Private Vs Airwork
 

I have a question regarding the subtle difference between private ops and airwork given the following circumstance:

You carry some fish to market on behalf of a friend. The friend pays for the aircraft. The pilot does not receive any form of payment.

Now the CAR states that a private op is:

CAR 7d(IV): the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made other than the carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft;

Where as airwork is defined as:

CAR 206: (viii) carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft (not being a carriage of goods in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals);

If I take some friends fish to market and he pays for the aircraft hire then doesnt that fall into the fact I am carrying his goods ( property of the hirer ) without a charge for the carraige ( other than the cost of the aircraft hire ), for the pupose of trade? i.e it's a private op?

I have been informed this is actually classed as Aerial work but I am struggling to see why as per the regs??

I read it as you do - "without a charge for the carriage being made" being the key difference. As long as you get nothing for it (i.e free fish) for it then its a private op, but I am not a lawyer nor a FOI.

I think you stopped reading too early:

the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes of trade

As these goods are clearly for trade, it is not a private operation. Your friend couldn't even do it if he owned the aircraft and had a license and flew himself.

That's the way I read it anyway.

Do we call illegal Abalone "fish" these days?

Baswell - I think you did misread it - that paragraph 2 (7)(d)(vi) allows for the carriage of goods for purposes other than trade as a private op i.e flying your new TV home. I think you are reading it as carriage for trade excludes it from a private op, but that is allowed with conditions in the earlier paragraph.

The earlier paragraph (v) refers to carriage of goods for trade, provided the goods are owned by the pilot, owner or hirer of the aircraft (i.e not just flying random cargo) and that the pilot is not paid then it is a private op. Once you charge for the flight or the pilot gets paid it becomes airwork.

But of course if they used plain english we would have a lot of out of work lawyers.

Reg 2 7 D v - "The carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made, other than the carriage, for the purpose of trade..."
vi - "The carriage of goods otherwise than for the purpose of trade"

Doesn't help your argument there... The purpose is to sell (trade) the fish (cargo).



I always thought if anyone makes money as a result of the flight it becomes airwork / charter.

From your scenario, your friend is making money from the fish (cargo) you are transporting to market.

Private is defined as other than the carriage of goods for the purpose of trade.

Continues on with "The persons on the flight, including the operating crew, share equaly in the costs of the flight."

Therefore this would be a charter operation as you are effectively charging for aircraft cost and transporting goods for trade.

Happy to stand corrected, but this is how I read this paragraph:

I interpret this as the other than applying to the charge not the goods i.e no charge being made other than the hire of the aircraft (i.e no cargo rates or pilot wages etc). So the carriage of goods for trade is private, as long as the goods are owned by the pilot/owner/hirer and the only charge is for the aircraft hire.

To read it as "carriage other than for trade" the comma would need to shift ie:

"the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made, other than the carriage for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft;"

That implies write the paragraph yoda did.
The sentence is back to front to make that argument.

carriage is made other than for the purpose of trade.
How can that other than apply to something that was in the first segment of the sentence?
if you apply other than to without a charge.. The opposite is now yes you can charge him for your time.

How is this not totally straightforward?

CAR 7d(IV): the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made other than the carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft;

Therefore the carriage of goods, for the purposes of trade, precludes such an operation from being private.

Furthermore...

CAR 206: (viii) carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft (not being a carriage of goods in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals);

... clearly states that it's airwork if carrying goods, for the purposes of trade, that are owned by the pilot, owner or hirer. You're carrying the owner's goods (his fish/illegal abalone) for the purposes of trade, therefore it's airwork.

Yoda clearer write would he, yessssss.
Ok - on re-reading it for the 85th time I am reading it correctly now (I think). English was never my favourite subject.

I dont think this counts as English ;)
Legal is its own language.

It all stinks..... and its not just the fish
 

This pvt v awk and the "rules" have been argued about before.

And remember :mad: CASA is a "safety" regulator :mad: and has no legal foundation to regulate "commerce".

1997 Classification of Operations Policy. Adopted by the Minister and the CASA Board.
"The payment of monies to an aircraft pilot, owner or operator, either to re-imburse him for his expenses, or to allow him to make a profit is possible in ALL classes of operations. (Their hightlight)
"...an operation with a Pvt pilot, with his/ a company aircraft and a "tool box" is allowed.

The last of the many changes announced, but never implimented, re this CoOP dissappeared off the CASA web site in 2003. Bugger. GA shafted again.

