PPLs playing CPLs

[Aft Cyclic]

Hi all,
I feel the need to address what seems to be a growing problem in our industry.Gone are the days when a PPL would be begging for ferry flights to build hours towards the CPL ticket.It now seems the rules and regs that we all know are just there for decoration,it seems now the new 'CPL' is the PPL. An ever increasing amount of these cowboys are out there in the field actively seeking work on a daily basis without any intention of ever sitting the CPL exams and it seems that they have an abundance of work due to private owners trying to offset the cost of running their machines.The authorities seemingly ignore what is going on and this is just bad news all round for an industry already under the microscope by the public and the media.Is anybody going to do anything to stop this?

[scooter boy]

Can you provide any examples?

SB

[Spunk]

How about the guy in a 300 (PPL) who crashed in the vicinity of Leipzig this year having a photographer and a camera man on board. Very professional...:ouch:

[Camp Freddie]

I would agree with mr aft cyclic that this is an issue.

now there are lots of clever people around who know the law a lot better than me

but there seems to be several people around who have a very loose idea of what constitutes a "private flight" which to me sounds like a charter.

it may start with an owner asking a "mate" (who may be an PPL instructor operating under grandfather rights or who may just be a regular PPL with a few hours) to come along with him in his own aircraft to some event and to fly the owner back in the evening as he will be "p***ed by this point.

before you know it the owner is asking him to do little jobs for him, pick this person up here or that person up there and fly them to wherever and of course they will pay them either in free flying the promise of further free flying or just in cash.

and this can develop into them basically being a ppl charter pilot, the passengers may not be actually handing over cash but there is no difference from a charter.

all of this undermines the point of getting the CPL and leads to a situation which we have got now where there are very few proper jobs on single engine aircraft (instructors excepted) because there is no money in it.

on top of this we have got extreme examples, I heard a story of someone who was allegedly caught at battersea walking out his passengers to the aircraft to do the charter dressed in the white shirt/4 bars, who turned out to be PPL who didnt even have a valid LPC on the aircraft he was about to fly.

I think there is lot more "grey charter" around than most of us realise.

regards

CF

[Hansard]

Yes, it's happening out there - and in the fixed wing world too. Watch who turns up at the next race meeting with 4 stripes in an R44/B206, ferrying the owner's mates to and from. Wedding charters are another favourite for the PPL.

[rotornut]

What are the rules in the UK? In Canada you can't use an aircraft for "hire or reward" without a CPL plus the aircraft has to be part of a commercial operation.

[noblades]

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: You mean I don't need to spend all that money on a CPL?? I wouldn't worry about any JAA authority. They'll sympathise with you and even come out with a few really good OTT regs post impact to show the public that they're doing they're jobs but guaranteed they're not in the prevention better than the cure dept.

I say forget all licenses and lets go back to Barnstorming and let mother nature sort it out :}

Seriously, we all know who's at what in our own neck of the woods and pretty sure that the Authorities know too but who's going to act???????

try getting in your motor tonight,pop down to your local taxi rank and start hopping rides. See how long you get away with that one. Taxi drivers won't give you a tut tut and whinge to council. It'll be lamppost and hung by your seatbelts and more power to them.

That's my rant for tonite :zzz:

NB

[bladeslapper]

As a professional pilot.... you see some unprofessional / unsafe flying.
So do you deal with it in whatever might be an 'appropriate' manner or do you just ignore it and pretend you never saw it?

Ask yourself the question. Are you a just pilot or a professional?

If PPLs bend a rule then "advise" them if that seems appropriate to you. If they continue to break rules then they are risking the insurance cover which affects their passengers and maybe 3rd parties. Consequently they are flying with the very same kind of disregard and negligence to passengers as a pilot under the influence of drugs.

If you genuinely know of improper use of a PPL (rather than heresay stories) then please do something about it or you could be considered complicit.

[Whirlybird]

before you know it the owner is asking him to do little jobs for him, pick this person up here or that person up there and fly them to wherever and of course they will pay them either in free flying the promise of further free flying or just in cash.


Whether you and I like it or not, I think most of this is legal - apart from the paying in cash of course. A PPL is allowed to take passengers, to the races or their wedding or anywhere else. An owner is allowed to let someone else fly their aircraft for free if they want to.

If I'm wrong about this, please let me know - but I can't see where this is illegal.

[Camp Freddie]

whirlybird,

my basic understanding is that a PPL cannot fly "for hire or reward, promised, implied or given"

where a PPL goes from point A, picks up the owners associates at point B (owner not on board) flies them to point C. waits around all day, takes them back to point B in the evening, then returns to point A, now that sounds and looks like a charter

free flying or the promise of free flying or actual cash all seem to me to be "hire or reward"

this is where we need a lawyer !

regards

CF

[kissmysquirrel]

This subject has been covered many times in many places. People have, and will continue to fly illegally, as long as they continue to get away with it. I know a few people who do this but if they are being paid cash in hand, it's difficult to prove.
If a crash were to happen, and a survivor admitted they were paying the PPL pilot, then you might have a case. Especially as any decent insurance company would refuse to pay out, and rightly so.
Corporate flying was always a grey area with one guy I heard about flying a A109 on a PPL with 200hours TT. He only picked customers up for his boss. He wasn't paid as a pilot. Not breaking the law, but for those of us who bothered to get a CPL/ATPL/IR etc, it is annoying. :mad: He did go on to get a CPL though!

I don't know how you would go about grassing these people up and getting satisfaction. Ramp checks? A CAA hotline? Any thoughts?

[verticalhold]

I've ranted on this subject several times on this forum over the last few years.
I am heartily sick of watching the AOC fees disappear to the authority, completing the quarterly returns, keeping up with the paperwork and training, sitting through the annual inspections and then watching some fool turn up at one of the major events with "guests" on board and the authority doing f:mad: all.

Don't these people realise that their insurance is probably null and void due to their actions? Who will the pax or their famillies go after in court after an accident?

The blatant abuse of the system by a few fools results in tighter legislation for those of us who do go by the book. In this company we now operate all flights requested by owners to Public Transport criteria, it causes some pain, but the pilots know the PT rules and it saves potential problems when private one day and PT the next.

Does anyone know the outcome of the incident at Ascot this year involving a foreign reg AC, the CAA and "guests" who were waiting for an invoice. I'll bet B:mad: all.

If these people want to play in our toyshop maybe we should adopt the taxi driver approach as described by noblades.

Rant over

[Impress to inflate]

Camp freddy is right "for hire or reward". That says it all.

[kissmysquirrel]

meaning that if I let you fly my helicopter for the day, (for instance say free B206 turbine time to a low timer) I am saving £250+/day in pilot costs and my passengers get to where they need to be. Isn't the pilot getting something out of this deal? You bet he is, he is getting 206 time free instead of forking out £500+/hr for the a/c use.!!! I would call this reward.

Why can't we have a name and shame section on the web where you can post info on people who break the rules?

ps isn't the annual AOC cost due to jump even higher. Even more reason to get rid of illegal flyers.

[HillerBee]

It's my understanding that a PPL can only take passengers when he intended the flight anyway. The passengers cannot ask the PPL to go somewhere. However when was the last time someone (rampcheck) actually asked you for your licence.

We as professional pilots should also have a way of turning those people in (anonymous preferably). Waiting for accidents to happen is not the way forward, it gives a bad reputation to general aviation and will restrict us even more.

[Out of Date]

If they were up for it & capable of doing it there can't be many pilots out there who would refuse the chance of any free flying. The only pilot who would refuse is the one who wants payment for such and is told there is none.


Of course as with any venture there are the minority who blatantly flout the law and some times the law eventually catches up with them. However in the ideal world every pilot would like a friend with a chopper to ask them if they wouldn't mind picking/dropping someone up/off, delivering the ship for Mtc or vice versa or just taking someone out for a jolly on their behalf and why not.


Why on earth would an owner pay these film star wages for a CPL pilot to have their ship flown from A to B when one of their friends (or any other capable pilot) would do it for free.


Life would be so much simpler if no money exchanged hands for all these good deeds instead of just sour grapes cos another pilot has had the opportunity of some free flying and you haven't.


