PPL Passenger Limit in Australia
Here is CASA's most recent response to my questions:
Please note that in our previous correspondence, Question 4 "Do you comprehend that the flight in that scenario meets the definition of one that is “cost-sharing”?" should have been yes. The text associated with this answer was consistent with a no answer, we apologise for any confusion this may have caused. Please find below responses to your most recent questions:
Question 1: Can you please confirm that CASA’s opinion is that a flight will not be ‘cost-sharing’ if the PIC meets the entirety of the direct costs of the flight?
Answer 1: The answer to previous Q.4, should have said “Yes.” The remainder of the answer text is consistent with a yes answer.
Question 2: Can you please confirm that CASA’s opinion is that a flight will not be ‘cost-sharing’ unless at least ‘some’ of the direct costs of the flight are met by POB other than the PIC?
Answer 2: CASA’s previous answer did not intend to express that some of the direct costs of the flight must be met by POB other than the PIC. That is not an element of the definition of ‘cost-sharing.’
Question 3: Can you please confirm that CASA’s opinion is that a flight will not be ‘cost-sharing’ if any person other than POB meets any of the direct costs of the flight?
Answer 3: CASA provided answers to two different questions whereby monies for the flight came from a third party, one being Angel Flight. You are now asking a more general question.CASA affirms its two previous answers on the issue and cannot provided a general answer to your question because it depends on all the circumstances of the arrangement.
Question 4: If it is CASA’s opinion that a flight will not be ‘cost-sharing’ unless at least ‘some’ of the direct costs of the flight are met by POB other than the PIC:
(a) what is the minimum amount of the direct costs to be met by POB other than the PIC?
(b) do each of the POB other than the PIC have to meet some of the direct costs?
Answer 4: Not necessary to answer – see answer to Q.2.
Question 5: For example, in CASA’s opinion, can a flight with 3 passengers be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight if I, as PIC, meet at least a quarter of the direct costs of the flight and:
(a) only one of the 3 passengers meets the balance of the direct costs of the flight?
(b) only two of the 3 passengers between them meet the balance of the direct costs of the flight?
(c) all 3 of the passengers between them meet the balance of the direct costs of the flight?
Answer 5: On any of these scenarios, the flight is a cost-sharing flight. The definition of cost-sharing is silent as to the amount of contribution, if any, by a passenger.
Question 6: If CASA’s opinion is that more than one of the 3 passengers, or all of the 3 passengers, must meet the balance of the direct costs of the flight in order for it to be ‘cost-sharing’, what is CASA’s opinion as to the ratio of those passengers’ payment? For example, must they share, equally, the balance of the direct costs?
Answer 6: See previous answer.
Question 7: Does it make any difference to CASA’s answer to questions 5 or 6 if the balance of the direct costs of the flight is $1?
Answer 7: No.
Question 8: If the answer to question 7 is ‘yes’, what is CASA’s opinion as to the minimum balance – expressed in dollar or percentage terms - of the direct costs to be met by one or more of all of the passengers, in order for the flight to be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight?
Answer 8: Not necessary to answer.
Question 9: Where does CASA find all these nuances in the plain words of the definition of a ‘cost-sharing’ flight?
Answer 9: It is unclear what nuances are being referred to.
If you would like to suggest a change to the rules, this may be submitted to CASA following the links on this webpage - Suggesting improvements to civil aviation safety rules | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au).
Question 1: Can you please confirm that CASA’s opinion is that a flight will not be ‘cost-sharing’ if the PIC meets the entirety of the direct costs of the flight?
Answer 1: The answer to previous Q.4, should have said “Yes.” The remainder of the answer text is consistent with a yes answer.
Question 2: Can you please confirm that CASA’s opinion is that a flight will not be ‘cost-sharing’ unless at least ‘some’ of the direct costs of the flight are met by POB other than the PIC?
Answer 2: CASA’s previous answer did not intend to express that some of the direct costs of the flight must be met by POB other than the PIC. That is not an element of the definition of ‘cost-sharing.’
Question 3: Can you please confirm that CASA’s opinion is that a flight will not be ‘cost-sharing’ if any person other than POB meets any of the direct costs of the flight?
Answer 3: CASA provided answers to two different questions whereby monies for the flight came from a third party, one being Angel Flight. You are now asking a more general question.CASA affirms its two previous answers on the issue and cannot provided a general answer to your question because it depends on all the circumstances of the arrangement.
Question 4: If it is CASA’s opinion that a flight will not be ‘cost-sharing’ unless at least ‘some’ of the direct costs of the flight are met by POB other than the PIC:
(a) what is the minimum amount of the direct costs to be met by POB other than the PIC?
(b) do each of the POB other than the PIC have to meet some of the direct costs?
Answer 4: Not necessary to answer – see answer to Q.2.
Question 5: For example, in CASA’s opinion, can a flight with 3 passengers be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight if I, as PIC, meet at least a quarter of the direct costs of the flight and:
(a) only one of the 3 passengers meets the balance of the direct costs of the flight?
(b) only two of the 3 passengers between them meet the balance of the direct costs of the flight?
(c) all 3 of the passengers between them meet the balance of the direct costs of the flight?
Answer 5: On any of these scenarios, the flight is a cost-sharing flight. The definition of cost-sharing is silent as to the amount of contribution, if any, by a passenger.
