|
Originally Posted by zegnaangelo
(Post 11344164)
Agree that "maximum configuration" is the operative term.
What is the definition of a maximum seat configuration though? Dang, now I am getting worried that I can't rent/fly a Piper PA-32 Piper Cherokee 6 under a PPL given that it technically accommodated to fit 7 seats? I interpret "configuration" to be the number fitted that day. You'd need to pull one out to be legal. Much safer that way.:ugh: |
Originally Posted by compressor stall
(Post 11344147)
To expand / clarify that - a pax transport operation only falls into 121 / 135 land (or the 119 umbrella) only if there is Hire or Reward involved (see definition of Air Transport Operation).
This is what the definition in the Dictionary of CASRs says: Definition of air transport operation (1) An air transport operation is a passenger transport operation, a cargo transport operation or a medical transport operation, that: (a) is conducted for hire or reward; or (b) is prescribed by an instrument issued under regulation 201.025. (2) Despite subclause (1), an air transport operation does not include an aerial work operation or a balloon transport operation. So now it's necessary to track down whether any instruments have been issued under regulation 201.025. Easy, isn't it? |
Assuming nothing in 201.025, it's a Part 91 op. Fill your tanks and go.
I'm looking at it from the "it's permitted, until there's something that places it into somewhere else (eg 119 etc)". |
My quick and dirty summary.... and sure not complete, IANAL etc.
Ignoring medical transport and special airworthiness etc Cost sharing doesn't apply for this as it's more than 6 seats fitted. Cessna Caravan operated by Farmer Joe for a flight to town to get on the sauce. Not Passenger transport if:
Same Cessna Caravan operated by Joe's Farm Company. ALWAYS a passenger transport operation
|
If that's the case, it follows - for example - that the maximum seat configuration element of the definition of "cost sharing" flight has no consequences if there is no hire or reward.
My 8 mates and I are in fact sharing the costs of the flight in the PC12 hired from Aircraft R Us PTY LTD. Because of the maximum seat configuration element, the flight is not a "cost sharing" one as defined and, therefore, the flight is a "passenger transport operation". But it's not conducted for hire or reward. Accordingly, the applicable rules will be those that would apply if the flight did satisfy the definition of "cost sharing" flight (subject to the 201.025 instrument question). It can't be that a PPL hiring an aircraft from someone to go on a flight of itself renders that flight one conducted "for hire". Time to solve the mystery of whether any instruments have been issued under regulation 201.025.... |
Alright this mightily confusing.
So, if I am a PPL, am I able to rent a Cessna Caravan / PC12 (from a corporation) and bring my mates / family on a nice sight seeing trip without reward? Seems like this is possible despite being a passenger transport operation as this operation does not need an AOC? Hence will be classified as a private operation. |
Originally Posted by zegnaangelo
(Post 11344176)
Alright this mightily confusing.
|
Originally Posted by zegnaangelo
(Post 11344164)
Agree that "maximum configuration" is the operative term.
What is the definition of a maximum seat configuration though? Dang, now I am getting worried that I can't rent/fly a Piper PA-32 Piper Cherokee 6 under a PPL given that it technically accommodated to fit 7 seats? Let us know if you get answer. |
I asked this specific question of my examiner when I got my CPL, given we were flying a PA-32 at the time, with its theoretical maximum configuration of 7 seats.
I can't remember his precise words but they boiled down, as I recall, to: "Hmm? Erm... huh. Yeah nah that's just silly, ignore it." Not advancing us any closer to an answer but hey, that's the regs for you. |
It would be downright funny if the folklore that there was a 6 POB limit on private ops under the old rules - based on one paragraph of one definition - persisted under the new rules for the precisely the same reason. Only in Australia...
|
What do the insurance companies say? Surely there has to be a few privately operated C208s or PC12 around.
|
Insurance companies say: Pay us premiums.
When the insured makes a claim? That's when insurance companies run a fine-tooth comb through the rules. The words "privately operated" merely beg the question. An aircraft engaged in "private" operations today isn't necessarily engaged in "private" operations tomorrow. Does the term "private operations" actually appear in the rules these days? |
Not sure it contributes to the situation here much, but in a country not that far away, and in another age, I was rated on, and not irregularly flew, a 31-seat a/c with a PPL.
