The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

PPL restricted to 6 POB?

Old 28th Jul 2014, 13:13
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 239
PPL restricted to 6 POB?

CAR 2(7)(D) says there is a limit of 6 POB on an aircraft to still be classified as a private flight.

Is this correct, does this mean YOU, the mrs and 5 kids on your own aircraft makes it an illegal flight?
Guptar is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2014, 13:28
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 139
No. CAR 2(7)(D) is only one of the situations classified as a private operation and it relates to all parties sharing the cost of the flight.

As long as you pay for it yourself you can take an A380 load of your closest friends around.
JustJoinedToSearch is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2014, 13:39
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 239
That's what I thought, just can't find the reference to win an argument.
Guptar is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2014, 14:04
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 139
I would have thought CAR 2(7) was the reference. Although I must admit just having looked at it then, it's been rewritten since I last saw it.
My italics.
Code:
(7)For the purposes of these Regulations:                                            (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 [flying the owner around. Whether by himself, or a PPL pilot for free, or a PPL pilot paid a billion dollars a year];
                               (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[self explanatory];
                              (iii) agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft[self explanatory];
                              (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[self explanatory];
                             [this one seems to trip people up]  (v) the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made [carrying pax or cargo for free] 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[carrying goods for free is not allowed if they are for the purposes of trade];
                             (va) the carriage of persons in accordance with subregulation (7A);
                              (vi) the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes of trade[this has been added since I last saw it. Repeating (v) for emphasis I assume.];
                             (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.
  (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).
JustJoinedToSearch is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2014, 22:21
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 42
Posts: 436
This line takes you to the regulations about carrying people, which is below

(va) the carriage of persons in accordance with subregulation (7A);

shall be taken to be employed in private operations.
(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).
Lines removed, due to being wrong.

Last edited by RatsoreA; 28th Jul 2014 at 23:39.
RatsoreA is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2014, 22:35
  #6 (permalink)  

Victim of a bored god

Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 1996
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,317
Which clearly state, you can't have more than 6 on a private flight.
No it doesn't. The operative word is "and" at the end of each alpha point:

(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).
Provided the operating crew are not paid, and the persons on the flight do not share costs or pay any costs, you can legally take all your friends flying in your A380, B747 etc.

If you are a commercial pilot I suggest you urgently acquaint yourself with the affect, meaning and intent of the word "and", or the word "or", at the end of conditions which are attached to legislation.

Skydiving is a private operation, not requiring an AOC, but a PA31 with a pilot and 8 jumpers, or a C208 with a pilot and 14 jumpers, should be a commercial operation.
Morally it probably should be, but there are separate legislative provisions which exempt skydiving and delegate the regulation of skydiving to a separate entity.
tail wheel is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2014, 22:43
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 388
To be classified as a private flight, you need to satisfy any of the items in 2(7)(d), not all of them.

2(7)(d)(va) specifies the circumstances where a passenger can be asked to contribute to the cost of the flight, i.e. if there are no more than 6 on the aircraft.

If 2(7A) applied to all private flights with passengers you would be required to charge them an equal share of the costs according to 2(7A)(d). That is obviously not the case.

2(7)(d)(v) applies if you do not ask for any money from the passenger:
"the carriage of persons [...] without a charge for the carriage being made"
andrewr is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2014, 22:48
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 42
Posts: 436
Tailwheel,

And/Or...

Yes, I am aware of the differences between those two things. Working for Defence, the And/Or part of clauses and sub clauses are just as prevelant as CAR's. Drives me round the twist...!

The way I have interpretted it, and I am happy to be corrected, was that ALL of those conditions must be satisfied for it to be a private op, hence the use of AND.

If it doesn't tick boxes (a) through (e), then it's not a private flight.

But I am not a law professional, and if I am wrong, then I am happy to be corrected!
RatsoreA is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2014, 23:14
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 715
was that ALL of those conditions must be satisfied for it to be a private op
You have answered your own question. ALL of the conditions must be satisfied & that means condition (d) must also be satisfied, i.e. the costs of the flight MUST be shared. So if you are cost sharing, the maximum number of people on the flight, including the crew, is 6. If you are not cost sharing, the entire (7A) section is not relevant & therefore there is no restriction on the maximum number of people on the flight.
Oakape is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2014, 23:37
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 42
Posts: 436
You have answered your own question. ALL of the conditions must be satisfied & that means condition (d) must also be satisfied, i.e. the costs of the flight MUST be shared. So if you are cost sharing, the maximum number of people on the flight, including the crew, is 6. If you are not cost sharing, the entire (7A) section is not relevant & therefore there is no restriction on the maximum number of people on the flight.
Good point! I will happily retract my post!
RatsoreA is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2014, 01:32
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 76
You have answered your own question. ALL of the conditions must be satisfied & that means condition (d) must also be satisfied, i.e. the costs of the flight MUST be shared. So if you are cost sharing, the maximum number of people on the flight, including the crew, is 6. If you are not cost sharing, the entire (7A) section is not relevant & therefore there is no restriction on the maximum number of people on the flight.
Does this then mean that a private aircraft owner who takes a friend for a scenic and wears the cost him/herself without asking for remuneration from the passenger, that it's no longer classified as a private flight because 7A is invalid? If it's not PVT, what is it?
5-in-50 is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2014, 02:11
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Bathurst NSW AUS
Posts: 76
It's a private operation according to 7(d)(v)
garrya100 is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2014, 03:11
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
So Australian.