If anybody wants to do a CPL, I wish them well, if they don't, I also wish them well but there shouldn't be a need to bitch about someone who is capable of doing the same thing that your capable of doing just because they haven't got a CPL.:=

It is your choice to invest in more training (nobody forced you) just like it is his or hers to accept there current level of experience.


Lets be honest at the end of the day it's just another flight and who gives a toss.


It does't come very often so if it's within your capability grab any free flying you can that's what I say.:ok:

[bondu]

Out of Date,

Wrong! :ugh: :ugh:

I think you should change your moniker to OUT OF TOUCH!:ugh:

bondu :mad:

[HillerBee]

Out of date,

So you're saying we (CPL's) are all stupid, we just should fly for free as PPL's. We are professional pilots and try to make a living flying. This has taken a lot of hard work and investment in ourselfs, either civil or military. You can't even compare the level of a PPL with CPL. I assume you're a PPL or even a student. Please get real.:ugh:

[Bravo73]

Blah, blah, blah, blah


Hmmm, do I smell a troll? :hmm:

[helicopter-redeye]

Posted at 11.54am. Must be the pre Sunday dinner sherry talking ...

h-r;)

[thecontroller]

mmm.. interesting.

one the one hand, i cant see anything wrong with someone who owns a helicopter, asking a friend who has a PPL to fly him/his friends somewhere

but, if he's getting paid for it, then its against the law

consider this scenario:

a guy asks his CPL-holding friend to fly his own heli to ascot with some people in the back for a fee. is this legal? or does it need to be done under an AOC?

[helicopter-redeye]

Who is paying, or being paid, the fee?

The CPL flying a private aircraft being paid by the owner to do so or the people in the back paying a fee to the owner for the flight?

Or both?

[thecontroller]

the people in the back are paying the owner. and the owner is paying the pilot.

[perfrej]

Interesting discussion...

As a PPL(H) I would gladly ferry helicopters for free - no doubt about that. When I do I usually pay the air-fares to get to wherever the machine is and then back home. We all want hours, and I have four types to keep alive pending a CPL(H) to come at my 50th birthday (hope, hope).

I have never heard of an owner who asks a PPL-guy to "take some of his friends for a ride". What I have heard of is questionable "cost-sharing" ventures.

According to the regs it is OK to share costs, and I guess that a totally biased sharing situation would not hold up in court - like $1000 for you, $1000 for him and $1 for me. If four guys (or gals, for that matter) want to go skiing and use a helicopter for it, one of them holding a PPL(H), what's wrong with that? The important factor is that the PPL(H)-person should never ever try to give the impression that he is anything more than a private pilot who can't WORK as a pilot.

The good old "company pilot" rules say that if your main task is NOT flying the company jet, or helicopter, you can do it within the framwork of your employment. With just a PPL.

The really bad side of all this are - in my humble opinion - things like:

- A PPL posing as CPL

- Owners of charter companies (with PPL) who jumps in a takes an important flight when no employed pilot is available (has happened in Sweden)

- Taking on paying passengers without a valid AOC - PPL or CPL alike.

I don't beleive this is a major problem in my country. There are cases, sure, and I know of quite a few. But rest assured, the incident mentioned above and the press surrounding it has made the general public much more aware of factors such as AOC, CPL and rules&regs. The Swedish civil aviation authorites has info about this on their web-site (first page) with easily accessable lists of all valid AOC's.

I do get the impression that it is worse in the UK, though. How bad is it? Examples? Accidents?

All the best,

Happy CPL(H) in Sweden

[kissmysquirrel]

Believe this would require an AOC

[Whirlybird]

I just don't see how free flying constitutes hire or reward.

Look at it another way. I, as a car owner, ask a friend to use my car to take my friends to the races, since I can't go. The friend kindly agrees to do so. He spends all day doing it, for no pay. I and everyone else would consider him a really good friend. Nobody would say isn't it great that he's getting all this free driving....even if the car happened to be a Ferrari!

But if I, as a helicopter owner, ask my friend to fly my friends to the races, and he agrees to do so, everyone complains about him getting free flying. But how do you know he wants free flying? How do you know he isn't just being a good friend? What makes you assume everyone wants to waste a whole day, just to get airborne.

Sorry, but in my book "hire or reward" means just that, ie money or similar. I'm not a lawyer, but I really don't see how free flying can be called hire or reward. Logically it makes no sense. Just because we CPls don't like it doesn't mean it's illegal.

Flying Lawyer, where are you when we need you?

[Lunar]

Folks,

It's quite simple and a lot of you have already made the point. The PPL cannot fly for hire or reward, it is that simple. If he/she is getting paid, it's illegal, if they are not paying a pro-rata share of the cost of the flight, then it is illegal.

I spent a lot of time, money and gained some grey hair getting to where I am, and I would love to work in a country that had an authority that would do something about the problem.

Sadly, we all seem to work in countries where the authority responsable doesn't want to get involved, those who obey the rules, pay thousands (tens of thousands) and get inspected all the time and those who opt out get to do as they please.

It does make one wonder why we bothered to do it right?

Regards to all,

Lunar:rolleyes:

[chester2005]

It was explained to me as , any PPL flying must be either , a cost sharing flight or self funded.

Anyone who is not paying for their flying is receiving " payment/benefit in kind"

IMHO this is against the law.

Chester:ok:

[helicopter-redeye]

the people in the back are paying the owner. and the owner is paying the pilot.


Owner paying pilot (CPL) to fly aircraft - this is OK, right? :ok: Thats why you have a CPL license. To fly for payment [consideration] (payment does not have to be a monetary reward, but this gets into grey light, so lets leave that for Tudor)

Owner paying pilot (PPL) - ding! :8 Illegal. Payment being made to non commercial pilot to fly aircraft. Period. Paragraph. Cue CAA action (rare). :(

People pay owner - ding! :zzz: Thanks for playing, this needs an AOC as an aircraft is moving people who pay for the priviledge of being moved (it is a public transport flight - they paid and it is not a PPL cost sharing on a flight that was going to take place anyway and John & Peter said 'can we come and pay our share of the fuel costs'. The flight is moving PEOPLE WHO PAY for the priviledge without the approriate licence (AOC). It is an air taxi operation. Thus an offence is committed. Insurance may be invalidated. Prosecution ensues. This should be where the CAA should be putting their regulatory attentions rather chasing pilots who make occasional & accidental errors.

I think this sums it up?

h-r;)

[thecontroller]

i guess it depends on what you mean by "reward"

its its free AS350 time. then its reward

if its free R22 time, then its just like getting socks for christmas!

[helicopter-redeye]

I guess that's where it needs a proper legal opinion backup up by precedent & a hard look at the ANO & JAR Ops etc. There is then the issue of proof and evidence.

PPL's doing ferry flights for a flying school? ?? Is the 'free flying' payment in kind? Discuss.

The real issue (IMHO) is PPLs (and some CPLs, and FIs) doing public transport work outside of the AOC. This is just anarchy.

[EESDL]

Whirly....suggest you look up the regs.....quite straight-forward I'm glad to say when it comes to classifications of private/commercial flight.
Read them in detail as getting miffed with seeing the CAA turning a blind eye to obvious violations - even when numerous experienced pilots report transgressions directly to CAA (N-reg Bell 'crashing' at York/Ascot and dropping off fare-paying pax)
In the same cat as pilot, commercial or private, hiring a helicopter to fly passengers at a reduced rate - not using anyone's aoc etc
Completely illegal, no grey area, absolutely black and white.
Trouble with such an operation is that you don't know who your passengers are talking too whilst waiting for you to turn up - they were actually bragging about the 'deal' they got and how some of their colleagues paid a similiar price to go by train!
The people I feel sorry for are the normal operators of the machine who get tarnished by this pilot's actions - even though it had nothing to do with them.

[Phugoid Phlue]

I thought the basics were that a PPL(UK) could share the cost of any flight with the passengers as long as the PPL payed an equal portion ie 4 seats (inc pilot) the PPL pays one quarter of the cost. It would be ok for the passengers to buy the PPL a beer or a coffee at the end of the day but anything much more would constitute gain eg buying the PPL a plasma TV or giving them cash.

I dont think you can fly twin without CPL so that rules out and grey areas with 109's or 355's!

