AOC or no AOC
Over 30 years of working overseas, I’ve noticed that Australian pilots have held a reputation for being tin pot bush lawyers of the lowest order. Always trying to be clever and yet always failing.
This thread pretty much confirms the prejudices held by the rest of the world.
So, a far more interesting question is :
Is this our recently acquired national trait or have we been trained by a dysfunctional regulatory authority to behave like this? Either way, it’s bloody sad. Nobody was this loopy 40 years ago.
This thread pretty much confirms the prejudices held by the rest of the world.
So, a far more interesting question is :
Is this our recently acquired national trait or have we been trained by a dysfunctional regulatory authority to behave like this? Either way, it’s bloody sad. Nobody was this loopy 40 years ago.
Lucille, look up “Stockholm Syndrome”. Australian pilots appear to soberly debate regulations and regulatory behaviour that Stalin, Hitler or Mao might be proud of as evidenced by the Forsyth senate review and the alleged treatment of Glen Buckley. “Stockholm Syndrome” seems to me to be an explanation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
An extract......We see something like this on pprune sometimes.. “Abused children” also fits the Duntroon military model that views anyone other than the officer corps as “little children” that need to be led because they have no cognitive capability..... Hence the stunning performance of some RAAF Officers in civilian management roles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
An extract......We see something like this on pprune sometimes.. “Abused children” also fits the Duntroon military model that views anyone other than the officer corps as “little children” that need to be led because they have no cognitive capability..... Hence the stunning performance of some RAAF Officers in civilian management roles.
Ronald Fairbairn wrote a complete psychoanalytic model in a series of papers (1940, 1941,1943, 1944) which are collected in his 1952 text Psychoanalytic Studies of the Personality[22]. His model explains the surprising psychological reality that abused children become deeply attached to their abusers. He saw that lack of love, chronic indifference and abuse led to a counter-intuitive emotional attachment to the very parent who was abusing them. The child’s unmet dependency needs from chronic emotional deprivation as well as the complete lack of other human alternatives in his/her environment, forces the child to focus intensely on the abuser, and paradoxically, to become concerned for the abuser’s welfare. This concern derives from the child’s sense of the danger that he is in, and the reality that his welfare is completely dependent on the whims, moods and emotional state of the abusive parent. Anything that he can do to placate, please or draw praise from the abuser increases the child’s chance of survival.
The neglected or abused child’s utter helplessness and absolute dependency upon the goodwill of their parents prevents him/her from “seeing” or remembering those interpersonal events in which they have faced indifference or physical abuse, as their anxiety would overwhelm them and submerge them in a torrent of dread. This feeling of dread is most often experienced as a massive abandonment panic during those moments when the child realizes that he/she is living in constant danger with no one to help him/her to survive. The solution to this enormous problem is for the child to encase himself/herself within a thick psychological cocoon of denial and fantasy that creates a false reality in which he/she believes that they are living in a loving and caring family.
The first way that the child protects itself is by using the greatest reality -altering defense that humans have at their disposal, which is the defense of dissociation. The dissociative defense mechanism is seen in adults who have suffered a life threatening trauma, and it prevents them from fully realizing what has happened. In children, the same defense forces intolerable memories of neglect, abuse or total indifference that they experienced in relation to their parents into their unconscious, where these memories will not disturb the child’s illusion that he /she lives in a safe and loving family. The dissociative defense is the basis of what is commonly called denial. The more frequent the abuse, the more frequently dissociation is required and the larger and larger the number of intolerable memories are forced into the unconscious. Once lodged in their unconscious, the child cannot remember the horrifying incidents that they previously experienced.
The neglected or abused child’s utter helplessness and absolute dependency upon the goodwill of their parents prevents him/her from “seeing” or remembering those interpersonal events in which they have faced indifference or physical abuse, as their anxiety would overwhelm them and submerge them in a torrent of dread. This feeling of dread is most often experienced as a massive abandonment panic during those moments when the child realizes that he/she is living in constant danger with no one to help him/her to survive. The solution to this enormous problem is for the child to encase himself/herself within a thick psychological cocoon of denial and fantasy that creates a false reality in which he/she believes that they are living in a loving and caring family.
