Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Part 119. So Rewarding

Old 1st Dec 2021, 22:52
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: TinselTown
Age: 45
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Part 119. So Rewarding

I hope I am missing something in my interpretation here but does the following read as though nearly all flying in Australia will be categorised as Air Transport and therefor will need an AOC and all that that entails? Go for a scenic flight down the beach in your RV7: You're fine. Got a 172 to check the water on your station: Air Transport. Use a Cirrus to service clients for your business: Air Transport.



Lumps is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2021, 23:01
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,268
Received 402 Likes on 199 Posts
Yes: You missed the disclaimer on Page 1.

That, and the definitions in the actual legislation.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2021, 23:27
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,758
Received 401 Likes on 221 Posts
Its only an issue if you received the reward directly for the service provided. If you use your Cirrus to fly yourself to a job, the payment is for the job, not the flight to the job. Same as you don't need a taxi or SPV licence to drive yourself to a job in a car or truck. One could even throw some costing for costs of transporting yourself to the job, as you are paying yourself for out of pocket expenses incurred in attending the site, not for an air transport service. Where it comes undone is if you transport someone else and they reward you for the transport directly.
43Inches is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2021, 01:09
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,268
Received 402 Likes on 199 Posts
Don't worry: All this speculation and uncertainty about what constitutes a relevant 'reward' will be gone under the new clear and concise regulations.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2021, 01:58
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Perth
Posts: 146
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
[QUOTE=Lumps;11150076]I hope I am missing something in my interpretation here but does the following read as though nearly all flying in Australia will be categorised as Air Transport and therefor will need an AOC and all that that entails? Go for a scenic flight down the beach in your RV7: You're fine. Got a 172 to check the water on your station: Air Transport. Use a Cirrus to service clients for your business: Air Transport.


No exactly. Spotting operations are under part 138 (aerial work) and so you need an Aerial Work Certificate (Not an AOC) to do them. However, flight over your own land for aerial work purposes is "limited aerial work" and therefore does not need a Aerial Work Certificate but does need a risk assessment to be carried out. Clear as mud.
Progressive is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2021, 05:42
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,268
Received 402 Likes on 199 Posts
More unintended consequences and crap drafting…

According to the Part 119 materials, the definition of “passenger transport operation” is:
(1) A passenger transport operation is an operation of an aircraft that involves the carriage of passengers, whether or not cargo is also carried on the aircraft.

(2) Despite (1), an operation is not a passenger transport operation if the operation is:

(a) an operation of an aircraft with a special certificate of airworthiness; or

(b) a cost-sharing flight; or

(c) a medical transport operation; or

(d) 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) does not also involve the carriage of other passengers; or

(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

for which no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the other passengers or cargo.
Note that the exceptions in (2)(d) and (2)(e) apply only in the case of the operation of aircraft whose registered operator is an individual. Accordingly, in the many cases in which a private pilot hires an aircraft from e.g. a flying club or school and the registered operator of the aircraft is a corporate entity, neither of those exceptions apply.

The only way in which the operation of an aircraft whose registered operator is a corporate entity can involve the carriage of passengers without the operation being a “passenger transport operation” is if one of the exceptions in (2)(a), (2)(b) and (2)(c) applies. Most ‘ordinary’ private operations do not involve an aircraft with a special certificate of airworthiness ((2)(a)) nor constitute a medical transport operation ((2)(c)). That leaves one and only available exception: cost-sharing flights ((2)(b)).

There is no definition of “cost sharing flight” that I can find. The ‘old’ deeming provision in CAR 2 deemed one specific set of circumstances involving equal sharing of costs by POB to be the operation of an aircraft for ‘private purposes’. But there were many other kinds of aircraft operations for private purposes involving passengers, which operations did not require equal cost sharing.

The bottom line appears to be that if you want to go for a private jolly with friends or family in an aircraft whose registered operator happens to be a corporate entity, the only way it can be done without falling within the scope of the definition of “air transport operation” is if it’s a “cost sharing flight” – whatever that happens to mean.

