classification regulation of closed charter CAR 206
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
classification regulation of closed charter CAR 206
Have people seen this Regultory Policy document?
It is a bit strange CASA are looking at this now after all this time and P135 is probably a year or two away
It is a bit strange CASA are looking at this now after all this time and P135 is probably a year or two away
Moderator
Link to the document? 
This latest outburst from CASA may have been triggered by a recent legal challenge to a 'show cause' notice that they issued on a certain now-defunct operator. CASA was right, the operator was wrong but it seems they need to justify their action anyway.
It has always been a nonsense that lower safety standards could be applied to charter. If an operator takes money via any source to cart live human flesh, the standards applied to reasonably ensure that the flesh remains alive for the duration of the flight should be the same no matter whose money was taken. Whether it's a schedule, advertised or not, to fixed terminals, once an hour or once a year, if money is exchanged to move a citizen, it is public transport. The only moot point then is the insertion of 'regular' into RPT. Xmas comes once a year, so that is 'regular' too....
In fact because of its very ad hoc nature, charter is actually more demanding than RPT and if a double standard is to be applied, it is charter that should require the better prepared and trained crews.
The sooner we ditch all the confusing layers of CARs, CAOs, CAAPs etc and just have understandable regulations similar to what the Yanks have had for 40 years, the better.
It has always been a nonsense that lower safety standards could be applied to charter. If an operator takes money via any source to cart live human flesh, the standards applied to reasonably ensure that the flesh remains alive for the duration of the flight should be the same no matter whose money was taken. Whether it's a schedule, advertised or not, to fixed terminals, once an hour or once a year, if money is exchanged to move a citizen, it is public transport. The only moot point then is the insertion of 'regular' into RPT. Xmas comes once a year, so that is 'regular' too....
In fact because of its very ad hoc nature, charter is actually more demanding than RPT and if a double standard is to be applied, it is charter that should require the better prepared and trained crews.
The sooner we ditch all the confusing layers of CARs, CAOs, CAAPs etc and just have understandable regulations similar to what the Yanks have had for 40 years, the better.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queensland Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not wishing to re-open the Regulatory Reform thread but that is what the proposed Part 135 was to address. Seems to have gone very quiet again!. Crazy situation where for example, in the Torres Straits, where Charter operators are parallel flying an RPT operator. Same routes every day but booked through a supposedly third party. Charter operation is significantly less expensive to operate with Class B maintenance, doesn't have to meet the same pilot proficiency standards, record keeping or IFR flght notification. The Reform program appears dead in the water again.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get real guys. There aren't too many start-up Jumbo-jet Airlines. Small companies have to grow before they become big. Even Qantas and Sunstate started small with fewer regulations as charter companies. But I do admit the punters carried expect bracket creep for their rights and compensation in an unlikely event. They might say they are aware they are on a charter aircraft when they want to go now, cheaply, but they would holler loud and long later, and "expect" Airline style compensation if it all didn't work out as planned. Still, the small shouldn't be saddled with ALL the requirements of the large, or there will never be any growth and stability. There is a place for diversity.
Moderator
That used to be call an ANR203 Exemption pre 1988. Some Reg 203 air services even attracted Government subsidies through the RASS scheme. Sunnies, Eastern, Kendal and Hazos were all originally Reg 203 services.
Problem is that it was the perfect solution to appropriate and viable rural community air services - so CASA removed it from the post 1988 CARs, leaving a meaningless CAR206.
As a result over 100 rural communities across Australia lost their air services, so I guess CASA achieved their goal!
I don't believe any rural community expects anything more than a safe, reliable and appropriate air service, which most communities have now lost.
Problem is that it was the perfect solution to appropriate and viable rural community air services - so CASA removed it from the post 1988 CARs, leaving a meaningless CAR206.
As a result over 100 rural communities across Australia lost their air services, so I guess CASA achieved their goal!
