Defn of "Aerial Work" (UK)

[fireflybob]

If one instructs at a flying club without any remuneration is this classed as "Aerial Work".

I have read the ANO which talks about "valuable consideration" for the flight which includes amongst other items a "benefit". If the club pays for annual medical and licence fees is this then a benefit? Could hours in the logbook be called a "benefit"?

I would be grateful to hear informed views!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Normally yes, because the club is receiving remuneration for use of the aircraft.

G

[Whopity]

If the instructor is unpaid then the flight is to all intents and purposes private. Exactly the same as a pilot renting an aeroplane to take someone flying. The renter takes his cut but that has nothing to do with the status of the flight.

In order to rent the aircraft, it has to be maintained to public transport standards, but that is an airworthiness issue.

With regard to benefits there is a simple rule you can apply. If the flight had not taken place would the benefit still have been given? If you cannot relate the benefit to a specific flight it would be difficult to claim that that benefit was for the purpose of the flight.

I don't see how hours that you give for no remuneration can be perceived as a benefit, any more than driving a steam engine at a railway society.

[IRRenewal]

If the instructor is unpaid then the flight is to all intents and purposes privateNot quite true I'm afraid.

If the punter pays a dual rate, regardless of whether the instructor gets paid or not, the flight is classed as aerial work. The decisive factor here is in what the student pays the club, not what the club pays the instructor.

If a dual rate is paid, and the club keeps apart an amount of money to pay for the instructor's licence renewal and medicals, than the flight is aerial work.

If the student pays the solo hire rate for the aircraft, and gets an instructor thrown in for free, then it is a private flight. If the club in their kindness pay for the instructor's medical renewal than that is irrelevant.

This has funny implications for things like flight time limitations. In the dual rate case the flight would count towards the 900 hours you are allowed to fly commercially a year. If you work for an airline you'd have to inform your rostering people about these hours so they can ensure you get minimum rest etc. In the solo rate case you can do as many hours as you like, as obviously an unpaid and therefore private instructional flight doesn't cause fatigue.:}
--------------------
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

[Whopity]

If the punter pays a dual rate, regardless of whether the instructor gets paid or not, the flight is classed as aerial work. The decisive factor here is in what the student pays the club, not what the club pays the instructor.

You may be right but to clarify the matter what is the reference for this statement?

[BizJetJock]

Also the CAA's view has always been that everyone instructing is building hours, whether for licence issue or just improve the CV. Thus any hour in the logbook which you would otherwise have had to pay for is a benefit as far as they are concerned. Such nice helpful people.:mad:

[IRRenewal]

Whopity,

Of the top of my head, it says something like 'if valuable consideration is given or promised'.

If student pays dual rate, valuable consideration is given by the student for the instruction. Therefore it is aerial work.

Hope this helps.

Gerard

[Whopity]

OK thats a fair interpretation.

BZJ

"the CAA's view has always been" .... "Thus any hour in the logbook which you would otherwise have had to pay for is a benefit as far as they are concerned"

The CAA wouldn't be in the least bit interested, let alone express a view! The tax man might be daft enought to arrive at such a conclusion!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Not really on topic, but a former boss of mine tried to get a definition of aerial work out of CAA Legal department.

He never succeeded, but did part from them this gem...

If you tow a banner saying "The village fete is tomorrow", that is simply public information and perfectly acceptable. If however you tow one saying "Come to the village fete", that's advertising and therefore aerial work.

Which may tell you more about the mindset of the lawyers employed by CAA than anything else.

G

[DFC]

There are some cases where sleeping dogs etc etc.

It is not the receiving of payment that makes a flight aerial work it is the giving or the promise of.

As an example if a student agrees to complete a flight lesson for a £100 dual rate but after the flight runs away and never pays, it was still aerial work because the flight departed on the promise of payment.

With a flying club, one must look closely at the set-up. Is it a true members club or is it a business that calls itself a club?

If everyone is an equal member of the club and pays the same membership fees and has the same membership rights and responsibilities i.e. they have the same liability if the club folds and the club has a proper constitution and holds an AGM where everyone has a vote then it is clearly a club.

I believe that such a club where both the instructor and the student have the same membership status could charge a solo and a dual rate. The club could also pay for certain instructor expenses eg training materials. However the expenses paid would have to be very clear and be operated on the basis that it should not cost the instructor money to train people at the club.

One good reason for charging a dual rate would be to sponsor PPL members who wanted to complete instructor courses.

However, for that to be legal, every qualified member of the club would be entitled to go on an instructor course and claim their fair share of the sponsorship fund. The administration of such a fund could be decided at the AGM by the members.

It would also be a legal requirement that all profits where retained within the club i.e. the owners are all the members and they must plough the profit if any back into the club - better facilities or aircraft, an engine fund, more instructor sponsorship.

If say that the aircraft needs a new engine and there is a shortfall in the finances. If members are asked to put their hands in their pockets for £xxx then everyone from the Chairman to the instructors to the latest student must be required to and must provide their share of the expense.

