Air Law Question...

[Aro]

Hi Folks,

I've just been wondering, (as you do)...

How would you classify the following flight...:confused:

Lets say you are employed as a pilot (I know it's far fetched, but bear with me.)
Your boss asks you to fly six employees including yourself(max capacity for chopper), from company location a to company location b. The employees don't pay for the flight, and the flight isn't open to anyone else.

Do you reckon Charter or Private?

It all seems to point to private, apart from the fact that you are employed as a pilot, and so are flying for reward.

Can anyone clarify this please?

Cheers,

Aro.

[Pretzal]

company aeroplane + company staff = private operation. It doesnt change the operation because you get paid in this case. There are quite a few fixed wing companies that do this and they are legitimately a private operation. Someone more versed in the regs might be able/bent and twisted enough to point you in right direction. hope this helps.

[shaablamm]

Can't clarify it, it's surely got to have something to do with insurance somewhere along the line.

I would suggest it to be a private flight. The remuneration isn't an issue unless of course the flight is being flown by a PPL holder. I would think that a PVT flight would beable to be classified as such if a CPL was flying it and being paid to do so.

Some boffin will answer you with a quoted reg by midday tomorrow I'd say.

[imabell]

in fact there is one company in queensland that has no aoc and operates a small fleet of aicraft.

this company regularly employs private pilots to work for them.

the pilots fly massive hours usually for less than ten bucks an hour, sometimes as low as six fifty, i bet you don't believe that, and when they are not flying they work on other company jobs.

this can only happen if the pilot works on the property of the employer, this rule is also regularly forgotten.

rules, rules, rules, ******.:eek:

[Aviation_sl#t]

There is a company around the traps in WA that do the same thing.... employ private pilots to fly their employees around to their different minesite operations. Aparently they are paid as trades persons and the fly multi engine aircraft around in IFR conditions with up to 7 or so blokes aboard. Not to say the pilots arent skilled or anything, but you would think that the regulatory authority would expect a more organised and regimented way to do this sort of thing?

AS

[Mainframe]

aviation_sl#t

Hi, this is a simple issue really.
We just get confused because of all the training and regulations inflicted on us in Commercial aviation.

PRIVATE OPERATIONS are different because they are private, i.e., the paying public is not part of the action and doesn't need to be protected.

Just forget aeroplanes for a minute and think about this.
You can go out and buy a minibus, and carry all your mates around in it to where ever you want to. You don't need to register it for Commercial purposes and you don't need a "Driver Authorisation" attached to your driver's licence. So far so good.

Now just think about driving around, picking up passengers you don't know, offering to drive them where they want to go and CHARGING them a fee for doing so. The game has changed, hasn't it?

So now you are a bus driver, operating a bus for hire and reward and available to the general public.

But the general public need to be protected from people doing just that, and it's all done through licencing, registration, approvals etc.

Aviation is not really much different.

John Travolta can operate his B707 on a private licence, without an AOC, Chief Pilot etc, provided it's for his own or his company's use and the paying public are not involved.

As soon as it becomes commercial, the game changes, all of a sudden, because it's over 5,700Kg and in revenue service, an ATPL is required to fly it, and an AOC, Chief Pilot etc.

Cost sharing is allowed provided there are no more than 6 passengers, each paying an equal amount towards the pilot's cost of operating the aircraft.

Now back to the mining company. A lot of them operate Lear Jets, G111's Citations etc. Provided that only "defined private use" is intended, no AOC,no Chief Pilot etc is required, and it can be flown by a suitably rated private pilot.

In reality, other factors come into play. "Duty of Care" implications would dictate using a qualified professional pilot if they are flying employees around, although they could still choose to use a PPL.
Because of the need to amortise the capital expenditure, they will often choose to get an AOC anyway so that they can do Charter or even just "cost centre" the plane to another department.

The paying public is not involved so no need for the regulator.

Just like your new minibus, as long as you don't start making it available to people who want to go somewhere and pay you for doing it, there is no problem. Cross the line however and you invoke the whole regulatory process.

Yes, the mining company can do what it is doing quite legally.

[U2]

In regard to 7 (A) charlie

"no payment is made for the services of the operating crew."

So.....if someone is employed as a general employee and the boss asks that person to drive (fly) so and so to location x and the employee does not get paid extra to taxi (pilot) those people/goods then that is a private operation. If that employee gets paid ....wait for it......."EXTRA"...for the duty of driver/pilot or the employee asks for a fare from the passengers, than that is a commercial operation. Whether aircraft/boat or car you would still need a licence to drive the vehicle.


Obviously the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove you guilty if there was a dispute with CASA.


