Hi Bob/Richard,

I came across something in your text book the other day and forgot to ask you about it. It says that if anyone gets paid, the operations must come under commercial purposes.
What about, hyperthetically, a wealthy man/woman owned a Learjet or similar, and hired a pilot to fly her or anyone she invited onboard around. Seeing as her aircraft is not open to the public by any means, would this come under Private operations or Commercial? Even though the pilot is getting paid. I know that in the CAR 2 (7) D it says transportation of the owner of the aircraft, under private operations. So if the pilot can get paid, he/she would only need a PPL, as it states in Part 61 that PPL can fly private operations. This is confusing me a little. And I can't seem to get a straight answer from anyone. Can you please help me with this?

Kindest regards,
Ivan

Hello,
Use to know someone in a job like this. They weren't actually employed by the company as a pilot. They were employed in other roles and flew the company aircraft as an extra curricular activity. That's how they got around CAR 206 and operated under CAR 2.

Good work if you can get it.

Mister W.

Thanks for your reply mate! I appreciate it. I see what you mean. 1 of the bob tait cyber exams had that same explanation, when I did it after posting this up haha. I actually asked CASA before hand and they couldn't even understand it, and they tried evading me. However when I got to someone that was in the exams department they went through the actual questions and told me that there is no question that will be asked on that or similar. They almost even read the question out to me haha. Thanks again for your explanation

The would never ask a question that basically is an admission that you can get around their laws haha

There are many scenarios that could be imagined where the regulations alone do not always give a clear answer. Often it would take a court ruling to decide whether the flight was in fact illegal. Even CASA are not sure sometimes. I have often heard CASA say that it is the 'intent' of the regulation that must be considered. In the case of the CAR 206 'commercial purpose' definition, the intent is to define the operation rather than the pilot. If the flight is undertaken for a commercial purpose, then it must be classified as either AWK or CHTR. In the case you describe the flight is not being undertaken for a commercial purpose even though the pilot is being paid. If the pilot was on the books as a company employee, that would make it a lot simpler.