I don't believe any rural community expects anything more than a safe, reliable and appropriate air service, which most communities have now lost.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And to my way of thinking, having been there and helped pioneer some services, - for the nation, thats a loss. Crikey, if you radioed ahead, sometimes the 727 would hold for a few minutes for a tarmac transfer of the passengers off a Reg 203 VFR commuter because they appreciated the extra business too. Wouldn't happen now for a host of reasons, but something about "service" has been lost.
Last edited by frigatebird; 22nd Aug 2009 at 06:58.
Folks,
A little more about ANR 203 exemptions ---- when a large proportion of the ANRs were repealed, including 203, with the establishment of the CAA Act 1988, it was all very rushed, there was intended to be a ANR 203 replacement regulation to complement the new CAR 206, to cover all the quasi-"regular/scheduled" services, particularly the mail runs in remote Australia.
As so often happens, this was never completed.
In the reforms of the late 1990s, it was intended that a Part 135 would include a provision for "scheduled air taxi", in aircraft less then 10 seats, as per the then FAA Part 135.
The existing Regional Airlines Association howled down the proposal.
After a big meeting in Sydney, one of the smarter of the then operators remarked that he thought they had all collectively shot themselves in the foot, demanding "higher standards in the name of safety", when what they really meant was that the supposed higher standard was a way of keeping competition out.
Wind the clock forward to the era of Mick Toller, and "all of a sudden", all the mail runs up the Cape, in WA etc. were "discovered" by CASA HO, and "low and behold", they were all decreed as RPT without a license, and show cause notices showered from the heavens.
Then we wound up with a new mishmash of "rules" for a quasi-RPT in small aircraft, but still without proper legislative definition, ie; What should have been completed 15 years before.
In all the nonsense that went on in the early '90s, rural, regional and remote Australia was shafted again.
The Lulu was the Draft Part 21B, which (amongst reams of total nonsense) would have prohibited ANY public transport operation ( charter and RPT) on any airfield that was not licensed and big enough to take a -8, which, for example, left a total of 14 places in the whole of Queensland, where you could conduct any form of "air transport", even in a C 206 etc.
So, years more pass buy, still no Part 91/125/125 etc., and we are still living with the incomplete changes of 1988, and the establishment of the CAA. When what we had in 1964 worked perfectly well.
We certainly can't be accused of rushing reform in aviation in Australia, and it is the bush that always suffers the most.
All very sad. For any of you who might be in the firing line of the new policy, it is a policy, it is not law, but if you want to challenge it, the number of lawyers competent to mount such a challenge is very small.
Tootle pip!!
A little more about ANR 203 exemptions ---- when a large proportion of the ANRs were repealed, including 203, with the establishment of the CAA Act 1988, it was all very rushed, there was intended to be a ANR 203 replacement regulation to complement the new CAR 206, to cover all the quasi-"regular/scheduled" services, particularly the mail runs in remote Australia.
As so often happens, this was never completed.
In the reforms of the late 1990s, it was intended that a Part 135 would include a provision for "scheduled air taxi", in aircraft less then 10 seats, as per the then FAA Part 135.
The existing Regional Airlines Association howled down the proposal.
After a big meeting in Sydney, one of the smarter of the then operators remarked that he thought they had all collectively shot themselves in the foot, demanding "higher standards in the name of safety", when what they really meant was that the supposed higher standard was a way of keeping competition out.
Wind the clock forward to the era of Mick Toller, and "all of a sudden", all the mail runs up the Cape, in WA etc. were "discovered" by CASA HO, and "low and behold", they were all decreed as RPT without a license, and show cause notices showered from the heavens.
Then we wound up with a new mishmash of "rules" for a quasi-RPT in small aircraft, but still without proper legislative definition, ie; What should have been completed 15 years before.
In all the nonsense that went on in the early '90s, rural, regional and remote Australia was shafted again.
The Lulu was the Draft Part 21B, which (amongst reams of total nonsense) would have prohibited ANY public transport operation ( charter and RPT) on any airfield that was not licensed and big enough to take a -8, which, for example, left a total of 14 places in the whole of Queensland, where you could conduct any form of "air transport", even in a C 206 etc.
