Promotion of cost-share private ops on Facebook etc
That's not true, Ralis.
He can say "I go flying with friends and acquaintances from time to time and we share the costs"
He can't say "I'm going flying next Wednesday, wanna come?"
BTW, according to (7A) if the pilot goes flying with his/her mates and pays for it all by him/herself, then technically it is no longer private ops because condition (d) is not satisfied.
edit: but it is satisfied with (7)(d)(v) - my bad. God, these regs are a steaming crock...!
He can say "I go flying with friends and acquaintances from time to time and we share the costs"
He can't say "I'm going flying next Wednesday, wanna come?"
BTW, according to (7A) if the pilot goes flying with his/her mates and pays for it all by him/herself, then technically it is no longer private ops because condition (d) is not satisfied.
edit: but it is satisfied with (7)(d)(v) - my bad. God, these regs are a steaming crock...!
Last edited by Andy_RR; 19th Nov 2013 at 06:45.
(slight diversion)
should be parsed as:
(the carriage of persons) or (the carriage of goods without a charge...)
whereas everyone assumes it says:
{(the carriage of persons) or (the carriage of goods)} without a charge...
The punctuation is truly shte!
(v) the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made other than the carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft;
(the carriage of persons) or (the carriage of goods without a charge...)
whereas everyone assumes it says:
{(the carriage of persons) or (the carriage of goods)} without a charge...
The punctuation is truly shte!
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Land of the long white cloud
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He can say "I go flying with friends and acquaintances from time to time and we share the costs"
He can't say "I'm going flying next Wednesday, wanna come?"
He can't say "I'm going flying next Wednesday, wanna come?"
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Sydney, AU
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Almost broke the rule. Almost....
Just ran into this topic (I see, this is an old one), and I have to realise that once I almost broke this rule. Maybe it's a bit too strict? Let me share with you what happened:
During my time building for CPL, I've got flight hours from my wife for my Birthday, and she flew with me. So strictly speaking point (d) (the persons on the flight, including the operating crew, share equally in the costs of the flight;" wasn't fulfilled.
Thank God she is my wife and we are on the same budget, this has saved my skin. Also it did not happened in Oz...
Anyhow make sure that you're getting an AoC before going for a flight with your fiancee she/he is paying for.
During my time building for CPL, I've got flight hours from my wife for my Birthday, and she flew with me. So strictly speaking point (d) (the persons on the flight, including the operating crew, share equally in the costs of the flight;" wasn't fulfilled.
Thank God she is my wife and we are on the same budget, this has saved my skin. Also it did not happened in Oz...
Anyhow make sure that you're getting an AoC before going for a flight with your fiancee she/he is paying for.
He'd be more likely to get pinged by an insurance company if he injured one of his, er, mates during the flight and it came to light how the guy had got on the flight in the first place.
Saw a similar thing on a public group here, a bit sneaky the pilot got his girlfriend to do the posts so that it wasn't "him" that was advertising them. CASA were informed but no action was taken.
Saw a similar thing on a public group here, a bit sneaky the pilot got his girlfriend to do the posts so that it wasn't "him" that was advertising them. CASA were informed but no action was taken.
Certainly would need an AOC for commercial operations.
A very common misconception, an AOC is required for operations that are prescribed by CAR 206,
There are "commercial operations" ( defined by money changing hands) in aviation that do NOT need an AOC.
Tootle
Yes.
And the smiling prosecutor said to the magistrate..." No person in Australia can take a photograph from an aircraft without having an AOC and a CPL."
Cop that. !! True or False.
But like I have always said, with CAsA any old Bullsh!t will do.
And the smiling prosecutor said to the magistrate..." No person in Australia can take a photograph from an aircraft without having an AOC and a CPL."
Cop that. !! True or False.
But like I have always said, with CAsA any old Bullsh!t will do.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Aust
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not just Facebook I might ad, I saw this advertised recently on gumtree, verbatim, the ad was word for word.
If CASA doesn't consider Facebook as a public domain, Gumtree sure as **** is - next step is auctions on eBay!
If CASA doesn't consider Facebook as a public domain, Gumtree sure as **** is - next step is auctions on eBay!
A very common misconception, an AOC is required for operations that are prescribed by CAR 206,
There are "commercial operations" ( defined by money changing hands) in aviation that do NOT need an AOC
There are "commercial operations" ( defined by money changing hands) in aviation that do NOT need an AOC
But if I was to pull out the 172 (the most produced certified aircraft on the planet, with one of the best safety records) on a sunny Sunday afternoon, run someone around the local patch and get a few dollars out of it, I run the risk of being vilified by CAsA if they get wind of it.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the bigger picture, IMO the rule is to make certain that the paying passenger is being flown by someone appropriately trained and checked for exactly that.
