AOC or not?

[andrewr]

Originally Posted by LeadSled

"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

Still appears to be there to me:
CAR 206 (1)
(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;
...
(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.

CAR 206 actually looks pretty straightforward to me. I think the problems people have are twofold:
1) CASA has made some decisions based on "the vibe" rather than what CAR 206 actually says, then tried to interpret the rule to match their decision
2) People try to mash CAR 206 and CAR 2(7) together into one rule and/or are unsure of the difference between them.

[Torres]

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.

Correct. The executive aviation division of very large Australian mining company employed and paid pilots and operated a fleet of executive aircraft for many years, domestic and international, as a private operation, no AOC. A Police Air Wing employs non Police officer pilots and operated what was effectively a scheduled air service as a private operation, no AOC. Non Police Government passengers, witnesses etc were carried and the cost recovered from other Government Departments.

Perhaps Longrass should look at Aerial Work definitions in CAR 206 (1) (a):
(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);

"substantially similar" would include employees of "..the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft.." if CASA so wished.

[andrewr]

Originally Posted by Torres

(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);

"substantially similar" would include employees of "..the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft.." if CASA so wished.

Trade in human beings is illegal, likewise you couldn't really argue they were "the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft" so I don't see it as substantially similar.

Particularly when there are sections that explicitly deal with carriage of passengers.

[StudentPilot479]

Not to mention you quoted viii but ix refers to sections i to vii

[Torres]

The "substantially similar" would relate to the fact that both tools of trade, goods and staff are substantially connected to the conduct of a commercial business.

StudentPilot. I suggest you actually read CAR206. Sections (i) to (ix) are subsections of para 206 (1) (a).

[aroa]

andrewr..people try to mash 206 and 2 7 d into one rule .

Industry /flying people might but CAsA legal acrobat people dont....they can see two distinct strict liability criminal offences...
eg... re206... Photography, a commercial activity, requires an AOC and a CPL
... re 2 7 d Photography, using an aeroplane for a commercial purpose, as above.
Bang gotcha with both barrels.!!
Separate ways of dealing with the same offence... twice.

Dont ya love em for keeping the world safe from falling aeroplanes and cascading people...and cameras..!!

[LeadSled]

Originally Posted by andrewr

Still appears to be there to me:

Andrewr.
True, but only because the intended reforms of the time were never completed,(where has that happened before in AU aviation) and CAR 206 has been the subject of legal battles for as long as it has been there.
However, the intent at the time was as I described, "hire and reward" was not the sole determinant for an AOC, or requiring a pilot to have a CPL.
Tootle pip!!

[andrewr]

Originally Posted by Torres

The "substantially similar" would relate to the fact that both tools of trade, goods and staff are substantially connected to the conduct of a commercial business.

The rule says nothing about tools of trade, staff, or the conduct of a commercial business. It says "carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft". It doesn't even include goods that are not "the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft".

Clearly, it is intended to prevent someone from buying an aircraft and setting up a business bringing in seafood from King Island etc. without an AOC on the basis that it's their own aircraft and the are not charging anyone for transporting the goods. It's not a general prohibition on commercial businesses using aircraft without an AOC. There are plenty of circumstances where you can use an aircraft in the conduct of a business without an AOC.

[andrewr]

Originally Posted by aroa

people try to mash 206 and 2 7 d into one rule .

Industry /flying people might but CAsA legal acrobat people dont....they can see two distinct strict liability criminal offences...
eg... re206... Photography, a commercial activity, requires an AOC and a CPL
... re 2 7 d Photography, using an aeroplane for a commercial purpose, as above.
Bang gotcha with both barrels.!!
Separate ways of dealing with the same offence... twice.

Neither CAR 206 nor CAR 2 specify an offence. They are both simply definitions, referred to elsewhere in the regulations.

Certainly, operating without an AOC when one is required is an offence. So is flying without a commercial license when one is required. I'm not sure how those could NOT be 2 separate offences.

The difference between CAR 206 and CAR 2 is this:

• Operations listed in CAR 206 require an AOC.
• Everything requires a commercial license, except what is listed in CAR (2) 7 d or CAR (2) 7A.

[Torres]

andrewr. You are obviously trying to be logical. Whilst logical thinking is not prohibited in the CARs, it is prohibited in the hallowed CASA halls of power.

Some years ago CASA successfully prosecuted a diesel fitter who flew himself to station properties, carrying his tool box, in his privately owned Cessna and on a PPL. They contended he required a CPL and an Aerial Work AOC.

If you feel you understand CAR206 and particularly 206 (1) (b) and (c) perhaps you could give a definition of the terms "fixed terminals" and "specific routes"?

[Lead Balloon]

Fixed it for you, andrewr: Everything requires a commercial license, except what is listed in CAR 2(7)(d).

CAR 2(7A) is merely a deeming provision for the purposes of one of the paras on the list in CAR 2(7)(d).

And don’t forget: Any kind of activity that is “substantially similar” to something elsewhere on the list is also private.

Torres nailed a key issue: Don’t try to reconcile any of this stuff on the basis of safety. Some of the distinctions drawn in the classification of operations system have no causal connection with safety.

[LeadSled]

Originally Posted by Torres

If you feel you understand CAR206 and particularly 206 (1) (b) and (c) perhaps you could give a definition of the terms "fixed terminals" and "specific routes"?

Torres,
That is very naughty of you, to ask that, for reasons you and I know well.
Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

Originally Posted by andrewr;10267663[list

[*]Everything requires a commercial license, except what is listed in CAR (2) 7 d or CAR (2) 7A.[/list]

Folks,
I know no other country that defines private operations by what they are not.
Tootle pip!!

