Does a company pilot require an AOC?

[NeverEndless]

The much dreaded, very grey question of:

If i work for a non-aviation related company who hire out a plane and get me to fly them to and from job sites, does the company (or me) require an AOC? Would i be able to say i am a company pilot, or am i doing the flying outside of my duties/responsibilities of my employee contract?

This question is being asked by someone who has spent many sleepless nights, down rabbit holes on the internet, trying to get to the bottom of this.

All advice, experience and stories. please share :)

[Hollywood1]

Give CASA a call. They should know. It sounds to me like a private operation, but I really have no idea.

[ShyTorque]

I can’t comment on the CASA rules but in simple terms, here in U.K. you certainly need a CPL but unless the company you fly for sells seat tickets you wouldn’t need an AOC.

I hope this is of some help.

[Mr Google Head]

My understanding is that it’s private category if you’re doing work purely for the company that employs you ie if you were employed by a station and you’re flying around station staff from A - B or chasing cattle etc.

If said station then offers tourists scenic flights for a cost or crew shuttles for the nearby mine staff for hire or reward etc that would then fall under commercial….?

[Xeptu]

My personal opinion is that company A as the owner of the aircraft and employer of the pilot is conducting a charter operation to company B and in which case requires an AOC.
UNLESS it is a conglomerate of companies, for example Company A is the owner and operator of the aircraft and company A owns a controlling interest 51% in those companies for which it operates, company B, C, D making it a private operation wholly within that company group. The pilot must be employed by company A and hold at least a commercial licence. It comes down to who has operational control where the pilot is not the owner of the aircraft,

[Trevor the lover]

Ask 3 guys at CASA and get 3 different answers.

[Ascend Charlie]

Asking some pointed questions here (don't be offended):
What licence do you hold?
How many hours logged?
You work for a non-aviation company which wants to make use of your licence?
If the answers to the first two are Private Licence and 400 hours, then the company is placing little value on its people they send off with you, and is too cheap to pay a Commercially qualified pilot to fly.

[tail wheel]

A rather ambiguous question.........

If i work for a non-aviation related company who hire out a plane and get me to fly them to and from job sites, does the company (or me) require an AOC? Would i be able to say i am a company pilot, or am i doing the flying outside of my duties/responsibilities of my employee contract?

"who hire out a plane" - hire out to whom, an unrelated third party? And that third party pays an hourly rate or per seat price to use the aircraft or capacity in the aircraft? If so, air charter requiring an AOC.

Or do you mean your employer hires an aircraft which you fly as a company employee in order to carry the goods and staff only of your employer? If so, private operation.

[Lead Balloon]

I'd suggest reading this thread (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/650183-ppl-passenger-limit-australia.html?highlight=passenger) because it's the roller coaster ride through what could be the relevant rules. Maybe...

[Xeptu]

A rather ambiguous question.........



"who hire out a plane" - hire out to whom, an unrelated third party? And that third party pays an hourly rate or per seat price to use the aircraft or capacity in the aircraft? If so, air charter requiring an AOC.

Or do you mean your employer hires an aircraft which you fly as a company employee in order to carry the goods and staff only of your employer? If so, private operation.

Tailwheel has a point, I did not consider where the company who you work for doesn't own the aircraft. We don't cross hire or sub lease because of the insurance implications. The owner/policy holder must have and maintain operational control of the aircraft. It would require a significant change to our insurance policy and premiums and the hirer in the case of a company for their exclusive use will require their own insurance policy as well. Not something I would even consider but you should know that's an issue.

[Checkboard]

So, if I am running a small charter company, and someone walks in the door:
”I want to hire an aircraft from you. “
”That’s what we do, aircraft and pilot will be $400 per day plus $300 per hour, the pilot will be CPL qualified, the operation will be under our AOC and you’ll be covered by our insurance. “
”No, I want to use our own pilot. “
”Hmm, we can probably do that. We’ll have to check them, approve them under our ops manual, and charge you for that, assuming they pass. That’s all required by our insurance and AOC“
“No, I just want the aircraft, I’ll deal with the rest. “
”Ah, you don’t want to hire an aircraft. You want to lease one. That will require a guarantee for the value of the aircraft over the lease rate, but after that, yes you will be liable for insurance, maintenance and finding someone to pilot it. If the people and goods you are transporting are all connected to you and not paying, it’s a Private operation and the pilot can be a PPL”

[NeverEndless]

The only 3 stakeholders in this situation would be:
1. Me (An entry level pilot looking for the first job) (CPL(A) with 200TT). Ascend Charlie, not to offend you back, but entry level CPL jobs can be tricky to find, and this could be a great opportunity if done right.
2. Some start up company that wants to hire me as a company pilot to fly them around
3. The local aircraft hire company that only provides the aircraft, you pay them after the flight based on VDO or airswitch, fuel charges, air services etc.


