Aerial Work

[Oscar]

In the 'RAA STCC Appointed' thread, I commented that I'd like to see the ambit of RAA operations grow to embrace some aspects of what may be termed 'Airwork' as the CAR's define it.

 

Rather than fill up the post, here's a link to the definition of 'Airwork': http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90021

 

Not unreasonably, this elicited some responses that RAA is for 'recreational' aviation and the requirements for anything more than that are an increasing burden on 'recreational' aircraft owners/pilots. The general thrust of this seemed to be that 'if you want to do GA-type stuff, then go be a GA owner/pilot.' That is, in my opinion, quite a reasonable position to take: why would we RAA people want to complicate our lives and make our flying more expensive?

 

I wish it were that simple - but life in our society isn't that simple. The intrusion of regulations into every aspect of our daily lives is a fact that we live with. As examples: 20 years or so ago, a farmer needing to take his or her tractor down a road to another paddock on the property, could do so (being careful) - nowadays he/she needs either road registration or a permit to move. You cannot legally sail your boat more than (from memory) 5k off the coast without requiring a functioning EPIRB; you cannot go fishing without a licence. You can't (in many places) put in a rainwater tank to catch the rain to use on your garden without a Development Application and approval - etc., etc., etc..

 

So what relevance does this have to RAA operations?

 

Well, let's say you are a Vet. in a country practice. You own a Jab. 230 and have a current RAA Pilots Certificate. A property owner rings you up with urgent call for a life-threatening health problem for a stud Bull, worth maybe $10k. It's located nearly 300k away, over recently flood-eroded roads that have a bridge out - requiring a trip of nearly 400k to get there. The owner has a strip on his property. You can jump in your 4WD and spend 10 hours on the round trip, but you can't legally jump in your 230 with your Vet's bag and get there 2 hours later, treat the problem and be home again by last light.

 

However, you COULD, entirely legally, throw a couple of slabs of beer, some champagne, half a side of beef and a bag of charcoal into the back of your Jab 230 and go visit that property owner for a barbecue. Ok, you couldn't drink more than about one middy of the beer and fly home again, but the property owner is going to, I suggest, be pre-occupied anyway.

 

Or, you could own a VH-reg. C172 and hold a CPL. Then you could legally do the professional visit. Scratch one RAA owner/pilot, and add the amortisation of GA costs to that Vet's bill..

 

Now let's turn to access to facilities.

 

Non-RPT-serviced regional airfields are being squeezed out, sold off to developers. As recently seen in the case of Casino, even RPT-serviced airfields are being severely compromised. This would be resisted if communities valued the operation of Aviation to their community - Councils would have community uprising against the sale of local airfleids.

 

The current population of Australia is about 23M. RAA membership is, at the most optimistic estimate, about 10K. Or, put another way: there are about 2,300 members of society who have no interest in RAA aviation for every one of us. If we are no more to them than a group of somewhat noisy, possibly hazardous, recreational toy-boys (and girls, lest it be thought I don't recognise the reasonable gender balance in Rec. Av.) with no redeeming value to the community - should it be any wonder if they don't stand up to a Council determining to turn the local airfield into a residential development?

 

Let me postulate a different situation: one where a regional community sees the aviation activity as of benefit: providing quicker essential services, enhancing the 'liveability' of the community, being a potential resource of relief for emergencies etc. Into that mix, let's stir 'recreational' activity as not just supportive of those services, but a feeder-ground for them. That Drifter droning overhead - just maybe the pilot is training to become someone who can be flying in the essential medication for your son or daughter when you're cut off by floods? Or the parts for your generator so your cows can be milked tomorrow? Or the shark-watch so tourists will come to your town and swim with a greater feeling of security?

 

What I'm talking here is the generation in the community mind of value to the community from having those little aircraft flying around. The value of having an FTF on the community doorstep, and possibly the pride and economic benefit of having an aircraft manufacturer in the town (go talk to the residents of Bundaberg sometime, ask them how they would feel about having their airfield shut down and the Jabiru factory go to China.)

 

With some tweaks to the rules for the 'top end of town' of the Rec. Av regime, I suggest that there's a symbiotic value-added power for the 'lower orders' - that should not need to have more onerous regulations applied.

