Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Legality of a PPL holder being paid

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

Legality of a PPL holder being paid

Old 9th May 2019, 01:40
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by andrewr View Post
I am not aware of any such regulation. Can you provide a reference?

A lot of this thread is just people's opinions on what the law should be, rather than what it is. (CASA allegedly often operates on the same principle, which is one reason why this stuff can be confusing.)
You actually nail it andrew.

Peoples opinions do not matter, the law does not matter. What matters is what the CASA person on the day thinks it should be - best you just agree with them.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 9th May 2019, 01:44
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The Swan Downunder
Posts: 227
Originally Posted by Bend alot View Post
Next thing you will be saying is I must give all my employers my Tax File number.
Yes you do and there is no such thing as a full time casual.

Last edited by Xeptu; 9th May 2019 at 02:06.
Xeptu is offline  
Old 9th May 2019, 02:44
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by Xeptu View Post
Yes you do and there is no such thing as a full time casual.
You have 28 days to provide a completed Tax file number declaration to your employer. If you don't, they must deduct a higher rate of tax from your pay.

If I have a second job and my first job is $200K a year, it will make no difference or not if I give my second employer my TFN or not. It is not mandatory to give a TFN to an employer.

https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/I...-in-Australia/

Ok "long time casual employee" (doing the same hours as full time employee). Often referred to as "full time casual"

Long term casual employees

Some casual employees work for one employer for a long period and become 'long term casuals'.

Long term casuals stay as casual employees unless their employment relationship changes with their employer so that there is a mutual commitment to provide ongoing work on an agreed pattern of ordinary hours of work. A long term casual gets their casual entitlements regardless of how regularly they work or how long they work for

https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employee...sual-employees
Bend alot is offline  
Old 9th May 2019, 02:51
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The Swan Downunder
Posts: 227
Now do it in practice. No Company will argue in court that you are an employee, casual or otherwise without your TFN

Further, if it can be shown that on those days you were casually employed you also flew the company aircraft, then the court will have no trouble in making its determination that is the purpose of your engagement. particularly if you did that for more than one company. Your ship will be sunk.

Last edited by Xeptu; 9th May 2019 at 03:25.
Xeptu is offline  
Old 9th May 2019, 03:36
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by Xeptu View Post
Now do it in practice. No Company will argue in court that you are an employee, casual or otherwise without your TFN

Further, if it can be shown that on those days you were casually employed you also flew the company aircraft, then the court will have no trouble in making its determination that is the purpose of your engagement. particularly if you did that for more than one company. Your ship will be sunk.
Can you please show me "link me" were a casual employee is treated differently to a full time employee in the eyes of CASA.

If you could do the same for non aviation jobs excluding CASA, as far as work restrictions - that would be excellent also.

Payslips, time cards and work contracts will prove being an employee (an ABN is for tax reasons) in court - companies in court generally try prove people are not their employee when things get to court. But if your happy to link a few court cases I will happily read them also.

Thanks for the links in advance.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 9th May 2019, 04:12
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Going home
Posts: 203
What's the story with PPL flight instructors? Do they get paid? It didn't happen back in my days as a PPL.
VH DSJ is online now  
Old 9th May 2019, 07:41
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,696
Originally Posted by VH DSJ View Post
What's the story with PPL flight instructors? Do they get paid? It didn't happen back in my days as a PPL.
DSJ,

PPL flight instructors?? In Australia??

To the original thread starter ---- I sincerely hope you have learned one thing by now ---- pprune is no place for legal advice. ---- on any subject.
As I said in my first post, Yes, you can do something like you suggested, but it must be structured "legally" ---- the devil is in the detail ----- presuming you have no wish to accumulate a criminal record, which will snuff out almost any international or domestic professional flying ambitions you may have.


