When is "Commercial" Commercial?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
OK when you read point 7 its clear
vii. the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes of trade;
So one has to wonder if I had already sold the goods to someone else, they now owned them. I then as a gesture of goodwill take them with me, when travelling via his town, and drop them off, for no freight charge, but as part of my trip to wherever and back......they were not my goods. I just dropped them off to a mate/customer on my way past.
Or...... travelling the bush on your pvt holiday, your plane breaks down and the LAME from a local town drops everything, fills his plane (pvt) with parts and comes to your rescue. He flies back, so you continue and a week or two later you get a bill for the call out. Now if he invoices you for labour....its all good, but what if he invoices you for a fuel pump!
J
vii. the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes of trade;
Or...... travelling the bush on your pvt holiday, your plane breaks down and the LAME from a local town drops everything, fills his plane (pvt) with parts and comes to your rescue. He flies back, so you continue and a week or two later you get a bill for the call out. Now if he invoices you for labour....its all good, but what if he invoices you for a fuel pump!
J
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australandnewzealandland
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basically it says it's not a pvt flight if goods carried on the plane are to be traded and are currently the property of the pilot, owner or hirer.
ie: you cant take things in a plane to a different place if you are going to trade/sell them.
ie: you cant take things in a plane to a different place if you are going to trade/sell them.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australandnewzealandland
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the first scenario where the item has already been sold and youre just being friendly and cool and taking it to them, I guess the court would be looking at things like market values of the items compared to what you paid and how closely the difference relates to the cost of the flight.
"I have spoken with CASA legal office and they advise..."
Now you're trying to cash in on Tipsy and my joke!!! 
OLC does not have the delegation to decide whether a prosecution is in the "public interest". The Act and CARs directs them to act in the event of a breach of the law.
"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."
I have been carting them around the countryside for 35+ years, as PIC of various aircraft."
Last edited by Torres; 31st Oct 2007 at 11:22.
So a bunch of LAME's I know own their own aircraft and contract themselves out.. ie fly themselves and their tools out to remote area's to fix break downs, once everything is fixed, they fly themselves back home etc.. Sure it would be nice for charter companies to pick up the flights, but if said individual owned his/her own plane and was a pvt pilot, surely this can't be illegal..
I really don't see what John Travolta has to do with this topic, but....
From the FAA Database he has....
Private Pilot certificate for
single and multi engine land aircraft
with instrument rating.
He has type ratings in
B707, B720, CE-500, G1159, HS-125 and LR-JET
Limitations on his certificate are
CE-500 VFR Only
B707 SIC priveleges only
That is from the FAA on their own website.
He also employs a professional crew to fly the aircraft when needed or when he prefers to be with his guests in the back.
From the FAA Database he has....
Private Pilot certificate for
single and multi engine land aircraft
with instrument rating.
He has type ratings in
B707, B720, CE-500, G1159, HS-125 and LR-JET
Limitations on his certificate are
CE-500 VFR Only
B707 SIC priveleges only
That is from the FAA on their own website.
He also employs a professional crew to fly the aircraft when needed or when he prefers to be with his guests in the back.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said earlier
Based on the discussion here since I posted the above, I see we can safely add that "the Industry" is just as confused as CASA is.
tipsy.........
forgive me for simply highlighting the complete shambles of thought associated with the "Categorisation of Operations" from within CASA itself.
Based on the discussion here since I posted the above, I see we can safely add that "the Industry" is just as confused as CASA is.
tipsy.........
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lasiorhinus:
Absolutely correct according to the regs, but we have all seen any number of "private category" flights over the years using PA31s/C208s/bizjets carrying more than 6 persons. How does Dick Smith using his C208, for example, qualify as a private operation when he could be carrying 8+ pax (regardless of who's contributing what)? According to the regs, Dick's flight under this scenario could not be a classed as private category operation and, if he proceeded with such a flight, he could potentially be in breach of the regs (as I currently interpret them).
The implication of CAR 2 (7) (D) (vi) as itcurrently stands is that, as a private pilot, I can't fly anything bigger (with a full pax load) than a BE58? If this is the case what is the point of any private pilot either owning a larger aircraft or seeking the associated type endorsement? How do the corporate high flyers get around in a Challenger 601, as a private operation, carrying more than 6 company employees?
I'd really like to know the answers to these questions from a qualified source.
If the 'group of mates' including the pilot exceeds six people, its not a private operation. Doesnt matter who pays what.
The implication of CAR 2 (7) (D) (vi) as itcurrently stands is that, as a private pilot, I can't fly anything bigger (with a full pax load) than a BE58? If this is the case what is the point of any private pilot either owning a larger aircraft or seeking the associated type endorsement? How do the corporate high flyers get around in a Challenger 601, as a private operation, carrying more than 6 company employees?
I'd really like to know the answers to these questions from a qualified source.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great - it's finally come to this. He wants the answers from a " QUALIFIED SOURCE"
So an answer from the 14 year old asking in R&N about whether or not an A330 being quieter than an A320 as it roars above his cubby house is using FLEX Thrust wouldn't be good enough for you then Mr " I want a qualified source on PPRuNe "
This party is over.
Qualified sources indeed!!!
So an answer from the 14 year old asking in R&N about whether or not an A330 being quieter than an A320 as it roars above his cubby house is using FLEX Thrust wouldn't be good enough for you then Mr " I want a qualified source on PPRuNe "
This party is over.
Qualified sources indeed!!!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QSK, licence category is irrelevant, it is the "Categorisation of Operations" being discussed here. I have a CPL and have conducted both commercial and private operations.
It is also irrelevant as to how many seats are in or occupied on an aircraft, specifically if there is no remuneration/cost share/contribution from any non crew occupants. I have been a guest on Dicks Citation and have never been asked or felt obliged, to contribute.
tipsy
It is also irrelevant as to how many seats are in or occupied on an aircraft, specifically if there is no remuneration/cost share/contribution from any non crew occupants. I have been a guest on Dicks Citation and have never been asked or felt obliged, to contribute.
tipsy
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tipsy2,
M20E is unfortunately correct. Not that long ago there was no restriction on the number of people. Hence rich people could buy their Caravans, Citations and even Chieftans and Navajos and cart their mates around free. Not anymore. Someone told me that the change was prompted by the GA8, which can carry eight and is well within the capability of the average PPL. Sorry, I can't remember who it was that told me, so I can't verify.
Walrus
M20E is unfortunately correct. Not that long ago there was no restriction on the number of people. Hence rich people could buy their Caravans, Citations and even Chieftans and Navajos and cart their mates around free. Not anymore. Someone told me that the change was prompted by the GA8, which can carry eight and is well within the capability of the average PPL. Sorry, I can't remember who it was that told me, so I can't verify.
Walrus
Thread Starter
I wish somebody in CASA would write regs in plain (plane?) english.
From what I can gather a reasonable person would have to assume that "Goods for Trade" would be defined as "goods for sale or exchange", because if it wasn't defined that way a Doctors taking his bag, or an engineer his calculator flying themselves to a workplace would be an offence....
In fact, it would make that famous aerial Pastor who flies around the Outback ministering to his flock a criminal if he took his Bible, if he didn't have a commercial licence.
From what I can gather a reasonable person would have to assume that "Goods for Trade" would be defined as "goods for sale or exchange", because if it wasn't defined that way a Doctors taking his bag, or an engineer his calculator flying themselves to a workplace would be an offence....
In fact, it would make that famous aerial Pastor who flies around the Outback ministering to his flock a criminal if he took his Bible, if he didn't have a commercial licence.