Aerial Work

[djpacro]

Time to ask CASA. Firstly, you may find that the govt uses this definition

 

"goods" means movable personal property of any kind and

. Secondly, it may not be only the trading of those goods. A purpose of trade can be the services provided such as Vet or professional engineering. i.e. the goods are carried for the purpose of a trade. I wonder if this interpretation came from CPL ground theory - I haven't had this come up myself recently but I get questions like this when I do a flight review.

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Time to ask CASA. Firstly, you may find that the govt uses this definition. Secondly, it may not be only the trading of those goods. A purpose of trade can be the services provided such as Vet or professional engineering. i.e. the goods are carried for the purpose of a trade. I wonder if this interpretation came from CPL ground theory - I haven't had this come up myself recently but I get questions like this when I do a flight review.

It sounds to me like a question to be answered from legal precedent. To my understanding, there is at least one successful prosecution under CAR 206 (i)(viii) against an electrical contractor who carried his toolbox. I consider the regulation needs to be challenged.

 

 

[Oscar]

There is obviously a great deal of legal definition that needs to be sorted - and certainly, with some clarification might come avenues for RAA to pursue in regard to a broader acceptance of the role that RAA operations can play...

 

However, that isn't answering my basic question: do members want RAA to move to try to embrace more commercial activities of potential value to the community (and utilise any leverage gained thereby for the benefit of members), or should it focus very tightly on only activities that are self-evidently purely 'recreational' and try to simplify life for members within that sphere?

 

 

[biggles5128]

To me the regs are crystal clear, but in saying that I have always wondered why you needed a CPL to take a bloke up so he can take a few pictures but you can throw people out of your aircraft with only a PPL.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

This is insane.... To me its logical and sensible to always have a basic tool kit in my aircraft. Thats ok for me now as a commercial manager so those tools arent tools of my trade.... But a mechanic couldnt take the same sensible tools with him?

 

Also while i now work as a commercial manager my trade(as a result of one set of tertiary qualifications) is actually aircraft avionics specifically radio/radar so if i carry a handheld radio? What then.....

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Oscar they used to have an out for this called a Mercy Flight.

 

 

[AVOCET]

What about all the aircraft that fly to NATFLY , Ausfly , Avalon ect to set up trade stands and sell goods that they've carried there in their a/c , like hats , stickers , posters ect ect .

 

This has been going on for years and as far as I know , nobody's ever been challenged ,

 

I'm sure their are lots of examples of this happening every day .

 

Cheers Mike

 

 

[M61A1]

There is obviously a great deal of legal definition that needs to be sorted - and certainly, with some clarification might come avenues for RAA to pursue in regard to a broader acceptance of the role that RAA operations can play...However, that isn't answering my basic question: do members want RAA to move to try to embrace more commercial activities of potential value to the community (and utilise any leverage gained thereby for the benefit of members), or should it focus very tightly on only activities that are self-evidently purely 'recreational' and try to simplify life for members within that sphere?

Speaking for myself only, I think RAA should stick recreational flying. We've got enough issues without adding any further complexity.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Yes, it's insane; yes, it's being flouted every day; yes there will be FOIs out there trying to get runs on the board in the form of prosecutions. AOPA have been pursuing this issue of CAR 206 for decades; it was also a major issue raised in the Review of Regulations 1996 (which is still ongoing, after a fashion). Yes, it's contrary to Parliamentary policy as defined by Anderson's 2nd reading speech in 1998. No, it's not being fixed.

 

Why?

 

Oscar asks, do people want to be able to change the community perception of "recreational aircraft" from being "toys of those Rich Bastards", to being an asset to the community.

 

It's a good question; there are parts of the country where I would not want to tie a shiny two-seat aeroplane down overnight. Airfields are being closed because the community attitude is anti private aviation. The community no longer regards flying ultralights as "Those magnificent men in their flying machines"; i.e. it's not seen as a few harmless idiots allowing themselves to float around on what amounts to a powered clothes-hoist - people regard that sort of thing with mild amusement, not jealous resentment.

