CPL question, requirements for an AOC
 

On the good old CPL flight test form the question
"Knew requirements for an AOC"
Does anyone know how much of CAO 82.0 I would need to know for the cpl flight test, as in is there some general points that cpl applicants are expected to know or do I need to be able to quote the hole damm thing?

There was a thread about this a while back. About this exact same topic. It was in this forum so do a search i suggest.

300

Found It!

http://www.pprune.org/d-g-general-av...out-there.html


300

My AOC question...from my CPL test last week
 

Hi Dan

Did my CPL test last week. Passed:O, in the end it was just another flight!

My AOC question was... at the start of the day, the testing officer said... lets assume you now have a CPL, and its your first day on the job. Whats the first thing that you will do? I said to make sure that the company I am working for has an AOC, the read the Ops manual. Great answer he said. Tell me all about the AOC.

I had prepared the following from my notes and pre test with the CFI

• Requirements for an AOC – Air Operators Certificate
  • Operations Manual
  • Chief Pilot
  • Organization/Facilities/Personnel
  • Flight Instructions and Records
  • Flight Time & Duty Time Records
  • Route Qualifications for PIC of Charter
  • Training & Checking Organization
  • Maintenance Controlled

Anyhow good luck with the test. IT was an awesome day, the stangest thing was to do a shortfield when landing at YMEN, with a huge runway.

Cheers

Jerr

Here is an interesting question...

Do all Airwork category operations require an AOC?

Appearantly only when there is money being exchanged, HOWEVER Skydive operations don't require an AOC... go figure?

G'day Scorp

This again is an old chestnut - however

...PJE is NOT airwork as defined by CAR 206 - 209 and therefore does not require AOC.

ALL Airwork as defined in the current Regs DOES require an AOC :ok:

(Stay tuned for the new CASR103 which will allow ultralight pilots to do joyflights//Oh sorry I mean "Air Experience flights" :rolleyes: without AOC, without CPL, without medical, without SMSs, without DAMPs... :mad:

"Fare paying public" on a REAL (VH-, CHTR) joyflight is different aparrently :hmm:

Funny how you have to jump through the CASA hoops to get an AOC to operate a Cessna 206 on Chater/Aerialwork, yet you can operate a warbird on joyflights and need no AOC or like a number of ultralights operators start doing "airexperience flights" and aerialwork including photography all without an AOC. I was watching an ultralight conducting aerial photography for a local council and also advertising aerial photography flights in the local press.

Imagine CASA reaction if you got your CPL on Friday and rocked up in your mates Cessna 172 on Saturday and started doing airexperience flights and a bit aerial photgraphy at 200' over Rosebud to get a few hours in the logbook!

First time poster, long time reader.

I'm going over ground theory for my CPL flight test and I'm struggling to breakdown CAO 82.0 into notes.

To what extent do we need to know the requirements for an AOC? As tempting as it is to just rattle of the list, I want to be prepared in case I'm asked why or to explain one of the points in more detail.

Cheers,

JG3

These threads usually demonstrate, concisely, the surreal stupidity that is the Australian regulatory system.

The question may be designed to test you on what kinds of operations have to be authorised by an AOC.

The question may be designed to test you on what the obligations of an AOC holder, and pilots conducting operations authorised by that AOC, may be.

Either way, it's certain that neither you, nor the ATO conducting the test nor CASA will have the correct answer to either question. Plenty of strong opinions and folklore, but no correct answers.

I will demonstrate:

Bob owns a Cessna Caravan. He pays you $1,000 per day to fly him and his family around Australia. Do you have to hold a CPL to be PIC of the aircraft while engaged in that operation, and does that operation have to be authorised by an AOC?

Bob's neighbour decides he'd like to take himself and his family on the same round Australia tour, and pay you $1,000 to do be PIC of Bob's aircraft. Do you have to hold a CPL to be PIC of the aircraft while engaged in that operation, and does that operation have to be authorised by an AOC?

Bob also owns a cattle farm and a Cessna 172. He pays you $1,000 a day to muster cattle on Bob's farm, using Bob's Cessna 172. Do you have to hold a CPL to be PIC of the aircraft while engaged in that operation, and does that operation have to be authorised by an AOC?

Bob's neighbour would like to pay you to do some cattle mustering on the neighbour's property in Bob's Cessna 172. Bob's neighbour will pay you $1,000. Do you have to hold a CPL to be PIC of the aircraft while engaged in that operation, and does that operation have to be authorised by an AOC?

Bob also owns a Cessna 185. He charges tourists $1,000 per head for sightseeing flights over Brisbane, and pays you to fly the aircraft. Do you have to hold a CPL to be PIC of the aircraft while engaged in that operation, and does that operation have to be authorised by an AOC? Would your answer be different if the only passengers were Bob and his family? Bob then decides that he will sell tickets only to tourists (other than members of his family) who will jump out half way through the flight, strapped to an expert in tandem parachute jumps. Does that turn the operation into one that does not have to be authorised by an AOC or piloted by CPLs?

The examples of regulatory nonsense could go on for some time but I don't want to break your brain ...

Tip: Just ask the ATO what bull!!!! you need to sprout to get a tick in whatever box this part of the test deals with.

The main confusion seems to come from the assumption that if it can be performed under a PPL, an AOC must not be required.

I don't see why that has to be true. AOC requirements and private operations are defined in different places, using different criteria. I don't see the issue with an overlap (it seems essential if you look at the definitions). If you can say CPL is not required but AOC is required then it is not too hard to interpret.

Of course, there is nothing stopping a requirement that operations be performed by a CPL being written into the AOC.

I have a faint suspicion that the problem with this interpretation is that some in CASA have used the "private operations" definition to rule that an AOC is not required instead of CAR 206...