Decades of the same simple stuff and still the folklore circulates.

There is no POB limit on private operations.

CAR 2(7A) isnít the definition of private for the purposes of the regulations.

CAR 2(7) is the definition of private for the purposes of the regulations. CAR 2(7) defines a whole list of operations that are taken to be private.

Only one of the operations on the list is the carriage of persons in accordance with 2(7A). An operation that satisfies all of the criteria in 2(7A) is taken to be a private operation, because of 2(7)(d)(va). But thatís not the same as saying anything else cannot be private.

Note also that the last item on the list in CAR 2(7) is: ďany other activity of a kind substantially similar to any of those specified inĒ the list above.

JJTS is correct.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2014, 03:16
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 388
Just in case this stuff was too easy to understand, there is an interesting overlap between what is commercial according to CAR 206 and what is private according to CAR 2(7)(d).

CAR 206 specifies operations requiring an AOC, CAR 2(7)(D) specifies what is permitted with a PPL. (I think...)

It appears that some operations are permitted on a PPL, but require an AOC. The overlaps are certain agricultural operations, aerial spotting, aerial photography etc. I have never been involved in these operations, so I don't know whether this is how it is implemented in practice.
andrewr is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2014, 07:58
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Well thereís a new twist on an old theme.

A while ago CASA invented CHARPTER (Charter RPT).

Are you now saying that some genius has come up with PRIVIAL WORK? (Private Aerial Work that can be carried out by a PPL but only under the authorisation of an Aerial Work AOC?)
Creampuff is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2014, 08:54
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 388
Well, CAR 206 says:

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;
...

Subsection 27(9) of the Act in a roundabout way says that an AOC is required to fly for purposes prescribed in CAR 206.

CAR 2(7)(d) lists
(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;
...

as private operations.


CAR 206 does not make exclusions based on remuneration, ownership of the land etc.

I have been told that e.g. agricultural operations on a station using the station aircraft could be flown by a pilot with a PPL. My best guess from reading the regulations is that CAR 206 means that the station would still need an AOC for agricultural operations, even if the pilot only needs a PPL.

As I said, I haven't seen how this is interpreted in real life, so I could be off the mark.

Last edited by andrewr; 29th Jul 2014 at 08:56. Reason: formatting
andrewr is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2014, 09:27
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
So if I pay someone to fly my family and me where we want to go from time to time, in an aircraft I own, the PIC can be a PPL (CAR 2(7)(d)(i)) but the operation has to be authorised by a charter AOC (CAR 206(1)(b))?

That would be - shall we say - a novel interpretation of the classification of operations rules.

But nothing would surprise me.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2014, 10:03
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 388
I'm just reading it and trying to interpret it. What is your alternative interpretation?

In your example, I guess you could argue the hire or reward provision applies to the Operator (who would be required to have the AOC) not the pilot. You would presumably be the operator of the aircraft, and not operating it for hire or reward.

If you charged your family (or anyone else) a fare to be carried on the aircraft yes you might require an AOC. If someone else was listed as the operator and you paid them to fly you and your family somewhere they might be required to have an AOC, even if you are the owner.
andrewr is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2014, 10:58
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hollister, Hilo, Pago Pago, Norfolk Is., Brisbane, depending which day of the week it is...
Age: 47
Posts: 1,318
Hey, if you can't read the rules properly and don't want to take any more than six people total on your private flight, then you aren't busting any rules now, are you?
MakeItHappenCaptain is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2014, 11:47
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Perth
Posts: 134
(10)For the purposes of these Regulations: an aircraft that is flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of:
(i) transporting your mother-in-law, when equipped with a headset that is connected to the intercom; and
(ii) said mother-in-law's inability to contribute to any portion of your flying expenses;

This type of flight in subsection (10) shall be considered to be a Priority One flight. ATC is under strict obligation to ensure all requests for clearance are granted unconditionally and immediately and to re-route all traffic to ensure the minimum possible flight time. You will immediately be granted the honour of Knight of the Order of Australia and the following three decades of your mental-health rehabilitation shall be borne by the Crown.
CASA's latest no-nonsense regulations are in play.

Last edited by FokkerInYour12; 29th Jul 2014 at 11:49. Reason: regs3
FokkerInYour12 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.