You will be delighted to hear that the shiny new GATF/ General Aviation Task Force will be looking at some of the issues re AOCs , 206 and etc....just like all those bloody years ago.
I'll wager it will all drain away with mega dollars, once again into the sands of CASA time.

And now for a modern footnote...
" CAR 206 can properly be described as a section dealing with definitions. It neither empowers or restricts any particular operation."..." it is unlawful as it is based on an expired law, with cross references to a now non-existent Act.
SM E Fice. AATA 181 21 March 2011 Caper p/l et al v CASA.

See, the "legal" CASA fwits that have churned out this "regulatory" ****e are just too smart for their own good.
And the good of the Industry. Many individuals can attest they have been sorely put upon /destroyed by 206.

Even people in CASA couldnt handle it !!. A letter to the CNS Post was written complaining about the carriage of crabs (no ticket, no choice) in a charter aircraft/ CPL and yet in the SAME airspace, (yikes!) you have Pvt pilots being paid to drop skydivers..(paid for a ticket, their choice).
Its not about "safety".. its about "commerce" ( see above) and bodies. Wrongly.

So for 'flying pom'. Just carry the fish. Let the marketer cover the a/c cost, You havent charged for the carriage of.
The act of "trade",ie marketing of the fish, occurs after the flight. See all of the above anyway !:eek:
Which brings me the final comment. ALL CASA should be worrying about is that the aircraft has a current MR, pilot has a Licence and current medical, and that the flight was conducted as per the VFR/IFR rules.

thanks all. looks like it's down to how i read the paragraph

Just go with my personal favourite interpretation, it reads:
"It can only be illegal if you get caught..."

In reality how you read it will be irrelevant.

It will be up to council for the prosecution and your council to argue the meaning in front of his honor the judge if CASA believes you are operating outside what they interpret as the correct meaning.

If someone pays you to carry the fishm then its a commercial op.

If you catch the fish, fly them A to B then sell the fish, its a pvt op.

I would suggest if your intention after catching the fish is to sell them then it is a Commercial Operation.

Simple definition, private ops are those you do for you alone, no intent to make any gain from them nor intend to commercialise any thing that is involved, including pax, cost share is just that equal shares for you and the pax, or you cop the majority and a portion is subscribed by the pax, but not as any form of intent nor with pax unknown to you.

206 is very narrow regulation, no wriggle room at all.

And yet it's perfectly legal to drive the fish then sell them, without having a Taxi license.

If you ask someone from CASA they will always say it is a commercial op so they don't cop it if you are caught or reported.
They have worken on the NO principle for the fifty years I've observed them.

Different FOI's will have different opinions. Your business can fly a director on a private aircraft under a private operation for the purpose of conducting trade (a sales meeting for example), yet you cannot fly "goods" for trade...

You almost need a full time lawyer to conduct any form of aviation, private, business or commercial. That alone is the most common reason why most people I have spoken to will not even try, it simply is to difficult to understand or get a firm answer.

Business Aviation should be thriving in this country, it is a fantastic business tool if you can use it efficiently, unfortunately in most cases CAR 206 prohibits this from happening with absolutely no positive effect on safety.

Realistically does having an AOC make the carriage of fish from A to B any safer than that same operation conducted privately? Nope.

Does it make that operation financially prohibitive? Yes, the cost of compliance would be circa $40k-$50k a year. (chief pilot, aoc issue and costs to maintain this, administration etc.)

:ugh: It is frustrating because I see so much potential!

Does the US or elsewhere have similar constraints on commercial operations other than RPT? I can understand the need to have oversight and regulation of commercial operations because when money is involved the first thing for unscrupulous operators to drop is safety. But when the scale you are talking is sole operator / non-advertised services, I agree it seems like unnecessary confusion and overhead.

Simple answer is no, the FAA is a safety regulator, only CASA is a Commercial Activies Regulator.

Righto,
apart from all this crap about "it's private" and whining that "CASA has no right", get over it and start a class action if you feel that strongly.:rolleyes:

Easy way to think of it.
If you stuff it up, you will be liable for the loss of good that were being transported for the owner of the goods who was going to make money from them. Operating under an AOC, you will have insurance to cover the liability action that will be coming your way for the loss of such goods.

If you own the goods youself, you can't sue yourself.

QED.

Just make sure you say to your friend, "I will only take these fish for you if you promise you aren't going to sell them".

You can't be held responsible if he lies to you.:E*



*You actually can, yay! freedom:rolleyes:

Mixed messages...
 

T28 sees it as 'straight'...no wriggle room?
I beg to differ, the permutations of what some are allowed to do, but not others are many. 206 has got more wriggles in it than a bait tin.

