AOC Question: Classification of Operations
Moderator
Checkboard, you missed my other comment:
I think the guy that was done for taking and selling photos was a little guy in FNQ, which says it all really.
You can take photos from a private car or private boat and sell them, but according to CASA one can't do the same from an aircraft without a CPL and an AOC.
It probably also has something to do with how big you are and how much money you have.
You can take photos from a private car or private boat and sell them, but according to CASA one can't do the same from an aircraft without a CPL and an AOC.
The fundamental mistake that people make is to assume the regulations that classify the various operations do so on the basis only of differences in objective safety risk. Plug a few scenarios into the regulations and it becomes quickly and abundantly clear that there are the tell-tale remnants of industrial/political interference in the rules. (That’s one of the reasons no one’s game to make rules that classify operations on the basis only of objective differences in safety risk.)
I can conduct agricultural operations for money, on a private licence without an AOC, provided the aircraft I’m operating is owned by the owner and occupier of the land on which I’m conducting those operations. If the owner of the land moves out and rents it to someone else who has the same farming expertise, or I want conduct the same operations on identical land next door, I need a CPL and AOC. Difference in objective safety risk: Nil.
I can fly Bob and his family around for money, on a private licence without an AOC, provided Bob owns the aircraft. If Bob sells the aircraft to John, and John lets me continue flying Bob and his family around, I have to have a CPL and an AOC. Difference in objective safety risk: Nil.
There are lots more, but it’s depressingly boring….
I can conduct agricultural operations for money, on a private licence without an AOC, provided the aircraft I’m operating is owned by the owner and occupier of the land on which I’m conducting those operations. If the owner of the land moves out and rents it to someone else who has the same farming expertise, or I want conduct the same operations on identical land next door, I need a CPL and AOC. Difference in objective safety risk: Nil.
I can fly Bob and his family around for money, on a private licence without an AOC, provided Bob owns the aircraft. If Bob sells the aircraft to John, and John lets me continue flying Bob and his family around, I have to have a CPL and an AOC. Difference in objective safety risk: Nil.
There are lots more, but it’s depressingly boring….
Last edited by Creampuff; 20th Aug 2013 at 21:34.
Please don't ask CAsA for an opinion.
If you do we will never get the "new" regs up and running.
Just look at the "history" of "Aerial Baiting"
Until March 2003 it required an AOC. The "Aviation Ruling" 1/2003 determined that it did not need an AOC.
Then we had Part 137 in 2007 that capture "Aerial Baiting" under "Aerial Application." But that only applied to aeroplanes.
But wait, 1/2003 applied to aircraft so one could be in the stupid bureaucratic situation of being able to drop baits from a R44 in the morning without having an AOC to do so, but if the R44 went u/s, you could not do the same in your C182.
So CAsA comes out with an Instrument that has been rewritten several times since the first issue.
Rattlegun
So I doubt that CAsA legal section could give you a legal and binding determination on what you can or cannot do.
If you do we will never get the "new" regs up and running.
Just look at the "history" of "Aerial Baiting"
Until March 2003 it required an AOC. The "Aviation Ruling" 1/2003 determined that it did not need an AOC.
Then we had Part 137 in 2007 that capture "Aerial Baiting" under "Aerial Application." But that only applied to aeroplanes.
But wait, 1/2003 applied to aircraft so one could be in the stupid bureaucratic situation of being able to drop baits from a R44 in the morning without having an AOC to do so, but if the R44 went u/s, you could not do the same in your C182.
So CAsA comes out with an Instrument that has been rewritten several times since the first issue.
Rattlegun
So I doubt that CAsA legal section could give you a legal and binding determination on what you can or cannot do.
Logic and Money....
"Safety" operates thus.... This is CAsA's logic Ref R 206 and all that sh*te.
If you are a PPL chappie/chapess, AND a photographer, you may fly your aircraft , take photographs and GIVE them to your friends. Its quiet SAFE to do so.
But if professional** (or not) photographer who is also a PPL takes photgraphs and GOD forbid, SELLS them, them it is UNSAFE for you to do so and a danger to the travelling public and those that lie beneath the airways.
