Proposed new operational classifications – Business and owner transport (PP 2610OS)

Feedback updated 15 Oct 2026

We asked

Some owner-related and operator business-related flights can involve an element of hire and reward. Following the introduction of the flight operations regulations, these flights may be classified as air transport operations under the current regulatory framework, even when they are not offered to the public and are conducted in circumstances that more closely resemble private operations. This issue is being managed by a temporary exemption instrument (CASA EX68/24).

CASA sought feedback on a proposal to introduce 2 new operational classifications:

  • business transport
  • owner transport.

We proposed that:

  • business transport and owner transport would become new categories of private operation
  • eligible operations would not require a Part 119 Air Operator's Certificate (AOC)
  • a new 3-sector framework would apply safety requirements based on aircraft size, complexity and passenger capacity
  • the temporary exemption would be replaced by a permanent regulatory framework
  • clarification would be provided as to how existing AOC holders can manage or operate aircraft used for business transport and owner transport operations
  • a no-fee notification requirement for business transport and owner transport operators of higher complexity or passenger capacity aircraft would be introduced.

About this consultation
The consultation opened on 17 August and closed 14 September 2026.

We sought feedback on the:

  • clarity and practicality of the proposed classifications
  • eligibility criteria and exclusions
  • proposed safety requirements
  • three-sector framework
  • potential impacts on aircraft owners, operators, pilots, passengers and other industry participants.

The proposed classifications and sector framework are intended to provide greater regulatory certainty, establish clear boundaries between different types of operations, and apply safety requirements that increase according to operational complexity and risk.

You said

CASA received 35 responses from across the aviation industry, including aircraft owners, pilots, AOC holders and aviation associations.

Feedback reflected a broad range of views on the proposed business transport and owner transport framework.

Many respondents supported CASA’s objective of establishing a permanent framework for business and owner transport operations to replace the current exemption arrangements, while others raised concerns about aspects of the proposed regulatory approach. Many considered the proposal a practical, proportionate and risk-based approach that would provide greater regulatory certainty and reduce unnecessary regulatory burden.

However, respondents also identified areas requiring further clarification, refinement or additional safeguards. Key concerns related to maintaining appropriate safety outcomes, ensuring consistent regulatory treatment of similar operations and avoiding unintended impacts on existing Air Operator Certificate (AOC) holders.

Some respondents raised specific concerns about safety oversight, passenger protections, fatigue management, maintenance requirements and potential competitive impacts on existing air transport operators, particularly those operating under Part 135 of CASR. Others questioned whether operations that closely resemble charter or other air transport services should continue to operate outside the Part 119 AOC framework.

Overall, feedback reflected a broad range of views on the proposed framework. Respondents commonly sought further clarification, refinement and safeguards to support effective implementation.

Summary of feedback

Classification and terminology
The most common feedback related to the proposed definitions of business transport and owner transport.

Aircraft owners who use their aircraft to support their own business activities reported difficulty determining which classification would apply to their operations.

Other respondents expressed concerns regarding ownership structures involving companies, trusts, syndicates and managed aircraft arrangements. Several respondents requested additional guidance material and worked examples.

A number of respondents supported the proposed classifications and considered them an improvement on the current arrangements. These respondents considered the proposal would provide greater certainty for owner and business aircraft operations and align more closely with international regulatory approaches.

Three-sector framework
Many respondents supported the principle of a 3-sector framework with requirements increasing according to operational complexity. These respondents considered the framework proportionate and practical.

Other respondents questioned whether the proposed 3-sector thresholds appropriately reflected operational risk. In particular, some suggested that larger aircraft, turbine-powered aircraft and aircraft requiring type-rating should be subject to additional requirements.

Several respondents suggested alignment with existing air transport thresholds based on passenger seating capacity or maximum take-off weight.

Safety oversight and regulatory assurance
A significant number of respondents expressed concern that the proposal could reduce regulatory oversight and safety assurance for passenger-carrying operations.

