Are RAA pilots operating outside of the charter of RAA???

[bull]

Hello all, I have posted this thread after having a discussion with Don Ramsay about pilots using their RAA aircraft as a form of daily transport and to visit clients for work purposes etc,,,,Now after looking through all the cao,s and the RAA operations manual it would seem that anyone doing these activities with an aircraft registered and flown by RAA certificate holders are in breach of the RAA operation manual this is the first paragraph of our current ops manual outlaying the rules with which RAA pilots fly! now what is the definition of recreation ,,,To me , using your aircraft as a form of transport for work purposes is NOT RECREATION and is outside our ops manual, therefore illegal and this argument could also be used by insurance people to deny a claim etc,,,,,What is every bodys thoughts on this subject????This is the wording from our current ops manual,,,,flying for educational, RECREATIONAL,and research purposes only,,,,,flying to work and back can not BY A LONG SHOT BE DEEMED RECREATION CAN IT?? https://www.raa.asn.au/storage/5-om-71-august-2016-single-pages.pdf

 

 

[bull]

 

 

[Thruster88]

Good reason to keep your aircraft VH reg if you can. Plenty of doctors fly themselves to work in the remote parts.

 

 

[bull]

Good reason to keep your aircraft VH reg if you can. Plenty of doctors fly themselves to work in the remote parts.

Totally agree 88, and that is what GA is for,,,,,,,,NOT RECREATIONAL aviation, it is for RECREATION/FUN ETC not as a means of transport for work purposes.....

 

 

[Thruster88]

So an instructor can't fly their aircraft to a new location for work?

 

I am sure instructing is not recreational, educational or research orientated a lot of the time for the PIC.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Hello all, I have posted this thread after having a discussion with Don Ramsay about pilots using their RAA aircraft as a form of daily transport and to visit clients for work purposes etc,,,,Now after looking through all the cao,s and the RAA operations manual it would seem that anyone doing these activities with an aircraft registered and flown by RAA certificate holders are in breach of the RAA operation manual this is the first paragraph of our current ops manual outlaying the rules with which RAA pilots fly! now what is the definition of recreation ,,,To me , using your aircraft as a form of transport for work purposes is NOT RECREATION and is outside our ops manual, therefore illegal and this argument could also be used by insurance people to deny a claim etc,,,,,What is every bodys thoughts on this subject????This is the wording from our current ops manual,,,,flying for educational, RECREATIONAL,and research purposes only,,,,,flying to work and back can not BY A LONG SHOT BE DEEMED RECREATION CAN IT?? https://www.raa.asn.au/storage/5-om-71-august-2016-single-pages.pdf

CAR 206 defines commercial purposes and applies to RAAus operations. Based on this information there should be no reason you cannot use an RAAus aircraft for the purposes you have described.

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 206 Commercial purposes (Act, s 27(9))

 

 

[Blueadventures]

CAR 206 defines commercial purposes and applies to RAAus operations. Based on this information there should be no reason you cannot use an RAAus aircraft for the purposes you have described.CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 206 Commercial purposes (Act, s 27(9))

Agree. Bit like driving your private vehicle to work each day, raa plane should be judged same for similar use. Bulls comment would apply if doing a regular, payed (not share ) transport to work of a passenger in a RAA aircraft.

 

 

[spacesailor]

It Must be an "enjoyable" job, One instance:

 

Two RAA pilots, one a student, other an instructor, hired the club plane from Sydney to WA to do a job, enroute did passenger & cross-country endorsements.

 

They enjoyed their time away, and were payed for it.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[bull]

So an instructor can't fly their aircraft to a new location for work?I am sure instructing is not recreational, educational or research orientated a lot of the time for the PIC.

Instructors and schools have an exemption from the charter always have,i,m talking about the high end RAA flyers flying out to meet clients and the jetset boys flying the high speed sleek machines to work and back , ie ,,using the aircraft to achieve a financial gain

 

 

[bull]

CAR 206 defines commercial purposes and applies to RAAus operations. Based on this information there should be no reason you cannot use an RAAus aircraft for the purposes you have described.CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 206 Commercial purposes (Act, s 27(9))

But the RAA ops manual specificallystates , quote , for the purposes of educational, RECREATIONAL and research purposes,so raa has a different set of rules then GA as it always has had.

 

 

[bull]

Agree. Bit like driving your private vehicle to work each day, raa plane should be judged same for similar use. Bulls comment would apply if doing a regular, payed (not share ) transport to work of a passenger in a RAA aircraft.

Still not RECREATIONAL is it??

 

 

[red750]

They are being paid for the work they do or sales they make, not how they arrive there. They would earn the same whether they drove or took a train. Flying there is more ENJOYABLE than driving/travelling by train. That makes it recreational.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Flying there VFR is very unreliable, whether it's getting there of coming home, unless someone invents a method of controlling weather.

 

Ross Millard did it very well for quite a long time in Queensland, where you at least have good stability for several months of the year.

 

 

[aro]

RAA pilots are only allowed to fly for Private operations or training. Private operations are defined in CAR 2(7)(d), which includes "the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft".

 

I don't see "Recreational" included in any regulations, or an actual definition of "Recreational". "Recreational" was basically just a branding change from "Ultralight" anyway, not a basis for regulation.

 

The reference to the ops manual seems to refer to the purpose of RAA being to "encourage" recreational aviation, which is has no bearing on what is and is not allowed.

 

 

[old man emu]

comment would apply if doing a regular, payed (not share ) transport to work of a passenger in a RAA aircraft.

RAA pilots are only allowed to fly for Private operations or training. Private operations are defined in CAR 2(7)(d), which includes "the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft".

 

Hear that, Pauline?

 

 

One Nation plane was 'no donation', but James Ashby allowed to pilot it for campaign events

 

 

[turboplanner]

RAA pilots are only allowed to fly for Private operations or training. Private operations are defined in CAR 2(7)(d), which includes "the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft".Hear that, Pauline?

 

[ATTACH=full]62393[/ATTACH]

 

One Nation plane was 'no donation', but James Ashby allowed to pilot it for campaign events

That all seemed to tail off into nothing; was there an outcome?

 

 

[aro]

I'm far from a Pauline Hanson supporter, but CAR 2(7) also includes "the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made other than the carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft"

 

so maybe it would be legal if there was no payment for carrying her. Or under 2(7A) if she and Ashby shared the cost of the flight equally.

 

 

[facthunter]

Same as PVT operations. Private LICENCE. Not permitted to do COMMERCIAL operations. That is for "hire or reward" . Training is the one exception specifically referred to. Recreational was a cheeky generic "stolen" name when Middleton was about. More of a cunning marketing ploy than a restriction.

 

As turbo mentioned, the VFR limits any real usage on a regular basis of it for regular transport to and from work.. How you get to work is not your employers responsibility and to a fixed location is not tax deductible either.. You might have an argument if you are "on CalL" outside regular transport hours or at short notice. Nev.

 

 

[aro]

Private LICENCE. Not permitted to do COMMERCIAL operations

Actually you are not permitted to do operations that are not Private Operations. It doesn't say anything about Commercial Operations. There is a general assumption that anything that is not Private is Commercial, and anything that is not Commercial is Private, but that causes problems in various areas. Particularly where you try to use CAR 206 to define Commercial and CAR 2(7) to define Private. There are areas of overlap, and probably areas that are not included by either.

 

 

[frank marriott]

The definition of private operations is quite clear IMO. Amongst some other conditions it clearly states

 

(V)

 

1. The carriage of persons without charge for the carriage

 

2. The carriage of goods being the property of the pilot, owner or the hirer of the aircraft

 

3. NOT the carriage of goods for the purpose of trade

 

Political opinions are best expressed on the sister site if that is ones desire

 

 

[facthunter]

It's easier to regard for" hire or reward" as the determinant. That's the way it's been interpreted, broadly speaking over a long time.. You get contentious areas like carrying tools taking pictures etc popping up now and again.

 

You would have to have a particularly inclusive and finite list of what's PRIVATE before you could workout what's NOT private.

 

Good on you if you think that's possible. You don't have a NOT Private licence., You have a Commercial Licence to sell your services as a Pilot. If you are making money out of it, It's a business using you and/or the plane for REWARD.. If you profit on the sale of a plane that's by the by. If you sell planes as a business you are trading in planes which perhaps needs no pilot aspects if you don't charge to ferry it, but you are bound by tax rules as a trader. If you fly and demonstrate to sell that might attract some attention., but you'd probably get around it as you are not charging the prospective customers for the ride.(s).. You might get asked to aid in a search for which your costs may/should be recoverable.. That would seem to be reasonable.. Nev

 

 

[aro]

The definition of private operations is quite clear IMO. Amongst some other conditions it clearly states(V) 1. The carriage of persons without charge for the carriage

2. The carriage of goods being the property of the pilot, owner or the hirer of the aircraft

 

3. NOT the carriage of goods for the purpose of trade

I think you are breaking the rule down incorrectly.

 

You are not allowed to charge to carry goods.

 

You are allowed to carry goods for free, unless they are the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft and you are transporting them with the intent of selling them.

 

i.e. you can't run an airfreight business where you purchase stock, transport it and sell it as a private operation.

 

You are allowed to carry someone else's trade goods for free - just not for hire or reward. The assumption is that that you would not make a business of that.

 

 

[aro]

It's easier to regard for" hire or reward" as the determinant.

Easier maybe, but wrong.

 

That's the way it's been interpreted, broadly speaking over a long time.

That's why people get so confused around this - they use an interpretation which is definitely not what the regulations say then try to selectively pick bits of the regulations and patch them together to support their interpretation.

 

Why don't we work of what the regulations actually say?

 

 

[frank marriott]

I think you are breaking the rule down incorrectly.You are not allowed to charge to carry goods.

You are allowed to carry goods for free, unless they are the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft and you are transporting them with the intent of selling them.

 

i.e. you can't run an airfreight business where you purchase stock, transport it and sell it as a private operation.

 

You are allowed to carry someone else's trade goods for free - just not for hire or reward. The assumption is that that you would not make a business of that.

It is quite straight forward if you look at it from the “intent” of the legislation IMO.

 

You and I see it differently, so be it, I don’t intend to debate the issue.

 

 

[aro]

You would have to have a particularly inclusive and finite list of what's PRIVATE before you could workout what's NOT private.Good on you if you think that's possible. You don't have a NOT Private licence., You have a Commercial Licence to sell your services as a Pilot.

To elaborate further, that's exactly how the regulations are written.

 

61.505 Privileges of private pilot licences

 

Subject to Subpart 61.E and regulation 61.510, the holder of a private pilot licence is authorised to pilot an aircraft as pilot in command or co‑pilot if:

 

(a) the aircraft is engaged in a private operation; or

 

(b) the holder is receiving flight training.

 

"private operations" are defined in CAR 2(7)(d). If it's not there, you are not allowed to do it on a private license. If it is there, you are.

 

61.570 Privileges of commercial pilot licences

 

Subject to Subpart 61.E and regulation 61.575, the holder of a commercial pilot licence is authorised:

 

(a) to pilot, as pilot in command, any aircraft in any operation, other than:

 

(operations requiring an ATPL)

 

It says nothing about selling your services. For a commercial pilot license, the privileges are "any operation". For a private license, it is "a private operation".