Question 6: If CASA’s opinion is that more than one of the 3 passengers, or all of the 3 passengers, must meet the balance of the direct costs of the flight in order for it to be ‘cost-sharing’, what is CASA’s opinion as to the ratio of those passengers’ payment? For example, must they share, equally, the balance of the direct costs?
Answer 6: See previous answer.
Question 7: Does it make any difference to CASA’s answer to questions 5 or 6 if the balance of the direct costs of the flight is $1?
Answer 7: No.
Question 8: If the answer to question 7 is ‘yes’, what is CASA’s opinion as to the minimum balance – expressed in dollar or percentage terms - of the direct costs to be met by one or more of all of the passengers, in order for the flight to be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight?
Answer 8: Not necessary to answer.
Question 9: Where does CASA find all these nuances in the plain words of the definition of a ‘cost-sharing’ flight?
Answer 9: It is unclear what nuances are being referred to.
If you would like to suggest a change to the rules, this may be submitted to CASA following the links on this webpage - Suggesting improvements to civil aviation safety rules | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au).
Last edited by Clinton McKenzie; 19th Mar 2023 at 20:52.
Here is my follow-up to the above:
Thank you for the correction and apology for the confusion caused by the reversal in your answer to one of my earlier questions. We are now both of the opinion that a flight for which the PIC bears the entirety of the direct costs will be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight (provided the other elements of the definition of ‘cost-sharing’ are satisfied). However, CASA omitted to answer question 10. That question was:
“If I as PIC meet the entirety of the direct costs of a flight, with the corollary being that no one else is meeting any of the direct costs of the flight, and I receive nothing from anyone for anything connected with the flight, what, in CASA’s opinion, is the precise nature and source of any ‘hire or reward’ connected with that flight? And to close off any potential distractions: I’m flying my own aircraft, so please focus on ‘reward’.”
Please answer that question.
CASA also omitted to answer my questions 12 and 13. Please answer those questions.
In response to my general question about whether, in CASA’s opinion, any of the direct costs of a flight could be borne other than by POB and still satisfy the definition of ‘cost-sharing’, CASA answered:
“CASA provided answers to two different questions whereby monies for the flight came from a third party, one being Angel Flight. You are now asking a more general question. CASA affirms its two previous answers on the issue and cannot provided a general answer to your question because it depends on all the circumstances of the arrangement.”
That does not make sense to me. Either the definition of ‘cost-sharing’ covers circumstances in which part of the direct costs of a flight are borne by someone other than POB or it does not, unless there is some nuance to the definition that is no obvious to me. It was for that reason, among others, that I asked: “Where does CASA find all these nuances in the plain words of the definition of a ‘cost-sharing’ flight?”, the evasive answer to which was: “It is unclear what nuances are being referred to.” CASA understands the point of the question and its practical consequences. But as it appears CASA will not confront these issues unless forced to, square on, I ask whether, in CASA’s opinion, a flight can satisfy the definition of ‘cost-sharing’ if $100 of the direct costs of the flight are borne by:
These are all ‘real world’ examples.
I note that CASA provided, unsolicited, a link where I can suggest improvements to the civil aviation rules. As I anticipate that CASA will not take up my suggestion to improve the rules by cremating and burying the current ones, I have little choice but to try to work out what the current ones mean. I am far from alone. Hopefully CASA understands that it is difficult to suggest specific improvements to rules unless one first understands what the regulator enforcing the rules thinks they mean. That is why I am asking these questions and, presumably, why CASA has a ‘Regulatory Guidance’ centre.
“If I as PIC meet the entirety of the direct costs of a flight, with the corollary being that no one else is meeting any of the direct costs of the flight, and I receive nothing from anyone for anything connected with the flight, what, in CASA’s opinion, is the precise nature and source of any ‘hire or reward’ connected with that flight? And to close off any potential distractions: I’m flying my own aircraft, so please focus on ‘reward’.”
Please answer that question.
CASA also omitted to answer my questions 12 and 13. Please answer those questions.
In response to my general question about whether, in CASA’s opinion, any of the direct costs of a flight could be borne other than by POB and still satisfy the definition of ‘cost-sharing’, CASA answered:
“CASA provided answers to two different questions whereby monies for the flight came from a third party, one being Angel Flight. You are now asking a more general question. CASA affirms its two previous answers on the issue and cannot provided a general answer to your question because it depends on all the circumstances of the arrangement.”
That does not make sense to me. Either the definition of ‘cost-sharing’ covers circumstances in which part of the direct costs of a flight are borne by someone other than POB or it does not, unless there is some nuance to the definition that is no obvious to me. It was for that reason, among others, that I asked: “Where does CASA find all these nuances in the plain words of the definition of a ‘cost-sharing’ flight?”, the evasive answer to which was: “It is unclear what nuances are being referred to.” CASA understands the point of the question and its practical consequences. But as it appears CASA will not confront these issues unless forced to, square on, I ask whether, in CASA’s opinion, a flight can satisfy the definition of ‘cost-sharing’ if $100 of the direct costs of the flight are borne by:
- Angel Flight
- One of the POB’s parents
- Genericorp Pilot Supplies PTY LTD sponsorship fund, because the PIC has applied a Genericorp Pilot Supplies sticker to the aircraft
- The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, because the PIC won an AOPA award,
These are all ‘real world’ examples.
