AOC or not?
Toiled for many a year as a full time salaried pilot for a private operator.
But we did get an AOC because a PVT flight was last on the list into controlled airspace. We were based at a primary airport
What charter we did do covered the boss' costs.
Even getting a AOC would get over the insurance hurdles buy it would be a mine field juggling CP duties, flying and running the primary business. I would hate to see how you would manage your F&D.
Megan, that operator had every system in place which could have resulted in the granting of an AOC though, SMS, OM (all sections) HOFO, HOTC, fully employed or SLA contracted pilots and engineers, approved OEM and CASA maintenance schedules and insurance + self insurance and access to lawyers to settle any likely claim.
That company had similar (not quite the same) arrangements in the USA as do other companies today engaged in the same type of work. It’s gery different from the OP’s situation.
That company had similar (not quite the same) arrangements in the USA as do other companies today engaged in the same type of work. It’s gery different from the OP’s situation.
Oh, they had systems in place all right, just that a PROPER audit would have found a LONG list of questionable flying practices.
As others have said, the issue will be insurance. You need to think of the "what ifs". Hypothetically and simplistically, you cross hire the aircraft, the engine fails and during the subsequent inevitable landing the aircraft crashes, you are killed and so is one of your passengers. It is unsure whether or not the fatalities have occurred because you messed up the landing or because the engine failed and you had nowhere to land except where there was a tree.
Does the passenger's family sue your dependents who have just lost their husband / father for your poor piloting? Do your dependents sue the owner of the aircraft and his maintenance organisation for poor maintenance? Who conducts the maintenance? The lawyers could take years to sort out the settlements. There are to many many combinations of liability to go through one by one.
If you survived but your one of your passengers didn't then the passenger's dependents could sue you. You could lose everything because your main business is not as an operator of as you have no AOC. Then another passenger says that they were all coerced into flying with you and around you go again. I don't know what type of license you have. I don't know if your workforce are contractors or staff. I don't know who your customer is but if its landing at a mine site or private airstrip, the customer may require insurance, evidence of your qualifications etc. How will you manage fatigue?
I don't know enough details of your individual case but I get paid to provide aviation advice to companies, including insurance companies. My honest (if unpalatable) advice to you would be don't even think about this as being a sensible option.
Does the passenger's family sue your dependents who have just lost their husband / father for your poor piloting? Do your dependents sue the owner of the aircraft and his maintenance organisation for poor maintenance? Who conducts the maintenance? The lawyers could take years to sort out the settlements. There are to many many combinations of liability to go through one by one.
If you survived but your one of your passengers didn't then the passenger's dependents could sue you. You could lose everything because your main business is not as an operator of as you have no AOC. Then another passenger says that they were all coerced into flying with you and around you go again. I don't know what type of license you have. I don't know if your workforce are contractors or staff. I don't know who your customer is but if its landing at a mine site or private airstrip, the customer may require insurance, evidence of your qualifications etc. How will you manage fatigue?
I don't know enough details of your individual case but I get paid to provide aviation advice to companies, including insurance companies. My honest (if unpalatable) advice to you would be don't even think about this as being a sensible option.
the difference is that car and truck operations don't require an AOC and associated micro management to be legally driven and insured. My neighbour has a forty foot boom spray rig on the back of his toyota ute at the moment and i can either borrow it and use it myself, pay him to spray my cape weed, pay for fuel and weedicide, and ride with him while he sprays. No thought on legality even necessary, unlike aviation.
the difference is that car and truck operations don't require an AOC and associated micro management to be legally driven and insured.
Shall we start on again about parachute operations...?
Shall we start on again about parachute operations...?
It was a good system to have when we first started parachuting because then activities all revolved around a club. It was the advent of tandem that what can only be described as commercial operations began. In the club days we jumped at air and agriculture shows, but no money was involved, remember jumping from a 180 flown by one of the Hazeltons at an air display, all donated, but he did demand at the BBQ that night that he be given a jump the next day, put him out on a static line.
