Meatbombing and AOC's

[QNIM]

Can someone please explain to me why any other commercial GA operation requires an AOC with close scrutiny from CASA and meatbombing is classed as private?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

BIK Well Struck:D

[CurtissJenny]

Curious ....

The FAA recognisesl Parachuting as a Commercial operation and requires a CPL for Commercial Parachuting.
Here in Australia we follow the USA/FAA in most things ... except recognition of Commercial Parachuting Operations and requiring CPL tickets to drive the drop ships.

One can only feel that the APF has more clout in Canberra than the airframe drivers.

[Mainframe]

Curtiss Jenny Meat bombing is essentially a commercial use of aviation, but, they do not fly the general public ( CASA " persons generally").

All participants have to be members of a skydiving club even though this membership is often arranged just prior to the flight.

The "passengers" are not carried from A to B, not even A back to A.

They do not pay for a flight, they pay for a jump. This will include hire of equipment, transport to the airport, transport (air) to the drop zone, and transport home from the drop zone.

They are members of a club, engaging in their club's activities, and CASA does not need to get involved.

ATSB often gets involved though and this may lead to CASA interest.

This is by all definitions a private operation and can also be flown by private pilots, but to their credit the clubs usually hire professional pilots (CPL'ers).

In reality, this is a very tourist intensive activity

Given that, and the accident/ incident rate, perhaps some supervision and Check & Training might be a good idea, but they are self regulating, as are Gliders and Ultra lights.

[marreeman]

Some good points by all so far. Heres how i see it you dont have to be a member of a club just b4 a tandem jump you sign up with the apf for insurance not with a particular club. Do the members of the public know how dangerous it is?. Do they know there could be a private pilot flying them or would they assume that parachuting would be scrutinised by casa & a commercial pilot will be flying them. Some of the tandem masters at the dropzone i fly for tell the tandem passengers after t-off ("well thats the dangerous bit over."). As we all know some a/c are not maintained well fortunately the one i fly is. Personally i think its time for casa to get down the throats of all dropzones so that rogue pilots / skydivers will be weeded out most skydivers couldnt care what rules are set out by casa.

[404 Titan]

I think some need a refresher as to what are commercial operations. Here is the exact extract out of the CAR for you all to peruse. It is not just the carriage of the general public from “A” to “B” for hire or reward as has been stated.



CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988
- REG 206
Commercial purposes (Act, s 27 (9))


(1) For the purposes of subsection 27 (9) of the Act, the following commercial purposes are prescribed:

(a) aerial work purposes, being purposes of the following kinds (except when carried out by means of a UAV):
(i) aerial surveying;
(ii) aerial spotting;
(iii) agricultural operations;
(iv) aerial photography;
(v) advertising;
(vi) flying training, other than conversion training or training carried out under an experimental certificate issued under regulation 21.195A of CAR 1998 or under a permission to fly in force under subregulation 317 (1);
(vii) ambulance functions;
(viii) carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft (not being a carriage of goods in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals);
(ix) any other purpose that is substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vii) (inclusive);

(b) charter purposes, being purposes of the following kinds:
(i) the carriage of passengers or cargo for hire or reward to or from any place, other than carriage in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals or carriage for an operation mentioned in subregulation 262AM (7) or under a permission to fly in force under subregulation 317 (1);
(ii) the carriage, in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals, of passengers or cargo or passengers and cargo in circumstances in which the accommodation in the aircraft is not available for use by persons generally;

(c) the purpose of transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally, for hire or reward in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals over specific routes with or without intermediate stopping places between terminals.

(1A) However, the commercial purposes prescribed by subregulation (1) do not include:

(a) carrying passengers for hire or reward in accordance with subregulation 262AM (7); or

(b) carrying out an activity under paragraph 262AM (2) (g) or 262AP (2) (d).

(2) In this regulation:

aircraft endorsement has the same meaning as in regulation 5.01.

conversion training means flying training for the purpose of qualifying for the issue of an aircraft endorsement.