I note that CASA provided, unsolicited, a link where I can suggest improvements to the civil aviation rules. As I anticipate that CASA will not take up my suggestion to improve the rules by cremating and burying the current ones, I have little choice but to try to work out what the current ones mean. I am far from alone. Hopefully CASA understands that it is difficult to suggest specific improvements to rules unless one first understands what the regulator enforcing the rules thinks they mean. That is why I am asking these questions and, presumably, why CASA has a ‘Regulatory Guidance’ centre.
The following users liked this post:
Here's CASA's most recent response, dated 8 March 2023, to my 4 most recent questions dated 1 March 2023:
Thank you for your further email. CASA’s response of Enquiry: ENQ-22-156466 on the 28 February 2023 provided the following answer:
Scenario for question 7: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I have 3 passengers. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. I pay an amount of the “direct costs” of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided by all persons on board. Angel Flight gives the passengers $150 to give to me to reimburse part of my fuel costs for the flight. Just to be clear: $150 is much, much less than 3/4ths of the direct costs (including fuel costs) of the flight in this scenario.
Question 7: Do you comprehend that the flight in that scenario meets the definition of one that is “cost-sharing”?
Answer 7: No, as CASA would regard the payment from Angel Flight through the passengers to be remuneration to the pilot for the flight. This is because the payment from the passenger is effectively being made through or by a third party. CASA considers that payment arrangements for a cost-sharing flight must be only as between the participants of the flight.
This answer would cover any of the scenarios referred to in your latest email.
This guidance is current at the time it has been provided, however may be subject to change over time or at the discretion of the policy holder.
If you require further clarification relating to this matter, please reply to this email.
Scenario for question 7: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I have 3 passengers. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. I pay an amount of the “direct costs” of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided by all persons on board. Angel Flight gives the passengers $150 to give to me to reimburse part of my fuel costs for the flight. Just to be clear: $150 is much, much less than 3/4ths of the direct costs (including fuel costs) of the flight in this scenario.
Question 7: Do you comprehend that the flight in that scenario meets the definition of one that is “cost-sharing”?
Answer 7: No, as CASA would regard the payment from Angel Flight through the passengers to be remuneration to the pilot for the flight. This is because the payment from the passenger is effectively being made through or by a third party. CASA considers that payment arrangements for a cost-sharing flight must be only as between the participants of the flight.
This answer would cover any of the scenarios referred to in your latest email.
This guidance is current at the time it has been provided, however may be subject to change over time or at the discretion of the policy holder.
If you require further clarification relating to this matter, please reply to this email.
Here is my response, dated 8 March 2023, to the above:
Thanks for that response, as far as it goes. Why CASA chose to answer just one of my most recent questions, and then in such an indirect way, is not obvious.
In any event, I interpret the response to mean, in effect, that, in CASA’s opinion, a flight will not satisfy the definition of a ‘cost-sharing’ flight if any portion of the direct costs of a flight are borne by any one or more or all of:
a. Angel Flight
b. One of the POB’s parents
c. Genericorp Pilot Supplies PTY LTD sponsorship fund, because the PIC has applied a Genericorp Pilot Supplies sticker to the aircraft
d. the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, because the PIC won an AOPA award,
rather than POB.
Please let me know if I have misinterpreted CASA’s response.
Further, your response omitted to answer 3 questions from my 19 February 2023 email and reiterated in my 1 March 2023 email. I ask them for a third time and repeat them here for convenience:
1. If I as PIC meet the entirety of the direct costs of a flight, with the corollary being that no one else is meeting any of the direct costs of the flight, and I receive nothing from anyone for anything connected with the flight, what, in CASA’s opinion, is the precise nature and source of any ‘hire or reward’ connected with that flight? And to close off any potential distractions: I’m flying my own aircraft, so please focus on ‘reward’.
If CASA’s opinion is that there is no hire or reward, in terms of the regulations, in that scenario, please just say so. If CASA’s opinion is that there is hire or reward in that scenario, please just explain the precise nature and source of the hire or reward that, in CASA’s opinion, is connected with the flight.
The scenario is a simple, real-world example and I – and many others - want to know the regulator’s opinion on whether there is any hire or reward connected to it. It cannot be that CASA does not comprehend the regulatory implications of the question, given that ‘hire or reward’ is an element of the definition of ‘air transport operation’. And it cannot be that CASA is not answering because CASA does not ‘like’ the implications of the answer. Regulators are supposed to regulate on the basis of a disinterested application of the rules, rather than whether the regulator ‘likes’ or ‘dislikes’ the way the rules operate.
Scenario for questions 2 and 3: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. The direct costs of the flight are borne by the POB, including the PIC, in whatever way CASA reckons satisfies that element of the definition of ‘cost-sharing’. There are 7 passengers. My partner in the front right seat, a couple of our friends are in the second row and their 4 children are carried in accordance with AC91-18v1.1 para 3.2 in row three.
2. Does CASA comprehend that the flight in this scenario is a ‘cost-sharing’ flight with 8 POB and, as a ‘cost-sharing’ flight, is not a ‘passenger carrying operation’ and, consequently, is not an ‘air transport operation’?
