When does volunteering become “working for free”
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you exercising the privledges of a CPL or PPL if you tow gliders on the weekend, its a private operation right, parachute operations require PPL, but usually employ CPL as they are less likely to muff it, ( more training / experience ).
I have worked for a Parachute operation, i have an ATPL, but as this was a private operation i was exercising the privledges of my PPL, end of CASA's interest. I was paid for my time, a day rate infact.
Parachutist use the the aircraft as an elevator, gliders use the aircraft as a tow truck, CAT Trucks in AD used their queen air to mobilise and demobilise their staff.
Whether a company employs a CPL or PPL is not important, its what licence privledges are they exercising, is it operating on an AOC.
CAR 206 makes an interesting read.
I have worked for a Parachute operation, i have an ATPL, but as this was a private operation i was exercising the privledges of my PPL, end of CASA's interest. I was paid for my time, a day rate infact.
Parachutist use the the aircraft as an elevator, gliders use the aircraft as a tow truck, CAT Trucks in AD used their queen air to mobilise and demobilise their staff.
Whether a company employs a CPL or PPL is not important, its what licence privledges are they exercising, is it operating on an AOC.
CAR 206 makes an interesting read.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Secret base in Hoth...
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A CPL/ATPL enables the pilot to receive "remuneration" for their flying duties. So where does one draw the line as to getting paid (money going into a bank account, getting super, being taxed 
etc) or by getting paid with an endorsement, rent, food, bills paid.
There is a thing about people having a go at jump pilots, now this is purely an observation and was not my position when I was jump flying, but many jump pilots get free rent; close to the airport, free booze, pay no bills, get to use the company phone for personal phone calls and get to drive the company bus around (free advertising for the boss)....So with this it ouwl be safe to say you have no expenses for living. Well you need to buy your food! In addition to this your getting $10-20 odd per load....
Now from experience not too many small DZs will be doing more than 5 loads a day in a SE piston aircraft...Each flight takes around 0.5-0.7hrs
5 loads x $20/load = $100 for the day
(0.5x5) x $45/hr = $112.50 for the day (also take into account rent, bills etc)
Both pay "packets" will require the pilot to be on site all day.
So what does one do when there is a rainy day or worse a rainy week? The pilot that is employed at an hourly rate earns nothing, but still needs to pay their own rent, bills, phone, fuel etc. Or the pilot that gets it all for working there at an "reduced" hourly rate (which at the end of the day is only $5 less/hour).
I know the above senario fits alot of jump pilots, so please think about what you entail as "working for free, or a reduced wage"
Food for thought
CMN
etc) or by getting paid with an endorsement, rent, food, bills paid.There is a thing about people having a go at jump pilots, now this is purely an observation and was not my position when I was jump flying, but many jump pilots get free rent; close to the airport, free booze, pay no bills, get to use the company phone for personal phone calls and get to drive the company bus around (free advertising for the boss)....So with this it ouwl be safe to say you have no expenses for living. Well you need to buy your food! In addition to this your getting $10-20 odd per load....
Now from experience not too many small DZs will be doing more than 5 loads a day in a SE piston aircraft...Each flight takes around 0.5-0.7hrs
5 loads x $20/load = $100 for the day
(0.5x5) x $45/hr = $112.50 for the day (also take into account rent, bills etc)
Both pay "packets" will require the pilot to be on site all day.
So what does one do when there is a rainy day or worse a rainy week? The pilot that is employed at an hourly rate earns nothing, but still needs to pay their own rent, bills, phone, fuel etc. Or the pilot that gets it all for working there at an "reduced" hourly rate (which at the end of the day is only $5 less/hour).
I know the above senario fits alot of jump pilots, so please think about what you entail as "working for free, or a reduced wage"
Food for thought
CMN
Last edited by ContactMeNow; 15th Jan 2007 at 05:03.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CMN,
"A CPL/ATPL enables the pilot to receive "remuneration" for their flying duties", go and read CAR 206 and CAR5.107ish ( talks about what you can do with said licence {privledges} ).