If CASA had the balls they would require an AOC for parachute operations. With the exception of the true clubs, the outfits I know in Cairns are multi million dollar operations that get most of their revenue from foreign tourist. They are most definitely not clubs (even though they purport to be) and should not be treated as such.
:mad:

[lackov]

Ahhhh, this old chestnut.............

BIK......nice try.......but.........a couple of points.........

Is it illegal to carry any persons in the jump plane other than the pilot and jumpers (think extra camera crew, etc)?

If not, then where's their protection?

Is the differentiation of risk between the flight/fall phases purely anecdotal? Would CASA enact regulatory response from anecdotal data? Or has someone gone out and done the numbers? Takeoff incidents versus meatbomb pancakes etc..

Thanks for posting the reg excerpt C404

As you typed them, meatbombing fits pretty neatly into charter
(i) the carriage of passengers or cargo for hire or reward to or from any place, other than carriage in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals or carriage for an operation mentioned in subregulation 262AM (7) or under a permission to fly in force under subregulation 317 (1);
pointing out that the regs stipulate "to OR from any place", not "to AND from". Meaning that if you take them away from the 'terminal', regardless whether that displacement be vertical or horizontal, you have satisfied the terms of the regulation.

The last point is that being a member of a club does not absolve the existance of a commercial transaction (paying for a jump), or the duty of care arsing from that transaction. If a paying jumper dies, or is injured, as a result of a privately licenced pilot initiated/involving mishap, how is the club going to prove that it took all reasonable steps to ensure that duty of care was honoured. By the same token, how is the regulator going to defend not policing a commercial operation where fare paying passengers are involved.

I haven't got a set of regs to make sure C404's typed quote is typo free, but it seems pretty well on the mark.

[Creampuff]

QNIM

Under the Australian rules, some carriages of passengers must be authorised by an AOC and other carriages of passengers need not.

Parachutists are passengers, at least until they exit the aircraft.

The classification of operations rules do not distinguish between passengers who wear parachutes, and those who do not. The classification of operations rules do not distinguish between passengers who may or may not exit the aircraft while the aircraft is not on the ground.

Most “meatbombing for money” is charter, and must among other things be authorised by an AOC and insured under the Carriers’ liability legislation.

The Australian regulator chooses to turn a blind eye to parachute operations that must be authorised by an AOC.

All that means is that when an aircraft full of fare paying passenger-parachutists is maimed, the regulator will be on the same side of the court as the operator and the pilot.

[Icarus2001]

Creampuff, the regulator looks the other way? Surely not. We have the safest blah blah....:rolleyes:

Now then, if being a member of a club and not the "persons generally" is the crucial factor. Which I don't believe it is. Then I can start a club tomorrow, flying around a PA31, no AOC, flying people from A to B, but they must take out a membership of my club first?

I'm excited.:D

[Creampuff]

I2

Let's buy a 747 and get a bunch of people to join the 'I commute between cities' club each time they get on board! Or maybe we can take them to the Antarctic to take pictures - we'll call it aerial photography and do it under an aerial work AOC!

One of the very silly aspects of the 'meatbombing for money' ops is that it can be done perfectly legally for endless profit without an AOC under the existing rules: just do it limited category in compliance with the 262AM regime.

The lawyers are licking their lips in anticipation...

[CurtissJenny]

Mainframe,

What you forgot to mention is that the majority of Australian Drop Zone operators are NOT clubs but simply private enterprise. As such they are not non-profit but in fact true enterprise-make-a-buck operations very much at work.

What you also forgot to mention is that Gliding Clubs that take passengers for a paid ride, even deemed members for a day, require to hold a limited AOC.

I hope that twigs the memory cells!

