AOC Question: Classification of Operations
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Townsville
Age: 42
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOC Question: Classification of Operations
I have posted this question on another (Helicopter) forum, but I want to gauge wider opinion.
Let’s say I own and operate an IT Support business which sells computer parts and performs computer repairs.
Scenario 1
I hire a car and drive to the customer’s premises to set up a computer which he has purchased from a third party. I invoice the customer for my labour (including labour required to drive the car) and the hire cost of the car.
Scenario 2
Exactly the same as Scenario 1, but replace the words ‘car’ with ‘aircraft’ and ‘drive’ with ‘fly’. (Grammar Gestapo: the first ‘a’ also becomes ‘an’)
Scenario 3
The customer orders a computer from my business, which I send via courier. As soon as it arrives, I hire an aircraft and fly to the customer’s premises and set it up. I invoice the customer for my labour (including labour required to fly the aircraft), the computer parts, and the hire cost of the aircraft.
Scenario 4
Same a Scenario 3, except that instead of sending the computer via courier, I take it with me in the aircraft. Again, I invoice the customer for my labour (including labour required to fly the aircraft), the computer parts, and the hire cost of the aircraft.
Scenario 5
My Customer orders the computer from a third party. I agree to pick it up, fly out and set it up. I invoice the customer for my labour (including labour required to fly the aircraft), and the hire cost of the aircraft.
Scenario 6
The customer orders a computer from my business for urgent delivery, but wants to set it up himself. I hire an aircraft and fly the computer out to him. I invoice for the computer, labour to fly the aircraft and hire of the aircraft.
Which of these qualify as Private Ops?
Reference:
2 Interpretation
(7) For the purposes of these regulations:
(d) an aircraft that is flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of:
(v) 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;
Shall be taken to be employed in private operations.
And
206 Commercial purposes (Act, s 27 (9))
(1) For the purposes of subsection 27 (9) of the Act, the following commercial purposes are prescribed:
(a) aerial work purposes, being purposes of the following kinds (except when carried out by means of a UAV):
(viii) carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft (not being a carriage of goods in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals);
Let’s say I own and operate an IT Support business which sells computer parts and performs computer repairs.
Scenario 1
I hire a car and drive to the customer’s premises to set up a computer which he has purchased from a third party. I invoice the customer for my labour (including labour required to drive the car) and the hire cost of the car.
Scenario 2
Exactly the same as Scenario 1, but replace the words ‘car’ with ‘aircraft’ and ‘drive’ with ‘fly’. (Grammar Gestapo: the first ‘a’ also becomes ‘an’)
Scenario 3
The customer orders a computer from my business, which I send via courier. As soon as it arrives, I hire an aircraft and fly to the customer’s premises and set it up. I invoice the customer for my labour (including labour required to fly the aircraft), the computer parts, and the hire cost of the aircraft.
Scenario 4
Same a Scenario 3, except that instead of sending the computer via courier, I take it with me in the aircraft. Again, I invoice the customer for my labour (including labour required to fly the aircraft), the computer parts, and the hire cost of the aircraft.
Scenario 5
My Customer orders the computer from a third party. I agree to pick it up, fly out and set it up. I invoice the customer for my labour (including labour required to fly the aircraft), and the hire cost of the aircraft.
Scenario 6
The customer orders a computer from my business for urgent delivery, but wants to set it up himself. I hire an aircraft and fly the computer out to him. I invoice for the computer, labour to fly the aircraft and hire of the aircraft.
Which of these qualify as Private Ops?
Reference:
2 Interpretation
(7) For the purposes of these regulations:
(d) an aircraft that is flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of:
(v) 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;
Shall be taken to be employed in private operations.
And
206 Commercial purposes (Act, s 27 (9))
(1) For the purposes of subsection 27 (9) of the Act, the following commercial purposes are prescribed:
(a) aerial work purposes, being purposes of the following kinds (except when carried out by means of a UAV):
(viii) carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft (not being a carriage of goods in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals);
What happened to KISS?
'cause it ain't simple, as the questioner understands.