 

It could be that little more than a broadening of the operational sphere for 55 and 24-reg aircraft that also have 'certification' to a higher standard than base-line (for 24-reg, at least, e.g. J160C) could be the wedge; I see no reason for changes to 10 and 19-reg requirements - but perhaps I have missed something.

 

Does RAA really need to operate behind an impenetrable shield of only being for 'recreational' activity - or can it broaden its base to encompass a range of low-risk to the community in return for improved value to the community activities, better utilising the capabilities of the more sophisticated aircraft in the regime and the decent pilot training that is already a feature of every RAA Certificate (perhaps with some additional 'ratings')?

 

I truly don't see that people who just want to putter around purely for fun in simple and cheap(ish) aircraft need to be disadvantaged by a broadening of the sphere of activities allowable within the generic 'RAA' ambit - but it would take an organisational decision to set up systems appropriate to the requirements for each type of activity, rather than trying to do it under a one-size-fits-all management scheme. That won't be cost-free,but with a reasonably sophisticated business process management computerised system it's not a ludicrously expensive development path.

 

 

[damkia]

Aircraft Movement

 

A take-off (aircraft departure) or a landing (arrival) is recorded as one aircraft movement. A "touch and go" operations is counted as two movements.

 

Ambulance Functions Operations as an aerial ambulance for the transport of ill or injured persons.

 

No "Airwork" that I could see.............

 

 

[Oscar]

Apologies, incorrect title: should be 'Aerial Work' - second term from the top of the list.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Somebody pointed out that RAA is part of GA. It is; it's a particular subset of GA. GA with some of the complicated bits left out, if you will. Recreational aircraft fly in the same atmosphere as all other classes of aircraft; and they are subject to the same rules (with a few complicated bits left out). This means, the RAA board needs to comprehend where RAaus fits in relation to the rest of aviation; it needs to know which rules it is NOT exempted from, as well as the conditions under which the exemptions in CAO 95.55 apply. RAA cannot shut itself in a box and ignore the rest of the World. There is, in fact, a continuous spectrum from 95.10 to A380s; the divisions we currently recognise are actually unnecessary. Yes, some organisations supply specialist training for particular parts of the spectrum, but there is no need for "turf wars". If you want an agricultural rating, you go to the AAAA. Gliding, to the GFA, and so on.

 

How can this be reconciled with the attitudes of the KISS people, who want it all to go back to the days before HORSCOTS? Well, I think you will find that it does not really conflict, if you understand the big picture; it only appears to, to people who do not have that perspective.

 

Here's the germ of an idea of a better understanding of how recreational aviation really fits in the big picture:

 

Let us imagine that all the present forms of pilot licence were combined into a general pilot licence - for an idea of what that might look like, see the attachment (it's far from complete, but you can see the idea):

 

One would start as a student in the aircraft class of one's choice - somewhere in the top left corner of the matrix. As one gains a qualification, so you get a stamp in another box in the matrix. You can progress or not as you wish. If you want to be a career pilot, you could progress towards the lower right corner of the matrix.

 

Notice that there are no artificial boundaries. If you want to qualify for another box in the matrix, you get training from an organisation that can supply it, and when you are qualified, you get a stamp in that box. The licence is universal - it would be recognised by all aviation organisations in Australia. Parts of it would be recognised overseas as soon as it was introduced, some may require negotiation.

 

The KISS people can stay in the CAO95.10/Recreational VRF/day box, if that's what they want to do. We're all pilots. What you can fly, and what purpose you can fly it for, depends on which boxes are stamped on your licence.

 

Note that whilst LSA, Primary, and homebuilt aircraft are precluded by definition from being used for aerial work applications such as Oscar suggests, VLA aircraft are not. That follows from CASR Part 23; VLA is a sub-set of FAR Part 23, for aircraft under 750 Kg MTOW. Some RAAus aircraft are certificated under that standard.

 

So the notion of being able to demonstrate that aeroplanes at the top end of RAA can be useful to the community and not just "Boy's Toys" is not impractical.

