When is "Commercial" Commercial?

[tipsy2]

What is the safety implication of having a few tools on the back seat?

None of course provided they are adequately restrained and not CASA tools

The 'tools' argument has been quoted to me as to also include, a laptop used for business, a mobile phone used for business and even a pen used to write business cheques.

But it is legal/OK for a PPL to drive a parachute drop aircraft.

Torres is of course correct, forgive me for simply highlighting the complete shambles of thought associated with the "Categorisation of Operations" from within CASA itself.

tipsyfurball

[Islander Jock]

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 2

Interpretation

(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).

Surely if all the above crteria of (a) thru (e) are satisfied, the operation is definately private?

GADRIVR, what other specific regs and/or orders are you referring to?

Torres, the case of the PPL holder taking up the photographer as we all know (or should) is airwork and therefore a commercial op. It would be an interesting argument though if the PPL holder was not made aware prior to the flight that the photos were going to be used for commercial purposes rather just some happy snaps being taken.

I am not convinced that Sunfish's scenario could be considered commercial (provided he paid 50% of the costs) although as mentioned by Torres, a berieved family would possibly try it on.

[VH-Cheer Up]

What is the safety implication of having a few tools on the back seat?

Ask any CC about that when they're operating the last flight home or the return trip after a footy game.

Nobody likes the tools that sit in the back row.

[Lasiorhinus]

Originally Posted by QSK?

Raises an interesting issue for pilots flying a whole group of mates on a fishing trip in a PA31 as a private flight.

Not at all.

CAR 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:
(b) the number of persons on the flight, including the operating crew, does not exceed 6; and

If the 'group of mates' including the pilot exceeds six people, its not a private operation. Doesnt matter who pays what.

[Torres]

IJ. In the instance I mentioned, the PPL pilot was also the photographer - 1 pob. His intention was to sell the photographs.

In years gone by I have heard of DCA/CAA prohibiting Vets, motor mechanics and stock and station agents from using private aircraft in the conduct of their business as the operation would be in the aerial work category.

In the scenario outlined by Sunfish, I was not thinking of CASA's reaction, rather the reaction of bereaved relatives when they discover their dearly departed paid for the flight. I guess if the 50% - 50% financial arrangement were documented, Sunfish's estate has a modicum of protection against any subsequent claim.

Tipsy. Don't mention parachute operations by PPLs.

Maximum 6 POB eh? So how does, for example, John Travolta operate his B707 within Australia; the B707 ferry flight from the UK that ended in Longreach; the Queensland Premier's executive jet; certain State police forces and a number of Cessna Caravans operate in private category, with no AOC?

[Lasiorhinus]

M20E,

Its nothing to do with safety. The regulation prohibiting carriage of goods for trade on a private flight comes from the CARs, not the CASRs.

If you can get your tools to the destination by means unrelated to aviation, good on you - and the Civil Aviation Regulations don't apply. But if you aviate your tools up there for the purposes of trade, then you need to ensure compliance with the CARs.

Whether it sounds logical or not, its not permitted under the category of a private flight.

[tipsy2]

So, using the explanation above by Lasiorhinus it would seem as though the previously mentioned trip by Ned Kelly and his gang to Jerilderie and return did constitute a 'commercial' operation. All because they carried their tools of trade (pistols) on the aircraft with the intent to conduct their normal business (bank robbing).

OK Torres I wont mention parachute operations by PPL's as you request

I must say I am having a real difficulty with notion that CASA can in anyway see it is within their sphere of responsibility, the time I spend not involved in preparation for or the conduct of, flight.

tipsyfurball

[telephonenumber]

>>Maximum 6 POB eh? So how does, for example, John Travolta operate his B707 within Australia; the B707 ferry flight from the UK that ended in Longreach; the Queensland Premier's executive jet; certain State police forces and a number of Cessna Caravans operate in private category, with no AOC?<<
I gather the 6 POB arose to block a loophole whereby some company was flying Metros around with large passenger loads and, based on a cost share, declared the flights private. No AOC required etc.
So, as I understand it the trap only snaps shut if you want to cost share with loads over 6 POB. You can fly a 747 with 300 POB as a private flight as long as you don't ask the pax to cost share.
In other words, costs sharing cannot involve more than 6 POB.
I know it doesn't really read that way, you have to read all the paras in sequence to make any sense of it.

[havick]

Do you think they would even bother prosecuting someone who flies their own plane upto a job? I think not, CASA hasn't bothered prosecuting some of the foolishness that goes on by AOC holders.. I can't see them trying to follow something through as trivial as this.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Pvt Flt?

How say you if........

You, as a PVT Pilot, arrange to hire the acft to fly to Woop Woop return, 2 POB or 3, or 4.... and on safe return, you pay for the trip at the counter.

