what is and isn't a charter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: No Fixed Abode
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what is and isn't a charter
Hello all, could anyone shed some light on the following.
1.A PPL holder owns a small twin and runs a company wich requires him to do a lot of travling I hold a CPL can he pay me to fly him around or dose he need an AOC even though all the flying is done as a private op (do privately owned biz jet operators need an AOC)?.
2. What if he wants me to fly a freind of his around who has no share in the aircraft?.
so basicly what is and isnt a charter?.
1.A PPL holder owns a small twin and runs a company wich requires him to do a lot of travling I hold a CPL can he pay me to fly him around or dose he need an AOC even though all the flying is done as a private op (do privately owned biz jet operators need an AOC)?.
2. What if he wants me to fly a freind of his around who has no share in the aircraft?.
so basicly what is and isnt a charter?.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In principal. A private arrangement not being made availible to the public (In this case only) or being advertised, and flown by an appropriatly qualified and skilled pilot for hire and reward. This answer is given specifically in reponse to what you have posted and should not be construed as to apply to any other circumstance. You really need to have intimate knowledge of the regs.
In my your situation is in effect being employed and paid as if you were a corporate pilot employed by the company which is conducting private operations as is the case with several corporate jets. You would need to check as to whether or not the aircraft is registered in private and or airwork catagory and obtain advice as to whether or not it needs to be airwork. I suspect corporate aircraft may be registered in airwork albeit the flying is done as a private flight.
[ 29 November 2001: Message edited by: rpt2 ]
In my your situation is in effect being employed and paid as if you were a corporate pilot employed by the company which is conducting private operations as is the case with several corporate jets. You would need to check as to whether or not the aircraft is registered in private and or airwork catagory and obtain advice as to whether or not it needs to be airwork. I suspect corporate aircraft may be registered in airwork albeit the flying is done as a private flight.
[ 29 November 2001: Message edited by: rpt2 ]
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NSW
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In your situation, the operation and the aircraft must operate in the airwork or charter category (see the MR), if you are to be paid to fly his aircraft. As for your freind putting other passengers on the aircraft, that is up to him, as long as he continues to pay for the complete operation. The other pax must not contribute to the cost at all (much like corp aviation).
As for bizjet operations, any operation of an aircraft with a MTOW in excess of 5700KG requires an AOC. The crew must hold commercial qualifications, with the Capt hold an ATPL.
You are not breaking any regs as long as the aircrafts MR has the right cat of operation.
Good luck with the career mate.
Blue skies, and may all you takeoffs equal your landings.
As for bizjet operations, any operation of an aircraft with a MTOW in excess of 5700KG requires an AOC. The crew must hold commercial qualifications, with the Capt hold an ATPL.
You are not breaking any regs as long as the aircrafts MR has the right cat of operation.
Good luck with the career mate.
Blue skies, and may all you takeoffs equal your landings.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"As for bizjet operations, any operation of an aircraft with a MTOW in excess of 5700KG requires an AOC."
Nor is it necessary to hold an AOC to conduct private operations in aircraft exceeding 5,700 kg.
You will find many examples of Citations, King Air 350's etc conducting private operations in Australia without an AOC, including the Army, Police Forces, mining and oil companies etc. (The Army fixed wing operation is generally conducted in civil aircraft.)
Read CAR 206. The operation you envisage may be classified Aerialwork by an inventive CASA employee. It is a very grey area.
Nor is it necessary to hold an AOC to conduct private operations in aircraft exceeding 5,700 kg.
You will find many examples of Citations, King Air 350's etc conducting private operations in Australia without an AOC, including the Army, Police Forces, mining and oil companies etc. (The Army fixed wing operation is generally conducted in civil aircraft.)
Read CAR 206. The operation you envisage may be classified Aerialwork by an inventive CASA employee. It is a very grey area.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: OZ
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
qanpulse
What a crock of sh**.
Suggest that you get you nose in the Act, CARs before you show your lack of knowledge.
A private owner operator can operate a 747 on private operations and pa the crew wharever they want. So long as the owner operator does not charge for the carriage of pax or cargo.
What a crock of sh**.
Suggest that you get you nose in the Act, CARs before you show your lack of knowledge.