 

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Well, let's say you are a Vet. in a country practice. You own a Jab. 230 and have a current RAA Pilots Certificate. A property owner rings you up with urgent call for a life-threatening health problem for a stud Bull, worth maybe $10k. It's located nearly 300k away, over recently flood-eroded roads that have a bridge out - requiring a trip of nearly 400k to get there. The owner has a strip on his property. You can jump in your 4WD and spend 10 hours on the round trip, but you can't legally jump in your 230 with your Vet's bag and get there 2 hours later, treat the problem and be home again by last light.However, you COULD, entirely legally, throw a couple of slabs of beer, some champagne, half a side of beef and a bag of charcoal into the back of your Jab 230 and go visit that property owner for a barbecue. Ok, you couldn't drink more than about one middy of the beer and fly home again, but the property owner is going to, I suggest, be pre-occupied anyway.

 

Or, you could own a VH-reg. C172 and hold a CPL....

Interesting points.

 

You don't need a CPL to do aerial work, a PPL is sufficient unless you're getting paid to do the flying. For example unless things have changed I think you can be paid as a boreman on a cattle station and use your, or the the station's, plane to get around to fix the bores and windmills, carrying all the tools of your trade. In that example the purpose of the flying is for transport and you're not getting paid for flying, you're being paid for the work you do on the ground, so I don't think your use of the plane to get to the bore is classed as aerial work. Or you can tow gliders free, or throw sky-divers out free - to build hours for example.

 

If you were paid as a stockman and spent your working time spotting or mustering cattle in your plane or the station's plane you couldn't claim that the flying was incidental to your work, in that example the work you are doing relies on your being in the air and so it is aerial work. If you are hired as a stockman and doing that aerial work then I believe you can do it with a PPL, but if you are hired as a pilot then you need a CPL. If you have a CPL and an aircraft, and hire yourself and it out for mustering then you need a CPL and an Air Service Licence/Air Operator's Certificate (hence you must then also have, or be, a CASA appointed Chief Pilot) because you would then be selling the services of a Commercial operation.

 

What I find intriguing here is that I always thought you could use your LSA for personal transport. If that's the case then in your vet example I would have thought it was permitted for you to fly yourself to a station with your vets bag. It might be worth getting a determination on this because I can't see how doing so would constitute 'aerial work' under the definition shown in the link you posted.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Interesting points.You don't need a CPL to do aerial work, a PPL is sufficient unless you're getting paid to do the flying. For example unless things have changed I think you can be paid as a boreman on a cattle station and use your, or the the station's, plane to get around to fix the bores and windmills, carrying all the tools of your trade. In that example the purpose of the flying is for transport and you're not getting paid for flying, you're being paid for the work you do on the ground, so I don't think your use of the plane to get to the bore is classed as aerial work. Or you can tow gliders free, or throw sky-divers out free - to build hours for example.

 

If you were paid as a stockman and spent your working time spotting or mustering cattle in your plane or the station's plane you couldn't claim that the flying was incidental to your work, in that example the work you are doing relies on your being in the air and so it is aerial work. If you are hired as a stockman and doing that aerial work then I believe you can do it with a PPL, but if you are hired as a pilot then you need a CPL. If you have a CPL and an aircraft, and hire yourself and it out for mustering then you need a CPL and an Air Service Licence/Air Operator's Certificate (hence you must then also have, or be, a CASA appointed Chief Pilot) because you would then be selling the services of a Commercial operation.

 

What I find intriguing here is that I always thought you could use your LSA for personal transport. If that's the case then in your vet example I would have thought it was permitted for you to fly yourself to a station with your vets bag. It might be worth getting a determination on this because I can't see how doing so would constitute 'aerial work' under the definition shown in the link you posted.

See http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013C00371/Html/Volume_3#_Toc358291563

 

 

[metalman]

After sitting through one of the CASA travelling road show seminars last week I can see some food things and bad coming our of the changes. I'm not sure about PPL doing training, it sounds nice but I can see problems a rising from it,and the fact the CASA guys really couldn't answer much of the questions, and having a clear path from an RAA cert to the RPL will certainly swell the ranks of GA .the biggest issue will be getting clear answers ,every time they got stumped( most of the time) they just kinda fobbed it off as a work in progress but also went to great lengths to make it known that it will be law on 4 December this year,

 

 

[Oscar]

I believe, though I do not have personal knowledge of it, that a CASA ramp inspector has pinged someone in SQ, presumably under 206 (1) (viii) for carrying his plumbing tools intending to do work in his RAA-reg aircraft. Personally, I think this is as stupid as it would be to require a Plumber to have some sort of 'commercial operator' licence (maybe something of the taxi licence type), and the vehicles to have some sort of goods-carrying certification to take his tools to a job in his ute.