Concerns included:

  • reduced regulatory oversight of business transport and owner transport if they became a kind of private operation, compared with existing AOC operations
  • lower pilot training and checking standards compared to air transport operations
  • less CASA oversight of operator safety management systems
  • lower maintenance and continuing airworthiness requirements
  • inconsistencies in regulatory outcomes across similar types of operations.

Several respondents considered that operations closely resembling charter or air transport operations should continue to operate under the Part 119 framework.

Some respondents noted that passengers would unknowingly assume that business transport and owner transport operations would be equally safe to AOC operations.

Other respondents considered the proposal appropriate for lower-risk operations and believe it would reduce unnecessary regulatory burden without adversely affecting safety outcomes.

Fatigue management
Some respondents supported the proposed approach and considered that existing Part 91 obligations, pilot responsibilities and workplace health and safety requirements provided an appropriate level of fatigue management, particularly for lower-risk operations.

Other respondents considered that the absence of prescriptive flight and duty time limitations in some sectors would not provide the same level of protection available under existing air transport frameworks. These respondents argued that commercially operated and professionally crewed operations should be subject to additional fatigue controls.

AOC holders and managed aircraft
Several respondents supported the flexibility offered by the proposal, particularly where aircraft may move between owner transport and AOC operations.

Other respondents expressed concern that professional operators conducting flights outside an AOC could undermine existing regulatory settings. Respondents also raised concerns about transparency, consistency of oversight and potential competitive impacts on AOC holders that remain subject to full air transport requirements.

Notification requirements
Respondents generally supported a simple notification process for the proposed Sector 2 and Sector 3 business transport and owner transport operations, provided it remained low cost, administrative in nature and did not become an approval process.

Some respondents suggested that notification requirements should apply across all sectors. Other respondents supported CASA's proposal limiting notification requirements to larger and more complex operations.

Transition arrangements
Most respondents supported a transition period of approximately 12 months.

Some respondents suggested a longer transition period of 18 or 24 months to allow affected operators sufficient time to review documentation, implement new requirements and transition from existing arrangements.

We did

Next steps
CASA appreciates the time and effort invested by respondents in preparing their submissions.

We will consider the consultation feedback in detail before determining the most appropriate next steps. This includes considering whether any changes to the proposed policy are needed in response to issues raised during the consultation.

 

Use of artificial intelligence
Artificial intelligence (AI) tools were used to assist with drafting, editing, summarisation, information synthesis and document structuring activities undertaken on this document. Any AI-generated content included in this document, or used as an input to the review process, has been reviewed, validated and refined by a human and has not been relied upon as a substitute for evidence gathering, analysis, findings or recommendations.

Published responses

View submitted responses where consent has been given to publish the response.

Closed 14 Sep 2026

Opened 17 Aug 2026

Overview

We are seeking your feedback on a proposal to introduce 2 new operational classifications:

  • business transport, and
  • owner transport.

Some business-related and owner-related flights are currently classified as air transport operations because they involve an element of hire or reward. CASA is consulting on a proposal to introduce 2 new operational classifications and a risk-based framework intended to provide greater regulatory certainty while maintaining appropriate safety outcomes.

Why is this proposal needed?

The issue

Some owner-related and business-related flights can involve an element of hire and reward. Following the introduction of the flight operations regulations, these flights may be classified as air transport operations under the current regulatory framework, even when they are not offered to the public and are conducted in circumstances that more closely resemble private operations. This issue has been managed by a temporary exemption instrument (CASA EX68/24).

Industry stakeholders have advised that, in some cases, the resulting regulatory requirements may not be proportionate to the level of operational risk.

The challenge

CASA must ensure that any changes maintain appropriate safety outcomes and regulatory integrity.

This means balancing the need for appropriate safety oversight with the need to avoid imposing regulatory requirements that may be disproportionate for lower-risk operations. Developing a suitable long-term solution requires clear distinctions between private operations, business transport and air transport operations, as well as appropriate safeguards relating to operational control, accountability, aircraft management arrangements and passenger safety.