[404 Titan]

Didn't check 262AM(7) so thought I would. Well I have been proven wrong. This though doesn't make it right. The only reason these operations exist is that they have political clout to have the rules and regulations changed in their favor. Is it going to take a plane load of poor unsuspecting punters to die in one of those clapped out, under maintained heaps of S#%T before the politicians have the balls to realize this is a commercial operation and change the rules to reflect it. As a side point I remember on many occasion when I was flying from Cairns, Parachute operators departing out of Cairns, dropping their load in Mareeba, then landing their, picking their passengers up and flying them back to Cairns. Maybe CASA can bust them for this. Or don’t they have the guts??


CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988
- REG 262AM
Limited category aircraft — operating
limitations

(1)A person must not operate a limited category aircraft except:

(a)in a special purpose operation for which a special certificate of airworthiness in the limited category is in force under regulation 21.189 of CAR 1998; or

(b)in an operation permitted under subregulation (2).

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2)A limited category aircraft may be used for any of the following operations in support of a special purpose operation for which the special certificate of airworthiness was issued:

(a)participation in an air display;

(b)taking the aircraft to or from a place where a demonstration or display of the aircraft is to take place, or has taken place, during an air display;

(c)practice flying of the aircraft for participation in an air display;

(d)taking the aircraft to or from a place where maintenance on the aircraft is to be done, or has been done;

(e)testing the aircraft after maintenance;

(f)training a person to qualify for an aircraft endorsement for an aircraft of the type or category in which the aircraft is included;

(g)practice in flying the aircraft, or training in a special purpose operation for which the aircraft is certificated;

(h)carrying out a demonstration or test of the aircraft for sale;

(i)delivering the aircraft to a person under a contract of sale;

(j)an operation necessary to accomplish the special purpose operation.

(3)Except as permitted by subregulation (7), a person must not operate a limited category aircraft for a purpose mentioned in paragraph 206 (1) (b) or (c).

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(4)A person must not operate a limited category aircraft carrying a passenger unless:

(a)no more than 6 (or a greater number approved by CASA or an authorised person) people are on board; and

(b)the operator or the pilot in command ensures that each passenger is told about the matters mentioned in subregulation (5):

(i)if the passenger is being carried as permitted under subregulation (7) and pays for the flight before boarding the aircraft — before the passenger pays for the flight; or
(ii)in any other case — before the passenger boards the aircraft; and
(c)a placard bearing the warning stated in subregulation (6) is displayed inside the aircraft in a way that is conspicuous to, and can be easily read by, each person in the aircraft.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(5)For paragraph (4) (b), the matters about which a passenger must be told are that:

(a)the design, manufacture, and airworthiness of the aircraft are not required to meet any standard recognised by CASA; and

(b)CASA does not require the aircraft to be operated to the same degree of safety as an aircraft on a commercial passenger flight; and

(c)the passenger flies in the aircraft at his or her own risk.

(6)For paragraph (4) (c), the warning is:

`WARNING

PERSONS FLY IN THIS AIRCRAFT AT THEIR OWN RISK

THIS AIRCRAFT HAS BEEN DESIGNED FOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS AND IS NOT OPERATED TO THE SAME SAFETY STANDARDS AS A NORMAL COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FLIGHT'.

(7)A person may carry passengers in a limited category aircraft in circumstances where payment is made for carriage, and subregulation 2 (7A) does not apply, only if:

(a)the pilot in command holds a commercial pilot licence, or an air transport pilot licence, with appropriate ratings and endorsements for a flight of that kind; and

(b)the aircraft departs from and returns to the same aerodrome without landing anywhere else; and

(c)the flight does not involve training or flight testing, and is not a scenic flight; and

(d)the aircraft:

(i)is a replica aircraft, ex-military aircraft or historic aircraft; or
(ii)is being operated for the purpose of parachute jumping, mock combat or aerobatics; or
(iii)is being operated only to carry passengers as part of an intrinsically hazardous recreational activity; and
(e)each passenger has acknowledged in writing that the passenger has been told about the matters mentioned in subregulation (5).

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(8)The aircraft operator:

(a)must keep an acknowledgment required under paragraph (7) (e) for at least 3 months; and

(b)must not keep it in an aircraft.

