AOC or no AOC
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And are you aware of anyone on the planet who claims to be able to do that without an AOC?
If the businessman purchased or hired the aircraft, I’d call that the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft.
You evidently don’t know how law works. What CASA “wants to allow” is neither here nor there.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
Thread Starter
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Chief Justice andrewr will no doubt have a dissenting view.
I’d hope so. Otherwise 90% of corporate pilots in Aus would be in the slammer!
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you take a box of 20 headsets with the hope of selling them to pilots you meet at airfields along the way?
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!)
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!)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who 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!
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.)
(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.)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That’s because the aircraft is no longer being flown for a purpose that falls within the scope of 2(7)(d).
You say that with such confidence. CAR 2(6) says:
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!
(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.
(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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
That’d be the ‘ruling’ that says:
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.
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.
Anyway, it’s all academic because the new, simple, outcomes-based classification of operations scheme will come into effect in 1998.