Promotion of cost-share private ops on Facebook etc

[TwoTango]

I'm wanting to get some opinions on something I've seen. As we all know, the CARs permit flights where the costs are shared equally between all aboard to be classed as private operations:

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, Part 1, Regulation 2
(7A) An aircraft that carries persons 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 costs of the flight; and
(e) no payment is required for a person on the flight other than a
payment under paragraph (d).

Recently I have seen a group on Facebook (a social networking site for those unfamiliar with it) which is promoting cost-sharing flights for the sake of building up multi-experience for the pilot. This is the blurb given on the group (I have removed some information to prevent indentifying the pilot, since this isn't really the place for that):

Come fly with me on a beautiful scenic flight over Sydney Harbour!
The flight will take-off from Bankstown Airport, continuing over Parramatta where we will turn right, heading straight for the coast. From there we will descend down to 1500ft where i'll receive clearance to enter the harbour which will unveil beneath us. Once orbits are complete we will descend down to 500ft over the northern beaches, flying over Avalon, Whale beach and Palm Beach...Bloody Fantastic!

Aircraft:
Twin engine, 4 seated (3 passengers), with a cruise speed of 300km/hr...Good Fun!

Equipment:
I will supply all my passengers with headsets for communication; this also will reduce the cost as you won't have to hire them.

Flight Duration:
1 hour to 1.5 hours

Cost:
-Share cost of $90 each for 3 passengers only...(with 3 friends lowers the costs, plus is more fun to share the experience)
- share cost of $120 each for 2 passengers
Compared to other sydney scenic flight which cost $225 each just for 20min flight time...this is great deal..as i will also be contributing to the cost of the flight.

Get into it guys as this will help me achieve my hours that i need to get to my goal, plus we can have heaps of fun...! Pass this opportunity on to your friends....and don't forget your camera! Thanks

My question is, by promoting his flights in such a manner, is the pilot violating the regulation quoted above, specifically paragraph (a)? Facebook requires you to become a member of the site before you can have access to any groups, however there is no restriction on who may join Facebook, and the group is able to be found by entering a fairly generic search, or by seeing it in any of your friend's profiles if they are a member of it. In my opinion, this would class it as a public announcement. Then again, paragraph (a) refers to "the flight", so by promoting his operation in general rather than a specific flight, does he remain within the bounds set by the regulations? In a nutshell, is what he is doing a violation of the regulations or not?

CARs aside, does anyone feel that by doing this, he is taking away work from legitimate operators and commercial pilots? Or do you think it is a fair thing to be doing, and not worth getting upset over?

[Islander Jock]

Tango Two,

Seems clearly in breach of sub para (a) to me.
I remember when I did my CPL flight test, one of the first questions the testing officer asked was "As a CPL, can you advertise yourself to take paying passengers in an aircraft".

In answer to your last question, maybe not taking away work from legit operators as the people he is attracting would perhaps not otherwise go on such a flight.

[Cap'n Arrr]

I asked CASA about this rule a while ago, and they explained that the way they interpret it is that it is designed so that those not operating under an AoC cannot take business away from legitimate businesses.

In this case:

Compared to other sydney scenic flight which cost $225 each just for 20min flight time...this is great deal..as i will also be contributing to the cost of the flight.

essentially says to me that he is SELLING this way to build his hours for minimal cost to himself as a cheaper alternative to the public than to go through a legitimate operator, and is therefore, whether that is his intent or not, trying to take business away from commercial businesses.

(a) public notice of the flight has not been given by any form of
public advertisement or announcement;

If this was just a comment to a friend saying "I'm going to HBB orbits this weekend, want to come?", then that would be ok, but this is being ADVERTISED/ANNOUNCED PUBLICALLY as a service to members of the general public, and thus IS ILLEGAL

Yarr!

[BrazDriver]

I agree with the previous statements. That is advertising without an AOC.

[morno]

Why doesn't he just get a job? There's plenty at the moment.

[ovum]

I did a similar sort of thing on two company intranets a few years ago (two major banks to be precise). Even though it was able to be accessed by thousands of employees from either bank, it was still not available to the public and therefore perfectly legit.

Facebook is totally public however, if anyone can create an account, sign in and view this message - then it's public.

It doesnt matter how CASA hope the regulation will be interpreted, or the 'spirit of the regulation' (cr@p I've heard before from CASA) when they wrote it. No court of law would say "oh well thats not what they meant when they wrote it". Look up the definition of public http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/public If the ad can't be accessed by any and every member of the public, then it's not a public advertisment is it?

[GUARD]

I reckon old mate multi-boy wants to watch himself on this one.

