Commercial or Private Operation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commercial or Private Operation
I know this topic has been done to death before on PPrune but, after searching all previous threads on the subject, I can't seem to get an answer that relates to this particular scenario:
1. Company A, Company B and Company C have agreed to form a business alliance to collaboratively undertake a number of projects in regional Australia.
2. Due to the remoteness of some of the locations, it is considered using scheduled services is not a feasible option as the team will require flexibility to travel on an "on demand" basis and the cost of using scheduled services would also be prohibitively expensive and significantly extend the project schedule.
3. The three companies are considering hiring an aircraft to transport members of the various companies between the various project locations. It is intended that one of the project members from Company C who holds a PPL with MECIR will pilot the aircraft. All 3 companies have agreed to share equally in the cost of the aircraft operation.
The question is: Is this considered to be a commercial or private operation and can it be legally flown by a PPL in a hired aircraft?
Advice from PPruners would be most welcome!
1. Company A, Company B and Company C have agreed to form a business alliance to collaboratively undertake a number of projects in regional Australia.
2. Due to the remoteness of some of the locations, it is considered using scheduled services is not a feasible option as the team will require flexibility to travel on an "on demand" basis and the cost of using scheduled services would also be prohibitively expensive and significantly extend the project schedule.
3. The three companies are considering hiring an aircraft to transport members of the various companies between the various project locations. It is intended that one of the project members from Company C who holds a PPL with MECIR will pilot the aircraft. All 3 companies have agreed to share equally in the cost of the aircraft operation.
The question is: Is this considered to be a commercial or private operation and can it be legally flown by a PPL in a hired aircraft?
Advice from PPruners would be most welcome!
My two bob's worth.
No! Not if Companies A, B and C are paying for it.
If PPL/MECIR guy was employed by Company A and the flying involved Company A only then, yes - it can be done by a private pilot as a private operation, using a hired aircraft. I have done this for many years. Although I hold a CPL, I am not employed as a pilot, my company does not have an AOC, and the flying is all done as private ops.
Dr
No! Not if Companies A, B and C are paying for it.
If PPL/MECIR guy was employed by Company A and the flying involved Company A only then, yes - it can be done by a private pilot as a private operation, using a hired aircraft. I have done this for many years. Although I hold a CPL, I am not employed as a pilot, my company does not have an AOC, and the flying is all done as private ops.
Dr
Guest
Posts: n/a
As I have Bob Tait's Air Law book infront of me, there's a practice question with similar circumstances - classified as private.
CAR Part 1, 7 d
(7)For the purposes of these regulations:
(7)For the purposes of these regulations:
(a) an aircraft that is flying or operating for a commercial purpose referred to in paragraph 206 (1) (a) shall be taken to be employed in aerial work operations;(b) an aircraft that is flying or operating for a commercial purpose referred to in paragraph 206 (1) (b) shall be taken to be employed in charter operations;
(c) an aircraft that is flying or operating for the commercial purpose referred to in paragraph 206 (1) (c) shall be taken to be employed in regular public transport operations; and
(d) an aircraft that is flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of:
(c) an aircraft that is flying or operating for the commercial purpose referred to in paragraph 206 (1) (c) shall be taken to be employed in regular public transport operations; and
(d) an aircraft that is flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of:
(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;
(va) the carriage of persons in accordance with subregulation (7A);
(vi) the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes of trade;
(vii) conversion training for the purpose of endorsement of an additional type or category of aircraft in a pilot licence; or
(viii) any other activity of a kind substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vi) (inclusive);
shall be taken to be employed in private operations.(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;
(va) the carriage of persons in accordance with subregulation (7A);
(vi) the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes of trade;
(vii) conversion training for the purpose of endorsement of an additional type or category of aircraft in a pilot licence; or
(viii) any other activity of a kind substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vi) (inclusive);
But would an employee of one of these companies feel safe flying with a PPL in a rented aircraft? I know that I would only feel safe with a professional pilot rather than an amateur.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Well I will disagree with the Dr on this one.
If I take myself and an employee to say St George, and I am paying for my own plane, or hiring one from the local school, its a private flight.
