PPL Passenger Limit in Australia
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"?
I don't understand your arguments, Checkboard, and you only addressed one of the scenarios I used. You said:
Either a flight involves the payment of money by a passenger or it doesn't. If that payment results in the passenger expecting "full commercial protection", that is the result whether the payment is in the context of a cost-sharing flight or any other 'non-passenger transport' operation in which a passenger may pay money for the flight.
In any event, it's just another example showing that the distinctions have no causal connection with objective safety risk.
As yet another example, Sunfish is labouring under the misconception that RAAus operations do not occur in airspace in which RPT operations, including RPT jet operations, occur:
PiperCameron appears equally ignorant:
You guys aren't paying enough attention.
Every day in Australia, RPT aircraft - including "large fast jets" - operate in and out of busy aerodromes with "well-maintained long runways" in G airspace, mixing it with aircraft that are neither transponder equipped nor certified by any NAA and flown by pilots who are neither licensed nor medically certified by any NAA. That is considered "acceptably safe" by CASA (and, evidently, ATSB and the airlines). (This shows that the medical certification system for private 'VH' pilots in Australia continues to be an expensive and harmful overreaction to exaggerated risks by Avmed, and is why the US Congress legislated around FAA Avmed to implement a system of private pilot medical certification based on objective evidence and objective risk. Unfortunately, CASA continues to be left to determine its own role in the regulatory system, including medical certification, so we can safely assume the product of the echo chamber review process dressed up as consultation on Part 67 will produce yet more complexity.)
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.
In any event, it's just another example showing that the distinctions have no causal connection with objective safety risk.
As yet another example, Sunfish is labouring under the misconception that RAAus operations do not occur in airspace in which RPT operations, including RPT jet operations, occur:
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????
[T]here 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.
Every day in Australia, RPT aircraft - including "large fast jets" - operate in and out of busy aerodromes with "well-maintained long runways" in G airspace, mixing it with aircraft that are neither transponder equipped nor certified by any NAA and flown by pilots who are neither licensed nor medically certified by any NAA. That is considered "acceptably safe" by CASA (and, evidently, ATSB and the airlines). (This shows that the medical certification system for private 'VH' pilots in Australia continues to be an expensive and harmful overreaction to exaggerated risks by Avmed, and is why the US Congress legislated around FAA Avmed to implement a system of private pilot medical certification based on objective evidence and objective risk. Unfortunately, CASA continues to be left to determine its own role in the regulatory system, including medical certification, so we can safely assume the product of the echo chamber review process dressed up as consultation on Part 67 will produce yet more complexity.)
Back to the core subject of this thread...
CASA's most recent response confirms that the rules do not impose a maximum seat configuration for a private operation:
CASA's most recent response confirms that the rules do not impose a maximum seat configuration for a private operation:
Please find the response to your query below:
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?
Answer: Yes. The aviation legislation does not impose a maximum seat configuration limitation for a private operation.
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?
Answer: Yes. The aviation legislation does not impose a maximum seat configuration limitation for a private operation.
As yet another example, Sunfish is labouring under the misconception that RAAus operations do not occur in airspace in which RPT operations, including RPT jet operations, occur:
Keep up the great work.
My apologies for misreading the tone of your previous post, Sunfish.
I, too, have no hesitation in organising 'I'll-stay-out-of-your-way-at- [stated location]' whenever RPT or RFDS or whomever has more important stuff to do than I do. My focus in this and other threads is on highlighting the patent incongruity in rules which expose that important stuff to X% risks while prohibiting the same stuff being exposed to risks lower than X%.
I, too, have no hesitation in organising 'I'll-stay-out-of-your-way-at- [stated location]' whenever RPT or RFDS or whomever has more important stuff to do than I do. My focus in this and other threads is on highlighting the patent incongruity in rules which expose that important stuff to X% risks while prohibiting the same stuff being exposed to risks lower than X%.
No wish to derail the thrust of this thread, but having suffered a similar misunderstanding of humour in another sub-forum may I suggest a 'sarcasm' ascii emoticon be employed to avoid any doubt?:
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ or
:-P or
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ or
:-P or
🙃
VFRG
Clinton,
Good work extracting some specific examples of what is/ is not permitted.
None of this appears in the latest VFRG (7.2) which has apparently just been released.
Indeed CASA has persisted in some strange ways to explain a PPL, which is solely defined by what it is not (p16), and by reference to other regulation. It seems to me that a person with no prior knowledge of Australian aviation regulation would find this description totally useless.
A lot of the VFRG is however quite well written.
Seabreeze
Good work extracting some specific examples of what is/ is not permitted.
None of this appears in the latest VFRG (7.2) which has apparently just been released.
Indeed CASA has persisted in some strange ways to explain a PPL, which is solely defined by what it is not (p16), and by reference to other regulation. It seems to me that a person with no prior knowledge of Australian aviation regulation would find this description totally useless.
