Can you make RAA aircraft work for you?

[Tomo]

What I mean by that is: can you use the aircraft (limited to an RAA cert also), for making business. NOT in the way of paying passengers!

 

Such as advertising: Towing banners.

 

Towing Gliders...

 

Etc....

 

And charge for it...

 

Thanks

 

 

[frank marriott]

Simple check -

 

CHTR & AWK think - for HIRE or REWARD

 

PVT (incl RAA) - not for HIRE or REWARD

 

[Obviously excluding training]

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Tomo,

 

I understand that you can use your own RAAus a/c for your own personal transportation for work.

 

For example, if you are a mechanic or similar, you can load your tools in and fly to a job. You can't charge for the flight time but you can go to and from work by air. You can claim the cost of the flight as a legitimate bussiness expense.

 

This is my understanding of the regs and the tax system. I am not a lawyer or an accountant.

 

Qwerty staying on topic......:thumb_up:

 

 

[Spin]

What Qwerty said.

 

I know a couple of people have managed to get their RA aircraft accepted as a business expense and even grabbed the 50% allowance in the process, good for them, wish I could have justified that. Does seem strange that you can quite happily charge for your travelling by car, but not if you fly - I suspect the tax man would have no drama with the concept, but RA Aus almost certainly would.

 

I'll get it right one of these fine days, I'm sure, already had occasion to use my boat to get to a job - oops .

 

 

[frank marriott]

I agree Qwerty. Although I restrict my comment to the Air Leg content - I would not come into the Tax Man part but your last post conforms with my belief/understanding.

 

 

[Guest Mad Dave]

I know a couple of people have managed to get their RA aircraft accepted as a business expense and even grabbed the 50% allowance in the process, .

Have to be careful with this, as the a/c cannot be used for personal use at all, but you can "hire" it from yourself.

 

 

[Tomo]

So pilots conducting glider towing, are donating their time (I'd do that!). But you have to operate through a club, to which the aircraft belongs... and then the club charges the member.

 

Is that how it works?

 

 

[Guest sirius]

David Isaac wrote:

 

Sirius,About this charging thing. You cannot charge for a flight in an RAA aircraft with a normal RAA pilot rating neither can you with a PPL in a GA aircraft, but you can legally cost share the flight and the cost share rules are well established. The pilot must also share the cost of the aircarft operation with the passenger.

Not sure where I wrote what you are responding to, but I agree with you entirely.:thumb_up:

 

AWK by the way, is not necessarily for profit or gain.

 

 

[Spin]

David, I think we are probably on the same page here, however my comment was based on the fact that there is nothing stopping me from charging for the use of my car to reach a client - in full, no cost sharing required and without any kind of professional driving qualification, whereas if I were to do the same journey in an aircraft, GA or RA, I cannot. I must say I had not considered the cost sharing regulations in this regard, however at best they may only allow you to recover half your cost.

 

 

[Guest Mad Dave]

Would you be "Cost sharing" with the ATO, if so the best you could do would be 48% any way

 

 

[Spin]

Hi Spin,Do you see the subtle difference.

 

David

I do indeed and am happy to be corrected, I had been led to understand that charging in these cirumstances was verboten. Anyone want to go and do something unimaginably silly that will require my presence on site, in a remote spot? I've ridden a horse, flown in via Baron and R44 and used my boat in the past - a Tecnam would round it out nicely!

 

 

[Tomo]

As for being paid for glider towing ???

Thats what I was kinda wondering... I realise I can get a glider towing endorsement (the syllabus is in the Ops manual BTW) but what point would it be if I just towed gliders for free?

 

So can we charge (or ask for cost sharing), but seeing as it is for the benefit of the glider pilot, he should cover the whole cost technically? But you can't do that by the sounds of it? You have to be a member of a club, and operate a clubs aircraft, and you pilot for free?

 

Tomo does that answer your original post?

Kinda, but it's been a great discussion so far, Thanks everyone. :thumb_up:

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

T all we have to do is establish whether there is an RAA regulation prohibiting taking jumpers up. I doubt there is.Having said that we should be aware there is an APF endorsement for this as well and a whole set of procedures. You have to know your stuff.