If our subbie sparky comes along and shares some costs, its still a privte flight. So if there are three seperate parties sharing costs, its still not a commercial operation. They are not running charters and carrying people or goods for profit.
Ready to be shot down in flames here.
J
Ascend charlie....what sort of idiotic comment is that......I can show you a guy who at present flies on a PPL.....who I might add I would rather fly with than YOU....and right now I have no idea of your qualifications. Just so happens that all his other ratings etc are lapsed..........and there would be thousands out there in a similar boat.
If I take myself and an employee to say St George, and I am paying for my own plane, or hiring one from the local school, its a private flight.
If our subbie sparky comes along and shares some costs, its still a privte flight. So if there are three seperate parties sharing costs, its still not a commercial operation. They are not running charters and carrying people or goods for profit.
Ready to be shot down in flames here.
J
Ascend charlie....what sort of idiotic comment is that......I can show you a guy who at present flies on a PPL.....who I might add I would rather fly with than YOU....and right now I have no idea of your qualifications. Just so happens that all his other ratings etc are lapsed..........and there would be thousands out there in a similar boat.
Moderator
CAR 206.
Aerial Work.
CPL and AOC required.
Some years ago a PPL, in his own aircraft, photographed properties in Queensland. He subsequently sold some of the photographs.
CASA swooped and the matter went to Court.
The Court found the flight was in the course of or for the purposes of trade and conducted without an Aerial Work AOC.
But they can not conduct their business and/or trade (and thus presumably make a profit) unless the three companies "charter" or otherwise use or operate an aircraft.
A number of years ago, Stock and Station Agents, country vets and flying mechanics were all considered fair game by DCA/CASA for operating without an Aerial Work AOC.
Aerial Work.
CPL and AOC required.
Some years ago a PPL, in his own aircraft, photographed properties in Queensland. He subsequently sold some of the photographs.
CASA swooped and the matter went to Court.
The Court found the flight was in the course of or for the purposes of trade and conducted without an Aerial Work AOC.
They are not running charters and carrying people or goods for profit.
A number of years ago, Stock and Station Agents, country vets and flying mechanics were all considered fair game by DCA/CASA for operating without an Aerial Work AOC.
Whispering "T" Jet
So if there are three seperate parties sharing costs, its still not a commercial operation. They are not running charters and carrying people or goods for profit.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Private ops
I agree with Jabawocky,
The important thing here is that because the pilot is part of the company and he is at work whilst flying the plane, he is technically carrying out pilotage duties for reward. So to keep it a private operation, the pilot would have to have a CPL or share in the cost of the aircraft being the pilot in command. I used to work in a situation like this and we had no AOC and never had any dramas from CASA.
Maloo
The important thing here is that because the pilot is part of the company and he is at work whilst flying the plane, he is technically carrying out pilotage duties for reward. So to keep it a private operation, the pilot would have to have a CPL or share in the cost of the aircraft being the pilot in command. I used to work in a situation like this and we had no AOC and never had any dramas from CASA.
Maloo
Whispering "T" Jet
The Court found the flight was in the course of or for the purposes of trade and conducted without an Aerial Work AOC.
I would have appealed!
They did - and lost. It is a well known case from the 1990s.
Tail Wheel
Moderator
I used to work in a situation like this and we had no AOC and never had any dramas from CASA.
Until there is an accident or incident, CASA gets involved and the insurance company decides it doesn't want to pay...........
From 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:
(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).
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).
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't back the following up with any legal reference or precedent apart from the above - but my opinion is that it isn't a private operation. My reason is simply this - every bit of law regarding cost-sharing (including (d) above) states that the costs must be shared equally between the persons on the flight. Not the companies employing them.
That is, I've always read the cost-sharing thing as "each person present in the aircraft must fork out of their own pocket equally for it to be a private operation". It seems inconsequential to me whether 3 companies are equally sharing costs - this doesn't seem to be covered by the cost-sharing rule - and they're flying for professional duties, and no doubt getting paid for it. And if none of the 3 persons on the flight aren't out of pocket at all after the flight - then by definition some other person(s) (who aren't on the aircraft) have picked up the tab for the hired aircraft - so it isn't a private flight.