Question is what happens when a PPL gets the chance to pos the A/C for maintenance at zero cost to them. Does that count? can they take someone with them and drop them off en route or at destination?

[airborne_artist]

I dont think you can fly twin without CPL

Are you sure?

[helicopter-redeye]

No, he's not sure. But he is wrong .... ;)

The more worrying thing is how many people have so little idea of wright and rong [sic]. Is it this bad on our roads or has the Road Traffic Act sunk in yet?

h-r


But I guess was a 'safe' wrong rather than a 'unsafe/ dangerous/ illegal' wrong.

[airborne_artist]

The problem is that there are bound to be some people who think that Phugoid Phlue and his ilk are speaking the gospel truth. It's OK on PPrune because he'll get corrected, but elsewhere?



________

But it so depends on the stress in the sentence - say PP's "I don't..." and it can sound really quite certain, or totally unsure - whereas he could have just posed the Q "can you...?"

[Phugoid Phlue]

Hence the reason for the ? and the "think"

what is the gospel?. Seriously this affect us all.

Good thread and a good question.

PP

PS what is my "Ilk"??

[Impress to inflate]

Out of date, are you seriously saying I've ruined the thick end of £50,000 on a cpl(h) , put so much into gaining my ATPL(H) and all that effort when I could be flying professionaly for so some of the worlds biggest company's when a PPL would have done. What a feckwit I am ehh:ugh: I shall be writing to OAT and Cabair and informing them to scrap there commercial courses because who needs a cpl anymore, and I will have a chat with the local CAA inspector and tell him he's wasting his time and my time on keeping professional standards has high as passable.

[Lunar]

Have these guys never heard of LASORS? It's online and it's free, so no excuse.

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?categoryid=33&pagetype=65&applicationid=11&mode=detail&id=1591

Lunar.

[VeeAny]

Whirly (and others with doubts)
I presume you are not aware fo the following document, which is in places about as clear as mud, but does kind of remove the doubt over free flying (IMHO) in that it is 'provision of goods or services' in reward for flying.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/122/summary_of_public_transport.pdf
(strange though that on my machine at least the last page is page 8 of 7).

I seem to remember PACO pointing to this or something similar a while ago, and there is a thread somewhere about the Public / Aerial work / Private Issue.
The best one I ever saw, was a likeable enough chap , who would take pax in his 206 wearing bars out of airfields and off to hotels for dinner. For no reward of course 'My Arse'. He was not subtle at all.

Pityful thing is that the CAA have an attitude towards CPLs (and PPLs) of 'if you do land there and it needed a permission from us and you don't have one we'll prosecute you, but we won't tell you if you need a permission until you've applied and paid for it'. And then when they're told about obvious wrong doings they seem to do nothing about it.

Although some things obviously do get done, herewith a list of recent CAA prosecutions, interesting that only 2 were illegal public transport. http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/503/Prosecutions.pdf
I am not advocating prosecuting everyone who makes a mistake, but persistent offenders, should have something done about them.



I think that FL is the man to clean up the grey areas, if he gets chance.
V.

[Whirlybird]

VeeAny,

Thank you for that link; I've printed the document out for future reference.

However, I fail to see how free flying equals "valuable consideration" or "provision of goods and services".

Look at it from the point of view of someone who doesn't want to fly. If, after a long week of instructing, you said to me, "You can fly my R22 from one end of the country to the other for free" I'd tell you where to put that suggestion. But if I hadn't flown for six months, I'd think it a really great idea. So, how come? It's either valuable consideration or it isn't; you can't have its worth depending on how the receipient feels about it. And nowhere in that document does it even suggest that free flying in and of itself is valuable consideration.

You can't put your own interpretation on the rules just because you don't like the way things are.

[HillerBee]

It's remains very simple if you are asked to fly (whether free or for renumeration) it's a job offer. You are asked to do a JOB. Means AERIAL WORK. PPL's are NOT allowed to do aerial work. There are simply not even rules to be bend, it can't be done, it's wrong in every way.

[thecontroller]

i agree with whirlybird. free flying is not "renumeration".

[MSP Aviation]

in AOPAPilot Magazine (US) there is a feature where readers send in questions and they are answered by a group of aviation experts (lawyers, mechs, FIs, etc.). the FAA rules and CAA/JAA are very similar when it comes to this type of question. a man asked about ferrying aircraft for free to build time. the lawyer said big no-no. and someone raised the issue of as350 time being valuable and r22 time being "socks for christmas." doesn't matter why you do it, cause if you go for another rating in the future, that r22 time is gonna be part of your total PIC time, which will cut training costs (read: REWARD you).

[Camp Freddie]

I disagree with the controller and agree with MSP

free flying must come under the banner of "hire or reward, promised, implied or given"

we need a lawyer to give us the official word on this.

I know specific examples of people out there who are definitely doing illegal charter on an ongoing basis, but can I prove it ? NO

regards

CF

[VeeAny]

Whirly

I think we are in agreement (in some respects at least), but coming at it from differing ends.

You are quite correct, it cannot depend on how the individual feels.

I think the issue is, is the 'free flyiing' in return for something else, if it is it's illegal (you might disagree with this one).

I always try to 'give away' any dead legs I have to hour builders I know, I don't believe this is illegal as they are not expected to do anything for it. They fly (if type rated), the aircraft gets where it needs to be. I don't believe this can be misconstrued as there was never any intention to charge for it. However they have had the benefit of a free hour or two.

Hillerbee makes a valid point, which I'd never thought of
It's remains very simple if you are asked to fly (whether free or for renumeration) it's a job offer. You are asked to do a JOB. Means AERIAL WORK. PPL's are NOT allowed to do aerial work. There are simply not even rules to be bend, it can't be done, it's wrong in every way.

If the aircraft needs you to get it from A to B and no one else can do it, it is work. If it was going anyway and you get to fly it is it work ?

I also believe that, with some creative accounting 'the valuable consideration' can (and will) usually be lost by some training companies. I suppose that it then comes down to an argument over whether a PPL holder should be expected to pay for any flight they do. I do not believe there is a concrete answer to that.

Did anyone mention corporate yet ? Who owns it, who pays who ? (Too much like being at work)

In some respects one of the more educational debates we've had for sometime.

V.

[thecontroller]

so...if ferry flights are 'reward' because they give you PIC time - but... what if you dont need PIC time, say you have tons of hours - then its not 'reward' is it?

free flying cannot be considered 'reward', because it depends on the individuals circumstances.

if an owner said "you can fly my helicopter and i'll give you a slap in the face too", then the slap obviously isnt 'reward', unless the pilot likes slap in the faces, then it is 'reward'

see my point?

[kissmysquirrel]

Aha, but how many 'high time' pilots do you know who would take a heli from one place to another, possibly with pax, for the owner, for nothing? Zero?
I guess so.:E


Speaking of 'dead legs' VeeAny, any coming up soon? he he

[thecontroller]

sunday night, as this is all we can find to do?! debate the legal semantics of LASORS.....

[Lord Mount]

Hypothetical scenario.
I am a PPL. A flying school aircraft has been away for a 100hr service. I'm sitting around like the hangar cat. Everyone else is busy. If I am asked if I would be willing to collect the aircraft, is that aerial work?
However if I offer to help out by collecting the aircraft does that make a difference?

[Out of Date]

There are boundaries, which a PPL shouldn't cross, and as I said previously there is always a minority who do, that's life and you will never stop it.


When one decides to step up the next wrung of the ladder to Commercial Pilot you must assume it's to earn money out of the same and so you enter a Commercial world. That's fine you only have your piers to compete against and good luck to you.


However back in the private world where people like me just fly purely for pleasure and under no pressure whatsoever if any of us get a chance of free flying (and I am not talking about ferrying passengers/charter or wilfully abusing the system) we will take it.


So for all you CPs that have spent thousands of pounds, endless hrs of studying for a few hrs flying on said course to further your careers great, nothing wrong with that we need you, as I said it was your choice.
My choice however was to spend few pounds with just enough studying, for thousands of hours of flying.


With almost 30 years of it (first lesson 3rd Jan 1977) I have a wealth of experience on many types which I have no problem in passing on my experience to lessor mortals. Be it in my living room or sat in as safety pilot its my way of giving something back to the system for being in a privileged position to have been able to own & fly choppers in the first place :) and lets face it we are all privileged to be able to fly.