CAR 206 states what is and is not a commercial operation ( requires AOC ).
To operate within a commercial operation, as defined by CAR 206, you must hold a licence that allows you to fly for hire or reward. The Hire or Reward bit is in reference to the aircraft.
At no point does it state anything to do with pilot renumeration.
So, a parachute operation ( for example ) does not meet the criteria of CAR 206 as a " for Hire or Reward " scenario, therefore, it is private category, it is not for hire or reward ( the aircraft ).
No offence, I'm really suprised you guys know so little about the basic legislative frame work we operate within.
There has been many topics about whether parachute and towing etc etc should be charter or similiar, with the legislation in its present for it is not.
"A CPL/ATPL enables the pilot to receive "remuneration" for their flying duties", go and read CAR 206 and CAR5.107ish ( talks about what you can do with said licence {privledges} ).
CAR 206 states what is and is not a commercial operation ( requires AOC ).
To operate within a commercial operation, as defined by CAR 206, you must hold a licence that allows you to fly for hire or reward. The Hire or Reward bit is in reference to the aircraft.
At no point does it state anything to do with pilot renumeration.
So, a parachute operation ( for example ) does not meet the criteria of CAR 206 as a " for Hire or Reward " scenario, therefore, it is private category, it is not for hire or reward ( the aircraft ).
No offence, I'm really suprised you guys know so little about the basic legislative frame work we operate within.
There has been many topics about whether parachute and towing etc etc should be charter or similiar, with the legislation in its present for it is not.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Third Barstool on the left
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHRT
Where in the CARs is the expression "hire or reward" used?
I was going to respond to your last reply on this thread and went looking for it - missing in action, as they say. There is no statutory reference to remuneration in the CARs.
I was going to respond to your last reply on this thread and went looking for it - missing in action, as they say. There is no statutory reference to remuneration in the CARs.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAR 206 (1) b i
CAR 206 (1) c
CAR 206 (1A)
CAR 5.105 (1) a thru c ( note: any type of operation, Private, Airwork, Charter, RPT).
You are quite correct, there is no statutory reference to "Renumeration", therefore there is not limitation or guidance issued by CASA, refer my earlier statement regarding Industrial Relations ( pay/renumeration is in the realm of IR, they do not care about CAR 206 ).
Wiz, Perhaps you have chosen unwisely with your spouse, why just down the road at Hay Street Kal you can apparently buy a spouse, you pay by the hour
.
CAR 206 (1) c
CAR 206 (1A)
CAR 5.105 (1) a thru c ( note: any type of operation, Private, Airwork, Charter, RPT).
You are quite correct, there is no statutory reference to "Renumeration", therefore there is not limitation or guidance issued by CASA, refer my earlier statement regarding Industrial Relations ( pay/renumeration is in the realm of IR, they do not care about CAR 206 ).
Wiz, Perhaps you have chosen unwisely with your spouse, why just down the road at Hay Street Kal you can apparently buy a spouse, you pay by the hour
.
Last edited by Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower; 14th Jan 2007 at 02:43.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Third Barstool on the left
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit of Sunday afternoon pedantry:
remunerate 1. to pay, recompense, or reward for work, trouble etc. [L remuneratus, pp., given back]
Waaaaaay back when I did my exams (early 1990's) there was a reference - I think it may have been in a CAO now repealed, or in the CARs - to the privileges and limitations of a Commercial Pilots Licence. One of the privileges was to be able to operate an aeroplane "for hire or reward". This provision did not relate to the operation so much as the expectation that working pilots should have a higher level of training and experience than their amateur counterparts.
Do you have a reference for this? 
remunerate 1. to pay, recompense, or reward for work, trouble etc. [L remuneratus, pp., given back]
Waaaaaay back when I did my exams (early 1990's) there was a reference - I think it may have been in a CAO now repealed, or in the CARs - to the privileges and limitations of a Commercial Pilots Licence. One of the privileges was to be able to operate an aeroplane "for hire or reward". This provision did not relate to the operation so much as the expectation that working pilots should have a higher level of training and experience than their amateur counterparts.