3. If CASA’s answer to question 2 is ‘no’, could CASA explain why its answer is ‘no’?
Again, a real-world scenario and I – and many others – want to know CASA’s opinion on whether it is a ‘cost-sharing’ flight or not, with the stated regulatory consequences. And to close off any potential distractions, I note that CASA has previously stated that it has not issued any instruments under CASR 201.025.
In any event, I interpret the response to mean, in effect, that, in CASA’s opinion, a flight will not satisfy the definition of a ‘cost-sharing’ flight if any portion of the direct costs of a flight are borne by any one or more or all of:
a. Angel Flight
b. One of the POB’s parents
c. Genericorp Pilot Supplies PTY LTD sponsorship fund, because the PIC has applied a Genericorp Pilot Supplies sticker to the aircraft
d. the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, because the PIC won an AOPA award,
rather than POB.
Please let me know if I have misinterpreted CASA’s response.
Further, your response omitted to answer 3 questions from my 19 February 2023 email and reiterated in my 1 March 2023 email. I ask them for a third time and repeat them here for convenience:
1. If I as PIC meet the entirety of the direct costs of a flight, with the corollary being that no one else is meeting any of the direct costs of the flight, and I receive nothing from anyone for anything connected with the flight, what, in CASA’s opinion, is the precise nature and source of any ‘hire or reward’ connected with that flight? And to close off any potential distractions: I’m flying my own aircraft, so please focus on ‘reward’.
If CASA’s opinion is that there is no hire or reward, in terms of the regulations, in that scenario, please just say so. If CASA’s opinion is that there is hire or reward in that scenario, please just explain the precise nature and source of the hire or reward that, in CASA’s opinion, is connected with the flight.
The scenario is a simple, real-world example and I – and many others - want to know the regulator’s opinion on whether there is any hire or reward connected to it. It cannot be that CASA does not comprehend the regulatory implications of the question, given that ‘hire or reward’ is an element of the definition of ‘air transport operation’. And it cannot be that CASA is not answering because CASA does not ‘like’ the implications of the answer. Regulators are supposed to regulate on the basis of a disinterested application of the rules, rather than whether the regulator ‘likes’ or ‘dislikes’ the way the rules operate.
Scenario for questions 2 and 3: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. The direct costs of the flight are borne by the POB, including the PIC, in whatever way CASA reckons satisfies that element of the definition of ‘cost-sharing’. There are 7 passengers. My partner in the front right seat, a couple of our friends are in the second row and their 4 children are carried in accordance with AC91-18v1.1 para 3.2 in row three.
2. Does CASA comprehend that the flight in this scenario is a ‘cost-sharing’ flight with 8 POB and, as a ‘cost-sharing’ flight, is not a ‘passenger carrying operation’ and, consequently, is not an ‘air transport operation’?
3. If CASA’s answer to question 2 is ‘no’, could CASA explain why its answer is ‘no’?
Again, a real-world scenario and I – and many others – want to know CASA’s opinion on whether it is a ‘cost-sharing’ flight or not, with the stated regulatory consequences. And to close off any potential distractions, I note that CASA has previously stated that it has not issued any instruments under CASR 201.025.
In the scenario, Genericorp is just a sponsor of a flight in an aircraft on which Genericorp's sticker has been applied, rather than the operator of the flight. CASA's opinion, as I understand it, is that the sponsorship payment to meet part of the fixed costs of the flight means that the flight will not fall within the definition of 'cost-sharing'.
FYI I wrote to CASA - actually asking about the Piper PA32 Cherokee 6. Don't propose to put it verbatim here, but in short the guidance suggested
1. PA32 configured as 6 seater can be used to cost-share. PA32 as a 7 seater cannot
2. Provided no hire/reward (I said no money changing hands), a PPL can fly a 7 seater PA32 and bring their family/friends for a joyride around town as it is a private operation
3. Confirm "no such restriction exists on the maximum number of passengers that can be carried by a PPL holder who is qualified to conduct the flight and who meets the relevant recent experience requirements"
1. PA32 configured as 6 seater can be used to cost-share. PA32 as a 7 seater cannot
2. Provided no hire/reward (I said no money changing hands), a PPL can fly a 7 seater PA32 and bring their family/friends for a joyride around town as it is a private operation
3. Confirm "no such restriction exists on the maximum number of passengers that can be carried by a PPL holder who is qualified to conduct the flight and who meets the relevant recent experience requirements"
Sounds like you struck it rich on the clear (and in my view correct) answers to the questions I infer were asked.
Key point: There is no passenger limit on a PPL.
(As a matter of interest: What is the impediment to posting, verbatim, your questions and CASA’s answers?)
Key point: There is no passenger limit on a PPL.
(As a matter of interest: What is the impediment to posting, verbatim, your questions and CASA’s answers?)
Significant progress! CASA’s latest response agrees that a flight can be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight, even if there are 8 POB.
Short point: There is not, and there has never been, a 6 POB limit on ‘cost-sharing flights’. Any assertion to the contrary remains folklore.
(And note that a flight can be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight under the current definition, even if the PIC meets the entirety of the fixed costs of the flight. That is an improvement on the previous CAR ‘deeming’ provision.)
