Still appears to be there to me:
CAR 206 (1)
(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;
...
(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.

CAR 206 actually looks pretty straightforward to me. I think the problems people have are twofold:
1) CASA has made some decisions based on "the vibe" rather than what CAR 206 actually says, then tried to interpret the rule to match their decision
2) People try to mash CAR 206 and CAR 2(7) together into one rule and/or are unsure of the difference between them.

Correct. The executive aviation division of very large Australian mining company employed and paid pilots and operated a fleet of executive aircraft for many years, domestic and international, as a private operation, no AOC. A Police Air Wing employs non Police officer pilots and operated what was effectively a scheduled air service as a private operation, no AOC. Non Police Government passengers, witnesses etc were carried and the cost recovered from other Government Departments.

Perhaps Longrass should look at Aerial Work definitions in CAR 206 (1) (a):
(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);

"substantially similar" would include employees of "..the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft.." if CASA so wished.

Trade in human beings is illegal, likewise you couldn't really argue they were "the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft" so I don't see it as substantially similar.

Particularly when there are sections that explicitly deal with carriage of passengers.

The "substantially similar" would relate to the fact that both tools of trade, goods and staff are substantially connected to the conduct of a commercial business.

StudentPilot. I suggest you actually read CAR206. Sections (i) to (ix) are subsections of para 206 (1) (a).

andrewr..people try to mash 206 and 2 7 d into one rule .

Industry /flying people might but CAsA legal acrobat people dont....they can see two distinct strict liability criminal offences...
eg... re206... Photography, a commercial activity, requires an AOC and a CPL
... re 2 7 d Photography, using an aeroplane for a commercial purpose, as above.
Bang gotcha with both barrels.!!
Separate ways of dealing with the same offence... twice.

Dont ya love em for keeping the world safe from falling aeroplanes and cascading people...and cameras..!!

Andrewr.
True, but only because the intended reforms of the time were never completed,(where has that happened before in AU aviation) and CAR 206 has been the subject of legal battles for as long as it has been there.
However, the intent at the time was as I described, "hire and reward" was not the sole determinant for an AOC, or requiring a pilot to have a CPL.
Tootle pip!!

The rule says nothing about tools of trade, staff, or the conduct of a commercial business. It says "carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft". It doesn't even include goods that are not "the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft".

Clearly, it is intended to prevent someone from buying an aircraft and setting up a business bringing in seafood from King Island etc. without an AOC on the basis that it's their own aircraft and the are not charging anyone for transporting the goods. It's not a general prohibition on commercial businesses using aircraft without an AOC. There are plenty of circumstances where you can use an aircraft in the conduct of a business without an AOC.

Neither CAR 206 nor CAR 2 specify an offence. They are both simply definitions, referred to elsewhere in the regulations.

Certainly, operating without an AOC when one is required is an offence. So is flying without a commercial license when one is required. I'm not sure how those could NOT be 2 separate offences.

The difference between CAR 206 and CAR 2 is this:

• Operations listed in CAR 206 require an AOC.
• Everything requires a commercial license, except what is listed in CAR (2) 7 d or CAR (2) 7A.

andrewr. You are obviously trying to be logical. Whilst logical thinking is not prohibited in the CARs, it is prohibited in the hallowed CASA halls of power.

Some years ago CASA successfully prosecuted a diesel fitter who flew himself to station properties, carrying his tool box, in his privately owned Cessna and on a PPL. They contended he required a CPL and an Aerial Work AOC.

If you feel you understand CAR206 and particularly 206 (1) (b) and (c) perhaps you could give a definition of the terms "fixed terminals" and "specific routes"?

Torres,
That is very naughty of you, to ask that, for reasons you and I know well.
Tootle pip!!

Folks,
I know no other country that defines private operations by what they are not.
Tootle pip!!

As I said in post 41, I think CASA has made some decisions based on "the vibe" rather than what CAR 206 actually says, then tried to interpret the rule to match their decision.

Prosecuting someone for carrying tools of trade is a disgrace, the rule obviously refers to goods for sale not tools of trade. If you require an AOC for tools of trade things get very difficult very quickly. A commercial pilot has tools of trade (headset, GPS, maps, charts, EFB...). If they are not allowed to carry them without an AOC it presents some practical problems. (Whereas they are not tools of trade for a private pilot so may be carried freely?) What about an OzRunways developer - do they need an AOC to carry an Ipad or laptop?

Unfortunately, the actual rule only matters if you are prepared to go to court to fight. Otherwise you have to live with whatever interpretation CASA come up with.

I sense a trap. Any definition creates edge cases where you can say "but what about..." However, I will give it a go.

