the law surrounding part 96

[skybound®]

I hardly believe a court of law is going to find me guilty of an offence if my greatest sin remains an interpretation of my marketing material. I will market as I see fit, to get ‘feet through the door of my ATO’.. What is important is “Did the pax know BEFORE they signed the docs and joined the school...” They are welcome to turn around and leave if they don’t want to join the school. Fact is that no-one has ever objected to joining the school and doing Ex 3.

I think this may be where the crux lies. I have no idea how you market so is not aimed at you David, but if someone is marketing sightseeing flights and that is what gets the person to the airfield, he is not there to learn to fly, no matter what documentation they sign.

An exagerated and perhaps extreme analogy could be that, as a non instructor, non ATO, non Part 96, I market sight seeing flips, and when the flippee arrives I get them to sign a document to say they are purchasing a R400 case of ginger beer and I will take them for a flight for free. They too are welcome to leave if they dont want the ginger beer - but I bet you they wont. I do believe the court will put me in chookie. What was the real intent?

What I am saying is that you cannot ignore what got the person to the airfield in the first instance. Was it really to consider becoming a pilot and take up flying? If not, any documentation will be seen as an attempt to bypass the law. That ugly acid test of when the wheels come off, when their spouse or family come after you and say he was there for sightseeing trip and there had been no intent to become a pilot.

[Africa]

baffels me why we cannot advertise a fun site seeing flip? as long as you are an instructor and have a legal ATO etc. I mean, if a passenger enjoys the flight so much he may become a student. Seems like it should be the interest of aviation to get feet through the doors. I remember when I flew for a JNB school in Baps i got a huge amount of students from the coastal schools flying flips. more misasa members, more aps, more aircraft more everything, more economy. Why the heck do people persist on this issue. again, must be a rated instructor, flying under a school, with legal aircraft...... or do we just want to kill the sport?

I guess there will always be a "grey" area where some non intructors take flips for money but there will always be loop holes and that person will pay when something goes wrong

[skybound®]

or do we just want to kill the sport?

Quite the contrary, but I guess it depends if the glass is half full or half empty

Consider this - there may well be persons out there who have zero inclination of going the hog of becoming an instructor and operating a school, but would not mind sharing and introducing persons to the sport via flipping. If flipping does as suggested and wakes up the want in individuals to now become a pilot, then the demand for ATOs and instruction will increase. How can this be bad?

[Gyronaut]

...then the demand for ATOs and instruction will increase. How can this be bad?

I could not agree more Skybound!

The problem lies in the motivation. We are motivated to promote the sport of flying, the regulators are motivated by fees (taxes) and legislation. YES, In that order of preference. (nothing happens until the fees are paid - ever... the rest is just a paper trail ensuring that the fees were paid and that more fees can be charged in due course)
... different thread, sorry, I digress.

I think we all agree that the intent must be to potentially undergo instruction if a person pays for a flight at a part 141 registered institution. It therefore follows that a person going to a part 96 operation will do it for whatever purpose they require a vehicle capable of flight with a competent pilot, other than for training, the services of which they happily pay for. All good. If you want to flip and charge for it, get part 96 and pay your annual tax for doing it and voila.

I also wish to remind everyone that flipping is NOT illegal so please don't stop doing it!
Being remunerated for flipping is illegal. Flipping and/or promoting flipping is not! I see no reason why I cannot advertise 'scenic flights'. If you read the fine print you will see that you may require a licence and a machine of your own before you can undertake your 'scenic flights' on your own. In the meantime, I can show you what you will be enjoying once you have completed your training. Try before you buy... capiche?

Down here in the Cape we have not progressed with our Part 96 application at all since we are presently being audited by a very hostile CAA contingent, threatening with fines, grounding, closure - even arrest. You'd swear we were a rogue Virgin Atlantic flying illegal Concordes packed with Heroin the way they carry on.
Sometimes one wonders if it is worth the effort with attitudes like these.

... damn, different thread again. Forgive me


Summary: Don'f flip and get remunerated for it if you don't have Part 96 authorisation. Klaar.

[John Boucher]

Sounds like.... "Behavior UN-BECOMING TO A CAA OFFICIAL" and he should know better ?

CAA Inspectors should really be approaching the ATO's that WANT TO COMPLY with that of VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE or WHERE CAN WE ASSIST attitude before threatening grounding aircraft and dishing out fines which has not been processed through the correct channels - I may add is not within the normal operations.

I suppose it is the same CAA inspector that portrayed this "attitude problem" with a client of mine here in Mossel Bay and tried the - I'm really trying to help you here but filled with a condescending approach... really not on!!

[lamercyfly]

Hi Folk, interesting answers and thoughts:).

But, this just brings me back to the questions that begs an answer, namely, WHY do MISASA and AeCSA not stand united in formulating a nationally endorsed method of
learing up any 'grey' area surrounding doing these lesson 3 Air Experience flights. Eg, skybound you keep mentioning the word 'scenic flight'. Well, if that is so important, then part of the Nationally endorsed marketing strategy, we ELIMINATE the word or any reference to the word in our marketing material. Instead, we make it clear on our brochures that you are coming to experience flight as a potential student with an instructor. Already one problem sorted!

I know it can be done.

And yes, I KNOW that the flights we do at the coast over December DO feed the schools in Gauteng. Fact! Yes, they ARE ALL potential students..

The other thought that keeps on popping up, and which no one is arguing about, is:

Yes, if you don't want an ATO, then by all means get a part 96Autho and get your ASL and SACAA Ops Cert and go do your flips. Call them flips then. Call them scenic flights. Call them what you want..

