Does a company pilot require an AOC?
Some of you blokes get all fluffed up over nothing. AOC's CPL'S Insurance issues etc. All you need do is this. Get the business to employ you in some capacity. Can be an assistant, cleaner, sales rep whatever. Can be part time or casual as long as your on the books paying tax and superannuation. Then when they want you to take a staff member somewhere by plane you hire one from your local flight school ,club etc and go private/business. Perfectly legal as long as your not being paid to fly the aircraft. No different from driving your car to the job.
The only wages you get are your normal wages that you get on the job for whatever task that may be. When you get back you present the boss with your travel expenses , meals, accommodation, travel, etc and get it reimbursed. Happens every week in Australia. How do you reckon LAME workshops manage in the bush. Someone with a license has to fly out to a bush strip and fix or service some cocky's aircraft. Many bush LAME's have a PPL for that very reason. I myself have done similar. On a number of occasions I would have to attend meetings in Sydney which meant either two days away or a round trip by private aircraft. It was a no brainer which was more efficient. Another time I and 2 others had to do an audit at some schools out bush. We did it in 5 days instead of 3 weeks by car. all perfectly legal and yes we checked with CASA before we did it. They don't care how you travel there so long as your not charging for the flight. No different to charging your car out as a registered taxi when your not. This 200 hr bloke is unemployable as a pilot so may as well be employed working doing something else and getting free hours while building experience. The only issue is the employer may have to get extra insurance to cover employees flying in private aircraft for work comp but that is another issue.
The only wages you get are your normal wages that you get on the job for whatever task that may be. When you get back you present the boss with your travel expenses , meals, accommodation, travel, etc and get it reimbursed. Happens every week in Australia. How do you reckon LAME workshops manage in the bush. Someone with a license has to fly out to a bush strip and fix or service some cocky's aircraft. Many bush LAME's have a PPL for that very reason. I myself have done similar. On a number of occasions I would have to attend meetings in Sydney which meant either two days away or a round trip by private aircraft. It was a no brainer which was more efficient. Another time I and 2 others had to do an audit at some schools out bush. We did it in 5 days instead of 3 weeks by car. all perfectly legal and yes we checked with CASA before we did it. They don't care how you travel there so long as your not charging for the flight. No different to charging your car out as a registered taxi when your not. This 200 hr bloke is unemployable as a pilot so may as well be employed working doing something else and getting free hours while building experience. The only issue is the employer may have to get extra insurance to cover employees flying in private aircraft for work comp but that is another issue.
The OP started with “if I were to work for…”(the company, not in the aviation business) etc.
He asks whether he would need to be on the books as the company pilot. I don’t see that it matters what his job description is, provided that the operation meets private operating criteria, and that he is a bona fide employee.
The key is the aircraft hire agreement ie, which entity bears responsibility for what. The aircraft owner would need to have hull and liability cover, which most responsible owners would have. However cover would be limited, and most likely only extend to damage, injury or death caused by a fault in the aircraft, or if the owner or a listed pilot is flying the aircraft.
When you hire a car, it’s usually the driver who carries insurance for anything beyond a fault in the vehicle. Not always though, because it’s common enough for a company to hire a vehicle and nominate one or more drivers. In such cases the company assumes liability for the actions of the driver(s) - if they are employees using the vehicle for company business.
In the proposed case the pilot is an employee simply using the aircraft for company business. Over simplifying?
A pilot would be crazy to take on the proposed arrangement in any role other than that of an employee, with the company invoiced for the hire.
He asks whether he would need to be on the books as the company pilot. I don’t see that it matters what his job description is, provided that the operation meets private operating criteria, and that he is a bona fide employee.
The key is the aircraft hire agreement ie, which entity bears responsibility for what. The aircraft owner would need to have hull and liability cover, which most responsible owners would have. However cover would be limited, and most likely only extend to damage, injury or death caused by a fault in the aircraft, or if the owner or a listed pilot is flying the aircraft.
When you hire a car, it’s usually the driver who carries insurance for anything beyond a fault in the vehicle. Not always though, because it’s common enough for a company to hire a vehicle and nominate one or more drivers. In such cases the company assumes liability for the actions of the driver(s) - if they are employees using the vehicle for company business.
In the proposed case the pilot is an employee simply using the aircraft for company business. Over simplifying?
A pilot would be crazy to take on the proposed arrangement in any role other than that of an employee, with the company invoiced for the hire.
What are you carrying on about?
Didn't you guys read the memo 20 years ago that the new CASRs were simplifying legislation and removing the Charter/RPT ambiguity that caused much angst in the 90's00's?
