Does a company pilot require an AOC?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Section 7AA of CASA EX82/21 – Part 119 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2021 is where you need to look.
....
.......
If the operation meets ALL of the requirements listed above it can be flown under Part 91.
7AA Certain operations not air transport — exemption
(1) In this section: employed means employed by the operator under a contract of service, or a contract for services. exempted transport operation means one of the following:
(a) the operation or use of an aircraft by a company, a partnership, or a sole trader (the business):
(i) for the carriage of passengers, or goods (not being goods for sale or exchange); and
(ii) where the predominant purpose of the carriage is to facilitate the conduct of the operator’s business; and
(iii) where the facilitation is merely ancillary to conducting the business; and
(iv) where no passenger gives any reward for the carriage of themselves, or otherwise shares in the costs of the carriage; and
(v) where the carriage of any passenger, or the passenger’s notional share of the costs of the carriage, is not rewarded by anyone else; and
(vi) where the aircraft is flown by a pilot who is a related pilot, or a professional pilot employed by the business to fly the aircraft; and
Note The word pilot, in the singular, includes pilots, plural, if applicable.
(vii) where the aircraft used has a maximum certificated passenger seating capacity that is not greater than 19;
(1) In this section: employed means employed by the operator under a contract of service, or a contract for services. exempted transport operation means one of the following:
(a) the operation or use of an aircraft by a company, a partnership, or a sole trader (the business):
(i) for the carriage of passengers, or goods (not being goods for sale or exchange); and
(ii) where the predominant purpose of the carriage is to facilitate the conduct of the operator’s business; and
(iii) where the facilitation is merely ancillary to conducting the business; and
(iv) where no passenger gives any reward for the carriage of themselves, or otherwise shares in the costs of the carriage; and
(v) where the carriage of any passenger, or the passenger’s notional share of the costs of the carriage, is not rewarded by anyone else; and
(vi) where the aircraft is flown by a pilot who is a related pilot, or a professional pilot employed by the business to fly the aircraft; and
Note The word pilot, in the singular, includes pilots, plural, if applicable.
(vii) where the aircraft used has a maximum certificated passenger seating capacity that is not greater than 19;
maximum certificated passenger seating capacity has the meaning given by the CASR Dictionary.
MOS means Manual of Standards.
operator means the business, the government organisation, or the owner, (as the case requires) within the meaning of exempted transport operation.
professional pilot means the holder of a commercial pilot licence, or an air transport pilot licence.
related pilot means any of the following (as applicable, within the meaning of exempted transport operation) who holds at least a private pilot licence:
(a) the aircraft owner;
(b) the sole proprietor;
(c) the business partner;
(d) the company director;
(e) the company shareholder.
reward means money, goods, services, or property, or any other benefit or advantage of any kind, or the promise of any of the foregoing.
(2) The operator is exempted from compliance with the following:
(a) for an aeroplane:
(i) Part 119 of CASR; and
(ii) Subpart 91.F of CASR;
(b) for a rotorcraft — Part 119 of CASR.
(3) The exemptions in paragraph (2) (a) are subject to the condition that
MOS means Manual of Standards.
operator means the business, the government organisation, or the owner, (as the case requires) within the meaning of exempted transport operation.
professional pilot means the holder of a commercial pilot licence, or an air transport pilot licence.
related pilot means any of the following (as applicable, within the meaning of exempted transport operation) who holds at least a private pilot licence:
(a) the aircraft owner;
(b) the sole proprietor;
(c) the business partner;
(d) the company director;
(e) the company shareholder.
reward means money, goods, services, or property, or any other benefit or advantage of any kind, or the promise of any of the foregoing.
(2) The operator is exempted from compliance with the following:
(a) for an aeroplane:
(i) Part 119 of CASR; and
(ii) Subpart 91.F of CASR;
(b) for a rotorcraft — Part 119 of CASR.
(3) The exemptions in paragraph (2) (a) are subject to the condition that
(5) This section ceases to have effect at the end of 1 December 2024.