Some folk got prosecuted for 'regular charter', others didnt. At least the good Mr Fice has put that sham to bed.!!

Depends on whether yr local FOI 'had a bad night' or is feeling a bit pumped with testosterone today or whatever, does it??? Or a competitor co. wants a favor from a mate?
Inconsistency is CASAs other name.!
So not only is 206 a bloody shambles... its unlawful. !! :mad:

Azzure sees potential. CASA only sees CONTROL, the POWER, the PAPERWORK (their employment) and the FEES and CHARGES that go with it.
Safety is irrelevant in the regulatory context.
Its what we all strive for (to keep our ar$e intact), but "safety" for CASA is just a buzz word for bull****ting politicians for more bucks.

Pray do tell...what is the "safety benefit" if the diffence in any operation is only that some money was made.
And nobody has yet been able to tell me... what is it that a CPL does on a flight from A to B that differs from a PPL?. Same hrs, same aeroplane, same box of fish.
Which is SAFER ??? And WTF has "commerce" got to do with it...Or CASA.? :E

aroa - playing devils advocate here.

Where do you draw the line? At some point flying for commercial gain goes from being a favour for a mate to part of a business and hence a cost of operation. If you leave a loophole to fly for business as long as the pilot is not paid for it, you can bet someone will exploit that - "He is was not a pilot, your honour, he was a fish handler with a PPL". Maybe the flying is no different, and there is nothing to stop a PPL being suitably qualified, but a CPL sets a higher benchmark expected for someone operating an aircraft day in, day out, in line with a commercial operation.

We have already seen organisations that push pilots to skirt bad weather or fly overloaded, stretch maintenance to the limit or adopt dodgy practices just to save a buck, and these are organisations primarily concerned with aviation. What would happen if any business could just buy a plane and use it with just 40 hours of flying experience, no oversight, no check on procedures, no systems to ensure they were not cutting safety for an extra buck. Some oversight is better than none.

I don't disagree with you - at the low adhoc end a flight with a commercial purpose is no less safe than any other, but what is the transition point from helping a mate to a commercial operation?

I agree with aora, it has NOTHING to do with safety here's why, using situations as example:

Situation A: One of the engineers, whose job it is to do engineering, says to boss: I have a PPL, why don't we get a 206, me a and 5 of the the boys will fly there, do the work and fly back, saving us a lot of time.

Situation B: Same guy works at a fishery and offers to fly some prize catch closer to town quicker.

A puts 5 innocent lives at risk and is completely legal because he's only transporting employees to the place of work. He does not need a CPL because he has not been *hired* as a pilot nor is an AOC required because it is a private operation.

B puts only himself and a box of dead fish at risk, but the company needs an AOC and he (possibly?) a CPL because he's carrying goods for trade.

Similarly, an acquaintance of mine would love to use an aircraft in his equine AI business, but legally can't because technically he's transporting goods for trade and not only that, people would hire him because he's got the aircraft and can get the stuff to them fresher and quicker. So it would be charter! He only wants and needs a little RA-Aus STOL aircraft...

That is complete and utter madness!

I agree a line needs to be drawn, but at this point is is being drawn in completely the wrong location.

SgtBundy et al,

The point that Aroa is making, that seems to be lost on most of you, is that the Civil Aviation Act 1988 was amended, over 10 years ago, to eliminate "commercial" regulation from CASA's hands, CAR 206 is a carryover from another Act ---- CASA CANNOT make regulations based on commercial considerations ---- it is SUPPOSED to be about risk management.

Interestingly, CAR 206 was (in part) the result of a previous legislative change, to eliminate the "hire and reward" principle from a determinant in classifying operations ---- which is why a jump pilot with a PPL can be paid ---- but has become a legal minefield in it's own right, as is the "definition" of RPT, anything but defined ---- and again an unintended consequence of aborted regulatory change in late 1980s through early 1990s'.

And yet, many of you, in this thread and many previous, keep bringing up "hire and reward" as a factor, it ain't, as it ain't anywhere (any longer --- because it was repealed) in the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

Tootle pip!!

[CODE][/T28D

Simple answer is no, the FAA is a safety regulator, only CASA is a Commercial Activies Regulator.
CODE]

The CASA board(s) and CEOs have known of the unlawfulness of R 206 ever since the minister made the removal of "commercial" the essence of his second reading of the amendment to the Act in 1998. 14 years later like that other too difficult revision program NOTHING. At least their non action cost CASA nothing. GA losses in the millions if my own is anything to go by. I need to change that the internal and contract legal costs probably run into $millions!

