Auction flights

[modelman]

Some folks in my village are fundraising for a local cancer hospice and have approached me to provide a flight over our village.
They will auction a ticket,all proceeds going to the hospice,I will provide a flight at my cost (club a/c) the same as if I were taking a friend up.Chances are I would know the winner as we are a very small village.

a)Is this illegal ( I have a PPL with no other qualifications)?
b)Could I be exposed to any claims if any personal injury arises etc?

Shame we have all this H&S stuff as I would very much like this to happen as both my parents succumbed to cancer.

Any views appreciated,thanks.

Modelman

[18greens]

Look up Charity Flights on the CAA website.


As I recall the overall guidance was the flight must be done in a cofa aircraft from a licenced strip and you can't charge (or you can do it in a microlight from anywhere ).

Hope it goes well.

[Jofm5]

I tried looking on here but could not find it......

But there is a thread wherby someone was gathering people to give experience flights to some kids - if I recall correctly there was a great response but it got scuppered by the H&S and the charity owners getting too cautious - the post mortem of the failed event was explained why it did not happen.

[Whopity]

a)Is this illegal ( I have a PPL with no other qualifications)?
b)Could I be exposed to any claims if any personal injury arises etc?
a) Yes
b) Yes
By auctioning a ticket the flight becomes Public Transport because money has changed hands for the purpose of the flight, Article 157.
Public transport and aerial work - general rules
157 (3) Subject to the provisions of this article and articles 158 to 163, an aircraft in flight shall for the purposes of this Order be deemed to fly for the purposes of public transport:
(a) if valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers or cargo in the aircraft on that flight; It is a trap that many fall into and many clubs will have a Flying Order making members aware of the issue.

There are two ways to conduct such a flight, one is as a "Lesson" which must be conducted by a Flight Instructor and must be advertised as such, the other is in accordance with AIC 70/2008 http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/aic/white/EG_Circ_2008_W_070_en.pdf but, this requires your charities qualify.

[Whiskey Kilo Wanderer]

Hi Modelman,

Most of the information is in this AIC
http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/aic/white/EG_Circ_2008_W_070_en.pdf

It looks as if you are ok as long as you are operating from a licensed airfield and the charity is registered. Just check Annex 1 of the above document, which lists aircraft and pilot requirements.

Events like Starlight Day at Popham and Burned Children’s Club Day at Bourn seem to attract a variety of aircraft out with the above specification, but in those cases there is no financial element.

Safe Flying,
Richard W.

Edited to say Whopity looks to be on the same lines

[modelman]

Thanks to all who replied.Didn't think it would be very straightforward,the real clincher is the 200hrs PIC as I'm not there yet.

MM

[Whirlybird]

There was an article on 'Charity Flights' in the May 2009 'Today's Pilot'. I think it was accurate (I hope so ;)). You can still get hold of a copy from the publisher if it's not in the bookshops now the June issue is out.

[Munnyspinner]

Whopity,
By auctioning a ticket the flight becomes Public Transport because money has changed hands for the purpose of the flight, Article 157.


Public transport and aerial work - general rules
157 (3) Subject to the provisions of this article and articles 158 to 163, an aircraft in flight shall for the purposes of this Order be deemed to fly for the purposes of public transport:
(a) if valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers or cargo in the aircraft on that flight;

I disagree with your interpretation of the above. The beneficiary of the valuable consideration would need to be the operator of the aircraft for this to be the case. Under the charity arrangments the donation of the flight is a gift from the operator to the charity. The auctioning of the ticket is a transaction between the charity and that donor. Accordingly, there has been no valuable consideration either made or promised to the operator of the flight. In any event , you selectivley and unhelpfully quote only article 157 which defines SIX EXCEPTIONS! These are set out at Articles 158 to 163.

5.2 Exception No 2 - Charity flights (Article 159)A flight will be deemed to be a private flight for all purposes if the only payment is to a registered charity which is not the operator of the aircraft and the flight is made with the permission in writing of the Authority. (A general permission has been issued in an Aeronautical Information Circular (79/2005 (White 114)) so that pilots do not have to approach the CAA each time, provided the flight will be conducted in accordance with the operating conditions set out in the annexes to the AIC.)

