ra-aus pilots being paid
 

James Ashby joins Pauline Hanson's entourage, as her pilot - ABC Sunshine & Cooloola Coasts Qld - Australian Broadcasting Corporation

"... around the country on a busy schedule, for which she has contracted the services of a pilot named James Ashby..."

"Mr Ashby's business life has moved on, and he said he now made his living as a sign writer and a pilot."

Further: James Ashby wants to reach out to Peter Slipper's wife | Queensland Times

"Mr Ashby has a new career as a pilot"

"In June last year, a court heard Mr Slipper has tried to commit suicide twice, his marriage has broken down and he has been struggling with alcohol."

Presumably company aircraft, company employee.

Case closed, nothing to see here.

Poor wording by the media if my comments above are correct.

Same as if you were a PPL and flying a C172 as a traffic spotter for the radio station, NVFR single engine.

I am also aware of a pilot who held an AOC for commercial aerial photography in a RA-Aus registered Skyfox Gazelle.

There are legitimate ways to make these things happen.

It's arisen again.

Pauline Hanson staffer James Ashby investigated for flying One Nation leader without proper pilot's licence - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

If One Nation own the plane, I understand that there's a claim that it hasn't been properly declared as a donation to the party?

Is there any VH vs Recreational registration issues here?

Agree with Squawk. Just a fuss over nothing. If he isn't being paid to fly her around then it is a private operation. Just as numerous operations around the country are. Glider towing is one that springs to mind. Angel flights another.

Obviously a slow news day at Aunty.

Nice bit of Aunty bashing there :cool:

It's been widely reported by News Ltd and Fairfax et al, and primarily prosecuted by The Australian.

Reading some of the other articles it seems that Ashby may have unwisely claimed to have been employed by One Nation to fly Hanson around.

Even if Mr Ashby was being paid to fly Senator Hansen around, it does not mean it was a commercial operation.

I would say that this is correct, R22 that the Boss here owns is in Private category, is flown to town for business meetings regularly, the pilot doesn't have a CPLH.

Certainly wasn't an 'Angel' flight...:E

Which one did he break?

From CASR 206:

(1) For the purposes of subsection 27(9) of the Act, the following commercial purposes are prescribed:
(a) aerial work purposes, being purposes of the following kinds (except when carried out by means of an RPA):
(i) aerial surveying;
(ii) aerial spotting;
(iii) agricultural operations;
(iv) aerial photography;
(v) advertising;
(vi) balloon flying training (within the meaning of subregulation 5.01(1)) for the grant of a balloon flight crew licence or rating
(vii) ambulance functions;
(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);
(ix) any other purpose that is substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vii) (inclusive);
(b) charter purposes, being purposes of the following kinds:
(i) the carriage of passengers or cargo for hire or reward to or from any place, other than carriage in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals;
(ii) the carriage, in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals, of passengers or cargo or passengers and cargo in circumstances in which the accommodation in the aircraft is not available for use by persons generally;
(c) the purpose of transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally, for hire or reward in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals over specific routes with or without intermediate stopping places between terminals.

Clear as mud?

Perhaps the raaus registration is blurring things somewhat, as much as they operate under the same cao's etc as per GA, generally, with the exception of the exemptions.

An aircraft that is flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of, the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft is, for the purposes of the regulations, taken to be a private operation. So if, for example, Pauline Hanson is the owner of an aircraft, she can pay any pilot anything she likes to fly her around in the aircraft for her personal transportation, and it’s a private operation.

But not so if the pilot owns the aircraft instead of Pauline.

(It makes it easier to understand the classification of operations scheme once you realise that the factors which determine the various classifications have nothing to do with objective safety or the acceptance of understood risks.)

The Australian rules are in many ways a complete and utter mess and often what the rule actually says isn't really what it means. For instance, have people here ever taken a mate for a flight just for fun, no money changing hands. Is that a private flight? Perhaps not if you didn't get some $$ out of them, read CAR 7A...

(7A) An aircraft that carries persons on a flight, otherwise than in accordance with a fixed schedule between terminals, is employed in a private operation if:
(a) public notice of the flight has not been given by any form of public advertisement or announcement; and
(b) the number of persons on the flight, including the operating crew, does not exceed 6; and
(c) no payment is made for the services of the operating crew; and
(d) the persons on the flight, including the operating crew, share equally in the costs of the flight; and
(e) no payment is required for a person on the flight other than a payment under paragraph (d).

It’s a private flight. One definition is not the exhaustive rule.

But the rules are a complete dog’s breakfast.

You are all quoting GA rules and not referring to RAAUS regs... it has numbers on the side, not letters.

Yep, StickWithTheTruth the aircraft in question does have numbers on the side. But that only makes things more complicated not less. Despite what some might say being registered with RAAus only grants an exemption from some of the CASA rules. The other rules and definitions still apply....

From "Civil Aviation Order 95.55 (Exemption from the provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 — certain ultralight aeroplanes) Instrument 2018"


3.3 In this subsection:
exempted provisions means the following provisions of CAR:
(a) Parts 4 to 4D;
(b) subregulation 83 (1), in relation to VHF equipment;
(c) regulations 133, 139 and 157;
(d) regulations 207 and 208;
(e) regulation 230;
(f) subregulation 242 (2);
(g) regulation 252;
(h) regulation 258.

So....

All that means is that the operation an RA Aus aircraft is not exempt from the requirement to have an AOC and some of the other requirements that apply to a prescribed commercial operation.

Which leads back to the question: Is it a prescribed commercial operation?

The answer to that question is so complex that there are individual staff members of CASA who have been paid - literally - over $1,000,000 to answer the question during the last couple of decades. Those staff are, naturally, highly motivated to come up with a new, simple and clear, classification of operations system.

So if you were to charge a mate for all the cost would it still be a private flight?

If the mate owns the aircraft: Yes.

If you own the aircraft: Maybe. The provision you quoted just deems one set of circumstances to be a private flight. It does not mean that other circumstances are not a private flight.

Note that, in any event, the differences have no safety basis. That’s why the classification of operations scheme is a chronic dog’s breakfast on which folks being paid 6 figures in CASA have been feasting for decades.