Further, CASA has also agreed that the PIC of my ‘charity airline’ using a 9 seat aircraft can be a private licence holder.
I’m confident that the answer to my final question on the subject, involving an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of 15, is that the flight can be conducted by the PIC under the authority of a private licence alone.
Short point: There is no specified maximum passenger limit on the privileges of a private licence.
However, beware: CASA always has the option to change the ‘goal posts’ when it feels like it, using the various mechanisms built into the rules to avoid the inconvenience of legislative change. CASA can issue an instrument under CASR 201.025 or prescribe an operation in the Part 119 MOS, with the outcome that flights which could otherwise have been conducted lawfully by the holder of a private licence alone would cease to be lawful.
Here is CASA’s most recent response:
Here is my follow-up:
Short point: There is not, and there has never been, a 6 POB limit on ‘cost-sharing flights’. Any assertion to the contrary remains folklore.
(And note that a flight can be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight under the current definition, even if the PIC meets the entirety of the fixed costs of the flight. That is an improvement on the previous CAR ‘deeming’ provision.)
Further, CASA has also agreed that the PIC of my ‘charity airline’ using a 9 seat aircraft can be a private licence holder.
I’m confident that the answer to my final question on the subject, involving an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of 15, is that the flight can be conducted by the PIC under the authority of a private licence alone.
Short point: There is no specified maximum passenger limit on the privileges of a private licence.
However, beware: CASA always has the option to change the ‘goal posts’ when it feels like it, using the various mechanisms built into the rules to avoid the inconvenience of legislative change. CASA can issue an instrument under CASR 201.025 or prescribe an operation in the Part 119 MOS, with the outcome that flights which could otherwise have been conducted lawfully by the holder of a private licence alone would cease to be lawful.
Here is CASA’s most recent response:
Question 1: In any event, I interpret the response to mean, in effect, that, in CASA’s opinion, a flight will not satisfy the definition of a ‘cost-sharing’ flight if any portion of the direct costs of a flight are borne by any one or more or all of:
a. Angel Flight
b. One of the POB’s parents
c. Genericorp Pilot Supplies PTY LTD sponsorship fund, because the PIC has applied a Genericorp Pilot Supplies sticker to the aircraft
d. the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, because the PIC won an AOPA award, rather than POB.
Please let me know if I have misinterpreted CASA’s response.
Answer 1: This understanding of CASA’s position is correct.
Question 2: If I as PIC meet the entirety of the direct costs of a flight, with the corollary being that no one else is meeting any of the direct costs of the flight, and I receive nothing from anyone for anything connected with the flight, what, in CASA’s opinion, is the precise nature and source of any ‘hire or reward’ connected with that flight? And to close off any potential distractions: I’m flying my own aircraft, so please focus on ‘reward’.
Answer 2: Such a flight is a private operation. The pilot is not receiving any reward.
Question 3: Scenario for questions 2 and 3: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. The direct costs of the flight are borne by the POB, including the PIC, in whatever way CASA reckons satisfies that element of the definition of ‘cost-sharing’. There are 7 passengers. My partner in the front right seat, a couple of our friends are in the second row and their 4 children are carried in accordance with AC91-18v1.1 para 3.2 in row three.
2. Does CASA comprehend that the flight in this scenario is a ‘cost-sharing’ flight with 8 POB and, as a ‘cost-sharing’ flight, is not a ‘passenger carrying operation’ and, consequently, is not an ‘air transport operation’?
3. If CASA’s answer to question 2 is ‘no’, could CASA explain why its answer is ‘no’?
Answer 3: The flight is a cost-sharing flight, as whilst the persons on board exceed 6, the definition of cost-sharing flight only applies the maximum seat configuration. Whilst the latter term is not defined, CASA considers it refers to the number of seats as distinct to the number of persons that can be placed in the seats. Please note the total number of persons carried on an aircraft may be limited by its type certificate of flight manual.
a. Angel Flight
b. One of the POB’s parents
c. Genericorp Pilot Supplies PTY LTD sponsorship fund, because the PIC has applied a Genericorp Pilot Supplies sticker to the aircraft
d. the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, because the PIC won an AOPA award, rather than POB.
Please let me know if I have misinterpreted CASA’s response.
Answer 1: This understanding of CASA’s position is correct.
Question 2: If I as PIC meet the entirety of the direct costs of a flight, with the corollary being that no one else is meeting any of the direct costs of the flight, and I receive nothing from anyone for anything connected with the flight, what, in CASA’s opinion, is the precise nature and source of any ‘hire or reward’ connected with that flight? And to close off any potential distractions: I’m flying my own aircraft, so please focus on ‘reward’.
Answer 2: Such a flight is a private operation. The pilot is not receiving any reward.
Question 3: Scenario for questions 2 and 3: I conduct a flight as PIC in an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot seat. I am not remunerated for the flight. The flight is not advertised to the general public. The direct costs of the flight are borne by the POB, including the PIC, in whatever way CASA reckons satisfies that element of the definition of ‘cost-sharing’. There are 7 passengers. My partner in the front right seat, a couple of our friends are in the second row and their 4 children are carried in accordance with AC91-18v1.1 para 3.2 in row three.
2. Does CASA comprehend that the flight in this scenario is a ‘cost-sharing’ flight with 8 POB and, as a ‘cost-sharing’ flight, is not a ‘passenger carrying operation’ and, consequently, is not an ‘air transport operation’?