So, years more pass buy, still no Part 91/125/125 etc., and we are still living with the incomplete changes of 1988, and the establishment of the CAA. When what we had in 1964 worked perfectly well.
We certainly can't be accused of rushing reform in aviation in Australia, and it is the bush that always suffers the most.
All very sad. For any of you who might be in the firing line of the new policy, it is a policy, it is not law, but if you want to challenge it, the number of lawyers competent to mount such a challenge is very small.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Tailwheel
Our aviataion system and regulations seem to contain a number of huge confidence tricks which pretend that there is no difference between a Boeing and a Cessna, and the air services required by a very remote community with 200 people is the same as that required for a capital city with a few million.
The aeroplane sales people found that the words "light aircraft" was a bit scary for some people (bigger is safer??), so they called light aircraft "general aviation aircraft". This was and still is completely wrong and misleading. The word "general" means "completely or almost universal" and so the term "general aviation" includes Boeings, airbusses military and other aircraft. Not just light aircraft. The term "GA"is misleading.
So is our licensing system. The public can look up the CASA website and check to see if a particular operator is licensed but will almost certainly not know the difference between RPT and airwork or charter. They will not know if the service is in a large or small aircraft. They will expect a large aircraft if it is a licensed service.
If every service in aircraft below 5700kg was called a light aircraft service the public would know. Surely our regulator should be more trustworthy than the sales people who started this "general avitaion" nonsense. It appears not.
They also appear to be confusing the public.
Yes Tailwheel, the reg 203 exemption system seemed to work well. And they discontinued it. It should be still operating.
The aeroplane sales people found that the words "light aircraft" was a bit scary for some people (bigger is safer??), so they called light aircraft "general aviation aircraft". This was and still is completely wrong and misleading. The word "general" means "completely or almost universal" and so the term "general aviation" includes Boeings, airbusses military and other aircraft. Not just light aircraft. The term "GA"is misleading.
So is our licensing system. The public can look up the CASA website and check to see if a particular operator is licensed but will almost certainly not know the difference between RPT and airwork or charter. They will not know if the service is in a large or small aircraft. They will expect a large aircraft if it is a licensed service.
If every service in aircraft below 5700kg was called a light aircraft service the public would know. Surely our regulator should be more trustworthy than the sales people who started this "general avitaion" nonsense. It appears not.
They also appear to be confusing the public.
Yes Tailwheel, the reg 203 exemption system seemed to work well. And they discontinued it. It should be still operating.
Last edited by bushy; 25th Aug 2009 at 13:39.
Bushy, Tailwheel,
Not "discontinued", but "lost", as happens all too often in our Oz. aviation world.
Don't discount self-delusion illusions withing the industry, not just "salespersons". I well recall a former President of the old Regional Airlines Association (at the meeting I mentioned) telling me, in no uncertain terms, that his C-310/PA 31 etc. operated to "airline standards".
Does anybody remember the CASA brochure clearly laying out the differences in the various types of passenger carrying operations, effectively the unavoidably different "safety standards". From memory it showed a single, a C402 or similar, a Metro, and a Jumbo. After a scream from operators, who didn't want the "(self- de) illusion shattered" --- treating passengers as dumb --- the brochure was withdrawn, despite the protests of the Airline Passenger Safety Association.
Quite how anybody could believe that it is possible for a FAR23 (let alone a CAR 3) certified aircraft to operate to "airline standards" (even if it was a turbo-prop certified to the "commuter amendment") beats me.
There is a world of difference between CAR 3/FA23 (regardless of amendment) and FAR 25.
The "airline standard" illusion is a great employment/cash flow generator for CASA folks, with a far higher CASA employee/aircraft ratio than FAA (ex-ATC) or NZ, without any measurable safety benefit, indeed in the case of US, the opposite. As a matter of interest, FAA recognized that the move of "commuter" airlines up to FAR 121 standard, at huge expense, did not produce any measurable safety benefit.
