AOC or no AOC

[Squawk7700]

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon

And who is the source of this theory?

2 separate employees where you used to work.

Getting it in writing might be a different story. It makes perfect sense to me, but there will always be those that try and twist the scenarios to suit themselves.

[Progressive]

Originally Posted by andrewr

CAR 206 is messy because people seem to interpret it as meaning what they think it should mean rather than what it actually says.
Reading CAR 206 I can see:

• Only 2 of the sections mention payment: (1)(b)(i) the carriage of passengers or cargo for hire or reward and (1)(c) transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally, for hire or reward. Presumably other sections require an AOC whether or not they are being performed for money.
• There is nothing that refers to the number of passengers

Aerial photography does not mention payment. My interpretation would be that it depends on the purpose of the flight - if you are flying for pleasure or recreation and take photos or video that is OK. If the purpose of the flight is to take photos or video, that should require an AOC.

You have fallen foul of the common problem of reading a reg in isolation - greater definition of classification of operations is provided in CAR 2 (7)(D), where you will see that which specifically states "(a) an aircraft that is flying or operating for a commercial purpose referred to in paragraph 206(1)(a) shall be taken to be employed in aerial work operations;" From the definitions commercial operations means civil air operations other than private operations.

Going back to CAR 2(7)(D) private operations are classified as an aircraft that is flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of:

(i) the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft;

(ii) aerial spotting where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the spotting is conducted;

(iii) agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft;

(iv) aerial photography where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the photography is conducted;

(v) the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made other than the carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft;

(va) the carriage of persons in accordance with subregulation (7A);

(vi) the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes of trade;

(vii) flight training, other than the following:

(A) Part 141 flight training (within the meaning of regulation 141.015 of CASR);

(B) Part 142 flight training (within the meaning of regulation 142.015 of CASR);

(C) balloon flying training (within the meaning of subregulation 5.01(1)) for the grant of a balloon flight crew licence or rating; or

(viii) any other activity of a kind substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vi) (inclusive);

shall be taken to be employed in private operations

Thus a flight can be conducted for the purposes of aerial photography as long as no remuneration is earned by the pilot etc.
Subreg 7A contains the requirements for passenger carrying private flight flights and limits passenger numbers to 6 and requires cost sharing - just for kicks there is NO provision for carrying pax WITHOUT cost sharing - except (viii) where this could be taken to be similar to (va).

[andrewr]

Originally Posted by Progressive

You have fallen foul of the common problem of reading a reg in isolation - greater definition of classification of operations is provided in CAR 2 (7)(D), where you will see that which specifically states "(a) an aircraft that is flying or operating for a commercial purpose referred to in paragraph 206(1)(a) shall be taken to be employed in aerial work operations;" From the definitions commercial operations means civil air operations other than private operations.

OK, but I don't see where Section 27 pulls in the definition of private operations from CAR 2(7). CAR 206 defines operations for section 27. CAR2(7) also refers to definitions from CAR 206, so if CAR2(7) is used for definitions for CAR 206 it becomes circular.

By your reasoning,
flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of (i) the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft
also never requires an AOC, so I can purchase an aircraft, employ a PPL to fly me to Sydney for a meeting every week, then take out advertisements and sell the extra seats for $500 each to the general public, or charge to carry freight.

CAR 2(7)(D)(i) would also trump all the arguments about whether you can carry tools of trade etc as long as you own the aircraft.

[Progressive]

Originally Posted by andrewr

OK, but I don't see where Section 27 pulls in the definition of private operations from CAR 2(7). CAR 206 defines operations for section 27. CAR2(7) also refers to definitions from CAR 206, so if CAR2(7) is used for definitions for CAR 206 it becomes circular.

By your reasoning,
flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of (i) the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft
also never requires an AOC, so I can purchase an aircraft, employ a PPL to fly me to Sydney for a meeting every week, then take out advertisements and sell the extra seats for $500 each to the general public, or charge to carry freight.

CAR 2(7)(D)(i) would also trump all the arguments about whether you can carry tools of trade etc as long as you own the aircraft.

CAR2 is applicable to all regs as it provides the definitions for the entire CAR: From CAR 2 preamble "In these Regulations, unless the contrary intention appears......."

With regards to your scenario you are correct up until "then take out advertisements and sell the extra seats for $500 each to the general public, or charge to carry freight" this would be "flying in the course of earning 500 buck from fee paying passengers/freight" because you may only carry person (other than the owner of the aircraft) in accordance with CAR 2(7A) which requires that you do not advertise.