Company 2 will not be selling seats to anyone else, this is strictly for the company to get around throughout the day.

Some key areas I identified that are problematic are:
1. Companies go ahead and do the private flying, but land themselves in a courtroom against CASA. 9/10 times they are able to prove that it is indeed a private operation, but it still does take away from the fact that they had to walk into a courtroom. No one wants that in the first place for a variety of reasons.
2. As Xeptu has identified, insurance becomes a bit of an issue, given that the operation is classified as private. Has anyone got any experience with insurance, in relation to company pilot operations without an AOC? im curious.
3. In my opinion, these sorts of operations should not be subject to requiring an AOC. It is unreasonable for sole pilots to obtain one, and by the time you are operational 12 months down the track with an AOC, many opportunities have passed and you are officially broke.
4. For a startup company (Not a mining company, not a corporation, not a politician) , that initially does not have many clients, leasing/owning an aircraft may not make sense, as their just trying to find their footing. And we forget that aviation can be incredibility daunting. And by the time a hypothetical charter company has been paid, they've made no money left. So how can the costs go down further than that? (it wouldnt).

The conclusion i have come to so far, after falling down pprune rabbit holes and speaking to a few operators for the last few weeks is to as CASA love to say, take an approved method of action ie. Contact an aviation specialist/law firm. Get them to establish the company, write up the contracts, write up the duties and responsibilities. Establish the payment of employees, insurance etc etc.

Thoughts?

[tail wheel]

The only 3 stakeholders in this situation would be:
1. Me (An entry level pilot looking for the first job) (CPL(A) with 200TT). Ascend Charlie, not to offend you back, but entry level CPL jobs can be tricky to find, and this could be a great opportunity if done right.
2. Some start up company that wants to hire me as a company pilot to fly them around
3. The local aircraft hire company that only provides the aircraft, you pay them after the flight based on VDO or airswitch, fuel charges, air services etc.
As some one mentioned above, if you ask three CASA employees the category of operation you will get at least four different answers, with a fair chance none would be correct. When the "new" CASR's and the other manuals etc required exceeded the aircraft payload, I lost interest in keeping up.

Some years ago CASA decided the Veterinarian who owns an aircraft and flies himself in the course of his work with his tools of trade, would be aerial work, requiring an AOC and a commercial pilot license. Ditto the outback mechanic, electrician etc. Many years ago there was a case of a photographer in Far North Queensland who owned a small aircraft and took photos of properties and sold the photos. CASA decided he needed an Aerial Work AOC and a CPL pilot/Chief Pilot. CASA took him to Court and won.

I am no longer familiar with the new Regulations and Orders but I believe what you outline above now constitutes a private operation.

Insurance may be an issue but if you private hire from a private owner or a flying school, whilst you hold a current CPL I don't believe there would be any insurance issues but the aircraft owner may need to nominate you as pilot on the insurance.

And remember, PPRuNe is just "the internet" not CASA. Any opinions expressed may be spot on or a load of bull sh*t. Caveat Emptor. :rolleyes:

[Squawk7700]

I can’t believe any sane company owner would let their employees fly with a 200 hour CPL.

[Checkboard]

Why not? The public get into aircraft with 200 hour CPLs every time one is hired.

[gassed budgie]

Give CASA a call. They should know. It sounds to me like a private operation, but I really have no idea.

I did exactly that. After suggesting that Part 91 might say this, but could mean that, CAsA suggested I seek legal advice. I kid you not.

[tail wheel]

I can’t believe any sane company owner would let their employees fly with a 200 hour CPL.

The guy is probably talking a C182, 210 or 206, VFR in mundane country. If he has good judgement, why not??

60 years ago Qantas sent their cadets to PNG to fly SE aircraft for local PNG operators in far more hostile country, with little more than the bare minimums. Most survived and went on to long professional flying careers.

[NeverEndless]

Absolutely Tail Wheel, if CASA were indeed reliable, there wouldnt be forums like this discussing it endlessly with no actual conclusion. Because the laws around this are structured like that. I also heard from a fairy that sometimes regulators make grey laws like this, to allow you to complete operations like this, given you've set it up correctly. But who knows at this point, and please dont take that in writing, ever...

CASA should really consider providing guidance material on this topic. It would save alot of time, headache, money and stress. And it would provide a source for companies to directly refer to, to let them know immediately if what they were doing was right or wrong. Then bring the companies that continue to bend or break the law straight to court.

Just my 2 cents.

Insurance from what i understand will vary company to company. But even outside of that, buisness insurance may pose an issue. Something to look more into.

Squawk 7700: Maybe you should bring that forward with the many outback operators that hire pilots, with those minimums on their charter operations.

