PPL Passenger Limit in Australia
 

Is there a passenger limit for a PPL holder in Australia? Looks like there was a limit of 5 passengers + 1 crew (i.e. 6 in total). But I cannot find this in the latest CAR Compilation 92?

Before
Compilation 91 (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2020C00784)
CAR 2 (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



Today

Compilation 92 (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021C01179) - I do not see see any more definition for "private operations" - in fact seems unhelpful to even figure out what a private operation is!




Edit and Update

Indeed that part has been repealed and the definition of private operation has been replaced and defined in the CASR Dictionary (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021C01179).
OK I had too much time on my hands...private operation: an operation of an aircraft is a private operation if the operation is not one of the following:

(a) an operation that is required to be conducted under the authority of an AOC under Part 119, 129 or 131 or regulation 206 of CAR;

(b) an operation that is required to be conducted under the authority of an aerial work certificate under Part 138;

(c) Part 141 flight training (within the meaning of Part 141);

(d) a Part 142 activity (within the meaning of Part 142);

(e) an adventure flight for a limited category aircraft;

(f) a specialised balloon operation that is conducted for hire or reward;

(g) an operation authorised by a New Zealand AOC with ANZA privileges that is in force for Australia;

(h) an operation under a permission under subsection 25(2) or (3) (non‑scheduled flights by foreign registered aircraft) or section 27A (permission for operation of foreign registered aircraft without AOC) of the Act.

So it does seem that there is no more passenger limit for a PPL holder (which brings it in-line with other jurisdictions)

It used to be 5 pax if cost sharing.
Any more than that, the pilot would bear the full cost.

The saying as it went was that you could get hold of A380 and fly it on your PPL with 500 passengers as long as you paid for it all yourself.

Alas, as always, the answer is not so simple. (And, as always, the persistent folklore that there was a passenger limit on cost sharing flights under the 'old' rules is just that - persistent.)

Under the 'new' oh-so-simple rules, the answer also depends on whether the registered operator of the aircraft is or is not an individual. So, before you go on a jolly as PIC with a private licence and a large bunch of mates, you need first to know whether the registered operator of the aircraft is a human or not. (We all look up the register to check whether the registered operator of the aircraft we hire is a human or a company, don't we?) Be careful if the registered operator of the aircraft is a corporate entity rather than you as an individual. And, Squawk, please let me know your view on the maximum number of passengers I can carry, as PIC with a private licence, on a Cessna 208:

- whose registered operator is a corporate entity, and

- whose registered operator is me as an individual.

A type rated Boeing 747 PPL can fly with 400 POB so long as its a private flight ... no paying punters!

Just ****en tell us LB, you're the lawyer.

Seems pretty clear in my mind :-)

I read it that:

If I am the aircraft operator, the flight is private if I am onboard with no other passengers, but means I can be flown by my pilots and crew in my private C208.

I can also take other passengers on my private C208, as long as they aren’t paying for their seat and as long as I am onboard.

If the C208 is owned by my company, it is classed as a passenger transport operation.

LB, I’m thinking that there is no passenger limit for my privately operated C208. If it’s owned by my company it’s a moot point based on the above paragraph.

Yes (unless (a), (b) or (c) applies).

If it's classed as a "passenger transport operation", how can the PIC be the holder of only a private licence?

If the C208 is owned by a company, the only circumstances in which the aircraft can be flown with any passengers without the operation being classed as a "passenger transport operation" are those in (a), (b) and (c). Best to look at the definition of the term in (b).

That's a circular argument. Whether it's a "passenger transport operation" in which a private licence is not sufficient depends on things like whether the registered operator is an individual or a corporate entity and, if the registered operator is an individual, whether that individual is being carried as a passenger.

The new rules produce such bizarre outcomes for different scenarios with no obvious safety justification that my brain is no longer big enough to know.

(PS: Under the new rules, "passenger transport operations" are subject to either Part 121 or Part 135.)