Otherwise there would be no need for either the Commercial license or the ATP.
Otherwise there would be no need for either the Commercial license or the ATP.
It appears on the face of it Casa is not so much running a safety organization. It's more of a protection racket for commercial operators.
The proof of that is shown in the case AROA alluded to. Aircraft with only the pilot on board is used to take some aerial photos. All perfectly legal till Mr Pilot sells one of those photos. Suddenly ( traveling back in time) the flight becomes dangerous and requires a commercial pilot with an AOC. 27 years and $400 million dollars still haven't removed illogical lunacy like this from our regulations.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Its more of a protection racket for commercial operators'
Same principal with 7A(b) where you can't have more than 6 including crew. Designed to stop someone loading up 8 of their mates into a Chieftan and heading off somewhere on a cost share basis, thereby undercutting some commercial operator offering the same service, presumably.
Same principal with 7A(b) where you can't have more than 6 including crew. Designed to stop someone loading up 8 of their mates into a Chieftan and heading off somewhere on a cost share basis, thereby undercutting some commercial operator offering the same service, presumably.
I don't know why I bother to read and participate in the same ol' same 'ol folklore-based 'discussions' of classification of operations any more, but as an act of purest optimism to try to reduce the spread of the noxious weeds....
There is no 6 POB limit on private operations.
There is no 6 POB limit on private operations.
Folks,
I have this wonderful letter from CASA telling me that, not only can I not take photographs FROM an aircraft that does not have a standard category C.of A., and is operated on an AOC, BUT ---- (think of all those lovely pics. of "warbirds" in Flightpath etc) I cannot take pictures OF an aircraft that does not have a standard category C.of A.
The specific alleged offence against CAR 206 was taking pics. of the HARS Connie from the back seat of an AT-28D --- a great camera ship, given the limiting IAS available with the canopy open. Both aircraft had Limited Cat. C.of As.
Just think of all those offences committed by visitors to airshow.
I simply do not understand the mind workings of somebody (in this case, an FOI) who thinks up such way out there waccy waccy interpretations, ( unless he/she is on the waccy baccy)much less a system that actually takes it further, to the degree of the threat in writing to proceed against me.
aspices juris non sunt jura
Tootle pip!!
I have this wonderful letter from CASA telling me that, not only can I not take photographs FROM an aircraft that does not have a standard category C.of A., and is operated on an AOC, BUT ---- (think of all those lovely pics. of "warbirds" in Flightpath etc) I cannot take pictures OF an aircraft that does not have a standard category C.of A.
The specific alleged offence against CAR 206 was taking pics. of the HARS Connie from the back seat of an AT-28D --- a great camera ship, given the limiting IAS available with the canopy open. Both aircraft had Limited Cat. C.of As.
Just think of all those offences committed by visitors to airshow.
I simply do not understand the mind workings of somebody (in this case, an FOI) who thinks up such way out there waccy waccy interpretations, ( unless he/she is on the waccy baccy)much less a system that actually takes it further, to the degree of the threat in writing to proceed against me.
aspices juris non sunt jura
Tootle pip!!
I have this wonderful letter from CASA telling me that, not only can I not take photographs FROM an aircraft that does not have a standard category C.of A., and is operated on an AOC, BUT ---- (think of all those lovely pics. of "warbirds" in Flightpath etc) I cannot take pictures OF an aircraft that does not have a standard category C.of A.
You do not have a letter from CASA telling you that.
Lead Balloon,
Suite yourself, the whole matter was, in my opinion, instigated by one W. McIntyre, with whom I would think you were well acquainted.
He and I had certain "doctrinal" differences, you may recall.
You may also recall his proposals for a "Private Operations AOC" ??
The said FOI no longer works for CASA.
Am I going to publish it for your benefit, no!
Tootle pip!!
Suite yourself, the whole matter was, in my opinion, instigated by one W. McIntyre, with whom I would think you were well acquainted.
He and I had certain "doctrinal" differences, you may recall.
You may also recall his proposals for a "Private Operations AOC" ??
The said FOI no longer works for CASA.
Am I going to publish it for your benefit, no!
Tootle pip!!
More bull****.
The only person who would benefit from the publication of the letter would be you, because you would thereby prove that what you said about the content is true, and completely embarrass me for calling BS.
If it's a letter written by an FOI in his or her capacity as an FOI, there can be no impediment to publication (other than that you might be shown to be bull****ting about its existence and content).
The only person who would benefit from the publication of the letter would be you, because you would thereby prove that what you said about the content is true, and completely embarrass me for calling BS.
If it's a letter written by an FOI in his or her capacity as an FOI, there can be no impediment to publication (other than that you might be shown to be bull****ting about its existence and content).