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

AOC or no AOC

Old 24th Jun 2020, 07:32
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 444
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
If someone wants to take regulatory action because there is no AOC authorising me to fly my wife and 5 kids on a sight-seeing trip around Australia in a C208 I’ve hired from my mate, bring it on!
That's not an example I gave. My example (which you keep ignoring) was someone purchasing an aircraft for a regular trip to Sydney (2(7)(d)(i)), then publicly selling the spare seats.

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
If someone wants to take regulatory action because there is no AOC authorising me and 3 mates to ‘hour build’ by taking turns as PIC while on a sight-seeing trip around Australia, in an aircraft we hired from another mate and for which we do not share costs equally, bring it on!
Again, not my example. My example would be a businessman who says to his mate who just got his PPL "Hey, I have to go to Mildura every week, how about you fly me there, I'll pay 1/2 the cost and you can build up your hours?" I would call this flying for hire.

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
If someone wants to take regulatory action because there is no AOC authorising the agricultural operations being conducted in an aircraft I own on land I own and occupy, bring it on!
Here I think you would have a problem. But we know CASA want to allow this particular operation so the likelihood of it being tested is minimal.
andrewr is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2020, 20:46
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,139
Originally Posted by andrewr View Post
That's not an example I gave. My example (which you keep ignoring) was someone purchasing an aircraft for a regular trip to Sydney (2(7)(d)(i)), then publicly selling the spare seats.
And are you aware of anyone on the planet who claims to be able to do that without an AOC?

Originally Posted by andrewr View Post
Again, not my example. My example would be a businessman who says to his mate who just got his PPL "Hey, I have to go to Mildura every week, how about you fly me there, I'll pay 1/2 the cost and you can build up your hours?" I would call this flying for hire.
If the businessman purchased or hired the aircraft, I’d call that the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft. (Read reg 2(9).)

Originally Posted by andrewr View Post
Here I think you would have a problem. But we know CASA want to allow this particular operation so the likelihood of it being tested is minimal.
You evidently don’t know how law works. What CASA “wants to allow” is neither here nor there.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2020, 22:49
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 444
And are you aware of anyone on the planet who claims to be able to do that without an AOC?
I thought you were claiming an operation that was classed as private under CAR 2(7) never required an AOC.

If the businessman purchased or hired the aircraft, I’d call that the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft.
Who said anything about purchasing an aircraft? And I doubt that the hirer is considered the owner of the aircraft for the purposes of the regulation.

You evidently don’t know how law works. What CASA “wants to allow” is neither here nor there.
On the contrary, what laws CASA choose to enforce absolutely affects what people can and can't do in practice.
andrewr is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2020, 23:42
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,139
Originally Posted by andrewr View Post
I thought you were claiming an operation that was classed as private under CAR 2(7) never required an AOC.
Indeed I am - although, to be accurate, I’m claiming an operation classed as private under CAR 2(7)(d) never required and does not require an AOC. None of those operations includes charging for seats advertised as available to any member of the public.

Originally Posted by andrewr View Post
Who said anything about purchasing an aircraft? And I doubt that the hirer is considered the owner of the aircraft for the purposes of the regulation.
Now you’re just taking the piss! I cited the regulation for you: Reg 2(9). It says: “Any reference in these Regulations to the owner of an aircraft must, where under a contract of hire or charter agreement the control, maintenance and operation of the aircraft is vested in the hirer, be read as a reference to the hirer.” I mentioned it because the classification of the operation you raised depends on who is the owner of the aircraft for the purposes of the regulations.

Originally Posted by andrewr View Post
On the contrary, what laws CASA choose to enforce absolutely affects what people can and can't do in practice.
So are you suggesting that CASA reckons that there are operations that are classified as private under the regulations that nonetheless must be authorised by an AOC, but chooses not to enforce those obligations? And nobody has ever successfully shown CASA to be wrong in choosing to enforce something that turned out not to be enforceable?
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 00:14
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 444
A contract where "the control, maintenance and operation of the aircraft is vested in the hirer" is not your everyday private hire agreement. Sure, in those cases you assume many rights and responsibilities of the owner.

I'm talking about a PPL walking into their local aero club and hiring an aircraft. In that case they do not become the operator, and they do not become responsible for the maintenance (beyond the daily inspection etc).
andrewr is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 01:53
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,122
If your PPL hirer then goes and charges three people to be transported somewhere then she is in AOC territory.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 02:05
  #67 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,616
How about this scenario?


A pilot of Chinese origin with a PPL or CPL, private hires an aircraft from an establishment.

The pilot advertises the flight on social media and websites in China. The flight experience consists of a 20 minute flight to an airport with a restaurant onsite. The passengers are dressed in airline captain 👨‍✈️ 👩‍✈️ clothing and Ray-ban sunglasses and fed a large meal of the local cuisine. They then return to origin in the same aircraft.

The pilot accepts remuneration for the flight into their Chinese bank account.





Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 03:49
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,348
What we lost all those years ago.!
From theClassification of Operations Policy adopted by the Minister and the CAsA Board, 15 April 1997.
'the payment of monies to an aircraft pilot, owner or operator, either to re-inburse him/her for expenses, or allow him/her to make a profit, is possible in all classes of operations' (their bolding)
Should have been dated April1st.
Altho CAsA spend squillions and years producing mod. material it all blew away like dust in the desert without change.. So here we are today...the same old confusing, inconsistent sh*tshow./ mish mash of BS regs , ad nauseam.
aroa is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 04:31
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,139
Private pilots are allowed to make a profit out of private operations. I can pay a private pilot anything I like to fly me on a sight-seeing trip around Australia in an aircraft I own, and it’s a private operation for which an AOC is not required: 2(7)(d)(i).