And it also seems that gone are the days of mum, dad and the kids being flown in an aircraft owned by e.g. dad and flown by a pilot hired by the family constituting a private purpose.

Oh, it also looks like a lot of those “private” parachute operations just became air transport operations. Or maybe the pile of exemptions that I couldn’t be bothered wading through deals with the issue. Or maybe we’ll continue with the fiction that the meatbombs aren’t passengers.

(The drafting is either rushed or the product of an inexperienced drafter. If the “that” at the start of (e)(i) is necessary, there should be one at the start of (e)(ii) too. And (e)(ii) should end with just a comma, not a semi-colon and “and”. Poor quality control...)
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2021, 05:58
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: TinselTown
Age: 45
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes: You missed the disclaimer on Page 1.

That, and the definitions in the actual legislation.
where? I mean, great! but I cannot find this stuff, if you're across it please share as I mayn't be the only muppet out here.

I've looked here: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021C01189 (not clear, couldn't find any disclaimers, nor definitions)

Searched 'CASR definitions library' (couldn't find, just a landing page with no library)

Maybe my examples were not a precise example of my concern, which was this:



Lumps is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2021, 06:05
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: TinselTown
Age: 45
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ah cheers just saw above post, took too long to write my last.

Still, private company wants to fly it's employees somewhere = Air Transport. I'd say one of the main drivers keeping GA alive is private business. Unintended consequences indeed.
Lumps is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2021, 06:36
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,268
Received 402 Likes on 199 Posts
Indeed.

I was talking about the disclaimer on page 1 of this document [actually it was this document] from which the extract in your original post came.

Good luck tracking all this through the dense maze of current instruments and regulations!

Last edited by Lead Balloon; 2nd Dec 2021 at 08:02. Reason: Corrected the link.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2021, 07:17
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 1,285
Received 311 Likes on 120 Posts
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
Indeed.

I was talking about the disclaimer on page 1 of this document from which the extract in your original post came.

Good luck tracking all this through the dense maze of current instruments and regulations!
I must have missed the memo stipulating the new requirement to be a lawyer to fly an aircraft. Oh the irony, safety regulations which inadvertently introduce the risk of misunderstanding their intent.
Chronic Snoozer is online now  
Old 2nd Dec 2021, 07:27
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: House
Posts: 84
Received 4 Likes on 1 Post
Then you get into the 'unintended' consequences of 135 and 121.
Just today I have heard of some totally conflicting interpretations. GA is gone.
This falls at the feet of those who pushed this through knowing the industry has not been adequately prepared.
Then inflicting this on an industry that is on it's knees.
An utter scum act.


sagan is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2021, 07:57
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,268
Received 402 Likes on 199 Posts
It's about the safety of air navigation, sagan. Our colleagues in CASA deserve a comfortable, six figure salary festive season break, in return for all the safety they've delivered.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2021, 08:08
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,268
Received 402 Likes on 199 Posts
And I've found the definition of "cost-sharing":
a flight is a cost-sharing flight if:
(a) the flight is conducted using an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot’s seat; and
(b) the pilot in command is not remunerated for the flight; and
(c) the pilot in command pays an amount of the direct costs of the flight that is at least equal to the amount that would be paid by each person if the direct costs were evenly divided between all persons on board; and
(d) the flight is not advertised to the general public.

Example 1: For paragraph I, if the direct costs of a flight are $3,000 and the flight has 5 persons on board, including the pilot, the pilot must pay at least $600 towards the direct costs.
Example 2: For paragraph (d):
(a) an advertisement in a daily national newspaper is an advertisement to the general public; and
(b) an advertisement in a flying club newsletter is not an advertisement to the general public.
Hmmm, so the pilot can be rewarded but not remunerated. That's inconsistent with the passage lumps quoted from the CASA document.

And whom does the PIC have to pay?

Let's assume the registered owner and operator of the aircraft is ABC Pty Ltd. ABC Pty Ltd hires the aircraft to the PIC at $X per hour wet. The PIC and four mates go on a flight and ABC Pty Ltd charges the PIC $3,000. The PIC chips in $600 and his mates come up with the balance and that's paid to ABC Pty Ltd. Does that satisfy the definition?