Oh and just in case you were wondering I have never ever requested nor received a penny for my efforts.

[helicopter-redeye]

you only have your piers to compete against


.


You meant peers, right? Not Brighton & Southend. :ok: :E :E (it's late)

[Out of Date]

Peers! Well done that man.

I guess I haven't much experiance in spilling?

[rudestuff]

Under the FAA system, for a flight to be considered private, the pilot must pay at least a pro-rata share of the cost of the flight. So free flying (ferry etc) could be considered as renumeration... Is there a similar rule in JAA land?

[ShyTorque]

Piers? Wasn't he the bloke on that agony aunts thread? :hmm:

[Heliport]

So it's simple and straightforward, according to some?
Let's see.

Some quotes from the discussion so far:


"for hire or reward". That says it all.”
All what?
And where does it say “for hire and reward”?


“a PPL can only take passengers when he intended the flight anyway.”
Where does it say that?


“It's quite simple and a lot of you have already made the point. The PPL cannot fly for hire or reward, it is that simple.”
Simple?
Where does it say hire and reward?


“if they are not paying a pro-rata share of the cost of the flight, then it is illegal.”
So, if a helicopter owner allows a PPL accompanying him to fly his helicopter free of charge, the PPL is breaking the law?


“any PPL flying must be either , a cost sharing flight or self funded.”
So, if a generous helicopter owner allows a PPL to borrow his helicopter free of charge, the PPL is breaking the law?


“No grey area ....”
People seem to have very different views about what's black and what's white.


“suggest you look up the regs.....quite straight-forward I'm glad to say when it comes to classifications of private/commercial flight.”
It may be straight-forward (to some), but is it a complete answer to the question here?


“Have these guys never heard of LASORS? It's online and it's free, so no excuse.”
So help them by telling them where in LASORS they can find the answer.


“Whirly (and others with doubts)”
Whirly (and others who disagree with me)?


“free flying must come under the banner of "hire or reward, promised, implied or given"
Where can people find the ‘hire and reward’ banner?


“If the aircraft needs you to get it from A to B and no one else can do it, it is work.”
Is that the test?
That no one else can do it?


“debate the legal semantics of LASORS.....”
Where do we find the answer in LASORS?



Heliport



I suggest ignoring distractions by 'Out of Date'.
Responding to trolls only encourages them.

[MSP Aviation]

i thought of another example. "flying incidental to other business." if my friend says he wants his aircraft brought from A to B and he'll give me $100 to arrange it, i have a multitude of options. i can arrange to have it trucked, i can hire a CPL, or i, with my hypothetical PPL, can fly it there. i'm not being paid specifically to fly it, i'm being paid to arrange for the transportation of a piece of metal. legal, or not?

i'd say illegal, but technically is it?

[Watchoutbelow]

I don’t think many ppl holders will ever turn down the opportunity to be paid to fly, I have even heard of PPls approaching owners in neatly ironed shirts with epaulettes, offering to do it for cheaper then the CPLs that they employ, sadly its rampant.
The authorities don’t seem to care, and some owners don’t seem to care either, why would the pilot bother to care what license he holds if he is getting paid?
It all seems ok to the new owner, until something goes wrong or the weather turns bad, and there are plenty of cases were PPls playing CPL fly into the side of a mountain!
http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/8253-0.pdf
Unfortunately it seems the only people who can stop it are the CPL pilots themselves, by adopting the Taxi driver approach, sad but true!

[perfrej]

I don’t think many ppl holders will ever turn down the opportunity to be paid to fly, I have even heard of PPls approaching owners in neatly ironed shirts with epaulettes, offering to do it for cheaper then the CPLs that they employ, sadly its rampant.


Again a reference to PPLs with "pilot gear" on posing as professionals. Can we try to get some statistics in place, for instance by simple poll.

I know of one (prosecuted) case where a PPL holder actually flew paying passengers in the company that he owned - and got nailed. This is BAD, and nailing is GOOD.

I, for my part, own a military flight overall and an Alpha helmet. Sometimes when I fly - perhaps a ferry flight where I pay the costs surrounding the venture but not the owner of the helicopter - I will use this "costume" because it offers a good noise environment and fire protection along with the fact that I can bump my head against the side of the cabin with no hazard.

When I re-fuel and meet one of you hard-headed types :hmm:, would you consider me as posing as one of you? And I'm not talking about passengers here.

Regardless what some say, this is a very grey area. I have difficulties seing authorities deciding what is rewarding to me, and I have difficulties seing even possibilities of defining lines to cross or not to cross.

I will have to resort to my own judgement - both in flying the thing and in handling the situations surrounding it. I CANNOT accept payment for anything, and I need to share costs with my friends or their friend when they come along. Just as I am sharing the joy if I bring a non-pilot (or pilor for that matter) friend along for a ferry flight that I perform without pay.

That said, anyone posing as a CPL with PPL papers SHOULD be nailed. Forums like this one have the good quality of inspiring the debate, so maybe we will see improvement eventually (if need be).

So, back to the poll...

I know of the case I mentioned, and know of people breaking other rules as well:

- Flying paying passengers with CPL(H) but without AOC
- Flying passengers for pay at night over a city area in a single engined helicopter (CPL(H) in place)
- Flying passengers for pay with CPL, on a type that is in the AOC but with an individual aircraft that is not in itselt the AOC

Which is worse?

Oh, and I do agree that this is a very interesting and enlightning (sometimes discuraging) discussion). Keep it coming!

All the best for now!

/perfrej (PPL(H) for ten years)

[rotorspin]

Here's one for you....

I arrive one day at a summer fete in the UK. An R44 is doing "trips" 3 pax at a time, 20 minute circuits. The landing area is tight and shrouded by trees. There are hundreds of children and adult spectators and to fly to the landing site requires overflying a fairground (again fully populated with funseekers)

On his break I ask the pilot what his qualifications are. "I'm a PPL(H) and the wife is the one in the high vis doing the loading/offloading. Its my helicopter. Everything is donated to charity, I pay for everything to do with the flying and the charity gets all the money for the flight"

Where does this stand legally? I take it the fact he makes a loss on the day (if he does) means that he is within the law? He wore 3 gold bands on his shirt - so not many would question his experience or ability. However in the case of airmanship, this pilot clearly isn't as experienced as a CPL and if he got into difficulties there could be many lives at risk?

[puntosaurus]

Well, since Heliport has laid down the challenge, I can confirm that there are precisely no references to the phrase hire and/or reward in the ANO.

There is one reference to 'reward' and five to 'hire' in the ANO all unrelated to the question in point. Two of the references to 'hire' are in the word 'GloucestersHIRE'.

What it does say on the subject of PPL remuneration is as follows:UK PPLH(2) He shall not:(a) fly such a helicopter for the purpose of public transport or aerial work other than aerial work which consists of:(i) the giving of instruction in flying if his licence includes a flying instructor’s rating, flight instructor rating or an assistant flying instructor’s rating; or(ii) the conducting of flying tests for the purposes of this Order;in either case in a helicopter owned, or operated under arrangements enteredinto, 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;(b) receive any remuneration for his services as a pilot on a flight other than remuneration for the giving of such instruction or the conducting of such flying tests as are specified in sub-paragraph (a).

JAA PPL(H)
(1) Subject to any conditions specified in respect of the licence, the privileges of the holder of a Private Pilot Licence (Helicopter) are to act, but not for remuneration, as pilot in command or co-pilot of any helicopter included in a type rating in Part XII of the licence engaged in non-revenue flights.

Now so far the situation looks clearer for the UK PPL than the JAA one. The UK PPL is banned from aerial work and public transport (save for the flying instructor exception). Now although aerial work and public transport is a can of worms, it is at least defined. The JAR PPL is only banned from flying for remuneration which is nowhere defined in the ANO. However, the term 'non-revenue flight' IS defined as follows‘Non-revenue flight’ means:(b) in the case of a flight by a helicopter, any flight which the holder of a United Kingdom Private Pilot’s Licence (Helicopters) may undertake under paragraph (2)(a) and (b) of the privileges of that licence set out in Section 1 of Part A of Schedule 8 (ie not public transport or aerial work)Excuse me ? We're trying to work out the meaning of a non-revenue flight in the context of a JAR PPL, and the definition refers to the UK PPL. Surely that can't be right ? A closer reading that makes more sense implies that it's the definition of the flight that's being imported (ie no public transport or aerial work) and that the reference to the UK license is just a bookmark for where the text can be found.

