When an FOI conducts a flight test, whose AOC are they using?
Thread Starter
When an FOI conducts a flight test, whose AOC are they using?
If an FOI conducts say an Instructor Rating renewal. CASA is paid for the test. Therefore it is a Commercial operation. If it is done at a flight school it can't be on their AOC unless the FOI has signed the Ops Manual,been standardised by the CFI etc. So basically how can CASA conduct a Commercial operation with no AOC or CFI/CP?
I would love to hear some INTELLIGENT debate on this one. No CASA bashing please.
I would love to hear some INTELLIGENT debate on this one. No CASA bashing please.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: N.S.W.
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty Simple mate: The FOI is acting within the powers delegated to him/her in the appropriate instrument to act for and on behalf of the Authority.
Section 97 (or thereabouts)of the Civil Aviation Act (Cth) 1988 provides that CASA may charge fees for various things, in accordance with the cost-recovery policies of our Feral Gumment.
Not a Commercial Operation at all, you see... we have all heard our FOIs declare they're not interested in Commercial Viability!
Section 97 (or thereabouts)of the Civil Aviation Act (Cth) 1988 provides that CASA may charge fees for various things, in accordance with the cost-recovery policies of our Feral Gumment.
Not a Commercial Operation at all, you see... we have all heard our FOIs declare they're not interested in Commercial Viability!
Moderator
Interesting point.
My insurance covers pilots as approved by myself or my instructing staff. Now if an FOI comes along to conduct a test, and it is someone I know and have done a renewal with, no worries.
But if it was a complete stranger I've never flown with before...sorry, but you'll have to do a check ride before you can be pilot in command of my aeroplane!
My insurance covers pilots as approved by myself or my instructing staff. Now if an FOI comes along to conduct a test, and it is someone I know and have done a renewal with, no worries.
But if it was a complete stranger I've never flown with before...sorry, but you'll have to do a check ride before you can be pilot in command of my aeroplane!
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icarus,
Payment of a prescribed fee, levy, tax etc is not of itself a determinate of the class of operation of the activity to which it relates. I am sure you would be suitably outraged if CASA declared your otherwise private flight to be commercial because you paid a landing fee or aerodrome gate tax in relation to your flight!
Even if we were to accept that such a transaction had some connection with the classification of operations, and furthermore that such a transaction characterised an operation as commercial, an AOC would not be required since it is not a commercial operation prescribed in CAR(88) 206 as requiring an AOC.
And before you go there, read the definition of "flying training" in CAR(88) 2!
insert whatever,
Could you please point out the bit of legislation that makes a Chief Pilot and an Operations Manual a prerequisite for the employment of "professional" pilots?
Read s5 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 while you are at it.
CFI,
Insurance is indeed a complex issue. Once we sort out who is the pilot in command during the test, we need to make sure that the insurance contract covers the test since the hirer is the victim not the FOI/CASA. Given that CASA has no right to fly the aircraft, being in effect the invited guest of the victim, there should be no impediment to you fully satisfying yourself that the FOI is competent before he/she manipulates the controls.
Interestingly enough, I do not think that CAR(88) 306 applies to indemnify CASA since the context is that of airworthiness trials/tests and the aircraft is most certainly not in the custody of CASA or being inspected. As this question far exceeds my knowledge of the legal argument for/against the liability of the Crown in the event of damage sustained during a Licensing Flight Test, I shall have to hope that Lead Balloon is watching and is prepared to offer some insight.
Payment of a prescribed fee, levy, tax etc is not of itself a determinate of the class of operation of the activity to which it relates. I am sure you would be suitably outraged if CASA declared your otherwise private flight to be commercial because you paid a landing fee or aerodrome gate tax in relation to your flight!
Even if we were to accept that such a transaction had some connection with the classification of operations, and furthermore that such a transaction characterised an operation as commercial, an AOC would not be required since it is not a commercial operation prescribed in CAR(88) 206 as requiring an AOC.
And before you go there, read the definition of "flying training" in CAR(88) 2!
insert whatever,
Could you please point out the bit of legislation that makes a Chief Pilot and an Operations Manual a prerequisite for the employment of "professional" pilots?
Read s5 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 while you are at it.
CFI,
Insurance is indeed a complex issue. Once we sort out who is the pilot in command during the test, we need to make sure that the insurance contract covers the test since the hirer is the victim not the FOI/CASA. Given that CASA has no right to fly the aircraft, being in effect the invited guest of the victim, there should be no impediment to you fully satisfying yourself that the FOI is competent before he/she manipulates the controls.
Interestingly enough, I do not think that CAR(88) 306 applies to indemnify CASA since the context is that of airworthiness trials/tests and the aircraft is most certainly not in the custody of CASA or being inspected. As this question far exceeds my knowledge of the legal argument for/against the liability of the Crown in the event of damage sustained during a Licensing Flight Test, I shall have to hope that Lead Balloon is watching and is prepared to offer some insight.