 

I believe that CASA's position is, roughly, that if you are going to use your aircraft to provide a service, then you might be inclined to break safety rules in order to provide the service. Again, speaking personally, I think this position has as much validity as banning the sale of rope on the basis that you might be inclined to hang yourself, therefore you should not be allowed to buy rope.

 

The idea that the owner/pilot of an RAA-registered aircraft cannot be able to offer to provide any services to the community utilising her/his aircraft, is fairly much the nub of my argument. Provided that one does not break any safety requirements nor exceed the limitations of the aircraft (sort of implicit really from the first statement..) - why could a pilot with sufficient competence flying an aircraft with sufficient capability, not be allowed to undertake operations with a commercial return? For example, we see small vehicles carrying pathological samples to laboratories for analysis everywhere in the community; for a remote community, that could be as readily done by someone in say a Jab. 160 or 230, as someone in a C172. However, as things stand, the Jab. owner could not offer to provide the service and would be subject to penalties if he/she did so.

 

I am not advocating that recreational pilots/owners should be forced into conforming to standards appropriate to (limited) forms of 'commercial' operations. What I am advocating is that there should be room within the ambit of 'recreational aircraft' for the use of their qualifications and aircraft, if eligible and maintained to a prescribed standard, to engage in certain types of commercial operation without having to make the large jump to GA level - where this can be demonstrated to be reasonable on safety etc, grounds.

 

The benefit to RAA-class operation is, I believe, a shift in the appreciation by the general community that RAA-class operations has potential benefit to their community, thus generating a supportive community attitude towards us. The flow-on from that would be community support of facilities for RAA operations. Hell, it could even assist in the fuel companies continuing to supply suitable fuel rather than backing away from any aviation use of other than Avtur.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I believe, though I do not have personal knowledge of it, that a CASA ramp inspector has pinged someone in SQ, presumably under 206 (1) (viii) for carrying his plumbing tools intending to do work in his RAA-reg aircraft. Personally, I think this is as stupid as it would be to require a Plumber to have some sort of 'commercial operator' licence (maybe something of the taxi licence type), and the vehicles to have some sort of goods-carrying certification to take his tools to a job in his ute.I believe that CASA's position is, roughly, that if you are going to use your aircraft to provide a service, then you might be inclined to break safety rules in order to provide the service. Again, speaking personally, I think this position has as much validity as banning the sale of rope on the basis that you might be inclined to hang yourself, therefore you should not be allowed to buy rope.

 

The idea that the owner/pilot of an RAA-registered aircraft cannot be able to offer to provide any services to the community utilising her/his aircraft, is fairly much the nub of my argument. Provided that one does not break any safety requirements nor exceed the limitations of the aircraft (sort of implicit really from the first statement..) - why could a pilot with sufficient competence flying an aircraft with sufficient capability, not be allowed to undertake operations with a commercial return? For example, we see small vehicles carrying pathological samples to laboratories for analysis everywhere in the community; for a remote community, that could be as readily done by someone in say a Jab. 160 or 230, as someone in a C172. However, as things stand, the Jab. owner could not offer to provide the service and would be subject to penalties if he/she did so.

 

I am not advocating that recreational pilots/owners should be forced into conforming to standards appropriate to (limited) forms of 'commercial' operations. What I am advocating is that there should be room within the ambit of 'recreational aircraft' for the use of their qualifications and aircraft, if eligible and maintained to a prescribed standard, to engage in certain types of commercial operation without having to make the large jump to GA level - where this can be demonstrated to be reasonable on safety etc, grounds.

 

The benefit to RAA-class operation is, I believe, a shift in the appreciation by the general community that RAA-class operations has potential benefit to their community, thus generating a supportive community attitude towards us. The flow-on from that would be community support of facilities for RAA operations. Hell, it could even assist in the fuel companies continuing to supply suitable fuel rather than backing away from any aviation use of other than Avtur.