I would say fixed schedules, fixed terminals and specific routes refer to the case where the schedules, routes and terminals are fixed by the operator, as opposed to the case where they can be varied at the request of the passengers and/or hirer of the aircraft.

Ain't that the truth! I believe their contention was that the diesel fitter was receiving payment for his time (as a pilot flying the aircraft) and payment for his aircraft flying time, which if not shown as a separate charge, must be part of his total charge for the service rendered - thus in the view of the FOI constituted a commercial air service. I think I vaguely recall a Vet being questioned on a similar basis, but it would be at least 20 years ago.

No, not a trap at all and your assumption matches one of the CASA definitions. They are critical phrases which must/must not exist and are directly extracted from CAR206, however they are not included in the Definitions. They are the expressions CASA interpret in any way they see fit to suit the circumstances. There was a time they did have logical definitions, refer the pre 1988 Air Navigation Regulations from approximately ANR197 to ANR203.

From a aviation media article of 20 years ago:

Quote:

---

At the direction of CASA's Canberra office, two investigators and one ... FOI conduct an investigation with the following terms of reference: "Determine the extent of operations in the Torres Strait region which are being conducted for fare paying passengers that fall into the definition of RPT and which are currently being conducted as charter." The TOR directed that: "The differentiation between RPT and charter that is to be used for this investigation shall be drawn from the "draft" paper prepared by ......... (a CASA lawyer) as attached."

---

Reward does not need to involve profit. I think it's a catch-all for any benefits that wouldn't be considered "hire", especially non-monetary benefits.

Why would you want to fly someone else's staff? I think you would need to mount a pretty convincing argument to show why the reason was not some form of "reward".

Folks,
One of the more idiotic "determinations" years ago was that, as an AOC required a Standard Category C.of A aircraft, and as aerial photography was Airwork, therefor (in AU) required an AOC, photographs/filming could only take place from a Standard Cat. Cof A aircraft, therefor approximately 100% of pics. taken from/of "Warbirds" (and of many other aircraft) constituted evidence of an offence under Reg.206.

All in the interests of : "Safety Is Our First Priority", you understand. Nothing to do with: "We're not happy 'till you'r not happy".

"Interestingly", the CASA perX who pursued this was of the view that the determination extended to the subject --- ie: It was only "legal" to take photographs of Standard Cat. C.of A. aircraft in the air.

Gaaawwwd!! What a lawless lot we are in this country, with wholesale committing of such criminal acts. I wonder if the "offense" is per pic.? Is there a statute of limitation??

Tootle pip!!


PS: As I expect most of you know, NA T6/Harvard or a NA-T28 are favorite camera platforms. With the exception of a couple of Canadian built Harvards, none have a Standard Cat. C.of A.

Hope you're not flying when the temp is over 40°C Pilotette. :* Twelve months and no answer from our expert safety organisation. Comical and Stupidly Asinine.

The issue revolves around what constitutes goods for the purposes of trade. Interestingly services are not included in the CAR, only goods. So your comedian would be safe. What about a band with musical instruments? And what's the difference between that and the diesel fitter or builder for that matter assuming they are not carry any spare parts or materials for sale.

That is one clue that this is not intended to cover tools of trade.

What constitutes goods for the purposes of trade?

1) I would argue that "goods for the purposes of trade" is different to "goods for the purposes of working a trade".

2) maybe it's worth looking at a dictionary definition of goods. Examples:

• possessions and personal property
• articles of commerce, merchandise
• merchandise when transported
• freight
• things that are made to be sold

Again, I would argue that the qualifier "for the purposes of trade" points to the intended meaning of merchandise, things that are made to be sold etc. rather than the more general possessions and personal property definition

3) "goods for the purposes of trade" is only part of the rule. CAR 206 is a definition for section 27 of the Act, section 27 says "the flying or operation of an aircraft for such purposes are a prescribed". So it only applies if the purpose of flying the aircraft (or one of the purposes) is for the carriage of goods for the purposes of trade. I would argue that in the case of the mechanic the purpose of flying the aircraft was to transport a person (the mechanic), or maintenance and repair of equipment, and carriage of any tools of trade or spare parts that he might charge for was incidental - they are not a purpose on their own.

My view is that the prescription of "carriage of goods for the purposes of trade" is to prevent you from setting up an airfreight business where you buy goods, transport them in your own aircraft then sell them, as a private operation. It is not intended to stop someone using an aircraft as their own transport to get to work.

Here's a thought exercise:

You are a commercial pilot, and have been working in the outback. You just left the job for a new job in Melbourne that lets you be closer to family. The new job starts in a month, in the meantime you are having some time off.