On various occasions different numbers of those seats were occupied and while it's sufficiently long ago that I don't now recall the numbers, I'm fairly sure the flights were 'legal' at the time. Certainly it was a specific topic of discussion and comments similar to Office Update re flying a 74 with a PPL came up and, given various factors not worth repeating here, I think that if there had been any significant issue it wouldn't have happened. This machine was >5700kg MTOW, so no longer a 'lighty' either. I later gained a CPL and, were this in Oz at least, I suppose any technical issues around passenger numbers etc would have disappeared. However, what I think matters is that irrespective of the license I held I was deemed competent to operate the aircraft type at the time of being rated. I've not made any in-depth study of 'rating' but as I see it the aircraft type - and this specific aircraft - was well known to the examiner, as was my PPL, and that would have to have been taken into account. Said rating did not contain any limitation on seat occupation ipso facto I could take a group of mates into the wild blue for a jolly. Coming to Oz; in the absence of any specific, or even implied, seat limitations on PPL holders, and assuming the pilot is appropriately qualified (ie. has a license and is rated, insured etc), and has carried out due diligence (a/c ok, wx etc) then s/he should be good to go. If there is any question over this then it should be up to regulator to clarify that - but from what I read here there isn't, so why all the hot air? That said, and coupled with this age-old 'paying for flight' differential between PPL and CPL, I think it's long overdue for such things to be reassessed. To me payment in whatever form has little to do with competency, and a license to fly should be about competency - not commerce. If you want to gradate licenses for reasons of experience/risk/competence and for example that say a G3 can fly a/c with max 4 seats and < 2500kg, G2 8 seats and up to 5700kg, and G1 all above that's fine, but who pays for what shouldn't have any affect IMV. FP. |
I wrote to the CASA Regulatory Guidance Centre in the following terms this morning:
Dear CASA Regulatory Guidance Centre Operational standards and pilot licence requirements: passenger transport operations that are not for hire or reward I seek guidance on what operational standards and pilot licence requirements apply to ‘passenger transport operations’ within the meaning of the definition at clause 75 of Part 2 of the CASR Dictionary, but are not ‘air transport operations’ within the scope of the definition at clause 3 of Part 2 of the CASR Dictionary because the operations are not carried out for hire or reward. For example, if I hire an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of 9 for a trip with friends and ‘cost-share’, what licence must I hold to be PIC? (Assume I have the required class/type rating and the aircraft may be flown single pilot.) I will not be remunerated, I will pay an amount of the direct costs of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each of my friends if the direct costs were evenly divided between all POB. There will be no advertisement of the flight to the general public. It seems to me that the operation will be a ‘passenger transport operation’ because the aircraft’s maximum seat configuration exceeds 6 and the registered operator will not be on board. But the operation will not be for hire or reward and, therefore, will not be an ‘air transport operation’. In CASA’s opinion: Am I able to act as PIC with my private pilot licence (with the required rating)? What operational standards apply to the operation? I cannot find a passenger number limit on my private pilot licence nor a prohibition on me being the PIC of an aircraft engaged in ‘passenger transport operations’ that are not for hire or reward. Am I missing something? Has there been an instrument issued under CASR 201.025 covering this kind of circumstance? If am able to act as PIC with a private licence in these circumstances, can CASA explain the point of the maximum seat configuration limit in the definition of a flight that is ‘cost-sharing’? If the licence requirements and operational standards are the same, when the other elements of the definition are satisfied in the circumstances, the seat configuration limit element of the definition seems to me to have no practical effect. Or is it CASA’s opinion that it is possible for an operation to both satisfy the definition of a flight that is ‘cost-sharing’ (other than the maximum seat configuration element) and be for ‘hire or reward’, but that is not the scenario in this case? Regards |
Insurance companies say: Pay us premiums. When the insured makes a claim? That's when insurance companies run a fine-tooth comb through the rules. The words "privately operated" merely beg the question. An aircraft engaged in "private" operations today isn't necessarily engaged in "private" operations tomorrow. Does the term "private operations" actually appear in the rules these days? |
Can someone tell me how this regulatory mess has advanced the aviation industry since those in place in say 1960? Glad I'm out of it.
|
Originally Posted by megan
(Post 11344724)
Can someone tell me how this regulatory mess has advanced the aviation industry since those in place in say 1960? Glad I'm out of it.
No wonder so many of us are scared of flying... With CASA roaming around un-chained, we should be! |
A perfect example of what should be a straight-forward rule, made indescribably difficult under CASA regs.
|
So I buy a surplus A380 and remove all but five seats…. Can I now fly it (suitably endorsed) as a private operation? I’ll take my mate, also endorsed, as co pilot.
Could I also add a few hard points and set it up for sky diving? Merry Christmas. |
If you are the registered operator, you don't need to remove any of the seats. It won't be a passenger transport operation:
(e) if the registered operator of an aircraft is an individual—an operation of the aircraft: (i) that involves the carriage of that individual; and (ii) involves the carriage of other passengers; and (iii) for which no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the other passengers or cargo. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:56. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.