Is a Commercial licence required?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Camberwell
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is a Commercial licence required?
This may be a pretty obvious question which is why I’m posting here to ask the learned people on this website rather than embarrass myself in front of someone I know by asking them. I don’t mind been trolled, so feel free to bag my ignorance.
Question - is a commercial licence required to perform / sell photographic services and / or perform for example aerial inspections? Is the answer different if there is a passenger on board?
I initially suspected you would need a commercial licence as the flight is for commercial purposes such as transporting freight, but given there is no carriage of person or freight wondered if this type of work is somehow exempt.
Cheers
Question - is a commercial licence required to perform / sell photographic services and / or perform for example aerial inspections? Is the answer different if there is a passenger on board?
I initially suspected you would need a commercial licence as the flight is for commercial purposes such as transporting freight, but given there is no carriage of person or freight wondered if this type of work is somehow exempt.
Cheers
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: EARTH
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question - is a commercial licence required to perform / sell photographic services and / or perform for example aerial inspections? Is the answer different if there is a passenger on board?
I initially suspected you would need a commercial licence as the flight is for commercial purposes such as transporting freight, but given there is no carriage of person or freight wondered if this type of work is somehow exempt.
Cheers
If not getting paid for photography and aerial inspections, then these operations can be regarded private operations; CAR Regulation 2, 7(D) gives a list of exemptions and scenarios and d (ii) specifies no remuneration can be accepted if wanting to carry this out as a private op.
Regarding passenger, as long as they're not paying you = private operations.
"Performing" photographic services... possibly "private" (ie. you have a mate on board who wants to take some scenic shots)
"Selling" photographic services... sounds like commercial activity. Same with the "aerial inspection"... this would preclude a PPL on the basis of the aircraft being operated for hire or reward:
The only "hire or reward" exemption is for glider towing, and the pilot still can't be paid for that.
And yes, you can "cost share" on a PPL... as long as all persons onboard are paying equal amounts:
Sadly, "no payment or other reward" is allowed... So, no taking your mates for a jolly and making them pay for the beer afterwards! 
"Selling" photographic services... sounds like commercial activity. Same with the "aerial inspection"... this would preclude a PPL on the basis of the aircraft being operated for hire or reward:
Originally Posted by NZCAA Part 61.155 PPL Privileges and Limitations
(b) The holder of a private pilot licence must not act as pilot-in-command or as co-pilot of an aircraft—
(1) for remuneration; or
(2) if the aircraft is being operated for hire or reward; or
...
Despite paragraph (b)(2), the holder of a current private pilot licence may act, but not for remuneration, as pilot-in-command or as a copilot of an aircraft that is operated for hire or reward to tow a glider in flight, but only if the operation is under the direct control of a gliding organisation, or under the authority of an adventure aviation operator certificate issued by the Director under the Act and Part 115.
(1) for remuneration; or
(2) if the aircraft is being operated for hire or reward; or
...
Despite paragraph (b)(2), the holder of a current private pilot licence may act, but not for remuneration, as pilot-in-command or as a copilot of an aircraft that is operated for hire or reward to tow a glider in flight, but only if the operation is under the direct control of a gliding organisation, or under the authority of an adventure aviation operator certificate issued by the Director under the Act and Part 115.
And yes, you can "cost share" on a PPL... as long as all persons onboard are paying equal amounts:
Originally Posted by NZCAA Part 1 Definitions
Cost sharing flight means any flight that is performed solely for the carriage of persons where—
(1) the flight is not advertised to the public; and
(2) the crew members receive no payment or other reward for their services; and
(3) the persons carried by the aircraft, including the crew members, share equally in the cost of the flight; and
(4) no payment or other reward is required of a person on the flight other than that specified in subparagraph (3)
and, for the avoidance of doubt, a cost sharing flight is not an operation for hire or reward
(1) the flight is not advertised to the public; and
(2) the crew members receive no payment or other reward for their services; and
(3) the persons carried by the aircraft, including the crew members, share equally in the cost of the flight; and
(4) no payment or other reward is required of a person on the flight other than that specified in subparagraph (3)
and, for the avoidance of doubt, a cost sharing flight is not an operation for hire or reward
Standing by for 16 pages of Australian “interpretation and debate” of what should be a simple topic but what is yet another example of a pathetic suite of documents, usable only by lawyers.
The rules as to when a CPL is required in NZ are quite different to Australia, and one example of where we would not want to copy NZ.
To the original question, you also need an AOC for aerial photography, as well as the pilot needing a CPL.
Tootle pip!!
Also the way the reg(in both Aus and NZ) is written asking for less than the equal share of cost is not a private flight. eg "the real cost is 200 but just give me $50 to cover some of the fuel" or if you take a mate and a young kid along. Asking the mate to pay half and the young kid free is also illegal by the letter of the rule...
Leadsled I have seen an occasional comment that there are NZ rules that we would not want to copy, and would be interested to know which rules, and why.
A genuine question.
Having worked under both CASA and NZCAA, I found NZ generally clearer and easier to comply with overall, even though they were more strict in some areas.
It seems that some want to cherry pick rules from all over, i.e. a bit of FAA, a bit of Canada, a bit of NZ etc. That would be Utopia, which as we know does not exist.
A genuine question.
Having worked under both CASA and NZCAA, I found NZ generally clearer and easier to comply with overall, even though they were more strict in some areas.
It seems that some want to cherry pick rules from all over, i.e. a bit of FAA, a bit of Canada, a bit of NZ etc. That would be Utopia, which as we know does not exist.
Leadsled I have seen an occasional comment that there are NZ rules that we would not want to copy, and would be interested to know which rules, and why.
A genuine question.