If this is correct then PPLs of all colours are banned from aerial work and public transport. If you've stuck with me this far then, you'll probably go 'well I knew that anyway', but remember I had to prove it using the actual words of the legislation.



The rules on public transport and aerial work have been debated in these columns many times, and I don't intend to rehash them. VeeAny has posted the CAAs summary of the rules, which is as helpful as they get. The essence of the rule though is 'valuable consideration' changing hands in respect of the flight. Valuable consideration is defined in the act as follows.‘Valuable consideration’ means any right, interest, profit or benefit, forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility accruing, given, suffered or undertaken under an agreement, which is of more than a nominal nature;Now I don't know about you, but that looks pretty clear - free flying hours are without question a benefit. Worse still I could argue that the definition does indeed involve an assessment of the motivation of the pilot. If she's doing it for pleasure alone then the benefits I would argue are nominal. However if he's doing it to build hours then the benefit is far from nominal, it's what he would otherwise have paid for the flight.

[puntosaurus]

Here's one for you....
I arrive one day at a summer fete in the UK. An R44 is doing "trips" 3 pax at a time, 20 minute circuits. The landing area is tight and shrouded by trees. There are hundreds of children and adult spectators and to fly to the landing site requires overflying a fairground (again fully populated with funseekers)
On his break I ask the pilot what his qualifications are. "I'm a PPL(H) and the wife is the one in the high vis doing the loading/offloading. Its my helicopter. Everything is donated to charity, I pay for everything to do with the flying and the charity gets all the money for the flight"
Where does this stand legally? I take it the fact he makes a loss on the day (if he does) means that he is within the law? He wore 3 gold bands on his shirt - so not many would question his experience or ability. However in the case of airmanship, this pilot clearly isn't as experienced as a CPL and if he got into difficulties there could be many lives at risk?
AIC 79/2005 (http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aic/4W114.PDF) and Rule 5(2)e & f (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/Rule%205%20amended%201%20April%202005a.pdf) refers.

[Pandalet]

Something I've wondered about in the past, is as follows:

I, as a PPL, hire a helicopter to fly myself to a business engagement. For simplicity, let's say it's just me in the craft. I'm hiring from a 3rd party, completely unrelated to my employer or myself (beyond being someone I self-fly hire helicopters from). I fly myself to the meeting and back again, paying the hire company £X for the flight time. I then go back to my employer and claim the £X I've paid as travel expenses (assume I have a massively generous employer).

Is this a violation of my license? You could argue that my employer is paying for my flying time, so under the 'valuable consideration' test, I'm getting some valuable free hours. On the other hand, I'm taking responsibility for paying for the flight time; there is a reasonable expection that I'll be reimbursed further down the line, but presumably no guarantee. Also, my employer isn't paying me specifically to fly; they're simply reimbursing me what I spent getting from A to B.

Obviously this is completely theoretical, as I can't see any employer agreeing to pay for basically the most expensive means of transport when there are definately going to be (much) cheaper options. I'm just interested as to how the situation would fit into the private / commercial structure.

[puntosaurus]

This is one of the exemptions explained in the CAA's Summary of the meaning of Public Transport document (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/122/summary_of_public_transport.pdf). In essence subject to few caveats, you're OK.

[Whirlybird]

PPLs posing as CPLs is obviously illegal. Does it happen much? I doubt it, considering how hard it is for real low hours CPLs to get charter work. I wonder if the people who assure low hours CPLs on here that their qualification is worthless, are the same people complaining about huge amounts of charter work being done by PPLs! Get real folks. It just can't be happening that often. Occasional anecdotal evidence does not equal widespread abuse of the system.

Hire and reward - as Heliport says, never mentioned in LASORS, or the document VeeAny drew my attention to. "Valuable Consideration" is the phrase used. Is that clear and precise? Yeah, as mud! No wonder everyone puts their own interpretation on it. But having opinions doesn't mean they're right, especially in law.

Perhaps we should distinguish between two types of free flying here...

1) My helicopter needs to go for maintenance, or my aunt needs to get to her sick friend in Scotland; please can you fly the helicopter for me.

2) If you fly the helicopter, I'll give you some more free flying in exchange.

For the first of these, the PPL is simply helping out. The fact that he may or may not enjoy helping out is irrelevant. And nowhere, but nowhere, in the regulations does it say that a PPL is required to pay for his flying (cost sharing rules excepted).

In the second, there is clearly some valuable consideration being given.

Let's not muddy the already muddy waters further by using phrases such as "hire and reward" and then assuming that because we've used them, they're in the regs.

[puntosaurus]

Well I want to agree with you, but that's not how I read the rules.

Valuable consideration IS defined in the ANO, and is pretty wide ranging. Crucially it hinges on whether the consideration (whatever it is) is nominal. Purely my own interpretation, but an hourbuilders gain could never be described as nominal, whilst the pleasure of helping out a friend could well be. If it was an hourbuilder fetching your sick aunt it could be argued that it's illegal because of the valuable consideration received.

It wouldn't be the only piece of legislation that required an assessment of motivation. That's the essence of the distinction between murder and manslaughter isn't it ?

[Whirlygig]

So, it’s OK for a PPL with a few hundred hours and no intention of getting a commercial licence to do the ferry trips but the PPL who has 120 hours, is hour building and studying for ATPL(H) ground school, can’t? Where do you draw the line? Do 12 good men and true have to decide whether there is motive as they would in a murder/manslaughter trial?

Cheers

Whirls

[puntosaurus]

Well as they say I don't make the rules ....

In practice I can't see the CAA taking an interest in hourbuilding ferry and favour flights, though I wouldn't put it past a dodgy insurer.

Cheers to you too.

[JimL]

Whirlygig,

You are extremely close to the truth.

It is commonly understood at the CAA that once rules are written, they can, and will, be interpreted. Your interpretation is as good any other (even though 'the other' might have written the rule that is subject to discussion). The same is also true for FL - he has no privilege in this discussion except for that which is accrued through knowledge of the regulation or understanding of previous rulings.

The final say on the meaning of any regulation rests with the Judiciary who, in most cases, have less technical knowledge than you and I. they will use their common sense and understanding to arrive at the true meaning.

Jim

[verticalhold]

I don't mind the CAA not taking an interest in free ferry flights for hours builders, I just wish they would take more of an interest in the illegal public transport which does go on.

Some time ago I handed them documented evidence of illegal public transport and it was all too difficult for them to deal with. I hope the situation has now changed with changes in personnel.

What beggars belief is the input of some one like Out of Date who thinks he can pass on the benefits of his huge experience to "Lesser mortals"!!! Come and join our party, see the standards required, see if an LPC at ATPL level is a swan around. If you have no instructional qualifications then shut the f:mad: up. I am not an instructor and have no intentions of being one. I do however know that every 6 months a very highly qualified instructor will put me through the mill on every type I fly as well as a couple of instument rating renewals. I see too many people doing unbelievably stupid things because their mate Fred thinks its a good idea. When you ask, Fred has no more instructional ability than me, but has found himself a short cut to something without seeing all the implications.

JimL as usual has hit the nail on the head. However Jim, often no interpretation is needed. The illegal pt is often blatant and no effort is made to jump on the transgressors. As I said in an earlier post we pay a huge amount in ever increasing fees for the privelage of our AOCs and get little protection from the cowboys who spit in the face of the authority.

Rotorheads is supposed to be "A haven for professional helicopter pilots to discuss the things that affect them" Likewise our professional licenses confer on us privelages not given to those who choose to fly, but not follow our path. If you want to play our games then play by our rules, otherwise stay out of our way. You will no longer be tolerated.

[JimBall]

Interesting to see that by far the biggest fine levied (on the CAA Prosecution list above) is for illegal PT :

Flying an American registered helicopter and carrying fare
paying passengers without the permission of the Secretary of
State

Fine £3800

There are apparently several more of these going through the CAA legal machine at the moment.