To operate within a commercial operation, as defined by CAR 206, you must hold a licence that allows you to fly for hire or reward. The Hire or Reward bit is in reference to the aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remunerate or Renumerate, happy with the pedantics, that wy iem a pirot.
The reference is in the CAR's above.
Way back when i did my exams in the early 1990's, there was a great amount of simplicity implied in the exams, simplicity that infact does not exist, OLC has tested and tried all of these regs in some form.
To expand on the simplicity,
1) you must hold a CPL or ATPL to work in all categories of operations ( refer CAR 5.105 above ), plus,
2) an operation that uses an aircraft for hire or reward that fits into a definition as per CAR 206, is there by a commercial/AOC holding operation ( be that AWK, CHTR or RPT ).
So 1 plus 2 = in broad terms means a pilot must hold a CPL or ATPL to operate in all categories of operations whilst under the blanket of hire or reward ( as per CAR 206 ).
So water than down to dumb a$$ language, to operate an aircraft for hire or reward ( as per CAR 206 ) one must hold a CPL or ATPL. Note: never was "Remuneration" involved in this process.
If the operation is categorised IAW CAR 206 as a private operation none of the above applies.
The reference is in the CAR's above.
Way back when i did my exams in the early 1990's, there was a great amount of simplicity implied in the exams, simplicity that infact does not exist, OLC has tested and tried all of these regs in some form.
To expand on the simplicity,
1) you must hold a CPL or ATPL to work in all categories of operations ( refer CAR 5.105 above ), plus,
2) an operation that uses an aircraft for hire or reward that fits into a definition as per CAR 206, is there by a commercial/AOC holding operation ( be that AWK, CHTR or RPT ).
So 1 plus 2 = in broad terms means a pilot must hold a CPL or ATPL to operate in all categories of operations whilst under the blanket of hire or reward ( as per CAR 206 ).
So water than down to dumb a$$ language, to operate an aircraft for hire or reward ( as per CAR 206 ) one must hold a CPL or ATPL. Note: never was "Remuneration" involved in this process.
If the operation is categorised IAW CAR 206 as a private operation none of the above applies.
Last edited by Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower; 14th Jan 2007 at 11:52.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiz, Perhaps you have chosen unwisely with your spouse, why just down the road at Hay Street Kal you can apparently buy a spouse, you pay by the hour .
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would there be a problem if you had a PPL and was doing jump flights to build hours or free, or is it only a problem if you have a cpl and are getting free hours when you are entitled to be paid?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Secret base in Hoth...
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How I read the regs is that an OPERATOR can receive "hire or reward" from flying in commercial operations (re:CAR 206). So your boss providing that he/she holds an AOC they can get "hire or reward" from the public using their services.
Now a pilot must hold atleast a CPL to fly for this operation, a CPL is needed for the boss to receive "hire or reward", as many of you have stated there is no reference to the PILOT receiving "hire or reward". This matter comes under the pilot award wage (see AFAP.org.au) and even then the award doesnt cover all states (last time I checked).
So yes the CASA regs state an operator can receive renumeration from its services, but nowhere does it state a pilot can receive renumeration.
Maybe CASA should add to the "privileges" of a CPL/ATPL is to be renumerated as per the award...instead of staying you can act as PIC of certain operations.....
Now a pilot must hold atleast a CPL to fly for this operation, a CPL is needed for the boss to receive "hire or reward", as many of you have stated there is no reference to the PILOT receiving "hire or reward". This matter comes under the pilot award wage (see AFAP.org.au) and even then the award doesnt cover all states (last time I checked).
So yes the CASA regs state an operator can receive renumeration from its services, but nowhere does it state a pilot can receive renumeration.
