|
Originally Posted by flying-spike
(Post 10527539)
There are a few more conditions to be met for a flight to be defined as RPT: CAR 206 3.2 RPT operations involving ‘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’, under CAR 206(1)(c) [emphasis provided]. What you have supplied is mere text! CAsA employee "fixed schedule" = RPT and give you a little note. Your next move (while you have that little note given to you 16:30 Friday afternoon saying your grounded! Is, well up to you. However correctly or incorrectly grounded - should you continue to fly, you are now clearly in breach of more Regulations. So your next flight might be in a year or 3 - then you are a target, so expect many "random" visits. |
Thanks for the replies. The scenario I’m imagining is one where the Dr / specialist owns an aircraft (but is not a pilot). They of course pick up all the costs for running the aircraft, but they engage a CPL to fly them to their country appointments a couple of times a month. The Dr pays the CPL for their time. In that situation it would strike me as very bizarre indeed if CASA came along and said it needs to be done under an AOC. |
Originally Posted by rcoight
(Post 10527551)
Thanks for the replies. The scenario I’m imagining is one where the Dr / specialist owns an aircraft (but is not a pilot). They of course pick up all the costs for running the aircraft, but they engage a CPL to fly them to their country appointments a couple of times a month. The Dr pays the CPL for their time. In that situation it would strike me as very bizarre indeed if CASA came along and said it needs to be done under an AOC. In most cases and places in Australia this would be classed as a private operation and be no issue - however certain individuals in CAsA may see it differently. It is then correct interpretation is held by the Judge, Jury and Executioner with significant resources (and if they lose a grudge). |
Speaking of GA booming in the US. The likes of Mike Patey, Trent Palmer, Steve Kinevo, Corey Robin and Australian Stefan Drury. Making videos for YouTube, promoting them with Instagram and Facebook and receiving revenue from YouTube/Google. Commercial / AOC required or not? |
The Medical Specialist would be carrying his/her "tools of trade" medical kit, therefore, according to CAsA this is 'commerce'...and all has to be done under an AOC and a Chief Pilot/CPL
Which costs you buckets of dosh, and gives them ultimate control over whether what you are doing can live or die. Argue a point? Uh Oh, I dont like your 'attitude', I'll cancel yr AOC ! Thus financially you have yr throat cut. Dont think its true.?.. I have been presented with exactly that in the past. Ive never found it, but there must be some reg somehere that defines 'attitude'... and I dont mean an aircraft in flight. Just like the Electrician and his light bulbs and wires. Just like a Photographer and his camera. ' Commerce' Its all BULLSH*T of course..but Control Freaks rule, OK ? And if you have $2mil to spare you can challenge it in the Supreme Court, that CAsA is 'ultra vires' the Act.and .have NO head of power to regulate commerce. Which is proof positive that We the GA people dont get the regulations we need or chose, but get this ****e shoved down yr throat to choke off any endeavor you might be pursuing. A free and democratic society?...Pull the other one.! We are in bureaucratic chains Any 'rights' you may have are disenfranchised by the CAsA Policeman keen for a bash... ie the common law right to take a photograph from a public space, and be paid, and earn a living. Just dont use an aircraft. I say again... there will be NO change until there is a Royal Commission or Judicial Inquiry into this bastard bureaucrazy. |
You have demonstrated my point. Medical specialists and other professionals don’t have time to argue the toss with CASA. They Require precision. If the use of GA is a grey area for them, they won’t touch it. All it takes is one CASA guy saying “i’m not sure that’s legal” and the medicos won’t touch it. For example, my stepson is what you might call a “human spare parts salesman” - he supplies surgeons with all sorts of pins, joints, plates, etc. and is present in operating theatres. What if he is in the aircraft with his kit of parts for an operation, with the surgeon? To put it another way, the level of aviation business risk is just too high in Australia - thanks to CASA As for RPT definitions, there is a full discussion of what CASA thinks it might mean, sometimes, in the AAT decisions. One involved a few outback stations that decided it was a good idea to organize a fairly regular private milk run. CASA put a stop to that. |
Folks,
A quick and very rough count suggests that CASA is third behind tax and immigration matters in persons appealing to the AAT. Given the tiny size of the aviation community, compared to the number of taxpayers, or potential new settlers with a visa problem, what does this tell us, even if the "third" is not accurate. A database search certainly brings up a welter of AAT appeals against CASA. Tootle pip!! |
I find that the many examples given above just don't pass the common sense test. I'm fairly new to the whole AOC concept, so obviously no starting place other than "Who needs an AOC" makes for a better read:
https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/who-needs-aoc where two aerial work activities could remotely touch upon the issue at hand:
And that's just one cooked up example. The tradie could argue the nuts and bolts belong to his company, not himself. |
Originally Posted by Okihara
(Post 10527658)
I find that the many examples given above just don't pass the common sense test. I'm fairly new to the whole AOC concept, so obviously no starting place other than "Who needs an AOC" makes for a better read:
https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/who-needs-aoc where two aerial work activities could remotely touch upon the issue at hand:
And that's just one cooked up example. The tradie could argue the nuts and bolts belong to his company, not himself. Very simply that is both fact and truth in a large number of cases. I have been instructed by a "Team Leader" to do things against the regulations in recording matters to a lower extent - how can I beat this? I was not allowed to do it to the legal/higher level of recording information, but forced to do it illegally. So I shut shop. |
Mere text?
Originally Posted by Bend alot
(Post 10527543)
Not if the CAsA Inspectors says otherwise.