Aroa,
You will remember the little stoush, some years ago, now, where a certain Executive Manager decided that not only the camera platform, but any aircraft the subject of aerial photography, had to have a Standard Category Certificate of Airworthiness, because it was all Aerial Work.
Which made the thousands of photographs and videos of Warbirds etc. "illegal", as, in most instances, neither the camera ship or the subject aircraft had a Standard Cat. C.of A ------ so I suppose many of us have notionally racked up pretty impressive totals of (probably) strict liability criminal offenses.
This is the same Executive Manager who proposed the Private Operations AOC, and said, in writing, that he considered a PPL lawyer flying to a country hearing with his/her briefcase was committing a criminal breach, likewise a medical specialist flying to country clinics with his/her bag and laptop ---- under the rules current to this day.

Bend A Lot ---- I did mean the AAT. Perhaps you are mixing up state and Commonwealth bodies.

Andrewr,

Of course CAR 206 is about AOCs, that is why I posted the relevant section that covers "a LAME and his/her tool box".
Again, folks, if you do your homework, you will find more than one CASA/CDDP action against a PPL LAME "flying" to a job, and at least one with a CPL but no relevant Aerial Work AOC.
In each of the cases, of which I am aware, it was CASA targeting a particular LAME.

Tootle pip!!

PS: And yes, offering to "fill up the tanks" constitutes a breach in the scenario some of you have suggested ---- and yes, there is case on it.
LeadSled is offline  
Old 9th May 2019, 08:13
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by LeadSled View Post
DSJ,

PPL flight instructors?? In Australia??

To the original thread starter ---- I sincerely hope you have learned one thing by now ---- pprune is no place for legal advice. ---- on any subject.
As I said in my first post, Yes, you can do something like you suggested, but it must be structured "legally" ---- the devil is in the detail ----- presuming you have no wish to accumulate a criminal record, which will snuff out almost any international or domestic professional flying ambitions you may have.


Aroa,
You will remember the little stoush, some years ago, now, where a certain Executive Manager decided that not only the camera platform, but any aircraft the subject of aerial photography, had to have a Standard Category Certificate of Airworthiness, because it was all Aerial Work.
Which made the thousands of photographs and videos of Warbirds etc. "illegal", as, in most instances, neither the camera ship or the subject aircraft had a Standard Cat. C.of A ------ so I suppose many of us have notionally racked up pretty impressive totals of (probably) strict liability criminal offenses.
This is the same Executive Manager who proposed the Private Operations AOC, and said, in writing, that he considered a PPL lawyer flying to a country hearing with his/her briefcase was committing a criminal breach, likewise a medical specialist flying to country clinics with his/her bag and laptop ---- under the rules current to this day.

Bend A Lot ---- I did mean the AAT. Perhaps you are mixing up state and Commonwealth bodies.

Andrewr,

Of course CAR 206 is about AOCs, that is why I posted the relevant section that covers "a LAME and his/her tool box".
Again, folks, if you do your homework, you will find more than one CASA/CDDP action against a PPL LAME "flying" to a job, and at least one with a CPL but no relevant Aerial Work AOC.
In each of the cases, of which I am aware, it was CASA targeting a particular LAME.

Tootle pip!!

PS: And yes, offering to "fill up the tanks" constitutes a breach in the scenario some of you have suggested ---- and yes, there is case on it.
The PPL got no benefit was not even paid for any time- (illegally - I doubt he even logged the time in his pilot log book).

So I had free access to aircraft just need to give it fuel, a PPL mate of mine wants to come along for the ride to see the mess. I tell the assessor we can go check the mess you just pay for the fuel. He says fill it up at the end. The owner gets a small reduction to an actual cost as opposed to a total loss.

If I recall correctly my invoice to the assessor was my full hours for the day at standard company rate + x lts of avgas.

Remember the PPL was involved in nothing - not paid in any shape or form. I had an aeroplane for use (any use) but must pay for fuel ( he also can use my aircraft with same deal)
Bend alot is offline  
Old 9th May 2019, 09:00
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,696
Originally Posted by Bend alot View Post
The PPL got no benefit was not even paid for any time- (illegally - I doubt he even logged the time in his pilot log book).

So I had free access to aircraft just need to give it fuel, a PPL mate of mine wants to come along for the ride to see the mess. I tell the assessor we can go check the mess you just pay for the fuel. He says fill it up at the end. The owner gets a small reduction to an actual cost as opposed to a total loss.

