting a flight in an aeroplane with a maximum seat configuration of 9 (including the pilot) and you and your passengers share the direct costs of the flight evenly divided between you, the flight is NOT a “cost-sharing” flight. Such a flight is characterised as a “passenger transport operation” (see CASR Part 2 Dictionary, clause 75) that is conducted for hire or reward which is, therefore, an “Australian air transport operation” under CASR Part 2 Dictionary, clause 3 and CASR 119.010.

Question 2:
You cite the “Part 119 of CASR Acceptable Means of Compliance (https://www.casa.gov.au/part-119-australian-air-transport-operators-certification-and-management-amc-gm)” as if it is legislation. Have you read page 1 of that document? In any event, the scenario described in my enquiry does not involve any hire or reward.

Answer 2:
See response above, the scenario in your enquiry does involves a flight for reward.

Question 3:
Or are you in effect asserting that CASA’s position is that all flights that are “cost sharing” as defined are conducted for “reward” within the meaning of that term in the definition of “air transport operation”? (And I respectfully urge caution and very careful consideration before answering that supplementary question.)

Answer 3:
A “cost-sharing” flight that is conducted in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of 6 or less is still an operation for high or reward. However, as it meets the definition of “cost-sharing” it is not a flight that is included in the definition of an Australian air transport operation. A flight, for hire or reward, that is conducted in an aircraft with maximum seat configuration of more than 6 does not meet the definition of “cost-sharing” and is therefore included in the definition of an Australian air transport operation.

Question 4:
You say in response to question 5: “Answer 5: The cost-sharing flight provision in the civil aviation legislation has always had a limitation of having a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6 seats, including the pilot’s seat.”

What you call “the cost-sharing provision” in the 1988 regulations did not operate to limit the number of passengers in private operations, even in ‘cost-sharing’ operations. Under the 1988 regulations, an aircraft flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of any of the kinds of activities listed in CAR 2(7)(d) was deemed to be employed in private operations. The carriage of persons in accordance with what you call the “cost-sharing provision” – CAR 2(7A) – was only one the kinds of activities on the list in CAR 2(7)(d). And, most importantly in the context of my questions, the (usually overlooked) last item on the list was “any other activity of a kind substantially similar to any of” the other items on the list.

Answer 4:
CASA has reviewed the previous answer. “Cost-sharing” flights in CAR 2(7A)(d)(v) were relevant flights in an aircraft where the number of persons on the flight, including the operating crew, did not exceed 6. CASA notes the previous response that ‘cost-sharing flight provision in the civil aviation legislation has always had a limitation of having a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6 seats’ was therefore not correct, as CAR 2(7A) did not reference seating configuration, but just the number of persons.

In terms of your question, CASA acknowledges CAR 2(7A) was not an exhaustive statement as to what may be a private operation. Whilst CAR 2(7)(d)(viii) also treated “any other activity of a kind substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vi) (inclusive)” as a private operation, in the context of the express terms of CAR 2(7A), any operation outside of the terms of that provision could not be regarded as a cost-sharing flight for that provision. However, CASA also acknowledges CAR 2(7)(d)(viii) provided for a further category of “substantially similar” operations, with the result that an operation substantially similar to that set out in CAR 2(7)(d)(v), could also have been treated as a private operation. Whether an operation is substantially similar was a matter CASA decided on a case by case basis, when required to.

Question 5:
Were your answers below cleared by Dr Aleck?

Answer 5:
The responses in this email have been approved by the Legal Advisory and Drafting Branch.
My supplementary questions:Thank you for that supplementary response. CASA’s opinion as to the breadth of the scope of the word “reward” in the relevant provisions is noted. It follows, in CASA’s opinion, that even flights that fall within the definition of “cost sharing” could be for “reward” but, as a consequence of their express exclusion from the definition, the flights are not a “passenger transport operation”.

A couple more supplementary questions if I may.

As background, I used to be on the list of pilots available for flights arranged by Angel Flight Australia but I started flying an ‘experimental’ aircraft. However, I intend to again gain access to a ‘normal’ category aircraft (with a maximum seat configuration of 6) for various operations and might again nominate for the list.

I note that according to Angel Flight Australia’s website: “Angel Flight Australia subsidises fuel used on flights, negotiates the waiver of landing fees at many supporting airports around the country, and arranges the credit of any air navigation charges, thanks to the support of Airservices Australia. Donations to Angel Flight are used to subsidise fuel costs.” I also note that I would not be the registered operator of the aircraft that I would fly for the purposes flights arranged by Angel Flight Australia. I would not be ‘remunerated’ and the flights would not be advertised to the general public. The passengers carried would pay nothing to anyone for the flights.

Question 1: Would the subsidisation by Angel Flight Australia of the cost of the fuel I consume during a flight arranged by them constitute a “reward” in CASA’s opinion?

Question 2: If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, and the outcome of the subsidisation is that I end up paying an amount of the “direct costs” of the flight that is less than the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided by all persons on board, is the flight an “air transport operation”?

Question 3: If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, and the outcome of the subsidisation is that I end up paying an amount of the ‘direct costs’ of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided by all persons on board, is the flight an “air transport operation”?

Question 4: If the answer to question 2 is different from the answer to question 3, how do the differing ratios of “direct costs” of the flight paid by me alter the objective risks of the flight?

For question 5, assume instead that I purchase, and am, as an individual, the registered operator of, an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of 9. A mate of mine and I, as an act of pure charity, utilise the aircraft to conduct twice-daily flights from country town A to city B and back, on which flights any member of the public may fly as passengers (along with me) for free. We advertise the flights. The passengers (other than me) do not pay anyone anything in relation to the flights. I bear the entire costs of the flights. My mate pays nothing to participate and is paid nothing for being PIC.

Question 5: Are the flights described in that scenario an “air transport operation”?

Question 6: If the answer to question 5 is ‘no’, may the holder of a private pilot licence be the PIC of the aircraft (provided the pilot has a rating for the aircraft)?

[AerialPerspective]

LB…………

Brilliant! :D

Straya, the land of the free. I don’t confess to know a teeny weenie bit of the new rules and was easily enough confused with the old ones. These ones look like so much fun! Would an FOI give advice?

I've been involved in more than few 135 transitions and new applications. I had a pretty good handle on the old rules and what you could and couldn't do but I have found myself having to ask multiple questions of CASA and in some instances, there is no answer or at least not one to certain questions that is apparent without reading ALL the rules as a complete entity. In some circumstances it's been a case of re-write what was there before (for transitioning), cite the new rule in place of the old one(s) and then see what CASA say.

[43Inches]

I've been involved in more than few 135 transitions and new applications. I had a pretty good handle on the old rules and what you could and couldn't do but I have found myself having to ask multiple questions of CASA and in some instances, there is no answer or at least not one to certain questions that is apparent without reading ALL the rules as a complete entity. In some circumstances it's been a case of re-write what was there before (for transitioning), cite the new rule in place of the old one(s) and then see what CASA say.

CASA hasn't changed much in the respect that any query on a rule has always had a regulatory round about that has many words and no answer. Just the rules are more convoluted now. As I said in another thread the rules will only get an effective interpretation after an incident/ accident occurs.

[Clinton McKenzie]

The cosmic ballet continues. CASA is now confusing itself somewhat, but may not realise it yet. Hardly surprising.

I received answers to my supplementary questions of 24 January 2023 yesterday. Quoted below. For those who do not wish to lose the will to live, skip to question and answer 5 and 6. You will see that CASA agrees that a PPL can be the PIC of an aircraft with a maximum seating capacity of 9.

Short point: There is no prescribed passenger limit on a PPL.

(I chose the scenario for question 5 to demonstrate the ridiculous kinds of outcomes produced by rules that are supposed to draw distinctions on the basis of objective safety risk and the safety of the public.)Question 1: Would the subsidisation by Angel Flight Australia of the cost of the fuel I consume during a flight arranged by them constitute a “reward” in CASA’s opinion?

Answer 1: CASA does not generally answer questions about other operator’s affairs or other operations. However, CASA can provide a general answer to your question. If a third party provides, dependent on all the circumstances of the arrangement, monies to a pilot to cover some or all of their operating costs to conduct the flight, CASA would generally regard that as the receipt of a reward by the pilot. Prior to 2 December 2021, that arrangement would generally have been regarded as a private operation under CAR 2(7)(d)(v) as the carriage of persons without a charge for the carriage. Section 7AA of CASA EX82/21 – Part 119 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2021 (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2023C00009/Html/Text#_Toc123036683), continued that position until 24 December 2022. CASR 119.010(2)(d) was also recently inserted, which provides (d) an operation, conducted using an aeroplane or rotorcraft, of a kind prescribed by the Part 119 Manual of Standards for the purposes of this paragraph, is not an Australian air transport operation.

Question 2: If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, and the outcome of the subsidisation is that I end up paying an amount of the “direct costs” of the flight that is less than the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided by all persons on board, is the flight an “air transport operation”?

Answer 2: An air transport operation is not determined by whether the reward would be more or less than the amount than would be paid by a person if the costs were evenly divided by all persons on board. The cost sharing provisions, which have already been explained, also operate according to its own terms.

Question 3: If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, and the outcome of the subsidisation is that I end up paying an amount of the ‘direct costs’ of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided by all persons on board, is the flight an “air transport operation”?

Answer 3: See previous answer.

Question 4: If the answer to question 2 is different from the answer to question 3, how do the differing ratios of “direct costs” of the flight paid by me alter the objective risks of the flight?

Answer 4: See previous answer.

Question 5: Assume instead that I purchase, and am, as an individual, the registered operator of, an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of 9. A mate of mine and I, as an act of pure charity, utilise the aircraft to conduct twice-daily flights from country town A to city B and back, on which flights any member of the public may fly as passengers (along with me) for free. We advertise the flights. The passengers (other than me) do not pay anyone anything in relation to the flights. I bear the entire costs of the flights. My mate pays nothing to participate and is paid nothing for being PIC. Are the flights described in that scenario an “air transport operation”?

Amswer 5: No. Assuming the pilot receives no payment for the flight, the flights are a private operation because they are not conducted for hire or reward.

Question 6: If the answer to question 5 is ‘no’, may the holder of a private pilot licence be the PIC of the aircraft (provided the pilot has a rating for the aircraft)?

Answer 6: Yes, as the operation is a private operation.

[Clinton McKenzie]

And my latest round of supplementary questions:I do not understand to whom the word “other” in the first sentence of your answer to question 1 refers: “CASA does not generally answer questions about other operator’s affairs or other operations.”

Question 1: If I put my hand up to conduct a flight for which Angel Flight has called for volunteers, aren’t I the “operator” conducting the “operations” for the purposes of that flight?

Question 2: Is CASA’s opinion that, but for the stuff referred to in the last sentence of the answer provided to question 1, the flight would have to be authorised by an AOC if I now put my hand up to conduct a flight for which Angel Flight has called for volunteers and Angel Flight subsidises part of my fuel costs for the flight?

Question 3: Where do I find a copy of Part 119 Manual of Standards so I can find out what has been prescribed for the purposes of CASR 119.010(2)(d)? My search skills on CASA’s website and FRLI may be becoming a bit rusty, as I have been unable find a copy. My apologies if it’s there and my search skills are inadequate.

As background to my further questions, I note that in answer to my question 2 below, you say: “An air transport operation is not determined by whether the reward would be more or less than the amount than would be paid by a person if the costs were evenly divided by all persons on board. The cost sharing provisions, which have already been explained, also operate according to its own terms.”

Your explanation of the cost sharing provisions, in your email of 23 January 2023, said: “A “cost-sharing” flight that is conducted in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of 6 or less is still an operation for high or reward. [Your “high”] However, as it meets the definition of “cost-sharing” it is not a flight that is included in the definition of an Australian air transport operation.”

Scenario for questions 4 and 5: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I have 3 passengers. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. I bear the entirety of the direct costs of the flight.

Question 4: Do you comprehend that the flight in that scenario meets the definition of one that is “cost-sharing”? The “entirety” of the direct costs is an amount “that is at least equal to” the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided between all POB. It’s an outcome dictated by the laws of mathematics.

Question 5: Where is the “hire or reward” in that scenario?

Scenario for question 6: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I have 3 passengers. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. I pay an amount of the “direct costs” of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided by all persons on board. The passengers give me $150 to reimburse part of my fuel costs. Just to be clear: $150 is much, much less than 3/4ths of the direct costs (including fuel costs) of the flight in this scenario.

Question 6: Do you comprehend that the flight in that scenario meets the definition of one that is “cost-sharing”?

Scenario for question 7: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I have 3 passengers. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. I pay an amount of the “direct costs” of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided by all persons on board. Angel Flight gives the passengers $150 to give to me to reimburse part of my fuel costs for the flight. Just to be clear: $150 is much, much less than 3/4ths of the direct costs (including fuel costs) of the flight in this scenario.

Question 7: Do you comprehend that the flight in that scenario meets the definition of one that is “cost-sharing”?

Scenario for question 8: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I have 3 passengers. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. I pay an amount of the “direct costs” of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided by all persons on board. Angel Flight gives me $150 to reimburse part of my fuel costs for the flight. Just to be clear: $150 is much, much less than 3/4ths of the direct costs (including fuel costs) of the flight in this scenario.

Question 8: Do you comprehend that the flight in that scenario meets the definition of one that is “cost-sharing”?

I get it that your opinion is that e.g. the reimbursement of part of my fuel costs constitutes a “reward”. But you say that, even so, a flight that meets the definition of “cost-sharing” is not a flight that is included in the definition of an Australian air transport operation”. I concur with that conclusion. And all of the scenarios above fall within the scope of a flight that meets the definition of “cost-sharing”, do they not?

Provided the flight is conducted using an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot’s seat, the pilot in command is not remunerated for the flight, the flight is not advertised to the general public and the pilot in command pays an amount of the direct costs of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided between all persons on board, the flight meets the definition of one that is “cost-sharing”. It does not matter who bears the balance, if any, of the “direct costs”. That’s irrelevant to the operation of the definition.

[zegnaangelo]

the way i read CASA's response is that all flights are done for hire and / or reward (including cost -sharing). however because there is a specific carve out for "cost-sharing flights", one may rely on that exemption to capture it under a private operation.

sounds like the default scenario is, everything needs to be licensed/regulated unless there is a specific carve-out for private operations.

but it does sound like a PPL can't go hire a 9 seater plane and take his friends/family for a joy-ride.

[Clinton McKenzie]

the way i read CASA's response is that all flights are done for hire and / or reward (including cost -sharing). however because there is a specific carve out for "cost-sharing flights", one may rely on that exemption to capture it under a private operation.I think that's a misreading. CASA's answer to my question 5 of 24 January 2023 was: "Assuming the pilot receives no payment for the flight, the flights are a private operation because they are not conducted for hire or reward."

And I suspect that once they've thought about it, CASA will realise that the answer to my most recent questions 4 and 5 will be to the effect that the scenario for the purposes of those questions is a "cost-sharing" flight that is neither for hire nor reward:Scenario for questions 4 and 5: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I have 3 passengers. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. I bear the entirety of the direct costs of the flight.

Question 4: Do you comprehend that the flight in that scenario meets the definition of one that is “cost-sharing”? The “entirety” of the direct costs is an amount “that is at least equal to” the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided between all POB. It’s an outcome dictated by the laws of mathematics.

Question 5: Where is the “hire or reward” in that scenario?sounds like the default scenario is, everything needs to be licensed/regulated unless there is a specific carve-out for private operations.Private operations are licensed and regulated.but it does sound like a PPL can't go hire a 9 seater plane and take his friends/family for a joy-ride.That, too, would be a misreading. The fact that the PPL has hired an aircraft for the purpose of taking his friends/family for a joy-ride does not, of itself, turn the flight into one "for hire or reward".

[Clinton McKenzie]

The latest round of answers to my supplementary questions demonstrates to me that CASA’s complex and convoluted Heath Robinson contraption is (unsurprisingly) resulting in CASA confusing itself. I’ll chunk this up in an attempt to reduce the scope for further confusion and potential insanity.

Back on 24 Jan 23 I asked this question: Would the subsidisation by Angel Flight Australia of the cost of the fuel I consume during a flight arranged by them constitute a “reward” in CASA’s opinion?The first sentence of CASA’s answer to that question, given on 1 Feb 23, was:CASA does not generally answer questions about other operator’s affairs or other operations.That confused me. I accordingly asked this question on 2 Feb 23, with a preamble about the cause of my confusion: I do not understand to whom the word “other” in the first sentence of your answer to question 1 refers: “CASA does not generally answer questions about other operator’s affairs or other operations.”

Question 1: If I put my hand up to conduct a flight for which Angel Flight has called for volunteers, aren’t I the “operator” conducting the “operations” for the purposes of that flight?The answer CASA gave to that question on 15 Feb 23 was:Yes. The implications of that answer obviously got the brains trust to thinking and that seems to have resulted in a HSM, because the answer to my question 2 said in part:CASA is now aware that the amendment of section 7AA of CASA EX82/21 – Part 119 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2021, on 24 December 2022 had the unintended consequence of treating certain flights as air transport operations again, and CASA is presently considering how to address that issue, which is likely to be by a further amendment to the exemption.Oh dear. An amendment to an amendment required, due to insufficient attention to detail. And let’s pause to note that in 2023 CASA is continuing to regulate by (poorly thought through) exemptions, all of which was supposed to be a thing of the decades-ago past.

I was relieved by the confirmation that my search skills have not deteriorated. I couldn’t find the Part 119 MOS because, in answer to my question 3, CASA said:CASA has not yet made a Part 119 MOS.Another example demonstrating that the regulatory reform program is not complete. What is ‘complete’ is the assertion that it is: complete bull****.

The answers immediately above, and CASA’s answers to the remaining five questions demonstrate to me that they are doing a lot of ‘making stuff up’ on the run, to try to patch over the gaps in their Heath Robinson contraption. Here is the scenario I gave for the next two questions:Scenario for questions 4 and 5: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I have 3 passengers. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. I bear the entirety of the direct costs of the flight.Some of you will anticipate I used that scenario for very good reasons. Those reasons arise from the definition of a flight that is ‘cost-sharing’, the definition of ‘passenger transport operation’ and the definition of ’air transport operation’.

If a flight is a ‘cost-sharing’ flight, it is excluded from the definition of ‘passenger transport operation’ and, therefore, won’t be an ‘air transport operation’ (unless CASA pulls a swifty and prescribes them in the Part 119 MOS). Further, an operation that is not for ‘hire or reward’ is not an ‘air transport operation’, even if the operation is a ‘passenger transport operation’ (unless CASA pulls a swifty and prescribes them in the Part 119 MOS or by instrument issued under CASR 201.025).

To try to keep confusion below insanity levels, I will quote the three definitions again, with underlining added: Definition of passenger transport operation

(1) A passenger transport operation is an operation of an aircraft that involves the carriage of passengers, whether or not cargo is also carried on the aircraft.

(2) Despite subclause (1), an operation is not a passenger transport operation if the operation is:

(a) an operation of an aircraft with a special certificate of airworthiness; or

(b) a cost‑sharing flight; or

(c) a medical transport operation; or

(d) if the registered operator of an aircraft is an individual—an operation of the aircraft:

(i) that involves the carriage of that individual; and

(ii) does not also involve the carriage of other passengers; or

(e) if the registered operator of an aircraft is an individual—an operation of the aircraft:

(i) that involves the carriage of that individual; and

(ii) involves the carriage of other passengers; and

(iii) for which no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the other passengers or cargo.The key point to note is that if your operation falls within the scope of the definition of a ‘cost-sharing flight’, the operation is not a ‘passenger transport operation’.

The definition of a flight that is ‘cost-sharing’ is:cost‑sharing: a flight is a cost‑sharing flight if:

(a) the flight is conducted using an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot’s seat; and

(b) the pilot in command is not remunerated for the flight; and

(c) the pilot in command pays an amount of the direct costs of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided between all persons on board; and

(d) the flight is not advertised to the general public.

Example 1: For paragraph (c), if the direct costs of a flight are $3,000 and the flight has 5 persons on board, including the pilot, the pilot must pay at least $600 towards the direct costs.

Example 2: For paragraph (d):

(a) an advertisement in a daily national newspaper is an advertisement to the general public; and

(b) an advertisement in a flying club newsletter is not an advertisement to the general public.The key points to note are, first, that the underlined element does not say anything about who - other than the pilot – must bear the direct costs of the flight. It says nothing about who else, if anyone, has to bear the balance, if any, of the direct costs. The second point – and the reason I said “if anyone” and “if any” in the last sentence – is that if the PIC meets the entirety of the direct costs of the flight, the PIC has literally paid an amount of the direct costs of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided between all persons on board, and no further direct costs are borne by anyone.

Now let’s look at the scenario I gave again, and ‘plug’ the facts into the definition of a flight that is ‘cost-sharing’:

I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6 including the pilot seat – looks to me very much like a tick in (a) of the definition.

I have 3 passengers – the definition does not say anything about the number of POB, except for its relevance to the calculation of the amount of the fixed costs which the PIC must pay to satisfy (c)

I am not remunerated for the flight – looks to me very much like a tick in (b) of the definition.

The flight is not advertised to the general public – looks to me very much like a tick in (d) of the definition.

I bear the entirety of the direct costs of the flight – looks to me very much like a tick in (c) of the definition.

My question 4 to CASA was:Do you comprehend that the flight in that scenario meets the definition of one that is “cost-sharing”?Before providing the answer, I suggest you make sure you’re safely seated.

CASA’s answer to that was:No.

Double check that you’re still comfortably seated. Read the definition of ‘cost-sharing’ again and read the scenario again. Then read the question and CASA’s answer again. CASA reckons the scenario is not a ‘cost-sharing’ flight.

My question 4 was:Where is the hire and reward in that scenario?CASA’s answer to that question was:See previous answer.Wait a second: CASA's answer to my question 5 of 24 January 2023 was: "Assuming the pilot receives no payment for the flight, the flights are a private operation because they are not conducted for hire or reward." In the scenario I gave above, the PIC pays for everything. No one pays the PIC anything. There is no way to coherently and credibly conjure PIC reward or remuneration out of the scenario.

CASA provided no reasoning to support either of its answers to my questions 4 and 5. I will make an educated guess as to why: The scenario caused the brains trust to have another HSM, any reasoning they were inclined to provide as to why the above scenario is not a ‘cost-sharing’ flight would have been pretty unconvincing, so best instead to just in effect assert it’s not. My guess is that they had a group frown and conjured some implication out of the word ‘sharing’ such that ‘someone else’ must at least ‘share’ ‘a bit’ of the direct costs. Problem solved for CASA because then CASA can also say the ‘bit’ ‘chipped in’ is ‘reward’ or, as we’ll see, even ‘remuneration’. (Alas, one problem solved on that on-the-run reasoning creates other problems for CASA...)

Even if it is correct in law to draw an implication out of the word ‘sharing’ such that ‘someone else’ must at least ‘share’ ‘a bit’ of the direct costs along with the PIC, it would be a distinction with no consequences for objective safety risk. So you’re not a cost-sharing flight if you as PIC bear all of the direct costs of the flight, and you must therefore get an AOC, but you are a cost-sharing flight if someone chips in $1 for the direct costs and you as PIC bear the rest, and you therefore you do not need an AOC.

Are you feeling all the safety oozing out of this?

Here's why I reckon they had an HSM: If the flight in the scenario is a cost-sharing flight – which I reckon it is – and is not a flight for hire or reward – I don’t reckon it is a flight for hire or reward - some ‘interesting’ consequences flow. For example, if I change just one element of the scenario – change the aircraft to one with a maximum seat configuration of 9 including the pilot seat – the result is that the flight is no longer one that satisfies the definition of ‘cost-sharing’. But that does not turn the flight into one ‘for hire or reward’. I as PIC am still bearing the entirety of the direct costs of the flight. And if it’s not one for hire or reward, it’s not an ‘air transport operation’ (unless CASA pulls a swifty when it gets around to completing the Part 119 MOS or issues an instrument under CASR 201.025).

Again for convenience, here’s the definition of ‘air transport operation’ with the important bit for present purposes underlined:

Definition of air transport operation

(1) An air transport operation is a passenger transport operation, a cargo transport operation or a medical transport operation, that:

(a) is conducted for hire or reward; or

(b) is prescribed by an instrument issued under regulation 201.025.

(2) Despite subclause (1), an air transport operation does not include an aerial work operation or a balloon transport operation.

I can therefore understand why CASA will want to continue to pretend that all ‘cost-sharing’ flights are for ‘hire or reward’, even if the PIC bears the entirety of the direct costs of the flight, and that a flight for which the pilot bears the entirety of the fixed costs is not a ‘cost-sharing’ flight.

I will draft some supplementary questions to ascertain whether CASA has thought through the implications of that. But don’t break your brains yet, because there’s more silliness to come.

My question 6 and its scenario were: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I have 3 passengers. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. I pay an amount of the “direct costs” of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided by all persons on board. The passengers give me $150 to reimburse part of my fuel costs. Just to be clear: $150 is much, much less than 3/4ths of the direct costs (including fuel costs) of the flight in this scenario. Question 6: Do you comprehend that the flight in that scenario meets the definition of one that is “cost-sharing”?CASA’s answer:Yes.Hooray! But not surprising. This is safe ground for CASA in the context of its opinion on the interpretation of the relevant provisions. A ‘bit’ of the direct costs have been borne by someone other than the PIC, the PIC has still paid an amount that is “at least equal to” the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided by all persons on board and CASA can characterise the ‘bit’ chipped in as ‘reward’.

But then the silliness begins. I’ll paste the final questions and answers with some added underlining, but the short point is that CASA reckons that if the amount ‘chipped in’ to meet a ‘bit’ of the direct costs of the flight is chipped in by someone other than the POB, that is remuneration of the PIC. That's a lot of words found by CASA somewhere between the lines of the definition of 'cost-sharing' flight.

Question 7: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I have 3 passengers. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. I pay an amount of the “direct costs” of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided by all persons on board. Angel Flight gives the passengers $150 to give to me to reimburse part of my fuel costs for the flight. Just to be clear: $150 is much, much less than 3/4ths of the direct costs (including fuel costs) of the flight in this scenario. Question 7: Do you comprehend that the flight in that scenario meets the definition of one that is “cost-sharing”?

Answer 7: No, as CASA would regard the payment from Angel Flight through the passengers to be remuneration to the pilot for the flight. This is because the payment from the passenger is effectively being made through or by a third party. CASA considers that payment arrangements for a cost-sharing flight be only as between the participants of the flight.

Question 8: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I have 3 passengers. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. I pay an amount of the “direct costs” of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided by all persons on board. Angel Flight gives me $150 to reimburse part of my fuel costs for the flight. Just to be clear: $150 is much, much less than 3/4ths of the direct costs (including fuel costs) of the flight in this scenario. Question 8: Do you comprehend that the flight in that scenario meets the definition of one that is “cost-sharing”?

Answer 8: No, as the payment to the pilot is received from a third party, that payment would be treated by CASA as remuneration of the pilot.

So, to summarise CASA’s view:

If I take a mate’s son and daughter for a flight and I meet the entirety of the direct costs of the flight, that is not in any circumstances a ‘cost-sharing’ flight.

If, instead, my mate’s son and daughter each give me 50 cents out of their piggy banks to pay a tiny fraction of the fuel costs after I refuel after the flight, and I meet the rest of the direct costs, that is a flight that can be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight. The $1 is ‘reward’.

If, instead, my mate gives me $1 at the fuel bowser, that is not in any circumstances a ‘cost-sharing’ flight. The $1 is ‘remuneration’ of the PIC.

The different regulatory consequences of the different sources of that $1 are astonishing. The different safety consequences are not obvious to me.

[josephfeatherweight]

Clinton, your post above is truly eye-watering and does a great job of summarising (for just ONE example of the ridiculous Regulations) how nuts the entire suite of Regulations is.
Thanks for taking the time to put this together and for your relentless pursuit for clarity!

[Sunfish]

The different regulatory consequences of the different sources of that $1 are astonishing. The different safety consequences are not obvious to me.

Well the different safety consequences are obvious to me... Thinking back to three twenty somethings flying in an overloaded Tri Pacer around Australia, sleeping under the wing. We had carefully budgeted for fuel but that didn't work out and there were various long distance calls to the Bank of Dad. The Dads kept us airborne.

So now what happens when the pilot realises that he may have to pay for her desired fuel load with a parental issued credit card or perhaps a corporate card or carnet and CASA is looking on, already suspicious of your groups bona fides? There are a whole swag of safety related operational decisions , starting with avoidance of "Hot Spots" that must be taken if pilots must contemplate the possibility that CASA will trawl through trip finsnce details.

In addition, how wide is CASA's definition of "reward"? Does it include sexual favors?

[Clinton McKenzie]

Clinton, your post above is truly eye-watering and does a great job of summarising (for just ONE example of the ridiculous Regulations) how nuts the entire suite of Regulations is.
Thanks for taking the time to put this together and for your relentless pursuit for clarity!I’d like to say: “It’s a pleasure”, but that would be a lie. I’m trying to get my head around CASA’s opinion as to how provisions which directly affect me (and lots of others) work, so that I can then form my own view on whether CASA is wrong.

For example, if CASA’s opinion is that a flight is not a ‘cost-sharing’ flight if the PIC bears the entirety of the direct costs of the flight, CASA is effectively adding the underlined words to the legislation: “the pilot in command pays an amount of the direct costs of the flight that is at least equal to the amount, but not equal to the total of the combined amounts, that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided between all persons on board, and no person other than persons on board pays any amount of the direct costs of the flight. My erstwhile colleague Emeritus Professor Dennis Pearce AO writes Australia’s leading text book on statutory interpretation. On putting words in legislation that aren’t there, it says: yeah nah.

And, at least so far as the subject of this thread is concerned, I’m trying finally to kill, cremate and bury the folklore to the effect that there is, and always was, a 6 POB cap on private operations. CASA has already agreed, for example, that the PIC of my 9 POB ‘charity airline’ can be a PPL.

[43Inches]

If I take a mate’s son and daughter for a flight and I meet the entirety of the direct costs of the flight, that is not in any circumstances a ‘cost-sharing’ flight.

Makes sense as the flight is just a straight forward private operation, the Pilot or Operator bears 100% of the costs with no contributions. There is no seat limitation as you are paying for the whole thing so can't run a quasi air service operation under the guise of cost sharing.

If, instead, my mate’s son and daughter each give me 50 cents out of their piggy banks to pay a tiny fraction of the fuel costs after I refuel after the flight, and I meet the rest of the direct costs, that is a flight that can be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight. The $1 is ‘reward’.


Yes, because it fits in with the allowable range of a cost sharing flight as stated above, so is a private operation as well being allowed to cost share.

If, instead, my mate gives me $1 at the fuel bowser, that is not in any circumstances a ‘cost-sharing’ flight. The $1 is ‘remuneration’ of the PIC.

Yes, as the person is not occupying a seat or such to make it a cost sharing flight, again restricting the circumstances that a person can take advantage of the law for financial gain. Is it important to draw that line, well yes, in CASAs eyes it limits ways you can get around the hire/reward aspects. I think It's pretty clear that the cost sharing aspect is entirely in law to allow a small group to share the cost of a flight for personal transport for pleasure or recreation or such. You start allowing third parties to contribute up to 5/6th of the flight for freight or such and it starts to run into realms where a PPL can run a quasi air service operation at a slight loss to compete with established operators. So it's not nec a safety question, rather than an operator protection, although it is in part safety as the pilot and aircraft are operating in a lower category of requirements.

And, at least so far as the subject of this thread is concerned, I’m trying finally to kill, cremate and bury the folklore to the effect that there is, and always was, a 6 POB cap on private operations. CASA has already agreed, for example, that the PIC of my 9 POB ‘charity airline’ can be a PPL.

There is no such rule in Australia, and has not been for as long as I have been flying, only a cap on cost sharing ability. We used to run Chieftain cost shares under our charter AoC, each person paid equal, but it was run as an air service operation, the pilot collected the money and paid for the charter of himself and the aircraft at a discounted rate. The pilot could have just hired the aircraft and paid full costs, but not accepted any reward to make it a private operation.

[Clinton McKenzie]

But I think you're missing a fundamental point, 43: On my reading of CASA's answers to my questions, CASA's opinion is that a flight for which the PIC meets the entirety of the direct costs of the flight is 'for hire or reward'. Please read my post #86 again, carefully. I know it's painful, but focus on the answers CASA gave to question 4 and 5, based on a scenario in which the PIC met the entirety of the direct costs.

I will shortly post a copy of my supplementary questions to CASA. Please read them carefully, too, as they try to tease out this issue.

[43Inches]

All I read into it is that CASA has deemed it not a 'cost sharing flight' so it falls under this clause further down which makes in not a 'passenger transport operation'. Where did they claim it was an 'air transport operation'?

(e) if the registered operator of an aircraft is an individual—an operation of the aircraft:

(i) that involves the carriage of that individual; and

(ii) involves the carriage of other passengers; and

(iii) for which no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the other passengers or cargo.

[Clinton McKenzie]

Here is the next tranche of supplementary questions to CASA:

Thank you for your email, dated 15 February 2023, answering my questions sent on 2 February 2023.

I am particularly surprised by CASA’s answer to my question 4 and I am not sure what CASA’s answer to my question 5 means. The scenario for those questions was:Scenario for questions 4 and 5: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I have 3 passengers. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. I bear the entirety of the direct costs of the flight.My question 4 was:Do you comprehend that the flight in that scenario meets the definition of one that is “cost-sharing”?CASA’s answer to that question was:No.I interpret that answer as meaning that CASA’s opinion is that the flight in the above scenario is not one that is ‘cost-sharing’.

I note that in answer to a subsequent question (question 6) in my email of 2 February 2023, based on the same scenario except that the POB other than the PIC met some of the direct costs of the flight, CASA agreed that the flight in that scenario is ‘cost-sharing’. However, I also note that in further questions (7 and 8) based on the same scenario except that persons other than POB met some of the direct costs of the flight, CASA’s opinion is that the flight in those scenarios is not ‘cost-sharing’. This is because, in CASA’s opinion, the payment from a non-POB is ‘remuneration’ of the PIC, notwithstanding that the ‘dollars out of the PIC’s pocket’ in direct costs are the same as if they would be if the POB had met the same costs.

I interpret the combination of CASA’s answers in the context of the different scenarios as meaning that CASA interprets the definition of ‘cost-sharing’ such that:

- A flight will not be ‘cost-sharing’ if the PIC meets the entirety of the direct costs of the flight.

- A flight will not be ‘cost-sharing’ unless at least ‘some’ of the direct costs of the flight are met by POB other than the PIC.

- A flight will not be ‘cost-sharing if any person other than POB meets any of the direct costs of the flight.

Question 1: Can you please confirm that CASA’s opinion is that a flight will not be ‘cost-sharing’ if the PIC meets the entirety of the direct costs of the flight?

Question 2: Can you please confirm that CASA’s opinion is that a flight will not be ‘cost-sharing’ unless at least ‘some’ of the direct costs of the flight are met by POB other than the PIC?

Question 3: Can you please confirm that CASA’s opinion is that a flight will not be ‘cost-sharing’ if any person other than POB meets any of the direct costs of the flight?

Question 4: If it is CASA’s opinion that a flight will not be ‘cost-sharing’ unless at least ‘some’ of the direct costs of the flight are met by POB other than the PIC:

(a) what is the minimum amount of the direct costs to be met by POB other than the PIC?

(b) do each of the POB other than the PIC have to meet some of the direct costs?

Question 5: For example, in CASA’s opinion, can a flight with 3 passengers be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight if I, as PIC, meet at least a quarter of the direct costs of the flight and:

(a) only one of the 3 passengers meets the balance of the direct costs of the flight?

(b) only two of the 3 passengers between them meet the balance of the direct costs of the flight?

(c) all 3 of the passengers between them meet the balance of the direct costs of the flight?

Question 6: If CASA’s opinion is that more than one of the 3 passengers, or all of the 3 passengers, must meet the balance of the direct costs of the flight in order for it to be ‘cost-sharing’, what is CASA’s opinion as to the ratio of those passengers’ payment? For example, must they share, equally, the balance of the direct costs?

Question 7: Does it make any difference to CASA’s answer to questions 5 or 6 if the balance of the direct costs of the flight is $1?

Question 8: If the answer to question 7 is ‘yes’, what is CASA’s opinion as to the minimum balance – expressed in dollar or percentage terms - of the direct costs to be met by one or more of all of the passengers, in order for the flight to be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight?

Question 9: Where does CASA find all these nuances in the plain words of the definition of a ‘cost-sharing’ flight?

On the plain words of that definition, a PIC who meets the entirety of the direct costs of a flight has, literally, paid an amount of the direct costs that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid – note: “would be paid” not “are” paid - by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided – note: “if” not “are” evenly divided - between all POB. The definition has been drafted expressly on the basis that the direct costs do not have to be shared equally by the POB. That was one of the flaws in the previous definition.

The current definition has been expressly drafted on the basis that the PIC’s contribution to direct costs can be greater than the PIC’s nominal ‘share’ of the direct costs. The definition says nothing about who has to bear the balance, if any, of the direct costs of the flight after the PIC has met “at least” the PIC’s nominal ‘share’. And it is patently absurd to suggest that there is some safety consequence arising from the difference between the PIC meeting all of the direct costs compared with, for example, the other POB meeting some of those costs, such that there is some safety justification for reading (many) words into the definition.

As noted at the start of this email, I am not sure what CASA meant by its answer to my question 5 of 2 February 2023. My question 5 was:Where is the hire and reward in that scenario [in which the PIC meets the entirety of the direct costs of a flight]?CASA’s answer was:See previous answer.The ‘previous answer’ was the one which I interpret as meaning that CASA’s opinion is that a flight in which the PIC meets the entirety of the direct costs is not one that is ‘cost-sharing’.

My confusion arises because it does not automatically follow, from the fact that a flight is not ‘cost-sharing’ (in CASA’s opinion), that the flight is for ‘hire or reward’.

Question 10: If I as PIC meet the entirety of the direct costs of a flight, with the corollary being that no one else is meeting any of the direct costs of the flight, and I receive nothing from anyone for anything connected with the flight, what, in CASA’s opinion, is the precise nature and source of any ‘hire or reward’ connected with that flight? And to close off any potential distractions: I’m flying my own aircraft, so please focus on ‘reward’.

Scenario for question 12: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. The direct costs of the flight are borne by the POB, including the PIC, in whatever way CASA reckons satisfies that element of the definition of ‘cost-sharing’.

There are 7 passengers. My partner in the front right seat, a couple of our friends are in the second row and their 4 children are carried in accordance with AC91-18v1.1 para 3.2 in row three.

Question 12: Does CASA comprehend that the flight in this scenario is a ‘cost-sharing’ flight with 8 POB and, as a ‘cost-sharing’ flight, is not a ‘passenger carrying operation’ and, consequently, is not an ‘air transport operation’?

Question 13: If CASA’s answer to question 12 is ‘no’, could CASA explain why its answer is ‘no’?

[43Inches]

What I find more worrying about the definition is the part about the registered operator. So if you hire an aircraft from an Aero Club under a business name can you fly it privately under that definition? As it says the registered operator must be the individual on board. Does that mean the hire agreement makes the hirer now the registered operator for the duration of hire, must the agreement state that?

[Clinton McKenzie]

Well...

Provided the pilot hirer is an 'eligible person', the registration holder can appoint the pilot hirer to be the 'registered operator'. Then the registration holder must give notice of the appointment to CASA within 14 days of the appointment, in accordance with CASR 47.100. And when the pilot gets back on Monday, the registration holder will presumably then cancel the appointment of the pilot hirer to be 'registered operator' of the aircraft and give CASA notice of that cancellation with in 14 days.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

That won't happen and, in any event, doesn't really help for present purposes. The exclusion from the definition of 'passenger transport operation' that you quoted, which exclusion turns on the registered operator being an individual, only applies if that individual is carried as a passenger.

The other exclusion which turns on the registered operator being an individual does not permit the carriage of any passengers.

You need to read the definitions very carefully.

[43Inches]

It does not say as a passenger it just states they are carried on the flight, which means as pilot or passenger. I think they have been too prescriptive in what a registered operator is in regard to calling it a non passenger transport ops. Therefore to even legally be a non passenger transport on a flight carrying only yourself you would have to be assigned as the registered operator, or be under an AOC for airwork or air transport operations or own and operate the aircraft yourself. This more highlights how badly written this section is. Its using the words 'registered operator' that makes all the difference, so if you hire an aircraft for private use you would have to be assigned the registered operator or arrange a 'cost sharing' operation, I've read through a few hire agreements available online, and none of them specify the transfer of 'registered operator'. Some refer to the registered operator being the the one providing the aircraft.

That being said even if the operation is a Passenger Transport Operation it still may not be an Air Transport Operation if it's not for hire or reward, just to complicate things.

[Clinton McKenzie]

The terms of the exclusion to which you refer are:(e) if the registered operator of an aircraft is an individual—an operation of the aircraft:

(i) that involves the carriage of that individual; and

(ii) involves the carriage of other passengers; and

(iii) for which no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the other passengers or cargo.I note the word "other" in (ii). The only way to give that word any operation is to interpret (i) as meaning the individual is also being carried as a passenger.

I say the solution to the conundrum you perceive is that if the PIC is the only POB, the flight can still satisfy the plain words of the definition of 'cost-sharing' flight. There is no element of that definition that turns on the identity or legal personality of the registered operator of the aircraft. And, as I keep saying, no words in the definition say that the flight is not a cost-sharing flight if the PIC meets the entirety of the direct costs of the flight. Remember: The PIC is also POB for the purposes of the definition.

But I agree with the overarching point about this stuff being 'badly' written, in the sense that, decades in, CASA is still reacting to HSMs caused by outcomes that CASA did not expect.

[43Inches]

I also love the definition of a Private operation being so complicated that you have to read all the sections listed first, to find out if indeed you are not one of those. Yet the definition of a Commercial operation is one that is not a Private operation. So in effect a PPL has to have more knowledge of the regulations than a CPL, because they must rule out what they are not, to know what they are. If ever there was a failure in regulation it would be to make the lowest form of operation the most complicated.

The FAA clearly outlines what a PPL can do in it's PPL privileges and also has a lengthy circular on cost sharing.§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-61.113#p-61.113(b)) through (h) (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-61.113#p-61.113(h)) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.

(d) A private pilot may act as pilot in command of a charitable, nonprofit, or community event flight described in § 91.146 (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-91.146), if the sponsor and pilot comply with the requirements of § 91.146 (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-91.146).

(e) A private pilot may be reimbursed for aircraft operating expenses that are directly related to search and location operations, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees, and the operation is sanctioned and under the direction and control of:

(1) A local, State, or Federal agency; or

(2) An organization that conducts search and location operations.

(f) A private pilot who is an aircraft salesman and who has at least 200 hours of logged flight time may demonstrate an aircraft in flight to a prospective buyer.

(g) A private pilot who meets the requirements of § 61.69 (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-61.69) may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle.

(h) A private pilot may act as pilot in command for the purpose of conducting a production flight test in a light-sport aircraft intended for certification in the light-sport category under § 21.190 of this chapter (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-21.190), provided that -

(1) The aircraft is a powered parachute or a weight-shift-control aircraft;

(2) The person has at least 100 hours of pilot-in-command time in the category and class of aircraft flown; and

(3) The person is familiar with the processes and procedures applicable to the conduct of production flight testing, to include operations conducted under a special flight permit and any associated operating limitations.

(i) A private pilot may act as pilot in command or serve as a required flightcrew member of an aircraft without holding a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-67) provided the pilot holds a valid U.S. driver's license, meets the requirements of § 61.23(c)(3) (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-61.23#p-61.23(c)(3)), and complies with this section and all of the following conditions and limitations:

(1) The aircraft is authorized to carry not more than 6 occupants, has a maximum takeoff weight of not more than 6,000 pounds, and is operated with no more than five passengers on board; and

(2) The flight, including each portion of the flight, is not carried out -

(i) At an altitude that is more than 18,000 feet above mean sea level;

(ii) Outside the United States unless authorized by the country in which the flight is conducted; or

(iii) At an indicated airspeed exceeding 250 knots; and

(3) The pilot has available in his or her logbook -

(i) The completed medical examination checklist required under § 68.7 of this chapter (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-68.7); and

(ii) The certificate of course completion required under § 61.23(c)(3) (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-61.23#p-61.23(c)(3)).

[Clinton McKenzie]

That being said even if the operation is a Passenger Transport Operation it still may not be an Air Transport Operation if it's not for hire or reward, just to complicate things.Precisely one of my points.

That's precisely why I am trying to wangle out of CASA where the 'reward' comes from in a flight for which the PIC bears the entirety of the direct costs. CASA's opinion seems to be that a flight which satisfies all of the elements of the definition of 'cost-sharing', other than the one about who bears what parts of the direct costs because, in CASA's opinion, it does not cover the circumstance where the PIC bears the entirety of the direct costs, is not a 'cost-sharing' flight and is, therefore, a 'passenger transport operation'.

Even if all of that is accepted as correct (based on the plain words of the definition, I don't accept that the flight is not 'cost-sharing') it does not follow that the flight is for 'hire or reward'. If the flight is not 'for hire or reward', it is not an 'air transport operation' even if it's a 'passenger transport operation'.

So, I can 'up' the maximum seat configuration of the aircraft I'm flying to e.g. 9 and everyone will say, correctly, that the flight can't meet the definition of 'cost-sharing' flight. Great. So it's a 'passenger carrying operation'.

But if there's no 'hire or reward' in circumstances in which I bear the entirety of the direct costs of the flight and nobody pays me or gives me anything in connection with the flight, it's not an 'air transport operation'. (This, in turn, is why I'm so concerned about CASA's power to start 'recapturing' operations into Part 119 by simply putting a sentence in a MOS.)

[Sunfish]

Clinton, it's obvious. CASA wishes to have a readily available method of closing down any community based charity operation at will. By that I mean anything remotely equivalent to Angel Flight.

E.g - a network delivering school books or something similar.

Why? Because CASA is threatened by the emergence of any potential centre of resistance to its power. hence the attack on Angel Flight and Glen Buckleys conglomeration of flight schools while leaving SOAR untouched.

[Clinton McKenzie]

Here is CASA's most recent response to my questions:Please note that in our previous correspondence, Question 4 "Do you comprehend that the flight in that scenario meets the definition of one that is “cost-sharing”?" should have been yes. The text associated with this answer was consistent with a no answer, we apologise for any confusion this may have caused. Please find below responses to your most recent questions:

Question 1: Can you please confirm that CASA’s opinion is that a flight will not be ‘cost-sharing’ if the PIC meets the entirety of the direct costs of the flight?

Answer 1: The answer to previous Q.4, should have said “Yes.” The remainder of the answer text is consistent with a yes answer.

Question 2: Can you please confirm that CASA’s opinion is that a flight will not be ‘cost-sharing’ unless at least ‘some’ of the direct costs of the flight are met by POB other than the PIC?

Answer 2: CASA’s previous answer did not intend to express that some of the direct costs of the flight must be met by POB other than the PIC. That is not an element of the definition of ‘cost-sharing.’

Question 3: Can you please confirm that CASA’s opinion is that a flight will not be ‘cost-sharing’ if any person other than POB meets any of the direct costs of the flight?

Answer 3: CASA provided answers to two different questions whereby monies for the flight came from a third party, one being Angel Flight. You are now asking a more general question. CASA affirms its two previous answers on the issue and cannot provided a general answer to your question because it depends on all the circumstances of the arrangement.

Question 4: If it is CASA’s opinion that a flight will not be ‘cost-sharing’ unless at least ‘some’ of the direct costs of the flight are met by POB other than the PIC:
(a) what is the minimum amount of the direct costs to be met by POB other than the PIC?
(b) do each of the POB other than the PIC have to meet some of the direct costs?

Answer 4: Not necessary to answer – see answer to Q.2.

Question 5: For example, in CASA’s opinion, can a flight with 3 passengers be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight if I, as PIC, meet at least a quarter of the direct costs of the flight and:
(a) only one of the 3 passengers meets the balance of the direct costs of the flight?
(b) only two of the 3 passengers between them meet the balance of the direct costs of the flight?
(c) all 3 of the passengers between them meet the balance of the direct costs of the flight?

Answer 5: On any of these scenarios, the flight is a cost-sharing flight. The definition of cost-sharing is silent as to the amount of contribution, if any, by a passenger.

Question 6: If CASA’s opinion is that more than one of the 3 passengers, or all of the 3 passengers, must meet the balance of the direct costs of the flight in order for it to be ‘cost-sharing’, what is CASA’s opinion as to the ratio of those passengers’ payment? For example, must they share, equally, the balance of the direct costs?

Answer 6: See previous answer.

Question 7: Does it make any difference to CASA’s answer to questions 5 or 6 if the balance of the direct costs of the flight is $1?

Answer 7: No.

Question 8: If the answer to question 7 is ‘yes’, what is CASA’s opinion as to the minimum balance – expressed in dollar or percentage terms - of the direct costs to be met by one or more of all of the passengers, in order for the flight to be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight?

Answer 8: Not necessary to answer.

Question 9: Where does CASA find all these nuances in the plain words of the definition of a ‘cost-sharing’ flight?

Answer 9: It is unclear what nuances are being referred to.

If you would like to suggest a change to the rules, this may be submitted to CASA following the links on this webpage - Suggesting improvements to civil aviation safety rules | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au) (https://www.casa.gov.au/rules/changing-rules/suggesting-improvements-civil-aviation-safety-rules).

[Clinton McKenzie]

Here is my follow-up to the above:Thank you for the correction and apology for the confusion caused by the reversal in your answer to one of my earlier questions. We are now both of the opinion that a flight for which the PIC bears the entirety of the direct costs will be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight (provided the other elements of the definition of ‘cost-sharing’ are satisfied). However, CASA omitted to answer question 10. That question was:

“If I as PIC meet the entirety of the direct costs of a flight, with the corollary being that no one else is meeting any of the direct costs of the flight, and I receive nothing from anyone for anything connected with the flight, what, in CASA’s opinion, is the precise nature and source of any ‘hire or reward’ connected with that flight? And to close off any potential distractions: I’m flying my own aircraft, so please focus on ‘reward’.”

Please answer that question.

CASA also omitted to answer my questions 12 and 13. Please answer those questions.

In response to my general question about whether, in CASA’s opinion, any of the direct costs of a flight could be borne other than by POB and still satisfy the definition of ‘cost-sharing’, CASA answered:

“CASA provided answers to two different questions whereby monies for the flight came from a third party, one being Angel Flight. You are now asking a more general question. CASA affirms its two previous answers on the issue and cannot provided a general answer to your question because it depends on all the circumstances of the arrangement.”

That does not make sense to me. Either the definition of ‘cost-sharing’ covers circumstances in which part of the direct costs of a flight are borne by someone other than POB or it does not, unless there is some nuance to the definition that is no obvious to me. It was for that reason, among others, that I asked: “Where does CASA find all these nuances in the plain words of the definition of a ‘cost-sharing’ flight?”, the evasive answer to which was: “It is unclear what nuances are being referred to.” CASA understands the point of the question and its practical consequences. But as it appears CASA will not confront these issues unless forced to, square on, I ask whether, in CASA’s opinion, a flight can satisfy the definition of ‘cost-sharing’ if $100 of the direct costs of the flight are borne by:

Angel Flight
One of the POB’s parents
Genericorp Pilot Supplies PTY LTD sponsorship fund, because the PIC has applied a Genericorp Pilot Supplies sticker to the aircraft
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, because the PIC won an AOPA award,

assuming in all cases the PIC meets at least an amount of the direct costs that would be paid of they were divided equally among the POB.

These are all ‘real world’ examples.

I note that CASA provided, unsolicited, a link where I can suggest improvements to the civil aviation rules. As I anticipate that CASA will not take up my suggestion to improve the rules by cremating and burying the current ones, I have little choice but to try to work out what the current ones mean. I am far from alone. Hopefully CASA understands that it is difficult to suggest specific improvements to rules unless one first understands what the regulator enforcing the rules thinks they mean. That is why I am asking these questions and, presumably, why CASA has a ‘Regulatory Guidance’ centre.

[Clinton McKenzie]

Here's CASA's most recent response, dated 8 March 2023, to my 4 most recent questions dated 1 March 2023: Thank you for your further email. CASA’s response of Enquiry: ENQ-22-156466 on the 28 February 2023 provided the following answer:

Scenario for question 7: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I have 3 passengers. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. I pay an amount of the “direct costs” of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided by all persons on board. Angel Flight gives the passengers $150 to give to me to reimburse part of my fuel costs for the flight. Just to be clear: $150 is much, much less than 3/4ths of the direct costs (including fuel costs) of the flight in this scenario.

Question 7: Do you comprehend that the flight in that scenario meets the definition of one that is “cost-sharing”?

Answer 7: No, as CASA would regard the payment from Angel Flight through the passengers to be remuneration to the pilot for the flight. This is because the payment from the passenger is effectively being made through or by a third party. CASA considers that payment arrangements for a cost-sharing flight must be only as between the participants of the flight.

This answer would cover any of the scenarios referred to in your latest email.

This guidance is current at the time it has been provided, however may be subject to change over time or at the discretion of the policy holder.

If you require further clarification relating to this matter, please reply to this email.

[Clinton McKenzie]

Here is my response, dated 8 March 2023, to the above:Thanks for that response, as far as it goes. Why CASA chose to answer just one of my most recent questions, and then in such an indirect way, is not obvious.

In any event, I interpret the response to mean, in effect, that, in CASA’s opinion, a flight will not satisfy the definition of a ‘cost-sharing’ flight if any portion of the direct costs of a flight are borne by any one or more or all of:

a. Angel Flight

b. One of the POB’s parents

c. Genericorp Pilot Supplies PTY LTD sponsorship fund, because the PIC has applied a Genericorp Pilot Supplies sticker to the aircraft

d. the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, because the PIC won an AOPA award,

rather than POB.

Please let me know if I have misinterpreted CASA’s response.

Further, your response omitted to answer 3 questions from my 19 February 2023 email and reiterated in my 1 March 2023 email. I ask them for a third time and repeat them here for convenience:

1. If I as PIC meet the entirety of the direct costs of a flight, with the corollary being that no one else is meeting any of the direct costs of the flight, and I receive nothing from anyone for anything connected with the flight, what, in CASA’s opinion, is the precise nature and source of any ‘hire or reward’ connected with that flight? And to close off any potential distractions: I’m flying my own aircraft, so please focus on ‘reward’.

If CASA’s opinion is that there is no hire or reward, in terms of the regulations, in that scenario, please just say so. If CASA’s opinion is that there is hire or reward in that scenario, please just explain the precise nature and source of the hire or reward that, in CASA’s opinion, is connected with the flight.

The scenario is a simple, real-world example and I – and many others - want to know the regulator’s opinion on whether there is any hire or reward connected to it. It cannot be that CASA does not comprehend the regulatory implications of the question, given that ‘hire or reward’ is an element of the definition of ‘air transport operation’. And it cannot be that CASA is not answering because CASA does not ‘like’ the implications of the answer. Regulators are supposed to regulate on the basis of a disinterested application of the rules, rather than whether the regulator ‘likes’ or ‘dislikes’ the way the rules operate.

Scenario for questions 2 and 3: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. The direct costs of the flight are borne by the POB, including the PIC, in whatever way CASA reckons satisfies that element of the definition of ‘cost-sharing’. There are 7 passengers. My partner in the front right seat, a couple of our friends are in the second row and their 4 children are carried in accordance with AC91-18v1.1 para 3.2 in row three.

2. Does CASA comprehend that the flight in this scenario is a ‘cost-sharing’ flight with 8 POB and, as a ‘cost-sharing’ flight, is not a ‘passenger carrying operation’ and, consequently, is not an ‘air transport operation’?

3. If CASA’s answer to question 2 is ‘no’, could CASA explain why its answer is ‘no’?

Again, a real-world scenario and I – and many others – want to know CASA’s opinion on whether it is a ‘cost-sharing’ flight or not, with the stated regulatory consequences. And to close off any potential distractions, I note that CASA has previously stated that it has not issued any instruments under CASR 201.025.

[Flaming galah]

Can’t wait for CASA’s guidance on Genericorp’s operations to be delivered…

[Clinton McKenzie]

In the scenario, Genericorp is just a sponsor of a flight in an aircraft on which Genericorp's sticker has been applied, rather than the operator of the flight. CASA's opinion, as I understand it, is that the sponsorship payment to meet part of the fixed costs of the flight means that the flight will not fall within the definition of 'cost-sharing'.

[zegnaangelo]

FYI I wrote to CASA - actually asking about the Piper PA32 Cherokee 6. Don't propose to put it verbatim here, but in short the guidance suggested

1. PA32 configured as 6 seater can be used to cost-share. PA32 as a 7 seater cannot

2. Provided no hire/reward (I said no money changing hands), a PPL can fly a 7 seater PA32 and bring their family/friends for a joyride around town as it is a private operation

3. Confirm "no such restriction exists on the maximum number of passengers that can be carried by a PPL holder who is qualified to conduct the flight and who meets the relevant recent experience requirements"

[Clinton McKenzie]

Sounds like you struck it rich on the clear (and in my view correct) answers to the questions I infer were asked.

Key point: There is no passenger limit on a PPL.

(As a matter of interest: What is the impediment to posting, verbatim, your questions and CASA’s answers?)

[Clinton McKenzie]

Significant progress! CASA’s latest response agrees that a flight can be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight, even if there are 8 POB.

Short point: There is not, and there has never been, a 6 POB limit on ‘cost-sharing flights’. Any assertion to the contrary remains folklore.

(And note that a flight can be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight under the current definition, even if the PIC meets the entirety of the fixed costs of the flight. That is an improvement on the previous CAR ‘deeming’ provision.)

Further, CASA has also agreed that the PIC of my ‘charity airline’ using a 9 seat aircraft can be a private licence holder.

I’m confident that the answer to my final question on the subject, involving an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of 15, is that the flight can be conducted by the PIC under the authority of a private licence alone.

Short point: There is no specified maximum passenger limit on the privileges of a private licence.

However, beware: CASA always has the option to change the ‘goal posts’ when it feels like it, using the various mechanisms built into the rules to avoid the inconvenience of legislative change. CASA can issue an instrument under CASR 201.025 or prescribe an operation in the Part 119 MOS, with the outcome that flights which could otherwise have been conducted lawfully by the holder of a private licence alone would cease to be lawful.

Here is CASA’s most recent response:Question 1: In any event, I interpret the response to mean, in effect, that, in CASA’s opinion, a flight will not satisfy the definition of a ‘cost-sharing’ flight if any portion of the direct costs of a flight are borne by any one or more or all of:

a. Angel Flight
b. One of the POB’s parents
c. Genericorp Pilot Supplies PTY LTD sponsorship fund, because the PIC has applied a Genericorp Pilot Supplies sticker to the aircraft
d. the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, because the PIC won an AOPA award, rather than POB.

Please let me know if I have misinterpreted CASA’s response.

Answer 1: This understanding of CASA’s position is correct.

Question 2: If I as PIC meet the entirety of the direct costs of a flight, with the corollary being that no one else is meeting any of the direct costs of the flight, and I receive nothing from anyone for anything connected with the flight, what, in CASA’s opinion, is the precise nature and source of any ‘hire or reward’ connected with that flight? And to close off any potential distractions: I’m flying my own aircraft, so please focus on ‘reward’.

Answer 2: Such a flight is a private operation. The pilot is not receiving any reward.

Question 3: Scenario for questions 2 and 3: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. The direct costs of the flight are borne by the POB, including the PIC, in whatever way CASA reckons satisfies that element of the definition of ‘cost-sharing’. There are 7 passengers. My partner in the front right seat, a couple of our friends are in the second row and their 4 children are carried in accordance with AC91-18v1.1 para 3.2 in row three.
2. Does CASA comprehend that the flight in this scenario is a ‘cost-sharing’ flight with 8 POB and, as a ‘cost-sharing’ flight, is not a ‘passenger carrying operation’ and, consequently, is not an ‘air transport operation’?
3. If CASA’s answer to question 2 is ‘no’, could CASA explain why its answer is ‘no’?

Answer 3: The flight is a cost-sharing flight, as whilst the persons on board exceed 6, the definition of cost-sharing flight only applies the maximum seat configuration. Whilst the latter term is not defined, CASA considers it refers to the number of seats as distinct to the number of persons that can be placed in the seats. Please note the total number of persons carried on an aircraft may be limited by its type certificate of flight manual.Here is my follow-up: Thank you. Those responses are clear and understandable.

One final scenario and question on this subject.

Scenario: I as PIC meet the entirety of the direct costs of a flight in an aircraft I own with a maximum seat configuration of 15 (King Air 350ER), with the corollary that no one else is meeting any of the direct costs of the flight. I receive nothing from anyone for anything connected with the flight. There is nothing in the type certificate or flight manual prohibiting the carriage of 14 passengers in the aircraft.

I note that CASA has agreed that that there is no “reward” if the PIC meets the entirety of the direct costs of a flight, with the corollary being that no one else is meeting any of the direct costs of the flight, and the PIC receives nothing from anyone for anything connected with the flight.

Question: May I lawfully conduct the scenario flight as PIC under the authority of my private licence alone, assuming I have the necessary ratings/endorsements for the aircraft?

[zegnaangelo]

Significant progress! CASA’s latest response agrees that a flight can be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight, even if there are 8 POB.

Short point: There is not, and there has never been, a 6 POB limit on ‘cost-sharing flights’. Any assertion to the contrary remains folklore.



Yes i guess they talk about max seat configuration. But to do 8 pax in a 6 seater plane, at least 2 of them would have to be infants/children.
You won't be able to "cost-share" with 7,8,9,10 adult pax / POB.

[Clinton McKenzie]

But, according to CASA's own answers, you can have "7,8,9,10 adult pax / POB" an aircraft with a pilot who holds only a private licence as PIC, even if it's not a 'cost-sharing' flight. I'm not sure why you're focussing on only one answer to one question which was about cost-sharing. If a flight does not involve 'hire or reward' it isn't an air transport operation, whether or not it's a cost-sharing flight.

[zegnaangelo]

But, according to CASA's own answers, you can have "7,8,9,10 adult pax / POB" an aircraft with a pilot who holds only a private licence as PIC, even if it's not a 'cost-sharing' flight. I'm not sure why you're focussing on only one answer to one question which was about cost-sharing. If a flight does not involve 'hire or reward' it isn't an air transport operation, whether or not it's a cost-sharing flight.


im not focussing on one part. in just making the distinction

*6 seats and below PPL can be PIC and can cost share,
*above 6 seats PPL can be PIC but cannot accept any $ (ie precludes cost sharing)

succinct?
​

[Clinton McKenzie]

That is a very good general summary.

I’d merely make a few points:

The PIC of my 15 seat B350ER can be remunerated handsomely for flying me around in it, but it’s not a passenger transport operation. See: exclusion (d) from the definition of ‘passenger transport operation’. (But I of course immediately concede that no other pax are permitted.)

Secondly, I’m not aware of any judicial authority for the proposition that the sharing of any costs among POB a flight necessarily constitutes ‘reward’ of the PIC within the meaning of CASR. I’m aware of CASA’s opinion to that effect. Have you seen any authority cited for that opinion?

In any event, it merely points up one of the many ridiculous distinctions in the rules that have no causal safety risk justification. According to CASA it’s ‘acceptably safe’ for a PPL to be the PIC of a 15 seat aircraft with 14 pax if the PIC meets the entire direct costs of the flight and receives nothing from anyone for anything connected with the flight, because there is no ‘reward’, but it’s not ‘acceptably safe’ if one of the POB throws the PIC $1 to cover $1 of the direct costs because that $1 constitutes ‘reward’. As I’ve said: That $1 has profound regulatory consequences - according to CASA - even though the $1 has zero safety consequences.

[First_Principal]

....
As I’ve said: That $1 has profound regulatory consequences - according to CASA - even though the $1 has zero safety consequences.


Devil's advocate here for a moment:

IF you accept that a CPL holder has had to fulfill certain requirements and been tested to a higher skill level than PPL then, arguably, they should present a lower flight risk.

Following this logic, conversely a PP flying is, arguably again, a higher risk. One way of mitigating that increased risk to the general populace is to restrict and/or discourage a number of people flying with them (better one person damaged in a crash than 15 say).

Now, were I a PPL holder and I had the opportunity of flying your 15 seat machine around with contributing passengers I might be interested, but if I had to shoulder the entire cost I'd almost certainly say no. Thus CASA's attempt at risk mitigation is achieved in their eyes, crude and somewhat misguided though the implementation may be.

As I've previously posted on this thread you'll see I don't agree with the apparent conflation of commerce and competency, there's no fundamental logic to that, however I think CASA could present an argument to refute your claim that "the $1 has zero safety consequences". And before you point out the difference between 'safety' and 'risk', please bear in mind I'm acting as an advocate for CASA here! :)

This entire situation is, of course, somewhat of an ambiguous ar$e, which is why IMV the current PPL and CPL etc should be replaced with a license system that regulates (or mitigates) more on experience and skill, rather than commerce. It may be sufficient to simply remove the 'reward' aspect from the license regime and replace it with, say, passenger limits and/or a/c size+complexity, and thence call the licenses something like Pilot Grade 1 - 3, or whatever, but however it is done I don't see any logic for commerce being the arbiter.

So, while acknowledging the present difficulty, and that it's good to pursue the issue, I wonder if the time has come to actually present CASA with a reasonable alternative and a way out of the mire? Better perhaps to do this and engage in meaningful dialogue before they think something up themselves?

FP.

[Clinton McKenzie]

I think CASA could present an argument to refute your claim that "the $1 has zero safety consequences".I think you are correct. But the argument would be specious. If I win Lotto tomorrow and buy a 350ER and fly 14 of my friends and family around for free, why would I be a 'safer' pilot than if one of them paid me $1 to cover $1 of the $15,657 direct costs of the flight?

The way ‘out of the mire’ is as you’ve suggested: The safety regulatory regime should result in, for example, the least competent posing the least risk to others. But given that the regulatory regime allows RPT jets full of passengers to mix it in uncontrolled airspace with pilots who are neither licensed nor medically certified by any NAA and who could be the least experienced people in the air, flying aircraft that are neither transponder equipped nor certified as airworthy by any NAA, something else must be at play.

[PiperCameron]

The way ‘out of the mire’ is as you’ve suggested: The safety regulatory regime should result in, for example, the least competent posing the least risk to others. But given that the regulatory regime allows RPT jets full of passengers to mix it in uncontrolled airspace with pilots who are neither licensed nor medically certified by any NAA and who could be the least experienced people in the air, flying aircraft that are neither transponder equipped nor certified as airworthy by any NAA, something else must be at play.

Clinton, I believe the example you've given demonstrates 'least (ie. non-zero) risk' already: CASA already requires RPT jets full of passengers to operate in controlled airspace wherever possible, usually Class C or above, where transponder-less experimental pilots simply can't reach them without a serious slap on the wrist.

Sure, there are a few spots around the traps where the two might meet (like on an ILS approach to an out-of-the way regional center) but I'm guessing the CASA risk calculation might go something like (a) if the airport is remote, the traffic density will be low and (b) if the airport is remote enough, the RPT will mostly likely be a small slow turbo-prop (not a large fast jet) due lack of funding for a well-maintained long runway and (c) RPT aircraft are usually equipped with the latest TCAS tech anyway = there's a good chance nothing will happen. Of course, to lower the risk further still, they could simply ban GA from operating at or anywhere near RPT airports.. so be careful what you wish for!

[Clinton McKenzie]

You obviously haven't heard of, or have forgotten about, places like Ballina and Mildura, PC. Google them and "ATSB".

There is no risk calculation. It's currently a game of pass-the-risk-parcel.

Could you provide details of the collision-avoidance tech fitted to RPT jets that detects aircraft that don't have transponders?

(Plenty of GA involves certified, transponder-equipped aircraft flown by licensed and medically-certified pilots.)

[Checkboard]

If I win Lotto tomorrow and buy a 350ER and fly 14 of my friends and family around for free, why would I be a 'safer' pilot than if one of them paid me $1 to cover $1 of the $15,657 direct costs of the flight?
Because that dollar changes the attitude and expectations of the passenger. A passenger who pays nothing understands that they are taking on personal risk. A passenger who pays a dollar, has now bought their ride, and expects full commercial protection.

​​​​​​​There are are many times in law where a token payment changes the entire nature of the transaction. Peppercorn rents etc.

[Clinton McKenzie]

Because that dollar changes the attitude and expectations of the passenger. A passenger who pays nothing understands that they are taking on personal risk. A passenger who pays a dollar, has now bought their ride, and expects full commercial protection.

Really?

So on a cost-sharing flight with all POB being pilots - the vast majority of the cost-sharing flights I've engaged in over the last few decades - we were all expecting "full commercial protection"?

And in the case of a flight in which only the PIC is a pilot, why is CASA allowing the other e.g. 5 POB who may be sharing the direct costs not to be afforded "full commercial protection"?

[Sunfish]

Such a sad safety model, I guess its part of the Australian character - the convict component, always ready to look at the hole instead of the donut.

Some observations:

(1) Very large chunks of RAA pilots are perfectly competent former commercial pilots or experienced PPL's who have effectively banished themselves out of fear of CASA Avmed whose punitive approach to air safety is utterly counter productive,

(2) A second cohort of RAA members are experienced but were driven out of GA by costs thanks to CASA massive over regulation.

(3) There is a cohort of very experienced ex commercial pilots in GA - an acquaintance of mine has 20,000 hrs jet experience including checking to line and training. They are prevented from sharing their experience by misconceived instruction regulations, starting with the prohibition against even giving a grandchild a feel of the controls.

(4) There are enthusiastic amateurs - who are competent, but sometimes sneered at. They are eager to learn until the sorry extent of CASAs mismanagement hits them, then they take up golf.

Yet all these people are lumped together and stereotyped as ignorant, unsafe, unhealthy, untrustworthy uncaught criminals who are not permitted to breath, let alone fly, nor land in the same airspace as RPT????

Conrast that situation with KLAX. Last time i arrived by RPT, we crossed tracks with at least four GA pipers and Cessnas below 10000 ft. An acquaintance has taken some very nice photos of the Statue of Liberty and Manhattan - from his rotax powered 600kg home made aircraft.

So "somehow" its possible for amateurs and dilettantes to co exist with RPT in the USA safely and to generate a thriving industry full of investment, jobs, economic growth and just plain fun.

Whats the difference here? Anal retentive medical killjoys? Certainly. Power hungry, frustrated lawyers? Of course. Snobbish military and RPT professionals? Perhaps. Hhhhhhhhowever or oldest enemy is the convict / jailer mindset which assumes that Australians need a touch of the lash lest they get too big for their boots.

We have now reached the state of learned helplessness* - epitomised by Clintons well meaning attempts to make sense of CASA's incomprehensible regulation, when the correct solution to our problems is to throw CASA s regulations on the bonfire, jettison the people who wrote and administered them and replace them with the FAA regs and some :can do" American imports to show us how its done.

* Learned helplessness is the behavior exhibited by a subject after enduring repeated aversive stimuli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aversive_stimuli) beyond their control. It was initially thought to be caused by the subject's acceptance of their powerlessness, by way of their discontinuing attempts to escape or avoid the aversive stimulus, even when such alternatives are unambiguously presented.

see also

Stockholm syndrome is a coping mechanism to a captive or abusive situation. People develop positive feelings toward their captors or abusers over time. This condition applies to situations including torture, mental abuse, sexual abuse or considering what they allegedly did to Glen Buckley, engagement with CASA.

[Checkboard]

So on a cost-sharing flight with all POB being pilots - the vast majority of the cost-sharing flights I've engaged in over the last few decades - we were all expecting "full commercial protection"?

Well, no. Cost sharing is a deliberate anomoly, a sensible way to give the legal nod to something that was happening anyway, while limiting it so that it isn't used as a loophole for crappy Charters.

[Clinton McKenzie]

I don't understand your arguments, Checkboard, and you only addressed one of the scenarios I used. You said:Because that dollar changes the attitude and expectations of the passenger. A passenger who pays nothing understands that they are taking on personal risk. A passenger who pays a dollar, has now bought their ride, and expects full commercial protection.Either a flight involves the payment of money by a passenger or it doesn't. If that payment results in the passenger expecting "full commercial protection", that is the result whether the payment is in the context of a cost-sharing flight or any other 'non-passenger transport' operation in which a passenger may pay money for the flight.

In any event, it's just another example showing that the distinctions have no causal connection with objective safety risk.

As yet another example, Sunfish is labouring under the misconception that RAAus operations do not occur in airspace in which RPT operations, including RPT jet operations, occur:Yet all these people are lumped together and stereotyped as ignorant, unsafe, unhealthy, untrustworthy uncaught criminals who are not permitted to breath, let alone fly, nor land in the same airspace as RPT????PiperCameron appears equally ignorant:[T]here are a few spots around the traps where the two might meet (like on an ILS approach to an out-of-the way regional center) but I'm guessing the CASA risk calculation might go something like (a) if the airport is remote, the traffic density will be low and (b) if the airport is remote enough, the RPT will mostly likely be a small slow turbo-prop (not a large fast jet) due lack of funding for a well-maintained long runway and (c) RPT aircraft are usually equipped with the latest TCAS tech anyway = there's a good chance nothing will happen.You guys aren't paying enough attention.

Every day in Australia, RPT aircraft - including "large fast jets" - operate in and out of busy aerodromes with "well-maintained long runways" in G airspace, mixing it with aircraft that are neither transponder equipped nor certified by any NAA and flown by pilots who are neither licensed nor medically certified by any NAA. That is considered "acceptably safe" by CASA (and, evidently, ATSB and the airlines). (This shows that the medical certification system for private 'VH' pilots in Australia continues to be an expensive and harmful overreaction to exaggerated risks by Avmed, and is why the US Congress legislated around FAA Avmed to implement a system of private pilot medical certification based on objective evidence and objective risk. Unfortunately, CASA continues to be left to determine its own role in the regulatory system, including medical certification, so we can safely assume the product of the echo chamber review process dressed up as consultation on Part 67 will produce yet more complexity.)

[Clinton McKenzie]

Back to the core subject of this thread...

CASA's most recent response confirms that the rules do not impose a maximum seat configuration for a private operation:Please find the response to your query below:

Scenario: I as PIC meet the entirety of the direct costs of a flight in an aircraft I own with a maximum seat configuration of 15 (King Air 350ER), with the corollary that no one else is meeting any of the direct costs of the flight. I receive nothing from anyone for anything connected with the flight. There is nothing in the type certificate or flight manual prohibiting the carriage of 14 passengers in the aircraft.

I note that CASA has agreed that that there is no “reward” if the PIC meets the entirety of the direct costs of a flight, with the corollary being that no one else is meeting any of the direct costs of the flight, and the PIC receives nothing from anyone for anything connected with the flight.

Question: May I lawfully conduct the scenario flight as PIC under the authority of my private licence alone, assuming I have the necessary ratings/endorsements for the aircraft?

Answer: Yes. The aviation legislation does not impose a maximum seat configuration limitation for a private operation.

[Sunfish]

As yet another example, Sunfish is labouring under the misconception that RAAus operations do not occur in airspace in which RPT operations, including RPT jet operations, occur:


Dear Clinton, I was being sarcastic. I am well aware that we share airspace and where possible I give RPT the right of way because their operating costs are many multiples of mine and RPT pilots have to account for any delays.

Keep up the great work.

[Clinton McKenzie]

My apologies for misreading the tone of your previous post, Sunfish.

I, too, have no hesitation in organising 'I'll-stay-out-of-your-way-at- [stated location]' whenever RPT or RFDS or whomever has more important stuff to do than I do. My focus in this and other threads is on highlighting the patent incongruity in rules which expose that important stuff to X% risks while prohibiting the same stuff being exposed to risks lower than X%.

[First_Principal]

No wish to derail the thrust of this thread, but having suffered a similar misunderstanding of humour in another sub-forum may I suggest a 'sarcasm' ascii emoticon be employed to avoid any doubt?:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ or

:-P or🙃
;)

[Seabreeze]

Clinton,

Good work extracting some specific examples of what is/ is not permitted.
None of this appears in the latest VFRG (7.2) which has apparently just been released.
Indeed CASA has persisted in some strange ways to explain a PPL, which is solely defined by what it is not (p16), and by reference to other regulation. It seems to me that a person with no prior knowledge of Australian aviation regulation would find this description totally useless.

A lot of the VFRG is however quite well written.

Seabreeze

[Clinton McKenzie]

Yes, Seabreeze, that p16 is a practically useless way of explaining what a PPL holder is allowed to do. Apparently a PPL holder is supposed to go off to Part 119, 129 and 131 of CASR and reg 206 of CAR, to work out what operations have to be authorised by an AOC, then go off to Part 138 of CASR to work out what operations require an aerial work certificate, then go off to Part 141 of CASR … then Part 142 of CASR …then work out what an adventure flight for a limited category aircraft is, then work out what…, then work out what …, and having worked all that out, then come to the conclusion that, because the PPL holder is not planning to do any of that, the PPL holder can go ahead and do ‘something else’ under the authority of their PPL.

What would be useful guidance is an explanation of CASA’s opinions as to the scope of the exclusions from the definition of ‘passenger transport operation’. Those exclusions are fundamentally important for PPL holders to understand.

But for this thread, would anyone outside CASA have realised that CASA’s opinion – with which I happen to agree - is that a flight will be a cost-sharing flight even if the PIC meets the entirety of the fixed costs of the flight (and the other elements of the definition are satisfied)? Or that CASA’s opinion – with which I also happen to agree – is that a flight for which the PIC meets the entirety of the fixed costs and is not remunerated is not a flight ‘for hire or reward’? Some important stuff falls out of that.

But for this thread, would anyone outside CASA have realised that CASA’s opinion – about which I am very dubious – is that a flight will not be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight if, for example, one of the POB’s parents – who was not on board - kicks in $1 to cover the direct costs of the flight? Some important stuff falls out of that.

I’ll make a prediction, though: I’ll bet folding money that the folklore about there being a 6 POB limit on a PPL will persist, notwithstanding the number of examples of scenarios with more than 6 POB I’ve put to CASA and the number of times CASA has conceded that the operation can be carried out under the authority of a PPL, culminating in the statement from CASA that there is no passenger limit on the privileges of a PPL.

(Most of the good bits of the VFG – now VFRG – were written a loooong time ago and have merely been massaged to cite the new location of an old rule or to accommodate wherever a particular rule happens to be in the prescriptive versus outcomes-based cycle.)

[SK_]

FYI I wrote to CASA - actually asking about the Piper PA32 Cherokee 6. Don't propose to put it verbatim here, but in short the guidance suggested

1. PA32 configured as 6 seater can be used to cost-share. PA32 as a 7 seater cannot

2. Provided no hire/reward (I said no money changing hands), a PPL can fly a 7 seater PA32 and bring their family/friends for a joyride around town as it is a private operation

3. Confirm "no such restriction exists on the maximum number of passengers that can be carried by a PPL holder who is qualified to conduct the flight and who meets the relevant recent experience requirements"

I'm extremely interested in this response and also how it relates to real world scenario's like hiring aircraft as it hasn't mentioned operator ownership in Point 2. Let me see if I've got this right...
- Hire 7 seat configured PA32 - Not allowed! - AC must have registered operator (owner) on board.
- Own 7 seat configured PA32 - allowed with owner on board. Cost-Sharing not allowed
- Hire 6 seat configured PA32 - Allowed with cost-sharing
- Own 6 seat configured PA32 - Alloowed with cost-sharing

Also did this response cater for larger aircraft or specifically to PA32 as the exception. Say owner operated or hired PA-31-310 (8 seat) with 2 seats removed would technically be allowed with cost-sharing similar to the above scenario? This seems to contradict what's been said previously about this being maximum seating in aircraft. I've given this example becuase it's pretty much what I'm aiming for with my PPL.

[43Inches]

Cost sharing an aircraft is not a question of safety, the rules are protectionist policy for commercial operators. The same as how car pooling was always a grey area to protect the taxi industry, since UBER who knows what the rules are... You could argue there are safety issues with a PPL selling under cost seats en-masse vs a regulated commercial operator, but the reasoning is more that there is not mass undercutting of the charter/RPT sector by pilots building hours or doing it for fun or tax breaks or whatever.