As to what the legal answers are, consult a lawyer who is familiar not only with the aviation law, but the current court/AAT interpretations of CAR 206.
2 & 3 are private, probably 5, the other two, ?? but probably caught by 206.
As Rattlegun is obviously aware, the critical bit is the legal status of the computer and any tools being carried for the installation.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 18th Aug 2013 at 22:57.
Keep flying the aviation world needs more activity like your business aviation in GA aircraft if you're conducting the business is private. In your role as a contractor to your client you are using the aircraft to meet the client needs.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Townsville
Age: 42
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LeadSled
As Rattlegun is obviously aware, the critical bit is the legal status of the computer and any tools being carried for the installation.
If the cost of the flight is exactly the same with and without the goods on board, then no charge has been made for their carriage.
If carriage is not offered to persons generally (i.e. employees only) and no charge is made for the carriage of goods, why should the legislation (and the safety regulator) be concerned with how the costs of the flight are met?
What a classic example of our contradictory rules.
Why not simply invoice for the bits used plus a flat service fee and make no mention of aircraft hire? The service fee could simply state that it is inclusive of travel, accommodation and labour.
Simplistic maybe, but you don't need CASA's involvement in your business.
Your internal accounting is entirely another matter but is still nothing to do with CASA. The ATO is unlikely to consult CASA on any of this and I imagine whoever you hire the aircraft from for your business activities would not be too concerned either.
Why not simply invoice for the bits used plus a flat service fee and make no mention of aircraft hire? The service fee could simply state that it is inclusive of travel, accommodation and labour.
Simplistic maybe, but you don't need CASA's involvement in your business.
Your internal accounting is entirely another matter but is still nothing to do with CASA. The ATO is unlikely to consult CASA on any of this and I imagine whoever you hire the aircraft from for your business activities would not be too concerned either.
I agree with Mach ...
Why bog down your mind with such trivialities? For many years I conducted an electrical business from an aircraft. The tax office was happy, the aircraft was a deduction, the customer was happy, and the flying got done and paid for by being invoiced as travel costs.
On one memorable trip an airstrip was marked out for me in a field of wheat stubble by an ex CFI retired to farming.
Just go do it ....
Why bog down your mind with such trivialities? For many years I conducted an electrical business from an aircraft. The tax office was happy, the aircraft was a deduction, the customer was happy, and the flying got done and paid for by being invoiced as travel costs.
On one memorable trip an airstrip was marked out for me in a field of wheat stubble by an ex CFI retired to farming.
Just go do it ....
Last edited by Aussie Bob; 18th Aug 2013 at 06:17.
Mach E,
Sadly, not the way it works, it is not how the money changes hands, or even if money changes hands. Under the "relevant" provisions of CAR 206, it is the characteristics of the operation that determine whether it is private, or an AOC and a minimum of a CPL is required.
Conversely, money can change hands without the operation being caught by CAR 206.
As a word of advice, the courts have taken a very dim view of "arrangements" to get around CAR 206, and CASA's very varied interpretations of CAR 206 over the years have changed markedly.
Tootle pip!!
Sadly, not the way it works, it is not how the money changes hands, or even if money changes hands. Under the "relevant" provisions of CAR 206, it is the characteristics of the operation that determine whether it is private, or an AOC and a minimum of a CPL is required.
Conversely, money can change hands without the operation being caught by CAR 206.
As a word of advice, the courts have taken a very dim view of "arrangements" to get around CAR 206, and CASA's very varied interpretations of CAR 206 over the years have changed markedly.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 18th Aug 2013 at 22:59.
Moderator
It is Monday. I'm sure CASA will have yet another interpretation of CAR206 today!
Pre 1988 in the ANRs most if not all of those activities would have been classified as Aerial Work, requiring an AOC.
For example, in the 1950s a stock and station agent who flew from property to property buying and selling cattle was required to hold an AOC, as was a mechanic who few to properties with his tools in the course of his work. In those saner days, AOCs were free and only took a few days to organise.
More recently CASA secured a conviction against a private pilot who took photos of properties with a hand held camera from his aircraft then sold the photos.
Pre 1988 in the ANRs most if not all of those activities would have been classified as Aerial Work, requiring an AOC.