We are really bad at doing cost/benefit studies, and making sensible trade-offs --- with rather silly claims about "absolute safety" being the "target", continuing to pop up.
And the bottom line, the bush gets shafted for affordable air services.
Tootle pip!!
Not "discontinued", but "lost", as happens all too often in our Oz. aviation world.
Don't discount self-delusion illusions withing the industry, not just "salespersons". I well recall a former President of the old Regional Airlines Association (at the meeting I mentioned) telling me, in no uncertain terms, that his C-310/PA 31 etc. operated to "airline standards".
Does anybody remember the CASA brochure clearly laying out the differences in the various types of passenger carrying operations, effectively the unavoidably different "safety standards". From memory it showed a single, a C402 or similar, a Metro, and a Jumbo. After a scream from operators, who didn't want the "(self- de) illusion shattered" --- treating passengers as dumb --- the brochure was withdrawn, despite the protests of the Airline Passenger Safety Association.
Quite how anybody could believe that it is possible for a FAR23 (let alone a CAR 3) certified aircraft to operate to "airline standards" (even if it was a turbo-prop certified to the "commuter amendment") beats me.
There is a world of difference between CAR 3/FA23 (regardless of amendment) and FAR 25.
The "airline standard" illusion is a great employment/cash flow generator for CASA folks, with a far higher CASA employee/aircraft ratio than FAA (ex-ATC) or NZ, without any measurable safety benefit, indeed in the case of US, the opposite. As a matter of interest, FAA recognized that the move of "commuter" airlines up to FAR 121 standard, at huge expense, did not produce any measurable safety benefit.
We are really bad at doing cost/benefit studies, and making sensible trade-offs --- with rather silly claims about "absolute safety" being the "target", continuing to pop up.
And the bottom line, the bush gets shafted for affordable air services.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commercial regulation by stealth???
The present regulations relating to the classification of RPT, charter etc are very vague and it appears that is how they want them.
One court decided that any flight that was planned the day before takeoff was in fact a "scheduled flight"!
So almost every charter operator in Australia has benn carrying out "scheduled flights" for decades. Apparently this is ok until CASA decide they don't like you.
Surely a scheduled flight, carried out on a regular basis is just as safe, or probably safer than one that operates without preplanning. So how can this be safety regulation? It appears to be commercial regulation.
And the confusion about "closed charters" is rediculous. I know of mail runs that have been operating for decades as charter that were deemed to be RPT and then prevented from carryng anything but mail. They are now called "closed charters" because they only carry what is needed by the people who live at the places they fly to!!!! So what changed? Nothing. Just the paper.
It appears to me that the lunatics are in charge of the assylum.
But maybe not. The present system presents lots of opportunities for shutting down an operator. Is this the purpose of the tules? Is this why they are so vague?
I once metioned to a senior CASA man that they could shut down any operator they liked, and he agreed.
And some of these weird rules will result in lack of air services to remote regions, or only "illegal" ones.
It has been said that you can prevent aviation accidents by preventing the aviation. Is this what it is about? How can they sleep at night.
Why don't we licence them as "Licenced Light Aircraft Services" and have these words printed on any advertising they do, and tickets they issue so the public will know what they are getting. And then let them operate under the charter rules whether they are regular services or not.
There will be screams from some, as light aircraft activity will be increased, and be better because operators will have more certainty.
And remote communities will have air services again.
One court decided that any flight that was planned the day before takeoff was in fact a "scheduled flight"!
So almost every charter operator in Australia has benn carrying out "scheduled flights" for decades. Apparently this is ok until CASA decide they don't like you.
Surely a scheduled flight, carried out on a regular basis is just as safe, or probably safer than one that operates without preplanning. So how can this be safety regulation? It appears to be commercial regulation.
And the confusion about "closed charters" is rediculous. I know of mail runs that have been operating for decades as charter that were deemed to be RPT and then prevented from carryng anything but mail. They are now called "closed charters" because they only carry what is needed by the people who live at the places they fly to!!!! So what changed? Nothing. Just the paper.
It appears to me that the lunatics are in charge of the assylum.
But maybe not. The present system presents lots of opportunities for shutting down an operator. Is this the purpose of the tules? Is this why they are so vague?
I once metioned to a senior CASA man that they could shut down any operator they liked, and he agreed.
And some of these weird rules will result in lack of air services to remote regions, or only "illegal" ones.
It has been said that you can prevent aviation accidents by preventing the aviation. Is this what it is about? How can they sleep at night.
Why don't we licence them as "Licenced Light Aircraft Services" and have these words printed on any advertising they do, and tickets they issue so the public will know what they are getting. And then let them operate under the charter rules whether they are regular services or not.
There will be screams from some, as light aircraft activity will be increased, and be better because operators will have more certainty.
And remote communities will have air services again.
Moderator
LeadSled. "Class A Maintenance" is another mythical fallacy. It consists of taking an aircraft off the Manufacturer's tried and proven Schedule/System of Maintenance and dreaming up a new system of maintenance which keeps some illiterate CASA AWI satisfied.
One example I am aware of, the manufacturer's Cessna 208B system of maintenance is reliant upon a 400 hour cycle and 400 hour Maintenance Release. A CASA AWI would not accept the concept of a Maintenance Release remaining valid for 400 hours and required a totally new System of Maintenance written and approved - at great cost - which relied upon four 100 hour Maintenance Releases, to accomplish essentially the same schedule as the Cessna 400 hour cycle!
The Toller years were the nail in the coffin of Australia's rural air services. In all fairness, it wasn't all Mick's doing, but had a lot to do with the incompetents he employed as senior managers, "Mumbles" being one example of a public servants promoted well beyond his maximum level of incompetence.
The current CAR206 is meaningless unless read in conjunction with the previous ANR197 onwards.
If memory serves me correctly, September this year is the 21st Birthday of Regulatory Reform, something Leroy Keith assured me would take no more than three to five years to accomplish!
What an appalling joke successive Ministers of Transport pulled on the gullible Australian public!
One example I am aware of, the manufacturer's Cessna 208B system of maintenance is reliant upon a 400 hour cycle and 400 hour Maintenance Release. A CASA AWI would not accept the concept of a Maintenance Release remaining valid for 400 hours and required a totally new System of Maintenance written and approved - at great cost - which relied upon four 100 hour Maintenance Releases, to accomplish essentially the same schedule as the Cessna 400 hour cycle!
The Toller years were the nail in the coffin of Australia's rural air services. In all fairness, it wasn't all Mick's doing, but had a lot to do with the incompetents he employed as senior managers, "Mumbles" being one example of a public servants promoted well beyond his maximum level of incompetence.
The current CAR206 is meaningless unless read in conjunction with the previous ANR197 onwards.
If memory serves me correctly, September this year is the 21st Birthday of Regulatory Reform, something Leroy Keith assured me would take no more than three to five years to accomplish!
What an appalling joke successive Ministers of Transport pulled on the gullible Australian public!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Queensland
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what happened to the may briefing
In the May briefing it was quite clearly announced by our new CEO that there would be a change in policies. This referred to charter and RPT
Funnily enough, this has now disappeared from the May briefing which we all read. So who is trying to hide what?
Please have a look at the following link that has taken hours to find:
http://www.casa.gov.au/corporat/policy/notices/CEO-PN001-2004.pdf
Isn’t it funny that when things are quite controversial, parts of documents and briefings can quite simply disappear? I could go through the last X years of CASA’s monthly briefings and find the completed unaltered documents….. Or have I been able to?
After noticing this discrepancy it really makes you wonder! Are we telling the truth CASA or are we intentionally trying to delete things that didn’t become an item a few months ago?
Show me the May briefing in its entirety, you know as well as I know that you have deleted what you don’t want us to see.
Come on John, your integrity is on the line here, you made the statement.
Can you tell me why none of us can find the original unaltered release??