The RAA Ops manual might not have a specific prohibition but, IIRC, the CAR says something along the lines of - in accordance with specified procedures (Ie APF) or with prior written approval. from CASA.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Relfy]

I was looking at getting a Jab and putting it online for a bit and hiring it for a bit to make it partly pay for itself. I rang my accountant and he let me in on some of the traps with the government 50% tax depreciation on assets ordered before 31 Dec last year.

 

First of all you must turn-over in excess of $20,000 per annum and he said this is one area they are going to target come taxt time to claw back some of the stimulus money from people using it for their own advantage and not for a business. He told me this is what sorts out the 'hobby' people from the true 'business' people. If you haven't turned over $10,000 in the first six months, you may not be eligible for ANY depreciation, which is a bit scary and he said they will be looking very closely at this!

 

Probably Tomo the only thing I see as being a big issue with making RAA pay in some way is insurance. It's a killer as it is but if you are doing anything other than normal flying, it may not be worth it...?

 

 

[Tomo]

Yes, Thanks guys... :thumb_up:

 

Reason I was wondering all these things... I can't handle having just a 'thing'!!! it needs to be able to create a little bit of self support! ;) I don't really worry about tax at present... all I know is I earn so much, and give away most! :confused:

 

I looked into getting an aircraft that was capable of towing gliders, but that isn't much use unless you were a club it seems.

 

Using it for business transport is a great one! Have to expand on the "mobile" bit of my mechanics it seems! :big_grin:

 

What about aviation photography? Can you sell pictures you take from the aircraft? You'd certainly think you could or should be able to. i_dunno

 

 

[sseeker]

What about aviation photography? Can you sell pictures you take from the aircraft? You'd certainly think you could or should be able to. i_dunno

There's nothing stopping you from doing this, as a matter of fact my friend does it and I've considered getting into it (I currently take photos for fun). Only thing that would hold you back is privacy & ADF aircraft. (ADF being Australian Defence Force, not Automatic Direction Finder )

 

 

[Guest sirius]

To anyone contemplating aviation photography, read page 42, Richard Rudd in Paul Phelans missive re CASA. It shows some very "biblical" interpretations of what you and I may see as OK.

 

http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/committee/rrat_ctte/casa/submissions/sub26.pdf

 

"Summary:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. This aircraft owner/operator, Mr. Richard Rudd, is a commercial photographer some of whose

 

 

 

 

 



work is conducted from an aeroplane and CASA believes this is a commercial aviation activity

 

 

 

 

 



because he acquires images from an aeroplane and sells them for publication. It therefore

 

 

 

 

 



believes the individual should hold an air operator certificate and a commercial pilot licence

 

 

 

 

 



2. Former CASA chairman Dick Smith, a private pilot who does not hold an air operator certificate,

 

 

 

 

 



has conducted numerous flights in Australia and overseas, and sold the images for publication.

 

 

 

 

 



3. CASA apparently believes there is a difference in law between the activities of Mr Smith and Mr

 

 

 

 

 



Rudd, and has gone to extraordinary lengths to shut down Mr. Rudd’s business.

 

 

 

 

 



4. Some of its activities in that respect appear to have been defamatory, improper, and redolent of

 

 

 

 

 



selective victimisation.

 

 

 

 

 



B8.1: The following is a thoroughly researched magazine article, an edited version of which was

 

 

 

 

 



published in Australian Flying in May 2000.

 

 

 

 

 



“This is an Act to establish a Civil Aviation Safety Authority with functions relating to civil aviation

 

 

 

 

 



and in particular, the safety of aviation and for related purposes: (The Civil Aviation Act)

 

 

 

 

 



“We have to allocate our resources more intelligently, to focus on the protection of the fare paying

 

 

 

 

 



public.” (Dick Smith, throughout his term as CASA Chairman)

 

 

 

 

 



“There seems to be a perception in the industry that we’re going after the soft targets – the small

 

 

 

 

 



operators who can’t defend themselves.” (a CASA public affairs spokesperson, January 2000)

 

 

 

 

 



“CASA’s policy in relation to enforcement will be uniform, consistent, fair, and appropriate.” (CASA’s

 

 

 

 

 



Aiming Higher newsletter)

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is not about whether a court’s findings were fair and reasonable, nor whether a sentence was a

 

 

 

 

 



just one. It invites the reader however, to ponder on the motivations of the regulator, or at least of

 

 

 

 

 



some of its employees, in applying huge resources to pursue a small operator to the brink of

 

 

 

 

 



bankruptcy; about CASA’s priorities in the deployment of resources it claims are under pressure;

 

 

 

 

 



about its apparent confusion over its own published policies; about uniformity, consistency and

 

 

 

 

 



fairness, and about the methods its officers employed to achieve an outcome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1957

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mareeba resident Richard Rudd begins learning to fly in Adelaide, with the intention of making a

 

 

 

 

 



career as a pilot. When he’s issued with a student pilot licence, he finds that he cannot obtain a

 

 

 

 

 



commercial pilot licence because of a mild hearing defect which does, however, not prevent him

 

 

 

 

 



from holding a PPL.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1965

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rudd studies photography whilst overseas, with the revised intention of becoming a commercial

 

 

 

 

 



photographer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

November 1967

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rudd, now a commercial photographer, obtains a private pilot licence, his intention being to use an

 

 

 

 

 



aeroplane to extend his business into aerial photography.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1969

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rudd conducts

 

 

 

And read the rest yourself..............

 

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

so you whack a camera on your aircraft or your partner points it out of the window when you do a across the country trip. when you get home you use your PC to edit and knock up a bit of a doco, manage to sell a few DVD's of it to try and pay for the new ADSB and other crap that you are told you must have then find yourself up before the 'Beak' cause some wanker deems it to be a commercial operation. I mean haven't these fools at CASA ever heard of a hobbie.Even the TAX MAN will let you recoup some expense for a hobbie by sale of such.

 

To anyone contemplating aviation photography, read page 42, Richard Rudd in Paul Phelans missive re CASA. It shows some very "biblical" interpretations of what you and I may see as OK.http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/committee/rrat_ctte/casa/submissions/sub26.pdf

 

"Summary:

 

 

 

 

 



1. This aircraft owner/operator, Mr. Richard Rudd, is a commercial photographer some of whose

 

 

 

 

 



work is conducted from an aeroplane and CASA believes this is a commercial aviation activity

 

 

 

 

 



because he acquires images from an aeroplane and sells them for publication. It therefore

 

 

 

 

 



believes the individual should hold an air operator certificate and a commercial pilot licence

 

 

 

 

 



2. Former CASA chairman Dick Smith, a private pilot who does not hold an air operator certificate,

 

 

 

 

 



has conducted numerous flights in Australia and overseas, and sold the images for publication.

 

 

 

 

 



3. CASA apparently believes there is a difference in law between the activities of Mr Smith and Mr

 

 

 

 

 



Rudd, and has gone to extraordinary lengths to shut down Mr. Rudd’s business.

 

 

 

 

 



4. Some of its activities in that respect appear to have been defamatory, improper, and redolent of

 

 

 

 

 



selective victimisation.

 

 

 

 

 



B8.1: The following is a thoroughly researched magazine article, an edited version of which was

 

 

 

 

 



published in </div><div align="left">Australian Flying in May 2000.

 

 

 

 

 



“This is an Act to establish a Civil Aviation Safety Authority with functions relating to civil aviation

 

 

 

 

 



and in particular, the safety of aviation and for related purposes: (The Civil Aviation Act)

 

 

 

 

 



“We have to allocate our resources more intelligently, to focus on the protection of the fare paying

 

 

 

 

 



public.” (Dick Smith, throughout his term as CASA Chairman)

 

 

 

 

 



“There seems to be a perception in the industry that we’re going after the soft targets – the small

 

 

 

 

 



operators who can’t defend themselves.” (a CASA public affairs spokesperson, January 2000)

 

 

 

 

 



“CASA’s policy in relation to enforcement will be uniform, consistent, fair, and appropriate.” (CASA’s

 

 

 

 

 



Aiming Higher newsletter)

 

 

 

 

 



This is not about whether a court’s findings were fair and reasonable, nor whether a sentence was a

 

 

 

 

 



just one. It invites the reader however, to ponder on the motivations of the regulator, or at least of

 

 

 

 

 



some of its employees, in applying huge resources to pursue a small operator to the brink of

 

 

 

 

 



bankruptcy; about CASA’s priorities in the deployment of resources it claims are under pressure;

 

 

 

 

 



about its apparent confusion over its own published policies; about uniformity, consistency and

 

 

 

 

 



fairness, and about the methods its officers employed to achieve an outcome.

 

 

 

 

 



1957

 

 

 

 

 



Mareeba resident Richard Rudd begins learning to fly in Adelaide, with the intention of making a

 

 

 

 

 



career as a pilot. When he’s issued with a student pilot licence, he finds that he cannot obtain a

 

 

 

 

 



commercial pilot licence because of a mild hearing defect which does, however, not prevent him

 

 

 

 

 



from holding a PPL.

 

 

 

 

 



1965

 

 

 

 

 



Rudd studies photography whilst overseas, with the revised intention of becoming a commercial

 

 

 

 

 



photographer.

 

 

 

 

 



November 1967

 

 

 

 

 



Rudd, now a commercial photographer, obtains a private pilot licence, his intention being to use an

 

 

 

 

 



aeroplane to extend his business into aerial photography.

 

 

 

 

 



1969

 

 

 

 

 

Rudd conducts

 

 

 

And read the rest yourself..............

 

[Tomo]

That spokesman rejected the proposition that Dick Smith’s commercial publication of images hepersonally acquired, equates to the same offence. Somewhat confusingly however, CASA also

affirms that if this aviation writer, while flying an aeroplane, were to photograph another aeroplane

 

and earn money by publishing the pictures, that would “probably be an offence.”

So just don't take pictures of other aircraft from the air!?

 

And if you take pictures put them into a book to sell!! ;)

 

That is a great article on how confused this world is coming too! A guy who has been doing what he was for 40 odd yrs, suddenly is deemed "Dangerous to the general Public" by taking pictures... but if you have a brand new CPL with AOC, He's safer!? Yeah pull the other leg...... it plays jingle bells!

 

 

 

[GraemeK]

Interesting stuff Sirius! Seems the law is open to "interpretation"!

 

There are two relevant regulations, both in the CARs:

 

s2 (7) (d) (iv) which deems aerial photography "where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the photography is conducted" to be private operations.

 

s206 (1) (a) (iv) which deems aerial photography to be aerial work and hence a "commercial purpose" and therefore requiring an AOC.

 

We need Darky to interpret "on whose behalf" I guess. So, Dick Smith takes a few snaps out the window, bungs them in a book and sells them. IANAL, but he's probably in the clear, because he's taking the piccies for himself not on behalf of someone else. Mr Rudd might be different, if the local estate agent asked him to get some aerial shots of a property and he received payment - because he's taking the pics on someone else's behalf.

 

Short answer - while the law may be an ass, you can't take aerial photos for reward.

 

 

[Tomo]

You'll become a lawyer yet Graham! :thumb_up:

 

Yes unfortunately.

 

 

[Guest sirius]

Richard has suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune at the hands of CASA for years culminating in a recent high farce brought about by CASA over alleged "maintenance" issues. This was discussed at length on PPRune and made for very interesting reading.

 

I posted Paul's missive to demonstrate the lengths some faceless and blameless Bureaucrats will go to if they have you in their sights.

 

 

[GraemeK]

high farce brought about by CASA over alleged "maintenance" issues.

Ah sirius thanks for that - it jogged my memory, I thought I remembered Richard's story but the old brain cells are not what they used to be!

 

 

[Guest sirius]

Check out the offending right elevator in the photo.

 

Aircraft for Sale, Plane Sales, Planes for Sale – Aviation Advertiser ? – Online Magazine Dad?s Army Rides Again!

 

 

[Tomo]

Check out the offending right elevator in the photo.Aircraft for Sale, Plane Sales, Planes for Sale – Aviation Advertiser ? – Online Magazine Dad?s Army Rides Again!

Oh my goodness... I never thought that it was sooooooo out of wack!

 

Assumptions are a painful thing....

 

An unusual aircraft : Aircraft VH-AQX Photo by Nick Dean