If I recall correctly my invoice to the assessor was my full hours for the day at standard company rate + x lts of avgas.

Remember the PPL was involved in nothing - not paid in any shape or form. I had an aeroplane for use (any use) but must pay for fuel ( he also can use my aircraft with same deal)
Bendy,
Just as well, for me, you are not my lawyer.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 9th May 2019, 10:07
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by LeadSled View Post
Bendy,
Just as well, for me, you are not my lawyer.
Tootle pip!!
No need for lawyers.

CASA FOI and AWI will solve the case - disagree and and your option is "all in" or"fold"


I ran far before any issue.

Bend alot is offline  
Old 9th May 2019, 10:32
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
Originally Posted by Bend alot View Post
The PPL got no benefit was not even paid for any time
The problem isn't paying the PPL, the problem is payment from the passenger when the pilot is a PPL.
andrewr is offline  
Old 9th May 2019, 10:45
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,069
My first summer holiday job as an engineering student was as a TA at the Union Carbide polyethylene plant at Altona.

...........And the first instruction regarding management I learned from the fitters shop steward was “tell them nothing”.

THAT is where aviation seems to be going if PPRuNe threads like this are to be believed; Minimise contact with CASA and when contact is unavoidable, provide the bare minimum information.

It is a very short step from this passive grudging compliance to active avoidance - faked records and not just unreported, but concealed, incidents, to the detriment of the industry and economy.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 9th May 2019, 10:47
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
Originally Posted by LeadSled View Post
Of course CAR 206 is about AOCs, that is why I posted the relevant section that covers "a LAME and his/her tool box".
I have heard of cases like that, but I believe it is a wrong interpretation. (I'm not interested in arguing in court though!)

You wrote:
"You do all understand the meaning of trade"
However, the meaning of "goods" is also important, and particularly the compound "carriage of goods, for the purposes of trade".

Is "trade" the same as "a trade"?
Are "goods, for the purposes of trade" the same as "goods, for the purposes of plying a trade", or "tools of trade"?

The LAME toolbox example seems to equate "goods, for the purposes of trade" with "tools of trade" but denying tools of trade gets problematic pretty quickly.

Is an OzRunways developer allowed to carry their laptop and iPad?

Is a commercial pilot allowed to carry their tools of trade (iPad/EFB, headset, charts etc.) outside of the coverage of an AOC?

andrewr is offline  
Old 9th May 2019, 11:39
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,069
Andrew, the trouble is that it only takes ONE CASA staffer to get that “wrong” interpretation in their head and you are destroyed. Even if you win, you face massive legal costs and a regulator, now bruised, who will desire to get even.

As for the distinction between tools of trade and goods - a dab of sealant, an O ring, a gasket, no matter how insignificant, are goods and they are being exchanged for money.

Spare me the joke about “free slab of beer with every $60.00 bag of ice” it won’t wash.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 9th May 2019, 12:18
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
Andrew, the trouble is that it only takes ONE CASA staffer to get that “wrong” interpretation in their head and you are destroyed. Even if you win, you face massive legal costs and a regulator, now bruised, who will desire to get even.
As I said I'm not interesting in arguing in court, so I do personally avoid areas that CASA might find problematic. However, I do regularly carry tools of trade (laptop computer, mobile phone) because I need to be able to keep up with email etc. if e.g. weather delays my flight back.

Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
As for the distinction between tools of trade and goods - a dab of sealant, an O ring, a gasket, no matter how insignificant, are goods and they are being exchanged for money.
I made a mistake in my previous quote - I paraphrased. The actual regulation says "carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods". The purpose applies to the carriage, not the goods.

I would argue that means you can't carry a stock of o rings to sell o rings, but if you need o rings for another purpose i.e. as part of a repair you can charge for them as part of the repair. You are performing a repair, not selling o rings. The purpose is important.

