An Interesting Scenario For Afficionados Of The Rules

[PiperCameron]

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon

Are you sure Ms Ley is not getting any "reward"? Given CASA's stated beliefs about the breadth of the meaning of that word, CASA might disagree.

Well, she certainly isn't being paid in cash by the passengers..

And there's the rub. I'm assuming she's able to have the charity entirely responsible for any "reward" and/or consequences... but at the end of the day, CASA are responsible to the government of the day and what agreements are made behind closed doors (for the public good, of course) us outside of the hallowed halls of power are never likely to know.

[nonsense]

So I read about this auction on The Age website ( https://www.theage.com.au/national/j...24-p5mpct.html halfway down the page "On the ball" ) and came here about 3 hours ago at 3pm to post about this auction, where I was not surprised to find it was already being discussed.
At 3pm this afternoon, they had a first bid of $5000, with the next bid increment being $5100.
It's now 6pm Monday 25/8 and the auction item for the flight is no longer valid, instead displaying:

Auction not found

I guessed the would-be alternative Prime Minister hadn't done her legal checks and has been informed she cannot go ahead with the auction, except that the entire auction, not just this one lot, appear to have been removed.

OK. disregard that bit, it was some sort of issue with the link I was using. The auction continues and can be found here:
https://app.galabid.com/midwinterball/items
Specifically the auction lot we're talking about here is at this link at the moment:
https://app.galabid.com/midwinterbal...7-47f4789fd00a

Also, the SMH has a link to an article specifically about the auction (rather than halfway down the page) here:
https://www.smh.com.au/cbd/as-ley-wi...25-p5mphg.html

[Lead Balloon]

I see your logic, AB, but your conclusion is correct: You're wrong. When a pilot certifies the completion of a Daily Inspection, the pilot is only "responsible" for the maintenance comprising the Daily Inspection. It may be the pilot finds stuff wrong during the inspection, and then becomes "responsible" for entering what's wrong in the MR and not flying the aircraft if that defect or damage precludes the aircraft from being lawfully flown. Or some defect or damage may arise during the flight, in which case the pilot is "responsible" for that in the MR. But fixing what's wrong, compliance with ADs and completion of periodic maintenance is the "responsibility" - due to what CASR says - of the Registered Operator.

[Lead Balloon]

Originally Posted by PiperCameron

Well, she certainly isn't being paid in cash by the passengers..

And there's the rub. I'm assuming she's able to have the charity entirely responsible for any "reward" and/or consequences... but at the end of the day, CASA are responsible to the government of the day and what agreements are made behind closed doors (for the public good, of course) us outside of the hallowed halls of power are never likely to know.

There are so, so many ironies in the fact that your statement is correct in fact but shouldn't be in principle.

In principle, CASA is responsible to the Parliament, not the government of the day. In principle, CASA was set up as a statutory authority separate from the Commonwealth so as to insulate it from political interference from, for example, the government of the day.

Another irony is that, in principle, CASA is bound by the law, too. But, in practice, the regulatory requirements are whatever it wakes up and decides it wants them to be each day, unless someone has the resources to fight for years to prove CASA wrong.

[Geoff Fairless]

Hear, hear Lead,
See all of my writings about the ADF, through CASA, restricting entry to international airspace through, R Area, MOA, or whatever they dream up next.....

[AnotherFSO]

"Among the hot ticket items was a “mystery flight” with the opposition leader,accompanied by a “classic Australian pub lunch” and “ripping yarns over a cold Australian lager”.

None other than Climate 200 founder and teal independent bankroller Simon Holmes a Court splashed out $15,000 on the auction item, making the bid on behalf of 18-year-old climate activist Katya Zheluk, who will also take along a climate scientist on the flight with Ley, who is facing a backbench revolt over the Coalition’s stance on net zero."

From: https://www.smh.com.au/national/hot-...27-p5mq9p.html

[PiperCameron]

Originally Posted by AnotherFSO

"Among the hot ticket items was a “mystery flight” with the opposition leader,accompanied by a “classic Australian pub lunch” and “ripping yarns over a cold Australian lager”.

None other than Climate 200 founder and teal independent bankroller Simon Holmes a Court splashed out $15,000 on the auction item, making the bid on behalf of 18-year-old climate activist Katya Zheluk, who will also take along a climate scientist on the flight with Ley, who is facing a backbench revolt over the Coalition’s stance on net zero."

Poor Sussan! Now she's not only got to safely fly the plane, but fend off the inevitable political diatribe whilst doing so. I hope she survives...

Cat fight!

[Stationair8]

Climate activist falls out of light aircraft, would that be classified as a dangerous goods incident?

