AOC or not?
Hope you're not flying when the temp is over 40°C Pilotette. 
Twelve months and no answer from our expert safety organisation. Comical and Stupidly Asinine.
Twelve months and no answer from our expert safety organisation. Comical and Stupidly Asinine.as·i·nine
[ as- uh-nahyn]
ADJECTIVE
1. foolish, unintelligent, or silly; stupid: It is surprising that supposedly intelligent people can make such asinine statements.
2. of or like an ass
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.
I met a pilot who was in a similar situation to the above but caved when CASA threatened him with his license because he and his boss didn't want the hassle of a court case. So his boss ended up driving everywhere in a company 4WD instead of flying in a company aeroplane with a massive loss to productivity.
The mechanic one is an interesting story if true... because if that is the case, it would be difficult to use your private aircraft and PPL for any form of work.
An IT technician flying to customers with his laptop bag?
An electrician... needs his tools.
A doctor carrying his doctor bag.
How about a comedian or motivational speaker, Pauline Hanson perhaps, attending a venue with no tools (other than the obvious one, lol)
An IT technician flying to customers with his laptop bag?
An electrician... needs his tools.
A doctor carrying his doctor bag.
How about a comedian or motivational speaker, Pauline Hanson perhaps, attending a venue with no tools (other than the obvious one, lol)
The issue revolves around what constitutes goods for the purposes of trade. Interestingly services are not included in the CAR, only goods. So your comedian would be safe. What about a band with musical instruments? And what's the difference between that and the diesel fitter or builder for that matter assuming they are not carry any spare parts or materials for sale.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What constitutes goods for the purposes of trade?
1) I would argue that "goods for the purposes of trade" is different to "goods for the purposes of working a trade".
2) maybe it's worth looking at a dictionary definition of goods. Examples:
- possessions and personal property
- articles of commerce, merchandise
- merchandise when transported
- freight
- things that are made to be sold
3) "goods for the purposes of trade" is only part of the rule. CAR 206 is a definition for section 27 of the Act, section 27 says "the flying or operation of an aircraft for such purposes are a prescribed". So it only applies if the purpose of flying the aircraft (or one of the purposes) is for the carriage of goods for the purposes of trade. I would argue that in the case of the mechanic the purpose of flying the aircraft was to transport a person (the mechanic), or maintenance and repair of equipment, and carriage of any tools of trade or spare parts that he might charge for was incidental - they are not a purpose on their own.
My view is that the prescription of "carriage of goods for the purposes of trade" is to prevent you from setting up an airfreight business where you buy goods, transport them in your own aircraft then sell them, as a private operation. It is not intended to stop someone using an aircraft as their own transport to get to work.
Here's a thought exercise:
You are a commercial pilot, and have been working in the outback. You just left the job for a new job in Melbourne that lets you be closer to family. The new job starts in a month, in the meantime you are having some time off.
Your old boss calls you. Roads are closed due to rain, they are getting slammed with tourists needing transport, and half their pilots have the flu and are unfit to fly. Could you hire an aircraft, fly out and work for him again for a week? He will pay you for transport costs and time, and short term contract rates. You agree, the money sounds good and relaxing is more boring than you thought it would be.
A (good!) mate says why don't you take my RV7, I won't be able to fly it for a month and it needs a run.
Are you allowed to carry your tools of trade as a pilot with you in the RV? Every pilot would say "of course" and be outraged at the suggestion it might not be allowed, but change it from a pilot to a mechanic and suddenly it's not allowed.
Another thought exercise:
Another pilot from the operation rings you and says "I need a new headset - would you mind buying one for me and bringing it out with you? I'll pay you for it when you get here." Are you allowed to do it?
Folks,
You can argue all you like, but the reality is that, like much other aviation regulation in Australia, ( and Australian Cth regulation generally) CAR 206 means whatever some CASA perX decides it means, for whatever purpose at the time some poor sod has become a CASA target.
CASA "enforcement" is and has always been very selective and seldom related to "Safety Is Our First Priority".
There is no dissection and analysis of CAR 206 that will yield a definitive answer.
As I said in a previous post, as far as I know, Australia is the only country that defines all of aviation as (for what of a better word) commercial, then defines "private" as an exception ---- which is generally typical of our aviation rules, written in the negative, then all the exceptions.
Tootle pip!!
You can argue all you like, but the reality is that, like much other aviation regulation in Australia, ( and Australian Cth regulation generally) CAR 206 means whatever some CASA perX decides it means, for whatever purpose at the time some poor sod has become a CASA target.
CASA "enforcement" is and has always been very selective and seldom related to "Safety Is Our First Priority".
There is no dissection and analysis of CAR 206 that will yield a definitive answer.
As I said in a previous post, as far as I know, Australia is the only country that defines all of aviation as (for what of a better word) commercial, then defines "private" as an exception ---- which is generally typical of our aviation rules, written in the negative, then all the exceptions.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm an IT guy and PPL. In the past, I was away on a weekend trip when the weather closed in and I was unable to fly home for several days. I ended up catching the bus home and returning with my laptop (tool of trade) so I could work while I waited for the weather to clear. Are you saying I needed an AOC to then carry the laptop home with me?