Penalty: 10 penalty units.

(10)A limited category aircraft must not be operated over the built-up area of a city or town unless:

(a)CASA or an authorised person has assigned it, under subregulation (14), a permit index of 0; or

(b)CASA or an authorised person has assigned it a permit index of 1 and:

(i)it is only flown over the area to the least extent necessary to allow it to take off from, or land at, a particular aerodrome, or follow a procedure approved by CASA or an authorised person for the safety of other airspace users and persons on the ground or water; and
(ii)if it is using an aerodrome in a capital city — it follows an access route approved by CASA or an authorised person for the purpose; or
(c)CASA or an authorised person has approved it to do so.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(11)In considering whether to grant an approval under paragraph (10) (c), CASA or the person authorised under that paragraph must take into account the aircraft's permit index and anything else CASA or the authorised person considers relevant for the safety of other airspace users and persons on the ground or water.

(12)A person must not operate a limited category aircraft in another country's airspace except in accordance with the approval of the appropriate authority of the country.

Penalty: 10 penalty units.

(13)A person must not operate a limited category aircraft for a purpose mentioned in paragraph 206 (1) (a) unless the person is the holder of an appropriate AOC.

Penalty: 10 penalty units.

(14)CASA or an authorised person must assign a permit index (that is, a whole number between 0 and 3) in accordance with Advisory Circular 21.25 issued by CASA, as published from time to time, to a limited category aircraft for the purpose of applying appropriate safety conditions to the operation of the aircraft.


:mad: :mad:

[QNIM]

Thanks to all contributions lots to think about.
Looking at the regs (7A)
An aircrsft that carries persons on a flight, otherwise than in
accordance with a fixed schedule between terminals, is employed 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
(c)no payment is made for the services of the operating crew;and
(d)the persons on the flight, including the operating crew, share
equally in the costs of the flight; and
(e)no payment is required for a person on the flight other than a
payment under paragraph(d)
OK lets look at some of the above points
(a)I see plenty of advertising for meatbombing and they don't use skyhooks
to get them up there so it can't be a private flight.
(b)even the humble 206 carries 1 pilot and 6 bombs so that can't be private.
(c)in my experience they pay their pilots some very poorly can't be private.
(d) I have never been asked to share in the cost of a lift so can't be private.
(e)so why do they charge for lifts, again it can't be private.
Mr Toller lets get our heads out of the sand and give us a level playing field
:mad:

[404 Titan]

I don't think meatbombing is classed as private by the authorities as they have created 262AM(7) to get around it.

[Max Range]

Most of the arguments so far have centred around the safety of the parachutist passengers in an aircraft that is not operated under an AOC and may or may not be flown by a commercial pilot. I am sure that many parachuting "clubs" (liked your comment on that one Curtiss Jenny) run a safe operation. But because they are not under an AOC, and CASA don't seem to care if they break the rules, what about the danger to other pilots.

Last year I was overflying a country airport under 8/8 cloud at approx 2000'. Gave a call on the CTAF that I was three miles to the east overflying at 2000 and was concerned then to hear a jump plane dropping canopies overhead the field. I looked around at the 8/8ths cloud base and made a radio call asking the pilot through which hole he intended to drop them. There was no reply to this rhetorical question (surprise surprise). I had to divert well away from the field as I didnt fancy the idea of one of them falling out of the cloud in front of me and wrapping around the prop.

Put in a CAIR. Result - nothing they could not about it despite a clear breach of the rules re dropping through cloud. I think CASA said something about they've never had a meatbombing incident following a drop through cloud. But does this mean it won't/can't happen?

[lackov]

BIK,

You raise a few valid points, however, I feel that your argument is essentially circular..