[NeverEndless]

Correct, small GA aircraft like tailwheel mentioned, VFR, just like the training navigation flights, but now with passengers :)

I thought that was the whole point of getting your CPL, so you could start small with the required knowledge and experience and work your way up. That was just a reckless comment Squawk7700.

I just never considered this to be an issue while I was doing my training. To even have a couple of mates up in the air with me for a fun flight, who'd like to cover all the costs, is considered illegal. I should've thought ahead and applied for an AOC during RPL training!

[Lead Balloon]

Have you read through the link I posted at #9?

You've effectively asked whether your 'arrangement' would be a private operation. That question is 'done to death' - with actual answers from the actual CASA - at the link I posted at #9.

If you haven't read (and understood) that thread, you're either taking the p155 or p155ing into the wind.

[werbil]

Section 7AA of CASA EX82/21 – Part 119 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2021 is where you need to look.

7AA Certain operations not air transport — exemption
(1) In this section: employed means employed by the operator under a contract of service, or a contract for services. exempted transport operation means one of the following:
(a) the operation or use of an aircraft by a company, a partnership, or a sole trader (the business):
(i) for the carriage of passengers, or goods (not being goods for sale or exchange); and
(ii) where the predominant purpose of the carriage is to facilitate the conduct of the operator’s business; and
(iii) where the facilitation is merely ancillary to conducting the business; and
(iv) where no passenger gives any reward for the carriage of themselves, or otherwise shares in the costs of the carriage; and
(v) where the carriage of any passenger, or the passenger’s notional share of the costs of the carriage, is not rewarded by anyone else; and
(vi) where the aircraft is flown by a pilot who is a related pilot, or a professional pilot employed by the business to fly the aircraft; and
Note The word pilot, in the singular, includes pilots, plural, if applicable.
(vii) where the aircraft used has a maximum certificated passenger seating capacity that is not greater than 19;

....

maximum certificated passenger seating capacity has the meaning given by the CASR Dictionary.
MOS means Manual of Standards.
operator means the business, the government organisation, or the owner, (as the case requires) within the meaning of exempted transport operation.
professional pilot means the holder of a commercial pilot licence, or an air transport pilot licence.
related pilot means any of the following (as applicable, within the meaning of exempted transport operation) who holds at least a private pilot licence:
(a) the aircraft owner;
(b) the sole proprietor;
(c) the business partner;
(d) the company director;
(e) the company shareholder.
reward means money, goods, services, or property, or any other benefit or advantage of any kind, or the promise of any of the foregoing.
(2) The operator is exempted from compliance with the following:
(a) for an aeroplane:
(i) Part 119 of CASR; and
(ii) Subpart 91.F of CASR;
​​​​​​​(b) for a rotorcraft — Part 119 of CASR.

(3) The exemptions in paragraph (2) (a) are subject to the condition that

.......

​​​​​​​(5) This section ceases to have effect at the end of 1 December 2024.

If the operation meets ALL of the requirements listed above it can be flown under Part 91.

[NeverEndless]

just pi$$ing into the wind today, will circle back to your link tommorow with a clearer mind.

[Mach E Avelli]

Correct, small GA aircraft like tailwheel mentioned, VFR, just like the training navigation flights, but now with passengers :)

I thought that was the whole point of getting your CPL, so you could start small with the required knowledge and experience and work your way up. That was just a reckless comment Squawk7700.

I just never considered this to be an issue while I was doing my training. To even have a couple of mates up in the air with me for a fun flight, who'd like to cover all the costs, is considered illegal. I should've thought ahead and applied for an AOC during RPL training!
You are having a go, working to create an opportunity. Ignore the naysayers who suggest a bare CPL with 200 hours does not fit you for what you propose, assuming it’s a fairly basic VFR operation.
In today’s litigious climate, insurance is the biggie. Make sure that you are competent to fly the aircraft (flight review signed off etc), the aircraft is in appropriate category (private, air work, whatever) and ask to see its certificate of insurance. It’s a given that you would see the maintenance release.
If the aircraft owner is in the business of hiring out, he should cover insurance, both hull and liability. The hirer (your employer) may have some form of damage excess imposed. That would need to be clear in the hire agreement.
You definitely do not want to carry the can for hiring it, because if you do, and then take payment from another party to recover your costs, you are indeed heading down a whole new rabbit hole.
As for the whole AOC nonsense, don’t ask CASA for permission. Forgiveness perhaps.

[Squawk7700]

Why not? The public get into aircraft with 200 hour CPLs every time one is hired.

Because those companies have an AOC and a Chief Pilot to mentor the freshly minted CPL.

Who will teach mentor this pilot?

[Squawk7700]

Squawk 7700: Maybe you should bring that forward with the many outback operators that hire pilots, with those minimums on their charter operations.

Once you have more experience you will understand exactly why I’m saying this.