Last edited by Lead Balloon; 2nd Dec 2021 at 08:20.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2021, 08:12
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: House
Posts: 84
Received 4 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
It's about the safety of air navigation, sagan. Our colleagues in CASA deserve a comfortable, six figure salary festive season break, in return for all the safety they've delivered.
I used to be pleasant with with the FOIs etc having heard some of the thoughts and frustrations with the culture etc.
Those days are gone. Zero respect now and treat all who suck on the teat in that place accordingly.
sagan is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2021, 08:18
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,758
Received 401 Likes on 221 Posts
(a) the flight is conducted using an aircraft with a maximum seat configuration of not more than 6, including the pilot’s seat; and
WTF is with this maximum configuration of 6 seats rubbish, again, just make it no more than 6 POB. All this does is reduce safety, Joe pilot forced to squeeze his 5 mates into a Saratoga to play golf, when he has a Navajo available. So we have more news of an overloaded 6 seater having issues. Stupid rules that have no safety basis and actually reduce safety if they knew anything about aviation.
43Inches is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2021, 08:57
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,268
Received 402 Likes on 199 Posts
Come now, 43I, it all makes sense in the CASA aviation safety universe.

That universe knows whether a PIC is sitting in an aircraft of which the PIC is the registered operator or is instead sitting in an aircraft of which the registered operator is a corporate entity. The universe knows that the objective risks are different.

When the PIC is the registered operator of an aircraft, it’s safe for the PIC to carry any number of passengers provided the PIC is not paid or rewarded for being PIC.

But as soon as the PIC wants to fly an aircraft of which the registered operator is a corporate entity, it’s only safe if the aircraft has a maximum seat configuration of 6 including the pilots seat. It’s safe for the PIC to be rewarded but not remunerated.

You see, if the PIC is the registered operator of a PC12 it’s safe for him or her to fill it with pax and go, provided the PIC is not paid or rewarded. However, if the PIC sells the PC12 to ABC Pty Ltd and ABC Pty Ltd becomes the registered operator, it’s no longer safe for the PIC to fly it, even with only one passenger.

You know it makes sense. (A very deep draught of CASA Kool Aide helps )
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2021, 09:19
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,758
Received 401 Likes on 221 Posts
Yet tomorrow I could go out and buy a used Mercedes sprinter 12 seater with 400,000 km on the clock and no maintenance history 4 tons GW. Drive me and my mates to the snow on a basic drivers licence on winding alpine roads cost sharing. I could drive the same vehicle picking up me and the mates kids from school, if I was to become incapacitated and crash I could wipe out the 12 on board plus whoever I hit, explode and burn down a baby milk factory which spreads to several packed daycare facilities and a home for lost kittens. Yet they give so many dams about whether I can fly a light aircraft around outback Australia safely, where my statistical chance of hitting anything of value is almost nil. Even all the accidents that have happened to fall on suburban streets and back yards have proved that light aircraft have to fall on your head to kill you on the ground. So first the plane has to have a catastrophic failure or collision that it falls down, then you have to be precisely under it when it falls. Where as you are not worried about the the tens of thousands of cars and trucks that pass by while you walk down the street, that have a regular habit of leaving said pavements and hitting trees, pedestrians and other things costing us millions of $ in medical bills and payouts each year, or even day.
43Inches is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2021, 09:24
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,268
Received 402 Likes on 199 Posts
That's precisely what CASA is driving more and more of us to do instead of flying. It's a great outcome for the safety of air navigation!

You know it makes sense...
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2021, 04:43
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,268
Received 402 Likes on 199 Posts
So any flaws are the industry's fault?

I could spend the entirety of every waking day of the rest of my life pointing out, for free, the patent errors and operational stupidity in the ever-increasing mountain of regulatory dross. But I've much better things to do than the job that was supposed to be done by dozens of people on six figure salaries for decades.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2021, 05:28
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,758
Received 401 Likes on 221 Posts
So what I take from that is that the industry told CASA to "get F@#%$% and Die", so CASA expanded on that to 300 pages and made it so for GA.
43Inches is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.