The first way that the child protects itself is by using the greatest reality -altering defense that humans have at their disposal, which is the defense of dissociation. The dissociative defense mechanism is seen in adults who have suffered a life threatening trauma, and it prevents them from fully realizing what has happened. In children, the same defense forces intolerable memories of neglect, abuse or total indifference that they experienced in relation to their parents into their unconscious, where these memories will not disturb the child’s illusion that he /she lives in a safe and loving family. The dissociative defense is the basis of what is commonly called denial. The more frequent the abuse, the more frequently dissociation is required and the larger and larger the number of intolerable memories are forced into the unconscious. Once lodged in their unconscious, the child cannot remember the horrifying incidents that they previously experienced.
Last edited by Sunfish; 21st Jun 2020 at 14:19.
NevilleN...There are photographers these days doing just that from aircraft for Art exhibitions, payment for other uses..and not being prosecuted.
By FOI I am advied the last photographer prosecuted was 20 years ago .
So does CAsA now not worry about r 206.? Or is it just rolled out when there is an agenda to do someone in.
If its still on the books it can be used. Who would know. CAsA is the agency of "Different strokes for Different Folks"....and then some.
Consistency is not a word in CAsA's lexicon. About anything. (Except their own CYA)
By FOI I am advied the last photographer prosecuted was 20 years ago .
So does CAsA now not worry about r 206.? Or is it just rolled out when there is an agenda to do someone in.
If its still on the books it can be used. Who would know. CAsA is the agency of "Different strokes for Different Folks"....and then some.
Consistency is not a word in CAsA's lexicon. About anything. (Except their own CYA)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are 2 reasons people find CAR 206 confusing:
1) People try to find loopholes and merge other bits of the regulations to try to make it say what they want, and
2) CASA also do #1
It seems pretty straightforward to me. On aerial photography:
CAA 27(9) says an AOC is required for the flying or operation of an aircraft for such purposes as are prescribed
CAR 206:
For the purposes of subsection 27(9) of the Act, the following commercial purposes are prescribed:
(a)....
(iv) aerial photography;
What is unclear or confusing?
1) People try to find loopholes and merge other bits of the regulations to try to make it say what they want, and
2) CASA also do #1
It seems pretty straightforward to me. On aerial photography:
CAA 27(9) says an AOC is required for the flying or operation of an aircraft for such purposes as are prescribed
CAR 206:
For the purposes of subsection 27(9) of the Act, the following commercial purposes are prescribed:
(a)....
(iv) aerial photography;
What is unclear or confusing?
AndrewR;
’Andrew, you need some jewish friends who have had to parse the Torah and the Talmud for a couple of thousand years. They will do a better job of explaining and teaching than I can, but here goes:
‘’What does the term aerial photography actually mean? “aerial” from an aircraft? Probably. But what does the word “photography“ include? Digital? Electronic?
‘’Then there is the question; “photography of what”? Do we mean things on the ground? Things inside the aircraft? Other aircraft?
Then there is the question of “commercial purposes”? What if no money changes hands? Barter for example? A few images of my house in exchange for two drums of avgas?
Now we get to specifics: Youtube videos taken by passengers and posted for money? Instruction videos touting books and flying schools? Formation flying? Videos by parachutists in free fall - an extra $50 on the cost of your tandem jump for your personal video? An Australian equivalent to Todd Petersens flying channel on youtube?
I’ve just scratched the surface.
The slovenly written regulations are full of holes, it perhaps suits CASA that way because they have deep pockets to argue and you don’t.
The biggest legal lie: “It means what it says”.
For example, what does CASA mean by “acceptable? “Appropriate”? “Fit and proper person”?
Lest you or anyone else thinks I am making a frivolous, flippant (being a fish) argument, I am deadly serious.
These ill defined regulations have an infinity of meanings. That simple fact massively increases both costs and risk of investing in aviation in Australia because it increases transaction costs of doing business. This translates into perhaps double the costs compared to American aviation and that translates into less investment and jobs - usually referred to as opportunity costs.
It seems pretty straightforward to me. On aerial photography:
CAA 27(9) says an AOC is required for the flying or operation of an aircraft for such purposes as are prescribed
CAR 206:
For the purposes of subsection 27(9) of the Act, the following commercial purposes are prescribed:
(a)....
(iv) aerial photography;
What is unclear or confusing?
CAA 27(9) says an AOC is required for the flying or operation of an aircraft for such purposes as are prescribed
CAR 206:
For the purposes of subsection 27(9) of the Act, the following commercial purposes are prescribed:
(a)....