Aaaahhhh, but that's different, you have to be a paid up member of the Parachute Federation before you can step outside. You're a member of a club, see. It was a good system to have when we first started parachuting because then activities all revolved around a club. It was the advent of tandem that what can only be described as commercial operations began. In the club days we jumped at air and agriculture shows, but no money was involved, remember jumping from a 180 flown by one of the Hazeltons at an air display, all donated, but he did demand at the BBQ that night that he be given a jump the next day, put him out on a static line.
It was a good system to have when we first started parachuting because then activities all revolved around a club. It was the advent of tandem that what can only be described as commercial operations began. In the club days we jumped at air and agriculture shows, but no money was involved, remember jumping from a 180 flown by one of the Hazeltons at an air display, all donated, but he did demand at the BBQ that night that he be given a jump the next day, put him out on a static line.There have multiple legal challenges to Skydiving as it is conducted, up to and including Supreme Court of Appeal , none have overturned the system.
That the classification is "private" has been confirmed multiple times.
I would remind you that money changing hands is not a sole determinant of when an AOC is required in Australia, it is whether you are roped in by CAR 206 or not.
Indeed, some years ago, consumer law was amended to exempt operators of "adventure sports" from a large slab of the normal "duty of care" responsibilities that bind most businesses.
Multiple challenges to the "liability waivers" involved in Skydiving was a major consideration in the legislative change, to put the validity of "blood chits" beyond legal doubt.
With the advent of Part 135, I think the fight is going to start all over again --- as the dreaded "hire and reward" make a re-appearance in Australian air law after around 40(??) years --- I believe due largely to an amazing lack of understanding in CASA of the subject, particularly on the part of a recent CEO/DAS.
So what's the difference between this and people dying in a car crash in a work truck and the driver only having a Private license?
I’m led to believe that I can transport my own staff out to the job site and back, whilst being paid (my own wages) and it’s classified as private ops. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Next issue is, another contractor has approached me to fly his staff to the same community. How can I achieve this without requiring an AOC. The most logical answer for this would be for him to hire the aircraft from the hirer and I then fly it for free.
Read CAR 206 and keep in mind that CASA have at least one interpretation of CAR 206 for every day of the week, every set of circumstances and can easily obtain a new interpretation to specifically ensure a conviction in your case, all of which are accepted by the AAT in the interests of "air safety".
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One could say that the OP and others on here are looking for a way to circumnavigate what, to me at the least, is a straight forward regulation. If one flies for reward one requires an AOC of some description.
But worry not, this is the Australian way, from loaning a neighbours ear tags for moving cattle, to not paying helicopter engineers their contract rate.
FWIW
But worry not, this is the Australian way, from loaning a neighbours ear tags for moving cattle, to not paying helicopter engineers their contract rate.
FWIW
Sunfish, if you pay your neighbour to spray your weeds, then he should have all the appropriate licences and insurances in place to operate as a spray contractor. This includes accreditated training to show he can identify weeds and use the appropriate spray at the appropriate level to control the weeds. Otherwise, the possibility exists that he can spray your weeds with the wrong spray at the incorrect level and poison you, your family, Aunt Ethel who is visiting (and asthmatic). And if so, you would be well placed to sue the pants off him.
And if you use an unlicensed contractor to apply spray to your crop, and he accidentally wipes it out, then you have no chance of claiming insurance.
alternatively, the spray he is applying could drift across to a neighbouring property (which might be organic), cause that property to lose their commercial crop, and their organic accreditation....which means they are well placed to sue the pants off him.
see, not so different from Aviation after all.
(These spray scenarios all come from a family member who was a licenced spray contractor, who went out of business because clients chose to use cheaper, “mate from up the road”, and then bitched because Old Mate didn’t know what he was doing. Shonky Brothers Operations are what the law and insurance companies are trying to deal with. And given the fact that Australia is now number one for litigation, we suffer endless red tape as a result.)
And if you use an unlicensed contractor to apply spray to your crop, and he accidentally wipes it out, then you have no chance of claiming insurance.
alternatively, the spray he is applying could drift across to a neighbouring property (which might be organic), cause that property to lose their commercial crop, and their organic accreditation....which means they are well placed to sue the pants off him.
see, not so different from Aviation after all.