[gassed budgie]

Originally Posted by Stationair8

Climate activist falls out of light aircraft, would that be classified as a dangerous goods incident?

More likely a minor work place incident not warranting further investigation.

[Birocracy]

Quite an amusing match, very well played by the winning bidders.

I'm sure she can handle it just fine, it's part of her job description.

[compressor stall]

Following chatter on a pilots’ forum over whether the proposed flight might be in breach of flight regulations as its unusual nature might mean it failed to qualify for a certificate of airworthiness, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority issued a statement to us.

“If the pilot and aircraft owner provide their services free of charge and are not reimbursed for any of the operating costs of the flight, then the flight would be deemed to be a private flight and not require an air operator’s certificate,” the authority said.

from the Age this morning.

[13 others]

For what it's worth, here's the US FAR on the subject:
§ 91.146 Passenger-carrying flights for the benefit of a charitable, nonprofit, or community event.

I add this because it's an example of a regulation that comprehensively spells things out. The flight referenced "to a mystery location for a classic Australian pub lunch" in this thread wouldn't qualify in the US:

(b) Passenger-carrying flights in airplanes, powered-lift, or rotorcraft for the benefit of a charitable, nonprofit, or community event identified in paragraph (c) of this section are not subject to the certification requirements of part 119 of this chapter or the drug and alcohol testing requirements in part 120 of this chapter, provided the following conditions are satisfied and the limitations in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section are not exceeded:

(1) The flight is nonstop and begins and ends at the same airport and is conducted within a 25-statute mile radius of that airport;

Note the PIC qualification requirement:

(9) A private pilot acting as pilot in command has at least 500 hours of flight time;

[Lead Balloon]

Originally Posted by compressor stall

from the Age this morning. ...“If the pilot and aircraft owner provide their services free of charge and are not reimbursed for any of the operating costs of the flight, then the flight would be deemed to be a private flight and not require an air operator’s certificate,” the authority said.

I'll have to dig up all the written material that CASA has produced on the subject, particularly on the subject of "reward".

For example, when it's expedient for CASA in the circumstances, CASA is wont to say this, with bolding added by me:

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.

A reward need not require a profit or profit motive or the actual payment of monies

Don't the kudos and increased public profile arising from a publicised charity flight constitute something of value to a politician conducting that flight?

Let's not forget: The flight was advertised to the world and everyone had an opportunity to get the seats, a fact demonstrated by the delicious irony of the political persuasion of the winner.

My experience and observations are that CASA's interpretation of these 'broad concepts' is influenced by factors that have nothing to do with safety.

[PiperCameron]

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon

Don't the kudos and increased public profile arising from a publicised charity flight constitute something of value to a politician conducting that flight?

Not necessarily. To spin that another way: If you take a friend/colleague/relative up for a jolly, would you consider you're getting a "reward" from the goodwill/ego boost that brings you? I think not.

..but let's not push it too far shall we?? Or next thing we know, CASA will ensure none of us will be going anywhere without a full CPL.

[Lead Balloon]

It's not about what I consider "reward" to mean. It's about what the term means in the rules.

My strategic point is that CASA picks and chooses what the term means, depending on what's expedient in the circumstances. CASA doesn't want to touch this one with a barge pole, given the obvious political implications. If there were political imperatives the other way, CASA would be interpreting the rules differently.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Originally Posted by Stationair8

Climate activist falls out of light aircraft, would that be classified as a dangerous goods incident?

Originally Posted by gassed budgie

More likely a minor work place incident not warranting further investigation.

Provided “Working at heights” module was completed.

[Birocracy]

At least it's a fixed gear.

[aroa]

The title of this confused bureaucracy is the Civil (sometimes not) Aviation “safety” Authority. (and with some very nasty authoritarians within)
It also touts itself as a regulator of commerce. eg Photography. If you have a ppl, a camera and an aeroplane and go fly and take some photographs, and GIVE them to a person…that is OK. If you do the same and have a $ CHARGE for them…then you have committed an offence. Because you have engaged in a commercial transaction.
This shows the stupidly of this outfit. Where on earth is the safety issue??…that’s not the consideration…it’s the $$s that becomes the problem.
Its a classic demonstration that CAsA is confusing and abusing “commerce”. Like I say the place is a ****show.

[Stationair8]

Does the climate activist, realise that Mr Cessna’s finest C182 is actually a fossil fuel burning device?

[PiperCameron]

Originally Posted by Stationair8

Does the climate activist, realise that Mr Cessna’s finest C182 is actually a fossil fuel burning device?

Not only fossil-fuel burning, but there's all that lead being poured into the atmosphere with every rotation of the propeller!!

Perhaps they should stay on the ground (preferably under a rock) until AAM is actually a thing.. or take a Government Car.