Didn't you guys read the memo 20 years ago that the new CASRs were simplifying legislation and removing the Charter/RPT ambiguity that caused much angst in the 90's00's?
The following users liked this post:
Some of you blokes get all fluffed up over nothing. AOC's CPL'S Insurance issues etc. All you need do is this. Get the business to employ you in some capacity. Can be an assistant, cleaner, sales rep whatever. Can be part time or casual as long as your on the books paying tax and superannuation. Then when they want you to take a staff member somewhere by plane you hire one from your local flight school ,club etc and go private/business. Perfectly legal as long as your not being paid to fly the aircraft. No different from driving your car to the job.
The only wages you get are your normal wages that you get on the job for whatever task that may be. When you get back you present the boss with your travel expenses , meals, accommodation, travel, etc and get it reimbursed. Happens every week in Australia. How do you reckon LAME workshops manage in the bush. Someone with a license has to fly out to a bush strip and fix or service some cocky's aircraft. Many bush LAME's have a PPL for that very reason. I myself have done similar. On a number of occasions I would have to attend meetings in Sydney which meant either two days away or a round trip by private aircraft. It was a no brainer which was more efficient. Another time I and 2 others had to do an audit at some schools out bush. We did it in 5 days instead of 3 weeks by car. all perfectly legal and yes we checked with CASA before we did it. They don't care how you travel there so long as your not charging for the flight. No different to charging your car out as a registered taxi when your not. This 200 hr bloke is unemployable as a pilot so may as well be employed working doing something else and getting free hours while building experience. The only issue is the employer may have to get extra insurance to cover employees flying in private aircraft for work comp but that is another issue.
The only wages you get are your normal wages that you get on the job for whatever task that may be. When you get back you present the boss with your travel expenses , meals, accommodation, travel, etc and get it reimbursed. Happens every week in Australia. How do you reckon LAME workshops manage in the bush. Someone with a license has to fly out to a bush strip and fix or service some cocky's aircraft. Many bush LAME's have a PPL for that very reason. I myself have done similar. On a number of occasions I would have to attend meetings in Sydney which meant either two days away or a round trip by private aircraft. It was a no brainer which was more efficient. Another time I and 2 others had to do an audit at some schools out bush. We did it in 5 days instead of 3 weeks by car. all perfectly legal and yes we checked with CASA before we did it. They don't care how you travel there so long as your not charging for the flight. No different to charging your car out as a registered taxi when your not. This 200 hr bloke is unemployable as a pilot so may as well be employed working doing something else and getting free hours while building experience. The only issue is the employer may have to get extra insurance to cover employees flying in private aircraft for work comp but that is another issue.
Moderator
"...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 worker can choose how, where and when their work is done, subject to reasonable direction by you."
- "the worker provides all or most of the equipment, tools and other assets required to complete the work, and you do not give them an allowance or reimbursement for the expenses incurred."
- "The work involves the use of a substantial item that your worker is wholly responsible for."
- "the worker bears the commercial risk for any costs arising out of injury or defect in their work."
https://www.ato.gov.au/businesses-an...nd-contractors
He should never undertake his proposed flying work as a contractor, only as a permanent part time or full time employee.
The new rules are so good that the answer to the OP's question is, apparently, in an exemption from the new rules.
It's the main reason I'm not comfortable with it, the company will hang the pilot out to dry and distance itself as much as possible, all spotlights will be on the pilot if it goes pear shaped and someone is killed or injured. A little bit harder to do that if the company owns the aircraft.
I'll explain a priority risk action that we do that a freshly minted cpl wouldn't even know about. When we need to go into a new location it's usually a bush strip, before we use it we take our survey team in and measure everything, particularly the airspace, terrain, and build special departure procedure if the terrain requires it, along with a rad alt approach procedure and tested in the event we get caught and must land here because there's no where else within range. We also want someone contactable on the ground there that know what we need from them. We take it seriously there's a lot to check and assure in these types of operations. These are things your not going to get from a company that knows nothing about aviation and relies upon someone else that probably doesn't know either. What could go wrong.
Last edited by Xeptu; 15th Mar 2024 at 08:09.
I think of it from a moral overview.
What is is the operational difference between a private operation and a commercial one?
A private operation has a lower standard of licence, and they fly with little oversight, basically on their own recognisance.
A commercial operation has has a higher standard of licence, and the pilot flies with the “big brother” overview of the AOC holder as a double check on operational safety.