It's all very simple. Here's the 'Q&A':

Can I, as a private pilot, lawfully fly a PC12 with 8 mates on board?

Yes, if one of your mates on board is the registered operator of the PC12 and no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the passengers.

No, if none of your mates on board is the registered operator of the PC12.

My mate was the registered operator of the PC 12 last week but, on his accountant’s advice, sold it to a $1 company of which I’m the sole director and now the company is the registered operator of the PC12. The company hires the aircraft to me at an arm’s length rate. Can I lawfully fly it as PIC this week with 8 same mates on board?

No. The registered operator is no longer an individual. The aircraft has a maximum seat configuration in excess of 6.

How did the change in registered operator from my mate to my $1 company make the operation unsafe?

Answer: [TBA]

Can I cost share a flight on the PC12 with me as PIC with only 1 passenger?

No. The aircraft has a maximum seat configuration of more than 6.

What if I remove 3 of the seats?

No. The aircraft still has a maximum seat configuration of 9.

So if the company sells the aircraft back to my mate who again becomes registered operator, it will again become ‘safe’ for me as a private pilot to fly my 8 mates around, provided my mate is on board and there’s no payment or reward?

Yes.

My $1 company buys a Bonanza, becomes registered operator and hires it to me at an arm’s length rate. Can I fly myself and 3 mates around as a private pilot?

Yes, provided you are not remunerated and you pay at least one quarter of the direct costs of the flight.

So I can be rewarded but not remunerated?

Yes, reward is not mentioned in the definition of cost-sharing flight.

Why’s it OK for me to be rewarded for a cost-sharing flight in an aircraft whose registered operator is someone else but not if I am the registered operator of the aircraft and didn’t cost share?

Answer: [TBA]

So just to be clear, provided the aircraft I hire has a maximum seat configuration of 6 or less and I am not remunerated for the flight and I at least pay my share of the direct costs, I can do that as a private pilot?

Yes.

What if all of my mates pay my $1 company e.g. double their share of the fixed costs of the flight?

That’s you being remunerated.

No it’s not. My company is being remunerated.

Well… you are one and the same.

No I'm not. If I were, you’d treat me as the registered operator but you don’t.

And so on...

You see: Simple!

LB…………

Brilliant! :D

Straya, the land of the free. I don’t confess to know a teeny weenie bit of the new rules and was easily enough confused with the old ones. These ones look like so much fun! Would an FOI give advice?

Try getting insurance approval for a PPL for anything big . There is a reason why John Travolta got his commercial license. The insurance company requirements for approvals are tougher than the regulations . Unless you are rich enough to self insure . Then you only need post a few million in bond like the Government when they self insure .

We started off as convicts, they just want to return us to that state.

After decades in aviation I feel my knowledge of the Regs has never been lower

I dont have the source legislation and have not traced it through

1. But why is the 6 seater Bonanza not considered a passenger transport operation in this case? Is it because aircraft 6 seats or less do not fall under the regime of a passenger transport operation (but under your extract, it does not provide a carve out - so definitionally it captures me and grandma et al going out for a scenic joy flight)

2. Taking your scenario further, I would argue that even if the PC12 was owned by a company, it could legally be flown with you and your mate under the carve out for a (1) (b) "cost sharing flight"

This thread has given me a headache.

Under the "old regs" CAR206 I think it was, there was provision for operating and aircraft privately (PVT) for a business purposes,
(carriage of staff, tools, equipment) as long as it wasn't operated on an AWK, CHTR or RPT basis.
The aircraft had to be owned / hired by the business or individual doing the hauling. Worked well in the outback.

Does anyone know if such a provision exists in Part 61 land?
And yes I have tried looking but find the new simpered regs anything but. Good job CASA.

BAz :ok:

1. You need the source legislation and you need to trace it through.

2. In the scenarios I gave, the operation of the Bonanza is not a passenger transport operation as defined, even though passengers are in fact carried in the scenarios I gave. So much depends on the individual facts. See answer to question 1.