A lot of the VFRG is however quite well written.
Seabreeze
Yes, Seabreeze, that p16 is a practically useless way of explaining what a PPL holder is allowed to do. Apparently a PPL holder is supposed to go off to Part 119, 129 and 131 of CASR and reg 206 of CAR, to work out what operations have to be authorised by an AOC, then go off to Part 138 of CASR to work out what operations require an aerial work certificate, then go off to Part 141 of CASR … then Part 142 of CASR …then work out what an adventure flight for a limited category aircraft is, then work out what…, then work out what …, and having worked all that out, then come to the conclusion that, because the PPL holder is not planning to do any of that, the PPL holder can go ahead and do ‘something else’ under the authority of their PPL.
What would be useful guidance is an explanation of CASA’s opinions as to the scope of the exclusions from the definition of ‘passenger transport operation’. Those exclusions are fundamentally important for PPL holders to understand.
But for this thread, would anyone outside CASA have realised that CASA’s opinion – with which I happen to agree - is that a flight will be a cost-sharing flight even if the PIC meets the entirety of the fixed costs of the flight (and the other elements of the definition are satisfied)? Or that CASA’s opinion – with which I also happen to agree – is that a flight for which the PIC meets the entirety of the fixed costs and is not remunerated is not a flight ‘for hire or reward’? Some important stuff falls out of that.
But for this thread, would anyone outside CASA have realised that CASA’s opinion – about which I am very dubious – is that a flight will not be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight if, for example, one of the POB’s parents – who was not on board - kicks in $1 to cover the direct costs of the flight? Some important stuff falls out of that.
I’ll make a prediction, though: I’ll bet folding money that the folklore about there being a 6 POB limit on a PPL will persist, notwithstanding the number of examples of scenarios with more than 6 POB I’ve put to CASA and the number of times CASA has conceded that the operation can be carried out under the authority of a PPL, culminating in the statement from CASA that there is no passenger limit on the privileges of a PPL.
(Most of the good bits of the VFG – now VFRG – were written a loooong time ago and have merely been massaged to cite the new location of an old rule or to accommodate wherever a particular rule happens to be in the prescriptive versus outcomes-based cycle.)
What would be useful guidance is an explanation of CASA’s opinions as to the scope of the exclusions from the definition of ‘passenger transport operation’. Those exclusions are fundamentally important for PPL holders to understand.
But for this thread, would anyone outside CASA have realised that CASA’s opinion – with which I happen to agree - is that a flight will be a cost-sharing flight even if the PIC meets the entirety of the fixed costs of the flight (and the other elements of the definition are satisfied)? Or that CASA’s opinion – with which I also happen to agree – is that a flight for which the PIC meets the entirety of the fixed costs and is not remunerated is not a flight ‘for hire or reward’? Some important stuff falls out of that.
But for this thread, would anyone outside CASA have realised that CASA’s opinion – about which I am very dubious – is that a flight will not be a ‘cost-sharing’ flight if, for example, one of the POB’s parents – who was not on board - kicks in $1 to cover the direct costs of the flight? Some important stuff falls out of that.
I’ll make a prediction, though: I’ll bet folding money that the folklore about there being a 6 POB limit on a PPL will persist, notwithstanding the number of examples of scenarios with more than 6 POB I’ve put to CASA and the number of times CASA has conceded that the operation can be carried out under the authority of a PPL, culminating in the statement from CASA that there is no passenger limit on the privileges of a PPL.
(Most of the good bits of the VFG – now VFRG – were written a loooong time ago and have merely been massaged to cite the new location of an old rule or to accommodate wherever a particular rule happens to be in the prescriptive versus outcomes-based cycle.)
Join Date: May 2023
Location: South Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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"
- Hire 7 seat configured PA32 - Not allowed! - AC must have registered operator (owner) on board.
- Own 7 seat configured PA32 - allowed with owner on board. Cost-Sharing not allowed
- Hire 6 seat configured PA32 - Allowed with cost-sharing
- Own 6 seat configured PA32 - Alloowed with cost-sharing
Also did this response cater for larger aircraft or specifically to PA32 as the exception. Say owner operated or hired PA-31-310 (8 seat) with 2 seats removed would technically be allowed with cost-sharing similar to the above scenario? This seems to contradict what's been said previously about this being maximum seating in aircraft. I've given this example becuase it's pretty much what I'm aiming for with my PPL.
Cost sharing an aircraft is not a question of safety, the rules are protectionist policy for commercial operators. The same as how car pooling was always a grey area to protect the taxi industry, since UBER who knows what the rules are... You could argue there are safety issues with a PPL selling under cost seats en-masse vs a regulated commercial operator, but the reasoning is more that there is not mass undercutting of the charter/RPT sector by pilots building hours or doing it for fun or tax breaks or whatever.
