The use of recreational aircraft for business trips?

[allevart]

Seasons greetings to all and best wishes for the coming year.

 

I joined to learn more about the capabilities of recreational aircraft and whether they may be the answer to commuting around the state of Victoria for business purposes instead of driving.

 

I have flown previously about thirty years ago but to get back into a Cessna 172 I believe I would have to start pretty much from scratch as so many changes have taken place.

 

Does anyone on the forum regularly use recreational aircraft for business purposes or know of anyone who does?:confused: Comments and advice would be appreciated.

 

 

[dazza 38]

:welcome:Mate,I cant help you with your question but someone here will answer.

 

 

[Guest studentbiggles]

Hi allevart, I'm in the process of purchasing a 230D to use in my business "Alley's Alts" in the Riverland SA.............PM Emeroo on this site (I'm sure he won't mind) and ask him all about the "pro's and con's" of using an A/C for business needs..............and there other threads on this site, just check.

 

Good Luck, Fly Safe..............................Cheers Alley

 

 

[kaz3g]

Like a motor vehicle used for business purposes, an aircraft and /or its operating costs may be an allowable deduction against a business income. There are lots of things to be considered including the reasonableness of the costs incurred against the income and savings generated.

 

I would think it a wise move indeed to speak to a good accountant before making any decision.

 

Good luck

 

kaz

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

About the tax implications and such, you should see an accountant. But plenty of people do it... Just don't get caught out depreciating the whole thing, paying no GST and not actually using it for business! ;-)

 

Legally (as far as RA-Aus and CASA are concerned) it is just personal transportation and perfectly fine to do personal transportation. Just don't do airwork, charter or anything else for reward.

 

 

[Guest studentbiggles]

Hello again Bass.........Question?Example...A few weeks back I wanted to deliver garments to a client from Yren Renmark to Waikerie plus do a fitting whilst there, flying with an CFI so I could do training for Nav at the same time.

 

Would I be right in thinking that and this is how I want it work out............Use of A/C when I'm "Finally" licenced for those types of business travel..........I think of my plane as a work"ute" in the sky!

 

Feed back please,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Cheers Alley

 

 

[sfGnome]

Hi Allevart! That sounds like soooo much of a good deal, I think I hate you already! [Just kidding, really ]

 

When you're doing your planning though, just remember the old saying - if you want to get somewhere, fly; if you have to get somewhere, drive. So if you have day out-and-back trips that could be done either way, go for it, but if you have to travel to a string of places and you absolutely must be at each one on the designated day, then I'm not so sure...

 

Then again, you used to fly so you already know that.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

That would be perfectly fine, it's all personal transportation and delivery of your wares to the customer.

 

With what you are trying to do, it would be very hard to cross the line.

 

One way to cross the line is to advertise to other businesses in the area that they can hire you and your plane to deliver goods to their customers for them. That would clearly be charter.

 

But if your customer says: "hey if you are coming out this way, could you pick up ... I ordered at shop xyz and bring it along?" That should be fine.

 

Taking a customer up at cost share to take pictures of their property for themselves: fine. Take a estate-agent friend up to take pictures for his customers, a service that he advertises, then it's air work.

 

It's weird... And I am not a real authority on this stuff. Not to mention the huge grey area. If ever anything comes up that you wonder about the legality: contact the RA-Aus Ops manager.

 

 

[djpacro]

Suggest that you have a read of Reg 206

 

esp the bit about

 

the following commercial purposes are prescribed: ....(viii) carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft

[Guest studentbiggles]

Thanks for the info guys, like me I hope it has put the original poster in the right direction..................Cheers Alley

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

the following commercial purposes are prescribed: ....(viii) carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft

Yeah, that one is clear as mud. Legions of vets and doctors seen to get away with it, even though they are clearly carrying medicines they will sell to their recipients.

And what about the LAME that flies himself out with parts to repair your aircraft in the field?

 

Alley's case is even murkier: If she's making her alterations, the goods are not hers, they already are the customer's. And the customer isn't hiring the aircraft.

 

As usual, the CARs are clear as mud. I wonder if there is any case law on this.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Hi David, Darky is in London .She is using her Phone for the net.

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

As a thought, technically if the goods are sold before the trip then they are no longer the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft.... maybe ????

That's what I was thinking - this needs to be tested. Does anyone know what the law is regarding electronic transactions and when goods become the property of the purchaser? Is it at the moment the goods are paid for, or when the purchaser receives the goods?

 

 

[Teckair]

'I joined to learn more about the capabilities of recreational aircraft and whether they may be the answer to commuting around the state of Victoria for business purposes instead of driving.'