(iv) aerial photography;
What is unclear or confusing?
’Andrew, you need some jewish friends who have had to parse the Torah and the Talmud for a couple of thousand years. They will do a better job of explaining and teaching than I can, but here goes:
‘’What does the term aerial photography actually mean? “aerial” from an aircraft? Probably. But what does the word “photography“ include? Digital? Electronic?
‘’Then there is the question; “photography of what”? Do we mean things on the ground? Things inside the aircraft? Other aircraft?
Then there is the question of “commercial purposes”? What if no money changes hands? Barter for example? A few images of my house in exchange for two drums of avgas?
Now we get to specifics: Youtube videos taken by passengers and posted for money? Instruction videos touting books and flying schools? Formation flying? Videos by parachutists in free fall - an extra $50 on the cost of your tandem jump for your personal video? An Australian equivalent to Todd Petersens flying channel on youtube?
I’ve just scratched the surface.
The slovenly written regulations are full of holes, it perhaps suits CASA that way because they have deep pockets to argue and you don’t.
The biggest legal lie: “It means what it says”.
For example, what does CASA mean by “acceptable? “Appropriate”? “Fit and proper person”?
Lest you or anyone else thinks I am making a frivolous, flippant (being a fish) argument, I am deadly serious.
These ill defined regulations have an infinity of meanings. That simple fact massively increases both costs and risk of investing in aviation in Australia because it increases transaction costs of doing business. This translates into perhaps double the costs compared to American aviation and that translates into less investment and jobs - usually referred to as opportunity costs.
Last edited by Sunfish; 23rd Jun 2020 at 23:41.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are illustrating my point about people looking for loopholes.
A good starting point: Aerial photography (or substantially similar) is taking photos from an aircraft, whether they be film, digital, still, video. If you want an exception, justify why it should not be considered aerial photography (not just because you want to do it without an AOC).
Commercial? I'm not a lawyer but I suspect what is and is not commercial is well litigated. CAR(2) is a diversion because it defines Commercial Operations, not Commercial Purposes or simply Commercial.
An important point (explicitly spelled out in the regulation, not a loophole): The AOC is required for flying for the purpose of . Taking photos does not require an AOC. Selling photos does not require an AOC. Flying for the purpose of commercial aerial photography requires an AOC.
A good starting point: Aerial photography (or substantially similar) is taking photos from an aircraft, whether they be film, digital, still, video. If you want an exception, justify why it should not be considered aerial photography (not just because you want to do it without an AOC).
Commercial? I'm not a lawyer but I suspect what is and is not commercial is well litigated. CAR(2) is a diversion because it defines Commercial Operations, not Commercial Purposes or simply Commercial.
An important point (explicitly spelled out in the regulation, not a loophole): The AOC is required for flying for the purpose of . Taking photos does not require an AOC. Selling photos does not require an AOC. Flying for the purpose of commercial aerial photography requires an AOC.
I think you are illustrating my point about people looking for loopholes.
A good starting point: Aerial photography (or substantially similar) is taking photos from an aircraft, whether they be film, digital, still, video. If you want an exception, justify why it should not be considered aerial photography (not just because you want to do it without an AOC).
Commercial? I'm not a lawyer but I suspect what is and is not commercial is well litigated. CAR(2) is a diversion because it defines Commercial Operations, not Commercial Purposes or simply Commercial.
An important point (explicitly spelled out in the regulation, not a loophole): The AOC is required for flying for the purpose of . Taking photos does not require an AOC. Selling photos does not require an AOC. Flying for the purpose of commercial aerial photography requires an AOC.
A good starting point: Aerial photography (or substantially similar) is taking photos from an aircraft, whether they be film, digital, still, video. If you want an exception, justify why it should not be considered aerial photography (not just because you want to do it without an AOC).
Commercial? I'm not a lawyer but I suspect what is and is not commercial is well litigated. CAR(2) is a diversion because it defines Commercial Operations, not Commercial Purposes or simply Commercial.
An important point (explicitly spelled out in the regulation, not a loophole): The AOC is required for flying for the purpose of . Taking photos does not require an AOC. Selling photos does not require an AOC. Flying for the purpose of commercial aerial photography requires an AOC.
As with so much of this complexity, it is useful to reflect on the history of the slow construction of the regulatory Frankenstein’s monster by CASA.
About 20 years ago, a change was made to section 27(9) of the CA Act. One word was deleted. The section was changed from this:
Subsection (2) [which prohibits the operation of aircraft except as authorised by an AOC] applies only to the flying or operation of an aircraft for such commercial purposes as are prescribed.
Subsection (2) [which prohibits the operation of aircraft except as authorised by an AOC] applies only to the flying or operation of an aircraft for such purposes as are prescribed.
This enabled CASA to engage in the sophistry and empty rhetoric of pretending merely to be a safety regulator rather than what it was and remains.
As you have noted and quoted, the regs continue to reflect the original language of s 27(9). The phrase “commercial purposes” remains. Why weren’t the regs amended to reflect the amendment to s 27(9)? A complete lack of corporate competence and integrity on CASA’s behalf.
If you are correct and the word “commercial” in e.g. reg 206 has any meaning, it would seem to follow that someone can set up a high capacity RPT airline as a charity and no AOC would be required. That would seem odd, if it’s all about ‘safety’. (‘Bill Gates’s Free Poor People’s Airline’ - would be an interesting experiment.)
One can scratch merely the surface to discern another of the many distinctions that are made in the classification of operations scheme that have absolutely no causal connection with objective safety risk.
If I own an aircraft and also own and occupy land, I can pay someone to carry out agricultural operations in that aircraft on that land and the operations do not have to be authorised by an AOC: CAR 2(7)(d)(iii), noting that “remuneration” and “charge” and “payment” are expressly mentioned in other provisions of CAR 2(7)(d), but not (iii). If my neighbour also owns an aircraft and also owns and occupies the neighbouring land, my neighbour can also pay someone to carry out agricultural operations in that aircraft on that land and the operations do not have have to be authorised by an AOC. But if my neighbour and I then swap places - he occupies the land I own and I occupy the land he owns - those same operations in the same aircraft on the same land have to be authorised by an AOC. Go figure.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Myth: A charity can’t undertake commercial activities
Fact: A charity can undertake commercial activities
A charity can undertake commercial activities but must do so with the aim of advancing its charitable purposes
https://www.acnc.gov.au/for-public/u...ing-not-profit
CAR 206 absolutely 100% says that an AOC is required for the purpose of agricultural operations; with no qualification about who owns the land.
It seems that someone decided that is inconvenient so we will pretend that an AOC is not required. A better solution would be to make it easy to get a simple AOC, e.g. "I want to fly agricultural operations on my own land." "No problem - here is your AOC with standard terms and conditions."
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 know just the place where you could engage in busy work indefinitely.
And what of the charity airline that does not engage in commercial activities? Bill Gates buys jumbo jets and starts scheduled services between Sydney and Melbourne for poor people for no charge to anyone. Bill’s just burning his billions. AOC or no AOC?
I know just the place where you could engage in busy work indefinitely.
And what of the charity airline that does not engage in commercial activities? Bill Gates buys jumbo jets and starts scheduled services between Sydney and Melbourne for poor people for no charge to anyone. Bill’s just burning his billions. AOC or no AOC?
AndrewR, your “simple AOC” proposal leads directly to the utter destruction of what’s left of aviation in Australia. What you are doing is proposing that the requirement for possession of an AOC for flight operations, which is now limited to aviation businesses, be extended to ALL operations, private flight included.
Furthermore you must know that nothing involving bureaucrats remains “standard” for more than a microsecond. This proposal is the same as the dreaded “private AOC’ idea floated and thankfully killed years ago. You should also understand that he’ll will freeze over before CASA unconditionally issue anything.
Furthermore you must know that nothing involving bureaucrats remains “standard” for more than a microsecond. This proposal is the same as the dreaded “private AOC’ idea floated and thankfully killed years ago. You should also understand that he’ll will freeze over before CASA unconditionally issue anything.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
This is where the "commercial" word is awkward and probably should have been removed as you pointed out. If someone wants to try it we can find out. The closest we are likely to get is Angel Flight.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AndrewR, your “simple AOC” proposal leads directly to the utter destruction of what’s left of aviation in Australia. What you are doing is proposing that the requirement for possession of an AOC for flight operations, which is now limited to aviation businesses, be extended to ALL operations, private flight included.