 

However, recreational aircraft nowadays look to the the man-in-the-street more like expensive sports cars, and in a society where there the owning of such a thing is way beyond the average means, that sort of toy gets scratches in its paintwork, or worse. Back in 1984, my 17 year old (and hardly shiny) Cherokee 140 - which I used as a business tool - missed getting burned at Hoxton Park by some disgruntled youths from the Green Valley ghetto (outside Liverpool, Sydney) only because the conflagration of the aircraft tied down alongside it attracted attention that chased them off (I got off with a stove-in door).

 

The answer is, I think, that a bunch of affordable little aeroplanes at the local airfield could and would perform various small services to the community - for example, letting the local volunteer fire brigade chief get a rapid look at that fire starting in the hills, or helping the local Bank manager to assess a property for a loan, as well as any number of emergency uses - but for the fact that those activities are classified as "commercial" by CAR 206(i). The whole Australian attitude to private aircraft has been soured by this regulation; and we complain at the average Australian being about as air-minded as an earthworm - but the reason is, to a large degree, CAR 206(i).

 

Also, it does not help that the name of both the organisation and the aircraft category starts with the word "recreational". The homebuilt ones may justify that term; but a Jab 230 is not a toy; it's a tool, and should be seen as such. The whole philosophy is asking for trouble from the broader community, in the long term. The head-in-the-sand attitude in the preceding post may be realistic in view of the current chaos within RAA, but it's something we cannot afford in the longer term.

 

 

[Oscar]

Speaking for myself only, I think RAA should stick recreational flying. We've got enough issues without adding any further complexity.

OK, we have one vote for 'purely recreational'. That's at least a start, folks, of trying to give the new Board an indication of what the members would like to see in terms of strategic direction for RAA - which I think is surely important.

 

Of course, the definition of what is 'simple' is not of itself, simple. We live in a world of trade-offs, and though I am absolutely no expert about this, it seems to me that we have been trading off from a base of 'I can build it and fly it and it's nobody else's business as long as nobody else is involved/affected' pretty much from the start of the AUF in return for greater capability, safety, airspace access etc. So, in reality, the idea of 'simple' becomes a question of how much complexity is one prepared to tolerate in return for what combination of capabilities etc. one wants.

 

That trade-off situation is of course endemic in our society: you can still build a billycart and run it down a hill inside your property ( I think!) without having anybody interfere - a pretty simple situation. However, if you want the ability to (legally) use the public road to go to the shops and back, there is immediately a stack of hurdles you have to overcome: licence, registration etc. In most places, you can't even ride a bicycle on the public roads unless you are wearing an approved helmet.

 

Our aircraft are basically fairly simple, reasonably minimum devices, but there are a host of 'complications' attached to them: standards to be met, maintenance requirements, equipment requirements, 'licence' requirements, operational limitations etc. I would doubt that there is anybody who does not have some 'complication' that is either or all of: 'incomprehensible in the reason for its existence', 'expensive', or 'bloody useless and unnecessary' that they can think of - and that is not to say that such thoughts are incorrect.

 

So, in respect of the 'purely recreational' vs. 'recreational-plus' idea, I suspect it comes down to what do we want to be able to do and how much are we willing to pay - in terms of 'complication' for that set of conditions? I am of the opinion that the 'plus' of more access to a set of commercial-use possibilities that can be demonstrated to be 'reasonable' for our class of aircraft (certainly the 'high-end' ones, the Jabs, Technams, Foxbats etc. - pick your favourite) may in fact not add a great deal of complication beyond what already exists. Is that something we'd at least like to see RAA investigate and move towards provided it is a reasonable aspiration? There's obviously no point in creating a new set of complications that the aircraft we can buy / build / operate cannot reasonably meet.

 

As an additional thought: it might well be that with the development of better administrative support systems - and RAA's systems are currently way below 'best practice' as I think we all recognise - any additional complications may not be as onerous as people may think. It is highly unlikely that any additional capability granted to us will come at NO cost, but it just could be that we can get a distance ahead for incremental rather than exponential additional cost/complication. It's the old cost/benefit equation.

 

So I personally vote (as it were) for at the very least, investigation by the new Board of what might be possible and at what 'cost'. First things first, of course, and first is for RAA to get its current house in order. However, I believe that development of the RAA milieu is preferable to retreat to an earlier, 'simpler' time (if indeed such retreat is even possible.)

