Aircraft and tax

[Oscar]

I believe that this is a fairly serious issue, and not one where the - entirely reasonable, in my opinion - arguments that 'commonsense' says the more extreme situations envisaged SHOULD not happen. I am in no way deprecating Nobody's comments; he is entirely correct in his interpretation of the situation on the assumption that CASA actually applies 'commonsense' in its actions. I think we have some reason to accept that this is the usual case: e.g. ramp checks at the most recent Ausflys, for example. But there are also many examples of where this is patently NOT the case.

 

However, as any road user knows, where there is ambiguity / 'looseness' in the legislation, there is room for outright bastardy on the part of those low-level minions of the Authority. Motorcyclists will know the extent of that when they are subject to allegedly random' 'licence checks' when riding as a peaceable group to e.g. a social rallye. Roadside speed cameras set up at the bottom of hills so far beyond the back of civilisation that even the rabbits wear akubras.

 

As a group classified as 'Recreational', I suggest that RAA aircraft owner/operators and RPC holders have more stringent conditions applied to their training and regulation, the ongoing quality of their 'apparatus' and restrictions on the operation on that 'apparatus', than (for example) either non-commercial motor vehicle owners/operators or maritime craft owner/operators. As an owner/operator of all three types of 'apparatus' over a number of years, I believe I am in a position to say this with a degree of certainty.

 

We fly in (mostly) aircraft that have entirely competent credentials to undertake regular flying - within their allowable operational regime - with a high degree of reliability. LSA-compliant aircraft are NOT plastic chairs suspended by Hills Hoists with lawnmower engines strapped on. A J230D, for example, will perform with a load within its MTOW restrictions, as well as a C172 with the back seats stripped out - at about 1/3rd the cost ( and by statistics, better than equivalent safety!)

 

The PRINCIPLE at stake here, is: what is the safety issue? Because, CASA's role is NOT to intervene in commerce, but to act to improve safety.

 

If I fly my (hypothetical) J230 into Tyagarah with 50 kgs of Joss Sticks aboard for sale at the BB music festival, I am in clear breach of CASR 206. If - on the same day - I flew my (hypothetical) J230 in with 50 kgs of rubber dinghy and outboard, fishing gear and camping equipment for my own use on my fishing holiday - no worries.

 

Now - in the case that the flight ( whichever one) was done in complete observance with applicable regulations: WHERE IS THE SAFETY ISSUE WITH THE FIRST EXAMPLE VS THE SECOND EXAMPLE.?

 

What happens with my cargo post landing, is completely incidental to whether the flight was undertaken with complete compliance with every regulation applicable to the aircraft and my current competency.

 

 

It is not just ludicrous, but in fact contrary to CASA's enabling Act, that there may be a profitable (or potentially profitable) commercial eventuality of a cargo in the aircraft if there is no demonstrable safety issue.