A private owner operator can operate a 747 on private operations and pa the crew wharever they want. So long as the owner operator does not charge for the carriage of pax or cargo.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sydney
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Ace
Could you please go into more depth on how pilots could be legally getting paid to operate King Air's Citation's and the like, operating in Australia without AOC's privatley. Considering that most similar type aircraft are equipped with min 6 pax seats.
Quote from the CAR's
[ 30 November 2001: Message edited by: Surmount ]
Could you please go into more depth on how pilots could be legally getting paid to operate King Air's Citation's and the like, operating in Australia without AOC's privatley. Considering that most similar type aircraft are equipped with min 6 pax seats.
Quote from the CAR's
(7A)
An Aircraft that carries person on a flight, otherwise than in accordance with a fixed schedule between terminals, is employed in a private operation if:
(a) public notice of the flight has not been given by any form of public advertisement or announcement; and
(b) the number of persons on the flight, including the operating crew, does not exceed 6;and
(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 cost of the flight; and
(e) no payment is required for a person on the flight other than a payment under paragraph (d)
An Aircraft that carries person on a flight, otherwise than in accordance with a fixed schedule between terminals, is employed in a private operation if:
(a) public notice of the flight has not been given by any form of public advertisement or announcement; and
(b) the number of persons on the flight, including the operating crew, does not exceed 6;and
(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 cost of the flight; and
(e) no payment is required for a person on the flight other than a payment under paragraph (d)
[ 30 November 2001: Message edited by: Surmount ]
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have "good"friend who works in this field in oz, so can speak with a current knowledge.
Most corporate jets are operated as private ops without an AOC. Only the jets that do chaters over and above those for the owner hold AOC's.This is fact and CASA are fully involved.
Most corporate jets are operated as private ops without an AOC. Only the jets that do chaters over and above those for the owner hold AOC's.This is fact and CASA are fully involved.
Moderator
Just shows how difficult so many of these rules are for us mere mortals to interpret, when there are some ops that are obviously flouting them and getting away with it.
For example, the six POB thing doesn't seem to apply to skydiving ops, or the payment to pilots for these ops but still skydiving is classified as "private operations" .
When I asked CASA for regulatory advice about someone who wanted to get a PPL to do aerial spotting as part of his non-aviation job in a hired aircraft I was glibly told "CASA cannot comment on individual cases" IN other words, they didn't have a clue either, or weren't prepared to commit themselves.
As ever it's really the insurance companies and their lawyers who interpret the law in the worst case scenario, so my advice, IMNH, is ask them if the policy covers the occupants for this flying.
For example, the six POB thing doesn't seem to apply to skydiving ops, or the payment to pilots for these ops but still skydiving is classified as "private operations" .
When I asked CASA for regulatory advice about someone who wanted to get a PPL to do aerial spotting as part of his non-aviation job in a hired aircraft I was glibly told "CASA cannot comment on individual cases" IN other words, they didn't have a clue either, or weren't prepared to commit themselves.
As ever it's really the insurance companies and their lawyers who interpret the law in the worst case scenario, so my advice, IMNH, is ask them if the policy covers the occupants for this flying.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
qanpulse
Don't know where you were when you posted, obviously not on planet earth.
The operation as described in the first post is a private operation. Read the CAR's
Maintenance release has nothing to do with the original posting.
Most bizjets operate without an AOC as they are again a private operation.
Over 5700 kg has nothing to do with an AOC.
Suggest you take reg's to bed with you and do some serious reading!!
Don't know where you were when you posted, obviously not on planet earth.
The operation as described in the first post is a private operation. Read the CAR's
Maintenance release has nothing to do with the original posting.
Most bizjets operate without an AOC as they are again a private operation.
Over 5700 kg has nothing to do with an AOC.
Suggest you take reg's to bed with you and do some serious reading!!
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surmount. You answered your own question...!
Go back and also bold each of the words "and" then re read your post.
(And, if you still miss the bus - and I haven't checked the accuracy of your quote - all conditions, (a) to (e) must exist for the operation to be private. If for example, condition (e) did not exist - the passengers did not pay to travel - the operation is private, even if all the other conditions do exist.
Indeed, there probably is no reason a PPL holder could not fly 300 freeloading relos around in a Boeing 744, provided the PPL holder met any specific B744 requirements such as type endorsement.)
A word of advice when reading the Act, CAR's and CAO's (or indeed any legal or legislative document): read every word - words such as "and" are there for a very specific purpose.