[QDMQDMQDM]

1) My helicopter needs to go for maintenance, or my aunt needs to get to her sick friend in Scotland; please can you fly the helicopter for me.

I am a PPL. I own a Super Cub (poor man's helicopter) on a private cat CofA, hourly cost to fly, say £65. I ask my friend Fred to do me a favour and take my niece Sarah back to Maidenhead from Devon after a visit to me, because I am tied up. Fred says he would be delighted. He flies her up and comes back. I say 'Thanks, Fred.' He says, 'No problem, Dave, any time.' No money changed hands. I pay for the fuel.

Hands up who on this board says this is a commercial flight and the aircraft and Fred are both operating illegally.

[airborne_artist]

QDM - I fully agree, it's a no-brainer. Some here seem to think that if instead of the £65/hr Cub, you had a £750/hr newly-minted Oki-Koki 9000 twin-turbine helicopter, then it would be "commercial" because of the benefit to a low hours pilot in getting "high-value" hours in the logbook.

I don't agree, as it's not possible to give a future value on those hours. Fred may have no interest in hours building for a CPL/ATPL, for example, but Jack might - so if you can't contact Fred and so call Jack, does it mean it's commercial - I don't think so.

[HillerBee]

Here's one for you....

I arrive one day at a summer fete in the UK. An R44 is doing "trips" 3 pax at a time, 20 minute circuits. The landing area is tight and shrouded by trees. There are hundreds of children and adult spectators and to fly to the landing site requires overflying a fairground (again fully populated with funseekers)

On his break I ask the pilot what his qualifications are. "I'm a PPL(H) and the wife is the one in the high vis doing the loading/offloading. Its my helicopter. Everything is donated to charity, I pay for everything to do with the flying and the charity gets all the money for the flight"

Where does this stand legally? I take it the fact he makes a loss on the day (if he does) means that he is within the law? He wore 3 gold bands on his shirt - so not many would question his experience or ability. However in the case of airmanship, this pilot clearly isn't as experienced as a CPL and if he got into difficulties there could be many lives at risk?


After reading AIC79/2005, regarding Charity flights, ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL

http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aic/4W114.PDF

One of the point is :
Maximum 3 flights per pilot, per day

Then in regard to the landing site, (Appendix 1 to Annex 3), this wasn't acceptable either.

Another rule is that:
Prospective passengers must be made aware that flights do not fully comply with commercial air transport regulations.

And one needs permission from the CAA.

[Whirlygig]

ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL

But the illegal aspects are not actually to do with the pilot being a PPL - that bit is OK surely?

If the CAA determine the outcome of these PPL/CPL/Aerial Work/Public transport cases in front of a sworn jury, then I might have a little more faith in them but somehow I get the feeling that the CAA act as prosecution, judge and jury!

Cheers

Whirls

[HillerBee]

Whirls,

If you read the AIC, there are hour requirements for the pilot. But yes, he can be a PPL, but only 3 flights per day.

The guy was wearing a white shirt with 3 stripes and you can hardly say he wasn't posing a commercial pilot which is against this rule.

Prospective passengers must be made aware that flights do not fully comply with commercial air transport regulations.

Hillerbee

[airborne_artist]

The guy was wearing a white shirt with 3 stripes and you can hardly say he wasn't posing a commercial pilot which is against this rule.

I agree with you entirely, but I think you'd have problems convincing a jury. If the guy was wearing RAF or other armed forces' uniform then he would be conducting a deception, but three bars on a white shirt from M&S - I doubt it.

[Whirlygig]

Well, it should be a crime to be pretentious!

Cheers

Whirls

[helicopter-redeye]

Where does the jury come in? These are 'minor' offences and surely would be addressed summararily by a Magistrates Court rather than on indictement in a Crown Court.

Less chance of getting off that way ....


h-r;)

[squirrel350]

Ok I know alot of you are Pro Pilots with either a CPL or PPL and Im just a learner with under 10 hrs TT but I have been reading this thread with great interest so I thought of a possible scenario.

"Im a back country pilot that has fallen from my quad and broken a leg I get taken to hospital by helicopter where they fix me up and plaster my leg, now I own my own R22 or S300 and only have a PPL but the guy down the road also has a PPL(H) and I call him up and say mate do you think you could bring the R22/S300 up and take me home I will give ya 2 dozen beers if you do, he agrees and picks up my heli and flys into the hospital and ferries me home"

Now would that be considered a mate helping a mate or flying for reward.

[HillerBee]

Technically I do think so. But I personally don't have a problem with it at all, and would do it the same way. I don't think the CAA would mind either.

The discussion is about PPL's stealing CPL's business (income), that's what's the big problem.

[Watchoutbelow]

We shouldnt be saying to ourselves, its all well and good until there is an accident and someone dies.
The fact is, people have died in the past because they have used PPL pilots to do aerial photography, AOC work etc.
Commercial Pilots have accidents aswell, but sending a low hour, unqualified pilot out to do your dirty work Is and Should be Crimminal!!

[Whirlygig]

Where does the jury come in? These are 'minor' offences and surely would be addressed summararily by a Magistrates Court rather than on indictement in a Crown Court.

I used the point when someone else drew the analogy between murder and manslaughter when considering motive!


There are PPL holders who have received remuneration for flying - ask any jockey or broadcast comms engineer; it's rife but I have no proof!

Cheers

Whirls

[helicopter-redeye]

I was not aiming the comment at you (or anybody for that matter). There was a lot of talk about the jury, but its very uncommon to hear of aviation prosecutions that are anything other than in a Magistrates Court.

h-r;)

[Whirlygig]

I know you weren't h-r; my tongue was also in my cheek! Perhaps I should have used this smiley! :p

Cheers

Whirls

[airborne_artist]

HR - I'm guilty as charged - I mentioned a jury - but as a figure of speech. Replace jury with "the Bench".

[Droopystop]

I think the fact that this thread has gone around and around for 5 pages is the answer. It is simply too difficult to prosecute.

[noblades]

Wow.This thread has really stirred up a s:mad: storm :ok:

Where is Flying Lawyer on this one?

I love the idea on name and shame but in reality I think it Pprune would be diving deep into Libel territory for hosting that one. := Not to mention that it would be abused more than used. I fear the vigilanty more than the PPL hopping around the darker side of the grey areas.

As with all laws, good or bad, are there for the guidance of wise men and the obeyance of fools.

I do like all the hypothetical senarios to justify what the pilot him/herself will know is either right or wrong. This I think will always remain an emotive topic because I feel that this problem will continue to exist within the aviation business.

NB

[CYHeli]

On page 2 of this post is an excerp from the law. Within it is the following,
- if any passengers or cargo are carried gratuitously in the aircraft on that flight -
Without tearing the legislation apart, does that mean that if anyone is carried for free, then it is a public transport flight??

Personally I don't have a problem with PPL's doing ferry flights, even if in reality it is hour building.
If it is a problem, then would the tax man see it as some form of undeclared income? It has value that you haven't paid out on...:sad:

[Whirlybird]

So free flying equals valuable consideration, does it? Carried to its logical confusion this means....

1) A school reduces its prices if a PPL(H) student pays for 10 hours in advance - this is quite common. Isn't the school offering partially free flying?

2) a school offers lower prices for mid-week self fly hire. Free flying, even if only for a few minutes?

3) One school is cheaper than all the others. Free flying?

4) A PPL is asked to just fly a helicopter over to the pumps to pick up some fuel. He can't; it would be free flying.

5) Hmmm.....would going abroad to fly become illegal, I wonder, since it saves money and therefore some of the flying becomes effectively free?

Etc etc etc.

Mad? Of course.

I'm beginning to understand why Flying Lawyer has the good sense to lie low and stay out of this one. :( :( :(

[MSP Aviation]

1,2,3,5. NO. Legal, they are paying what the leaser thinks is appropriate for the a/c.
4, YES, not that it would bother me or, i should think, anyone else on this board. Illegal.

i think the real issue is not the skill of PPLs vs CPLs (i'd rather fly with a multi-thousand hour back-country Alaskan PPL than some newly-minted FI doing charter on the side), or the ferry/favor flights. the issue is that, regardless of safety, flying for money is a privilege, and one that must be earned. those that put in the required time, money, and effort get the rewards. those that do not should not. simple as that. it's like diamonds. sure i can get a ton for cheap(er) in Sierra Leone, and they're just as nice as the ones i get at the new york diamond exchange, but i'm undercutting the people who play by the rules and ensure that things are done the right way, without slave labor. (see, look, i'm comparing you CPLs to diamonds!)

[Miles]

Hi everybody,

Just to be quick:bored:
The powers that be apply their own individual interpritation of statutes at any given time when considering cases. That is to say, opinion and outcome will vary from case to case- hopefully after time an agreed standard judement will become evident ( unfortunately these too are open to challenge)

It is easy to take cases to the extreme to try and make the policies seem ridiculous, as seemingly all do.......however this is not allowed in court proceedings:oh:

From the justice of the peace view, valuable consideration can be seen to be incurred if one gets something for free, for which you should have paid:ok:

Clear as mud........my lord

[perfrej]

Whirly's post illustrates a very interesting point, and that is where to draw the line. From some posts I gather that CPLs do not help their neighbors take out the trash - thus avoiding an issue with the local garbage collector's union...

Seriously, the important point, at least in my mind, and I do beleive that many would agree, is that real jobs with a helicopter should be performed by real pilots carrying the proper paperwork. Likewise, anyone paying to have a service performed by a helicopter should expect all papers to be correct and that real pilots perform the actual job. Absolutely no doubt.

In all areas of society there are gray zones. These areas exist because we are all different and have different interpretations. All clear.

Now, one thing that I have a problem with is statements where some kind of monopoly is assumed and wanted in an area, like for example the hour building thing; the fact that some people have to pay for their hours while others can get it in their uncle's helicopter for free makes neither of them "bad".

Some comments have stated that "flying for reward is a privilege that has to be earned" and that it is the invested money and effort that is the important thing. That may be so, but where do you put the guy born with a silver spoon (like money!), who learned how to fly really well in 7 hours, got his CPL(H) in 4 months and then moved straight to a high paying gig in the North Sea sector - an income he doesn't need. I smell jealousy...

My point is clear. PPL(H) pilots should not accept work for pay. Period. I respect professional pilots - why else would I want to become one at 50? On several occasions I have been asked by people to do things for pay with the helicopters I fly. Yes, I have flown a friend over his house so that he could take some nice photos of it from the air (no pay) - a thing he would otherwise not have been able to do because of the costs involved. And most of my friend and their friend have flown with me on various occasions on a cost share basis or for free.

Don't get caught in the same swamp as the software industry. You can't take the number of illegal copies and translate it into a sum of lost profits. Most people would not buy Photoshop at $900 if they had to pay for it. A few ferries, an aunt's 50th birthday flight, what have you. It's not serious work and it doesn't take your business away nor is it unsafe. Even us PPL(H) guys have to make quite a few autorotations, tail rotor failures etc on our PCs. Besides - any PPL can ask his instructor or PC examiner to please keep the excercise at CPL level, I do every time and it's worth it.

Again, hat off to all professionals, and nail the suckers that actually POSE as CPLs when they are not. They steal work and they break the law (and lie).

I rant... I love flying...

[bladeslapper]

This thread could be likened to sharks in the middle of a frenzied feeding session. However I believe the sharks have actually dreamed up the shoal of food. There is in reality only a tiny number of fish in the shoal!
The thread so far has not managed to put forward any REAL evidence of a major (or even minor) drain on the work for CPLs.
There are clearly areas of grey within the law, but I have not seen anything that would point to PPLs 'stealing' work on rig flights, HEMS, Pipelines, survey,etc etc. So lets face it, we are now talking about a much much smaller portion of the heli industry in which there may be a problem, yet some of the contributors to the thread would have us believe that the theft of their work is prevalant.
In any group there will be the odd rogue and aviation is no exception, but this supposed problem has been posted up way beyond reallity.
However if you know of any grade of pilot (not just PPL) taking on work beyond their qualifications, then surely the remedy is is your hands.

[kissmysquirrel]

If the remedy is in our hands, then what is that remedy?

Having re-read the posts, I can't remember seeing a mention of one of the biggest sections of sometimes considered illegal flying. The Good Old 'Trial lesson'. You know the one. The one where a woman comes along with 'darling' husband and kids, having been bought the 'trial lesson' for a birthday present.
She has no extra money so couldn't afford 20 Cigarettes or another alcopop, never mind take up flying.
Anyway, the instructor takes her flying for 0.5 or 1 hr whatever, she doesn't want to take the controls because she is slightly afraid. During the course of the flight she wants to take some pictures of her house (she just lives next to the airport).
So, is this illegal flying? Carrying a passenger who doesnt wish to learn to fly. Should this be done with an AOC? Public Transport cat a/c? :E

In all honesty I personally don't care. I don't fly anymore anyway.

[HillerBee]

You hit the nail right on the head here. Sight seeing tours require an AOC nowadays. Which I do think is not correct. In Austria for example they have an exception for AOC requirement for sight-seeing tours. It's much safer to do a sight-seeing tours without dual controls then having to have the duals in and flying with a nitwit and 2 'family members' in the back.

But this has nothing to do with the original thread, of course, because it's flown by FI's

[Flaxton Flyer]

It's a long time since I was involved with flight training, but I seem to recall that ref trial lessons, you only had to offer the "student" the option of taking the controls. If they refused, then fine you'd tried. If they then wanted to flyover their house, and take a picture....

As stated, it was some time ago and the two "A"'s - alcohol and alzheimers - may well have clouded my memory.

[Heliport]

I suspect 'Trial Lessons' are often just a convenient and legal way of selling pleasure flights without an AOC, but let's not sidetrack from the topic.

kissmysquirrel The big fat lardy b*tch comes along with sweaty husband and kids, having been bought the 'trial lesson' for a birthday present. What a wonderful impression it must give of our industry to any members of the public reading that attitude and language from a Flying Instructor, even a former FI.
Professional? :rolleyes:


H.

[Bravo73]

H,

FWIW, my thoughts entirely.

The big fat lardy etc etc

and

Again, i'll say just because someone has a JAR CPL/IR, 1000TT, Commercial experience and turbine time, it doesn't mean there's any work.

With an attitude like that to customers, I wonder if there's any connection between these two statements? :hmm:


Anyway, back to the thread...

[Miles]

The public can get on here?:eek:

Run, run for your lives..........:hmm:

[WestWind1950]

this same discussion has been going on and on in Germany as well.... for years now!!

The rules say that the COMMERCIAL flying of persons and freight need an AOC. So you first have to define commercial. Then there are the non-commercial flights for compensation (no matter what kind). These also need special permission from the authorities-that-be, unless it is in an aircraft with a maximum of 4 seats. This exception was done to allow air clubs to do some intro flights, etc. Following this last sentence, many commercials balloonists have stopped doing their flights "legally" and just keep doing flights (with payed pax and 4-person basket), making the "legal" companies very upset.

So, the powers-that-be (CAA) and courts tried to define "commercial" and came up with the following (roughly translated):

1) acting for ones self and own risk
2) permanent and repetive action
3) for compensation of any kind
4) hoping for profits, whether profits are actually attained or not

under no. 2 falls advertising... if you put up a notice for the flights like: "let me fly you somewhere... cheap!" and a telephone number, that's commercial.

So, the above rule would allow ferry flights with private aircraft to a certain extent. But round-robin flights or any other flights for hire are not allowed!

Now, how does the CAA prove wrong doing? The paper work doesn't show anything so it's often not possible. Only if you are caught with advertising can there be (possible) proof. Or after an accident.....
oh, and then check the wording on your licence.... it may state non-commercial right on it (may be different from country to country).

I think this is an international problem and it would be interesting to see how other countries handle it.

Westy

[hihover]

I'm reading this thread with interest simply because there seems to be a lot of effort being put into something that I was not aware was a significant problem.

I think the original statement is being confused with Public Transport issues of what is, and what isn't, and also with ficticious and often amusing scenarios (that's what I love about helicopter pilots). There is also an underlying tone in the thread saying..."who cares?"

Well, I care, where safety is compromised. I don't really care that a PPL gets to log an extra hour or two, free of charge, because he ferried an aircraft from A to B or because he was in the right place at the right time and got to do something different. But if that PPL is flying a task that is blatantly for reward, then that should be flown by a commercial pilot who may not be more experienced, but certainly has a greater degree of training and qualification. Reward of any kind will be taken into consideration at the subsequent court proceedings if there is an accident, whether it be cash or not. And the insurance company will be rubbing their hands in gleeful anticipation of rule-breaking.

It is very difficult, as many have already stated, to define the limits, therefore, education has a key role. Those PPLs operating on the grey edges of the envelope really ought to seek advice if they are not sure of their licence privileges. Those operating for blatant reward should be nailed to the wall, and the people who paid the reward should be nailed beside them.

If you know of these supposed cases where PPLs are flying as CPLs, times, dates, names, aircraft registrations, client name etc etc. will all add weight to a possible response by the Authority. If all you have is a name or a hunch, forget it.

Let's not become distracted by looking at PPLs with suspicion, they deserve the excitement of challenge and the opportunity to do something different.

[kissmysquirrel]

Bravo73, no connection whatsoever. Why should there be?

[bladeslapper]

I have just re-read the opening post on this thread from Aft Cyclic (who seems to have pulled the pin and gone to ground!
I feel the need to address what seems to be a growing problem in our industry.Gone are the days when a PPL would be begging for ferry flights to build hours towards the CPL ticket.It now seems the rules and regs that we all know are just there for decoration,it seems now the new 'CPL' is the PPL. An ever increasing amount of these cowboys are out there in the field actively seeking work on a daily basis without any intention of ever sitting the CPL exams and it seems that they have an abundance of work due to private owners trying to offset the cost of running their machines.
OK.... You imply you are aware of many more serious issues than the grey areas of ferry flights etc. Please elaborate

[Egor]

Revised by pprune

[Aft Cyclic]

Bladeslapper!!
Fortunately I have been busy and have been unable to view the replies to this thread.You have asked me to provide you with examples of what constitutes a PPL acting as a CPL.Well there is nothing new with what I have seen in the field,photography work and charter work being the main
mo's.Having read through the replies it seems that people are moving away from the whole point,why should there be an issue with ferrying and flying for friends without payment,this comes part and parcel with the industry.The issue is private pilots accepting payment for commercial operations.Do I know of people who are engaged in these activities?Yes!
Both owners and freelance PPLs.The financial reward seems to outweigh
the downside of being caught.The penalties are a farce,we are talking about illegal flights which therefor makes the insurance null in void!The
authority should approach this with a view to complete license loss,not unlike driving offences,but alas there is more than one way to skin a rabbit.When insurance companies become aware of certain activities
you can be sure you will see a change in what is going on as they begin
press the authority's for action.We can all play a part in eradicating this
problem if we put our minds to it.

[hihover]

Aft-

Have you done anything about this? If so, what have you done and what was the result? Perhaps we can establish a way forward.

hh

[perfrej]

Bladeslapper!!
Fortunately I have been busy and have been unable to view the replies to this thread.You have asked me to provide you with examples of what constitutes a PPL acting as a CPL.Well there is nothing new with what I have seen in the field,photography work and charter work being the main
mo's.Having read through the replies it seems that people are moving away from the whole point,why should there be an issue with ferrying and flying for friends without payment,this comes part and parcel with the industry.The issue is private pilots accepting payment for commercial operations.Do I know of people who are engaged in these activities?Yes!
Both owners and freelance PPLs.The financial reward seems to outweigh
the downside of being caught.The penalties are a farce,we are talking about illegal flights which therefor makes the insurance null in void!The
authority should approach this with a view to complete license loss,not unlike driving offences,but alas there is more than one way to skin a rabbit.When insurance companies become aware of certain activities
you can be sure you will see a change in what is going on as they begin
press the authority's for action.We can all play a part in eradicating this
problem if we put our minds to it.

I agree. The thread got a little side-tracked, bu who can resist debating when such unbalanced views are expressed - just have get back at them.

In order to effectuate rules, the rules have to be clear - and they are NOT today. I don't care what people say (and many have done so here), they are unclear. It would be better to specify the actual mission types instead of mumbling about "for hire" or "for reward".

[Lunar]

In the FAR's the privilages for PPL are laid out, also the exceptions are stated too, before Heliport jumps on me for not stating exactly where it is in FAR, it is part 61.113.

When you read LASORS all you get is a reference to the ANO, and like most people I hate the ANO, so off to JAR FCL 2 which a lot of people have quoted already. Why in Europe do we have to search through so many publications to get a drfinitive answer? Actually, with all of that searching, you still only get a very broad statement about renumeration.

What we need is a calrification from the Authority, a letter of position sent to each PPL, then no-one can say 'nobody told me'.

Until then some people will choose to break the rules.

Lunar

[HillerBee]

Basically a PPL can fly for fun, that's what every instructor/school tells them and that's where a PPL is for. They know it, but play 'dummy'.

[Heliport]

Lunar
before Heliport jumps on me for not stating exactly where it is in FAR .....

My point was that you referred to "hire and reward" and were very surprised people who didn't agree with you hadn't looked at free online LASORS: I knew "hire and reward" wasn't the test and suspected, correctly as it turns out, that the rules aren't in LASORS.

You also claimed it was "simple", but I get the impression from your latest post you've changed your mind about that. ;)

[Lunar]

Heliport,

It is simple, in the FAR it is easily understood. In the UK if you are willing to read enough there is an answer there. The JAR states that a PPL may not fly for renumeration, I would not have thought it was a large leap from there to 'hire or reward', the argument had become semantic.

The issue I had with your reply is that you took a lot to task for not being precise enough in their posts, you have a point, but is it the job of the poster to state the reg verbatim, or is the job of the pilot to know the privilages of his/her licence and where to find them?

I posted a link to LASORS, LASORS gives a ref to the ANO where a pilot could find their privilages, what more do you require?

I do think the Authority needs to clarify their position.

Lunar.

[noblades]

"When insurance companies become aware of certain activities
you can be sure you will see a change in what is going on as they begin
press the authority's for action."

Lovely thought but what insurance company will want to turn away business. If you act outside your policy cover then you have no cover (maybe I'm wrong??). So keep paying your nice chunky premium and when everything goes putt putt oops bang, "I'm sorry for your trouble sir but you have invalidated your cover sir and we wish you well in court sir and it'll be like winning the lottery but in reverse so learn to sing the blues,sir " :D

I think the insurance companies will keep head down for this one.:}

[CYHeli]

The insurance company will put up their premiums due to a perceived increase of risk :ugh:and then after an accident say no payout. The increased premiums hurt everyone. But I digress...

Photos are an interesting one. A PPL flys a helicopter and either him/her or a mate (pax) takes some photos. The photos later get sold as calender folio, etc. This would then be classed as a commercial operation, but at the time the photos were taken, it's just a photographer having some fun and seeing what works.

How can any regulator enforce this?

[Jarvy]

Since the begining of time some people have attempted to exploit grey areas of the rules and regs. Some people have always moaned about those people.
Instead of complaning sould we not seek to clarify the rules and regs.
Any one using a PPL for obvious commercial work is breaking the law, no ifs or buts.
I would also ask is alot of the moaning due to sour grapes?
Just my views.
Hi to those who know me.
Jarvy.

[bladeslapper]

Changing / clarifying rules would I believe just be tinkering at the edge.

We already have rules which for the law abiding overwhelming majority of PPLs work fine. (aguments over free ferry flights etc excepted )

For what must be the very few PPLs who flout the law now, by doing blatant charter etc (according to other posts) then please explain what will stop them in the rule changes. The illegal brigade will already know that what they are doing is outside their flight privileges, so clarification won't make any difference.

I come back to something I said before..... If you know someone is acting illegally then you have a responsibility to take it to the authorities in writing. If they choose not to do anything or feel there is insufficient evidence, so be it.

[Jarvy]

I agree that you should report someone you know to be doing illegal charter work but unless the CAA have the will to do something about it, nothing will get done.
I have been at events where PPL's have flown "friends" in and also where CPL,s have appeared to be doing charter work without an AOC.
Without concrete proof what can you report to the CAA, just heresay and rumour.
This is upto the CAA to police not us.
Jarvy