Your old boss calls you. Roads are closed due to rain, they are getting slammed with tourists needing transport, and half their pilots have the flu and are unfit to fly. Could you hire an aircraft, fly out and work for him again for a week? He will pay you for transport costs and time, and short term contract rates. You agree, the money sounds good and relaxing is more boring than you thought it would be.

A (good!) mate says why don't you take my RV7, I won't be able to fly it for a month and it needs a run.

Are you allowed to carry your tools of trade as a pilot with you in the RV? Every pilot would say "of course" and be outraged at the suggestion it might not be allowed, but change it from a pilot to a mechanic and suddenly it's not allowed.

Another thought exercise:

Another pilot from the operation rings you and says "I need a new headset - would you mind buying one for me and bringing it out with you? I'll pay you for it when you get here." Are you allowed to do it?

Folks,
You can argue all you like, but the reality is that, like much other aviation regulation in Australia, ( and Australian Cth regulation generally) CAR 206 means whatever some CASA perX decides it means, for whatever purpose at the time some poor sod has become a CASA target.
CASA "enforcement" is and has always been very selective and seldom related to "Safety Is Our First Priority".
There is no dissection and analysis of CAR 206 that will yield a definitive answer.
As I said in a previous post, as far as I know, Australia is the only country that defines all of aviation as (for what of a better word) commercial, then defines "private" as an exception ---- which is generally typical of our aviation rules, written in the negative, then all the exceptions.
Tootle pip!!

In practice, unless you are prepared to go to court that is always true. However, particularly if CASA decline to give an opinion in advance, the best we can do is to try to comply with the regulations as written. Not to mention that we are expected to be able to answer questions on this in exams.

I'm an IT guy and PPL. In the past, I was away on a weekend trip when the weather closed in and I was unable to fly home for several days. I ended up catching the bus home and returning with my laptop (tool of trade) so I could work while I waited for the weather to clear. Are you saying I needed an AOC to then carry the laptop home with me?

After that experience, I am in the habit of taking my laptop with me on overnight trips so that if I get stuck, I can keep up with work (support emails etc.) What kind of ridiculous system would say that is illegal?

Tools of trade:
Pilot - maps, charts, headset, EFB
Salesman - mobile phone
IT person - laptop, ipad, mobile phone
CASA inspector - clipboard, pen

How can it be sensible to require an AOC to carry tools of trade?

andrewr...Not sensible at all. Just a sign of Cretins against Sensible aviation.
With the power to make you have an AOC, you are then in the CAsA 'squirrel grip'. Argue with or upset a CAsA perp and they will squeeze for yr pain or cancel to put you out of business. Now that's power !

Lawyers fly off to a case, along with their brief boxes...but CAsA stays away. And so they should.
To deny a person going about their lawful business, just because they use an aircraft is rampant stupidity, and a denial of yr civil right.
If it stops you working, its a denial of yr right to earn a living.
It has SFA to do with "safety"
All CAsA has to worry about is that the pilot conducting the flight is duly licenced , that the a/c has an MR and the appropriate flight rules are adhered to. NOTHING MORE. That is their only interest ...or should be.
CAsA is "a safety agency, not a commercial regulator "..so past DASs have BS-ed away merrily to Senate Hearings over the decades.
But its a great shining LIE.

How to deal with ,and rectify all these bureaucratic hide-bound stupidities that have bought GA to its knees...that is the question.

Oh Jeez!
 

That was how it was explained during Airlaw however CASA don't see it that way. They seem to be of the belief and as demonstrated here with some of the comments that if you have anything in the aircraft that is used in a transaction then its a commercial operation.

You deal with it by going to court. From what I have witness over the years is that anyone who actually takes CASA on over some of their rulings usually end up with CASA folding like cheap lawn furniture when they actually have to front up to a judge. However the issue is that CASA essentially has a unlimited budget and most businesses don't, so the business/individual just caves in most of the time.

Neville,
I would agree with the above, with the emphasis on "court" as in a real court, and not the AAT --- where all sorts of atrocities that would never be permitted in a proper court are a regular feature of CASA representation.
Remember, the rules of evidence do not apply in the AAT, and heresay can be admitted.
If you are able, always go to a "real" court, it will probably be cheaper in the long run, and the probability of "justice" is much greater.
Tootle pip!!

You seem to be labouring under the misconception that we have "rights" in Australia. We have very few as we do not have a bill of rights in Australia, unlike say the USA. Mostly we have priveleges conferred by legislation as opposed to rights granted under the constitution.

The short version of all the above, you get what you can win at in court.

Just to confuse the issue, "endorsement" training can be a private operation.