 

In my experience that would not be practicable the main problem being weather conditions. What would be required for that idea to come close to working would be a IFR equipped twin, with a current IFR rated pilot. All expensive non RAAus issues. The 'got to get there' pressures are a major cause of accidents and have killed many people.

 

 

[kaz3g]

the following commercial purposes are prescribed: ....

 

(viii) carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft

 

"

 

Reg 206 in its current form would suggest that if I carry my 'goods' for the purposes of trade e.g tools, computer, books (the regulation specifically says 'goods') on my aircraft to a customers premises for the purposes of trade, then that is a commercial operation and must be carried out under an AOC."

 

In my view, if you are carrying your tools, computer and books for the purpose of using them in your business at some place near your destination they are not "goods" and there is no contravention of the regulation. If you are carrying them for trade, ie sale or barter, then there is a real problem.

 

I wrote to Legal Counsel at CASA seeking an opinion on this question previously and received no reply.

 

kaz

 

 

[kaz3g]

Does anyone know what the law is regarding electronic transactions and when goods become the property of the purchaser? Is it at the moment the goods are paid for, or when the purchaser receives the goods?

Ownership of the goods passes when the requirements of the contract have been met.

 

A really good source of legal info is the Fitzroy Legal Service Law Handbook which is now available online. There is information on the "elements of a contract" at http://www.lawhandbook.org.au/

 

If the goods have been paid for but remain in the possession of the vendor, unless the contract says differently ownership is vested in the purchaser. The question for our erstwhile tax-minimising pilot will be whether there was an implied term that delivery would be provided as a condition of the sale. If yes, then I suggest the regulation would be contravened.

 

kaz

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

Had a quick look at the Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW):

 

s 22(1) "Where there is a contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods, the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred."

 

It seems that if the seller and buyer agree (in writing?) that ownership of goods transfers to the buyer when the goods are paid (i.e. a term of contract), they are no longer "goods" of the pilot delivering them and therefore not classed as commercial goods for the purposes of reg 206.

 

But the relevant laws have to be checked for each state/territory! This isn't legal advice.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I'm not sure that when the goods actually change ownership is particularly relevant. CAR section 206 also includes a definition of charter operations which covers the carriage of people or cargo for hire or reward. If you are being "rewarded" (whatever that means) for the flight its either aerial work (your goods) or charter (someone elses goods). Both are commercial operations. In addition to the legality these probably wouldn't be covered on the insurance in the case of RAAus aircraft.

 

I vaguely recall a case of a pilot who was busted for flying some people to a holiday home they were renting from him. The court decided that, although he didn't directly charge for the flight, the rental cost included a component to cover the transportation and it was therefore a commercial operation.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Guest Wigg]

not sure how RA-Aus work but GA you must have CPL before youcan use the aircraft for financial gain, or at least that was the go back in 2000 may have changed since then.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW): s 22(1) "Where there is a contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods, the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred."

 

Most contracts are simple ones and are often either not reduced into writing (oral) or are only summarised in writing such as by tendering payment and the giving of a receipt.

 

Thus, "if the goods have been paid for but remain in the possession of the vendor, unless the contract says differently ownership (and risk) is vested in the purchaser..."

 

It seems that if the seller and buyer agree (in writing?) that ownership of goods transfers to the buyer when the goods are paid (i.e. a term of contract), they are no longer "goods" of the pilot delivering them ...

 

True....

 

"...and therefore not classed as commercial goods for the purposes of reg 206."

 

Not necessarily. Their carriage remains a commercial operation if there is "an implied term that delivery would be provided as a condition of the sale".

 

The problem we all face is that CASA has very deep pockets and I doubt many of us could afford the cost - or the consequences - of losing a test case.

 

kaz

 

I do not practice in the areas of commercial or aviation law. All comments expressed above are therefore my personal views and do not constitute a considered legal opinion. If you require legal advice you should approach a practitioner who is qualified in the appropriate jurisdiction.

 

 

[chrsq]

Hi,

 

I have been doing my PPL and just have the Navs to go.

 

My business partner and I a few years ago started up a business making long range target rifle actions, we are now at the stage where we are selling them throughout Australia and all over the world. We are looking to sponsor the major events in every state (Queens Prize) and would like to, in the future, fly ourselves to these events taking our rifles along to promote. I have read somewhere that you can apply to be able to take firearms on your private/hired aircraft. Has anyone done this before?

 

chrsq

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 143Carriage of firearms

(1) A person, including a flight crew member, must not carry a firearm in, or have a firearm in his or her possession in, an aircraft other than an aircraft engaged in charter operations or regular public transport operations.