The passengers with a private operation have some personal knowledge of the pilot (friend, family, colleague) and understand that they are partaking in “an activity” (like a sport, four wheel driving etc) and are thus also personally undertaking that level of risk.
The passengers in a commercial operation are paying (or their employers are paying), and thus expect the lower risk provided by the oversight given in a commercial operation. That’s why miners on a fly in fly out contract aren’t partaking (or wouldn’t want to) in a private operation, they don’t know the pilot, they expect the employer who required them to fly regularly to provide commercial flight safety.
It’s the difference between me, being on holiday in Dubai, and paying for a Sand dune four wheel drive experience, and me going out bush bashing with my mate Billy in his four wheel drive.
So, for the OP: what category do you think your passengers will be in? Required by their boss to get on the aircraft, or doing so with some knowledge of you and the standards of the flight?
What is is the operational difference between a private operation and a commercial one?
A private operation has a lower standard of licence, and they fly with little oversight, basically on their own recognisance.
A commercial operation has has a higher standard of licence, and the pilot flies with the “big brother” overview of the AOC holder as a double check on operational safety.
The passengers with a private operation have some personal knowledge of the pilot (friend, family, colleague) and understand that they are partaking in “an activity” (like a sport, four wheel driving etc) and are thus also personally undertaking that level of risk.
The passengers in a commercial operation are paying (or their employers are paying), and thus expect the lower risk provided by the oversight given in a commercial operation. That’s why miners on a fly in fly out contract aren’t partaking (or wouldn’t want to) in a private operation, they don’t know the pilot, they expect the employer who required them to fly regularly to provide commercial flight safety.
It’s the difference between me, being on holiday in Dubai, and paying for a Sand dune four wheel drive experience, and me going out bush bashing with my mate Billy in his four wheel drive.
So, for the OP: what category do you think your passengers will be in? Required by their boss to get on the aircraft, or doing so with some knowledge of you and the standards of the flight?
I was once aware of a non-aviation business owner that owned a 12 seat piston twin aircraft.
He was unlicensed and very unhealthy and did not have a twin rating nor a medical.
He was flying employees all over the state, up to even 8-10 at a time.
One of those employees rang an acquaintance of mine who was a commercial pilot and advised that he was very uncomfortable with boarding the aircraft for a 2 hour flight at 200 knots back to home base.
The CPL told him that he probably shouldn’t board. It put the employee in a very uncomfortable situation as he felt compelled to board to keep his job.
The employer should not be put into a position when they may feel uncomfortable and as an employee, you would reasonably expect that your employer has taken all reasonable steps to ensure a safe journey for their employees.
i wouldn’t want my employees travelling in a single engine aircraft with a PPL at the controls, it’s not fair on them or their families.
Many of these “PPL” personal company pilots that your hear of, are still CPL or ex-CPL holders with IR’s etc, which is why they are employed in the first place. Rarely does the PPL company pilot actually exist in practice, other than perhaps for the purposes of farm hand or mustering.
He was unlicensed and very unhealthy and did not have a twin rating nor a medical.
He was flying employees all over the state, up to even 8-10 at a time.
One of those employees rang an acquaintance of mine who was a commercial pilot and advised that he was very uncomfortable with boarding the aircraft for a 2 hour flight at 200 knots back to home base.
The CPL told him that he probably shouldn’t board. It put the employee in a very uncomfortable situation as he felt compelled to board to keep his job.
The employer should not be put into a position when they may feel uncomfortable and as an employee, you would reasonably expect that your employer has taken all reasonable steps to ensure a safe journey for their employees.
i wouldn’t want my employees travelling in a single engine aircraft with a PPL at the controls, it’s not fair on them or their families.
Many of these “PPL” personal company pilots that your hear of, are still CPL or ex-CPL holders with IR’s etc, which is why they are employed in the first place. Rarely does the PPL company pilot actually exist in practice, other than perhaps for the purposes of farm hand or mustering.
I was going to say the same thing, operated as a Private Flight, no AOC required. Have to be careful though as I remember something coming up a while back about a bloke hiring an aircraft for a weekend, flying some of his mates somewhere but if they put any money in to help the Pilot with the cost(s), it's then in 'hire or reward' territory, apparently. Not so sure how true that is.
If a flight satisfies the definition of one that is "cost sharing", it doesn't matter whether it's "in 'hire or reward' territory'. A flight that satisfies the definition of "cost sharing" is excluded from the definition of "passenger transport operation" and, therefore, is not an "air transport operation" even if it's "in 'hire or reward' territory".