3. If CASA’s answer to question 2 is ‘no’, could CASA explain why its answer is ‘no’?
Answer 3: The flight is a cost-sharing flight, as whilst the persons on board exceed 6, the definition of cost-sharing flight only applies the maximum seat configuration. Whilst the latter term is not defined, CASA considers it refers to the number of seats as distinct to the number of persons that can be placed in the seats. Please note the total number of persons carried on an aircraft may be limited by its type certificate of flight manual.
Thank you. Those responses are clear and understandable.
One final scenario and question on this subject.
Scenario: I as PIC meet the entirety of the direct costs of a flight in an aircraft I own with a maximum seat configuration of 15 (King Air 350ER), with the corollary that no one else is meeting any of the direct costs of the flight. I receive nothing from anyone for anything connected with the flight. There is nothing in the type certificate or flight manual prohibiting the carriage of 14 passengers in the aircraft.
I note that CASA has agreed that that there is no “reward” if the PIC meets the entirety of the direct costs of a flight, with the corollary being that no one else is meeting any of the direct costs of the flight, and the PIC receives nothing from anyone for anything connected with the flight.
Question: May I lawfully conduct the scenario flight as PIC under the authority of my private licence alone, assuming I have the necessary ratings/endorsements for the aircraft?
One final scenario and question on this subject.
Scenario: I as PIC meet the entirety of the direct costs of a flight in an aircraft I own with a maximum seat configuration of 15 (King Air 350ER), with the corollary that no one else is meeting any of the direct costs of the flight. I receive nothing from anyone for anything connected with the flight. There is nothing in the type certificate or flight manual prohibiting the carriage of 14 passengers in the aircraft.
I note that CASA has agreed that that there is no “reward” if the PIC meets the entirety of the direct costs of a flight, with the corollary being that no one else is meeting any of the direct costs of the flight, and the PIC receives nothing from anyone for anything connected with the flight.
Question: May I lawfully conduct the scenario flight as PIC under the authority of my private licence alone, assuming I have the necessary ratings/endorsements for the aircraft?
Significant progress! CASA’s latest response agrees that a flight can be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight, even if there are 8 POB.
Short point: There is not, and there has never been, a 6 POB limit on ‘cost-sharing flights’. Any assertion to the contrary remains folklore.
Short point: There is not, and there has never been, a 6 POB limit on ‘cost-sharing flights’. Any assertion to the contrary remains folklore.
You won't be able to "cost-share" with 7,8,9,10 adult pax / POB.
But, according to CASA's own answers, you can have "7,8,9,10 adult pax / POB" an aircraft with a pilot who holds only a private licence as PIC, even if it's not a 'cost-sharing' flight. I'm not sure why you're focussing on only one answer to one question which was about cost-sharing. If a flight does not involve 'hire or reward' it isn't an air transport operation, whether or not it's a cost-sharing flight.
Last edited by Clinton McKenzie; 16th Mar 2023 at 10:27.
But, according to CASA's own answers, you can have "7,8,9,10 adult pax / POB" an aircraft with a pilot who holds only a private licence as PIC, even if it's not a 'cost-sharing' flight. I'm not sure why you're focussing on only one answer to one question which was about cost-sharing. If a flight does not involve 'hire or reward' it isn't an air transport operation, whether or not it's a cost-sharing flight.
im not focussing on one part. in just making the distinction
*6 seats and below PPL can be PIC and can cost share,
*above 6 seats PPL can be PIC but cannot accept any $ (ie precludes cost sharing)
succinct?
That is a very good general summary.
I’d merely make a few points:
The PIC of my 15 seat B350ER can be remunerated handsomely for flying me around in it, but it’s not a passenger transport operation. See: exclusion (d) from the definition of ‘passenger transport operation’. (But I of course immediately concede that no other pax are permitted.)
Secondly, I’m not aware of any judicial authority for the proposition that the sharing of any costs among POB a flight necessarily constitutes ‘reward’ of the PIC within the meaning of CASR. I’m aware of CASA’s opinion to that effect. Have you seen any authority cited for that opinion?
In any event, it merely points up one of the many ridiculous distinctions in the rules that have no causal safety risk justification. According to CASA it’s ‘acceptably safe’ for a PPL to be the PIC of a 15 seat aircraft with 14 pax if the PIC meets the entire direct costs of the flight and receives nothing from anyone for anything connected with the flight, because there is no ‘reward’, but it’s not ‘acceptably safe’ if one of the POB throws the PIC $1 to cover $1 of the direct costs because that $1 constitutes ‘reward’. As I’ve said: That $1 has profound regulatory consequences - according to CASA - even though the $1 has zero safety consequences.
I’d merely make a few points:
The PIC of my 15 seat B350ER can be remunerated handsomely for flying me around in it, but it’s not a passenger transport operation. See: exclusion (d) from the definition of ‘passenger transport operation’. (But I of course immediately concede that no other pax are permitted.)
Secondly, I’m not aware of any judicial authority for the proposition that the sharing of any costs among POB a flight necessarily constitutes ‘reward’ of the PIC within the meaning of CASR. I’m aware of CASA’s opinion to that effect. Have you seen any authority cited for that opinion?