 

 

[facthunter]

All good discussion, but at a time when our very basic functions are being questioned and threatened should we concentrate on getting the show on the road first? GA has the same problem and AOPA are the people to advance these sorts of things. RAAus is the enforcer (as the deputy of CASA) and when it's head is down is not the time it will be inclined to advocate new fields to further complicate a SAFETY management process that has a certain priority at the moment. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

Yes, it's insane; yes, it's being flouted every day; yes there will be FOIs out there trying to get runs on the board in the form of prosecutions. AOPA have been pursuing this issue of CAR 206 for decades; it was also a major issue raised in the Review of Regulations 1996 (which is still ongoing, after a fashion). Yes, it's contrary to Parliamentary policy as defined by Anderson's 2nd reading speech in 1998. No, it's not being fixed.Why?

 

Oscar asks, do people want to be able to change the community perception of "recreational aircraft" from being "toys of those Rich Bastards", to being an asset to the community.

 

It's a good question; there are parts of the country where I would not want to tie a shiny two-seat aeroplane down overnight. Airfields are being closed because the community attitude is anti private aviation. The community no longer regards flying ultralights as "Those magnificent men in their flying machines"; i.e. it's not seen as a few harmless idiots allowing themselves to float around on what amounts to a powered clothes-hoist - people regard that sort of thing with mild amusement, not jealous resentment.

 

However, recreational aircraft nowadays look to the the man-in-the-street more like expensive sports cars, and in a society where there the owning of such a thing is way beyond the average means, that sort of toy gets scratches in its paintwork, or worse. Back in 1984, my 17 year old (and hardly shiny) Cherokee 140 - which I used as a business tool - missed getting burned at Hoxton Park by some disgruntled youths from the Green Valley ghetto (outside Liverpool, Sydney) only because the conflagration of the aircraft tied down alongside it attracted attention that chased them off (I got off with a stove-in door).

 

The answer is, I think, that a bunch of affordable little aeroplanes at the local airfield could and would perform various small services to the community - for example, letting the local volunteer fire brigade chief get a rapid look at that fire starting in the hills, or helping the local Bank manager to assess a property for a loan, as well as any number of emergency uses - but for the fact that those activities are classified as "commercial" by CAR 206(i). The whole Australian attitude to private aircraft has been soured by this regulation; and we complain at the average Australian being about as air-minded as an earthworm - but the reason is, to a large degree, CAR 206(i).

 

Also, it does not help that the name of both the organisation and the aircraft category starts with the word "recreational". The homebuilt ones may justify that term; but a Jab 230 is not a toy; it's a tool, and should be seen as such. The whole philosophy is asking for trouble from the broader community, in the long term. The head-in-the-sand attitude in the preceding post may be realistic in view of the current chaos within RAA, but it's something we cannot afford in the longer term.

I agree completely that the way in which authorities in this country are compelled to enforce the letter of the law rather than the spirit in which it was made, is utterly ridiculous. I have no issue with using your aircraft to do what you want with, but, unfortunately (or fortunately perhaps), when you start to use it to earn some money and are risking other peoples lives and/or property (and I think this should be the key criteria) in doing so, there will be more boxes to tick and certifications to apply. I struggle to afford the lower end of aviation along with many others, but I am very happy with what I have. The Jab 230 could certainly be used as a tool, as many Drifters are, but that doesn't mean it can't be used as a toy.In short, yes I think the regs are stupid, and should be rewritten appropriately, in a manner that cannot be misconstrued, but recreational aviation is just that, and was never meant to earn a living.

 

 

[AVOCET]

So if i'm reading this right , this means I carnt load my motor scooter in the back of the avocet and have ground transport upon arrival ??

 

Or as far as " goods "are concerned it would seem that nothing at all can be carried in a rec aircraft , not even an Ersa or mobile phone?

 

I'm a bit confused !

 

Cheers

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

So if i'm reading this right , this means I carnt load my motor scooter in the back of the avocet and have ground transport upon arrival ??Or as far as " goods "are concerned it would seem that nothing at all can be carried in a rec aircraft , not even an Ersa or mobile phone?

