AOC or no AOC

[andrewr]

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon

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

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

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.

[Lead Balloon]

Originally Posted by andrewr

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

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

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.

[andrewr]

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.

[Lead Balloon]

Originally Posted by andrewr

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

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

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?

[andrewr]

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).

[Sunfish]

If your PPL hirer then goes and charges three people to be transported somewhere then she is in AOC territory.

[Squawk7700]

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.

[aroa]

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.

[Lead Balloon]

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.

[DrongoDriver]

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon

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!

[Lead Balloon]

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.

[andrewr]

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon

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?

[Lead Balloon]

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!)

[aroa]

Squawk..The Government would advise CAsA not to stick their bib in.
Upset the Chinese and there will be trade tariffs imposed.

[andrewr]

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.

[Lead Balloon]

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.)

[andrewr]

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.

[Lead Balloon]

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!

[andrewr]

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.

[Lead Balloon]

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.