You ask the philosophical question of whether or not meatbombing should be CHTR. Again, duty of care is the main factor in this argument. The boundaries defining what constitutes acceptable risk and informed consent are often blurred. The problem we encounter here is the qualification of the individual to make such an assessment. In, for example, a murder trial, expert witnesses are often called to testify on aspects such as pathology, trajectories, psychology, and many others. The reason this is done is because a higher level of definition of the facts is needed than if the on-scene investigators just sat down and read a book on the subject of, say, forensic pathology. It would of course be possible for these investigators to read up, have a bit of a poke around, and then sign a document saying that they are comfortable with their newly acquired level of knowledge. Everyone knows, however, that this would be unacceptable, and that some people would rush into signing far before they were really ready, whilst the more prudent would make sure they thoughroughly understood the topic, or deferred it to someone else. The end result would be extremely inconsistant and unreliable.
Asking someone to consent to the risks involved in skydiving is necessary and acceptable due to the nature of the activity. As this thread is discussing the aircraft phase of the operation, it's not really relevant to debate the merits of what constitutes qualified jump crew. Asking for informed consent for the air transport phase is however quite a different story. When an individual becomes a signatory to such a document, they are deemed become "expert" on everything contained within, thereby absolving any other party from any responsibility for actions within the clauses of the notice. This only works 'in a vacuum', and only until the first case where it is tested. The chances are that it will not constitute adequate provision of care. Again, the existance of a commercial transaction, and the exchange of monies for goods or services is what differentiates from the scenario of a bunch of mates hiring an aeroplane and flying across the state.
As you say, the argument is segmented. The first is to identify whether the operation is outright commercial (i.e. how is it accountable to, say, the ATO). The second is to identify if it is classed as a commercial aviation operation (i.e. is there money being made from the operation of the aircraft, or, would a particular operation which makes money not be possible if the aircraft component was removed). The consensus seems to be that on pure technicalities, the ascent component satisfies the requirements of being a commercial charter operation (philosophy aside!!). The last is to decide whether the fare paying public using such a service are deemed expert enough to absolve the operator of the requirement to operate in the context of a commercial aviation structure, resplendant with AOC, for their own protection. If the answer was as simple as signing a waiver of liability, then surely the best way to start a charter company which can successfully outbid any other would be the inclusion of a similar waiver at the bottom of the quotation acceptance form, informing the hirer of the risks associated with their flight in an experimental category Citation (an exaggeration I realise, but used to illustrate the argument!). Likewise the need to have a food hygene regulatory body and standard could be done away with if every time you bought a hamburger from your local corner shop, you signed a litle slip waiving the proprietors of their responsibility to maintain a clean kitchen. This would, of course be a pretty big backward step. The general public are not capable of being experts on everything they encounter in life, so this is why we draft regulations, and organisations to police those regulations, to provide a consistant, safe standard wherever reasonably possible.

There are a million potential reasons why the regulator is currently not heavily policing this area. The fear of a pandoras box in an already under-resourced organisation is possibly right up there.

Your debate regarding CAR 2 (7A), whilst holding water, is purely academic considering the overall context of the argument.

As to what happens when a a quasi-commercial operation becomes involved in an incident affecting individual/s outside the sphere of the aeroplanes occupants (for example another aircrafts occupants), well...........maybe another day.....

[404 Titan]

Lackov,

Agree with your sentiment, though it must be reiterated that parachute operators don't use CAR 2 (7A) to get around the commercial aspect but use CAR Sub Reg 262AM(7) which I pasted on this thread several days ago. The sooner this loophole is closed to the parachute operators, the better.
:mad:

[Creampuff]

Is it possible for a person making a parachute descent to be made as safe as a passenger on a CHARTER category flight?

When you pose the question that way, the answer is: no. Once outside the aircraft it is impossible to make a person as safe as if they were inside the aircraft.

It is more pertinent to ask: is it possible to make a person with a parachute on their back as safe as a person without a parachute on their back, while they are each inside an aircraft? The answer to that question is: yes, and in some cases the law requires them each to be carried in compliance with the same regulatory standards.

As lackov pointed out, there is a distinction between the parachute descent and the ride in the aircraft to the top of the descent. Some people appear to assume that if a person is on her way to do something inherently risky, she is somehow fully informed of and implicitly consents to any and all risks while on the way.