In any event, it merely points up one of the many ridiculous distinctions in the rules that have no causal safety risk justification. According to CASA it’s ‘acceptably safe’ for a PPL to be the PIC of a 15 seat aircraft with 14 pax if the PIC meets the entire direct costs of the flight and receives nothing from anyone for anything connected with the flight, because there is no ‘reward’, but it’s not ‘acceptably safe’ if one of the POB throws the PIC $1 to cover $1 of the direct costs because that $1 constitutes ‘reward’. As I’ve said: That $1 has profound regulatory consequences - according to CASA - even though the $1 has zero safety consequences.
IF you accept that a CPL holder has had to fulfill certain requirements and been tested to a higher skill level than PPL then, arguably, they should present a lower flight risk.
Following this logic, conversely a PP flying is, arguably again, a higher risk. One way of mitigating that increased risk to the general populace is to restrict and/or discourage a number of people flying with them (better one person damaged in a crash than 15 say).
Now, were I a PPL holder and I had the opportunity of flying your 15 seat machine around with contributing passengers I might be interested, but if I had to shoulder the entire cost I'd almost certainly say no. Thus CASA's attempt at risk mitigation is achieved in their eyes, crude and somewhat misguided though the implementation may be.
As I've previously posted on this thread you'll see I don't agree with the apparent conflation of commerce and competency, there's no fundamental logic to that, however I think CASA could present an argument to refute your claim that "the $1 has zero safety consequences". And before you point out the difference between 'safety' and 'risk', please bear in mind I'm acting as an advocate for CASA here!
This entire situation is, of course, somewhat of an ambiguous ar$e, which is why IMV the current PPL and CPL etc should be replaced with a license system that regulates (or mitigates) more on experience and skill, rather than commerce. It may be sufficient to simply remove the 'reward' aspect from the license regime and replace it with, say, passenger limits and/or a/c size+complexity, and thence call the licenses something like Pilot Grade 1 - 3, or whatever, but however it is done I don't see any logic for commerce being the arbiter.
So, while acknowledging the present difficulty, and that it's good to pursue the issue, I wonder if the time has come to actually present CASA with a reasonable alternative and a way out of the mire? Better perhaps to do this and engage in meaningful dialogue before they think something up themselves?
FP.
I think CASA could present an argument to refute your claim that "the $1 has zero safety consequences".
The way ‘out of the mire’ is as you’ve suggested: The safety regulatory regime should result in, for example, the least competent posing the least risk to others. But given that the regulatory regime allows RPT jets full of passengers to mix it in uncontrolled airspace with pilots who are neither licensed nor medically certified by any NAA and who could be the least experienced people in the air, flying aircraft that are neither transponder equipped nor certified as airworthy by any NAA, something else must be at play.
Last edited by Clinton McKenzie; 17th Mar 2023 at 02:58.
The way ‘out of the mire’ is as you’ve suggested: The safety regulatory regime should result in, for example, the least competent posing the least risk to others. But given that the regulatory regime allows RPT jets full of passengers to mix it in uncontrolled airspace with pilots who are neither licensed nor medically certified by any NAA and who could be the least experienced people in the air, flying aircraft that are neither transponder equipped nor certified as airworthy by any NAA, something else must be at play.
Sure, there are a few spots around the traps where the two might meet (like on an ILS approach to an out-of-the way regional center) but I'm guessing the CASA risk calculation might go something like (a) if the airport is remote, the traffic density will be low and (b) if the airport is remote enough, the RPT will mostly likely be a small slow turbo-prop (not a large fast jet) due lack of funding for a well-maintained long runway and (c) RPT aircraft are usually equipped with the latest TCAS tech anyway = there's a good chance nothing will happen. Of course, to lower the risk further still, they could simply ban GA from operating at or anywhere near RPT airports.. so be careful what you wish for!
You obviously haven't heard of, or have forgotten about, places like Ballina and Mildura, PC. Google them and "ATSB".
There is no risk calculation. It's currently a game of pass-the-risk-parcel.
Could you provide details of the collision-avoidance tech fitted to RPT jets that detects aircraft that don't have transponders?
(Plenty of GA involves certified, transponder-equipped aircraft flown by licensed and medically-certified pilots.)
There is no risk calculation. It's currently a game of pass-the-risk-parcel.
Could you provide details of the collision-avoidance tech fitted to RPT jets that detects aircraft that don't have transponders?
(Plenty of GA involves certified, transponder-equipped aircraft flown by licensed and medically-certified pilots.)
If I win Lotto tomorrow and buy a 350ER and fly 14 of my friends and family around for free, why would I be a 'safer' pilot than if one of them paid me $1 to cover $1 of the $15,657 direct costs of the flight?
There are are many times in law where a token payment changes the entire nature of the transaction. Peppercorn rents etc.
Because that dollar changes the attitude and expectations of the passenger. A passenger who pays nothing understands that they are taking on personal risk. A passenger who pays a dollar, has now bought their ride, and expects full commercial protection.
Really?
So on a cost-sharing flight with all POB being pilots - the vast majority of the cost-sharing flights I've engaged in over the last few decades - we were all expecting "full commercial protection"?
And in the case of a flight in which only the PIC is a pilot, why is CASA allowing the other e.g. 5 POB who may be sharing the direct costs not to be afforded "full commercial protection"?