The following users liked this post:
Correct, small GA aircraft like tailwheel mentioned, VFR, just like the training navigation flights, but now with passengers 
I thought that was the whole point of getting your CPL, so you could start small with the required knowledge and experience and work your way up. That was just a reckless comment Squawk7700.
I just never considered this to be an issue while I was doing my training. To even have a couple of mates up in the air with me for a fun flight, who'd like to cover all the costs, is considered illegal. I should've thought ahead and applied for an AOC during RPL training!
I thought that was the whole point of getting your CPL, so you could start small with the required knowledge and experience and work your way up. That was just a reckless comment Squawk7700.
I just never considered this to be an issue while I was doing my training. To even have a couple of mates up in the air with me for a fun flight, who'd like to cover all the costs, is considered illegal. I should've thought ahead and applied for an AOC during RPL training!
In today’s litigious climate, insurance is the biggie. Make sure that you are competent to fly the aircraft (flight review signed off etc), the aircraft is in appropriate category (private, air work, whatever) and ask to see its certificate of insurance. It’s a given that you would see the maintenance release.
If the aircraft owner is in the business of hiring out, he should cover insurance, both hull and liability. The hirer (your employer) may have some form of damage excess imposed. That would need to be clear in the hire agreement.
You definitely do not want to carry the can for hiring it, because if you do, and then take payment from another party to recover your costs, you are indeed heading down a whole new rabbit hole.
As for the whole AOC nonsense, don’t ask CASA for permission. Forgiveness perhaps.
The following users liked this post:
Who is your mentor and chief pilot to see that you are carrying out your operations safely, making good judgement calls and learning from your mistakes?
I think you are facing some serious obstacles that you might end up wishing you never exposed yourself to. For example what resources are available to you if you break down in a remote area or just away from home base, worse if you have a mishap in a remote area. I wouldn't do it without some serious discussion with the aircraft owner. Who will be responsible for what.
Insurance is a biggy these days for owners in private ops, there are a whole lot more exclusions and options to reduce the premiums, it's important to know what they are, almost certainly minimum pilot quals and experience. Ours requires commercial licence and one thousand hours minimum experience, this is a selected option, the lower the experience the more you pay.
The policy clearly states that the insured must have and maintain operational control, so that rules out cross hiring to another operator without our pilots, not that we would do that anyway.
All I'm saying is be careful in what responsibilities you are accepting.
Insurance is a biggy these days for owners in private ops, there are a whole lot more exclusions and options to reduce the premiums, it's important to know what they are, almost certainly minimum pilot quals and experience. Ours requires commercial licence and one thousand hours minimum experience, this is a selected option, the lower the experience the more you pay.
The policy clearly states that the insured must have and maintain operational control, so that rules out cross hiring to another operator without our pilots, not that we would do that anyway.
All I'm saying is be careful in what responsibilities you are accepting.
The following users liked this post:
I saw a recent advertisement for a chief pilot which required only 500 hours. Most small GA operators hire chief pilots to be the ‘fall guy’ with CASA, push a bit of paperwork, lead the aircraft washing detail (other pilots) and fly maximum revenue hours to justify their salary. In such outfits, where the experience bar is so low and profit margins so tight, chief pilots hardly have time to mentor, even if they did have the background to do it.
Who is your mentor and chief pilot to see that you are carrying out your operations safely, making good judgement calls and learning from your mistakes?
In this scenario proposed here I would be more concerned about the insurance & legal aspect of it than having someone to hold your hand.
And in relation to the original question it is a private op as long as you fly company employees and you aren't carrying goods that are later sold on as part of the job. Whether this is legal or not is questionable but that is how CASA has seen it in the past and they have threatened pilots with their license in such operations even though they were legal grey areas.
The following users liked this post:
If an operation isn't an "air transport operation" as defined, Part 119 does not apply.
I'm amazed at how complicated everyone seems to think this is!