Commercial purposes and commercial operations can be different things.
E.g. a DAME owns an aircraft and flys himself from place to place to do aviation medicals. The purpose is clearly commercial, but is not listed in CAR 206 so an AOC is not required.
It is a private operation according to CAR 2(7)(d) so he can do it with a PPL.
However CAR 206 prevents him from selling the spare seats without an AOC.
Last edited by andrewr; 24th Jun 2020 at 03:57. Reason: clarification
Since when is travelling to work - a DAME flying from place to place to do aviation medicals - “commercial”?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you reckon he claims the cost on his tax?
If he's travelling TO work i.e. from home to his work location, not commercial. If he's travelling FOR work i.e. from one work location to another then I would say the purpose of the travel is commercial.
If he's travelling TO work i.e. from home to his work location, not commercial. If he's travelling FOR work i.e. from one work location to another then I would say the purpose of the travel is commercial.
I would say it isn’t. You seem to be suggesting that the earning of a living is a commercial activity.
What do you say about “agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft”? CAR 2(7)(d)(iii) says the aircraft “shall be taken to be employed in private operations”. If the owner of that aircraft conducting those operations pays the pilot, is an AOC required?
What do you say about “agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft”? CAR 2(7)(d)(iii) says the aircraft “shall be taken to be employed in private operations”. If the owner of that aircraft conducting those operations pays the pilot, is an AOC required?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you suggesting that anyone simply earning a living should be excluded from CAR 206 because earning a living is not commercial?
What about the farmer who once a month flies to the livestock sales to purchase stock? Again I would say that is a commercial purpose, but private operation.
Are "agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft" "agricultural operations"? If yes, then according to CAR 206 an AOC is required.
27(9) doesn't say anything about CAR 2(7)(d) so I don't see how it is applicable. Also, CAR 2(7) relies on CAR 206 for it's definitions, so if CAR 206 relies on definitions in CAR 2(7) it is a problem.
What about the farmer who once a month flies to the livestock sales to purchase stock? Again I would say that is a commercial purpose, but private operation.
What do you say about “agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft”?
27(9) doesn't say anything about CAR 2(7)(d) so I don't see how it is applicable. Also, CAR 2(7) relies on CAR 206 for it's definitions, so if CAR 206 relies on definitions in CAR 2(7) it is a problem.
So you say that “agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft” are private operations for which an AOC is required.
Again: Congratulations on reaching aviation regulatory nirvana!
And you haven’t even got to CAR 2(6) or 2(8) yet!
CAR 206 is headed “commercial purposes (Act, s 27(9))“. Section 27(9) has not included the phrase “commercial purposes” for over twenty f*cking years.
You are trying to make sense out of the product of decades of abject incompetence.
Again: Congratulations on reaching aviation regulatory nirvana!
And you haven’t even got to CAR 2(6) or 2(8) yet!
CAR 206 is headed “commercial purposes (Act, s 27(9))“. Section 27(9) has not included the phrase “commercial purposes” for over twenty f*cking years.
You are trying to make sense out of the product of decades of abject incompetence.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm just reading it, I didn't write it. But why shouldn't an AOC be required for a private operation that falls under CAR 206?
What about someone selling seats on their private 2(7)(d)(i) commuting flight?
My logic: You need an AOC.
Write an Ops manual...
Conditions applied to the AOC: Commercial Pilot... Maintenance... etc.
Your logic: It's a private operation under CAR2(7)(d)(i), so... ?
What about someone selling seats on their private 2(7)(d)(i) commuting flight?
My logic: You need an AOC.
Write an Ops manual...
Conditions applied to the AOC: Commercial Pilot... Maintenance... etc.
Your logic: It's a private operation under CAR2(7)(d)(i), so... ?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets look at the overlap between CAR 206 and CAR 2(7)(d) i.e. private operations that (I argue) require an AOC:
- agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft
- the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft where it is combined with the carriage of people or goods for hire, or other purposes listed in CAR 206
- the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes of trade, where a charge is made for carriage
- flying for hire without a public advertisement or announcement and paying an equal share under 2(7A) i.e. hour building for hire
I’ve gotta get some of whatever you’re takin’ or smokin’, andrew!
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!
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!
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!
I could do with the light entertainment.
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!
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!
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!
I could do with the light entertainment.