Then, later, you and your friend(s) adjourn to the favourite bar where you sort out the differences......

Seemed to work Ok in 'dem good ole days'......

No accident - so no 'litigation risk' - you all got back safely.
Big Bingle! - PVT flight to all concerned, so no litigation / risk to the family home etc.

(You DO have to trust your friends...)

[Hypo]

Lasiorhinus
You are correct CAR2(7)(d) and CAR206(Act,s27(9))both define the carriage of goods.
CAR2(7)(d)(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 hirer of the aircraft." shall be taken to be employed in private operations.
Does this mean that I could take a friend for no charge on a flight and he could take goods with him for the purposes of trade?(he is neither the pilot ,owner nor hirer)

Are not the CAR's designed to regulate the safe operation of aircraft ,if not what is the purpose of the CAR's

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

M20E

"I am a private pilot and own my own aircraft .
I also import small inspection tools for industry.
I am prevented from taking some of these tools with me to sell when I travel to remote towns as carrying goods for the purpose of trade is deemed to be a commercial flight however I can take salesmen with me and pick up tools from local freight depot and then sell them . OK private flight."

I don't think you have this right. It would never occur to me that what you describe above is a commercial operation.

You have used your own aircraft to transport yourself and goods that you own from point A to point B.

What you may do with the goods once you arrive at point B is none of CASAs business.

Dr

[WannaBeBiggles]

....Of course if we failed to return, how would the court know of the arrangement? But I suppose a file note by me would be sufficient

Actually you'll find that most personal insurance policies are null and void if death or injury occures on a flight other than an RPT flight...

John Travolta operate his B707 within Australia

I believe JT has an ATPL...

I know of a lot of people that use their a/c as a business vehicle and I think as long as the person does not charge for the flight then there really isn't a problem.

I know of at least two people that use a/c that are capable of carrying more than 6pax, namely a PA31 and a PC12... Never asked what the loop hole was.

[Hypo]

Havick,
I have spoken with CASA legal office and they advise that my taking of goods for the purpose of trade would be in breach of the regulation however as you suggest they advise that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute however they advised that in the event of a accident my insurer may refuse a claim as many insurance policies can refuse a claim if an illegal act is being committed.
Any lawyer PPRUNER's care to comment?

[havick]

M20E, I'm not suggesting that you go an bust any rules.. But how would anyone know what the purpose of your trip was if you spear in?

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

This is complete drivel that would never stand up in a court of law.

Cretins Against Safe Aviation are self pleasuring again!

My "tools of trade" are my brain cells (hard to believe, I know, but true none-the-less)!

I have been carting them around the countryside for 35+ years, as PIC of various aircraft.

When I arrive at my destination, I generally put them to work for a period, then quite often reward them by killing a bunch off with alcohol. I guess I will eventually run out - but what the @#$%!

Dr

[Jabawocky]

Tools of trade........

Lets think about this for a moment, say you are a lawyer....or Dr or engineer and you make the mistake of taking your brain with you......and then you use it as a tool of trade

I might need to read the regs closer, but if you use your own plane for work just as you would your own car, how is that not pvt ops.

J

[Hypo]

Havick,
I leave home and fly to town "A" sell some goods then fly on to town"B" and bend the plane but survive. Authorities inspect the plane and discover invoices for goods. Reasonable assumption they can conclude that I was busting the regs?

[Hypo]

FTDK & Jabawocky,
It is not actually "tools of trade" but "goods" for the purpose of trade so if the aforementioned Dr or Lawyer doesnt actually sell part of his brain he is probally OK

[Jabawocky]

Here ya go regarding goods carried....

PRIVATE OPERATIONS CAR 2 (7) (D)

The following are regarded as private operations:
i. the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft;
ii. aerial spotting where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner
of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the spotting
is conducted;
iii. agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the
aircraft;
iv. aerial photography where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the
owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the
photography is conducted;
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;
vi. the carriage of persons, but not in accordance with a fixed schedule

between terminals, provided that:

• public notice of the flight has not been given by any form of public
advertisement or announcement; and
• the number of persons on the flight, including the operating crew,
does not exceed 6; and
• no payment is made for the services of the operating crew; and
• the persons on the flight, including the operating crew, share equally
in the costs of the flight; and
• no payment is required for a person on the flight other than a the
cost sharing payment above;
vii. the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes of trade;
viii. conversion training for the purpose of endorsement of an additional
type or category of aircraft in a pilot licence; or
ix. any other activity of a kind substantially similar to any of those specified in

subparagraphs (i) to (viii) (inclusive).

Any lawyers care to commennt and decode section 5

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;