[Justiciar]

You can write to the CAA and ask for permission if you do not fall within the AIC. I tried it when I had about 120 hours P1 and permission was refused. If you are close to 200 hours you may have more luck. I am not sure what their attitude is to Permit aircraft (the Bucker Jungmann which recently crashed with a fatality was apparently doing charity flights and that was on a permit, so it may be possible to get consent).

You must clarify the position with your insurers and if necessary get an amendment to your police. I am not sure if standard policy wording covers charity flights.

You can only try!

[IO540]

The beneficiary of the valuable consideration would need to be the operator of the aircraft for this to be the case.

I think that is the intention of all the "aerial work" regs, even if not necessarily the wording...

If it was left like that, one would need a CPL to self fly hire a plane from a flying school - because money is being paid in respect of the flight :)

Anyway I am sure charity flights are a well trodden path.

There was a rumour going around that the CAA was clamping down on the operations who were offering "trial lessons" but the vouchers for these were being openly advertised. The whole business of trial lessons is a bit of a grey area (because most are so obviously pleasure flights) and I guess the CAA just got too excited by the marketing of the vouchers.

[Munnyspinner]

IO540

Sorry, I just don't follow you logic.

Why would you need a CPL to hire? You are paying the hirer for the use of the aircraft. To be caught by the aerial work regs surely the PIC would need to be the one that was being paid or receiving the valuable consideration.

if valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers or cargo in the aircraft on that flight;

Costs can be shared by PIC/Pax on a private flight. I do not believe the payment for use of an aircraft does constitute aerial work.

Charity work is a stated exception subject to CAA clearance.

Thanks WR.

[belowradar]

incidental to this debate but sadly a charity flight pilot was killed a couple of days ago raising money for his local church. Things can go wrong and the public deserve the highest protection as they may be unaware of the licensing and maintenance requirements for safe flight..

P.S. I don't know the full details of the accident and am not making any comment on that particular charity flight or pilot.

[busidriver]

Am I the only one who finds that last remark slightly distasteful by its ommission?

A pilot, who probably had some vague notion of the risks he was taking, was killed. That is a matter of deep sadness, and I offer my condolences to those affected.

However, it seems a great deal more pertinent to point out that his, dare I say, fare paying passenger, who probably had no idea of the degree of risk involved, was also very seriously hurt.

I'm not sure when the GA fraternity will work out that, as belowradar said the public deserve the highest protectionand that those words mean that they should, at the very least, be given the opportunity to understand the risk associated with flight in light aircraft before they undertake to do so.

The Australians are several steps ahead of Europe in this regard.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Adventure Flights (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:1305201392:pc=PC_91482)

There was a similar UK accident a few years ago involving a Tiger Moth in which a 20-something passenger died, wasn't there?

[IO540]

This kind of argument could run and run. It comes down to what expectation of safety a passenger in a spamcan should reasonably have. Clearly not the same as in a 747 with 2 pilots, but what should it be? There are 2000hr pilots who are cowboys, and 200hr pilots who are very careful. There are planes which are flying wrecks (true for many training planes) but mechanical failures don't feature that much in GA accidents.

[Whopity]

Munnyspinner,

I disagree with your interpretation of the above. The beneficiary of the valuable consideration would need to be the operator of the aircraft for this to be the case.I suggest you read the CAAs interpretation: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1428/summary_of_public_transport.pdf4 How to determine whether or not a flight is public transport.
4.1 To determine whether or not a flight is for the purpose of public transport of passengers, the first question is whether or not there are any passengers on board. This is not always entirely straightforward as an occupant may claim to be a member of the crew.
4.2 Having determined that there is at least one passenger on board, the next question is whether any payment has been given or promised which, if it had not been given or promised would mean that the passengers would not have been carried. If there is any payment which could fall into this category, consider what would have happened if the passenger had presented himself for carriage and announced that such a payment would not now be made. Would he still be carried?
No mention of the Operator, or who the payment is made to! Payment is for the raffle ticket, which is for the purpose of winning the flight; the fact that it does not pay for the flight is not relevant.

The following is a Flying Order taken from a CAA Recommended FOB
Order No 16 - Charity Flights

16.1 The carriage of a passenger on a private flight assumes that no money has changed hands for the purpose of the flight , other than cost sharing as described in ANO Art 130. Occasionally, unsuspecting pilots may offer a flight as a raffle prize at the local school or fete. Such a flight then becomes a public transport flight under UK law. Where the money paid for the ticket goes to a registered charity, and then subject to meeting certain requirements a private pilot may conduct this flight. The circumstances and requirements for Charity Flights are published in AIC 50/2000 (White 20)

[Munnyspinner]

Where the money paid for the ticket goes to a registered charity, and then subject to meeting certain requirements a private pilot may conduct this flight. The circumstances and requirements for Charity Flights are published in AIC 50/2000 (White 20)

So it is a public transport fligh that can be operated by a PPL, fulfilling certain requirements ( as precribed) . Not a CPL.

Thanks

[IO540]

I wonder why the UK law is set out in this way - money passing in any direction makes it a PT flight?

The apparent objective of the law is to prevent the carriage of paying passengers, which would be easy to ban directly. Similarly with the pilot receiving money (beyond the cost sharing scheme). A more cynical but probably most practically likely objective is to make sure that nobody unfairly competes with AOC holders who pay fat fees to the CAA ;)

[Whopity]

So it is a public transport flight that can be operated by a PPLNo, According to Article 159 its a PRIVATE FLIGHT by Exception!
Public transport and aerial work - exceptions - charity flights
159 (1) Subject to paragraph (2), a flight shall be deemed to be a private flight if the only valuable consideration given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight other than:
(a) valuable consideration specified in article 157(3)(c); or
(b) in the case of an aircraft owned in accordance with article 162(2), valuable consideration which falls within article 162(3); or is given or promised to a registered charity which is not the operator of the aircraft
and the flight is made with the permission of the CAA and in accordance with any conditions therein specified.
(2) If valuable consideration specified in article 157(3)(c) is given or promised the flight shall for the purposes of Part 3 of this Order (other than articles 19(2) and 20(2)) be deemed to be for the purpose of public transport.

[Munnyspinner]

Such a flight then becomes a public transport flight under UK law

Whoopity, can you make your mind up? You keep quoting different parts of the ANO, which contradict your original position on this. Helpfully, the answer lies in AIC 50/2000 (White 20) , to which you have referred.

You have also usefully repeated my original reference which challenged your initial assertion ( see above).

Thanks.

[atceng]

Latest is AIC 70/2008, q.v. and be glad you dont want to land a helicopter.

atceng

[ChrisVJ]

I am often amazed by the way in which pilots are sometimes around offering things like Young Eagles flights (USA flight experience flights to children) or trips to their friends' offspring when they haver, maybe, a hundred hours.

I am a low time pilot, 100 approx. hours years ago and another coming up 100 recently but I would not dream of doing Young Eagles and, in fact, I limit my own children's exposure, partly caution and partly because I fly an amphibian and they have a particularly poor record locally.

On one hand I recognise that a PPL is properly qualified to fly passengers, family and friends and there should be no reason he may not. On the other hand I can see the frailty of my skill and experience.


When I worry about my own kids how could I risk other people's?

(I am not commenting on any particular offer by any particular pilot and I know perfectly well that many 50 hr pilots are more careful and respectful of the risk than cavalier high time chaps.)

[IO540]

Yes, you will only ever be as good as the time / effort / dedication / currency / money you put into your flying, but I suppose the regs have to be drafted according to some objective criteria.

Yesterday I met a multi thousand hour pilot who cannot read TAFs and METARs. He never looks at them. Obviously he never looks at notams. He flies a homebuilt and has had a PPL for many years.

There are all kinds out there.

I think the regs about money passing along are silly. They should prevent the pilot or his employer making a profit, that's all. As drafted, the CAA has had to publish a mass of exemptions to make the system work. Even now, for example, you cannot do cost sharing in an N-reg but can in a G-reg.