CASA being the Model Litigant par example naturally has always followed such rules religiously

Overal change is blocked by CASA's eventual residual liabilities for having persecuted so many into oblivion. Their actions to date have been deliberately criminal under several laws. Especially when their several Directors have gone on record in their admission. Is this deceit, stupidity or deliberate?

The worst would have to be knowledge that Charter flights are dangerous when compared to RPT. Where is their concern for safety. Duty of Care comes to mind. Doesn't that make CASA responsible for the like of the Mt Hotham fatal and many others. They knowingly condoned such operators. "imminent risk" comes to mind.

Maybe it is time that at least GA is nationalized (like in many other third world burocracies) so that the CASA control freaks can further run it into the ground.

Getting back to the Pvt vs Charter the only safety angle is the knowledge of dangerous goods carriage? Most Pvt/company aircraft used for business will also carry replacement parts which are a form of trade. The labour and part will naturally be paid for-charged out!

Fish rots from the head down!

How about most CPLs having paid over 30K to have the right to earn money for what they do and some twit deciding they'll do it for free so they can wrongly call it private and stealing a professional pilot's work?:E

Not quite that straightforward. In FAA-land these things are indirectly regulated via the privileges of the license you hold (and the maintenance regulations covering the a/c itself).

In the OPs scenario, if he holds a PPL only, then the operation he proposes would definitely be illegal, as someone is paying for the a/c hire. If CPL, then fine (AFAIK at least).

gosh!... heck!... sorry
 

Using my aircraft in a business... not paying passengers /charter, and Im stealing some poor CPLs job. Give me a break. CASA as some dopey employment agency said I had to employ one... and any CPL that I might find did not, and would not have had the skills for my particular business...of which the flying was the idiot simple bit.
Thats an old CASA logic, if it flys then a CPL must be in the left hand seat.
Because really PPLs are second class citizens and dangerous.

Many business owners and coporations run sophisticated aircraft, and can be with a PIC PPL as its an 'in house'/ pvt operation.

In the case of the dumb CASA person letter the crab carrier was a charter operator anyway, and transporting sea food was only one mission of many others in the business, people hauling as well.

I am aware of CPL 'twits' flying commercial ops for free, to clock up the hours...thieving buggers, dont they know they're stealing some other CPLs job. :{

Yes, indeed. where to draw the line? I always thought it was fare paying passengers, and those that live beneath the airways, so the chorus goes.

CASA has had decades in which to pull its collective head out of its ar$e and sort something out ... but here we are in century 21 still battling on with the clusterfcuk which is 206. And the example of the AI business, that doesnt use an aeroplane, is a sad indication of that and how CASA has crippled GA.

And I'll leave you with this sobering statistic: over the period CASA was pissing away mega dollars chasing a PPL around the GAFA, in North Queensland over that same period there were 7 light GA charter accidents and 21 fatalities.
So you can see that CASA really do have their hand on something... and its not "safety". :mad:

Well call the building inspectors and have me arrested, I just stole work from a trained carpenter by fixing the kick board under my kitchen bench myself! :ok:

There are many operators that specialise in the transport of goods and make money from it. The issue is that if you allow anybody to transport any amount of goods for sale then the operation gets reduced to the lowest common denominator, as it already has in many cases. At least the lowest legal standpoint at the moment is that it is classed as a commercial operation and aircraft and crew should be at least up to this level.

There are many truck operators that would love to run a few metros, D0228, cheiftains or vans on a 'private' basis to move goods that little bit further for less. Being a private op there would be no need for an AOC, CP, paid pilots, no duty limits and private level maintenance on aircraft a freight runners paradise. Train up a couple of the truck drivers to PPL level and blast them off in a 40 year old PA31, private IFRs all thats required. There would even be a line of new CPLs to work for free to gain hours, oh, but you would have to drive and clean the trucks as well, for free that is.

If you are transporting any goods for sale or trade its a commercial operation.

If you are transporting yourself or workers for your company they are not 'goods' and it is a private operation. If you go somewhere to work you are providing a service to a customer. The companies insurance may be more restrictive on this however than CASA will ever be on a charter, you just have to see some of the mining companies minimum requirements for pilots for this.

RPT vs Charter, the only difference is the sale of individual seats by the operator when it comes to classification.

No, that's moving goods for someone else, I am happy for that to be a commercial op.

Though your case is relevant to the OP, as he would be transporting commercial stuff for a friend, I think the thread has moved on to the absurdity of every good being moved for trade being commercial. Like my mate's AI business would do.