Let’s see if I’ve got it straight: A bunch of Aussies gets on a plane to go canyoning in Interlarken – an inherently dangerous and evidently fatal activity. Do I take that because they are on their way to do something inherently risky, the aircraft in which they are passengers may be operated to a lower regulatory standard than if they were on their way to the Opera? Are they deemed to be fully informed of, and to have consented to, any risks involved in the flight, because they are going to do something risky when they leave the aircraft? Have I got it right?

Isn’t “informed consent” precisely the basis upon which passengers are carried in limited category aircraft?

It isn’t precisely the basis, but the limited category rules attempt to get as close as possible to informed consent.

In terms of an informed person’s right to accept (or not) personal risks in order to seek personal gains, what business is it of the government’s?

It’s the government’s business because everyone else has to pay directly or indirectly when those risks are realised. I’ve said it before: I don’t give a tinker’s cuss if Josephine Bloggs wants to kill or maim herself in any number of risky activities. What I do object to is my having to pay for it. Who pays her hospital bills when she renders herself quadraplegic? Who pays for the care of her orphans?

As I have said before, in my opinion no one ever makes a fully informed decision to accept any risk. However, 262AM provides an interesting illustration of what is considered by the executive to constitute best efforts, and the kind of circumstances in which the executive considers that meatbombing may be carried out for money without an AOC.

If you want to meatbomb out of a limited category aircraft, you must among other things get a written acknowledgement from the meatbomb before she gets on board or pays for the flight, that she has been told that:
- the design, manufacture, and airworthiness of the aircraft are not required to meet any standard recognised by CASA; and
- CASA does not require the aircraft to be operated to the same degree of safety as an aircraft on a commercial passenger flight; and
-the passenger flies in the aircraft at his or her own risk.

There must be displayed inside the aircraft, in a way that is conspicuous to, and can be easily read by, each meatbomb, a placard that says: WARNING PERSONS FLY IN THIS AIRCRAFT AT THEIR OWN RISK THIS AIRCRAFT HAS BEEN DESIGNED FOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS AND IS NOT OPERATED TO THE SAME SAFETY STANDARDS AS A NORMAL COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FLIGHT

The pilot must hold a commercial pilot licence, or an air transport pilot licence, with appropriate ratings and endorsements.

The taxpayers get some protection from potential liability for the meatbomb’s ‘informed’ decision: CAR 201.3 of the 1998 regs says that “Neither the Commonwealth nor CASA is liable in negligence or otherwise for any loss or damage incurred by anyone because of, or arising out of, the design, construction, restoration, repair, maintenance or operation of a limited category aircraft or an experimental aircraft, or any act or omission of CASA done or made in good faith in relation to any of those things.” (BTW CASA employees – suggest you check whether the word “CASA” in reg 201.3 includes individual employees, and if not, make sure you’ve got a legible copy of CAAP Admin 1 or a bulletproof indemnity.)

Now let’s consider the circumstances of the tourist who buys a tandem jump off the street and ends up being carried in a normal category aircraft maintained for private ops and flown by the holder of a private licence.

Can anyone explain exactly -
how that meatbomb became fully informed of the risks involved with the flight and gave her informed consent to being carried at a lower safety standard than any other farepaying passenger?
how that flight can be conducted under the existing rules without the authority of a charter AOC and without carrier’s liability insurance?

Titan: if it’s being done in accordance with all the requirements of 262AM, then it’s not using a ‘loophole’.

[edited for dud formatting]

[404 Titan]

Creampuff,

When I used the term “loophole”, I was referring to the way the Australian Parachuting Federation use CAR 262AM to get around CAR 206(1)(b)(i). These two regulations are in conflict with one another. Since you appear to live in the US of A, I thought I would paste the definition of loophole from where you live:

Loophole. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.