People have been trying to get CAR 206 amended to allow tradesmen and professionals to use personal aircraft to travel in the course of their trade or profession, since 1996. It is LONG overdue for revision; and it is contrary to the second reading speech by Anderson, in 1998 (see below). RAAus is not the only organisation that does not obey its masters.

 

2nd reading.doc

 

2nd reading.doc

 

2nd reading.doc

[Head in the clouds]

See http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013C00371/Html/Volume_3#_Toc358291563

Hmm, well either there's something wrong with their 'prescribed' definition or else things have changed very much for the worse since I finished commercial flying. That list of 'Commercial Purposes' doesn't mention aerial stock mustering even though it's in the Aerial Work definition, and I can't see why it would be presumed to be included by virtue of 206 (1) (a) (ix). So in theory it means that a station owner can still go and get his PPL(H), buy a Robbo and muster his own stock, as always, but he can't use the same aircraft for finding the herd or checking his fences because they would come under 206 (1) (a) (ii) Aerial Spotting.

 

I'm certainly not sure of it but I suspect that the items prescribed to be 'Commercial Purposes' under CAR 206 would only be deemed to be commercial if the pilot was doing it for hire or reward. If that was the case then mustering would presumably be included via 206 (1) (a) (ix), but I'm still surprised it's not mentioned specifically, but either way I cannot find any other reference to regulation of mustering in the CARs or the CASRs.

 

When I was operating in the north there were many stations doing their own mustering on private licences, and not having to do it surreptitiously either.

 

And does (viii) seriously mean that a freelance distributor with a PPL can fly his own Cessna around visiting clients and carrying free samples but on his next sales trip he can't deliver the goods they buy? If that really is the case now it needs challenging and putting to rights.

 

My last few years in helicopters were spent in the corporate arena and CASA were well aware of all that I did, because I was CP of another operation at the same time which they audited regularly. As personal pilot to a dignitary I would regularly conduct several of the kinds of Aerial Work listed in CAR 206 and although I did have a CPL it was all done as a private operation without an ASL/AOC which made it a lot less expensive and a lot less paperwork.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

HITC

 

from a plain English perspective you cant muster cattle until you've spotted them can you?

 

I have to say however the Vet example, used in another thread I think, I couldn't see how that example would be commercial unless as you negotiated the visit.." I can fly but that will cost an extra $X" whereas If the vet said "For my benefit I'll fly this visit, Just the Normal costs for the visit" then at that stage I cant see that the plane provided him any income, other than the better part of 3/4 of a day to do other things that earn an income, presumably all of which are ex plane and therefore completely irrelevant.....

 

Andy

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

People have been trying to get CAR 206 amended to allow tradesmen and professionals to use personal aircraft to travel in the course of their trade or profession, since 1996.....

Does this mean that 206 was changed in 1996 to exclude travelling to work in your own plane? I can't see where the Regs do exclude it though. It seems you can't deliver your own goods but that's another (ridiculous) matter.

 

HITC from a plain English perspective you cant muster cattle until you've spotted them can you?

Good point Andy, but then the Regs have never been in plain English. I think it was when I was studying for my CPL that I started to learn to read between the lines ...

 

In fact Aerial Spotting has a definition too so you don't actually have to go spotting before you muster, you just have to find the herds if you follow me. Spotting is another form of AW, might be spotting damage to fences, or loitering high above a multi-aircraft muster spotting the sneaky bastard mickeys that try and hide in the thickets or the bullocks that have ideas of their own which don't involve the yards. Or spotting mobs bogged in blacksoil after rains, or spotting individuals missed on a TB cull perhaps. Spotting doesn't necessarily require a LL endorse, and mustering endorse can't be completed until LL has been gained.

 

I have to say however the Vet example, used in another thread I think, I couldn't see how that example would be commercial unless as you negotiated the visit.." I can fly but that will cost an extra $X" whereas If the vet said "Cant get to you by road but can by plane, Just the Normal costs for the visit" then at that stage I cant see that the plane provided him any income, other than the better part of 3/4 of a day to do other things that earn an income, presumably all of which are ex plane and therefore completely irrelevant.....Andy

I agree, and can't find anything in the new or old Regs saying you can't use your plane for travel, to work or otherwise. But they've been amended so many times that it was hard enough to keep up with it when I was in comm ops, these days I can't be bothered, just 'phone a friend' (ask the forum) instead.