For example, in the 1950s a stock and station agent who flew from property to property buying and selling cattle was required to hold an AOC, as was a mechanic who few to properties with his tools in the course of his work. In those saner days, AOCs were free and only took a few days to organise.
More recently CASA secured a conviction against a private pilot who took photos of properties with a hand held camera from his aircraft then sold the photos.
CASA also grounded a guy doing pest inspections in remote areas and mine camps. Even though he wasn't selling anything they deemed his chemicals to be for sale. He was arguing that the chemicals were tools of the trade. He had no money to challenge CASA in court so now someone charges twice as much and drives to these places......
He had no money to challenge CASA in court so now someone charges twice as much and drives to these places......
But, of course:"Empty Skies are Safe Skies".
And, in microcosm, an example of how over- regulation is driving Australia's productivity into the dirt.
It is worth noting that US does not even have an "aerial work" category, most of what we call aerial work, and require a monumental bureaucratic edifice, including the dreaded "accepted operations manual" (you know the one, with all the enforceable provisions that appear nowhere in the CASR/CAR/CAO/MOS, but are the whim of some FOI, or some CASA policy, "formal" or informal, that has no legal head of power, other than the power to enforce the provisions of an operation manual) that you have to create - the auditable shelfware.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 18th Aug 2013 at 23:25.
This is really a risk management exercise. I would have said that if a) the flying was incidental to the task and b) aeroplanes, pilots and flying never appear on the invoice then your risk is low.
Unless you are doing it regularly or flaunt it, how will CASA know? If they ramp you its your equipment that you are taking on a private trip (probably assuming you are not in a company uniform). If they get hold of the invoice there is nothing to say how you or the computer got there. So, I think that I'd accept that it is a reasonable thing to do with low risk and save the week of your life that would be required to figure out the correct legal status.
Unless you are doing it regularly or flaunt it, how will CASA know? If they ramp you its your equipment that you are taking on a private trip (probably assuming you are not in a company uniform). If they get hold of the invoice there is nothing to say how you or the computer got there. So, I think that I'd accept that it is a reasonable thing to do with low risk and save the week of your life that would be required to figure out the correct legal status.
Moderator
It probably also has something to do with how big you are and how much money you have.
I recall some fairly significant Australian "private" operations, including extensive operation of Gulstream, Lear and Bombardier aircraft, the operating cost of which would have been included in the price of goods and services sold by the owners. I am also aware some of those same companies bill the cost of aircraft operation to other companies who "utilise" (or charter) the aircraft under pseudo "share cost" arrangements.
There are also aero medical and Police flying operations which are deemed "private" but bill the aircraft cost to other client Government departments at very commercial rates.
I recall some fairly significant Australian "private" operations, including extensive operation of Gulstream, Lear and Bombardier aircraft, the operating cost of which would have been included in the price of goods and services sold by the owners. I am also aware some of those same companies bill the cost of aircraft operation to other companies who "utilise" (or charter) the aircraft under pseudo "share cost" arrangements.
There are also aero medical and Police flying operations which are deemed "private" but bill the aircraft cost to other client Government departments at very commercial rates.
CASA can't help themselves, the above is intended to spread a regulatory wet blanket across what are now mostly private operations, all without any justification for the intended rules --- There is, quite simply, no operational justification, let alone a cost/benefit justification, just another example of the CASA mindset that they have to "regulate to the greatest possible extent" -- the new phrase for an old obsession.
And it goes without saying, another jobs generator for bureaucrats.
It is interesting ( if you have nothing better to do - like watch paint dry) to look at draft CASR Part 136, Aerial Work.
There are 22 categories described as aerial work:
Five are incorrect categorization, they should either be private or "aerial application".
Eleven, at least, would be "private" under the US system, probably more.
Seven involve training --- which has its own Parts, and;
Two, take your pick, and;
This was a all to be completed and commence from January 2005 !!!
Tootle pip!!
And it goes without saying, another jobs generator for bureaucrats.
It is interesting ( if you have nothing better to do - like watch paint dry) to look at draft CASR Part 136, Aerial Work.
There are 22 categories described as aerial work:
Five are incorrect categorization, they should either be private or "aerial application".
Eleven, at least, would be "private" under the US system, probably more.
Seven involve training --- which has its own Parts, and;
Two, take your pick, and;
This was a all to be completed and commence from January 2005 !!!
Tootle pip!!
Is it not similar to privately licenced GPs flying themselves in their own aircraft to medical clinics in Australias bush towns.
Oh and the nice new high speed rocket was acquired under a capital expenditure tax exemption - all for work purposes of course.
Oh and the nice new high speed rocket was acquired under a capital expenditure tax exemption - all for work purposes of course.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Townsville
Age: 42
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ramble on
Is it not similar to privately licenced GPs flying themselves in their own aircraft to medical clinics in Australias bush towns.
It makes little sense to me that an AOC is required (to the extent of the scenarios outlined above) ONLY if the goods are the property of the Pilot, owner or hirer of the aircraft. You can carry exactly the same stuff if the goods are owned by a third party, without charging for the carriage, quite legally on a PPL.
Is there a good reason for this law (CAR206(1)(a)(viii)) that I have overlooked?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rattlegun,
even McComic himself said Reg 206 was a cr..p regulation.
It has been used since back in the two airline days to suppress
general aviation. It is too useful to CAsA as a tool to interfere in
"business" to repeal or modify.
even McComic himself said Reg 206 was a cr..p regulation.
It has been used since back in the two airline days to suppress
general aviation. It is too useful to CAsA as a tool to interfere in
"business" to repeal or modify.
Last edited by thorn bird; 20th Aug 2013 at 01:51.
It makes little sense to me that an AOC is required (to the extent of the scenarios outlined above) ONLY if the goods are the property of the Pilot, owner or hirer of the aircraft. You can carry exactly the same stuff if the goods are owned by a third party, without charging for the carriage, quite legally on a PPL.
You could argue that was a private op or just as easily (and probably more successfully) have CASA argue it isn't.
Quality regulations we have...
Folks,
Cast your mind back to a particular Assistant Director, in the early part of this century, who suggested that all pilots should be micro-chipped, like pet dogs.
Yes!! That "wonderful fellow" . Also at that time "CASA" proposed that "private flying" be redefined to limit it to "flying an aircraft by a pilot and the immediate members of his or her family for recreational purposes".
ALL OTHER what is now private flying, not just Part 92, was going to require an AOC.
One of the more lunatic proposals was that, if any aircraft was used for a purpose that enabled depreciation to be claimed for tax purposes, that was evidence of a commercial purpose, and therefor an AOC would be required. Wouldn't something like that cause an immediate demand for CASA approved chief pilots??
All part of the doctrine that is now called:"Regulating to the greatest possible extent".
And the really sad thing about all this is that the only reductions in accidents has come about as a consequence of the collapse in private and light business flying hours ---- if you delve into the statistics, this becomes very obvious. The "regulations" actually have a minimal impact on safety outcomes.
Tootle pip!!
Cast your mind back to a particular Assistant Director, in the early part of this century, who suggested that all pilots should be micro-chipped, like pet dogs.
Yes!! That "wonderful fellow" . Also at that time "CASA" proposed that "private flying" be redefined to limit it to "flying an aircraft by a pilot and the immediate members of his or her family for recreational purposes".
ALL OTHER what is now private flying, not just Part 92, was going to require an AOC.
One of the more lunatic proposals was that, if any aircraft was used for a purpose that enabled depreciation to be claimed for tax purposes, that was evidence of a commercial purpose, and therefor an AOC would be required. Wouldn't something like that cause an immediate demand for CASA approved chief pilots??
All part of the doctrine that is now called:"Regulating to the greatest possible extent".
And the really sad thing about all this is that the only reductions in accidents has come about as a consequence of the collapse in private and light business flying hours ---- if you delve into the statistics, this becomes very obvious. The "regulations" actually have a minimal impact on safety outcomes.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 2nd Sep 2013 at 06:51.
More recently CASA secured a conviction against a private pilot who took photos of properties with a hand held camera from his aircraft then sold the photos.