Such a sad safety model, I guess its part of the Australian character - the convict component, always ready to look at the hole instead of the donut.
Some observations:
(1) Very large chunks of RAA pilots are perfectly competent former commercial pilots or experienced PPL's who have effectively banished themselves out of fear of CASA Avmed whose punitive approach to air safety is utterly counter productive,
(2) A second cohort of RAA members are experienced but were driven out of GA by costs thanks to CASA massive over regulation.
(3) There is a cohort of very experienced ex commercial pilots in GA - an acquaintance of mine has 20,000 hrs jet experience including checking to line and training. They are prevented from sharing their experience by misconceived instruction regulations, starting with the prohibition against even giving a grandchild a feel of the controls.
(4) There are enthusiastic amateurs - who are competent, but sometimes sneered at. They are eager to learn until the sorry extent of CASAs mismanagement hits them, then they take up golf.
Yet all these people are lumped together and stereotyped as ignorant, unsafe, unhealthy, untrustworthy uncaught criminals who are not permitted to breath, let alone fly, nor land in the same airspace as RPT????
Conrast that situation with KLAX. Last time i arrived by RPT, we crossed tracks with at least four GA pipers and Cessnas below 10000 ft. An acquaintance has taken some very nice photos of the Statue of Liberty and Manhattan - from his rotax powered 600kg home made aircraft.
So "somehow" its possible for amateurs and dilettantes to co exist with RPT in the USA safely and to generate a thriving industry full of investment, jobs, economic growth and just plain fun.
Whats the difference here? Anal retentive medical killjoys? Certainly. Power hungry, frustrated lawyers? Of course. Snobbish military and RPT professionals? Perhaps. Hhhhhhhhowever or oldest enemy is the convict / jailer mindset which assumes that Australians need a touch of the lash lest they get too big for their boots.
We have now reached the state of learned helplessness* - epitomised by Clintons well meaning attempts to make sense of CASA's incomprehensible regulation, when the correct solution to our problems is to throw CASA s regulations on the bonfire, jettison the people who wrote and administered them and replace them with the FAA regs and some :can do" American imports to show us how its done.
* Learned helplessness is the behavior exhibited by a subject after enduring repeated aversive stimuli beyond their control. It was initially thought to be caused by the subject's acceptance of their powerlessness, by way of their discontinuing attempts to escape or avoid the aversive stimulus, even when such alternatives are unambiguously presented.
see also
Stockholm syndrome is a coping mechanism to a captive or abusive situation. People develop positive feelings toward their captors or abusers over time. This condition applies to situations including torture, mental abuse, sexual abuse or considering what they allegedly did to Glen Buckley, engagement with CASA.
Some observations:
(1) Very large chunks of RAA pilots are perfectly competent former commercial pilots or experienced PPL's who have effectively banished themselves out of fear of CASA Avmed whose punitive approach to air safety is utterly counter productive,
(2) A second cohort of RAA members are experienced but were driven out of GA by costs thanks to CASA massive over regulation.
(3) There is a cohort of very experienced ex commercial pilots in GA - an acquaintance of mine has 20,000 hrs jet experience including checking to line and training. They are prevented from sharing their experience by misconceived instruction regulations, starting with the prohibition against even giving a grandchild a feel of the controls.
(4) There are enthusiastic amateurs - who are competent, but sometimes sneered at. They are eager to learn until the sorry extent of CASAs mismanagement hits them, then they take up golf.
Yet all these people are lumped together and stereotyped as ignorant, unsafe, unhealthy, untrustworthy uncaught criminals who are not permitted to breath, let alone fly, nor land in the same airspace as RPT????
Conrast that situation with KLAX. Last time i arrived by RPT, we crossed tracks with at least four GA pipers and Cessnas below 10000 ft. An acquaintance has taken some very nice photos of the Statue of Liberty and Manhattan - from his rotax powered 600kg home made aircraft.
So "somehow" its possible for amateurs and dilettantes to co exist with RPT in the USA safely and to generate a thriving industry full of investment, jobs, economic growth and just plain fun.
Whats the difference here? Anal retentive medical killjoys? Certainly. Power hungry, frustrated lawyers? Of course. Snobbish military and RPT professionals? Perhaps. Hhhhhhhhowever or oldest enemy is the convict / jailer mindset which assumes that Australians need a touch of the lash lest they get too big for their boots.
We have now reached the state of learned helplessness* - epitomised by Clintons well meaning attempts to make sense of CASA's incomprehensible regulation, when the correct solution to our problems is to throw CASA s regulations on the bonfire, jettison the people who wrote and administered them and replace them with the FAA regs and some :can do" American imports to show us how its done.
* Learned helplessness is the behavior exhibited by a subject after enduring repeated aversive stimuli beyond their control. It was initially thought to be caused by the subject's acceptance of their powerlessness, by way of their discontinuing attempts to escape or avoid the aversive stimulus, even when such alternatives are unambiguously presented.
see also
Stockholm syndrome is a coping mechanism to a captive or abusive situation. People develop positive feelings toward their captors or abusers over time. This condition applies to situations including torture, mental abuse, sexual abuse or considering what they allegedly did to Glen Buckley, engagement with CASA.
The following users liked this post: