Private Vs Airwork
Optometrist....travels around checks peoples eyes, prescribes new glasses. The glasses come later...so no trade.
Doctors, GP travels around, gives you a flu shot.....
Hang on carried goods which is now jabbed in your arm, and his bill is $70 consultation and $30 for the vaccine.
Vet.....preg testing cows......ArmUpACowsBum might be able to comment here, but thats no problem.
But while he is there a cow has a dose of three day.....out comes the big needle...
goods 
Doctors, GP travels around, gives you a flu shot.....
Hang on carried goods which is now jabbed in your arm, and his bill is $70 consultation and $30 for the vaccine.Vet.....preg testing cows......ArmUpACowsBum might be able to comment here, but thats no problem.
But while he is there a cow has a dose of three day.....out comes the big needle... goods
If however a country doctor was using his aircraft to fly to the city, purchase wholesale pharmaceuticals and then fly them home to sell in his own pharmacy or shop to the general public, that would be commercial transport of goods for sale.
* I think there have been a few flying doctors and vets who flew privately to stations etc to provide services.
No, that's moving goods for someone else, I am happy for that to be a commercial op.
Lets go real extreme then and say you were a major fruit producer, why not buy your own 30 year old 747 Freighter and operate it privately to transport your fresh produce to the city. Operate it on condition, just fly VFR with CPLs for hour building, bet they'd love the oportunity. Your fruit your plane, by the arguments here it should be a private operation. Just because the products are smaller in quantity and fit in smaller aircraft, why should the rules change.
Last edited by 43Inches; 3rd Feb 2012 at 02:12.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA Aviation Ruling
See attached extract from CASA Aviation Ruling 3/2003
Ruling
6.Subject to this ruling a person may conduct a charitable operation without
holding an AOC.
7. A person wishing to rely on this ruling should make their own enquiries to ensure
that an entity is currently endorsed as a ‘deductible gift recipient’ for the purposes
of the definition of charitable entity (see definition in paragraph 13 below).
8. A charitable operation can make a profit where those profits are donated to the
charitable entity. It is acceptable for the operator to recoup the operator’s
genuine costs and to donate only the profits of the charitable operation.
9. Subject to this ruling, CASA is not concerned with the form of benefit conferred on
the charitable entity as a result of the charitable operation.
10. If a charitable operation is also conducted partly for a commercial purpose
prescribed by CAR 206 (ie the operation has more than 1 purpose), it must be
conducted under the authority of an AOC. This conclusion applies even if the
operation is conducted primarily as a charitable operation and the CAR 206
commercial purpose is only a subsidiary purpose.
Ruling
6.Subject to this ruling a person may conduct a charitable operation without
holding an AOC.
7. A person wishing to rely on this ruling should make their own enquiries to ensure
that an entity is currently endorsed as a ‘deductible gift recipient’ for the purposes
of the definition of charitable entity (see definition in paragraph 13 below).
8. A charitable operation can make a profit where those profits are donated to the
charitable entity. It is acceptable for the operator to recoup the operator’s
genuine costs and to donate only the profits of the charitable operation.
9. Subject to this ruling, CASA is not concerned with the form of benefit conferred on
the charitable entity as a result of the charitable operation.
10. If a charitable operation is also conducted partly for a commercial purpose
prescribed by CAR 206 (ie the operation has more than 1 purpose), it must be
conducted under the authority of an AOC. This conclusion applies even if the
operation is conducted primarily as a charitable operation and the CAR 206
commercial purpose is only a subsidiary purpose.
charity..
A charity flight thread ran some months ago, and the outcome of whether to do it or not mainly hinged on the insurance question.
Altho the passenger donates a ticket cost to the charitable entity, there is still a liability/duty of care by the pilot/operator to the passengers which has to be covered. So I guess the Tiger ,chtr cat, and AOC owner pilot....to have the charity flight under his insurance could call it a chtr flight. Free to the winning pax, raffle revenue to the charity.
And for Tiger in pvt cat with a PPL donor of operating cost...how now?
Classed as 'cost sharing'? Remember CoOPs policy 1997.!! Que !!!!
Maybe we have missed the big picture. CASA is a "charity". We all donate our taxes, big time, to keep the bloody place afloat. (unfortunately)
Since CASA has "crashed" GA by regulatory neglience/lack of duty of care (see reg 206) and etc...
We the aviation industry should do a class action and sue for financial, physical and mental injury.
I wish.
But like the simple act of carrying a box of fish, CASA "lawyerism" has turned something simple into the complexities of a High Court challenge.
Why, you might ask? My take is its just standard CASA corporate disinterest, sloth, denial,neglience and neglect in doing something about rectifying 206
Do NOT do anything with the actual intent or possible intent or proposed future intent of flying in, or the utilising of, or in involvement with, to use an aeroplane/aircraft/heavier than air device without first consulting yr para-legal, solicitor, lawyer, barrister or QC..!
Aahh .. the Clever Country.
Altho the passenger donates a ticket cost to the charitable entity, there is still a liability/duty of care by the pilot/operator to the passengers which has to be covered. So I guess the Tiger ,chtr cat, and AOC owner pilot....to have the charity flight under his insurance could call it a chtr flight. Free to the winning pax, raffle revenue to the charity.
And for Tiger in pvt cat with a PPL donor of operating cost...how now?
Classed as 'cost sharing'? Remember CoOPs policy 1997.!! Que !!!!
Maybe we have missed the big picture. CASA is a "charity". We all donate our taxes, big time, to keep the bloody place afloat. (unfortunately)
Since CASA has "crashed" GA by regulatory neglience/lack of duty of care (see reg 206) and etc...
We the aviation industry should do a class action and sue for financial, physical and mental injury.
I wish.But like the simple act of carrying a box of fish, CASA "lawyerism" has turned something simple into the complexities of a High Court challenge.
Why, you might ask? My take is its just standard CASA corporate disinterest, sloth, denial,neglience and neglect in doing something about rectifying 206
Do NOT do anything with the actual intent or possible intent or proposed future intent of flying in, or the utilising of, or in involvement with, to use an aeroplane/aircraft/heavier than air device without first consulting yr para-legal, solicitor, lawyer, barrister or QC..!
Aahh .. the Clever Country.
You show your "ignorance" at
If you dig deep enough, you may find that "Strict Liability" is not of CASA's making.
My take is its just standard CASA corporate disinterest, sloth, denial,neglience and neglect in doing something about rectifying 206
Having raised the matter of 206 and the interpretation many times with various levels within CASA, their hands are tied. It just will not happen. We all, including CASA, have to wait for the remaining CASRs.
Last edited by 601; 5th Feb 2012 at 03:19.
If you dig deep enough, you may find that "Strict Liability" is not of CASA's making.
Strict Liability offenses are certainly not a CASA invention, but the type of offenses that are categorized as strict liability are within CASA control, and the type of offenses CASA so categorizes are very different to much other Commonwealth legislation.
Indeed, in legal theory (and A-G's guidelines for regulations) any offense where there is a mental element ( say a decision by a pilot or LAME) CANNOT be a strict liability offense, but we have them in the CARs.
Forget blaming OLDP for the way the new regulations are turning out, OLDP (Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing) works for its "clients", ie; CASA writes the drafting instructions, the regulations are the way they are, because that's the way CASA wants them.
Given how different the "touch and feel" of CASA regulations are, compared to so much else Commonwealth regulation, also written by OLDP, that it is disingenuous, to say the very least, to blame A-Gs.
It took six years, or there abouts, for the CAO 29.2 to see the light of day again. CASA FOI's were constantly reminded about the problem, but the feedback we got was that it was a legal drafting problem. CASA wanted it but what CASA want is not necessarily what CASA get.
Tootle pip!!
See attached extract from CASA Aviation Ruling 3/2003
Cock-up supreme...
Thats the regs for ya!
And if we think its a load of old cobblers, cop this..!! NOT publicised by our esteemed Regulator tho. CASA statement from a Coronial inquest into the death of a Trike pilot, 2005.p32.
CASA believes..." that they (the CASRs, CAOs) are overly prescriptive,ambiguous, disjointed, too reliant on exemptions, difficult to interpret, to comply with, and to enforce."
Whooa! straight from the horse's mouth.! The nag with the rotten teeth.
Is that an admission of negligence and neglect in reg making or what?
Its a sure sign of any bad reg if you have to have exemptions
Which poses the question, for the long suffering industry, why the bloody hell hasnt CASA done anything to rectify the situation.. that as above, THEY admit to.!!
Strict liabilty for everything is not a Govt requirement. And CASA 'crimes' do not fit the Govt criteria as to what constitutes a crime.
OK, a civil penalty for some things but not criminal offences for everything.
FFS even CASA believes that for their staff.! Behave in a criminal manner, no worries, you'll be protected and just get an administrative/civil penalty.
How good is that.! For them, but not for us.
And if we think its a load of old cobblers, cop this..!! NOT publicised by our esteemed Regulator tho. CASA statement from a Coronial inquest into the death of a Trike pilot, 2005.p32.
CASA believes..." that they (the CASRs, CAOs) are overly prescriptive,ambiguous, disjointed, too reliant on exemptions, difficult to interpret, to comply with, and to enforce."
Whooa! straight from the horse's mouth.! The nag with the rotten teeth.
Is that an admission of negligence and neglect in reg making or what?
Its a sure sign of any bad reg if you have to have exemptions
Which poses the question, for the long suffering industry, why the bloody hell hasnt CASA done anything to rectify the situation.. that as above, THEY admit to.!!
Strict liabilty for everything is not a Govt requirement. And CASA 'crimes' do not fit the Govt criteria as to what constitutes a crime.
OK, a civil penalty for some things but not criminal offences for everything.
FFS even CASA believes that for their staff.! Behave in a criminal manner, no worries, you'll be protected and just get an administrative/civil penalty.
How good is that.! For them, but not for us.
ex-FSO Griffo,
Because the law is a mess, take the safe way out, make certain the prize, when taken, operates as a charter, then you are fireproof.
Who pays for the charter doesn't really then have a bearing, other than joining the payer into any legal action in as the result of an accident.
If it operated as a private flight ( say PPL as PIC) the the mandatory TPP pax. insurance would not apply, it's just not worth the risk, to not take the CYA out.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Re. CAO's, are signed into existence by the CASA CEO, they do need assent of the Executive Council/G-G, but are, nevertheless, disallowable documents.
One halfway reasonable criticism of OLDP is delays due to workload and Government priorities, with aviation at the end of the far queue .
As you will probably have seen, Minister Albanese measures effective government by the volume of new legislation pumped out, along with the burgeoning bureaucracy to administer/enforce it.
By this measure the Gillard lead ( as in lead weight sinker) Labor government is the most effective federal government since 1901. A veritable avalanche of regulation. Has this government ever found a problem, to which their answer was not a new tax and/or new regulation.
Because the law is a mess, take the safe way out, make certain the prize, when taken, operates as a charter, then you are fireproof.
Who pays for the charter doesn't really then have a bearing, other than joining the payer into any legal action in as the result of an accident.
If it operated as a private flight ( say PPL as PIC) the the mandatory TPP pax. insurance would not apply, it's just not worth the risk, to not take the CYA out.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Re. CAO's, are signed into existence by the CASA CEO, they do need assent of the Executive Council/G-G, but are, nevertheless, disallowable documents.
One halfway reasonable criticism of OLDP is delays due to workload and Government priorities, with aviation at the end of the far queue .
As you will probably have seen, Minister Albanese measures effective government by the volume of new legislation pumped out, along with the burgeoning bureaucracy to administer/enforce it.
By this measure the Gillard lead ( as in lead weight sinker) Labor government is the most effective federal government since 1901. A veritable avalanche of regulation. Has this government ever found a problem, to which their answer was not a new tax and/or new regulation.
Last edited by LeadSled; 9th Feb 2012 at 00:23.
Basically the law is so badly constructed that it is meaningless.
CASA can ramp you and do as it likes. You are always guilty of something.
Therefore completely disengage with CASA. This is why I don't attend events like fly ins , the Birdsville races, etc. I do not wish to come into any form of contact with these CASA creatures.
For example, I go diving with Mike Ball on a live aboard dive boat every year. The trip either starts of finishes with a flight to or from Lizard Island.
These flights are timed like clockwork and their schedule is known at least a year in advance - yet other operators have been closed down for precisely the same type of operation when they were deemed to be "stealth" RPT.
CASA can ramp you and do as it likes. You are always guilty of something.
Therefore completely disengage with CASA. This is why I don't attend events like fly ins , the Birdsville races, etc. I do not wish to come into any form of contact with these CASA creatures.
For example, I go diving with Mike Ball on a live aboard dive boat every year. The trip either starts of finishes with a flight to or from Lizard Island.
These flights are timed like clockwork and their schedule is known at least a year in advance - yet other operators have been closed down for precisely the same type of operation when they were deemed to be "stealth" RPT.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exxie and others...
Abalone have always been "fish" for the purposes of the Fisheries Act.
Big penalties for possessing commercial quantities without a licence including seizure of boat, car or aircraft.
Kaz
Abalone have always been "fish" for the purposes of the Fisheries Act.
Big penalties for possessing commercial quantities without a licence including seizure of boat, car or aircraft.
Kaz
