PPL scenic flights and advertising
The courts are full of people who thought they had a sure fire way of getting around laws and regulations, whether it be aviation, tax, criminal, or corporate, but yet there they sit, defending their decisions with a very expensive lawyer (or four!) defending their interpretation.
Unless you have the money to fight your interpretation, don't tempt fate.
If I were you I'd just go out and buy a brand new aircraft or better still get your CPL, because doing both would probably be cheaper than defending your stupidity in court.
Nuf Said.
Unless you have the money to fight your interpretation, don't tempt fate.
If I were you I'd just go out and buy a brand new aircraft or better still get your CPL, because doing both would probably be cheaper than defending your stupidity in court.
Nuf Said.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about the flight centre????
The regs seem to say that NO ONE can advertise or sell flights, or seats on flights without an AOC.
But we have companies that do that as a business. Do they have AOC's?
But we have companies that do that as a business. Do they have AOC's?
Hey bushy!
Sorry if i missed the sarcasm in your post but offices like Flight Centre are simply agents for companies that do hold AOC's. Therefore i can not see why they could not advertise legally.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wherever the hotel drink ticket is valid
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to the effect that a person is willing to undertake by use of an Australian aircraft any commercial operations
Done. Next!
OK Then Blue Sky. Here is a suggestion, go back and read all of the other posts VERY VERY SLOWLY. That way you might understand them.
Don't do it, you'll get yourself into more trouble than it's worth. If not from CASA then from the lawyers in the ensuing court case if something f*cks up. And if you're doing the wrong thing, murphy is only too happy to step in and give you a nudge down that slippery slope.
If you really can't afford the flying, go ultralight or RA. If you're just trying to feel like a commercial pilot...grow up.
j3
Don't do it, you'll get yourself into more trouble than it's worth. If not from CASA then from the lawyers in the ensuing court case if something f*cks up. And if you're doing the wrong thing, murphy is only too happy to step in and give you a nudge down that slippery slope.
If you really can't afford the flying, go ultralight or RA. If you're just trying to feel like a commercial pilot...grow up.
j3
Last edited by j3pipercub; 13th Sep 2008 at 06:00. Reason: to, too or two, I can never decide
BLUESKY.
I was never saying that commercial was cost sharing.
The original poster said this:
"Could I theoretically charge what I have calculated the total cost of operation to be, i.e. actual fuel & oil plus share of expected maintenance (hourly engine reserve, 100 hourly, incidentals based on experience)? Would CASA accept my calculations if they weren't obviously blown out of proportion?"
And the most critical phrase in that passage is "charge what I have calculated the total cost of operation to be"
That in my interpretation is not cost sharing, that is charging for the TOTAL COST of the operation. That IS COMMERCIAL. If it was a 172, with three passengers (that the pilot is friends with) and the pilot charged each of the pax one quarter of the cost, then that may be cost sharing. WHAT IS BEING SUGGESTED IS NOT.
Oh and just on the side Bluesky, you may have "run more aviation cases than I have hours in the air" as your PM suggested, but i highly doubt it. And if you want me to show you "a little civility" then why come back with the condescending tone you did? It just doesn't make any sense.
j3
I was never saying that commercial was cost sharing.
The original poster said this:
"Could I theoretically charge what I have calculated the total cost of operation to be, i.e. actual fuel & oil plus share of expected maintenance (hourly engine reserve, 100 hourly, incidentals based on experience)? Would CASA accept my calculations if they weren't obviously blown out of proportion?"
And the most critical phrase in that passage is "charge what I have calculated the total cost of operation to be"
That in my interpretation is not cost sharing, that is charging for the TOTAL COST of the operation. That IS COMMERCIAL. If it was a 172, with three passengers (that the pilot is friends with) and the pilot charged each of the pax one quarter of the cost, then that may be cost sharing. WHAT IS BEING SUGGESTED IS NOT.
Oh and just on the side Bluesky, you may have "run more aviation cases than I have hours in the air" as your PM suggested, but i highly doubt it. And if you want me to show you "a little civility" then why come back with the condescending tone you did? It just doesn't make any sense.
j3
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: australia
Age: 66
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BLUESKY.
I was never saying that commercial was cost sharing.
The original poster said this:
"Could I theoretically charge what I have calculated the total cost of operation to be, i.e. actual fuel & oil plus share of expected maintenance (hourly engine reserve, 100 hourly, incidentals based on experience)? Would CASA accept my calculations if they weren't obviously blown out of proportion?"
And the most critical phrase in that passage is "charge what I have calculated the total cost of operation to be"
That in my interpretation is not cost sharing, that is charging for the TOTAL COST of the operation. That IS COMMERCIAL. If it was a 172, with three passengers (that the pilot is friends with) and the pilot charged each of the pax one quarter of the cost, then that may be cost sharing. WHAT IS BEING SUGGESTED IS NOT.
I was never saying that commercial was cost sharing.
The original poster said this:
"Could I theoretically charge what I have calculated the total cost of operation to be, i.e. actual fuel & oil plus share of expected maintenance (hourly engine reserve, 100 hourly, incidentals based on experience)? Would CASA accept my calculations if they weren't obviously blown out of proportion?"
And the most critical phrase in that passage is "charge what I have calculated the total cost of operation to be"
That in my interpretation is not cost sharing, that is charging for the TOTAL COST of the operation. That IS COMMERCIAL. If it was a 172, with three passengers (that the pilot is friends with) and the pilot charged each of the pax one quarter of the cost, then that may be cost sharing. WHAT IS BEING SUGGESTED IS NOT.
I think he was wondering whether he could include a proportion of the fixed costs as well as the actual running cost of the flight.
IMHO the answer would be 'yes', if those costs could be properly substantiated. These costs would obviously be included if you wet hired an aircraft, and I think that if you hired an aircraft and charged all on board an equal proportion of the hire cost then that would be fine.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the interpretation section of the Regs, at 7A, it says that cost sharing is ok if public notice of the flight has not been given in any form. So that is not a grey area.
What might be grey is whether your stated aim of filling the seats to help defray your hour-building costs is for "hire or reward" (CAR 206) (assuming you did not advertise in any way). I suspect you would run into trouble since "reward", in the context of the Act and its intention, would probably be interpreted broadly enough to capture what you propose. The link to Austlii did not work for me, so I have not read the case referred to.
When you think about it, why should somone responding to your ad in the supermarket not be entitled to the protection of the Commercial rules (and standards) just because you say you were only sharing costs?
What might be grey is whether your stated aim of filling the seats to help defray your hour-building costs is for "hire or reward" (CAR 206) (assuming you did not advertise in any way). I suspect you would run into trouble since "reward", in the context of the Act and its intention, would probably be interpreted broadly enough to capture what you propose. The link to Austlii did not work for me, so I have not read the case referred to.
When you think about it, why should somone responding to your ad in the supermarket not be entitled to the protection of the Commercial rules (and standards) just because you say you were only sharing costs?
Last edited by Wan; 13th Sep 2008 at 11:55.
"Could I theoretically charge what I have calculated the total cost of operation to be, i.e. actual fuel & oil plus share of expected maintenance (hourly engine reserve, 100 hourly, incidentals based on experience)? Would CASA accept my calculations if they weren't obviously blown out of proportion?"
That is clearly cost sharing, if it is split equally amongst the passengers.
Thanks Wan, Reg 7A is the answer to the original poster. Deemed not to be private if public notice given.
That is clearly cost sharing, if it is split equally amongst the passengers.
Thanks Wan, Reg 7A is the answer to the original poster. Deemed not to be private if public notice given.