So you can:
Fly a dead leg to pick pick up the owner of the aircraft (2(7)(D)(i))
Fly back with the owner on board (2(7)(d)(i)
Fly with any number of other people (friends/family) on board as long the flight is not generally advertised and no one is paying for their seat(2(7)(D)(v))
Fly with up to six people on board sharing the cost CAR 2 (7A)

[andrewr]

Originally Posted by Progressive

you may only carry person (other than the owner of the aircraft) in accordance with CAR 2(7A) which requires that you do not advertise.

You don't have to satisfy ALL the conditions in 2(7)(d), only any one of them.

2(7A) outlines the conditions for 2(7)(d)(va). 2(7)(d)(v) the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge or 2(7)(d)(i) the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft are perfectly acceptable alternatives to 2(7)(d)(va) to come under the umbrella of 2(7)(d)

[Stickshift3000]

I have never wondered why I’m so confused with the regs - they weren’t written for the lay person to understand. Appalled at their drafting actually.

Is it a legitimate defence to a crime of strict liability to not comprehend that law?!

[601]

Interesting ... I'd seek a second opinion from a CASA employee, it may prove interesting.

Better still, ask multiple CASA Staff in multiple offices and compare the answers.

What you have to remember is that CASA do not write the final draft of legislation but the Office of Legal Counsel (if I remember the name correctly) who have no idea about aviation. What CASA desire in legislation may not be what is in the final legislation.

OLC are just concerned with the legalise and if a penalty can be applied to a piece of legislation.

[Super Cecil]

Will you get an opinion from a CASA person or will they just refer you to the relevant legislation?

[Lead Balloon]

Originally Posted by Progressive

You have fallen foul of the common problem of reading a reg in isolation - greater definition of classification of operations is provided in CAR 2 (7)(D), where you will see that which specifically states "(a) an aircraft that is flying or operating for a commercial purpose referred to in paragraph 206(1)(a) shall be taken to be employed in aerial work operations;" From the definitions commercial operations means civil air operations other than private operations.

Going back to CAR 2(7)(D) private operations are classified as an aircraft that is flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of:

(i) the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft;

(ii) aerial spotting where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the spotting is conducted;

(iii) agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft;

(iv) aerial photography where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the photography is conducted;

(v) the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made other than the carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft;

(va) the carriage of persons in accordance with subregulation (7A);

(vi) the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes of trade;

(vii) flight training, other than the following:

(A) Part 141 flight training (within the meaning of regulation 141.015 of CASR);

(B) Part 142 flight training (within the meaning of regulation 142.015 of CASR);

(C) balloon flying training (within the meaning of subregulation 5.01(1)) for the grant of a balloon flight crew licence or rating; or

(viii) any other activity of a kind substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vi) (inclusive);

shall be taken to be employed in private operations

Thus a flight can be conducted for the purposes of aerial photography as long as no remuneration is earned by the pilot etc.
Subreg 7A contains the requirements for passenger carrying private flight flights and limits passenger numbers to 6 and requires cost sharing - just for kicks there is NO provision for carrying pax WITHOUT cost sharing - except (viii) where this could be taken to be similar to (va).

Progressive

You have fallen foul of the common problem of reading reg 2(7A) as a “requirement” and failing to read all the way to the end of reg 2(7)(d).

Reg 2(7A) is just a definition of just one set of circumstances deemed to be private. And when you read all the way to the end of reg 2(7)(d) you will find that all activities “of a kind substantially similar to any of those specified in” earlier provisions reg 2(7)(d) are also deemed private.

Read that twice, Progressive: “of a kind substantially similar to any of those”.

I assume you are one - perhaps the only - remaining source of the persistent folklore that there is a six POB limit on private operations, as a consequence of reg 2(7A)? You should get a job in CASA.

Squawk: My presumptive approach to anything said by anyone from CASA is that they are wrong. It’s proved to be a sensible presumption.

[Torres]

My presumptive approach to anything said by anyone from CASA is that they are wrong. It’s proved to be a sensible presumption.

As it has been for over 30 years!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

It ALL just begs the question, don't it??

How are 'we mere mortals' supposed to understand these draconian rools, let alone abide by them, and ALL in the interest of "SAFETY"?????

I must be a 'crim' by now.....numerous times over..... a 'rap sheet' as long as yer arm Yer Honour........

BAH HUMBUG!!!!!!!!


p.s. 1,000 penalty points - strict liability fer spellin...................

p.p.s. I rekkon I'd accept gratefully the guys $500 for findin' his boat, he would just 'slip it' to me at 'the club' bar later......