If the company or organisation or person conducting the flights is charging any other entity for the service, it is Air Transport, requires an AOC, and the pilot needs a CPL. If not, then it's private (Part 91), and the minimum pilot qualification is a PPL.
As for hiring the aircraft, the company hiring a machine from its owner is akin to renting a car - they're just paying for an asset, not a service. Charter would be paying for the service - equivalent to the taxi or limo.
I deal with CASA staff ever week, and I've neverhad any of their FOIs or Regservices staff unclear on such fundamentals. Its certainly much clearer than the old CAR 206 classifications.
Having said that, insurance is the bigger elephant in the room. AOC operators are required to hold Carriers Liability Insurance and have a measure of protection under the law. Private operators are not, which means in the event of an accident, the pilot may be just as good a target as the company / directors, so think carefully as PIC about what insurance you want for carrying random people around in the back.
If the company or organisation or person conducting the flights is charging any other entity for the service, it is Air Transport, requires an AOC, and the pilot needs a CPL. If not, then it's private (Part 91), and the minimum pilot qualification is a PPL.
As for hiring the aircraft, the company hiring a machine from its owner is akin to renting a car - they're just paying for an asset, not a service. Charter would be paying for the service - equivalent to the taxi or limo.
I deal with CASA staff ever week, and I've neverhad any of their FOIs or Regservices staff unclear on such fundamentals. Its certainly much clearer than the old CAR 206 classifications.
Having said that, insurance is the bigger elephant in the room. AOC operators are required to hold Carriers Liability Insurance and have a measure of protection under the law. Private operators are not, which means in the event of an accident, the pilot may be just as good a target as the company / directors, so think carefully as PIC about what insurance you want for carrying random people around in the back.
The following 3 users liked this post by Look Mum - no hands:
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Without CASA EX82/21 it would be an air transport operation. Refer to the CASR Dictionary. Relevant definitions are:
Hire or reward is not defined in the Civil Aviation Act, the CASRs or the Acts Interpretation Act. CASA's interpretation is published in Part 119 Australian air transport operators—certification and management AMC-GM (File ref D21/556682).
The AMC-GM includes a list that
including:
Ultimately though, the AMC-GM is only an opinion - it is not law.
3 Definition of air transport operation
(1) An air transport operation is a passenger transport operation, a cargo operation or a medical transport operation, that:
(a) is conducted for hire or reward; or
(b) is prescribed by an instrument issued under regulation 201.025.
(2) Despite subclause (1), an air transport operation does not include an aerial work operation or a balloon transport operation.
(1) An air transport operation is a passenger transport operation, a cargo operation or a medical transport operation, that:
(a) is conducted for hire or reward; or
(b) is prescribed by an instrument issued under regulation 201.025.
(2) Despite subclause (1), an air transport operation does not include an aerial work operation or a balloon transport operation.
75 Definition of passenger transport operation
(1) A passenger transport operation is an operation of an aircraft that involves the carriage of passengers, whether or not cargo is also carried on the aircraft.
(2) Despite subclause (1), an operation is not a passenger transport operation if the operation is:
(a) an operation of an aircraft with a special certificate of airworthiness; or
(b) a cost-sharing flight; or
(c) a medical transport operation; or
(d) if the registered operator of an aircraft is an individual--an operation of the aircraft:
(i) that involves the carriage of that individual; and
(ii) does not also involve the carriage of other passengers; or
(e) if the registered operator of an aircraft is an individual--an operation of the aircraft:
(i) that involves the carriage of that individual; and
(ii) involves the carriage of other passengers; and
(iii) for which no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the other passengers or cargo.
(1) A passenger transport operation is an operation of an aircraft that involves the carriage of passengers, whether or not cargo is also carried on the aircraft.
