Remuneration for Private Operations

[turning inbound]

I have a question regarding being paid for PVT ops when the pilot holds a PVT licence.

I have heard people say that you may not receive payment for flying with a PVT licence.

However, CAR 2 (7d) states in part

"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; and
(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, owner or hirer of the aircraft;
...
shall be taken to be employed in private operations.

CAR 5.78 states that a PPL holder is authorised to fly a PVT operation as PIC.

The example I've heard relates to a company that owns an aeroplane and wishes to transport its employees from place to place, without charging them for their seats on board. Therefore, there is no charge for the carriage.

This seems to be a PVT operation and a PPL holder would seem to qualify to be the PIC.

Can the company pay such a pilot to conduct the operation? If not, what is the justification in the regulations?

A similar question would be can the owner of an aeroplane pay a PPL holder to fly his/her aeroplane around with him/her on board?

[carro]

you may get paid for both.. another example is a skydiving company - the pilot isnt being paid for flying the skydivers up to their drop altitude but rather for dropping them out of the aeroplane.... many loopholes indeed. hehe

enjoy

carro

[turning inbound]

i think the issue is what the skydivers are paying for - if it is not carriage on the aeroplane then i guess it could be PVT as well.

i guess the real question is is there some rule elsewhere that prevents payment to the pilot unless they hold a CPL or ATPL?

[Tinstaafl]

There are several PVT ops defined in the CARs that allow a PPL to be paid to do the flying. More accurately, they aren't a PVT op specified in the CAR that prohibits a PPL from being paid AND they don't fit in an op. that meets AWK, CHTR or RPT definitions.

Flying the owner of the a/c & his guests/employees (without a charge being made to the guests) is one of these 'PPLs can be paid' categories.

CAR 2 (7) gives the details.

[Pitch and Break]

Technically, yes, you may fly for a business as a private pilot as long as the business owns the aircraft and flys staff etc without charge. ie: Company XYZ owns a Seneca and it is used to fly their staff to meetings around the country without any charges being levied against the staff. You could fly the aircraft as a PPL BUT you cannot be employed as a pilot. You would need to be employed in some other capacity and just happen to fly the aircraft as a consequence. The same by the way would apply if you were a CPL holder too as once money changes hands for the passengers, then the operation must be covered by an AOC and all that goes with that requirement.
Anybody else please feel free to jump in here if I am wrong because I think it is important that turning inbound gets the right information.
CARRO - parachute operations is another kettle of fish altogether and is not a good comparison as it is categorised differently and separately.

[Tinstaafl]

It's not true that you cannot be employed as a pilot with a PPL. If the operation meets one of the Private Ops. defininitions that doesn't prohibit payment AND it doesn't fit in one of the Aerial Work, Charter or RPT definitions then payment is perfectly OK.

The rules specify what sort of ops fall into what sort of category. They then specify the minimum level of licence necessary for the category of operation.

In the PVT case there are several ops that are - by definition - private operations where payment is prohibited. However, there are also defined private ops where payment is NOT prohibited. It is under those circumstances where you may be paid to be a pilot, all completely above board.

[Woomera]

Most company and government executive operations are in the private category, with the pilot being paid as a pilot.

It is not the pilot's qualification, rather the nature of the operation which counts. Beware of the aerial work category.

[turning inbound]

thanks guys.

pitch and break hit on the "myth" that was at the core of the problem. that is, there are some additional requirements for a PPL holder to fly a PVT op. i think there is an assumption out there that what p & B said is the case but there is no supporting regulation for that.

[Capt Hollywood]

As another example....

A PPL towing gliders up to altitude and then releasing them. The interesting part here is that the PPL doesn't have anyone in HIS/HER aircraft, they are simle being towed behind.

As far as I can interpret the rules there is no reason why the PPL can't charge $50 for the tow.

Cheers,

Hollywood :cool:

[Pitch and Break]

Capt Hollywood, your example is quite correct because there are no passengers involved and the operation is classified PVT anyway.
As I said in the lead-in to my last post on the subject, put your case, including all the parameters you intend to operate within, to CASA and ask for a determination in writing before you even consider conducting these operations on a PPL. Will save you a whole pile of grief somewhere down the track when some jealous out-of-work CPL goes running to the authority!:E