 

 

[facthunter]

There needs to be some consistency in this. Regarding payment for use. IF the charge was only to cover the direct cost.(ie You make no profit out of it) how would it be any different from cost sharing which any PPL can do? A doctor can carry his stethoscope and some bandages in a private car or ute (or plane) or train or magic carpet or pushbike. He is not carrying the goods for hire or reward. Isn't profit by the transport of, the critical issue? Nev

 

 

[frank marriott]

Don't forget par (ix)

 

(ix) any other purpose that is substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vii) (inclusive);

 

Make up your own mind if you are operating legally, but the wording is pretty strong - it suggests to me that private flying is intended for non business related travel and leaves very little room for bending.

 

Pilot's decision (or possibly a magistrates if you push the definition and get caught) it would not be me but various learned persons arguing both sides of any debate, your only input would be your wallet.

 

(I use the term you in the general sence, not replying to any specific post)

 

 

[Oscar]

I seriously suspect it is not the profit but the purpose of the trip that CASA has decided is the determinant. CASA doesn't care (and legislatively, can't) whether there is commercial profit in using the aircraft, but they can make a determination that the purpose of the flight was 'commercial' by its determination of that term.

 

I suspect that it's (probably) possible that, keeping to the strict legal definition, travel from your home field to the nearby field of a client and then taking a taxi to their place, means the flight you took wasn't, strictly ' commercial'

 

However, that's not really the point of this thread. The point is: if RAA-class aircraft flown by RAA-certificated pilots (as they have to be, thanks to the division of jurisdictions) can provide some services to local communities, then just perhaps local communities will increase their interest in having RAA-class activities in their area. If RAA-class aircraft and an RAA Pilots Certificate can assist a service provider to make her/his living, then that is an attractive option vs. having to meet all the costs of GA. People who might want such opportunities will progress up the RAA path instead of going to GA.

 

That gives RAA activities a 'career path' - for want of a better term - that is not a required path that has to be followed, for either your Certificate or your aircraft, but an option. If a single-seat Thruster is all you want to own and fly, then it's no imposition that there is more possible - you can stop at the level that you want. Same as a driver's licence: you do not HAVE to get a B-double licence if all you want to do is drive your Camry to the shops and back.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Does this mean that 206 was changed in 1996 to exclude travelling to work in your own plane? I can't see where the Regs do exclude it though. It seems you can't deliver your own goods but that's another (ridiculous) matter.

 

 

Good point Andy, but then the Regs have never been in plain English. I think it was when I was studying for my CPL that I started to learn to read between the lines ...

 

In fact Aerial Spotting has a definition too so you don't actually have to go spotting before you muster, you just have to find the herds if you follow me. Spotting is another form of AW, might be spotting damage to fences, or loitering high above a multi-aircraft muster spotting the sneaky bastard mickeys that try and hide in the thickets or the bullocks that have ideas of their own which don't involve the yards. Or spotting mobs bogged in blacksoil after rains, or spotting individuals missed on a TB cull perhaps. Spotting doesn't necessarily require a LL endorse, and mustering endorse can't be completed until LL has been gained.

 

I agree, and can't find anything in the new or old Regs saying you can't use your plane for travel, to work or otherwise. But they've been amended so many times that it was hard enough to keep up with it when I was in comm ops, these days I can't be bothered, just 'phone a friend' (ask the forum) instead.

No, 206 was NOT changed in 1996. As I read 206(i)(viii) you can travel to work in your own plane, but you can't carry your tools of trade, or goods for sale. So, as a professional engineer, I could not carry my calculator; and the Vet cannot carry his stethoscope or whatever.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I seriously suspect it is not the profit but the purpose of the trip that CASA has decided is the determinant. CASA doesn't care (and legislatively, can't) whether there is commercial profit in using the aircraft, but they can make a determination that the purpose of the flight was 'commercial' by its determination of that term.I suspect that it's (probably) possible that, keeping to the strict legal definition, travel from your home field to the nearby field of a client and then taking a taxi to their place, means the flight you took wasn't, strictly ' commercial'

 

However, that's not really the point of this thread. The point is: if RAA-class aircraft flown by RAA-certificated pilots (as they have to be, thanks to the division of jurisdictions) can provide some services to local communities, then just perhaps local communities will increase their interest in having RAA-class activities in their area. If RAA-class aircraft and an RAA Pilots Certificate can assist a service provider to make her/his living, then that is an attractive option vs. having to meet all the costs of GA. People who might want such opportunities will progress up the RAA path instead of going to GA.