[ 02 December 2001: Message edited by: Air Ace ]
Go back and also bold each of the words "and" then re read your post.
(And, if you still miss the bus - and I haven't checked the accuracy of your quote - all conditions, (a) to (e) must exist for the operation to be private. If for example, condition (e) did not exist - the passengers did not pay to travel - the operation is private, even if all the other conditions do exist.
Indeed, there probably is no reason a PPL holder could not fly 300 freeloading relos around in a Boeing 744, provided the PPL holder met any specific B744 requirements such as type endorsement.)
A word of advice when reading the Act, CAR's and CAO's (or indeed any legal or legislative document): read every word - words such as "and" are there for a very specific purpose.
[ 02 December 2001: Message edited by: Air Ace ]
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Ace.
Hate to say it, but you need to read every word.
'- all conditions, (a) to (e) must exist for the operation to be' PRIVATE.
Not to say that Surmount is right in his interpretation. BIK_116.80 has correctly described the situation.
Snooze
Hate to say it, but you need to read every word.
'- all conditions, (a) to (e) must exist for the operation to be' PRIVATE.
Not to say that Surmount is right in his interpretation. BIK_116.80 has correctly described the situation.
Snooze
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In response to the original question: It's my understanding that once through all the legal bs that if you (The Company) are not conducting the operation for HIRE or REWARD ie. making money. Then you could operate the flight as a private flight. As said above your boss could have a B744 that he wants you to fly as a private category. And provided that you meet all the type ratings etc and provided he pays for the lot and receives no renumeration of any kind for the services that the aircraft conducts then go right ahead. As far as I was aware the six seat rule was related to the infernal cost sharing rule ie if POB is Six or less then you must cost share above six POB the cost must be borne by the PIC?? (Don't quote me on the PIC bit!) But of course this dosen't stop people being paid for in expensive beer or other items anyway!!
BIK_116.80
When has CASA ever taken the action you suggest in your post (highlighted in italics?)
"Senior CASA Flying Operations Inspectors have in many cases told aircraft operators that they do not know if a proposed operation is legal or not, and that the only way to find out for sure is for the aircraft operation to take place, for CASA to prosecute (via the Department of Public Prosecutions), and for a magistrate to rule on his interpretation of what the regulations actually mean."
Perhaps your post should be amended as follows: "…for CASA to suspend the operator’s AOC and obtain an opinion from it’s Office of Legal Counsel which supports it’s administrative decision."
A number of operators affected by CASA "Administrative Action" have requested their matter be brought before an appropriate Court of law to enable Regulations etc to be interpreted and the matter tested and decided in an appropriate forum.
To my knowledge CASA has declined every time!
When has CASA ever taken the action you suggest in your post (highlighted in italics?)
"Senior CASA Flying Operations Inspectors have in many cases told aircraft operators that they do not know if a proposed operation is legal or not, and that the only way to find out for sure is for the aircraft operation to take place, for CASA to prosecute (via the Department of Public Prosecutions), and for a magistrate to rule on his interpretation of what the regulations actually mean."
Perhaps your post should be amended as follows: "…for CASA to suspend the operator’s AOC and obtain an opinion from it’s Office of Legal Counsel which supports it’s administrative decision."
A number of operators affected by CASA "Administrative Action" have requested their matter be brought before an appropriate Court of law to enable Regulations etc to be interpreted and the matter tested and decided in an appropriate forum.
To my knowledge CASA has declined every time!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NSW
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I appologise, above 5700KG does not require a AOC if private (must be employed by the company to be paid to fly). Have checked the regs - it has been some time since I have flown PVT.
It really is quite simple.
Private operation, no AOC required.
Charter/ AWK Operation, AOC required.
You have misunderstood the rest of my post. If the owner wishes to put other passengers on his a/c, he is free to do so without it becoming a charter, however, they can not pay for the privilage if the pilot is being paid. Cost sharing does not come in to it if the pilot is paid.
It really is quite simple.
Private operation, no AOC required.
Charter/ AWK Operation, AOC required.
You have misunderstood the rest of my post. If the owner wishes to put other passengers on his a/c, he is free to do so without it becoming a charter, however, they can not pay for the privilage if the pilot is being paid. Cost sharing does not come in to it if the pilot is paid.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks,
Pilot remuneration does not determine the classification of a particular operation.