(2) Despite subclause (1), an operation is not a passenger transport operation if the operation is:
(a) an operation of an aircraft with a special certificate of airworthiness; or
(b) a cost-sharing flight; or
(c) a medical transport operation; or
(d) if the registered operator of an aircraft is an individual--an operation of the aircraft:
(i) that involves the carriage of that individual; and
(ii) does not also involve the carriage of other passengers; or
(e) if the registered operator of an aircraft is an individual--an operation of the aircraft:
(i) that involves the carriage of that individual; and
(ii) involves the carriage of other passengers; and
(iii) for which no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the other passengers or cargo.
"passenger" , in relation to an aircraft, means a person:
(a) who:
(i) intends to travel on a particular flight on the aircraft; or
(ii) is on board the aircraft for a flight; or
(iii) has disembarked from the aircraft following a flight; and
(b) who is not a crew member of the aircraft for the flight.
(a) who:
(i) intends to travel on a particular flight on the aircraft; or
(ii) is on board the aircraft for a flight; or
(iii) has disembarked from the aircraft following a flight; and
(b) who is not a crew member of the aircraft for the flight.
Hire or reward
The key criteria for an air transport operation is that it be conducted for hire or reward. In most cases, the concept of hire will be clear, so that if the operator is receiving payment to conduct the flight, that element is met. It can be difficult however to identify if an operation is conducted for reward, though that is a broad concept. The receipt of a reward could involve, but is not limited to, any of the following:
The key criteria for an air transport operation is that it be conducted for hire or reward. In most cases, the concept of hire will be clear, so that if the operator is receiving payment to conduct the flight, that element is met. It can be difficult however to identify if an operation is conducted for reward, though that is a broad concept. The receipt of a reward could involve, but is not limited to, any of the following:
- where the operator receives anything of value
- goodwill in the form of current or future economic benefit.
contains general examples of operational scenarios that might be considered to be conducted for 'reward'. This list does not cover all circumstances, or all variations of a listed circumstance
if the operation is for the purpose of transporting employees of the operator in the context of a business enterprise
Example: A mining company ‘fly-in, fly-out’ operation that is not contracted to an airline but instead operated directly by the company.
Example: A mining company ‘fly-in, fly-out’ operation that is not contracted to an airline but instead operated directly by the company.
It’s great to see your level of engagement with the complex, convoluted mess that is the current regulatory regime, werbil.
When you say “[w]ithout CASA EX82/21 it would be an air transport operation”, you don’t specify what “it” is. And, as you acknowledge – expressly and ‘appropriately’ – the meaning of the word “reward” is just CASA’s opinion. Further, as you also acknowledge - implicitly at least – no instrument of exemption from the application of a regulation can define the meaning of a word like “reward” in the regulations.
You acknowledge – expressly and ‘appropriately’ – that the definition of ‘passenger transport operation’ has an exception. But you omitted to acknowledge that the definition has more than one exception. As is obvious from the definition you quoted, there are actually 5 exceptions (assuming my counting of (a) to (e) inclusive is correct). (Those 5, plus the overarching hire and reward criterion in the definition of 'air transport operation', mean - at least in my mind - that there are 6 criteria that can have the effect of excluding a scenario from the definition.)
What are your thoughts on this scenario:
One of the partners in a business is the owner and registered operator of an aircraft. That partner is being carried with other passengers – who happen to be some of the other partners and employees in the business – on the aircraft for a flight from A to B. The pilot is paid muchos dollars by the owner/registered operator to fly the aircraft from A to B. The owner/registered operator was going to pay that to the pilot, whether or not the other partners and employees were on board. The owner/registered operator claims the cost on her tax return, as a work-related expense.
Walk me through why that scenario doesn’t satisfy the criteria in paragraph (e) of the exception to the definition of “passenger transport operation” you quoted at #31.
The owner/registered operator of the aircraft is an individual. That individual is being carried as a passenger. There are other passengers on board. But no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the passengers other than the owner/registered operator. Remember: The owner/registered operator was obliged to and going to pay the same amount for the flight, anyway.
And you can’t cheat by pretending that some definition in a CASA exemption is relevant to the interpretation of CASR. That would be naughty. Ditto not understanding what a partnership is (and - perhaps more importantly - is not).