The Oxford Dictionary ( used by the courts I might say ) defines public as "adj. of, for, or known to people in general "

I think the intent of the legislation ( which is how it WILL be interpreted ) would envisage multi boy asking some family or work colleagues to share the cost of a harbour scenic and would specifically exclude him from making a PUBLIC announcement on Facebook.

Anyway, why put yourself through litigation with CASA just for the sake of 20 or 30 twin hours

GUARD

[*Lancer*]

Groups on facebook can be created as 'invite only', in which case it would not be considered public but more of a club. In this case though, it's an 'open group', meaning anyone can join without invitation.
I think CASA would probably still have to prove that flights were actually taking place as a direct result of the facebook blurb.
BUT, given that facebook is a social networking site, in theory what he is doing is no different to soliciting at the local aero club, or here!

[Peter Fanelli]

Ovum

Look up the definition of public http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/public If the ad can't be accessed by any and every member of the public, then it's not a public advertisment is it?

By publishing your ad on an intranet you made it "not private" and accessible to persons unknown to you. Being read by every member of the public is not a requirement for something to be public, or in public.

I also suggest that the people who had access to the intranets concerned being bank staff formed a community or common interest group as per definitions 11 and 12 of the website you cite.

In my opinion you broke the law, but that's just my opinion. You don't have to believe it.

[Icarus53]

the way they interpret it is that it is designed so that those not operating under an AoC cannot take business away from legitimate businesses

I would have thought that this is less about threat to certified businesses than it is about risk to the consumer. As the regulator, CASA has a responsibility to the travelling public to ensure a standard of flight proficiency and training, (as well as aircraft maintenance standards etc.) If the guy doesn't hold a CPL, then he presents a greater risk to a public person, who may or may not be aware of the degree of training this pilot has undergone.

Additionally, where is he getting the aircraft? If he is effectively doing charter operations using a aircraft operating under an AOC that does not specify charter ops, again he is circumventing the risk assessment process that would be applied if he were to do the same flight under an AOC. This has flow on consequences in terms of liability for insurance purposes if the aircraft owner/operator is not aware of what the pilot is actually doing.

Any legal types care to offer an opinion as to what would happen here in any civil case arising from injury sustained by a paying passenger???

Way too close to the sun for my liking,

Icarus

[StbdD]

I think one of the important terms here is "share". If he gets ramped he better have a receipt or two showing he paid into the kitty.

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.

[scrambler]

After about 5 mins of searching I found the "AD" in question, definately in the public domain, for certain an ad selling flights (whatever the cost or arrangement). Certainly would need an AOC for commercial operations.

[Reverseflowkeroburna]

Agreed, easily found on the facebook webbie and thus making for very ready 'public' perusal.

IMO it seems to be quite blatantly flouting sub-paragraph (a) and aimed directly at nabbing the business of legitimate operators/CPL holders.

If I was in SY trying to make a living from this mugs game, I'd have something to say about it!

[thrustmax]

So assuming that the post on Facebook is private and only visible to your friends that would be ok?

[VH-XXX]

So assuming that the post on Facebook is private and only visible to your friends that would be ok?

Can't see why not... they are your friends after all and it's not visible to the public. No different to emailing them. If you have 1,000 friends then it seems a little grey. It would be hard for anyone to truly know the answer to the Facebook scenario until it's been played out in a court of law.



How long or well do you have to know someone before you can take them flying and cost share and does it even matter? eg. I'm standing airside leaning over the fence at the Marree airport during wet season. A family of 3 drive up and I start talking to them and we hit it off... we all agree to share the cost of the flight equally and off we go as friends in my rented 172. Lucky for me as I couldn't afford to fly around the lake on my own.

[Kelly Slater]

He has calculated his costs based on what would appear to be him paying an equal share, assuming the aircraft hire is $360, so at least he is not profiteering. I do, however, see him cutting into the business of legitimate operators. I think that the intent of cost sharing is taking your mates for a fly, not your "Facebook Friends" but as far as his legal standing goes, I wouldn't venture to speculate

[sgenie]

I have a question wrt to the original one - what if the advertiser of the flight held CPL? Would it be legit then?

[Andy_RR]

His "advertisement" needs only subtle reworking to turn it away from an offer, to just a description of what he occasionally does with his mates from time to time and why he does it. Then it legally becomes nothing more than bragging about what he can do in his spare time, rather than soliciting for paying passengers.

Punters who are game will probably ask him if they can come along too sometime.

Job's a carrot!

[Ralis]

you cannot advertise full stop
the only way this is allowable is if the general public cannot see this post ie, is only allowed to be seen by "friends". (btw you have to be able to establish this fact)

Just remember "its not what you know its what you can prove in court"
if it sounds dodgy, it is........... and there is a reason why people don't do this.

[poonpossum]

If he gets ramped he better have a receipt or two showing he paid into the kitty.

There would be no requirement for this in a ramp check. It's not a required document for flight.