And many people in Oz have been stuck by falling aircraft,
**Making money from the taking and selling of imagery strangely enough is usually what Pro photographers do. Que? BUt for CAsA...NO NO NO
So follow the thought train of the regulatory numbnuts...Same pilot, same 'plane, same airspace,....BUT ITS ILLEGAL...ONLY if MONEY results at the end product. MONEY is a danger !!!! UNSAFE UNSAFE.!
Yes folks this is a capitalist democracy, where Polliwafflers of all persuasions keep telling us about our freedoms, and what a great country it is where we can all be free to do our thing and reach our own potential. Haha!
Pity they dont mention the Stalinist organisations like CAsA that execute folk like J Quadrio and others on a whim, or request of a "mate" /competitor company, or the just because some AWI has sh*t on the liver.
The real name of this cuntry is Regulatastan...and you should be very afraid of any land than ends in ..stan eg Pakistan etc.
Earlier this year the current ceo (doesnt warrant upper case) re-iterated in a Senate hearing ""..again, CAsA is a safety agency, not a commercial regulator" Yeah, really...?????
I couldn't hand McCormick a shovel big enough for the sh*t that person spouts.
But his statement does make a mockery of the photography logic. Just ask all those that have been done over by R 206.
If you are a PPL chappie/chapess, AND a photographer, you may fly your aircraft , take photographs and GIVE them to your friends. Its quiet SAFE to do so.
But if professional** (or not) photographer who is also a PPL takes photgraphs and GOD forbid, SELLS them, them it is UNSAFE for you to do so and a danger to the travelling public and those that lie beneath the airways.
And many people in Oz have been stuck by falling aircraft,
**Making money from the taking and selling of imagery strangely enough is usually what Pro photographers do. Que? BUt for CAsA...NO NO NO
So follow the thought train of the regulatory numbnuts...Same pilot, same 'plane, same airspace,....BUT ITS ILLEGAL...ONLY if MONEY results at the end product. MONEY is a danger !!!! UNSAFE UNSAFE.!
Yes folks this is a capitalist democracy, where Polliwafflers of all persuasions keep telling us about our freedoms, and what a great country it is where we can all be free to do our thing and reach our own potential. Haha!
Pity they dont mention the Stalinist organisations like CAsA that execute folk like J Quadrio and others on a whim, or request of a "mate" /competitor company, or the just because some AWI has sh*t on the liver.
The real name of this cuntry is Regulatastan...and you should be very afraid of any land than ends in ..stan eg Pakistan etc.
Earlier this year the current ceo (doesnt warrant upper case) re-iterated in a Senate hearing ""..again, CAsA is a safety agency, not a commercial regulator" Yeah, really...?????
I couldn't hand McCormick a shovel big enough for the sh*t that person spouts.
But his statement does make a mockery of the photography logic. Just ask all those that have been done over by R 206.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems like it is time for us aviators to band together and just do things our way. It has become illogical to 'do the right thing' as this thread is pointing out in regards to aerial photography. So you know what? Don't get caught. F#ck CASA and its silly arse rules. Take all the photos you want. Take a mate or a family member with you who can assist, plus they can help you cover your tracks. Even better, pay them cash, that way you can stick it ip the ATO's ass as well. Do it on the sly, stealth like. Be sneaky, who cares anymore, the world and CASA have gone mad. F#ck the lot of them, make your own rules, it works for individuals at CASA, and to hell with Inspector plod and his Gestapo mates.
It's time we fought back in this country against the Stalin like hold that greedy business and Government is inflicting on us.
It's time we fought back in this country against the Stalin like hold that greedy business and Government is inflicting on us.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 60
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What if a pilot takes video and puts it on youtube? Video gets 2,000,000 hits and youtube give him a share of the advertising revenue, AOC required?
What if said aircraft was an RAA aircraft?
There has to be some common sense somewhere!
What if said aircraft was an RAA aircraft?
There has to be some common sense somewhere!
Go easy, Howard....!
Someone put a video on You Tube ...and look what happened to John Quadrio !!!
Some CAsA clown sees it and thinks a "king hit" for the pilot is the go.
BIG safety issues involved, of course
Then CAsA' s "finest" get involved ...and its all downhill from there. !!!
For EVERYONE, esp JQ...and the taxpayer
FFS...what do these plonkers do for "brains" (sic).
And with CAsA there is NO practical and COMMON sense ANYWHERE..it has been regulated away.
Is there any other country that has strict laibility for EVERYTHING, and prefaces its regs with...".A pilot commits an offence if...." ??
Cactus J...banding together should mean that the WHOLE industry just goes into "civil disobedience " mode and ignores CAsA entirely...and gets on doing its thing , safely and well. Its all that we have left, talking is past
NO more "expositions", manuals, Parts, edicts or instruments will be accepted, received or acted upon by the Industry UNTIL.....
Add anything you like to the list of demands
If such a doc was sent to any MInister stating that CAsA will be shut out until demands are met..SOMETHING might happen...???
maybe
If drastic action doesnt happen soon we will just continue to be slowly raped by regulation, without consent, as in the past.
AS WE HAVE ALLOWED.
Some CAsA clown sees it and thinks a "king hit" for the pilot is the go.
BIG safety issues involved, of course
Then CAsA' s "finest" get involved ...and its all downhill from there. !!!
For EVERYONE, esp JQ...and the taxpayer
FFS...what do these plonkers do for "brains" (sic).
And with CAsA there is NO practical and COMMON sense ANYWHERE..it has been regulated away.
Is there any other country that has strict laibility for EVERYTHING, and prefaces its regs with...".A pilot commits an offence if...." ??
Cactus J...banding together should mean that the WHOLE industry just goes into "civil disobedience " mode and ignores CAsA entirely...and gets on doing its thing , safely and well. Its all that we have left, talking is past
NO more "expositions", manuals, Parts, edicts or instruments will be accepted, received or acted upon by the Industry UNTIL.....
Add anything you like to the list of demands
If such a doc was sent to any MInister stating that CAsA will be shut out until demands are met..SOMETHING might happen...???
maybeIf drastic action doesnt happen soon we will just continue to be slowly raped by regulation, without consent, as in the past.
AS WE HAVE ALLOWED.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quick and dirty answer:
2 to 5 are private, 6 is commercial.
Basis for that opinion is that 2 to 5 require your presence which is what you are charging for, the carriage, or not, of the computer is irrelevant in those cases. In 6 you are essentially setting yourself up as a freight service and therefore require an AOC etc.
The legislation is a nightmare and I doubt you would get a consistent answer from CASA or a lawyer. Similarly, I don't think the case law is of much assistance either as there has been such a mess of facts and decisions that it would be hard to get a definitive view from them.
2 to 5 are private, 6 is commercial.
Basis for that opinion is that 2 to 5 require your presence which is what you are charging for, the carriage, or not, of the computer is irrelevant in those cases. In 6 you are essentially setting yourself up as a freight service and therefore require an AOC etc.
The legislation is a nightmare and I doubt you would get a consistent answer from CASA or a lawyer. Similarly, I don't think the case law is of much assistance either as there has been such a mess of facts and decisions that it would be hard to get a definitive view from them.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 44
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Devils advocate.
Assume we can start from scratch with a mythical rewrite of the regs - how do you define what requires an AOC and the associated saftey oversight that goes with it, and what does not? Should it be as simple as if you advertise it as a primarily aviation service (i.e survey, ag work, baiting, charter), then its a commercial operation. If you don't advertise it (i.e the aircraft use is incidental to the main business) the its private? Would that work? How do you cover businesses that then structure themselves to avoid the regulatory work to save a buck, but still perform essentially the same functions?
I would argue that when there is money changing hands oversight is needed - expressly for those that are willing to shortcut safety in the aim to save a dollar. Sure, the PPL sticking a camera out the window as long as they follow all the appropriate rules should be able to go about using their flying skills. But you can't divorce aviation and commercials without some sort of safety impact.
Assume we can start from scratch with a mythical rewrite of the regs - how do you define what requires an AOC and the associated saftey oversight that goes with it, and what does not? Should it be as simple as if you advertise it as a primarily aviation service (i.e survey, ag work, baiting, charter), then its a commercial operation. If you don't advertise it (i.e the aircraft use is incidental to the main business) the its private? Would that work? How do you cover businesses that then structure themselves to avoid the regulatory work to save a buck, but still perform essentially the same functions?
I would argue that when there is money changing hands oversight is needed - expressly for those that are willing to shortcut safety in the aim to save a dollar. Sure, the PPL sticking a camera out the window as long as they follow all the appropriate rules should be able to go about using their flying skills. But you can't divorce aviation and commercials without some sort of safety impact.
Sgt. Bundy, you do not "start from scratch and rewrite the regs", not ever!