When you say “[w]ithout CASA EX82/21 it would be an air transport operation”, you don’t specify what “it” is. And, as you acknowledge – expressly and ‘appropriately’ – the meaning of the word “reward” is just CASA’s opinion. Further, as you also acknowledge - implicitly at least – no instrument of exemption from the application of a regulation can define the meaning of a word like “reward” in the regulations.
You acknowledge – expressly and ‘appropriately’ – that the definition of ‘passenger transport operation’ has an exception. But you omitted to acknowledge that the definition has more than one exception. As is obvious from the definition you quoted, there are actually 5 exceptions (assuming my counting of (a) to (e) inclusive is correct). (Those 5, plus the overarching hire and reward criterion in the definition of 'air transport operation', mean - at least in my mind - that there are 6 criteria that can have the effect of excluding a scenario from the definition.)
What are your thoughts on this scenario:
One of the partners in a business is the owner and registered operator of an aircraft. That partner is being carried with other passengers – who happen to be some of the other partners and employees in the business – on the aircraft for a flight from A to B. The pilot is paid muchos dollars by the owner/registered operator to fly the aircraft from A to B. The owner/registered operator was going to pay that to the pilot, whether or not the other partners and employees were on board. The owner/registered operator claims the cost on her tax return, as a work-related expense.
Walk me through why that scenario doesn’t satisfy the criteria in paragraph (e) of the exception to the definition of “passenger transport operation” you quoted at #31.
The owner/registered operator of the aircraft is an individual. That individual is being carried as a passenger. There are other passengers on board. But no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the passengers other than the owner/registered operator. Remember: The owner/registered operator was obliged to and going to pay the same amount for the flight, anyway.
And you can’t cheat by pretending that some definition in a CASA exemption is relevant to the interpretation of CASR. That would be naughty. Ditto not understanding what a partnership is (and - perhaps more importantly - is not).
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 14th Mar 2024 at 09:40.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2024
Location: AUS
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The conclusive answer to this question i believe lies in the EX82/21 as werbil and anyone else mentioned:
exempted transport operation means one of the following:
(a) the operation or use of an aircraft by a company, a partnership, or a sole trader (the business):
(i) for the carriage of passengers, or goods (not being goods for sale or exchange); and
(ii) where the predominant purpose of the carriage is to facilitate the conduct of the operator’s business; and
(iii) where the facilitation is merely ancillary to conducting the business; and
(iv) where no passenger gives any reward for the carriage of themselves, or otherwise shares in the costs of the carriage; and Authorised Version F2023C01072 registered 06/12/2023
Instrument number CASA EX82/21 (as amended) Page 6 of 16 pages
(v) where the carriage of any passenger, or the passenger’s notional share of the costs of the carriage, is not rewarded by anyone else; and
(vi) where the aircraft is flown by a pilot who is a related pilot, or a professional pilot employed by the business to fly the aircraft; and
Note The word pilot, in the singular, includes pilots, plural, if applicable.
(vii) where the aircraft used has a maximum certificated passenger seating capacity that is not greater than 19;
While this is great news, it has also unravelled a whole new set of things to consider insurance wise. I wonder how useful aviation consultants/lawyers would be in this situation.
Regarding the mentoring and support as I build flight experience, yes, having a HOFO may be great, but there are other ways to achieve the same goal. I hope to meet plenty of experienced pilots and mentours in the course of this opportunity, who are willing to pass on experience and lessons.
I understand that if you are an operator, you may despise operations like this, hoping contracts like this come to you instead. But its just a reality for the hundreds of pilots, who are unable to drop everything to head to the top end for 6 months, continue paying for time-building, or wait around hoping for calls back. If you are an operator in the top half of Australia, you just know there are at least 20 new resumes on your desk a day. I can't think of any other industry like that. Its a different reality being on the other end of the straw.