But lets stop talking about that. That is not the issue here. We have all been in agreement about that option since it was first inception.

The issue is, HOW TO STOP individuals, including members of our parent body, and the licencing body, from using the word 'illegal' every time we talk about introductory Ex3 flights from ATO's.. Stop it! Just stop it! If you think it is illegal, keep it to yourself. I am not interested in your negative view point. I want to talk to proactive, progessive thinkers, leaders! Not ruddy followers of stupid grey area regulations. If there is a grey area, pray tell why you choose to interpet the negative view instead of the positive?

Remember, as I have written earlier, at the Instructor Seminar some years back (before RAASA), of the total vote, only 3 were against (and yes, there were 3 CAA officials present, of which Mr J. Cloete was one). And what was the vote? The vote was "Do we endorse ATO doing ex 3 introductory flights". To the man, every school owner and operator and instructor present voted YES! And we are still, YEARS later, debating the same thing!! This is insane, and is a poor reflection on the management of a rather important issue surrounding the health of our industry. We had, from a National Instructors Seminar, a clear and endorsed mandate, for the laws to be written in favour of the above. The mandate was sent back to CAA with Mr Cloete... AeCSA and MISASA achieved nothing in following it up.. and now, like in so many other areas, we are just chasing our tails around the same old same old story...

I know that, if our request is reasonable, and our parent body endorses it, that under the constitution of South Africa, if we follow due procedure, and are diligent in our efforts, that CARCOM will have no reason to deny our ATO's the right to perform introductory flights.

I rest my case now, as there is nothing new to be said.

Regards.

[Africa]

Dave! this topic is like beating a dead blacket with a cricket bat.

[gertcoetzee]

If there is a grey area, pray tell why you choose to interpet the negative view instead of the positive?

Dave, I have no reason to doubt your bona fides. However, to the family of someone who died when flipped in the grey area, it is anything but grey. It is black. This argument flared up after such an incident.

[lamercyfly]

) sorry, one last thought I forgot to mention, is that when I refer to a potential student, as allowed under the current CAR's, I mean a potential student FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE ATO!. I don't give a hoot if the pax does not consider themselves a potential student. It is up to me to conduct myself and the Ex 3 in such a manner that my potential student will become a student. If they don't, well then that's too bad, they just remain a potential student, hopefully to come back again and be hooked the second time round..

..that's why I wrote earlier, let us take the initiative and define Potential Student as a Potential Student FROM THE SCHOOLS POINT OF VIEW.

I believe that in this post we have already identified 3 issues which can be taken by AeCSA, MISASA and RAASA, (and we all know you guys are reading so don't plead ignorance), and they are:

1. Remove any wording from marketing material indicating that the flight will be a scenic etc., flight
2. Take the initiative and define Potential Student
3. Take this seriously enough to work toward a nationally approved and endorsed operational procedure which all schools are encouraged to utilise..

I wonder if I actually have said all that needs to be said .

Cheers guys, I'm in Cape Town to go check Rodriguez tonight..

[flying-i]

Dave

I recently had to take down my web site because it had the word scenic in it. Imaging telling Steers that they cannot have the word Tasty in front of their burger advertising - people want TASTY burgers!

People want to be taken for SCENIC flights and the objective should be, that it is done safely, with qualified people, and that there is oversight - Lets not complicate things further than that. A school has the perfect infrastructure.

A simpler entry to part 96 is also required to accommodate photography, movie shoots, game counting etc.

It seems RAASA is working on a solution. They have some challenges and could probably use the minutes of that seminar you referred to where the industry clearly indicated what we all want. At the moment I feel we are divided and weak in our resolve to have this sorted out once and for all.

RAASA is well placed to serve the industry here and I understand that they are treating it as urgent and important. Perhaps they would like to comment?

The CAA have not listened or if they did then they have failed to facilitate amendments to the legislation to accommodate industry requirements.

CAA inspectors are messengers and there is no point arguing with them - this needs to be taken to the top (Department of Transport) with a true representation of our industry. I believe that RAASA can apply the necessary pressure which will lead to allowing them to facilitate the solution we all want.

I want to comply with reasonable legislation and have a safe flying operation.

More rules never made anything safer and the safest operation is one that does not fly.

[Mc Guyver]

Dave

I recently had to take down my web site because it had the word scenic in it. Imaging telling Steers that they cannot have the word Tasty in front of their burger advertising - people want TASTY burgers!

People want to be taken for SCENIC flights and the objective should be, that it is done safely, with qualified people, and that there is oversight - Lets not complicate things further than that. A school has the perfect infrastructure.

A simpler entry to part 96 is also required to accommodate photography, movie shoots, game counting etc.

It seems RAASA is working on a solution. They have some challenges and could probably use the minutes of that seminar you referred to where the industry clearly indicated what we all want. At the moment I feel we are divided and weak in our resolve to have this sorted out once and for all.

RAASA is well placed to serve the industry here and I understand that they are treating it as urgent and important. Perhaps they would like to comment?

The CAA have not listened or if they did then they have failed to facilitate amendments to the legislation to accommodate industry requirements.



CAA inspectors are messengers and there is no point arguing with them - this needs to be taken to the top (Department of Transport) with a true representation of our industry. I believe that RAASA can apply the necessary pressure which will lead to allowing them to facilitate the solution we all want.

I want to comply with reasonable legislation and have a safe flying operation.

More rules never made anything safer and the safest operation is one that does not fly.

I had a similar problem in Oz.
Change aerial scenery to aerial views and it should comply!