There is no reason to rewrite regulations, it is a waste of time and money that might produce just as bad a cockup as today.
What you do Sgt. Bundy, is to acquire either a copy of the FAA regs or perhaps better still the New Zealand regulations (which are based on the FAA) and you install them in their entirety, if necessary changing Australian law to match the regulations.
This approach is axiomatic in business - you install a new system, you change your business practices to match the new system. "Customising" anything to match your "specific requirements" is a mugs game that has bought many consultants and advisors their second beach house, and I speak from bitter experience.
To do such a thing would require that CASA not be allowed anywhere near the process since they would immediately pervert the project to their own ends and 25 years and $300 million later you would have nothing recognisable or usable at the end.
What would be needed is an Advisory Board composed of industry participants, working to a very strong Parliamentary Committee, and then having a fresh drafting team of lawyers, preferably under the direction of Department of PM and Cabinet.
To do anything less simply opens the project to deliberate sabotage by lawyers, CASA and industry axe grinders.
Take the N.Z laws as they are and change as little as humanly possible. Dont try for any grand plan to reconcile the FAA with Europe for example, just concentrate on something that is simple and meets 90% of requirements, its trying for the perfection of that last 10% that costs the millions and takes forever. If there is some irreconcilable conflict between the new regs and the Australian legal system in that last 10%, then change the law, dont try and rewrite the regs.
The first thing that has to be removed is this "strict liability" crap otherwise the project is pointless anyway.
There is no reason to rewrite regulations, it is a waste of time and money that might produce just as bad a cockup as today.
What you do Sgt. Bundy, is to acquire either a copy of the FAA regs or perhaps better still the New Zealand regulations (which are based on the FAA) and you install them in their entirety, if necessary changing Australian law to match the regulations.
This approach is axiomatic in business - you install a new system, you change your business practices to match the new system. "Customising" anything to match your "specific requirements" is a mugs game that has bought many consultants and advisors their second beach house, and I speak from bitter experience.
To do such a thing would require that CASA not be allowed anywhere near the process since they would immediately pervert the project to their own ends and 25 years and $300 million later you would have nothing recognisable or usable at the end.
What would be needed is an Advisory Board composed of industry participants, working to a very strong Parliamentary Committee, and then having a fresh drafting team of lawyers, preferably under the direction of Department of PM and Cabinet.
To do anything less simply opens the project to deliberate sabotage by lawyers, CASA and industry axe grinders.
Take the N.Z laws as they are and change as little as humanly possible. Dont try for any grand plan to reconcile the FAA with Europe for example, just concentrate on something that is simple and meets 90% of requirements, its trying for the perfection of that last 10% that costs the millions and takes forever. If there is some irreconcilable conflict between the new regs and the Australian legal system in that last 10%, then change the law, dont try and rewrite the regs.
The first thing that has to be removed is this "strict liability" crap otherwise the project is pointless anyway.
Last edited by Sunfish; 22nd Aug 2013 at 20:46.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish, good plan. The Swiss adopted EASA regulation despite not being part of the EU.
Casa mistake was mixing chalk and cheese. FAA and EASA based regs. EASA advised stick to one. Both internationally acceptable. Can't do half and half hence the 10% causing the issues.
Casa mistake was mixing chalk and cheese. FAA and EASA based regs. EASA advised stick to one. Both internationally acceptable. Can't do half and half hence the 10% causing the issues.
But if professional** (or not) photographer who is also a PPL takes photgraphs and GOD forbid, SELLS them, them it is UNSAFE for you to do so and a danger to the travelling public and those that lie beneath the airways.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 44
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no reason to rewrite regulations, it is a waste of time and money that might produce just as bad a cockup as today.
myths and legends....
Bundy...were you not aware that the last 25 years of re write has been mythical and the waste of taxpayers time and money is legend. And all for what????
A Safer and more vibrant GA????
601... if Google had a head office in Oz no doubt CAsA would be stupid enough to demand one.
Its all safe tho, because if the Space Imagist drops his camera...can he do that?..no ..lets it drift away on a divergent vector, it will not make it to earth. Burn up ..as he would too.
No danger to the public there.!
Since it is asked ....
A Commercial operation would be one where a pilot conducts an operation that involves the carriage of fare paying passengers, as in CHTR, RPT.
A PRIVATE operation involves " a pilot, with his "tool box" etc ", NO paying passengers.
Oh my goodness, where have I heard that before ..ah yes 1997 Classification of Operations Policy adopted by the Minister and the Board ...and promptly ignored by the rusty "Iron Ring" and all those tossers in CAsA who really know what true "safety" is all about.
Its not about useful, efficient,workable, common-sense rules...its micro-management, convoluted, complex and confusing crap.
The more pages a Part...the "safer" it will be.
The last traces of the 1997 brain snap vanished off the CAsA screens in 2003.
And so we still have the "buggers muddle" of 206 and all the other nonsense that goes with it.
The impingment of light/photons onto film or a ccd has nothing to do with aviation safety, as does not, whether the computers, light bulbs are for sale or not, or the toolbox carrying the LAMEs spanners for work after the flight.
The "commerce" of photography, computer sales or light bulb installation all occur post flight and have totally SFA to do with the safety of the flight and is NOT and should NOT be the business of CAsA.
CAsA's business is that the pilot is duely licenced, the flight conducted by the VFR/IFR rules and that the a/c has a current MR.
Who has any problem with that ?
CAsA is a "safety" regulator (sic...very sick)right ?..., NOT a division of the Dept of Commerce restricting trade. Which it does ...and its probably unconstitutional. But dont let a little law and reality get in the way of the CAsA "safety" fundamentalist and control freaks.
Until we get those NZ regs Oz will remain the worlds leading Dogs Breakfast of Regulatory Vomitus.
A Safer and more vibrant GA????
601... if Google had a head office in Oz no doubt CAsA would be stupid enough to demand one.
Its all safe tho, because if the Space Imagist drops his camera...can he do that?..no ..lets it drift away on a divergent vector, it will not make it to earth. Burn up ..as he would too.
No danger to the public there.!
Since it is asked ....
A Commercial operation would be one where a pilot conducts an operation that involves the carriage of fare paying passengers, as in CHTR, RPT.
A PRIVATE operation involves " a pilot, with his "tool box" etc ", NO paying passengers.
Oh my goodness, where have I heard that before ..ah yes 1997 Classification of Operations Policy adopted by the Minister and the Board ...and promptly ignored by the rusty "Iron Ring" and all those tossers in CAsA who really know what true "safety" is all about.
Its not about useful, efficient,workable, common-sense rules...its micro-management, convoluted, complex and confusing crap.
The more pages a Part...the "safer" it will be.
The last traces of the 1997 brain snap vanished off the CAsA screens in 2003.
And so we still have the "buggers muddle" of 206 and all the other nonsense that goes with it.
The impingment of light/photons onto film or a ccd has nothing to do with aviation safety, as does not, whether the computers, light bulbs are for sale or not, or the toolbox carrying the LAMEs spanners for work after the flight.
The "commerce" of photography, computer sales or light bulb installation all occur post flight and have totally SFA to do with the safety of the flight and is NOT and should NOT be the business of CAsA.
CAsA's business is that the pilot is duely licenced, the flight conducted by the VFR/IFR rules and that the a/c has a current MR.
Who has any problem with that ?
CAsA is a "safety" regulator (sic...very sick)right ?..., NOT a division of the Dept of Commerce restricting trade. Which it does ...and its probably unconstitutional. But dont let a little law and reality get in the way of the CAsA "safety" fundamentalist and control freaks.
Until we get those NZ regs Oz will remain the worlds leading Dogs Breakfast of Regulatory Vomitus.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadie - Choccy frog for you, that is the post of the week. 9.5/10
( I gave you an extra .5 for use of the term 'rusty' iron ring, very accurate and true).
"Safe skies are photon free skies"
( I gave you an extra .5 for use of the term 'rusty' iron ring, very accurate and true).
"Safe skies are photon free skies"
Last edited by 004wercras; 24th Aug 2013 at 02:07.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Goolwa
Age: 59
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was always under the impression that the reason for the "Commercial Operation" rule was because Private Pilots are not trained to handle commercial pressure, I.e. the flight must take off now, or we must get there by ..., I must carry x load etc. A photographer may want a specific shot at a certain time, you must be at a clients place at a specific time etc. All this puts pressure on the pilot. I personally think its bollocks, because any pilot can put pressure on themselves to "get there" or "I must go now". So my interpretation of a Commercial Operation is one were there is commercial/financial pressure or motivation to fly.
I think it should be though - Any operation were a person pays for a seat or cargo space for the purpose of a flight above and beyond simple cost sharing.
I think it should be though - Any operation were a person pays for a seat or cargo space for the purpose of a flight above and beyond simple cost sharing.
Folks,
Various of you talk about "adopting EASA rules".
Are you aware that EASA does not have a comprehensive set of rules, where EASA is deficient, EASA NAAs continue to use their "old" rules.
Where EASA has rules applicable to GA (not much) they are far more restrictive than here. For example, the great majority of executive flight operations, which most of the world treat as private operations, are Public Transport in EASAland, with all that means for cost and complexity, with no improvement in air safety outcomes, because there is not a problem to solve.
As the creation of a multi-national bureaucracy, JAA/EASA rules are, unsurprisingly, bureaucratic to the max, and very inflexible. Timescales to change rule are right up there with Australia, decades. Again, unsurprisingly, they are very expensive for pilots, operators, owners and maintainers.
EASA does have a set of rules for pilot licensing, they set such a high benchmark, even for a PPL, that many EASA nations now have a "National PPL". The PPL medical standards, alone, sets a ridiculously high standard, arguably higher than an Australian Class 1, with many additional tests not even required for a Class 1 in Australia. Regular Colour Vision tests are a particularly controversial matter.
A number of European nations now have a string of bi-lateral agreement to recognise National PPL licenses across national boundaries.
Forget EASA, the US is the way to go, the NZ version is good, but even that needs a bit of a regulatorectomy before adoption here.
Don't confuse "higher (more restrictive) standards" with improved air safety outcomes, the US (whether you want to believe it or not) is the benchmark for air safety outcomes.
Many of you will have seen yesterday's Australian, with a forecast of up to a third of helicopter flying schools closing because they will be unable to comply with the new rules, Part 61/141/142.
The rubbish CASA is churning out is a disaster, EASA is NOT the answer to that problem.
Tootle pip!!
Various of you talk about "adopting EASA rules".
Are you aware that EASA does not have a comprehensive set of rules, where EASA is deficient, EASA NAAs continue to use their "old" rules.
Where EASA has rules applicable to GA (not much) they are far more restrictive than here. For example, the great majority of executive flight operations, which most of the world treat as private operations, are Public Transport in EASAland, with all that means for cost and complexity, with no improvement in air safety outcomes, because there is not a problem to solve.
As the creation of a multi-national bureaucracy, JAA/EASA rules are, unsurprisingly, bureaucratic to the max, and very inflexible. Timescales to change rule are right up there with Australia, decades. Again, unsurprisingly, they are very expensive for pilots, operators, owners and maintainers.
EASA does have a set of rules for pilot licensing, they set such a high benchmark, even for a PPL, that many EASA nations now have a "National PPL". The PPL medical standards, alone, sets a ridiculously high standard, arguably higher than an Australian Class 1, with many additional tests not even required for a Class 1 in Australia. Regular Colour Vision tests are a particularly controversial matter.
A number of European nations now have a string of bi-lateral agreement to recognise National PPL licenses across national boundaries.
Forget EASA, the US is the way to go, the NZ version is good, but even that needs a bit of a regulatorectomy before adoption here.
Don't confuse "higher (more restrictive) standards" with improved air safety outcomes, the US (whether you want to believe it or not) is the benchmark for air safety outcomes.
Many of you will have seen yesterday's Australian, with a forecast of up to a third of helicopter flying schools closing because they will be unable to comply with the new rules, Part 61/141/142.
The rubbish CASA is churning out is a disaster, EASA is NOT the answer to that problem.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 24th Aug 2013 at 02:28.
bizarre....
WTF Dexta...what a bizarre and unusual "impression" you have of what it takes to conduct a flying operation. !!
Any PPL that I know does exactly what a CPL does in taking an aircraft from one place to another.
Both are licences to kill, if you do it wrongly...but the CPL can do it for money, THAT is the only difference.
Not aware that CPLs have any extra Commercial Pressure Training 101.
They either get the experience on the job, or if they are slow on the uptake killl themselves and a few others who have PAID to be with them.
I can assure you that if your planning and timing is right: ie.. dont be running late, have the aircraft and camera all prepared and ready to go the night before, wx is fine for the project etc, all is low key and good. Just fly and enjoy. No probs.
CHTR CPLs get the stress of bad wx, irate bosses, late pax who just HAVE to get there no matter what and etc. Or put THEMSELVES under pressure by poor planning performance and/or timing.
PPL photographers don't have any of that if they are properly sorted.
And if the wx is unsuitable for the project area...you dont fly. Simple as that.
And during the period when CAsA was on a mission, at great taxpayer expense to prevent "commerce" occuring, in FNQ there was a rash of 7 CHTR accidents and 21 fatalities !!
So you can see where THEIR priorites lie.
What about the STRESS those CAsA %!!%$£$"" can cause.!
Now THAT is a major issue in GA.
Any PPL that I know does exactly what a CPL does in taking an aircraft from one place to another.
Both are licences to kill, if you do it wrongly...but the CPL can do it for money, THAT is the only difference.
Not aware that CPLs have any extra Commercial Pressure Training 101.
They either get the experience on the job, or if they are slow on the uptake killl themselves and a few others who have PAID to be with them.
I can assure you that if your planning and timing is right: ie.. dont be running late, have the aircraft and camera all prepared and ready to go the night before, wx is fine for the project etc, all is low key and good. Just fly and enjoy. No probs.
CHTR CPLs get the stress of bad wx, irate bosses, late pax who just HAVE to get there no matter what and etc. Or put THEMSELVES under pressure by poor planning performance and/or timing.
PPL photographers don't have any of that if they are properly sorted.
And if the wx is unsuitable for the project area...you dont fly. Simple as that.
And during the period when CAsA was on a mission, at great taxpayer expense to prevent "commerce" occuring, in FNQ there was a rash of 7 CHTR accidents and 21 fatalities !!
So you can see where THEIR priorites lie.
What about the STRESS those CAsA %!!%$£$"" can cause.!
Now THAT is a major issue in GA.
You can take photos from a private car or private boat and sell them, but according to CASA one can't do the same from an aircraft without a CPL and an AOC.
Actually another wonderful area for weird CASA interpretations. Another in the Annals of Lunacy (aka CASA Official History), the proposer of the micro-chipping of pilots --- as anyone who went to the CASA FLOP (sorry, FLOT) conference years ago will remember -- the joker was very publicly asked if the bleeding great stud in his ear was a case of personally trialing his micro-chip, came out with the following wonderful "206 interpretation", which I probably still have in writing somewhere, the truly weird logic, but incredibly inventive, went something like this:
Aerial photography is caught by CAR 206, so;
(1)only certified aircraft can be used for aerial photography, because an AOC is required and, in his opinion only normal cat. aircraft can be used on an AOC, therefor;
(2)If you don't have a standard C.of A, it ain't a certified aircraft, therefor you can't use it as a photo plane, so;
(3)The aircraft in (2) can't be used in a photo shoot, therefor;
(4) All the air to air, over the years, with the photographer in the back seat of a Harvard/T-6 or a T-28, with the canopy open, were illegal, and;
(5) He was going to go through years of warbirds magazines, and go after those who committed photography from an aircraft that did not have a standard C.of A., and certainly were not working on an AOC.
With apologies to K-Tel: "But wait, it gets weirder", he also claimed, in writing, that you could only do air to air, if the subject aeroplane also had a standard C.of A.
The particular subject of his irettention was a great set of shots of the HARS Connie flying up and down the coast east of Wollongong,published in one of the local magazines featuring "warbirds".
Tootle pip!!
Tossers and time wasters.....
He of item (5) ..." going to go thru years of warbird mags and go after those who committed photography...."
Which is proof positive that the LOONIES really are out free and running the Asylum, and this tosser doesnt have a proper job and obviously has nothing to do and all day to do it in.
And we, the taxpayers have to fund these plonkers and their idiot missions..FFS!!
"safe skies are camera free skies"
How big is a photon?
Slightly bigger than the brain of a CAsA the magazine reader!
Which is proof positive that the LOONIES really are out free and running the Asylum, and this tosser doesnt have a proper job and obviously has nothing to do and all day to do it in.
And we, the taxpayers have to fund these plonkers and their idiot missions..FFS!!
"safe skies are camera free skies"
How big is a photon?
Slightly bigger than the brain of a CAsA the magazine reader!