Who is your mentor and chief pilot to see that you are carrying out your operations safely, making good judgement calls and learning from your mistakes?

[Xeptu]

I think you are facing some serious obstacles that you might end up wishing you never exposed yourself to. For example what resources are available to you if you break down in a remote area or just away from home base, worse if you have a mishap in a remote area. I wouldn't do it without some serious discussion with the aircraft owner. Who will be responsible for what.
Insurance is a biggy these days for owners in private ops, there are a whole lot more exclusions and options to reduce the premiums, it's important to know what they are, almost certainly minimum pilot quals and experience. Ours requires commercial licence and one thousand hours minimum experience, this is a selected option, the lower the experience the more you pay.
The policy clearly states that the insured must have and maintain operational control, so that rules out cross hiring to another operator without our pilots, not that we would do that anyway.
All I'm saying is be careful in what responsibilities you are accepting.

[Mach E Avelli]

Once you have more experience you will understand exactly why I’m saying this.

Who is your mentor and chief pilot to see that you are carrying out your operations safely, making good judgement calls and learning from your mistakes?
In a perfect world, yes, mentoring new recruits would be desirable. In reality, at best they get a short induction, then get chucked in the deep end.
I saw a recent advertisement for a chief pilot which required only 500 hours. Most small GA operators hire chief pilots to be the ‘fall guy’ with CASA, push a bit of paperwork, lead the aircraft washing detail (other pilots) and fly maximum revenue hours to justify their salary. In such outfits, where the experience bar is so low and profit margins so tight, chief pilots hardly have time to mentor, even if they did have the background to do it.

[neville_nobody]

Who is your mentor and chief pilot to see that you are carrying out your operations safely, making good judgement calls and learning from your mistakes?

I have no idea what environment you came through but you are your own mentor in GA. Noone is holding your hand, anyone in any position of authority is running scared of CASA and will throw you under the bus at any opportunity. To be quite honest being a one man band with an aircraft is actually probably "safer" than being in a small operation as there is reduced commercial pressure on you to go.

In this scenario proposed here I would be more concerned about the insurance & legal aspect of it than having someone to hold your hand.

And in relation to the original question it is a private op as long as you fly company employees and you aren't carrying goods that are later sold on as part of the job. Whether this is legal or not is questionable but that is how CASA has seen it in the past and they have threatened pilots with their license in such operations even though they were legal grey areas.

[Lead Balloon]

Section 7AA of CASA EX82/21 – Part 119 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2021 is where you need to look.

If the operation meets ALL of the requirements listed above it can be flown under Part 91.But that assumes Part 119 applies in the first place.

If an operation isn't an "air transport operation" as defined, Part 119 does not apply.

[Look Mum - no hands]

I'm amazed at how complicated everyone seems to think this is!

If the company or organisation or person conducting the flights is charging any other entity for the service, it is Air Transport, requires an AOC, and the pilot needs a CPL. If not, then it's private (Part 91), and the minimum pilot qualification is a PPL.

As for hiring the aircraft, the company hiring a machine from its owner is akin to renting a car - they're just paying for an asset, not a service. Charter would be paying for the service - equivalent to the taxi or limo.

I deal with CASA staff ever week, and I've neverhad any of their FOIs or Regservices staff unclear on such fundamentals. Its certainly much clearer than the old CAR 206 classifications.

Having said that, insurance is the bigger elephant in the room. AOC operators are required to hold Carriers Liability Insurance and have a measure of protection under the law. Private operators are not, which means in the event of an accident, the pilot may be just as good a target as the company / directors, so think carefully as PIC about what insurance you want for carrying random people around in the back.

[werbil]

Without CASA EX82/21 it would be an air transport operation. Refer to the CASR Dictionary. Relevant definitions are:


3 Definition of air transport operation
(1) An air transport operation is a passenger transport operation, a cargo 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.

75 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.


"passenger" , in relation to an aircraft, means a person:
(a) who:
(i) intends to travel on a particular flight on the aircraft; or
(ii) is on board the aircraft for a flight; or
(iii) has disembarked from the aircraft following a flight; and
(b) who is not a crew member of the aircraft for the flight.

Hire or reward is not defined in the Civil Aviation Act, the CASRs or the Acts Interpretation Act. CASA's interpretation is published in Part 119 Australian air transport operators—certification and management AMC-GM (File ref D21/556682).

Hire or reward
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.

The AMC-GM includes a list that contains general examples of operational scenarios that might be considered to be conducted for 'reward'. This list does not cover all circumstances, or all variations of a listed circumstance including:

if the operation is for the purpose of transporting employees of the operator in the context of a business enterprise
Example: A mining company ‘fly-in, fly-out’ operation that is not contracted to an airline but instead operated directly by the company.

Ultimately though, the AMC-GM is only an opinion - it is not law.