I'm a bit confused !

 

Cheers

Would you be carrying it for the purpose of trade - i.e. to sell it or to assist you in earning your living? As I understand it, if you use it to visit your auntie or whatever, that's OK, but if you use it to get you to a client's premises, it's not. CASA is the Civil Aviation Safety Authority - it's mandate is aviation safety. How is carrying something safe if it's not used for a trade purpose, but not if it is?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I agree completely that the way in which authorities in this country are compelled to enforce the letter of the law rather than the spirit in which it was made, is utterly ridiculous. I have no issue with using your aircraft to do what you want with, but, unfortunately (or fortunately perhaps), when you start to use it to earn some money and are risking other peoples lives and/or property (and I think this should be the key criteria) in doing so, there will be more boxes to tick and certifications to apply. I struggle to afford the lower end of aviation along with many others, but I am very happy with what I have. The Jab 230 could certainly be used as a tool, as many Drifters are, but that doesn't mean it can't be used as a toy.In short, yes I think the regs are stupid, and should be rewritten appropriately, in a manner that cannot be misconstrued, but recreational aviation is just that, and was never meant to earn a living.

Well, that's clear enough. But how is carrying a toolbox or a lap-top, endangering other people's lives? And yes, you can use a Boeing 747 as a toy, if you can afford it.

 

 

[metalman]

wouldn't it be interesting to take an ultralighter from the mid /late eighties and time travel them to today and show them this thread ,,,,I'm sure he'd say "why would you want to do that with an ultralight, they're just for fun aren't they! "

 

I would like to see RAA get the stuff we are allowed to do right before we start trying to stretch the rules to do stuff we shouldn't. At what point is it considered enough, "I want to take a lap top with me to earn a quid while I'm tootleling around the country,,hard to get pinged for that,,,next bloke wants to take his tools and materials to a job,,,,someone else wants to earn a bit on the side by taking the locals up to photograph their houses from the air,,,,all very minor but the regs that we have are there for a reason, if you want to make money from your aircraft then the public has the expectation that you will be a professional pilot ,trained to a higher standard and subject to more stringent checks and balances, now each little transgression on it's own isn't that great but a line has to be drawn somewhere ,and it's a lot clearer to simply say no to commercial usage rather than have a huge list of little things that are allowed , having said that CASA doesn't get it right every time but we have to have some sort of regulations or end up with people dying ,and that is the bottom line with our "sport" ,and another thing, if you were to kill or injure the public while giving cheeky little joyflights how long before the regulator says"no more".

 

 

[facthunter]

You can take up "persons" now. One at a time. they might even be able to help with the fuel. The issue is about payment to the extent of making a profit. (as it should be. that is what commercial means).

 

Can one purchase some parts at Natfly and carry them home? or buy some food and water? and eat it somewhere else"? or take some bits to swap with someone? I don't know, but from what I am hearing , there could be a problem. All you fella's who reckon a ramp check is nothing to worry about, but we aren't even sure of all this.? The word for it is bovine excrement. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

Well, that's clear enough. But how is carrying a toolbox or a lap-top, endangering other people's lives? And yes, you can use a Boeing 747 as a toy, if you can afford it.

It's not, I doubt that was the intent of the law, but I do I think that the way it's enforced is ridiculous. I fix aeroplanes for a living.... does that mean I can't carry a basic tool kit?

I think that's a double standard, I'm not allowed to claim vehicle costs for driving my vehicle to work, even if it carries my tools.

 

 

[AVOCET]

What about all the folk who claim their travel & their plane u/l against their tax

 

IE ,aircraft manufacturers going to airshows , doing demo flights

 

I was always under the impression as per Raa acknowledgment that you could ,as a self employed person , just like flying schools

 

I also know folk who enquired to their accountants before they built or bourght aircraft ,

 

& got the ok .

 

Unless aircraft are 95-10 there not really ultralights , are they

 

Cheers Mike

 

 

[facthunter]

If you purchase a plane( U/L) and crosshire it, it's like any other business that seeks to make a profit. Your earnings on one side and costs on the other. It's how you operate it that counts. 24 or 19 etc. It would seem that training is about all you can do with it.