Funnily enough, this has now disappeared from the May briefing which we all read. So who is trying to hide what?
Please have a look at the following link that has taken hours to find:
http://www.casa.gov.au/corporat/policy/notices/CEO-PN001-2004.pdf
Isn’t it funny that when things are quite controversial, parts of documents and briefings can quite simply disappear? I could go through the last X years of CASA’s monthly briefings and find the completed unaltered documents….. Or have I been able to?
After noticing this discrepancy it really makes you wonder! Are we telling the truth CASA or are we intentionally trying to delete things that didn’t become an item a few months ago?
Show me the May briefing in its entirety, you know as well as I know that you have deleted what you don’t want us to see.
Come on John, your integrity is on the line here, you made the statement.
Can you tell me why none of us can find the original unaltered release??
Moderator
As of 15 June 2009 this notice has been suspended pending further review and reconsideration
I suggest you down load and retain that document before someone at CASA sinks it into the depths of oblivion in the archives!
Tailwheel,
For the life of me, I have never been able to figure out "Class A" cleaning and gapping of spark plug, or a "Class A" oil and filter change, versus a "Class B" oil and filter change. Personally, I only know one way, the right way.
In fact, in many cases of light piston twins, there is actually less "work" done on the aeroplane, compared with Class B, where the MR will ONLY be valid for 100h/12months max.
Often, the figure is 150 hours or more, with Class A, just more paperwork and the requirement that the "Approved Maintenance Controller" issues the MR.
But Class A must be "better" than Class B, stand to reason, doesn't it, something A Class must be "better" than B Class. You must stop this, or I will really start sounding cynical.
Exactly, and to my point that the reform, of which CAR 206 was part, was never completed, it "got lost" until those same "excellent fellows" that worked for Mick picked it up, and way they went. As a result, exit Ord Air, Cape York Air and quite a few others, as one of your moderators knows all too well. However, the "pronouncement" that piston engines were no longer suitable for "RPT" was, in the opinion of most I know, all Mick's own work, that is causeing all sorts of pain to this day.
Tootle pip!!
For the life of me, I have never been able to figure out "Class A" cleaning and gapping of spark plug, or a "Class A" oil and filter change, versus a "Class B" oil and filter change. Personally, I only know one way, the right way.
In fact, in many cases of light piston twins, there is actually less "work" done on the aeroplane, compared with Class B, where the MR will ONLY be valid for 100h/12months max.
Often, the figure is 150 hours or more, with Class A, just more paperwork and the requirement that the "Approved Maintenance Controller" issues the MR.
But Class A must be "better" than Class B, stand to reason, doesn't it, something A Class must be "better" than B Class. You must stop this, or I will really start sounding cynical.
The current CAR206 is meaningless unless read in conjunction with the previous ANR197 onwards.
Tootle pip!!
CASA at one stage (and may still) define any flight which complied with all four of the following parameters as an RPT flight in accordance with CAR 206 (1) (c) – see Regulation below:
When questioned, the little genius from CASA Cairns informed me a “specified route” was a flight subject to a Flight Plan over a pre defined route; and “fixed terminals” was a defined airport. He couldn’t understand that most charter flights also fitted into the same four parameters!
In the context of the ANR’s (from which CAR206 was taken almost word for word), a “specified route” was an approved airline route shown on IFR charts, over which a charter operator may operate only once in 28 days (later 8 hour/4 hour rule).
A “fixed terminal” was defined in legislation as a dedicated, declared airline terminal at a Commonwealth owned airport.
It took 66 days and $300,000 lost, but the AAT eventually required CASA to reinstate the AOC!
Twenty one years and much of our our civil aviation legislation is nothing more than ill defined, irrelevent mumbo jumbo, the legacy of far too many years of incompetant Ministers for Transport and CASA Directors.
CAR206 (1) (viii) is the Reg CASA use to catch out the private pilot mechanic, Vet or photographer who carries his tools of trade as pilot on a private flight. Use of an aircraft in conduct of your business is Aerial Work, requiring an AOC and CPL.