Maybe CASA should add to the "privileges" of a CPL/ATPL is to be renumerated as per the award...instead of staying you can act as PIC of certain operations.....
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MCKES,
Yes i personally think that is the root of the problem, irrespective of PPL or CPL, you are using a skill that has cost you money to have and the parachute company is making a tonne of money from you doing this, so you should be paid.
Why should your generosity keep someone out of a paid job, why should the operator you are working for have an unfair commercial advantage by having idiot Pilots working for him/her for free when his closest competitor pay his staff ?.
If a CPL or ATPL holder was doing what you are suggesting, they are only exercising the privledges of a PPL, so no different.
Remember being paid is an entitlement under the Industrial Relations ACT, it has nothing to do with CASA.
PPL or above, do not work for free.
None of the above applies to not for profit organisations.
Wow this topic just keeps going in circles, DO NOT WORK FOR FREE, PPL OR OTHERWISE.
CMN,
CASA does not care about pay/awards etc etc, its not their realm.
It will not be their realm until there is and accident that costs lives and the ATSB finds the reason the accident occured is because the PIC had to hold down three jobs to survive and was fatigued, main reason being the aviation company did not pay him to fly their paasengers around, because flying for free was the norm in our industry.
If you are stupid enough ( not you personally ) you can hold a CPL or higher and fly charter or RPT for free ( also add pay for endosements etc etc to that list ), many idiots do, there is no law within the CASA Leg about that.
Yes i personally think that is the root of the problem, irrespective of PPL or CPL, you are using a skill that has cost you money to have and the parachute company is making a tonne of money from you doing this, so you should be paid.
Why should your generosity keep someone out of a paid job, why should the operator you are working for have an unfair commercial advantage by having idiot Pilots working for him/her for free when his closest competitor pay his staff ?.
If a CPL or ATPL holder was doing what you are suggesting, they are only exercising the privledges of a PPL, so no different.
Remember being paid is an entitlement under the Industrial Relations ACT, it has nothing to do with CASA.
PPL or above, do not work for free.
None of the above applies to not for profit organisations.
Wow this topic just keeps going in circles, DO NOT WORK FOR FREE, PPL OR OTHERWISE.
CMN,
CASA does not care about pay/awards etc etc, its not their realm.
It will not be their realm until there is and accident that costs lives and the ATSB finds the reason the accident occured is because the PIC had to hold down three jobs to survive and was fatigued, main reason being the aviation company did not pay him to fly their paasengers around, because flying for free was the norm in our industry.
If you are stupid enough ( not you personally ) you can hold a CPL or higher and fly charter or RPT for free ( also add pay for endosements etc etc to that list ), many idiots do, there is no law within the CASA Leg about that.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Secret base in Hoth...
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MCKES,
Yes i personally think that is the root of the problem, irrespective of PPL or CPL, you are using a skill that has cost you money to have and the parachute company is making a tonne of money from you doing this, so you should be paid.
Why should your generosity keep someone out of a paid job, why should the operator you are working for have an unfair commercial advantage by having idiot Pilots working for him/her for free when his closest competitor pay his staff ?.
If a CPL or ATPL holder was doing what you are suggesting, they are only exercising the privledges of a PPL, so no different.
Remember being paid is an entitlement under the Industrial Relations ACT, it has nothing to do with CASA.
PPL or above, do not work for free.
None of the above applies to not for profit organisations.
Wow this topic just keeps going in circles, DO NOT WORK FOR FREE, PPL OR OTHERWISE.
CMN,
CASA does not care about pay/awards etc etc, its not their realm.
It will not be their realm until there is and accident that costs lives and the ATSB finds the reason the accident occured is because the PIC had to hold down three jobs to survive and was fatigued, main reason being the aviation company did not pay him to fly their paasengers around, because flying for free was the norm in our industry.
If you are stupid enough ( not you personally ) you can hold a CPL or higher and fly charter or RPT for free ( also add pay for endosements etc etc to that list ), many idiots do, there is no law within the CASA Leg about that.