That you can move people for a commercial reason in a private op but not something you want to hand over to a customer is absurd.

I know a doctor that flies himself to rural town to do clinics. I guess that is fine until he charges someone for some medicine he leaves with them. Then he'd need an AOC and CPL, right? :ugh:

So lets compare the medical profession.

Optometrist....travels around checks peoples eyes, prescribes new glasses. The glasses come later...so no trade.

Doctors, GP travels around, gives you a flu shot.....:uhoh: Hang on carried goods which is now jabbed in your arm, and his bill is $70 consultation and $30 for the vaccine.

Vet.....preg testing cows......ArmUpACowsBum might be able to comment here, but thats no problem. :ok: But while he is there a cow has a dose of three day.....out comes the big needle...:ooh: goods :=

Now I really do not want to get into a legal "dung fight", but if and I say IF common sense were to apply it would go something like this.

Private = YOU, YOUR BUSINESS, YOUR OWN GOODS, MATERIALS AND FAMILY STAFF/CONTRACTORS whether or not the pilot is you or one of your staff, and no matter whether the goods/materials are being billed to your customer as part of your work or not.

Commercial = Everything else, such as taking someone elses goods that have nothing to do with you, your work or business, and being paid for it. In other words taking regular work away from freighters.

The catch with the last one is, when young Johnny gets asked by his neighbour to rent the flying school 172 and fly a coil of copper tube out to a cattle property near Thargomindah, and there is no such thing as a regular freight run there let alone overnight service. Young Johnny does not get paid for it, it is just a favour and he loves flying out bush, and the neighbours business reimburses Johnny for his flying school hire. Is this now commercial? What is the neighbour wants to go along as well, to install the air con and takes the copper tube and his tool box with him?

Kinda mucks up the "simple rule" a bit doesn't it.

You may complain that CASA will not do anything about CAR 206. What you are doing is shooting the organisation that has the job of applying the legislation. The arrows should be aimed a little higher - try the politicians.

CASA do not change legislation. They can have an input into the making, but the OLC has a say and the politicians pass it into law or not.

So if you wish to have the legislation changed or clarified, lobby the politicians.

CASA do not change legislation
 

So you mean to say that all the criticism of the past couple of decades directed at CASA re the re-write of the Regulations (directly based/influencing the Legislation) has been the task of the politicians. I agree that most politicians are more expert on Aviation than most CASA but as (CASA) are paid for their so called expertise surely they have been advising the Minister and various interested politicians. Why has CASA needed to spend in excess of $200million when it has as you stated nothing or very little to do with such reform.

You show your "ignorance" at What do the politicians pass into law ? if not the "material" provided as you stated above (supplied by CASA)

So now we have Politicians, few of whom have any aviation knowledge, fielding material to be the basis of legislation. Does CASA even bother (given their workload) commenting on such proposed legislation.

Do you really believe your own statement or are you so "brain"?washed by the system. There is such a thing as "duty of care" - if in traffic you observe a danger to the public I take it you feel no responsibility to report this to those that are in a position to act (fill the hole), just leave it to somebody else.

In your position with CASA you may be able to access the work already done in respect of R 206 since 1998 or at least the advice to the "politicians" in regard a much needed overhaul which only they can provide. If we the public could be provided with such information it would resolve some of these matters. F.O.I. has been unable to unearth anything of relevance!

Maybe you and your colleagues should stick to the safety concerns and leave the "commercial" aspects alone. or as appears the intent just nationalize and show the world how good you are at ruining business. but what ever you do please don't fly whilst in your confused (mental) condition.

THE fish rots from the head down!

Aroa,

I was (jokingly....:E) referring to Commercial ops, such as the original scenario, that are undertaken by non commercial persons. Couldn't give a sh:mad:t if you own the plane and goods because THAT'S PRIVATE!

As for hour builders, yup, and many of those are meat bomber pilots who fly for nothing. Perpetuates the attitude of the jump oprators who won't pay because there are plenty who'll do it for nothing to get the hours.

Baswell,

You house, your labour, private op. So what?

OK Guys and Gals, here's a 'hypothetical'.....

The local charity wants to raise some funds, so I offer a ride in say, a Tiger Moth, as a prize in a local raffle.
I am not making anything out of this, and no money is changing hands.

Now this Tiger is in the Charter Cat., and the operator has an AOC, so it is 'covered'.

The question is - Can this flight be operated as a 'Private ' flight , or is it classified as 'Charter'?

Cheers:)