[aroa]

The "Screaming Skull" at a few Senate Hearings Quote ..." I say again ( u dumb senators) CAsA is NOT a commercial regulator.!
Utter BS of course...Just ask me !
Done TWICE for the same thing ,,photography both 206 and 2 7 d. As one Prosecutor said ( not under oath) "No person in Australia can take a photograph from an aircraft without a CPL and an AOC." !!
Utter BS of course ( then again Im not Dick Smith)
I used to have a photography business capturing images from my own aircraft but the above was wiped out.by CAsA aided and abetted by a competitor company. ( cronyisn and corruption )
The evidence in court was payment slips and invoices etc..the paperwork of commerce. ( Altho at a later date they denied they had ever collected that..to a Minister and polllies/ See.?.any old lies and BS will do. Their only nefarious "safety" argument in court was that PPLs do all the killing in GA !
And at that time there had been a rash of light chtr accidents in FNQ and 21 fatalies..ALL by CPLS !
So you can see where their attention to any "safety" priority really lies.

All the above posts just indicate what a sh*t show the whole CAsA regulatory maze/ nightmare/rubbish is.
What on earth (or being above it) has the 'commerce 'of photography got to do with safety.

CAsA have stated over the decades that they will do something about it as R. 206 is 'ultra vires'
the Act. But they never have. Cant be bothered.? Institutional sloth.? Or Keep it...its a good catch all.
The Loonies are still in charge of 16 Furzer st , so I can only wish those who snap pics, search for fishing boats, carry mates for shares etc etc all the best ,,,and fly safe.!
YOU are the final arbiter of your safety and that of others.

[neville_nobody]

Better still, ask multiple CASA Staff in multiple offices and compare the answers.

Exactly. The other problem is noone actually takes CASA to court so we very rarely get any independent rulings other than CASAs'. I know of several cases where CASA have threated to take action for operations other than number 9.

I also fail to see how putting something on YouTube and making money does not fall foul of "aerial photography where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft" If your photos go in a Art Gallery then it's illegal but if it goes on the internet then that's OK? It doesn't state how you get paid it just says you get remunerated for taking photos.

[Squawk7700]

The YouTube example was explained to me that the owner is being paid for the videos as that’s his “brand.” His name is on them and that’s what he does. He (or she) is not being paid to fly the plane, but rather is being paid for his video content.

Another example was that you’re flying over a raging flood, take photos of it then sell them to the newspaper. The newspaper is paying for the photos, not for the pilot to fly the plane. If aerial photography is what you do, then you can be paid for it, without an AOC.

Channel X was explained in exactly the same way.

The traffic helicopters over the CBD’s are also a private operation, or at least were on last check. They even fly single engine R44’s at night over the city areas and as we know, you’d have to be private for that.

Would any of that stand up in court?????

[Capt Fathom]

Is there a point to this thread? If so, can we get to it!

[Squawk7700]

Originally Posted by Capt Fathom

Is there a point to this thread? If so, can we get to it!

Sunfish has summed it up nicely.

Seemingly a bunch of professional pilots with many years experience between them are unable to understand the rules as they are written!

[compressor stall]

This should be no surprise to anyone who’s been in the indiustry longer than 5 minutes.

the real question is how is it answered under part 91/119/121/135/138? I’d be keen to see replies for the same scenarios.....

[neville_nobody]

The YouTube example was explained to me that the owner is being paid for the videos as that’s his “brand.” His name is on them and that’s what he does. He (or she) is not being paid to fly the plane, but rather is being paid for his video content.

Another example was that you’re flying over a raging flood, take photos of it then sell them to the newspaper. The newspaper is paying for the photos, not for the pilot to fly the plane. If aerial photography is what you do, then you can be paid for it, without an AOC.

Channel X was explained in exactly the same way.

That isn't a plain reading of the law. It even specifically states that a third party cannot have you take aerial photos (say for free to build hours) then they receive remuneration for the photos or footage. The medium is irrelevant. Whether its a Movie, YouTube, or your own Art exhibition if anyone is getting paid you need an AOC.

Reality is now professional photography will be done in a Drone bypassing all this but that's another story.

[Checklist Charlie]

I look back on all the hot air and written words expended on the "Categorisation of Operations" over the last 50 or so years that probably are equal to if not in excess of that expended on the "Regulatory Revue Program".

I doubt whether I will live long enough to see an end to those exercises.

Oh well, it has at least kept hordes of regulatory career nupties employed and off the street.

CC

[Stickshift3000]

Originally Posted by aroa

All the above posts just indicate what a sh*t show the whole CAsA regulatory maze/ nightmare/rubbish is.

This. Always will be.