The licence required of a pilot is set out in Part 5 of CAR 88. The class of operation is a determinant.
Before CAR(88) 2(7A), cost sharing made an operation commercial in nature and thus, if prescribed in CAR(88) 206, required an AOC. The law was changed to permit certain specifically constrained operations (each of the elements (a) to (e) without exception) to be classed as private. This was an addition to those pre-existing operations that are held to be private and most certainly not as a replacement.
As for the other comments about CASA, notwithstanding Torres' understandable pique, there was a period where CASA management took the view that they were not established to provide legal advice to all and sundry about what variations to the theme might be legal or otherwise. I believe that the thrust was fairly straightforward: OLC provides internal advice to the regulators only and the regulators in the field are not empowered to give binding opinions on the legality of operations to members of the public, particularly as they rarely, if ever, have full disclosure on the circumstances of proposed operations or any ability to guarantee compliance with the original proposal. In the meantime, the victims have access to any number of lawyers in private practice where liability and disclosure are inexorably tied contractually and you pay for the time involved in your "what-ifs".
In my experience, the attribution of ignorance as a consequence of a direction not to give particular advice is not reasonable. I know that it doesn't apply to any persons herein, but there is always a spiv out there looking for an angle to make a buck by exploiting loopholes in either the aviation or employment law or both. The reason that the relationship with the regulator has changed forever can be found in the increasing numbers of spivs and the increasing sophistication of their scams.
<img src="cool.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
(edited to correct the abysmally slack regulatory reference to CAR(88) 2(7A) - must have been that Maglieri cabernet that befuddled me)
<img src="redface.gif" border="0"> <img src="redface.gif" border="0"> <img src="redface.gif" border="0">
[ 20 December 2001: Message edited by: 4dogs ]</p>
Pilot remuneration does not determine the classification of a particular operation.
The licence required of a pilot is set out in Part 5 of CAR 88. The class of operation is a determinant.
Before CAR(88) 2(7A), cost sharing made an operation commercial in nature and thus, if prescribed in CAR(88) 206, required an AOC. The law was changed to permit certain specifically constrained operations (each of the elements (a) to (e) without exception) to be classed as private. This was an addition to those pre-existing operations that are held to be private and most certainly not as a replacement.
As for the other comments about CASA, notwithstanding Torres' understandable pique, there was a period where CASA management took the view that they were not established to provide legal advice to all and sundry about what variations to the theme might be legal or otherwise. I believe that the thrust was fairly straightforward: OLC provides internal advice to the regulators only and the regulators in the field are not empowered to give binding opinions on the legality of operations to members of the public, particularly as they rarely, if ever, have full disclosure on the circumstances of proposed operations or any ability to guarantee compliance with the original proposal. In the meantime, the victims have access to any number of lawyers in private practice where liability and disclosure are inexorably tied contractually and you pay for the time involved in your "what-ifs".
In my experience, the attribution of ignorance as a consequence of a direction not to give particular advice is not reasonable. I know that it doesn't apply to any persons herein, but there is always a spiv out there looking for an angle to make a buck by exploiting loopholes in either the aviation or employment law or both. The reason that the relationship with the regulator has changed forever can be found in the increasing numbers of spivs and the increasing sophistication of their scams.
<img src="cool.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
(edited to correct the abysmally slack regulatory reference to CAR(88) 2(7A) - must have been that Maglieri cabernet that befuddled me)
<img src="redface.gif" border="0"> <img src="redface.gif" border="0"> <img src="redface.gif" border="0">
[ 20 December 2001: Message edited by: 4dogs ]</p>
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4dogs,
I agree that the way a pilot is renumerated does not determine which category the flight is operated in but it does exclude it from being a private flight. In this regulation that we have been talking about all points have to be accomplished to be a private operation. Part c says "(c)no payment is made for the services of the operating crew;" and hence when the pilot accepts one pacific peso for his service (or beer as may be preferred) they are accepting payment and exludes the operation to be private.
I agree that the way a pilot is renumerated does not determine which category the flight is operated in but it does exclude it from being a private flight. In this regulation that we have been talking about all points have to be accomplished to be a private operation. Part c says "(c)no payment is made for the services of the operating crew;" and hence when the pilot accepts one pacific peso for his service (or beer as may be preferred) they are accepting payment and exludes the operation to be private.