Yes i personally think that is the root of the problem, irrespective of PPL or CPL, you are using a skill that has cost you money to have and the parachute company is making a tonne of money from you doing this, so you should be paid.
Why should your generosity keep someone out of a paid job, why should the operator you are working for have an unfair commercial advantage by having idiot Pilots working for him/her for free when his closest competitor pay his staff ?.
If a CPL or ATPL holder was doing what you are suggesting, they are only exercising the privledges of a PPL, so no different.
Remember being paid is an entitlement under the Industrial Relations ACT, it has nothing to do with CASA.
PPL or above, do not work for free.
None of the above applies to not for profit organisations.
Wow this topic just keeps going in circles, DO NOT WORK FOR FREE, PPL OR OTHERWISE.
CMN,
CASA does not care about pay/awards etc etc, its not their realm.
It will not be their realm until there is and accident that costs lives and the ATSB finds the reason the accident occured is because the PIC had to hold down three jobs to survive and was fatigued, main reason being the aviation company did not pay him to fly their paasengers around, because flying for free was the norm in our industry.
If you are stupid enough ( not you personally ) you can hold a CPL or higher and fly charter or RPT for free ( also add pay for endosements etc etc to that list ), many idiots do, there is no law within the CASA Leg about that.
Its a case of oversupply of junior CPLs and the mentality of "I will just do it for 6 weeks or so to get a few hours out of it, or until i get 300hrs TT."
I recently came across an article in my local newspaper about a certain flying school at BK advertising for new students. For starters, how can their course be AUStudy approved (dont centrelink know how much it costs to be a pilot? And if you or your family have that money, then there is no need to get help from the government??
Secondly, their main marketing point was this pilot shortage in all aspects of flying, yet they mainly focused on international airline operations.... I was actually planning on turning up to one of these open days and asking; "How long after my training do I get the phone call from all these international airlines?". Pilot shortage no, experienced pilot shortage yes.....
anyway back on topic
Nunc est bibendum
For a subtle dig to work it actually has to be true. Given that MAF actually pays the people who fly their aircraft the subtle dig is in fact just plain wrong.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unpaid?
One of the reasons why GA is so impoverished is that operators have to compete with organisations which get Govt handouts (tens of millions), and others that raise money from public subscription to support their commercial operations.
I know of one outfit that claimed to pay their pilots proper money, but this included the value of govt provided housing, and vehicles. Pilots were paid according to how many kids they had.
Charter AOC's should not be issued to "not for profit" organisations.
I know of one outfit that claimed to pay their pilots proper money, but this included the value of govt provided housing, and vehicles. Pilots were paid according to how many kids they had.
Charter AOC's should not be issued to "not for profit" organisations.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The cloud
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
or a recent event in Nt, rpt mob given govt assistance only to drive down prices and runout local operators who cant compete. then govt money dries up and the pull the pin leaving noone to take the slack... not to mention the pilots who spent hard earned dollars on a ground school and endo only to be givent he flick with no consolodation.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did pilots at this former NT company have to pay for their endorsements ? ( C208 - how much ? ).
People may be crtitcal of MAF, they operate on a very different ethos to the rest of us capitalists, but they seem like a happy mob. Respectfull and i haven't heard of them cutting corners and breaking rules, "making" pilots fly unservicable aircraft over weight etc etc.
Ethically i think MAF are an industry leader.
People may be crtitcal of MAF, they operate on a very different ethos to the rest of us capitalists, but they seem like a happy mob. Respectfull and i haven't heard of them cutting corners and breaking rules, "making" pilots fly unservicable aircraft over weight etc etc.
Ethically i think MAF are an industry leader.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: the clouds
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grammar
I know this is going to sound really petty, but this time I can't bite my toungue any longer -when is everyone going to learn that the phrases 'work for free' and 'fly for free' are not grammatically correct (drop the for!).