I think the term is appropriate, as I didn’t say they were in any way breaking the law. They are using the ambiguity in the law to their advantage. Whether this ambiguity is closed when Civil Aviation Regulations 1998 is introduced to replace the existing CAR’s and CAO’s remains to be seen.
:)

[Creampuff]

The words are crystal clear.

CAR 206(1A)(a) says that the commercial purposes prescribed by CAR 206(1) do not include "carrying passengers for hire or reward in accordance with subregulation 262AM(7)".

The real question is whether the operations are really being conducted in a limited category aircraft in accordance with all the limited category rules.

[404 Titan]

Creampuff,

You have no argument from me that the APF are completely within the law with regard to the use of CAR 262AM. The law is clear-cut, but one still has to ask the question why this sub regulation was drawn up in the first place. All I can come up with is that the APF and other minority groups have a lot of political clout. If a PA31 or DH6 should spear in one day with a load of parachutists on board, probably mostly made up of foreign backpackers, then I can assure you that the whole area of CAR 262AM will be revisited by the politicians as the media will have a frenzy over it once they find out that the APF is a self regulating body, not overseen by the statutory regulator, CASA, to ensure safety standards are being maintained to a commercial level. The day CAR 262AM is repealed the better.

[QNIM]

BIK
Life seems to be one trap after another
Cheers Q

[404 Titan]

BIK_116.80

Please enlighten me. How do parachute operations get around CAR 1(b)(i)?? They only have two ways out. Either 262AM or 317(1). As you have told me they don’t use 262AM, this only leaves 317(1). Looking at 317(1), this then refers you to an old regulation 134(1). As I don’t have a copy of this old reg maybe you can tell us all what it said. Excluding what may be in 134(1) the only way parachute operations can be conducted legally is 262AM or cost sharing private operations with six or less POB and no advertising. As I somehow don’ t think it is the latter, please educate me. :confused:

206 Commercial Purposes
1(b) charter purposes, being purposes of the following kinds:
(i) the carriage of passengers or cargo for hire or reward to or
from any place, other than carriage in accordance with
fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals or carriage for
an operation mentioned in subregulation 262AM (7) or
under a permission to fly in force under subregulation
317 (1);

262AM Limited category aircraft—operating limitations
(7) A person may carry passengers in a limited category aircraft in
circumstances where payment is made for carriage, and subregulation
2 (7A) does not apply, only if:
(a) the pilot in command holds a commercial pilot licence, or an air
transport pilot licence, with appropriate ratings and endorsements
for a flight of that kind; and
(b) the aircraft departs from and returns to the same aerodrome
without landing anywhere else; and
(c) the flight does not involve training or flight testing, and is not a
scenic flight; and
(d) the aircraft:
(i) is a replica aircraft, ex-military aircraft or historic aircraft;
or
(ii) is being operated for the purpose of parachute jumping,
mock combat or aerobatics; or
(iii) is being operated only to carry passengers as part of an
intrinsically hazardous recreational activity; and
(e) each passenger has acknowledged in writing that the passenger
has been told about the matters mentioned in subregulation (5).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.


317 Transitional: permission to fly
(1) A permission to fly that was in force under subregulation 134 (1)
immediately before the commencement of this regulation continues in
force, and has the effect that it would have if the original regulations
were still in force, until the earlier of:
(a) the expiry or cancellation of the permission; or
(b) the end of 12 months after the commencement of this regulation.

[Creampuff]

As I said earlier:The real question is whether the [meatbombing for money] operations are really being conducted in a limited category aircraft in accordance with all the limited category rules.

My observation is consistent with BIK's: I am not aware of anyone doing it in a limited category aircraft. So......

We're back to BIK's favourite regs - 206 and 2(7).

(The 12 months savings period in CAR 317 has long since passed.)

Most meatbombing for money is charter, and must accordingly be carried out under the authority of a charter AOC and have carrier's liability insurance. The regulator turns a blind eye to it.

BTW: Curtis is correct - some gliding clubs do hold an AOC, in order to carry out 'joy rides' in accordance with the law.