That is, I've always read the cost-sharing thing as "each person present in the aircraft must fork out of their own pocket equally for it to be a private operation". It seems inconsequential to me whether 3 companies are equally sharing costs - this doesn't seem to be covered by the cost-sharing rule - and they're flying for professional duties, and no doubt getting paid for it. And if none of the 3 persons on the flight aren't out of pocket at all after the flight - then by definition some other person(s) (who aren't on the aircraft) have picked up the tab for the hired aircraft - so it isn't a private flight.
Moderator
Keep in mind that if the limit were 6 POB, all contributing to cost, there would be no corporate jets larger than a Cessna 206!
Too late in the day to think about it, but a private corporate jet with far greater than 6 seats, may be operated without an AOC and could, theiretically, be piloted by a PPL, subject to holding an appropriate type rating if over 5,700 kg.
Too late in the day to think about it, but a private corporate jet with far greater than 6 seats, may be operated without an AOC and could, theiretically, be piloted by a PPL, subject to holding an appropriate type rating if over 5,700 kg.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tail Wheel, nowhere in Reguation 206 regarding air work does it mention the situation you used in your example. It's not Air work.
The problem with the example you gave (aerial photography) is that the photos were sold. You can take your boss up to take photos of his house, while you're on the clock....still a private operation. But if those photos are taken to make money, it becomes air work.
If all on board, pilot and pax are getting paid for their time, it's still private.
As for the flight needing to be cost shared between the 'persons' and not the 'companies', that doesn't matter. The companies are either hiring the aircraft, or own the aircraft. Either way, the law looks upon it the same.
The problem with the example you gave (aerial photography) is that the photos were sold. You can take your boss up to take photos of his house, while you're on the clock....still a private operation. But if those photos are taken to make money, it becomes air work.
If all on board, pilot and pax are getting paid for their time, it's still private.
As for the flight needing to be cost shared between the 'persons' and not the 'companies', that doesn't matter. The companies are either hiring the aircraft, or own the aircraft. Either way, the law looks upon it the same.
Yeah, but who private hires a corporate jet under cost sharing?
If the company owns the jet, they are transferring their own staff/property and section 7A doesn't apply.
Rules be rules.
If the company owns the jet, they are transferring their own staff/property and section 7A doesn't apply.
Rules be rules.
When you live....
It's private - but with a caveat related to the 'carrying on a business' which I remember from ATPL.
As long as the purpose the flight is only to transport people from A to B then you're not carrying on a business.
If, however, a salesman takes samples or other such things with him or IIRC a tradesman takes tools with him (not sure about the tools one but definately the samples one) then the flight is for carrying on business and so Aerial work.
Stupidity personified if you ask me!
On the the 'other' issue - Company A should be careful that it is insured for when the pilot injures (or worse) Company B or C's employees (or even it's own and Workcover gets involved).
UTR
As long as the purpose the flight is only to transport people from A to B then you're not carrying on a business.
If, however, a salesman takes samples or other such things with him or IIRC a tradesman takes tools with him (not sure about the tools one but definately the samples one) then the flight is for carrying on business and so Aerial work.
Stupidity personified if you ask me!
On the the 'other' issue - Company A should be careful that it is insured for when the pilot injures (or worse) Company B or C's employees (or even it's own and Workcover gets involved).
UTR
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the flight needing to be cost shared between the 'persons' and not the 'companies', that doesn't matter. The companies are either hiring the aircraft, or own the aircraft. Either way, the law looks upon it the same.
What if I have a PPL, 3 guys I've never met before from Company X want to fly to ABC for work, and I agree to fly them there and absorb 25% of the hire costs myself? Same thing - essentially a charter operation, but legally can be flown as a private op, as it's for transport only (no goods carried), the costs are shared equally and I receive no money or benefit from the flight?
If, however, a salesman takes samples or other such things with him or IIRC a tradesman takes tools with him (not sure about the tools one but definately the samples one) then the flight is for carrying on business and so Aerial work.