|
We did exactly this last year for my sons pre-school.
We approached the local joyflight operator, he agreed to provide his pilot services if we paid for the aeroplane. I asked about myself flying (CPL) it but as pointed out already, the headache of geting ones self onto an operators AOC for one flight just wasnt worth it. So we, my wife and I, paid for the flight up front and auctioned it off at the pre-school fete. The winner enjoyed the flight with the operator, all legit, no problems. |
A user of aviation rulings should also be aware that a ruling is only a statement of CASA’s policy. It is not a restatement of the law. Accordingly, while rulings are drafted to be consistent with the law referred to in the ruling as understood by CASA from time to time, they cannot displace any inconsistent legal requirements. The above from Mick Toller's policy, which, if you read the whole policy document carefully, is in itself, internally inconsistent. CASA "policy" statements have no legal standing, they are not the equivalent of an ATO binding ruling. CASA successful legal actions since have rather rendered this document obsolete. Indeed, in one case, a Museum (and registered charity) providing an annual free flight to members renewing, in a Museum owner aircraft, was found to be conducting an operation in violation of CAR 206. This was after the local CASA office "approved" the operation, and provided "advice" to "ensure" CAR 206 was not violated. Most, if not all, Australian aviation insurance policies are void if a breach of the regulations has occurred. Worse, this can apply even if the breach had nothing to do with the cause of the accident. I know of several cases that have gone on for years, the damages awarded (subject to appeal) were crippling, not to mention the legal costs, and quite literally having your life on hold for years. The short answer is don't. The potential liability of the aircraft owner, operator and pilot in command are just too great. Let the charity buy the time from an AOC holder, and conduct the flight as a charter. Even that will not stop the charity being joined in a damages action. Tootle pip!! |
Thanks for the advice,
I think I'll give it a miss. A shame really...... |
Hmmm.
Is the pilot doing it for hire or reward? No. In fact - the opposite: he's spending some of his own hard earned $$. Is the owner or operator of the aircraft doing anything for hire or reward in the sense of CAR206? No. It's hiring out the aircraft to the pilot. Is the school (or parents' association or whatever) conducting the flight at all? No. Plenty of bottles of wine auctioned off without a liquor licence, I'm sure ... Gotta wonder. Ted |
Is the owner or operator of the aircraft doing anything for hire or reward in the sense of CAR206? Although the word "commercial" rates a mention in 206, "hire and reward" went with the Air Navigation Act long ago, when the Civil Aviation Act 1988 appeared. CAR 206 is about "classification of operations" that require an AOC, and is interpreted very broadly by the courts, at CASA/DPP urging. Beware of interpretations that run foul of precedents. Tootle pip!! |
Using the variations with potential conflict of CAR 206, The EAA Young Eagles Programme in the US would most probably be illegal in Australia despite that organisation probably having passenger insurance.
We will soon have Kids here who have never had the chance to fly in a "little aeroplane" let alone shoot a .22 at a rabbit. I've had the best years of my life, it's just a pity our future Youth won't get the same chance. |
I dunno Frank, saying you have had the best years of your life is like giving up.
In my world there are still rabbits, 22 rifles and kids having fun. It is still possible to do 220 kph on a motorcycle with impunity and flying down the beach at dot feet doesn't attract attention. In my world fortune seems to favour the risk taker and if I wanted to auction a flight I would just go ahead and do it. I guess the whole problem with this thread is that when you put yourself in a position of fear of legal implications and worst case scenario consequences fortune no longer favours you. You join the rest of the drones that inhabit planet earth. No offence to the permission seekers intended ... |
Folks,
Adding to what Frank has said ( and he is correct) about the EAA Young Eagles, CASA has declared that the Scouting Associations of Australia air experience flights also require an AOC. Interestingly, over tens of thousands of flight over many years, the only accidents causing injury to a Scout occurred when using an AOC operator, as a charter, because none of the usual aircraft used by the Scouts was available. To not put too fine a point on it, CASA completely stuffed an operation with an impeccable safety record, all because of a "new" and very narrow interpretation of CAR 206 in about 2002. Tootle pip!! |
For those interested - CASA response
Hi,
In case anyone else is interested, here is an email exchange with CASA. I am writing to seek some information/guidance regarding the legal implications of offering a joy flight, as part of a school fundraising activity. I am in the process of determining if the school meets the requirements of 30-227(2) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth). Should the school in fact be designated as a 'charitable entity', I understand that according to CASA Ruling 3/2003, I would be permitted to offer and conduct a flight, which was 'purchased' as part of the fund raising activities. I am an ATPL rated pilot (ARN xxxxxx) who would hire an aircraft from a flying school (most likely xxxxxxxxx), in order to carry out any such flight. From CASA's point of view, are my assumptions regarding Ruling 3/2003 correct, and if so, is there any other information CASA could provide which pertains to 'charity' flights? Thanks in advance, Yours Sincerely I am informed that it is likely that CASA Ruling 3/2003 will be withdrawn. However, under section 30-227(2) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, by the Australian Taxation Office; - if the school is endorsed a Deductible Gift Recipient and; - providing any funds collected are retained by agreement with the aircraft operator, and; - you do not receive any funds; - operator is entitled to receive costs associated with hire of the aircraft to you. I hope this answers your question. Regards, Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the reference to the ATO section regarding the provisions of section 30-227(2), however, I am still unsure what CASA's position is regarding the proposed flight. As you mention that CASA ruling 3/2003 will be withdrawn, I take it whilst the ruling remains in effect, I would not be in breach of any CASA ruling or regulations should I conduct a flight as previously described (provided the School is a recognised DGR). In short, is it legal for me to operate a flight in which the passenger paid a third party (namely a school fundraising committee) for that flight, with no moneys being paid to me? Would this situation constitute a charter operation for which I would be required to operate as PIC under an AOC? If the flight was to be conducted after the withdrawal of CASA Ruling 3/2003, would I then be in breach of any ruling or regulation? The proposed flight would be donated by me (I would personally pay for the hire of the aircraft) and given to the school in order to be auctioned to the highest bidder. I would hire the aircraft from a flying school and act as PIC for the flight. I was hoping that CASA could provide a clear and unambiguous ruling so that I am able to either conduct the flight without being in breach of any regulations, or abandon the idea completely. I would greatly appreciate any further assistance you could provide on this matter. Kind Regards Hi Xxxx. It is my understanding, that while the ruling is in place you are able to conduct the proposed flights. No time line has been proposed for the withdrawal of the ruling as far as I know. Providing the rules below apply to your proposal, the advice that I have received indicates that your proposal is not in breach of the current rule set. Regards, |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 14:12. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.