[Lead Balloon]

It’s great to see your level of engagement with the complex, convoluted mess that is the current regulatory regime, werbil.

When you say “[w]ithout CASA EX82/21 it would be an air transport operation”, you don’t specify what “it” is. And, as you acknowledge – expressly and ‘appropriately’ – the meaning of the word “reward” is just CASA’s opinion. Further, as you also acknowledge - implicitly at least – no instrument of exemption from the application of a regulation can define the meaning of a word like “reward” in the regulations.

You acknowledge – expressly and ‘appropriately’ – that the definition of ‘passenger transport operation’ has an exception. But you omitted to acknowledge that the definition has more than one exception. As is obvious from the definition you quoted, there are actually 5 exceptions (assuming my counting of (a) to (e) inclusive is correct). (Those 5, plus the overarching hire and reward criterion in the definition of 'air transport operation', mean - at least in my mind - that there are 6 criteria that can have the effect of excluding a scenario from the definition.)

What are your thoughts on this scenario:

One of the partners in a business is the owner and registered operator of an aircraft. That partner is being carried with other passengers – who happen to be some of the other partners and employees in the business – on the aircraft for a flight from A to B. The pilot is paid muchos dollars by the owner/registered operator to fly the aircraft from A to B. The owner/registered operator was going to pay that to the pilot, whether or not the other partners and employees were on board. The owner/registered operator claims the cost on her tax return, as a work-related expense.

Walk me through why that scenario doesn’t satisfy the criteria in paragraph (e) of the exception to the definition of “passenger transport operation” you quoted at #31.

The owner/registered operator of the aircraft is an individual. That individual is being carried as a passenger. There are other passengers on board. But no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the passengers other than the owner/registered operator. Remember: The owner/registered operator was obliged to and going to pay the same amount for the flight, anyway.

And you can’t cheat by pretending that some definition in a CASA exemption is relevant to the interpretation of CASR. That would be naughty. Ditto not understanding what a partnership is (and - perhaps more importantly - is not).

[NeverEndless]

The conclusive answer to this question i believe lies in the EX82/21 as werbil and anyone else mentioned:

exempted transport operation means one of the following:
(a) the operation or use of an aircraft by a company, a partnership, or a sole trader (the business):
(i) for the carriage of passengers, or goods (not being goods for sale or exchange); and
(ii) where the predominant purpose of the carriage is to facilitate the conduct of the operator’s business; and
(iii) where the facilitation is merely ancillary to conducting the business; and
(iv) where no passenger gives any reward for the carriage of themselves, or otherwise shares in the costs of the carriage; and Authorised Version F2023C01072 registered 06/12/2023
Instrument number CASA EX82/21 (as amended) Page 6 of 16 pages
(v) where the carriage of any passenger, or the passenger’s notional share of the costs of the carriage, is not rewarded by anyone else; and
(vi) where the aircraft is flown by a pilot who is a related pilot, or a professional pilot employed by the business to fly the aircraft; and
Note The word pilot, in the singular, includes pilots, plural, if applicable.
(vii) where the aircraft used has a maximum certificated passenger seating capacity that is not greater than 19;

While this is great news, it has also unravelled a whole new set of things to consider insurance wise. I wonder how useful aviation consultants/lawyers would be in this situation.

Regarding the mentoring and support as I build flight experience, yes, having a HOFO may be great, but there are other ways to achieve the same goal. I hope to meet plenty of experienced pilots and mentours in the course of this opportunity, who are willing to pass on experience and lessons.

I understand that if you are an operator, you may despise operations like this, hoping contracts like this come to you instead. But its just a reality for the hundreds of pilots, who are unable to drop everything to head to the top end for 6 months, continue paying for time-building, or wait around hoping for calls back. If you are an operator in the top half of Australia, you just know there are at least 20 new resumes on your desk a day. I can't think of any other industry like that. Its a different reality being on the other end of the straw.

Also, I left a check and training system that was so fast paced and intense, that it required me to learn more than expected if I wanted to fly. Or if i wasnt happy with something, go home, learn everything about it, before jumping back into the cockpit. It was all performance based, with little room for error without consequence ($$ for the remedial & getting ripped into by your instructor). By the end of the training, the attitude towards learning and flying is ingrained in you, and i can appreciate the hard love looking back.

​​​​​There are plenty of ways to manage the risks. Sometimes you have to take your own leadership, and find and be your own mentor. Take bits and pieces from everyone. Maybe even from pprune.

[werbil]

When you say “[w]ithout CASA EX82/21 it would be an air transport operation”, you don’t specify what “it” is.

By "it" I mean the scenario If i work for a non-aviation related company who hire out a plane and get me to fly them to and from job sites, does the company (or me) require an AOC?[/QUOTE] in the opening post of this thread.



