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

[spacesailor]

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

 

Because the Bureaucrat's have made it to be so hard, you will, have to employ legal "experts" to solve the dilemma of LAWYER-SPEAK.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[aro]

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

Where did you find the information about the "intent" of the legislation? My experience is that different people infer different intents depending on what they would like it to mean. It is better to read what the legislation actually says.

 

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

I think that you can fly for work, so long as your customers/boss don't care how you turned up. Disclaimer: opinion, but no knowledge.

 

 

[facthunter]

I tend to look for the" principle "behind the rule to understand what will apply and generally that will give you an idea that you must enquire further if your ops are at the fringe, or unusual. It's essential to get any opinion you go on in print.

 

.. When the rules are written properly they stick to basic principles. Sometimes exemptions are promulgated for a peculiar situation that may apply for a limited period. and even to a specific operator. That will and should be able to happen The CASR's are very legalese and even the experts differ as to their precise meanings. IF you get pinged it's the LAW that they will hang you on and it's "strict Liability".. The "authority" has the duty to make the rules clear and unambiguous. VFG and such should be the working documents pilots use, not CASR's . Ignorance of a rule or law is not an excuse, but they have a duty to make it as clear as possible. Confusion in Aviation doesn't work well.. Nev

 

 

[aro]

I tend to look for the" principle "behind the rule to understand what will apply and generally that will give you an idea

Most of the confusion comes from people looking for "the principle" or "the intent" and then trying to find a way to interpret the rules to fit their own preconceptions.

 

(Incidentally, that is often how lawyers operate. The client wants to do X, so the lawyer comes up with a creative interpretation that would make it legal. Then perhaps you go to court and the court rules on the lawyer's interpretation. Life tends to be simpler if you follow the regulations as written.)

 

VFG and such should be the working documents pilots use, not CASR's

Care to guess what information the VFRG includes regarding "Classification of operations"?

 

 

[facthunter]

You and I approach this from an entirely different angle.. Obviously what I write, to you means nothing (I doubt you even read it carefully) but I can guarantee I've been involved with this sort of thing much longer than you have.. I don't GUESS anything. IF it's important to my operation I make sure I'm covered. and I don't go on opinions. A principle is not a preconception.. If CASA had an intent/purpose expressed about each rule it would be clearer what they are trying to do. and what it's purpose exactly is.. IF you have no trouble with any of this you have a rare talent because even airline operators and their ( CASA's) OWN people have trouble knowing precisely what it means, from time to time, and they have actually been WRONG quite a few times. Nev

 

 

[aro]

I do carefully read what you write. The problem is that if you and I have different beliefs about the principle behind a regulation, how is that resolved? The principles behind each clause are not documented - we only have the regulations to work with.

 

Commercial operators have problems in large part because they engage lawyers who come up with an interpretation to match what the operator wants (and mostly they want to reduce costs and avoid complying with inconvenient regulations).

 

CASA also appear to frequently disregard the text of the regulations and instead work off an individual's opinion of what should or should not be allowed.

 

As I have said before, in the end the only thing that matters is CASA's opinion, unless you are prepared to fight in court. However what we don't need is to make up additional rules, like RAA registered aircraft can only be used for Recreational Purposes.

 

 

[facthunter]

As has been said, Recreational Is a name chosen to cover a section of the aviation activity the Old AUF wanted to expand it's influence over. It's more a generic or trendy term than a scientific or strictly descriptive one... Compliance "Out There" is by the medium of an Air Operator Certificate and Approved Flight Manuals and other "observations" including sometimes acting as crew.. Not a happy arrangement, always.

 

I've never seen an operator engage Lawyers to revise interpretations. Aviation LAW is a rather specialized occupation. I don't think that would be very productive and mostly they lie low so as not to attract attention.. The manufacturer and the operators generally have much more knowledge than the "Authority" about the operation of a particular type. They might press to have airspace changes made to fit in with a particular plane's performance etc but that's what one would see as normal. These days they regard the airlines as "self regulating' pretty much and it's only if some whistle blower or an incident springs to light that the excrement hits the fan..