Proposed response

To address these issues, we are proposing a permanent framework that better aligns regulatory requirements with operational risk while maintaining appropriate safety outcomes. The proposal has been informed by:

  • industry feedback
  • CASA's risk-based regulatory principles
  • a review of regulatory approaches adopted by Transport Canada, the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).

The proposed classifications and sector framework are intended to provide greater regulatory certainty, establish clear boundaries between different types of operations, and apply safety requirements that increase according to operational complexity and risk.

What is changing?

We are not proposing to remove safety oversight. Instead, the proposal would create a new framework that allows certain business transport and owner transport operations to be regulated differently from commercial air transport operations, while ensuring safety requirements remain proportionate to the complexity and risk of the operation.

The proposal is intended to replace the current temporary exemption (CASA EX68/24) with a permanent regulatory framework that provides greater certainty for owners, operators and pilots, while ensuring safety controls continue to increase as aircraft size, complexity and passenger capacity increase.

Under the proposal:

  • business transport and owner transport would become new categories of private operation
  • eligible operations would not require a Part 119 Air Operator's Certificate (AOC)
  • a new 3-sector framework would apply safety requirements based on aircraft size, complexity and passenger capacity
  • the temporary exemption would be replaced by a permanent regulatory framework
  • clarification would be provided as to how existing AOC holders can manage or operate aircraft used for business transport and owner transport operations
  • a no-fee notification requirement for business transport and owner transport operators of higher complexity or passenger capacity aircraft would be introduced.

These changes are intended to provide greater regulatory clarity, align requirements with operational risk and reduce unnecessary regulatory burden while maintaining appropriate safety outcomes.

Who may be affected?

This proposal may affect:

  • aircraft owners
  • businesses that own or operate aircraft
  • operators that manage aircraft on behalf of owners
  • Air Operator's Certificate (AOC) holders
  • pilots conducting owner-related or business-related flights.

What are the proposed new classifications?

The table below shows, at a high level, how flights may be classified under the proposed framework. It is intended to help you understand how business transport and owner transport differ from air transport operations.

If the flight is...

It may be classified as...

Conducted for an owner's private, personal or recreational purposes to transport passengers with a personal connection to the owner, where the operator of the aircraft receives hire or reward

Owner transport

Conducted to support a business activity, where passengers and cargo are carried in connection with the business purpose, and the operator of the aircraft receives hire or reward

Business transport

Offered to the public as a transport service (even if it is also conducted for an owner or business transport purpose)

Air transport

The sections below provide a more detailed explanation of the proposed business transport and owner transport classifications.

Business transport

Business transport would apply to flights conducted in support of a business's primary activities where transporting passengers or cargo is incidental to the business purpose and is not the purpose of the business itself. Examples may include transporting employees, contractors, directors, equipment or supplies to support business activities.

Example: A mining company uses its aircraft to transport employees and equipment to a remote worksite.

Owner transport

Owner transport would apply to flights conducted for an aircraft owner's private, personal or recreational purposes, where the aircraft is managed and operated by another operator on the owner's behalf. Passengers would be people who have a personal relationship with the owner, such as family members, friends or personal associates.

Example: An aircraft owner engages an operator to fly family members to a holiday destination using the owner's aircraft.

See Appendix A in the attached Policy Proposal 2610OS for further examples to illustrate the proposed classifications.

How would safety be managed?

A key consideration in developing the proposal was ensuring that safety requirements remain appropriate to the level of operational risk.

CASA recognises that business transport and owner transport operations may present different levels of risk depending on factors such as aircraft size, complexity, passenger carrying capacity and organisational arrangements. While some operations may have risk profiles more closely aligned with private operations, others involve larger aircraft, more passengers and more complex operating environments.

For this reason, the proposal includes a 3-sector framework that scales safety requirements according to aircraft size, complexity and passenger capacity. As operational complexity increases, additional safety requirements would apply.