[QUOTE]But you omitted to acknowledge that the definition has more than one exception. As is obvious from the definition you quoted, there are actually 5 exceptions (assuming my counting of (a) to (e) inclusive is correct). (Those 5, plus the overarching hire and reward criterion in the definition of 'air transport operation', mean - at least in my mind - that there are 6 criteria that can have the effect of excluding a scenario from the definition.)

I'm trying to keep the reply concise, which is why I omitted the other options.

What are your thoughts on this scenario:

One of the partners in a business is the owner and registered operator of an aircraft. That partner is being carried with other passengers – who happen to be some of the other partners and employees in the business – on the aircraft for a flight from A to B. The pilot is paid muchos dollars by the owner/registered operator to fly the aircraft from A to B. The owner/registered operator was going to pay that to the pilot, whether or not the other partners and employees were on board. The owner/registered operator claims the cost on her tax return, as a work-related expense.

Walk me through why that scenario doesn’t satisfy the criteria in paragraph (e) of the exception to the definition of “passenger transport operation” you quoted at #31.

The owner/registered operator of the aircraft is an individual. That individual is being carried as a passenger. There are other passengers on board. But no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the passengers other than the owner/registered operator. Remember: The owner/registered operator was obliged to and going to pay the same amount for the flight, anyway.

The key question is how the court system interprets ​​​​​​​(iii) for which no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the other persons or cargo. I can't answer that one - I simply don't know.

​​​​​​​And you can’t cheat by pretending that some definition in a CASA exemption is relevant to the interpretation of CASR. That would be naughty. Ditto not understanding what a partnership is (and - perhaps more importantly - is not).

I concur that the definitions in the exemption is not relevant to the interpretation of the CASRs. I don't have enough knowledge about partnerships to be able to comment from that perspective.

[werbil]

The conclusive answer to this question i believe lies in the EX82/21 Only if you comply with all of the requirements IN FULL. And it’s not what you justify to yourself, it is what the court system determines.

And just because something is legal, it doesn’t mean it is a good idea.

While this is great news, it has also unravelled a whole new set of things to consider insurance wise. For a start you won’t have access to the protection of Carriers Liability Insurance. If it all goes pear shaped, the liability is unlimited and the aggrieved will be chasing everyone who they think they can get a cent out of. You as and the pilot will be around the top of the list.

I wonder how useful aviation consultants/lawyers would be in this situation.

You will only know for sure after an event. The key with seeking advice is knowing the correct questions to ask.

[Duck Pilot]

If anything goes pear shaped I wouldn’t be worried about CASA, the insurance companies and a few other legal headaches may take precedence before CASA can get their marbles lined up for their dream shot.

The media can even work that out…

[Xeptu]

You will only know for sure after an event. The key with seeking advice is knowing the correct questions to ask.

And remember it's only an opinion not a ruling. On the other side of the courtroom is another lawyer challenging that opinion.

[Xeptu]

The issue I have with your entrepreneurial idea, is that you don't own the aircraft, the company you work for is only employing you for that purpose which makes you an independent contractor. The company employing your services has no knowledge or operational control over anything you do other than take these personnel to place B tomorrow morning. That puts the company you provide service to in a very high risk position, including yourself.

An alternative structure for our operation. Company A is an administration company which owns assets. The managing director is an ATPL holder, owns, maintains, insures and has operational control over everything the aircraft does and employs 2 additional casual ATPL holders. Company A provides air transport of personnel and equipment to Companies B,C D and E for which company A owns a controlling interest, those personnel are directors, shareholders or employees of at least one of those companies.

What I'm describing here is a company which has full knowledge and control over everything it does. Which is a bit different to going out and finding a pilot who can hire an aircraft to do all that for company A, regardless of whether its legal or not, don't you think.

[Squawk7700]

There was a guy at Avalon with a privately owned private jet, owned by himself, with a PPL.

He was advertising himself for employment to any company that wanted a private jet to ferry around their own employees.

The condition was that the interested company would employ him and pay for the run costs and he would fly them around whenever they wanted.

[Xeptu]

There was a guy at Avalon with a privately owned private jet, owned by himself, with a PPL.

He was advertising himself for employment to any company that wanted a private jet to ferry around their own employees.

The condition was that the interested company would employ him and pay for the run costs and he would fly them around whenever they wanted.

If I were in that position as owner of the aircraft, I would want to be employed by the company as an administrator, perhaps manager flying operations either full or part time but not casual. I would want to be able to show that the company pays income tax and superannuation and that the company pays all cost associated with the operation of the aircraft, even if it just power by the hour as an absolute minimum. the arrangement by which the company uses it's employees aircraft would need to be clearly defined, before I would begin to feel comfortable with it.