Chief Justice andrewr will no doubt have a dissenting view.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 04:52
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: The Pointy End
Posts: 32
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
Private pilots are allowed to make a profit out of private operations. I can pay a private pilot anything I like to fly me on a sight-seeing trip around Australia in an aircraft I own, and it’s a private operation for which an AOC is not required: 2(7)(d)(i).
I’d hope so. Otherwise 90% of corporate pilots in Aus would be in the slammer!
DrongoDriver is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 05:09
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,139
Sshhhhh! andrewr may reading this!

Who’d have thought that commercial businesses could buy aircraft to fly their execs around and pay the pilot handsomely, yet no AOC is required.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 05:33
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 444
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
I can pay a private pilot anything I like to fly me on a sight-seeing trip around Australia in an aircraft I own, and it’s a private operation for which an AOC is not required: 2(7)(d)(i).
Chief Justice andrewr will no doubt have a dissenting view.
No, I would agree with that.

Can you take a box of 20 headsets with the hope of selling them to pilots you meet at airfields along the way?
andrewr is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 05:48
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,139
As usual, you omit an important fact from the scenario on which your question is based.

Who owns the headsets?

(Naturally, there is no causal connection between safety risk and who happens to have legal title in the headsets. But it does affect the classification of the operation and, therefore, whether an AOC is required. That’s classification of operations for ya!)
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 06:30
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,348
Squawk..The Government would advise CAsA not to stick their bib in.
Upset the Chinese and there will be trade tariffs imposed.
aroa is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 06:30
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 444
Who owns the headsets?
That aircraft owner, who is paying the PPL pilot owns the headsets.

But I can see where you're going here. You are going to tell me that despite no change to the status under CAR 2(7)(d)(i) - so it's still a private operation - an AOC is required because of 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

So it looks like an aircraft can be “taken to be employed in private operations” when flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of one of the operations listed in with CAR 2(7)(d) and at the same time those operations may have to be authorised by an AOC? You have reached regulatory nirvana, andrewr! Private operations that have to be authorised by an AOC!
I guess we both reached regulatory nirvana.
andrewr is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 07:02
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,139
No, that’s not what I’m going to tell you. If the 20 headsets are owned by the aircraft owner and being carried for the purposes of trade, it’s no longer a private operation. That’s because the aircraft is no longer being flown for a purpose that falls within the scope of 2(7)(d).

(In the crazy world that is classification of operations, if the 20 headsets were instead owned by the sister of the aircraft owner, no problem! Private and no AOC required! The stark difference in risk caused by the difference in title to the headsets is obviously the justification for the different classification.)
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 07:08
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 444
That’s because the aircraft is no longer being flown for a purpose that falls within the scope of 2(7)(d).
It's still being flown for the primary purpose (you can have multiple purposes) of the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft. The headsets are just a side hustle.
andrewr is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 11:00
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,139
You say that with such confidence. CAR 2(6) says:
(6)For the purposes of these Regulations, an aircraft shall be classified in accordance with the type of operations in which it is being employed at any time, as follows:

(a) when an aircraft is being employed in aerial work operations, it shall be classified as an aerial work aircraft;

(b) when an aircraft is being employed in charter operations, it shall be classified as a charter aircraft;

(c) when an aircraft is being employed in regular public transport operations, it shall be classified as a regular public transport aircraft;

(d) when an aircraft is being employed in private operations, it shall be classified as a private aircraft.
Walk me through how you work out “when” the aircraft carrying the owner of the aircraft and headsets for sale is being employed in the private operations (the personal transportation of the owner) and “when” the the aircraft is being employed in aerial work (carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft). Everything’s happening at the same time.

Let’s go ‘full retard’ and say that it is possible for an aircraft to be simultaneously employed in aerial work operations and charter operations and regular public transport operations and private operations.

Go for it, andrewr!

Last edited by Lead Balloon; 25th Jun 2020 at 11:29.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 22:58
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 444
Let’s go ‘full retard’ and say that it is possible for an aircraft to be simultaneously employed in aerial work operations and charter operations and regular public transport operations and private operations.
CASA have ruled that an operation can be classified for more than one purpose at the same time (CASA Ruling 3/2004). While it refers to operations under CAR 206, it confirms that more than one purpose can (or must!) be considered when classifying the operation, and there's nothing there that rules out a private purpose. It certainly means that an operation can fall under more than one classification in CAR2(6).

An operation classified for more than 1 of the purposes in CAR 206 must comply
with the requirements applicable to both classifications. Generally, a person who
complies with the higher level classification (e.g. charter) will also comply with the
lower level classification (e.g. aerial work). Guidance should be sought if there is
any inconsistency between 2 (or more) sets of applicable regulatory
requirements.


andrewr is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2020, 01:24
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,139
That’d be the ‘ruling’ that says:
A user of aviation rulings should also be aware that a ruling is only a statement of CASA’s policy. It is not a restatement of the law. Accordingly, while rulings are drafted to be consistent with the law referred to in the ruling as understood by CASA from time to time, they cannot displace any inconsistent legal requirements.
In short, it’s just someone’s opinion, just like yours and mine.

Anyway, it’s all academic because the new, simple, outcomes-based classification of operations scheme will come into effect in 1998.
Lead Balloon is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.