[andrewr]

Originally Posted by Torres

You are obviously trying to be logical. Whilst logical thinking is not prohibited in the CARs, it is prohibited in the hallowed CASA halls of power.
Some years ago CASA successfully prosecuted a diesel fitter who flew himself to station properties, carrying his tool box, in his privately owned Cessna and on a PPL. They contended he required a CPL and an Aerial Work AOC.

As I said in post 41, I think CASA has made some decisions based on "the vibe" rather than what CAR 206 actually says, then tried to interpret the rule to match their decision.

Prosecuting someone for carrying tools of trade is a disgrace, the rule obviously refers to goods for sale not tools of trade. If you require an AOC for tools of trade things get very difficult very quickly. A commercial pilot has tools of trade (headset, GPS, maps, charts, EFB...). If they are not allowed to carry them without an AOC it presents some practical problems. (Whereas they are not tools of trade for a private pilot so may be carried freely?) What about an OzRunways developer - do they need an AOC to carry an Ipad or laptop?

Unfortunately, the actual rule only matters if you are prepared to go to court to fight. Otherwise you have to live with whatever interpretation CASA come up with.

Originally Posted by Torres

If you feel you understand CAR206 and particularly 206 (1) (b) and (c) perhaps you could give a definition of the terms "fixed terminals" and "specific routes"?

I sense a trap. Any definition creates edge cases where you can say "but what about..." However, I will give it a go.

I would say fixed schedules, fixed terminals and specific routes refer to the case where the schedules, routes and terminals are fixed by the operator, as opposed to the case where they can be varied at the request of the passengers and/or hirer of the aircraft.

[Torres]

As I said in post 41, I think CASA has made some decisions based on "the vibe" rather than what CAR 206 actually says, then tried to interpret the rule to match their decision.

Ain't that the truth! I believe their contention was that the diesel fitter was receiving payment for his time (as a pilot flying the aircraft) and payment for his aircraft flying time, which if not shown as a separate charge, must be part of his total charge for the service rendered - thus in the view of the FOI constituted a commercial air service. I think I vaguely recall a Vet being questioned on a similar basis, but it would be at least 20 years ago.

No, not a trap at all and your assumption matches one of the CASA definitions. They are critical phrases which must/must not exist and are directly extracted from CAR206, however they are not included in the Definitions. They are the expressions CASA interpret in any way they see fit to suit the circumstances. There was a time they did have logical definitions, refer the pre 1988 Air Navigation Regulations from approximately ANR197 to ANR203.

From a aviation media article of 20 years ago:

At the direction of CASA's Canberra office, two investigators and one ... FOI conduct an investigation with the following terms of reference: "Determine the extent of operations in the Torres Strait region which are being conducted for fare paying passengers that fall into the definition of RPT and which are currently being conducted as charter." The TOR directed that: "The differentiation between RPT and charter that is to be used for this investigation shall be drawn from the "draft" paper prepared by ......... (a CASA lawyer) as attached."

The draft opinion ......... attempted to define the five elements which must exist to constitute RPT. However it provided no definitions of two of the critical elements: "Specific route" and "fixed terminal". The (CASA) investigators had thus been instructed to investigate whether operators were in breach not of a regulation or rule, but of a draft opinion, which failed to provide critical definitions.

[longrass]

So when it comes to hire and reward. Hire is obvious, but reward? Does profit come in to play with reward. It’s not much of a reward if you aren’t making a profit.

”Steven was rewarded with the ability to go flying and not make any money. Like his marriage, Steven was left feeling flat and without purpose”

[andrewr]

Reward does not need to involve profit. I think it's a catch-all for any benefits that wouldn't be considered "hire", especially non-monetary benefits.

Why would you want to fly someone else's staff? I think you would need to mount a pretty convincing argument to show why the reason was not some form of "reward".

[LeadSled]

Folks,
One of the more idiotic "determinations" years ago was that, as an AOC required a Standard Category C.of A aircraft, and as aerial photography was Airwork, therefor (in AU) required an AOC, photographs/filming could only take place from a Standard Cat. Cof A aircraft, therefor approximately 100% of pics. taken from/of "Warbirds" (and of many other aircraft) constituted evidence of an offence under Reg.206.

All in the interests of : "Safety Is Our First Priority", you understand. Nothing to do with: "We're not happy 'till you'r not happy".

"Interestingly", the CASA perX who pursued this was of the view that the determination extended to the subject --- ie: It was only "legal" to take photographs of Standard Cat. C.of A. aircraft in the air.

Gaaawwwd!! What a lawless lot we are in this country, with wholesale committing of such criminal acts. I wonder if the "offense" is per pic.? Is there a statute of limitation??

Tootle pip!!


PS: As I expect most of you know, NA T6/Harvard or a NA-T28 are favorite camera platforms. With the exception of a couple of Canadian built Harvards, none have a Standard Cat. C.of A.

[Sunfish]

No wonder Aviation is dying.

[Pilotette]

Longrass, if you can’t get a difinitive answer out of the regulator, you’re definitely not going to get a definitive answer out of the pprune society.
If this whole idea all becomes too hard, you could always approach an operator like us who has everything you need. Good planes, good pilots, an AOC, all of the insurances and we fly to Arnhemland almost daily.
Benefits of this include:
- Not having to look over your shoulder for CASA.
- The ability to focus on the job you have been contracted to do.
- Not having to deal with an aircraft owner who wants a minimum amount of hours on their aircraft to make it worth their while.
- No insurance setup/issues with who covers what.
- No parking/hangarage/airservices fees.
- No account setup with fuel suppliers in Arnhemland.
- No issues with staff who may (rightly or wrongly) think that you’re not experienced enough / focussed enough to be flying them around.
- No maintenance scheduling.
etc etc

Negatives:
- You don’t get to fly / get the hours.
- You have to pay a charter operator.

Just a thought, good luck with whichever way you decide to proceed.