[mostlytossas]

Some of you blokes get all fluffed up over nothing. AOC's CPL'S Insurance issues etc. All you need do is this. Get the business to employ you in some capacity. Can be an assistant, cleaner, sales rep whatever. Can be part time or casual as long as your on the books paying tax and superannuation. Then when they want you to take a staff member somewhere by plane you hire one from your local flight school ,club etc and go private/business. Perfectly legal as long as your not being paid to fly the aircraft. No different from driving your car to the job.
The only wages you get are your normal wages that you get on the job for whatever task that may be. When you get back you present the boss with your travel expenses , meals, accommodation, travel, etc and get it reimbursed. Happens every week in Australia. How do you reckon LAME workshops manage in the bush. Someone with a license has to fly out to a bush strip and fix or service some cocky's aircraft. Many bush LAME's have a PPL for that very reason. I myself have done similar. On a number of occasions I would have to attend meetings in Sydney which meant either two days away or a round trip by private aircraft. It was a no brainer which was more efficient. Another time I and 2 others had to do an audit at some schools out bush. We did it in 5 days instead of 3 weeks by car. all perfectly legal and yes we checked with CASA before we did it. They don't care how you travel there so long as your not charging for the flight. No different to charging your car out as a registered taxi when your not. This 200 hr bloke is unemployable as a pilot so may as well be employed working doing something else and getting free hours while building experience. The only issue is the employer may have to get extra insurance to cover employees flying in private aircraft for work comp but that is another issue.

[Mach E Avelli]

The OP started with “if I were to work for…”(the company, not in the aviation business) etc.
He asks whether he would need to be on the books as the company pilot. I don’t see that it matters what his job description is, provided that the operation meets private operating criteria, and that he is a bona fide employee.
The key is the aircraft hire agreement ie, which entity bears responsibility for what. The aircraft owner would need to have hull and liability cover, which most responsible owners would have. However cover would be limited, and most likely only extend to damage, injury or death caused by a fault in the aircraft, or if the owner or a listed pilot is flying the aircraft.
When you hire a car, it’s usually the driver who carries insurance for anything beyond a fault in the vehicle. Not always though, because it’s common enough for a company to hire a vehicle and nominate one or more drivers. In such cases the company assumes liability for the actions of the driver(s) - if they are employees using the vehicle for company business.
In the proposed case the pilot is an employee simply using the aircraft for company business. Over simplifying?
A pilot would be crazy to take on the proposed arrangement in any role other than that of an employee, with the company invoiced for the hire.

[compressor stall]

What are you carrying on about?

Didn't you guys read the memo 20 years ago that the new CASRs were simplifying legislation and removing the Charter/RPT ambiguity that caused much angst in the 90's00's?

[Xeptu]

Some of you blokes get all fluffed up over nothing. AOC's CPL'S Insurance issues etc. All you need do is this. Get the business to employ you in some capacity. Can be an assistant, cleaner, sales rep whatever. Can be part time or casual as long as your on the books paying tax and superannuation. Then when they want you to take a staff member somewhere by plane you hire one from your local flight school ,club etc and go private/business. Perfectly legal as long as your not being paid to fly the aircraft. No different from driving your car to the job.
The only wages you get are your normal wages that you get on the job for whatever task that may be. When you get back you present the boss with your travel expenses , meals, accommodation, travel, etc and get it reimbursed. Happens every week in Australia. How do you reckon LAME workshops manage in the bush. Someone with a license has to fly out to a bush strip and fix or service some cocky's aircraft. Many bush LAME's have a PPL for that very reason. I myself have done similar. On a number of occasions I would have to attend meetings in Sydney which meant either two days away or a round trip by private aircraft. It was a no brainer which was more efficient. Another time I and 2 others had to do an audit at some schools out bush. We did it in 5 days instead of 3 weeks by car. all perfectly legal and yes we checked with CASA before we did it. They don't care how you travel there so long as your not charging for the flight. No different to charging your car out as a registered taxi when your not. This 200 hr bloke is unemployable as a pilot so may as well be employed working doing something else and getting free hours while building experience. The only issue is the employer may have to get extra insurance to cover employees flying in private aircraft for work comp but that is another issue.

You cannot insure someone else's asset and it's all well and good until the boss's girlfriend unexpectantly turns up who is not an employee.

[tail wheel]

"...is that you don't own the aircraft, the company you work for is only employing you for that purpose which makes you an independent contractor."

Not necessarily a contractor. Indeed, the original question by NeverEndless (https://www.pprune.org/members/545113-neverendless) relevant to this thread appears to suggest either a permanent full time or part time employee. I do not believe he would qualify as a Contractor, especially as:

"the worker can choose how, where and when their work is done, subject to reasonable direction by you."
"the worker provides all or most of the equipment, tools and other assets required to complete the work, and you do not give them an allowance or reimbursement for the expenses incurred."
"The work involves the use of a substantial item that your worker is wholly responsible for."
"the worker bears the commercial risk for any costs arising out of injury or defect in their work."


https://www.ato.gov.au/businesses-and-organisations/hiring-and-paying-your-workers/employee-or-contractor/difference-between-employees-and-contractors

He should never undertake his proposed flying work as a contractor, only as a permanent part time or full time employee.