Having worked under both CASA and NZCAA, I found NZ generally clearer and easier to comply with overall, even though they were more strict in some areas.
It seems that some want to cherry pick rules from all over, i.e. a bit of FAA, a bit of Canada, a bit of NZ etc. That would be Utopia, which as we know does not exist.
A genuine question.
Having worked under both CASA and NZCAA, I found NZ generally clearer and easier to comply with overall, even though they were more strict in some areas.
It seems that some want to cherry pick rules from all over, i.e. a bit of FAA, a bit of Canada, a bit of NZ etc. That would be Utopia, which as we know does not exist.
If give the either/or choice, I would go with the NZ Act and Regulations over any other I know,( a choice quite a long list of countries have made, with their own minor local changes) but given a choice there are a few things I would not adopt. This based on quite a lot of experience with the NZ rules, particularly establishing new AOCs.
As well as the above, the couple that come to mind are:
1) In NZ, no "Group" endorsements, as we have had here in only recent years, given the choice here, follow FAA. Second choice, what we already have.
2) Our Part 21 Experimental and Limited rules, before CASA completely screwed it up, including but not limited to perverting of Experimental Exhibition and Air Racing and forcing these aircraft into "Limited", and the hands of AWAL.
3) Re. Airspace, revert to our original Airspace Act 2007, which incorporated mandatory real risk analysis and cost/benefit justification.
They are the major ones, to my mind.
As to Utopia, in the CASA Review in 1997, we had a big spreadsheet, with the "equivalent" regulations from relevant countries plus ICAO set out side by side (which really illustrated how voluminous and out of balance Australian regulations were/are) with the policy of "pick the simplest and least restrictive that does the job", it can be done if you want to do it.
The draft Part 91/135/121 and Part 43/145 we left in 1999 were, in our opinion, even more simple and straightforward than the NZ equivalent ---- and in total contrasts to the present shambles.
Sadly, the CASA penchant is for the most restrictive, with the current perverted "interpretation" of S.9A of our Act, effectively saying it mandates zero accident and "100% Safety" ---- which S.9A does not say. Add the overriding policy of writing the rules for 100% conviction rate, and you have our disaster --- and a severe impact across the board, NOT JUST GA, it is costing airlines big time.
Tootle pip!!
Thanks for that history. Rather depressing to think that almost 20 years ago there was an opportunity to cherry pick the best of several jurisdictions which have every bit as much aviation experience as Australia
In most cases I would guess their safety record would equal or better ours, too.
In most cases I would guess their safety record would equal or better ours, too.
Thanks for that history. Rather depressing to think that almost 20 years ago there was an opportunity to cherry pick the best of several jurisdictions which have every bit as much aviation experience as Australia
In most cases I would guess their safety record would equal or better ours, too.
In most cases I would guess their safety record would equal or better ours, too.
The US record of air safety outcomes is head and shoulders ahead of the rest of the world --- based on detailed analysis by expert statisticians, using ICAO definitions, not Australia's carefully tailored/managed definitions.
So, they must be doing something right. And we do know why ---- education before the event, not imposition of penalties after.
As for the lost opportunities, despite huge CASA opposition, we did get Parts 21-35 in place, but after Mark Vaile moved up, for reasons I can't go into here, John Anderson was shafted by the internal politics of the Liberal (not National) Party, and he just lost heart.
If the proposed rules had gone in place, and Anderson's proposed complimentary complete overhaul of CASA had gone ahead, Australian aviation would not be where it is now.
The rug was pulled out from under Anderson, the "Iron Ring" regained complete control after Byron and Vaughan retired, and the rest is very sad history.
Tootle pip!!
Earlier posts bring up that 'bete noir' ...Photography. The CAsA use and abuse of Reg 206 is legendary.
You know the CAsA I mean the "Safety" regulator also posing as a serious Commercial regulator, in spite of rabid protestations in Senate Hearings from frothy mouthed McCormick EX das,. and others.
I wont rehash the sordid details regarding the bureaucratic buggery, and corruption and cronyism in my case that cost me my livelihood and financial well being, but recent FOI shows that CAsA have not prosecuted a photographer since.
But dont let that lull anybody into a sense of security..The 206 crap is still on the books, there are still plenty of hairy-chested CASA people out there looking for prosecution brownie points. So beware.!
" No person can take a photograph from an aircraft in Australia without a CPL and an AOC" Prosecutor,( not under oath, of course) court 2000.. That's CAsA for ya... any old BS will do.!
If the changes proposed in the new Classification of Operations Policy in 1996 hadnt been shat on by CASA,none of this BS would have occurred.
And CAsA could have got on being a safety regulator and not a regulator of commerce that had/has SFA to do with 'safety'
Alas, 20+ years lost and GA where it is today. Scandalous.!!
You know the CAsA I mean the "Safety" regulator also posing as a serious Commercial regulator, in spite of rabid protestations in Senate Hearings from frothy mouthed McCormick EX das,. and others.
I wont rehash the sordid details regarding the bureaucratic buggery, and corruption and cronyism in my case that cost me my livelihood and financial well being, but recent FOI shows that CAsA have not prosecuted a photographer since.
But dont let that lull anybody into a sense of security..The 206 crap is still on the books, there are still plenty of hairy-chested CASA people out there looking for prosecution brownie points. So beware.!
" No person can take a photograph from an aircraft in Australia without a CPL and an AOC" Prosecutor,( not under oath, of course) court 2000.. That's CAsA for ya... any old BS will do.!
If the changes proposed in the new Classification of Operations Policy in 1996 hadnt been shat on by CASA,none of this BS would have occurred.
And CAsA could have got on being a safety regulator and not a regulator of commerce that had/has SFA to do with 'safety'
Alas, 20+ years lost and GA where it is today. Scandalous.!!