The clause about ownership of the goods gives some clues about the intentions behind the rule - why would it matter whether you bought the o-rings (i.e. they are property of the pilot, owner or hirer of the aircraft), or whether you borrowed a box from the workshop?
andrewr is offline  
Old 9th May 2019, 16:58
  #56 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Originally Posted by Future 73 Pilot View Post
What nonsense is this?! Legality of a PPL getting paid? The legality clearly states you CANNOT be remunerated for flying with a PPL,it is literally that simple. If you can't even abide to that, please don't consider getting a CPL, don't even want to think of the commercial laws you'd then be breaking if you're already considering breaking laws at PPL level.
Good day sir.
Wow this certainly blew up! As I've mentioned before, this was idea floating around the company proposed by the senior therapist. I have a passion as a therapist and as a pilot which would love to combine both skills to treat patients that cannot go back to their hospitals due to numerous reasons for rehab. The conclusion from this thread and this thread only is that it would be completely legal for me to fly me and other therapists in order to perform our jobs. I cannot be reimbursed/remunerated as future 73 has stated however there isn't anything stating a bonus/increase in salary for the service; the company also claiming the transport tax free as well. Only problem would be insurance which can be easily work around.

Cheers all
​​​​​​​
Pecterinium is offline  
Old 9th May 2019, 23:31
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,069
Pecter, try asking CASA for a binding ruling. I need a good laugh.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 10th May 2019, 01:40
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,696
Originally Posted by Pecterinium View Post
Wow this certainly blew up! As I've mentioned before, this was idea floating around the company proposed by the senior therapist. I have a passion as a therapist and as a pilot which would love to combine both skills to treat patients that cannot go back to their hospitals due to numerous reasons for rehab. The conclusion from this thread and this thread only is that it would be completely legal for me to fly me and other therapists in order to perform our jobs. I cannot be reimbursed/remunerated as future 73 has stated however there isn't anything stating a bonus/increase in salary for the service; the company also claiming the transport tax free as well. Only problem would be insurance which can be easily work around.

Cheers all
​​​​​​​
Pecterinium,
The only conclusion you can draw from this thread is that the aviation community is well supplied with "Bar Room Barristers" and "Bush Lawyers".

Sadly, this is the result of Australia writing "aviation safety" rules that are complex, contradictory and confusing, often nothing to do with "safety", written "for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers"**

As a result, too many pilots and engineers ( including FOI/AWI) fancy themselves as "experts" on aviation law ----- when being experts on flying or fixing aeroplanes should be a higher priority.

For the umteenth time, get proper advice from an aviation lawyer, the consequences for not doing so are too personally and professionally serious ---- including huge fines, a criminal record that will seriously inhibit international travel, or even jail time. And that just from CASA, not all the other possible problems if there is an injury to anybody involved.

I am NOT a lawyer, but I know enough, (from many years experience working closely with aviation lawyers) about it to know how off beam or downright wrong are many of the comments and proffered advice on this thread.

Tootle pip!!

** Actual quote from a former Principal Counsel at CASA Legal.
LeadSled is offline  
Old 10th May 2019, 02:15
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The Swan Downunder
Posts: 227
Pecterinium

I'm with leadsled, never confuse an individual CASA FOI's opinion or advice with what CASA's view is.

Whilst it may be possible to achieve your corporate objectives as a syndicate of therapists, it will be with a very specific set of conditions with very narrow margins. It rarely works out well. One of the biggest issues you wouldn't be aware of as a private pilot is commercial pressure. All of a sudden there's a need to get you and a number of therapists to specific places at a specific time. The pressures associated with that is no small thing even for experienced commercial pilots.
Then one day one of your therapists turns up with a client who needs to go back to the city for urgent treatment, thought that would be ok because we have an empty seat.
Think carefully before you go down this path, Are you a Therapist or are you a Pilot.
Xeptu is offline  
Old 10th May 2019, 03:01
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,001
I’m laughing at all these inferences towards the pilot receiving bonuses and extras for doing the flying for the company.

Pilots usually get paid less than for their primary job role in this case so it’s the reverse... you should actually get a pay CUT for flying yourself and your team around !
Squawk7700 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.