What you have supplied is mere text! CAsA employee "fixed schedule" = RPT and give you a little note. Your next move (while you have that little note given to you 16:30 Friday afternoon saying your grounded! Is, well up to you. However correctly or incorrectly grounded - should you continue to fly, you are now clearly in breach of more Regulations. So your next flight might be in a year or 3 - then you are a target, so expect many "random" visits. |
okihara, the facts are apparently against you. |
Originally Posted by flying-spike
(Post 10527995)
That “mere text” is the law and if you think a CASA inspector is going to strain themselves by putting finger to keyboard before checking that the act might generate more work for themselves you best don the foil hat and take shelter from the chemtrails. Besides, there are a lot more “operations” sailing closer to the RPT wind that are getting away with it If verbal is not ok ask for it in writing, mine was sent via email. |
Flying Spike “getting away” with what? Trying to run an aviation business in the face of massive over regulation? Exactly what is there to get away with? Do businesses in the U.S. or N.Z. also have to,”get away with it” too? Or are we talking, as I suspect, of some weird and restrictive regulation that Australia invented all on its own? |
https://www.michaelwest.com.au/mayda...alian-airbase/
Virgin Australia may have misled all levels of Australian government and has made dubious public claims about the true identity of its shadowy Chinese partners in its secretive proposal to take control of the nation’s biggest military pilot school, at an RAAF training facility in Tamworth NSW. Quote: “General aviation flying in the United States is up substantially – mostly due to flight training of pilots hoping to go to the airlines. Right now airline hiring is up considerably and airline salaries are as well. It is a bonanza.” Surely the "foreign owned business" horse bolted long ago in this country. or is aviation different? Ideally it would all be ozzy companies, but that sentiment applies to every industry and business. |
Originally Posted by Sunfish
(Post 10528516)
Flying Spike “getting away” with what? Trying to run an aviation business in the face of massive over regulation? Exactly what is there to get away with? Do businesses in the U.S. or N.Z. also have to,”get away with it” too? Or are we talking, as I suspect, of some weird and restrictive regulation that Australia invented all on its own? In the scenario I put forth, there is no way in the world that CASA could get away with prosecuting it as some kind of commercial enterprise that requires an AOC. In that situation, no-one is "trying to run an aviation business". The logical extension is that no aircraft owner can ever do anything after flying their own aircraft that might make them a bit of money. What about an aircraft owner who flies to their rental property interstate to tidy it up or install a heater? What about an aircraft owner who flies somewhere to take up a short term contract and then flies home at the end of it? Do they need an AOC? I very much doubt that CASA would or could try to prosecute in those or any number of other scenarios. I think what we have here are a number of people who ARE trying to run an aviation business being tripped up by over-zealous CASA employees, which is an entirely different thing altogether, and I'm sure the complaints are also entirely justified. In some cases at least. |
From a CAsA argument the flight is running to a schedule Airport 1 at 10 pm, Airport 2 12 pm and Airport 3 at 4 pm 3 days a month - so it is a RPT operation.] |
Originally Posted by rcoight
(Post 10528650)
I have no idea (any more) what people "trying to run an aviation business" are up against - nor do I want to know. I left that world a long time ago and it was the best thing that ever happened to me, but
In the scenario I put forth, there is no way in the world that CASA could get away with prosecuting it as some kind of commercial enterprise that requires an AOC. In that situation, no-one is "trying to run an aviation business". The logical extension is that no aircraft owner can ever do anything after flying their own aircraft that might make them a bit of money. What about an aircraft owner who flies to their rental property interstate to tidy it up or install a heater? What about an aircraft owner who flies somewhere to take up a short term contract and then flies home at the end of it? Do they need an AOC? I very much doubt that CASA would or could try to prosecute in those or any number of other scenarios. I think what we have here are a number of people who ARE trying to run an aviation business being tripped up by over-zealous CASA employees, which is an entirely different thing altogether, and I'm sure the complaints are also entirely justified. In some cases at least. Only deal is then you must publicly respond here, the truth you will uncover and name the CAsA person. |
Originally Posted by Bend alot
(Post 10528663)
My previous post to supply info, I also am happy to supply the same info to you.
Only deal is then you must publicly respond here, the truth you will uncover and name the CAsA person. I’ve been in that world in a previous life so I know what used to go on, and I’ve been on the wrong end of it. I know that personal targeting of individuals / businesses has gone on in the bad old days. It’s disappointing to hear that it may still be going on. However, that doesn’t change my view that in the particular - entirely theoretical - scenario I proposed the people doing that would have nothing to worry about. |
Oh theoretical you are 100% - but yes nothing has changed (for the better), the bad days are now looking like blue sky's.
You and 99+% of Australians do not know or do not care - but have opinions/beliefs and complain of things directly part of the problem that they do not care. Very much like immigration and 457's or other. |
Tick All those boxes in CAR206 that I quoted then you are operating RPT. If you you don’t tick the boxes you are not operating RPT. I am a former CASA inspector and I can tell you that the first thing I would do when investigating a complaint (9 times out of 10 made by an RPT operator) I would check the suspect operation against the applicable regulation and not just rely on the allegation. The CASA inspectorate are so under resourced that you can’t afford to pursue a complaint that has insufficient evidence to support it. I am not saying that there aren’t dinosaur inspectors still out there that might try to bluff and bludgeon an operator but they are usually lazy bastards too and eventually discover the futility of pushing a false argument. ( I managed to weed out one or two during training) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:15. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.