- Transporting persons or cargo generally; and
- For hire or reward; and
- Over specified routes; and
- Between fixed terminals.
When questioned, the little genius from CASA Cairns informed me a “specified route” was a flight subject to a Flight Plan over a pre defined route; and “fixed terminals” was a defined airport. He couldn’t understand that most charter flights also fitted into the same four parameters!
In the context of the ANR’s (from which CAR206 was taken almost word for word), a “specified route” was an approved airline route shown on IFR charts, over which a charter operator may operate only once in 28 days (later 8 hour/4 hour rule).
A “fixed terminal” was defined in legislation as a dedicated, declared airline terminal at a Commonwealth owned airport.
It took 66 days and $300,000 lost, but the AAT eventually required CASA to reinstate the AOC!
Twenty one years and much of our our civil aviation legislation is nothing more than ill defined, irrelevent mumbo jumbo, the legacy of far too many years of incompetant Ministers for Transport and CASA Directors.
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 206
Commercial purposes (Act, s 27 (9))
(1) For the purposes of subsection 27 (9) of the Act, the following commercial purposes are prescribed:
(a) aerial work purposes, being purposes of the following kinds (except when carried out by means of a UAV):
(i) aerial surveying;
(ii) aerial spotting;
(iii) agricultural operations;
(iv) aerial photography;
(v) advertising;
(vi) flying training, other than conversion training or training carried out under an experimental certificate issued under regulation 21.195A of CASR or under a permission to fly in force under subregulation 317 (1);
(vii) ambulance functions;
(viii) carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft (not being a carriage of goods in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals);
(ix) any other purpose that is substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vii) (inclusive);
(b) charter purposes, being purposes of the following kinds:
(i) the carriage of passengers or cargo for hire or reward to or from any place, other than carriage in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals or carriage for an operation mentioned in subregulation 262AM (7) or under a permission to fly in force under subregulation 317 (1);
(ii) the carriage, in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals, of passengers or cargo or passengers and cargo in circumstances in which the accommodation in the aircraft is not available for use by persons generally;
(c) the purpose of transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally, for hire or reward in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals over specific routes with or without intermediate stopping places between terminals.
(1A) However, the commercial purposes prescribed by subregulation (1) do not include:
(a) carrying passengers for hire or reward in accordance with subregulation 262AM (7); or
(b) carrying out an activity under paragraph 262AM (2) (g) or 262AP (2) (d).
(2) In this regulation:
"aircraft endorsement" has the same meaning as in regulation 5.01.
"conversion training" means flying training for the purpose of qualifying for the issue of an aircraft endorsement.
Commercial purposes (Act, s 27 (9))
(1) For the purposes of subsection 27 (9) of the Act, the following commercial purposes are prescribed:
(a) aerial work purposes, being purposes of the following kinds (except when carried out by means of a UAV):
(i) aerial surveying;
(ii) aerial spotting;
(iii) agricultural operations;
(iv) aerial photography;
(v) advertising;
(vi) flying training, other than conversion training or training carried out under an experimental certificate issued under regulation 21.195A of CASR or under a permission to fly in force under subregulation 317 (1);
(vii) ambulance functions;
(viii) carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft (not being a carriage of goods in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals);
(ix) any other purpose that is substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vii) (inclusive);
(b) charter purposes, being purposes of the following kinds:
(i) the carriage of passengers or cargo for hire or reward to or from any place, other than carriage in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals or carriage for an operation mentioned in subregulation 262AM (7) or under a permission to fly in force under subregulation 317 (1);
(ii) the carriage, in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals, of passengers or cargo or passengers and cargo in circumstances in which the accommodation in the aircraft is not available for use by persons generally;
(c) the purpose of transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally, for hire or reward in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals over specific routes with or without intermediate stopping places between terminals.