 

The taxman would have to be convinced that the travel was go somewhere to earn income, (other than the one place you regularly work at) but private vehicle costs are allowed in certain situations. If you chose to use a plane for similar purposes it could be deductible and the same essentially. You should be able to use a skyhook or magic carpet if it will do the job. That is the TAXMAN.

 

The Authority Regulating Skyhooks Everyway (or Balloons) may have control over the other. Nev

 

 

[AVOCET]

I guess the next question is how can the taxman condone an activity that's deemed illegal by casa , another gov . department ?

 

When push comes to shove .

 

And since when is the taxman allowed to knowingly tax illegal activity?

 

Still confused Mike.

 

 

[jetjr]

Theres a difference in travelling somewhere to earn income

 

And

 

Earning income from the travel process.

 

From an employers point of view and long distance comute, a Jabiru 230 + wages cost the same as car + wages and theres a 50% time savings as well as fatigue benefit.(a really big deal under WHS policies)

 

Employee claims the same costs either way. Reimbursement should be OK but making money from aircraft is not

 

 

[facthunter]

In principle, the Taxman is happy to allow the bank robber the cost of his dynamite and gemmy as long as he declares his income fully. The same for the SP better.(bettor?) Nev

 

 

[frank marriott]

My view is that if you wish to venture into the commercial world, do a CPL (it's not difficult ) Rec Flying should be left at just that. To venture into "rewards" will not come without costs, better left alone, especially at the present time or we could all end up losers.

 

 

[Oscar]

It's not, I doubt that was the intent of the law, but I do I think that the way it's enforced is ridiculous. I fix aeroplanes for a living.... does that mean I can't carry a basic tool kit?I think that's a double standard, I'm not allowed to claim vehicle costs for driving my vehicle to work, even if it carries my tools.

From what I understand - and I don't claim to be any sort of guru here - if you use your RAA-reg. aircraft just to GO to a job, even if you don't carry so much as a Swiss Army knife - you have used it for a 'commercial purpose'. Presumably, coming home isn't a 'commercial purpose' - unless, perhaps, you return to your home airfield and then also do a paying job before actually going home.

 

This is where it all gets silly, I feel. I want to be able, in the future when it's back in the air, to be able to do trips in my wee, simple, cheap but capable Jab. that have, in some small way, a 'commercial purpose'. I don't want to be a commercial gun for hire, and despite CASA's apparent interpretation that because there is a 'commercial purpose' for my flight I might be inclined to become a task-driven homicidal/suicidal maniac, I'm not going to breach any condition of the operational limits to do any such flights.

 

I also don't want to suddenly find out that my insurance cover is void because I have used the aircraft for a purpose other than 'recreational' aviation, as defined and limited.

 

So - the upshot of all of that is: if I want to be able to do the odd 'commercial' flight, such as delivering a part I have manufactured to a customer and installing it in her/his aircraft, even if it's just a damn cup-holder weighing 50 grammes that needs to be screwed to the door and signed off by an L2, I may have to consider putting the old girl back in VH-reg and taking out at the least an RPL I'm damned if I can see what qualitative difference there will be to my, or the general public's, safety resulting from that change - but I'd have to amortise the extra costs of operating a VH-reg aircraft vs. a self-maintained RAA-reg aircraft on the cost of that cup-holder. And the cup-holder will be almost certainly be screwed into an RAA aircraft identical in almost every respect to my own but with a different set of letters/numbers on it.

 

In principle, the Taxman is happy to allow the bank robber the cost of his dynamite and gemmy as long as he declares his income fully. The same for the SP better.(bettor?) Nev

Al Capone was jailed for tax evasion. A prostitute can claim 'expenses' as long as she/he is determined to have properly declared all income and properly have claimed allowable 'expenses'. What the ATO decides is allowable has NO reflection on the legality of the source of the income / expenses - as long as they're justified by the ATO rules. An ATO decision on your income/outgo bottom-line position has NO relevance on a CASA decision on a breach/non breach of the safety regulations for which they are responsible. You can fly Jack the Ripper to and fro - as long as you do it within the rules.