Basically I can't see the CAA having a problem with such a set-up because many clubs take-in more money than they spend in a year on what they do........that is how they improve their facilities or provide for engine funds.

Finally in such cases it should be set out clearly in the constitution that the club is a not for profit members club and is not a flying school. Since the CAA limits the number of share holders in an aircraft to 20 then such a club would be limited to 20 members including instructors if they have one aircraft. Not sure but if an aircraft was rented in then it could be argued that the limit of 20 per aircraft would also apply unless one can show that having say 30 members and one rented in aircraft gives every member a reasonable availability should they request it.

Regards,

DFC

[bookworm]

You may be right but to clarify the matter what is the reference for this statement?

The reference is really the absence of anything to the contrary in Art 130:

Public transport and aerial work
130(1) (a) Subject to the provisions of this article, aerial work means any purpose (other than public transport) for which an aircraft is flown if valuable consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight.

Note the absence of mention of a recipient (e.g. "given or promised to the pilot").

As others have suggested, there's a greyness over what would be considered valuable consideration:

‘Valuable consideration’ means any right, interest, profit or benefit, forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility accruing, given, suffered or undertaken pursuant to an agreement, which is of more than a nominal nature;

I don't think BJJ's hearsay is supportable. The incidental benefit of getting to log an hour in your logbook in respect of that flight is no more valuable consideration than would be the joy that you bring to a passenger on a private flight who enjoys the view. However, if there's an agreement that the instructor gets free flying (which would otherwise have to be paid for) on condition that he does some instructing, that would be valuable consideration.

I also don't think DFC's club arrangement, though ingenious, works. The costs that you can contribute to a club fund without it become PT or AW are clearly set out in Article 130, and they don't include the payment for the services of an instructor.

BTW, Schedule 8 make the circumstances in which a PPL may conduct an aerial work flight:

(2) (a) He shall not fly such an aeroplane for the purpose of public transport or aerial work save as hereinafter provided:

(i) he may fly such an aeroplane for the purpose of aerial work which consists of:

(aa) the giving of instruction in flying, if his licence includes a flying instructor’s rating, class rating instructor rating, flight instructor rating or an assistant flying instructor’s rating;or

(bb) the conducting of flying tests for the purposes of this Order;

in either case in an aeroplane owned, or operated under arrangements entered into, by a flying club of which the person giving the instruction or conducting the test and the person receiving the instruction or undergoing the test are both
members;

Paragraph (b) goes on to prohibit such an instructor receiving remuneration (except for microlights and SLMGs). Thus it is aerial work, but the instructor cannot be paid.

[IO540]

Does this mean that if an instructor gives some training to a mate (or a child etc) of his and simply doesn't charge for it, it is aerial work?

Basically I disagree with the assumption that anyone with instructor qualifications is always going to be doing it to make money.

There are also many syndicates, around a Private CofA aircraft, which have an instructor as a member. He does checkouts (now that's another questionable activity which one could argue about, since a checkout is only a club rule, not legally required) and even some training.

Traditionally, training went on in Private CofA planes by charging for ground school, which is OK until the student agrees to be a witness for the CAA and says the payment was actually for flying :O

It's very similar with training in N-reg planes. OK if the instructor doesn't get paid for the flight. But if he falls out with the student, anything can happen.

[bookworm]

Does this mean that if an instructor gives some training to a mate (or a child etc) of his and simply doesn't charge for it, it is aerial work?

No, but there is an issue of credibility. If there is a reasonable suspicion that the instructor has an expectation of being repaid for the service in other than a nominal way, a court might take a view that the instructor is not being as altruistic as is being made out. I don't know of any UK cases, but there are certainly US NTSB cases where the ALJ simply didn't believe that an air taxi pilot was just doing a favour for a total stranger.

[IO540]

I suppose there is no point in digging into theoretical things like this, but it's fun :O

This would be a criminal prosecution, so the CAA would have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Unless the instructor had a useless lawyer (which is entirely possible; this is a specialised business and even the best minds can only just about unravel the ANO) there should be no way to get a conviction unless the alleged student offers a statement supporting a payment. And I bet the consideration needs to be visible, e.g. a cashed cheque or some such, if the instructor denies it.

In the one UK case I know of (where details have been pretty widely published) this is what happened.

Perhaps, if an instructor is doing training for free, and such a flight would be illegal if it was paid for, he ought to protect himself by getting a signed letter from the student confirming no payment will be made. Otherwise, he is vulnerable.

The air taxi case might have been "obvious" given circumstantial evidence (he probably did it for more than one person) but let's say I give a stranger a lift from my base airfield to some other place (say he wants to collect a plane) and then he decides to falsely say he paid me, or promised to pay me, but there is no evidence of this, I must have a usable defence. The case still has to be proven.

I also can't see how the "promised" possibility could ever be enforced - in the absence of evidence.

The problem with the ANO is that so many bits have been tacked onto other bits, to plug holes which various cowboys have explored...

[Squawk 2650]

Sorry if this is going off the subject a little bit but do you need an AOC for all types of aerial work like aerial photography?? or is an AOC just required for air taxi work??

S
:cool: