When is regular flight considered charter?

[rrogerramjet]

So Im a fair way off yet, but sometime this year I could be commuting from YMER-YCBR Mondays and Fridays, preferably in my own plane. (VH)

 

Rumour has it there is a bit of interest from potential passengers/commuters.

 

Should this all come together and a bunch of us are sharing costs, with myself and maybe one other being primary owners/operators, and this arrangement continues for a period at what point might this be considered 'charter' and therefore possibly not legal?

 

Thoughts on the matter?

 

cheers

 

Ramjet

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

As soon as the amount the non-pilot/plane owner 'pax' get charged more than a provable fair percentage of the operating cost.

 

That amount can include the cost of hangarage, insurance, fuel, maintenance, replacement etc, pro-rata during the period/days actually shared by those pax.

 

In a practical sense, good luck trying to regularly commute in a VFR light aircraft, due to weather constraints, unless your main area of ops is well inland.

 

Just noticed, Canberra, I guess you're intending IFR ...?

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

Merimbula to Collarenebri - that's a big commute! About 530NM. So long as you equally share costs (you don't get paid to fly them) it isn't a charter. However if you advertise that you are offering seats - that's a different ball game. Equally sharing costs means four people share a quarter of the costs each, including the pilot paying his quarter. Problems arise when one passenger pays for another eg a case where the boss paid for himself & his secretary - was determined not to be shared costs.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Oops, not Canberra ...

 

Some years ago I had a CASA determination done on private advertising for cost sharing pax. They said it was OK as long as you weren't offering scheduled departures. 'Scheduled departures' has an official definition.

 

These days, with the advent of Uber, I'd guess that CASA would be fairly timid about any prosecution, it's pretty slippery ground until there's a clear breach to use for developing a precedent.

 

Nonetheless, even inland my original comment stands for a Private commute of that distance, unless twin IFR it's unlikely to be sufficiently regular to attract any attention.

 

 

[rrogerramjet]

Thanks all for your considerations..and yes, I mean Canberra, not Colleranabri ! oops.

 

I well expect there will be non-flying days, maybe I'll get 60% airtime. I may need a full instrument panel and IFR if I'm totally committed (I expect not, those endless fog days in Canberra even stop the RPT) ..but for now if I get 5'ish months up and back by air it will suit my needs.

 

Main concern was if I'm transporting other regularly if that might cross some commercial boundary.

 

cheers

 

Ramjet

 

 

[ben87r]

CAR 2 (definition of a private operation) and CAR 206 (commercial operation) are you "go to regs" for these questions. Lot of old wives tales get out regarding private ops. Basically what has been said here is correct, equal cost sharing ( I would be leaving out anything apart from a direct cost ie fuel, airways, maintenance) don't advertise and most importantly not available to persons generally.

 

You can unnecessarily create grey areas if you venture to far from the above

 

 

[rrogerramjet]

Thanks...CAR 2 thats what I was after. (actually read it a while back, completely forgot) Interesting how they note 'equally share' costs. Must be some logic behind that...

 

(7A) An aircraft that carries persons on a flight, otherwise than in accordance with a fixed schedule between terminals, is employed in a private operation if:

 

 

 

(a) public notice of the flight has not been given by any form of public advertisement or announcement; and

 

 

 

(b) the number of persons on the flight, including the operating crew, does not exceed 6; and

 

 

 

© no payment is made for the services of the operating crew; and

 

 

 

(d) the persons on the flight, including the operating crew, share equally in the costs of the flight; and

 

 

 

(e) no payment is required for a person on the flight other than a payment under paragraph (d).

 

So (a) would include anything like public internet message boards or Facebook announcenements "I am flying x to y on Monday if you want to share costs be at the strip at 7am sharp"

 

I don't do facebook so no bother for me.

 

cheers again.

 

Ramjet

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

(a) public notice of the flight has not been given by any form of public advertisement or announcement; So (a) would include anything like public internet message boards or Facebook announcements "I am flying x to y on Monday if you want to share costs be at the strip at 7am sharp"

 

I don't do facebook so no bother for me.

You can't give public notice of the flight, but there's nothing to stop you placing an advertisement seeking people who might be interested in forming cost-sharing flights into and out of your destination. This is just the same as for ride-sharing in cars, you can't put up an advert saying "Car/ride share to Brisbane, departs BP service station 7am, $20/person". But you can say "Seeking people interested in forming a ride-share syndicate, Gold Coast to Brisbane & return daily, share costs".

 

So, in your example, you can't say - "flight departing Canberra for Merimbula on Friday at 5pm, persons interested in cost-sharing contact xyz". Because that's advertising the flight.

 

But you can say -

 

"Seeking person(s) who might be interested in cost-sharing private flights to/from Merimbula on Mondays and Fridays".

 

In the second example you're advertising for people, not for flights, and at the time of advertising for the people there's no particular flight scheduled, so it's not an advertisement for a flight, therefore doesn't contravene (a).

 

Also - there's a difference between a public advertisement and a private advertisement, though the division is fine, so care needs to be taken. Technically an advertisement at your private clubhouse or private (i.e. not open) Facebook group, is not a public advertisement or announcement ...

 

 

[johnm]

The purpose of the flight should also be considered - you might stumble there to

 

Only simple one I can think of: ........................ If each person has a chocolate bar that would be OK - of there was 100 kgs of chocolate int back - that might not be OK

 

 

[GraemeK]

(d) the persons on the flight, including the operating crew, share equally in the costs of the flight; and

 

This has always intrigued me - so if I pick up all the costs, and don't charge my pax anything, it's not a private flight? Note they use "and", so all 5 conditions have to be satisfied.

 

 

[ben87r]

"Seeking person(s) who might be interested in cost-sharing private flights to/from Merimbula on Mondays and Fridays".

I would suggest that would be against CAR 206.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

This has always intrigued me - so if I pick up all the costs, and don't charge my pax anything, it's not a private flight? Note they use "and", so all 5 conditions have to be satisfied.

No - you need to take it in context. To do that see the previous para, specifically 7 (d) (v) -

 

(7) For the purposes of these regulations:

 

(a) an aircraft that is flying or operating for a commercial

 

purpose referred to in paragraph 206 (a) shall be taken to

 

be employed in aerial work operations;

 

(b) an aircraft that is flying or operating for a commercial

 

purpose referred to in paragraph 206 (b) shall be taken to

 

be employed in charter operations;

 

© an aircraft that is flying or operating for the commercial

 

purpose referred to in paragraph 206 © shall be taken to

 

be employed in regular public transport operations; and

 

(d) an aircraft that is flying or operating for the purpose of, or

 

in the course of:

 

(i) the personal transportation of the owner of the

 

aircraft;

 

(ii) aerial spotting where no remuneration is received by

 

the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person

 

or organisation on whose behalf the spotting is

 

conducted;

 

(iii) agricultural operations on land owned and occupied

 

by the owner of the aircraft;

 

(iv) 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;

 

(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;

 

(va) the carriage of persons in accordance with

 

subregulation (7A);

 

(vi) the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes

 

of trade;

 

(vii) conversion training for the purpose of endorsement

 

of an additional type or category of aircraft in a pilot

 

licence; or

 

(viii) any other activity of a kind substantially similar to

 

any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vi)

 

(inclusive);

 

shall be taken to be employed in private operations.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I would suggest that would be against CAR 206.

It's no good 'suggesting it', either it is or it isn't ...

 

Below is CAR 206 in entirety - which bit are you suggesting an advert seeking people contravenes? If you mean the CAR 206 mention of fixed schedules, that's a defined term and includes 'from fixed terminals' - and 'Mondays and Fridays' doesn't meet that definition.

 

>

 

Division 1—General

 

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):

 

(i) aerial surveying;

 

(ii) aerial spotting;

 

(iii) agricultural operations;

 

(iv) aerial photography;

 

(v) advertising;

 

(vi) flying training, other than conversion training or training carried out under an experimental certificate issued under regulation 21.195A of CASR or under a permission to fly in force under subregulation 317(1);

 

(vii) ambulance functions;

 

(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);

 

(ix) any other purpose that is substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vii) (inclusive);

 

(b) charter purposes, being purposes of the following kinds:

 

(i) the carriage of passengers or cargo for hire or reward to or from any place, other than carriage in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals or carriage for an operation mentioned in subregulation 262AM(7) or under a permission to fly in force under subregulation 317(1);

 

(ii) the carriage, in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals, of passengers or cargo or passengers and cargo in circumstances in which the accommodation in the aircraft is not available for use by persons generally;

 

© the purpose of transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally, for hire or reward in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals over specific routes with or without intermediate stopping places between terminals.

 

(1A) However, the commercial purposes prescribed by subregulation (1) do not include:

 

(a) carrying passengers for hire or reward in accordance with subregulation 262AM(7); or

 

(b) carrying out an activity under paragraph 262AM(2)(g) or 262AP(2)(d).

 

(2) In this regulation:

 

aircraft endorsement has the same meaning as in regulation 5.01.

 

conversion training means flying training for the purpose of qualifying for the issue of an aircraft endorsement.

 

 

[Jay_1984]

Two other things to consider. You mentioned that you would prefer to be doing the flights in your own aircraft, which means your other option is to hire. In that case you would need to run this by the owner/school etc. Their ops manual might have a condition on that type of flight.

 

The other thing is to think about the intention of the flight. If you are intending to do the flight regardless of who tags along, then that would lean towards private commute, but if you start to operate more like a service to others, that would lean more to a commercial flight in a grey area legally.

 

Just my thoughts

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Two other things to consider. You mentioned that you would prefer to be doing the flights in your own aircraft, which means your other option is to hire. In that case you would need to run this by the owner/school etc. Their ops manual might have a condition on that type of flight.The other thing is to think about the intention of the flight. If you are intending to do the flight regardless of who tags along, then that would lean towards private commute, but if you start to operate more like a service to others, that would lean more to a commercial flight in a grey area legally.

 

Just my thoughts

I'd agree with your first para except there's another option - borrow.

 

However your second para falls into that category where people start to offer various interpretations that generally muddy the water.

 

The Regs are not open to interpretation, they are very specific and if someone isn't sure of their meaning they need to apply for a determination.

 

It's clear what you're suggesting, that it might appear more 'commercial' if the flight only departs if there are pax to share the cost.

 

But - there are no CARS or CASRs that I've ever seen which invite one to separate the classification of departures on such a basis. The only means of determining the status of the flight are those which exist at the time the flight is initiated, whenever that may be, and with whichever occupants there may be. As long as they're sharing costs according to the number of people aboard, it's a Private operation.

 

Really folks, don't complicate it more than necessary - and don't subject yourself to imagined restrictions that aren't actually legislated.

 

 

[Jay_1984]

Oh I agree that a flight is determined at the time of the flight and that the regs are black and white. (Just finished CPL law recently and had to go over all manner of flight examples)

 

I would class the flight as private also as it complies with CAR 2.

 

Only wanted to give Ramjet something to consider.

 

 

[aro]

These regulations are very confusing in the way they are interpreted. I am not even convinced that CASA's interpretations always follow the actual regulations.

 

CAR 2(7) and CAR 206 are different things. CAR 2(7) defines private operations, i.e. what you can do with a PPL. CAR 206 defines operations that require an AOC. Totally different things.

 

In this case, CAR 2(7) is easy to satisfy. You don't have to satisfy ALL the conditions, so flying in the course of the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft ticks the box as a private operation. No need to look at schedules, advertising or who pays what etc.

 

So why can't you advertise and sell tickets on a flight in the course of the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft? It must be that CAR 206 also applies, regardless of whether CAR 2(7) classifies the flight as private. So you need to satisfy CAR 206. In this case I would suspect that 206(1)(b)(i) carriage of passengers or cargo for hire or reward and possibly 206(1)(b)(ii) carriage, in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals, of passengers might be a problem.

 

I don't know the legal definition of "hire or reward". I suspect CASA don't actually use the usual legal definition, but I don't know whether their definition is actually recorded anywhere or whether it's just their opinion at the time.

 

Ultimately CASA's definition is really what matters, unless you are in court.

 

 

[SSCBD]

Two other things to consider. You mentioned that you would prefer to be doing the flights in your own aircraft, which means your other option is to hire. In that case you would need to run this by the owner/school etc. Their ops manual might have a condition on that type of flight.The other thing is to think about the intention of the flight. If you are intending to do the flight regardless of who tags along, then that would lean towards private commute, but if you start to operate more like a service to others, that would lean more to a commercial flight in a grey area legally.

 

Just my thoughts

You may hire out YOUR private RAA (factory built) aircraft to any other RAA pilot provided that the maintained is maintained by a level two. Got that from RAA direct. I believe the wording has been disguised or to make you believe you cant hire out your aircraft but is in 3.3 in the ops manual

 

 

[spacesailor]

SSCBD

 

Does that mean a non pilot (student failure) can "own", then have a certified pilot fly his aircraft (at owner's expense) to wherever the owner likes to fly to?.

 

"From Aro" In this case, CAR 2(7) is easy to satisfy. You don't have to satisfy ALL the conditions, so flying in the course of the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft ticks the box as a private operation. No need to look at schedules, advertising or who pays what etc.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Geoff13]

There is certainly one well known person who flys all over the place in their RAA aircraft with someone else at the controls.

 

So long as he is not being paid extra to fly the aircraft above his normal salary and his job description does not say pilot I would see that as acceptable within the rules.

 

But then I am not a lawyer.

 

 

[SSCBD]

There is certainly one well known person who flys all over the place in their RAA aircraft with someone else at the controls.So long as he is not being paid extra to fly the aircraft above his normal salary and his job description does not say pilot I would see that as acceptable within the rules.

But then I am not a lawyer.

Is that Pauline?

 

 

[SSCBD]

SSCBDDoes that mean a non pilot (student failure) can "own", then have a certified pilot fly his aircraft (at owner's expense) to wherever the owner likes to fly to?.

"From Aro" In this case, CAR 2(7) is easy to satisfy. You don't have to satisfy ALL the conditions, so flying in the course of the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft ticks the box as a private operation. No need to look at schedules, advertising or who pays what etc.

 

spacesailor[/quote

 

Yes - my example, a father owns the aircraft by cant fly. His son can fly the aircraft as long as not being paid to do so.

 

Another is that you own the aircraft, and I pay you to hire it (level two maintained) but what stops you going for a ride as well?

 

It has happened in GA ,when the father for example has lost his medical and son or someone fly's for the hours.

[storchy neil]

Sscbd would chauffeur be okay as job description:stirrer: neil

 

 

[SSCBD]

Sscbd would chauffeur be okay as job description:stirrer: neil

That's what I did, to rack hours with parachutists when a PPL before going com. Free booze and food though. Those were the bad days. Plus the jumpers (hard core group) having a smoke of the funny stuff on the way up.

 

 

[rrogerramjet]

All good info, thanks for all the rules postulation and theory. I think I'll be right.

 

Cheers

 

Ramjet