[Lead Balloon]

What are you carrying on about?

Didn't you guys read the memo 20 years ago that the new CASRs were simplifying legislation and removing the Charter/RPT ambiguity that caused much angst in the 90's00's?The new rules are so good that the answer to the OP's question is, apparently, in an exemption from the new rules.

[Xeptu]

He should never undertake his proposed flying work as a contractor, only as a permanent part time or full time employee.

I agree with you, I didn't like the term "contractor" when I wrote it, however there's little doubt that if an employer is faced with liability in the order of hundreds of thousands he's almost certainly going to argue that case, especially if that's the reason the pilot is hired in the first place.
It's the main reason I'm not comfortable with it, the company will hang the pilot out to dry and distance itself as much as possible, all spotlights will be on the pilot if it goes pear shaped and someone is killed or injured. A little bit harder to do that if the company owns the aircraft.

I'll explain a priority risk action that we do that a freshly minted cpl wouldn't even know about. When we need to go into a new location it's usually a bush strip, before we use it we take our survey team in and measure everything, particularly the airspace, terrain, and build special departure procedure if the terrain requires it, along with a rad alt approach procedure and tested in the event we get caught and must land here because there's no where else within range. We also want someone contactable on the ground there that know what we need from them. We take it seriously there's a lot to check and assure in these types of operations. These are things your not going to get from a company that knows nothing about aviation and relies upon someone else that probably doesn't know either. What could go wrong.

[Checkboard]

I think of it from a moral overview.

What is is the operational difference between a private operation and a commercial one?

A private operation has a lower standard of licence, and they fly with little oversight, basically on their own recognisance.

A commercial operation has has a higher standard of licence, and the pilot flies with the “big brother” overview of the AOC holder as a double check on operational safety.

The passengers with a private operation have some personal knowledge of the pilot (friend, family, colleague) and understand that they are partaking in “an activity” (like a sport, four wheel driving etc) and are thus also personally undertaking that level of risk.

The passengers in a commercial operation are paying (or their employers are paying), and thus expect the lower risk provided by the oversight given in a commercial operation. That’s why miners on a fly in fly out contract aren’t partaking (or wouldn’t want to) in a private operation, they don’t know the pilot, they expect the employer who required them to fly regularly to provide commercial flight safety.

It’s the difference between me, being on holiday in Dubai, and paying for a Sand dune four wheel drive experience, and me going out bush bashing with my mate Billy in his four wheel drive.

So, for the OP: what category do you think your passengers will be in? Required by their boss to get on the aircraft, or doing so with some knowledge of you and the standards of the flight?

[Squawk7700]

I was once aware of a non-aviation business owner that owned a 12 seat piston twin aircraft.

He was unlicensed and very unhealthy and did not have a twin rating nor a medical.

He was flying employees all over the state, up to even 8-10 at a time.

One of those employees rang an acquaintance of mine who was a commercial pilot and advised that he was very uncomfortable with boarding the aircraft for a 2 hour flight at 200 knots back to home base.

The CPL told him that he probably shouldn’t board. It put the employee in a very uncomfortable situation as he felt compelled to board to keep his job.


The employer should not be put into a position when they may feel uncomfortable and as an employee, you would reasonably expect that your employer has taken all reasonable steps to ensure a safe journey for their employees.

i wouldn’t want my employees travelling in a single engine aircraft with a PPL at the controls, it’s not fair on them or their families.

Many of these “PPL” personal company pilots that your hear of, are still CPL or ex-CPL holders with IR’s etc, which is why they are employed in the first place. Rarely does the PPL company pilot actually exist in practice, other than perhaps for the purposes of farm hand or mustering.

[AerialPerspective]

Give CASA a call. They should know. It sounds to me like a private operation, but I really have no idea.

I was going to say the same thing, operated as a Private Flight, no AOC required. Have to be careful though as I remember something coming up a while back about a bloke hiring an aircraft for a weekend, flying some of his mates somewhere but if they put any money in to help the Pilot with the cost(s), it's then in 'hire or reward' territory, apparently. Not so sure how true that is.

[Lead Balloon]

If a flight satisfies the definition of one that is "cost sharing", it doesn't matter whether it's "in 'hire or reward' territory'. A flight that satisfies the definition of "cost sharing" is excluded from the definition of "passenger transport operation" and, therefore, is not an "air transport operation" even if it's "in 'hire or reward' territory".