Under the proposal, smaller and less complex operations would be subject to fewer additional requirements, while larger and more complex operations would be required to meet safety standards that are progressively closer to those applying to air transport operators.

For aircraft carrying more than 19 passengers, the proposed safety requirements would be broadly comparable to those that apply to air transport operators, although an AOC would not be required.

Current and proposed arrangements

The following table summarises the current and proposed arrangements.

Current arrangements

Proposed arrangements

Some owner and business-related flights may require a Part 119 AOC.

Eligible business transport and owner transport operations would not require a Part 119 AOC.

Temporary relief is available through CASA EX68/24.

Permanent regulatory framework proposed.

Limited distinction between these types of operations and air transport operations.

New operational classifications introduced.

No specific framework for business transport and owner transport operations.

Three-sector, risk-based framework introduced.

What feedback is CASA seeking?

We are seeking feedback on:

  • the clarity and practicality of the proposed classifications
  • the eligibility criteria and exclusions
  • the proposed safety requirements
  • the 3-sector framework
  • potential impacts on aircraft owners, operators, pilots, passengers and other industry participants.

Feedback received during this consultation will help inform CASA's final policy position and any future legislative or guidance material.

This proposal is an initiative within CASA’s General Aviation workplan.

Previous consultations

Prior to the release of this proposed policy, CASA consulted with a Technical Working Group (TWG) consisting of representatives from industry. Alterations and additions were made to the proposed policy as a result of these consultations. Participation in the TWG does not constitute endorsement of the proposal by its members.

Why your views matter

Your feedback will help us make sure the proposed requirements are suitable, as well as informing any future steps by CASA to draft proposed legislation. Any future proposed legislation will also be subject to public consultation.

How to submit feedback

Please submit your comments on the proposed policies through the consultation hub using the survey link provided on this page.

If you are unable to provide feedback via the survey link, please email us at regulatoryconsultation@casa.gov.au .

What happens next

At the end of the response period, we will:

  • review all comments received
  • make responses publicly available on the consultation hub (unless you request your submission remain confidential)
  • publish a Summary of Consultation which summarises the feedback received and outlines next steps.

All comments received on the proposed policy will be considered. Relevant feedback that improves the policy will be included in the final policy proposal which forms the drafting instructions for the legislation.

Related documents

All documents relevant to this consultation are attached in the ‘Related’ section at the bottom of the overview page. They are:

  • Policy proposal 2610OS – contains detailed descriptions of the proposed policy
  • MS Word copy of online consultation for ease of distribution and feedback within your organisation.

Audiences

  • Air operators (Part 137 of CASR)
  • Aerial work operator
  • Aerial work operator (Part 138)
  • Aerodrome industry consultant
  • Air transport operations – rotorcraft (Part 133)
  • Aircraft maintenance engineer (AME)
  • Aircraft operators
  • Aircraft owner/operator
  • AOC holders operating helicopters
  • Farmer/ agriculture/operate over your own land
  • Flight training operator
  • Flight training operator - helicopters
  • Flight training organisation
  • Floatplane operator
  • Helicopter pilot
  • Instructors and flight examiners
  • Licensed aircraft maintenance engineer (LAME)
  • Operations Control/Flight Dispatch
  • Part 138 of CASR certificate holders operating helicopters
  • Part 141 of CASR operator
  • Part 142 of CASR operator
  • Part 145 of CASR approved maintenance organisation (AMO)
  • Part 61 of CASR pilot
  • Pilots
  • Regulation 30 of CAR maintenance organisation (CAR 30)
  • School/Education/Aviation Theory Provider
  • School/educational institution
  • Sport and recreation operators/clubs

Interests

  • Cabin safety
  • Continuing airworthiness / maintenance
  • In-house training for CASA FOIs
  • New and emerging technology
  • Private operations
  • Registered operators- Private and aerial work operations
  • Safety promotion
  • Self administration aviation activities
  • Technical training organisations