Quite simple really.

CAR206 means exactly what some CASA lawyer interprets it to be this week, as Lead Balloon well knows.

OK, for !!!!s and giggles I'll bite.

What aircraft operation may be conducted by a PPL as PIC but must be conducted under the authority of an AOC? Apart from solo Navs as part of training for a licence, I can't think of many.

Any thoughts on the scenarios I set out earlier?

The regulation that slices and dices the classifications is actually CAR 1988 2(7):

$1000 per day, flying a 185...........

Do you have Bob's number?

I'll have a shot at these but am suspecting I will soon be tied in knots by those with a deeper grasp of the regs. :)

I would guess not private because due other passengers - it is not just for the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft - it is not just the owner in the a/c and this falls foul of 7(A)
(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).

guessing not private due 7(A)


I would guess not private because
1. mustering is not spotting - mustering is aerial work, although in practice I know this is an nuanced area. No names, no pack drill ;)

2. unless you are paid $1000 a day as an employee of Bob whether you fly or not, you can't receive remuneration for being the pilot.

guessing not private - as above, mustering is not spotting and you are not on Bob's property and you are receiving remuneration for being the pilot

Bob is a lucky bugger. I wouldn't mind being able to own his stable of aeroplanes. Especially the 185


I would guess not private - falls foul of 7(D)

no... if only Bob it would I think work but not his family.


if you comply with the APF rules I am thinking you may wriggle out of this but think lawyers would be needed if push came to shove as this smells like a commercial operation.


I may be wrong in the above - I am curious how you would interpret the above situations.


My guess is Bob is in big doodoo unless he drops the tourists out and can claim he is doing so under the APF banner.

If he is selling his 185 to cover his legal bills could you drop me a line? :)

CAR 2(7A) is not a rule. It is just a definition. And it is not exhaustive of the purposes that are deemed Private.

Transport of Bob and his family on holidays is the personal transportation of the owner. Doesn't matter whether the pilot is paid. It is a private operation.

It's all down hill from here, so I'll wish you good luck...

Actually, no. The requirement for an AOC is defined in the Act.
CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 27
AOCs
(2) Except as authorised by an AOC, (or various permissions for foreign aircraft):
(b) an aircraft shall not operate in Australian territory
...
(9) Subsection (2) applies only to the flying or operation of an aircraft for such purposes as are prescribed.

Then CAR 206:
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 206
Commercial purposes (Act, s 27(9))
(1) For the purposes of subsection 27(9) of the Act (my bold), the following commercial purposes are prescribed:

So CAR 206 very explicitly is the regulation that defines when an AOC is required.

So an activity that is listed in CAR 206 and CAR 2(7)(d) would require an AOC, but be allowed under the privileges of a PPL, e.g.
agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft;

Is an agricultural operation (CAR 206 (1)(a)(iii)) and a private operation (CAR 2 (7)(d)(iii)).

A red tractor is still a tractor.

I thought they were cleverly designed to illustrate that some operations were private but required an AOC. :)

A couple of things to remember:
- You don't have to satisfy ALL criteria in CAR 2(7)(d), just one of them.
- The requirement for an AOC applies to the operation (therefore presumably the operator) not the pilot.

As I said earlier I think many people, including CASA, may be using 2(7) instead of CAR 206 for the AOC requirement so this is my interpretation of what the regulations actually say, not necessarily how CASA will interpret them.

Personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft, therefore can be performed under the privileges of a PPL. The operator is not offering the aircraft for hire, so no AOC.

Not the owner of the aircraft and a charge being made, so not a private operation. Appears to be carriage of passengers for hire or reward, so an AOC would be required.

An agricultural operation, so it appears an AOC is required (CAR 206 (1)(a)(iii). "agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft" (CAR 2(7)(d)(iii)) so it can be done using the privileges of a PPL.

Agricultural operation, so yes to AOC. Not on the aircraft owner's land, so not a private operation.

Yes and Yes, carriage of passengers for hire.

Then it would be transportation of the owner, and not for hire so no AOC, PPL.

I would say yes it requires an AOC (CAR 206 (b)(i)), carriage of passengers for hire or reward from a place and also requires a CPL.

I am aware that CASA may view things differently in many of these cases, however I think they are wrong according to the regulations.

That doesn't really matter, unless you are prepared to argue it in court.

I am fast coming to the opinion that every time you take to the air as a pilot, you are committing some felony.... Im not sure it is worth it any more.

but don't the rules require terms to be defined? So if it defines something as explicitly 'private' and if what we are doing does things explicitly against what is in that definition surely that means they cannot be private?

so in 7(A) it explicitly says it is a private operation if "no payment is made for the services of the operating crew" and the crew ARE paid for their services, surely that means it cannot be a private operation?


If it was just Bob I can see that but if his family is onboard as well and the pilot is paid that would make me read it as 'transport for the aircraft owner AND other passengers' so I see that falls foul of 7(A).

Then again you are saying being a definition not a rule so this is different... like I said, I am not getting why you see that a definition can be discounted :confused:

NB Not trying to pick an argument, genuinely curious why you see an issue here so interested in your point.

you mean my chance of picking up a cheap 185 is not looking so good? Bugger :(

Andrew

CAR 206 is part of "these regulations" in terms of CAR 2(7). A purpose that is deemed Private by CAR 2(7) is, by definition in the regulations, not one that can fall within any of the commercial purposes deemed by CAR 2(7).

But you should get a job with CASA. Inventing an operation for a purpose deemed Private that still has to be authorised by an AOC will have the complicators licking their lips in anticipation.

Jonkster

I just do this for holiday fun, to keep reminding people of what a folklore-infested dog's breakfast the classification of operations scheme is.