 

Everybody is entitled to challenge the "OPINION" of the CASA and AOPA frequently do. They CASA are quick to inform you they have deeper pockets than you do, since it's taxpayers money. and virtually unlimited.

 

There have been many enquiries into the operation of the Authority and they have been universally critical, but nothing changes. Why you have absolute faith in them and suggest that's good enough has me wondering WHY? There's plenty out there and people who know there are problems to fix.. We DO have to work with what we have but that's not where it should stop. Nev

 

 

[aro]

I don't have absolute faith in CASA - quite the opposite.

 

I am saying that CASA do not always act according to the regulations, but if CASA say you must do X then (in practice) you must do X even if the regulations say something different - unless you want to take them on in court, which as you point out might not be a good idea.

 

I am saying that (CASA permitting) we should be operating according to the regulations as written, not as interpreted according to unwritten principles behind them handed down through folklore.

 

 

[kasper]

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".

Unfortunately if you are flying an RAAus registeed aircraft on an RAAus pilots certificate you are not within 61.505 as it is not a private pilots licence. I love wandering through the regs and the CAOs and even the Ops and Tech Manuals but 'm at work so I'll wander through them later and post again.

One thing that RAAus staff AND RAAus pilots need to appreciate is that the Ops Manual and Tech Manual are not only subservient to the CAOs and Regs BUT as they obtain their authority through the CAO and Regs they cannot bind the member as a breach of the CAO and Regs if they cover areas that are not within the CAOs ... there are large swaths of the Tech Manual that are at best an admin requirement for RAAus members with the ONLY potential penalty being an RAAus action against the member for breach of the Tech Manual and no possibility of CASA or anyone else coming at you as you may well have completely complied with the Regs and CAOs ... and it would be anyones guess what an insurer would try and make of a situation where there is non-compliance with non-CAO enabled parts of the RAAus Tech and Ops manuals ...

 

 

[turboplanner]

and it would be anyones guess what an insurer would try and make of a situation where there is non-compliance with non-CAO enabled parts of the RAAus Tech and Ops manuals ...

I think it would have the status of an Industry Benchmark; we're talking about something stricter than a CAO or CASA Reg.

What I would expect to happen is if you were complying with the benchmark, that would be advantageous should someone decide to sue you after an accident, but if you were not meeting the benchmark, the insurance company may have grounds to walk away if the policy specifies a requirement to comply with all RAA rules.

 

I'd agree with you on the CASA CAO and Regs separation from RAA Ops Manual and Tech Manual.

 

There's nothing unusual in this except RAA still doesn't seem to realise it is self administering, and should have a compliance and enforcement structure to address this.

 

With that in place, RAA administers non-compliance with the Ops Manual and Tech Manual, and if you happen to be operating within CASA's jurisdiction covered by CAOS and CASA Regulations, CASA will deal with any non-compliance.

 

It's a lot simpler than people have been saying, and better to just go to the regulations and read them than float a Dorothy Dixer.

 

 

[rhtrudder]

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.

Where does this leave farmers mustering cattle on their own farm using raa certificate and rego aircraft, I know of a lot that do just that, also claiming some tax benefits on running costs and depreciation, sounds like it maybe all illegal

 

 

[SSCBD]

So what about aircraft agents selling aircraft, flying to airshows or to show to a buyer?

 

Also when they are delivering aircraft?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

from We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph

 

Hanson plane probe nets $200k disclosure

 

An investigation into a property developer's donation of an aircraft to Pauline Hanson's One Nation has uncovered almost $200,000 in previously undeclared money and services.

 

The last piece of the puzzle is an ongoing federal prosecution of a company linked to Senator Hanson's chief of staff James Ashby over an alleged failure to comply with the Australian Electoral Commission's request for information.

 

Apart from the prosecution, AEC commissioner Tom Rogers said the One Nation investigation was "substantially finished".

 

Asked by Labor senator Murray Watt why the AEC did not take tougher action over the scandal, Mr Rogers said: "We've got a long-standing practice of accepting amended returns at any point."

 

"From time to time we get amended returns that go back a considerable period, but the key thing for us is disclosure," he said.

 

"From my perspective that is a reasonable result."

 

A Jabiru aircraft was bought and registered to Mr Ashby in June 2015, two months after Victorian property developer Bill McNee discussed the idea with the him and the One Nation leader, Senator Hanson.

 

Last year, Senator Hanson confirmed Mr McNee had "got the plane for James Ashby" and it did not go through the party office as a donation.

 

However, a series of public disclosures have now been made.

 

In March the AEC register was updated for 2015/16 to declare, under the heading "James Ashby", 243 flight hours in the Jabiru at a price of $125 an hour, not including fuel costs.

 

Mr McNee's Vicland group also lodged an amended donor return for 2014/15 in relation to two donations made to Pauline Hanson's One Nation totalling $57,720, relating to rent for a party office.

 

A further Vicland update for 2015/16 disclosed an amount of $98,175, which AEC chief legal officer Paul Pirani described as "approximately the cost of the Jabiru aircraft".

 

Mr Ashby still faces a possible fine of $1000 if the prosecution is successful.

 

He is also understood to be under investigation by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for allegedly flying the plane without the correct pilot's licence.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

from Nocookies

 

Senate Estimates: $1000 fine for James Ashby if prosecuted over plane donation

 

 

James Ashby. Picture: Annette Dew

 

Pauline Hanson’s chief of staff James Ashby will face a maximum penalty of just $1000 if a prosecution being pursued by the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions over his failure to disclose the donation of a plane worth almost $100,000 succeeds.

 

During a Senate Estimates hearing on Tuesday night, the Australian Electoral Commission confirmed it had referred the prosecution of a company owned by Mr Ashby to the CDPP.

 

The prosecution relates to One Nation’s use of a light plane during the 2016 election campaign, and was first revealed in The Australianin August.

 

Asked by Queensland Labor senator Murray Watt what penalty Mr Ashby would face if ultimately prosecuted, AEC chief legal office Paul Pirani said: “It is a small penalty, Senator,” conceding the maximum fine was just $1000.

 

Australian Electoral Commissioner Tom Rogers confirmed that Victorian property developer Bill McNee’s company VicLand had amended its disclosure to the AEC to the tune of more than $155,000 to account for the cost of the plane, and two payments it made in rent for the party’s office.

 

One Nation itself has also lodged an amended return for $30,375, which included a calculation of the cost of hiring the Jabiru J230 plane which featured the party’s logo.

 

Senator Hanson initially said the plane belonged to One Nation, but Mr Ashby later said he had bought it for his own business purposes.

 

The two-seater plane is currently registered in Mr Ashby’s name.

 

The AEC investigation was launched in March last year after questions were raised about whether it may have been donated by Mr McNee, who at the time denied that was the case.

 

Mr Rogers said the AEC had “finished substantially” its work on the long-running investigation, having achieved several outcomes.

 

“The first of those is that there have been a number of amendments to various donor returns and to One Nation’s party return that disclosed additional donations, so there’s been a donation disclosure amendment by One Nation and by VicLand and by James Ashby, and those disclosures are as a result of the work of the AEC in working with those individuals,” Mr Rogers said.

 

“At the same time … the CDPP has commenced prosecution of Black Bull Proprietary Limited, a company related to Mr Ashby, as I understand it … as a result of a referral from the AEC to the CDPP.”

 

Mr Rogers said VicLand had lodged an amended organisation donor return for 2014-15 in relation to two donations made to Pauline Hanson’s One Nation totalling $57,720.

 

“What I have in front of me is that amended return is rent paid by VicLand for the party’s office,” Mr Rogers said.

 

Mr Pirani confirmed that on March 15 2018 One Nation had lodged an amended return for the gift in kind of $30,375 which included a calculation on the dry hire rate for a Jabiru aircraft.

 

“Then on 25 May 2018 VicLand lodged an amended organisation donor return for the 15-16 financial year in relation to the amount of $98,175, which is approximately the cost of the Jabiru aircraft,” Mr Pirani said.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Where does this leave farmers mustering cattle on their own farm using raa certificate and rego aircraft, I know of a lot that do just that, also claiming some tax benefits on running costs and depreciation, sounds like it maybe all illegal

Read the complete reg. It is covered (with low level end.). Tax has nothing to do with hire & reward.