 

That gives RAA activities a 'career path' - for want of a better term - that is not a required path that has to be followed, for either your Certificate or your aircraft, but an option. If a single-seat Thruster is all you want to own and fly, then it's no imposition that there is more possible - you can stop at the level that you want. Same as a driver's licence: you do not HAVE to get a B-double licence if all you want to do is drive your Camry to the shops and back.

Yes, CASA's predecessors drew a very long bow in defining commercial purposes. It's very debatable whether S9 of the Civil Aviation Act gives them the authority to do so. It is arguable that CAR 206(i) is so restrictive that it considerably inhibits the benefits of aviation from being achieved to the best interests of the community at large.

 

 

[Oscar]

Actually, here's I think a fair example of what I am suggesting as 'services' that RAA-class aircraft can provide - within the restrictions of their capability.

 

You live about 120k from the nearest medical facility. Your only child is bitten by a brown-snake. You bind the limb to restrict the passage of the venom and ring for help. A paramedic with the anti-venom is 5 minutes away from the local RAA FTF. Next door is a croppie strip. However, the nearest Flying Doctor strip is 500 k's away and their King Air can't land on the croppie strip, but 30 k's away. However, legally the FTF can't fly the paramedic in to administer the anti-venom.

 

What would you rather see: help arrive in time in a little RAA-class aircraft, or an aircraft arrive, entirely legally, too damn late? I know what would actually happen - the FTF would fly the paramedic in and risk the consequences. That's what we as people do. But it shouldn't be that way.

 

 

[facthunter]

If there was no charge made it wouldn't be commercial. That is how I see it. The law would not be particularly interested in the circumstances. The sentence might be ameliorated. ( How do you like that word? but the breach or otherwise of the law would be unaffected... Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

If there was no charge made it wouldn't be commercial. That is how I see it. The law would not be particularly interested in the circumstances. The sentence might be ameliorated. ( How do you like that word? but the breach or otherwise of the law would be unaffected... Nev

Man, read the regulation. Look at its heading. Doing any of those things is, ipso facto, a commercial operation, whether you get paid for the flight or not. That's one of the things that is so objectionable about it. If you happen to be a plumber, check your pockets before yo fly in case there's a roll of thread tape there. . . .

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

No, 206 was NOT changed in 1996. As I read 206(i)(viii) you can travel to work in your own plane, but you can't carry your tools of trade, or goods for sale. So, as a professional engineer, I could not carry my calculator; and the Vet cannot carry his stethoscope or whatever.

OK, I see where you're coming from now, but I think your interpretation is incorrect. The sub para you refer to reads thus -

 

(viii) carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft (not being a carriage of goods in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals);

 

Goods for the purposes of trade are trade goods. By definition a 'good' is not a tool it is an item of commercial value that is tradeable or for sale -

 

Noun: trade good

 

1. A raw material or product that is bought and sold commercially in large quantities
   - commodity, good
    
    
   

 

 

So travel to work with the carriage of tools of trade would not be excluded by that clause in CAR 206.

 

Nonetheless it's still a disgrace that you can't apparently carry your own trade goods - that needs challenging.

 

 

[Oscar]

Sorry, but the idea that lack of a specific, invoiced charge for the aircraft cost for a service provided utilising your aircraft is highly unlikely to persuade CASA that the purpose of your flight was not commercial. Their position is, as far as I understand it, that if the flight was involved in a commercial operation, you are nicked.

 

This principle is fairly well enshrined in law nowadays. You have, for instance, work insurance cover for travel to and from your principal place of work to a job, no matter whether you do it in your own vehicle or in a taxi for which you add the charges to the invoice.

 

However, once again, we are missing the essential point that I have been trying to make: the real value to every RAA member from some RAA-class operations being 'commercial' in definition is ultimately not a dollar return to the owner/pilot from providing the service, but from communities placing value on having RAA-class aircraft operating in their locale. What we need - I believe - is a sentiment in local communities that having RAA-class operations in their area is of value to them and thus supporting our very existence. If we are seen as oddities and of no practical value, we can expect no community support. Surely, it is in our interests to reverse that sentiment.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Actually, here's I think a fair example of what I am suggesting as 'services' that RAA-class aircraft can provide - within the restrictions of their capability.You live about 120k from the nearest medical facility. Your only child is bitten by a brown-snake. You bind the limb to restrict the passage of the venom and ring for help. A paramedic with the anti-venom is 5 minutes away from the local RAA FTF. Next door is a croppie strip. However, the nearest Flying Doctor strip is 500 k's away and their King Air can't land on the croppie strip, but 30 k's away. However, legally the FTF can't fly the paramedic in to administer the anti-venom.

 

What would you rather see: help arrive in time in a little RAA-class aircraft, or an aircraft arrive, entirely legally, too damn late? I know what would actually happen - the FTF would fly the paramedic in and risk the consequences. That's what we as people do. But it shouldn't be that way.

I agree with what your saying but for clarity. If bitten by a brown snake, (or any other poisonous snake) there is no rush to get the patient anti -venom, as long as the pressure bandage is put on and person doesn't move . They can lay there until the cows come home. If a person gets bitten on the face or similar, you can actually place a coin over the bite and hold pressure on it. That will also stop the poison from moving in side the body. Back in the old days, before anti-venom was widely available, in the hospitals they wouldn't give the patient anti-venom (because they didn't have any) they would just monitor the patient and make sure they didn't move much. As long as they have the pressure bandage on, the will survive , the poison breaks down over time.

The poison travels just under the skin, so if peeps here have to place a pressure bandage on, don't make it so tight as to cut the patients circulation off.

 

I though I would mention this because, people panic and run around with their heads cut off and they may end up having a accident rushing the person to hospital.

 

PS- If a person is really unlucky and a fang finds a vein and the poison enters the vein. Well its pretty much good night Irene.

 

 

[poteroo]

Sorry, but the idea that lack of a specific, invoiced charge for the aircraft cost for a service provided utilising your aircraft is highly unlikely to persuade CASA that the purpose of your flight was not commercial. Their position is, as far as I understand it, that if the flight was involved in a commercial operation, you are nicked.This principle is fairly well enshrined in law nowadays. You have, for instance, work insurance cover for travel to and from your principal place of work to a job, no matter whether you do it in your own vehicle or in a taxi for which you add the charges to the invoice.

 

However, once again, we are missing the essential point that I have been trying to make: the real value to every RAA member from some RAA-class operations being 'commercial' in definition is ultimately not a dollar return to the owner/pilot from providing the service, but from communities placing value on having RAA-class aircraft operating in their locale. What we need - I believe - is a sentiment in local communities that having RAA-class operations in their area is of value to them and thus supporting our very existence. If we are seen as oddities and of no practical value, we can expect no community support. Surely, it is in our interests to reverse that sentiment.

Oscar, I agree with you about a need to establish our worth in the eyes of Joe Public, but there are other battles with bureaucracy where we can employ logical argument with a chance of winning. Convincing the general public may be possible in certain localities, but in general, I think we're releasing waste liquid into wind.

 

Now, about the aerial work business,again. I'm sure that HiC has it correctly in the post above. Your tools-of-trade are quite different to tradable goods. The cost of the flying is taken by the ATO to be 'travel' and that's how I've invoiced it to clients for 35 years. I've checked with CASA on several occasions - sometimes during BFR's - and they have never thought it was remotely 'commercial'. I can't see how using an RAAus registered aircraft would be any different.

 

happy days,

 

 

[facthunter]

My thoughts go back to a period some time ago when I last visited this matter. I presume cost sharing for PPL pilots is still acceptable? I feel some challenge to the interpretation should be made. How one gets oneself to somewhere should be immaterial. Would carrying money in ones wallet to do some transactions or make a purchase at the destination be ruled out also as a tool of trade.? Convince me this is NOT all too stupid for words. Aviation is a world of arbitrary non-sensible rules, formed by out of touch beaurocrats, not sufficiently answerable to anyone. If you are not crazy when you get into aviation you will have to be to stay there.Nev