(1A) However, the commercial purposes prescribed by subregulation (1) do not include:
(a) carrying passengers for hire or reward in accordance with subregulation 262AM (7); or
(b) carrying out an activity under paragraph 262AM (2) (g) or 262AP (2) (d).
(2) In this regulation:
"aircraft endorsement" has the same meaning as in regulation 5.01.
"conversion training" means flying training for the purpose of qualifying for the issue of an aircraft endorsement.
Somewhere in law - don't ask me where 'cos I don't remember - and most certainly in accounting 'goods for trade' is defined as inventory offered for sale. 'Stock' is another term used similarly. 'Equipment' or 'Operating Equipment' is equipment, tools and other items that is used to run the business.
If CASA are trying to hang a PPL contractor flying with his equipment to a job then the victim needs a lawyer who is aware of the difference.
If CASA are trying to hang a PPL contractor flying with his equipment to a job then the victim needs a lawyer who is aware of the difference.
CAR206 (1) (viii) is the Reg CASA use to catch out the private pilot mechanic, Vet or ---
Twice, over the years, I have been a fly on the wall when a CAA/CASA person advised a well known professional person they could no longer fly themselves about their business.
One was a very well known renal surgeon, with an extensive rural practice, without whose services, there would have been no choice but for many people but to come to Sydney for treatment, the other was a very well known barrister, an QC.
Without going into detail, both made it abundantly clear to the CAA/CASA person that they had no intention of curtailing their professional practices, and would be quite happy to see the regulator in court. Nothing eventuated --- but---
Buried away in some draft legislation of the early 2000s, was a proposal for "Private Operations AOCs", and as with any proposal for "more regulation", they never quite die. Witness Part 132.
McCormick is well aware of the FAA approach to all this, let's hope we go that way, with many things that are now "airwork" no longer requiring an AOC, just ACs to cover the requirements.
One thing is very clear, there is a group in CASA who want to "redefine" private flying away to almost nothing, limiting it to "recreational flying involving the pilot and his immediate family".
That there is absolutely no pressing safety problem, to which this is the answer, makes not the slightest difference to the "regulaholics", for whom the cubic volume of regulation can never be too great, to solve a problem however small, or even existing only in the fevered imagination of the regulaholic --- particularly when the then Director of Aviation Safety say "absolute safety" is the "policy".
One such CASA person ( I hope he is reading this) went so far as to "re-define" CAR 206 requirements for an AOC as ==="Any use of an aircraft that created a tax deduction". One of this chap's close mates is known to let anybody who wants to know, that there should only be two kinds of aviation permitted === Military and airlines.
With such a balanced approach, and obvious respect for the intent of the Act and Regulations, is it any surprise we get a proportion of ratbag decisions from CASA.
Tootle pip!!
PS: One of the hilarious arguments is: What is aerial photography, for the purposes of CAR 206? ---- One dingbat, now retired from CASA, claimed that you could not take a photograph from or of an aircraft unless it had an ICAO Annex 8 Standard Cat. C.of A., and operating on an AOC. I personally invited him to take action against Boeing Corp, who had just done a photo shoot over Sydney Harbour, of a B 777 certified Experimental, with the camera ship on a Restricted Cat. C.of A. ---- and not an AOC in sight.
Last edited by LeadSled; 23rd Aug 2009 at 06:00.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Discretion??
I was once flying an aircraft for a large mining and construction company. The aircraft carried electronics and had the company's name painted in large letters along each side. I was told that I would have to give our regulator the details of the electronics, and have the company name removed.
I drew a circuit diagram which showed the power wiring feeding through a fuse into a box marked "confidential".
I went to the company legal department, and a young lawyer wrote them a letter suggesting that "the minister should use his discretion" and allow the operation to continue as it was.
The operation did continue without further change.
Rubbery rules??
I drew a circuit diagram which showed the power wiring feeding through a fuse into a box marked "confidential".
I went to the company legal department, and a young lawyer wrote them a letter suggesting that "the minister should use his discretion" and allow the operation to continue as it was.
The operation did continue without further change.
Rubbery rules??