(These spray scenarios all come from a family member who was a licenced spray contractor, who went out of business because clients chose to use cheaper, “mate from up the road”, and then bitched because Old Mate didn’t know what he was doing. Shonky Brothers Operations are what the law and insurance companies are trying to deal with. And given the fact that Australia is now number one for litigation, we suffer endless red tape as a result.)
mate we are spraying capeweed, it's not rocket science and no crops or aunt ethel's involved, but perhaps i chose the wrong example to illustrate the relatively free use we make of terrestrial vehicles vs airborne.
CASA would view that as Air Charter.
Read CAR 206 and keep in mind that CASA have at least one interpretation of CAR 206 for every day of the week, every set of circumstances and can easily obtain a new interpretation to specifically ensure a conviction in your case, all of which are accepted by the AAT in the interests of "air safety".
Read CAR 206 and keep in mind that CASA have at least one interpretation of CAR 206 for every day of the week, every set of circumstances and can easily obtain a new interpretation to specifically ensure a conviction in your case, all of which are accepted by the AAT in the interests of "air safety".
Folks,
Ain't that the truth.
Tootle pip!!
I never ceased to be amazed at how hard it is to change perception.
"Hire and reward" is a bit like the "give way to the car on the right" road rule, in NSW at least, it,(like hire and reward) was dropped something like 40 years ago, but based on driver behavior, the actual/real/ current rules for "major/minor" roads and roundabouts have never caught on. We have many crashes in NSW from the driver "on the right" enforcing his/her/its "right of way", particularly at roundabouts.
Likewise "hire and reward", CAR 206 was an attempt, many years ago, to define when an AOC was required without the mire of imaginitis in ways of getting around whether a "hire" or a "reward" was involved.
In this case, the Australian approach is quite different to most other countries, said "other countries" getting themselves entangled in all sorts of legal knots.
Sadly, CAR 206 was badly written, and far too easily interpreted/misinterpreted by CASA and others. This is one of the few area where I believe the Australian approach, or at least the intent, was right.
The FAA "rules" are so draconian in interpretation that, if you take an aeroplane to an airshow, and you are a PPL, and the organizers give you a cold drink, or a hamburger, you and they have committed an offence. At Oshkosh, if an aircraft is flying in the display, and the pilot is a PPL, they can't even accept free smoke oil (off spec diesel donated to by oil companies) but have to trudge off to a truck stop with a couple of cans --- and EAA can't even supply the cans.
For those of you who continue to advocate for "hire and reward" to be the determinant, how does that fit into a genuine risk management framework. If the mechanic flies to fix his own tractor, that's private, but if he flies to fix his neighbor's tractor, that needs all the expense and aggravation of an AOC. How does that decrease which risk??
What he does is break the law ---- as various investigations into CASA have pointed out ---- we create "inadvertent criminals".
At least, in the FAA case, many things that require an AOC, (mostly aerial work) here is Australia have no corresponding US requirement. Such as the famous FNQ aerial photography matter.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Many years ago, a well known Sydney QC was pulled up by CAA, on the way to a country case, CAA (an AWI) claimed that his briefcase and a box with his wig were "tools of trade". Wiser heads, further up the CAA food chain, dropped the matter like a red hot brick.
If one flies for reward one requires an AOC of some description.
If Bob owns a Cessna 172 and I have a private pilots licence to fly 172s, I can charge Bob anything I like and Bob can pay me anything he likes for me to fly him around for his personal transport, and that’s a private flight for which no AOC or commercial pilots licence is required.
There are many other examples (which points up why the classification of operations scheme draws distinctions that have little-to-no causal connection with safety).
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not correct.
If Bob owns a Cessna 172 and I have a private pilots licence to fly 172s, I can charge Bob anything I like and Bob can pay me anything he likes for me to fly him around for his personal transport, and that’s a private flight for which no AOC or commercial pilots licence is required.
There are many other examples (which points up why the classification of operations scheme draws distinctions that have little-to-no causal connection with safety).
If Bob owns a Cessna 172 and I have a private pilots licence to fly 172s, I can charge Bob anything I like and Bob can pay me anything he likes for me to fly him around for his personal transport, and that’s a private flight for which no AOC or commercial pilots licence is required.
There are many other examples (which points up why the classification of operations scheme draws distinctions that have little-to-no causal connection with safety).
Cheers
The context of the OP’s question was a little more complex than the scenario I gave.