3. You evidently haven't read the definition of flights that are considered "cost sharing". I chose an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of 9, for a reason. See answer to question 1.

The definition of "passenger transport operation" I've quoted above is in the Dictionary in the CASRs.

If an operation falls within the definition of "passenger transport operation", it falls within the scope of Part 121 or Part 135. PPL PIC verboten.

If an operation does not fall within the definition of "passenger transport operation", the answer to the question whether a PPL can be PIC depends...

Good luck.

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).

Edit think I found the answer.

Per CASR Dictionary Part 1.
A cost-sharing flight can only be definitionally conducted in an airplane with 6pob or less on board,
Hence, If i rent a C172 plane from a commercial flight school and pay for at least my share, that is allowed.

You're nearly there.

The actual words used in the legislation are important. The element of the definition of "cost sharing" to which you referred is not about the number of POB. It's about the maximum seat configuration of the aircraft.

Thus, there is no such thing (under the new rules) as a "cost sharing" flight in an aircraft that has a maximum seat configuration of e.g. 9, even if there are only e.g. 2 POB on board. Again, that's why I chose the particular scenarios.

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?

The words "Maximum Seat Configuration" are notable in that they don't appear elsewhere in the dictionary. They are different to MCPSC, MOPSC and MPSC which are about certification and OM approved seat numbers of the aircraft.

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:

Indeed.

This is what the definition in the Dictionary of CASRs says:Accordingly, if there is no instrument issued under regulation 201.025 covering them, it follows that e.g. a flight by me and 8 mates in a PC12 owned by a corporation with no hire or reward is a "passenger transport operation" as defined, but not a "air transport operation" as defined, subject to .... what rules?

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:

• Farmer Joe covers all the costs of the flight and his mates don't pay or reward him in any way (Part 91)
• Farmer Joe is on board alone (obvious) (Part 91)

Passenger Transport Operation if

• Joe's mates cover the cost of the flight (Part 135)
• Joe covers the cost of the flight but his mates pay for any item of food, drinks, accommodation, or offer him e.g. sexual favours etc (Part 135)
• Farmer Joe is on board and all the other pax are given a free lift into town and do not pay in any way (Part 91)

Same Cessna Caravan operated by Joe's Farm Company.
ALWAYS a passenger transport operation

• If no passengers pay for the ride in any way in money or Joe receives no reward from them - (Part 91)
• If they are his employees and he (or his pilot) is getting them from town and picking them up* (Part 135)

*this is in the AGM, and an interesting one as I'm not sure what the "reward" is there for the employee?

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.

There's worse in the CASRs...

You could try asking CASA for its opinion on whether "maximum seat configuration" for an aircraft means how it happens to be configured, in fact, for a particular flight, or instead means how the aircraft could be configured as a matter of principle, irrespective of how that aircraft is configured in fact from time to time.

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:I can't help but think I'm missing something fundamental in all this. However, because all of the relevant things are spread across Parts and Dictionaries and MOSs and other instruments these days, I don't know what I don't know about where else I may have to look.

I would have thought this kind of thing is spelled out in your policy if you insured an aircraft and/or pilot.

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.

Oh it's advanced it alright. Back then you could do pretty-much whatever you want so long as you didn't do anything wrong. Nowadays, it's roughly the same only because CASA's raison d'etre is close-monitoring your every move, they needed to implement a set of Rules (in Plain English) so innately complex even they don't understand them. This way, if ever they think you're not acting like a "True and Proper Pilot" should, they now have a comprehensive list of excuses to choose from from which to bust your ass (just ask Glen B).

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:And I don't think removal of seats gets you around the maximum seat configuration part of the definition of "cost-sharing" flight, if you want to go down that path. The maximum seat configuration of the aircraft remains the same, doesn't it, even if seats happen to be removed at a particular point in time?