After that experience, I am in the habit of taking my laptop with me on overnight trips so that if I get stuck, I can keep up with work (support emails etc.) What kind of ridiculous system would say that is illegal?
Tools of trade:
Pilot - maps, charts, headset, EFB
Salesman - mobile phone
IT person - laptop, ipad, mobile phone
CASA inspector - clipboard, pen
How can it be sensible to require an AOC to carry tools of trade?
Being away on a weekend trip with a laptop, is not the same as flying away to visit your cus
andrewr...Not sensible at all. Just a sign of Cretins against Sensible aviation.
With the power to make you have an AOC, you are then in the CAsA 'squirrel grip'. Argue with or upset a CAsA perp and they will squeeze for yr pain or cancel to put you out of business. Now that's power !
Lawyers fly off to a case, along with their brief boxes...but CAsA stays away. And so they should.
To deny a person going about their lawful business, just because they use an aircraft is rampant stupidity, and a denial of yr civil right.
If it stops you working, its a denial of yr right to earn a living.
It has SFA to do with "safety"
All CAsA has to worry about is that the pilot conducting the flight is duly licenced , that the a/c has an MR and the appropriate flight rules are adhered to. NOTHING MORE. That is their only interest ...or should be.
CAsA is "a safety agency, not a commercial regulator "..so past DASs have BS-ed away merrily to Senate Hearings over the decades.
But its a great shining LIE.
How to deal with ,and rectify all these bureaucratic hide-bound stupidities that have bought GA to its knees...that is the question.
With the power to make you have an AOC, you are then in the CAsA 'squirrel grip'. Argue with or upset a CAsA perp and they will squeeze for yr pain or cancel to put you out of business. Now that's power !
Lawyers fly off to a case, along with their brief boxes...but CAsA stays away. And so they should.
To deny a person going about their lawful business, just because they use an aircraft is rampant stupidity, and a denial of yr civil right.
If it stops you working, its a denial of yr right to earn a living.
It has SFA to do with "safety"
All CAsA has to worry about is that the pilot conducting the flight is duly licenced , that the a/c has an MR and the appropriate flight rules are adhered to. NOTHING MORE. That is their only interest ...or should be.
CAsA is "a safety agency, not a commercial regulator "..so past DASs have BS-ed away merrily to Senate Hearings over the decades.
But its a great shining LIE.
How to deal with ,and rectify all these bureaucratic hide-bound stupidities that have bought GA to its knees...that is the question.
Oh Jeez!
Oh Jeeze! Maybe I'm a criminal! On my Piper Lance endorsement flight I was asked" Do you mind if we take a mechanic, tools and a fresh battery to Xxxx? One of our aircraft is stuck there with a flat battery."
All I can say in my defence is that I was young and impressionable.
All I can say in my defence is that I was young and impressionable.
My view is that the prescription of "carriage of goods for the purposes of trade" is to prevent you from setting up an airfreight business where you buy goods, transport them in your own aircraft then sell them, as a private operation. It is not intended to stop someone using an aircraft as their own transport to get to work.
How to deal with ,and rectify all these bureaucratic hide-bound stupidities that have bought GA to its knees...that is the question.
You deal with it by going to court. From what I have witness over the years is that anyone who actually takes CASA on over some of their rulings usually end up with CASA folding like cheap lawn furniture when they actually have to front up to a judge. However the issue is that CASA essentially has a unlimited budget and most businesses don't, so the business/individual just caves in most of the time.
I would agree with the above, with the emphasis on "court" as in a real court, and not the AAT --- where all sorts of atrocities that would never be permitted in a proper court are a regular feature of CASA representation.
Remember, the rules of evidence do not apply in the AAT, and heresay can be admitted.
If you are able, always go to a "real" court, it will probably be cheaper in the long run, and the probability of "justice" is much greater.
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Darwin
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neville,
I would agree with the above, with the emphasis on "court" as in a real court, and not the AAT --- where all sorts of atrocities that would never be permitted in a proper court are a regular feature of CASA representation.
Remember, the rules of evidence do not apply in the AAT, and heresay can be admitted.
If you are able, always go to a "real" court, it will probably be cheaper in the long run, and the probability of "justice" is much greater.
Tootle pip!!
I would agree with the above, with the emphasis on "court" as in a real court, and not the AAT --- where all sorts of atrocities that would never be permitted in a proper court are a regular feature of CASA representation.
Remember, the rules of evidence do not apply in the AAT, and heresay can be admitted.
If you are able, always go to a "real" court, it will probably be cheaper in the long run, and the probability of "justice" is much greater.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Jeeze! Maybe I'm a criminal! On my Piper Lance endorsement flight I was asked" Do you mind if we take a mechanic, tools and a fresh battery to Xxxx? One of our aircraft is stuck there with a flat battery."
All I can say in my defence is that I was young and impressionable.
All I can say in my defence is that I was young and impressionable.
and a denial of yr civil right.
its a denial of yr right to earn a living.
The short version of all the above, you get what you can win at in court.
Your endorsement training would have been aerial work (not private),