Am I correct in saying this?

U2

[imabell]

you can buy a minibus to carry your mates around but that is not the same as buying a minibus to carry your workers around,
your mates get on your minibus as mates, your workers get in your minibus thinking they are going to be transported to the destination with little to no hazard to their wellbeing.

the only diference between a private pilot and a commercial pilot under the regs is that one can make money and one cannot.

that is overridden by the fact that,

as a private pilot i can be employed by any one as anything and be given an aircraft as part of my job and earn money flying, with immunity.

there should be no trouble with that because all pilots should be trained to fly around in any airspace with the same degree of accuracy as anyone else.

i can fly a 747 (john travola) on a private licence as long as i pass the test, and i can even carry a few extra mates around, and its got a great spa.

i can be employed as a bore mechanic and still fly the boss around on a daily basis.

the paying public on an airline rpt route is exactly the same as the worker, (miners and drillers for instance), whose fare is picked up by the company operating their own aircraft. even though it is private these people need the same ammount of care.:confused:

[Aviation_sl#t]

Good points BIK,

The point that I was putting forward about `organised and regimented' was that I am sure the public liability laws would be different for a AOC holding company, to a company that undertakes the above `private operations'. This would lead to the argument that standards in general for the `private' companies would be lower than that of a commercial organisation. I am of course refering to maintenance , insurance, D.G. certification and medical issues. These guys operate fly in - fly out ops into the minesites that they are contracted to all the time, carrying sometimes more than six passengers under IFR flight plans in multi - engined aircraft. This company has been and still is closely monitered by CASA because of the percieved `closeness' of their operation to commercial purposes.

AS.

[Mainframe]

Aviation sl#t
The mining company can buy,lease or rent an aicraft (but not rented with pilot supplied) to use as another piece of plant to operate in the conduct of their business.

They must employ or provide their own pilot, (yes, even a private pilot) to fly the aircraft as all or part of his duties. Flight and duty times are not applicable to private operations, nor is passenger liability cover.

A charter company ( AOC holder ) must have passenger liability cover and must have a "Certificate of Compliance" issued by CASA to be displayed with all the certificates associated with an AOC.

A very good example of this type of private operations is MH Holdings in PNG.

This timber company has a C206, C208 (van) a BE58 and or a PA31. The aircraft are used to fly urgently needed parts and/ or personnel as required to various job sites, and also weekly runs for payroll and crew changes. The pilots seem to be very happy with their salary package (accom, wages, leave, bonuses etc). If you get the chance to fly for them grab it quickly before someone else does.

Another example in Oz is the likes of Stanbroke Pastoral company, similar deal, but you also live and work as a roustabout in addition to flying. Private ops again.

You can be paid to fly in private ops, even on a PPL, though most companies conducting private ops tend to stick with the more qualified CPL's. A CPL is not needed to earn money as a pilot, but the operation must have an AOC if it is going to be paid for flying freight and/or passengers.

In closing, your last post intimated that the company you mentioned is "CONTRACTED".

If that company is not the mining company, then the "contracting" company may indeed be conducting commercial operations if it is supplying an aircraft complete with pilot to fly passngers or freight for hire or reward for someone else. In that case, CASA will take an interest.

As stated earlier, the mining company can rent, lease, hire or buy an aircraft, but they must provide their own pilot and no charge must be made to anyone for transport of people or freight in that aircraft.

Yes, you can earn money in private ops, even "meat bombing" manages to qualify as private ops.

[Aro]

Many thanks folks, esp BIK. :)

I have a working knowledge of this now. Though I think it'll be a short while before I have an understanding.

I agree with Imabell that in principal, any pax at all should be afforded the same level of care, how many of the pax are able to quantify the risk of a particular flight?
...and if private pilots aren't bound by flight and duty times, :eek: then safety is likely to be compromised.

[Jamair]

You can always rely on BIK to have the goods, as is the case here.

One section of the regs that you (BIK) are sure to be aware of but should always be included in this train of discussion, is para (9) of the same section, to wit:
"Any reference in these Regulations to the owner of an aircraft must, where under a contract of hire or charter agreement the control, maintenance and operation of the aircraft is vested in the hirer, be read as a reference to the hirer"

Bearing in mind an agreement does not necessarily have to be a written contract.

In essence, when read with the previously discussed para (7)(d) and (7A), means that the operator of an aircraft is to be considered the owner for the purposes of these regs, and the context may then be seen to be significantly different.

Bottom line is that the 'owner' can fly whatever aircraft type he/she is endorsed on, carrying as many people as it is certified for, anywhere they like, as long as the passengers are not paying for the ride (other than under (7A) cost share).