 

Penalty: 10 penalty units.

 

(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

 

Note For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .

 

(3) It is a defence to a prosecution under subregulation (1) if the person had the written permission of CASA to have the firearm in the aircraft.

 

Note A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subregulation (3) (see subsection 13.3 (3) of the Criminal Code ).

So, write to CASA to request permission, outlining the reasons for carrying a firearm.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Hi,I have been doing my PPL and just have the Navs to go.

 

My business partner and I a few years ago started up a business making long range target rifle actions, we are now at the stage where we are selling them throughout Australia and all over the world. We are looking to sponsor the major events in every state (Queens Prize) and would like to, in the future, fly ourselves to these events taking our rifles along to promote. I have read somewhere that you can apply to be able to take firearms on your private/hired aircraft. Has anyone done this before?

 

chrsq

Yes mate NO problem.I have done it before.Around 1998. As mentioned above,Go through CASA. It was a long time ago.They where pretty quick, to give us back a letter with permission It ran for only a certain time from a certain date to another date.I also contacted Queensland Police we, to let them know and get permission.They had no problem, just had to secure in a lock up box with the amuniton in a separate locked box.Just like other firearm transport.I had to give CASA the serial number of the firearm. It was pretty straight forward, well it was back then.It was a 9mm handgun.So rifles and actions shouldnt be a problem.But i dont think it is opened ended permission.Has to approved for everyflight / time frame.

PS-We had permission because of flying up to Cape York to Weipa from Archerfield (Piper Archer). Flying over what is classed as Hostile Territory .Since this was before 911.Things are probably alot harder these days though.

 

 

[allevart]

Sorry for the delay in replying to all the responses, the festive season has wreaked havoc on my usually routine lifestyle.

 

I am very grateful for all the advice and comments I received from everyone. There are so many points I had not considered at all. Many thanks for raising them.

 

Just to clarify, my role is in market development so the only products I would have on board would be samples to show customers and any products ordered would be delivered by road transport.

 

While it would be desirable for reasons of efficiency and forward planning to reach destinations and return to home base according to a pre-determined schedule it is not really critical.

 

Should adverse weather conditions keep me grounded for a day or three it wouldn’t really matter so much as my time could be gainfully employed in many other ways. (And my boss is very understanding and lets me run my own race.)

 

My company’s involvement is in the dairy industry and I am required to cover all dairy regions as far apart as Mt. Gambier, Bega, Deniliquin and the major dairying centres in between, that’s a lot of driving.

 

Currently a trip throughout the western district can be three days and two nights away, so expenditure would be conservatively fuel $80, accommodation, $240, meals $80 and my driving time compared to flying time.

 

It just seems to me that $400 in expenses as opposed to fuel for say a Jabiru at 15 ltrs an hour and maybe four hours total flight time at about $100 is a fairly compelling case for flying.

 

Even if the trip extended to an overnight stay and you had to add $150 for accommodation and a meal you still save money and time provided the weather does the right thing.

 

Sounds too good to be true really, am I missing something maybe?

 

 

[kaz3g]

Hi John

 

I am truly sorry you have suffered what must have been a very distressing and expensive mechanical failure.

 

I'm a criminal lawyer and believe all my clients are innocent :-)

 

1. The engine life you quote seems inordinately short but I would expect there are a number of factors to take into account. These might include but would not be limited to:

 

2. Was the engine warranted as fit for the purpose to which it was put? eg, Was it an aero engine supplied and used for aviation purposes?

 

3. How old was the engine when it failed? Private operations can mean a very signficiant time lapse in building appreciable hours.

 

4. What evidence exists of the regular servicing to manufacturer's standard? If it was serviced by an independent engineer, for example, the evidence would be harder to refute than if it was serviced by the owner in the absence of independent witnesses.

 

5. How similar are the other instances and how many have failed compared to the total number of engines supplied to the market for the same purpose?

 

6. How good are your assets if you should lose (can you afford to)?

 

7. Are there other disaffected owners who would join with you in a suit (spreads the risk and costs)?

 

8. How good are the assets of the manufacturer if you should win? A victory is pretty hollow if the bank is empty when you try to cash in.

 

9. Be aware that any recovery would take into account depreciation of the original investment due to hours run (you would be unlikely to receive compensation based on new for old, for example).

 

As I said in that previous post, I am not able to provide a legal opinion and the above is is just my own ramblings. it does seem to me that an action in the alternative is possibly a good move to consider - both a Trade Practices suit and a suit in negligence - but talk to an expert.

 

kaz