Also, I left a check and training system that was so fast paced and intense, that it required me to learn more than expected if I wanted to fly. Or if i wasnt happy with something, go home, learn everything about it, before jumping back into the cockpit. It was all performance based, with little room for error without consequence ($$ for the remedial & getting ripped into by your instructor). By the end of the training, the attitude towards learning and flying is ingrained in you, and i can appreciate the hard love looking back.
There are plenty of ways to manage the risks. Sometimes you have to take your own leadership, and find and be your own mentor. Take bits and pieces from everyone. Maybe even from pprune.
exempted transport operation means one of the following:
(a) the operation or use of an aircraft by a company, a partnership, or a sole trader (the business):
(i) for the carriage of passengers, or goods (not being goods for sale or exchange); and
(ii) where the predominant purpose of the carriage is to facilitate the conduct of the operator’s business; and
(iii) where the facilitation is merely ancillary to conducting the business; and
(iv) where no passenger gives any reward for the carriage of themselves, or otherwise shares in the costs of the carriage; and Authorised Version F2023C01072 registered 06/12/2023
Instrument number CASA EX82/21 (as amended) Page 6 of 16 pages
(v) where the carriage of any passenger, or the passenger’s notional share of the costs of the carriage, is not rewarded by anyone else; and
(vi) where the aircraft is flown by a pilot who is a related pilot, or a professional pilot employed by the business to fly the aircraft; and
Note The word pilot, in the singular, includes pilots, plural, if applicable.
(vii) where the aircraft used has a maximum certificated passenger seating capacity that is not greater than 19;
While this is great news, it has also unravelled a whole new set of things to consider insurance wise. I wonder how useful aviation consultants/lawyers would be in this situation.
Regarding the mentoring and support as I build flight experience, yes, having a HOFO may be great, but there are other ways to achieve the same goal. I hope to meet plenty of experienced pilots and mentours in the course of this opportunity, who are willing to pass on experience and lessons.
I understand that if you are an operator, you may despise operations like this, hoping contracts like this come to you instead. But its just a reality for the hundreds of pilots, who are unable to drop everything to head to the top end for 6 months, continue paying for time-building, or wait around hoping for calls back. If you are an operator in the top half of Australia, you just know there are at least 20 new resumes on your desk a day. I can't think of any other industry like that. Its a different reality being on the other end of the straw.
Also, I left a check and training system that was so fast paced and intense, that it required me to learn more than expected if I wanted to fly. Or if i wasnt happy with something, go home, learn everything about it, before jumping back into the cockpit. It was all performance based, with little room for error without consequence ($$ for the remedial & getting ripped into by your instructor). By the end of the training, the attitude towards learning and flying is ingrained in you, and i can appreciate the hard love looking back.
There are plenty of ways to manage the risks. Sometimes you have to take your own leadership, and find and be your own mentor. Take bits and pieces from everyone. Maybe even from pprune.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
But you omitted to acknowledge that the definition has more than one exception. As is obvious from the definition you quoted, there are actually 5 exceptions (assuming my counting of (a) to (e) inclusive is correct). (Those 5, plus the overarching hire and reward criterion in the definition of 'air transport operation', mean - at least in my mind - that there are 6 criteria that can have the effect of excluding a scenario from the definition.)
What are your thoughts on this scenario:
One of the partners in a business is the owner and registered operator of an aircraft. That partner is being carried with other passengers – who happen to be some of the other partners and employees in the business – on the aircraft for a flight from A to B. The pilot is paid muchos dollars by the owner/registered operator to fly the aircraft from A to B. The owner/registered operator was going to pay that to the pilot, whether or not the other partners and employees were on board. The owner/registered operator claims the cost on her tax return, as a work-related expense.
Walk me through why that scenario doesn’t satisfy the criteria in paragraph (e) of the exception to the definition of “passenger transport operation” you quoted at #31.
The owner/registered operator of the aircraft is an individual. That individual is being carried as a passenger. There are other passengers on board. But no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the passengers other than the owner/registered operator. Remember: The owner/registered operator was obliged to and going to pay the same amount for the flight, anyway.
One of the partners in a business is the owner and registered operator of an aircraft. That partner is being carried with other passengers – who happen to be some of the other partners and employees in the business – on the aircraft for a flight from A to B. The pilot is paid muchos dollars by the owner/registered operator to fly the aircraft from A to B. The owner/registered operator was going to pay that to the pilot, whether or not the other partners and employees were on board. The owner/registered operator claims the cost on her tax return, as a work-related expense.
Walk me through why that scenario doesn’t satisfy the criteria in paragraph (e) of the exception to the definition of “passenger transport operation” you quoted at #31.
The owner/registered operator of the aircraft is an individual. That individual is being carried as a passenger. There are other passengers on board. But no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the passengers other than the owner/registered operator. Remember: The owner/registered operator was obliged to and going to pay the same amount for the flight, anyway.
(iii) for which no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the other persons or cargo.
And you can’t cheat by pretending that some definition in a CASA exemption is relevant to the interpretation of CASR. That would be naughty. Ditto not understanding what a partnership is (and - perhaps more importantly - is not).
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
And just because something is legal, it doesn’t mean it is a good idea.
While this is great news, it has also unravelled a whole new set of things to consider insurance wise.
I wonder how useful aviation consultants/lawyers would be in this situation.
If anything goes pear shaped I wouldn’t be worried about CASA, the insurance companies and a few other legal headaches may take precedence before CASA can get their marbles lined up for their dream shot.
The media can even work that out…
The media can even work that out…
The issue I have with your entrepreneurial idea, is that you don't own the aircraft, the company you work for is only employing you for that purpose which makes you an independent contractor. The company employing your services has no knowledge or operational control over anything you do other than take these personnel to place B tomorrow morning. That puts the company you provide service to in a very high risk position, including yourself.
An alternative structure for our operation. Company A is an administration company which owns assets. The managing director is an ATPL holder, owns, maintains, insures and has operational control over everything the aircraft does and employs 2 additional casual ATPL holders. Company A provides air transport of personnel and equipment to Companies B,C D and E for which company A owns a controlling interest, those personnel are directors, shareholders or employees of at least one of those companies.
What I'm describing here is a company which has full knowledge and control over everything it does. Which is a bit different to going out and finding a pilot who can hire an aircraft to do all that for company A, regardless of whether its legal or not, don't you think.
An alternative structure for our operation. Company A is an administration company which owns assets. The managing director is an ATPL holder, owns, maintains, insures and has operational control over everything the aircraft does and employs 2 additional casual ATPL holders. Company A provides air transport of personnel and equipment to Companies B,C D and E for which company A owns a controlling interest, those personnel are directors, shareholders or employees of at least one of those companies.
What I'm describing here is a company which has full knowledge and control over everything it does. Which is a bit different to going out and finding a pilot who can hire an aircraft to do all that for company A, regardless of whether its legal or not, don't you think.
Last edited by Xeptu; 14th Mar 2024 at 22:52.
There was a guy at Avalon with a privately owned private jet, owned by himself, with a PPL.
He was advertising himself for employment to any company that wanted a private jet to ferry around their own employees.
The condition was that the interested company would employ him and pay for the run costs and he would fly them around whenever they wanted.
He was advertising himself for employment to any company that wanted a private jet to ferry around their own employees.
The condition was that the interested company would employ him and pay for the run costs and he would fly them around whenever they wanted.
There was a guy at Avalon with a privately owned private jet, owned by himself, with a PPL.
He was advertising himself for employment to any company that wanted a private jet to ferry around their own employees.
The condition was that the interested company would employ him and pay for the run costs and he would fly them around whenever they wanted.
He was advertising himself for employment to any company that wanted a private jet to ferry around their own employees.
The condition was that the interested company would employ him and pay for the run costs and he would fly them around whenever they wanted.
The following users liked this post: