Why can't PPL holders charge for their services?

[TheOptimist]

Apologies if this has been done before, I have searched on this site and googled it as well.

Basic PPL holders are trained and assessed to be proficient at piloting small aircraft in certain limited conditions. There are no limitations on carrying a passenger - except that you cannot charge the passenger for your service.

What is the actual reasoning behind this? The CAA judge you fit to carry passengers, so what is the harm in charging for it? I don't understand this at all. Obviously in real life if you spend £100 on a flight and your mate gives you £75 for doing you a favour then that's just what happens. No-one cares and no-one gets reported.

I'm a low hour PPL student so forgive my ignorance on the topic.

[L'aviateur]

You have a driving license, can drive a car, why not just stop in the taxi rank and pick up passengers?

Research what the CPL contains, which written exams are involved and then I think you'll have a better understanding of the difference in qualification and how it makes you more qualified.

Also consider the words 'duty of care'.

[TheOptimist]

I will do as you suggested.

In regards to the comment about having a driving license, I'm sure that if your friend gave you £50 for a journey, and this got reported to the DVLA, nothing would come of it. If you took the same money for a flight (the whole cost) someone could report it and you'd be buggered.

Like I said I'm very early on in the learning process so I might sound naive.

[A A Gruntpuddock]

Not a pilot or working in aviation, but presumably the insurance for by a PPL carrier would not cover any commercial activity.

I have read that it is acceptable to accept a contribution for fuel costs when a group share a car journey without the driver being accused of driving 'for hire or reward' or invalidating his insurance. Do it regularly or for strangers and the law would take a different view though.

Don't know if there is a similar relaxation for PPL holders.

During a chat on a train journey many years ago an oil worker told me that he frequently walked into a flying club and asked if he could hitch a lift with anyone going in his direction. It was unsaid but accepted that cash would be exchanged. Said it was faster and cheaper than going by train when travelling from London to Aberdeen.

[Say again s l o w l y]

A PPL is absolutely not a guarantee of competence. You might have a licence, but that's it.

Someone who has 45hrs under their belt is in no way shape or form competent enough to be entrusted with fare paying passengers, who demand a certain level of certainty that they won't end up smeared across the earth. I wouldn't say that most bare hours CPL's are upto snuff really, but at least they've had far more indepth training and been tested to a higher level.

The simple answer is that it is enshrined in law, but the law is there because the travelling public needs to be protected from cowboy operators as much as possible. PPL's aren't the cowboys, but they would be the ones taken advantage of if there wasn't a decent level of oversight of Public Transport. Whether the CAA provide that is an argument for another day!

[TheOptimist]

@ Say again s l o w l y;

I understand that the PPL is a very basic qualification, but you are free to carry passengers as much as you like. If you were thus inclined you could carry 3 passengers for 8 hours a day in a C172 or something, as long as you operated within the confines of your license parameters. Although slightly worrying (I wouldn't take passengers until I have at least 100 hours on type) that people could do this, by CAA standards you are competent to do this. I do understand your point though.

@ Gruntpaddock;

I realise that in reality PPL holders will take cash off passengers without arguing. If, when I receive my license, I take my friend somewhere and he gives me say 80% of the cost to say thanks for the effort, it's obviously not going to be a matter of concern between us.

Edit: And similarly if I ask a mate to take me up in their aircraft for a spin I would be paying a lot more than 50%. It's common courtesy.

[BEagle]

TheOptimist, your passengers can agree to share the direct operating costs of a flight, but you must always pay your share. By law.

So if 4 of you want to share a flight, you must pay no less than 25% yourself.

You can put up a notice at the flying club saying something like "Anyone interested in sharing costs to Guernsey and back next weekend?", but you may not advertise such a flight in any other way.

Many people have tried various dodges to get round this over the years, but make no mistake, the CAA's Enforcement Branch take a very hard line over what is termed Illegal Public Transport.

See http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1196/20071015IllegalPublicTransportPRCampaign.pdf

Edit: And similarly if I ask a mate to take me up in their aircraft for a spin I would be paying a lot more than 50%. It's common courtesy.

It's also illegal!

[Bla Bla Bla]

Like you said you are new and don't know a great deal but now you have been told equal splitting of costs between all occupants of the a/c is ok or you paying the greater share. Even in the strange situation that a friend says to you fly me and I will take you to the footy match and for dinner, this is also deemed as payment and is illegal, or any other similar situation. A ppl allows you to get airborne and get back alive in good weather with friends on board who are well aware of your extremely limited experience.

When I built my hours I used to take three mates from work for a scenic around the city and we would all pay 25% each it was a big company with lots of employees so it helped allot as normally I could do this once every couple of weeks after work.

As for you not taking a pax until you have 100 hrs on type, I would wait before you make sweeping statements like that.

Anyway have fun building those hours and be safe.:ok:

[Say again s l o w l y]

Carrying passengers who are there by their own choice is one thing. Carrying passengers who are paying you to take them somewhere is completely different.

When you get in a car with a friend, then you are willingly accepting risk, when you get into a taxi, then you are going to expect that the driver is properly licenced, the car is fully legal and that they are not going to put you in any unnecessary risk.

Any business has to have things that very few private individuals have. Do you have public liability insurance outside of you bog standard car insurance? If you seriously injure someone who is a mate along for the ride, then they have accepted some element of risk, so any claim they may make against you is going to be limited.
However, if someone is paying you, then they can go for you with full force.

There are many reasons why you need a CPL rather than a PPL, but that isn't all you need to carry fare paying passengers, you need the aircraft to be correctly maintained and in the right category and you also need an organisational structure that is approved by the CAA. They aren't there for your benefit, but for the passengers benefit (and the CAA's to be honest...)

Illegal public transport flights are something that gets taken extremely seriously and if you get caught doing it, then you are liable to end up in a whole heap of trouble.

BEagle has outlined the cost sharing that is allowed. Common coutesy doesn't come into it. In fact, I would never charge a friend for coming flying with me. They are my guest, that is my "common courtesy". They can offer of course, but I would never expect it or accept it.

[BabyBear]

I would never charge a friend for coming flying with me. They are my guest, that is my "common courtesy". They can offer of course, but I would never expect it or accept it.

Hey SAS, can I be your friend?:)

[dublinpilot]

Don't forget that even a CPL isn't enough for carrying fare paying passengers. You need an ATPL, and the aircraft needs to be operated under an Air Operators Certificat (AOC).

[Say again s l o w l y]

A CPL is perfectly acceptable for carrying fare paying passengers. You only need an ATPL to command a multi pilot aircraft.

[dublinpilot]

Ah....I learnt something new. Thank you.

I take it an AOC is still required though.

[A_Pommie]

The way I see the logic of it is that if you offer a mate a flight you still get the say so on going or not if conditions are iffy.
However if someone is paying for a service then the pilot is going feel obliged to go even if it is outside thier personal limits.

[liam548]

@ Say again s l o w l y;

(I wouldn't take passengers until I have at least 100 hours on type).


why not? After you have completed your PPL you have shown that you have a certain degree of competence.

[gasax]

The more direct analogy is with mini-cab drivers - who do not need a special driving qualification.

Largely the issue is about protecting the commercial aviation companies. Most of the prosecutions come from AOC holders telling the CAA about people who are running illegal hire operations.

This is not to say it is a bad thing to protect the public in a specialised area where the majority of passengers would be unable to make an educated decision. It is likely is the Acme aircraft cab company set up business their accident rates would be higher than the present arrangements, commercial pressures would pretty much ensure that.

[Dave Gittins]

I wouldn't subscribe to the 100 hrs on type but you do need to feel sufficiently confident that the "duty" you owe to your passenger (to pay them attention and explain what is going on all the time) and the potential risk of distraction from them is within your ability to deal with.

I took my wife on my very first solo flight after I got my license but it was only that I felt confident to do so and that my instructor agreed it was an OK thing to do.

That said, he insisted on doing a check ride first, with Gill in the back and scared the life out of her doing an EFATO.

A driving license can't really be considered to be analagous with flying, otherwise a basic PPL would be allowed "at their own risk" (and everybody elses) out in the dark, the wind, the rain and the clouds without further instruction or testing.

[Lightning Mate]

"if I ask a mate to take me up in their aircraft for a spin I would be paying a lot more than 50%."

Too damned right!!! It would probably be your life!!

:ugh:

[42psi]

Didn't I see somewhere that the UK CAA won't approve commercial (i.e. fare paying) operations in single engine piston a/c.

Hence all "trial flights" are essentially "training flights".

??

[Whirlygig]

Charter flights are conducted in Robinson 44s and they've only got the one piston engine. However, the operation has to be through an AOC so it's a matter of whether any particular operator wants to have SEPs on their AOC. Some may consider that there wouldn't be enough revenue generated to make it worth it.

Trial lessons are training flights surely? If they are a pleasure flight, then there would be no opportunity for the passenger to have a go, the dual controls would be removed and the pilot needn't be an instructor.

Cheers

Whirls

[Kolibear]

They are my guest, that is my "common courtesy". They can offer of course, but I would never expect it or accept it.

Buying me dinner or contributing to the landing fee will always be gratefully accepted though.

[Dave Gittins]

AFAIK, SEPs are used for "sight seeing" and there is no reason for them not to be used for other revenue earning work under the appropriate licensing and certification.

What I think the CAA is opposed to is single engined, single pilot passenger carrying IFR, such as might be done in a Cessna Caravan.

[flybymike]

I took my wife on my very first solo flight

you were flying "solo" with your wife?:confused:

[mm_flynn]

A couple of points.

1 - I don't believe any type of motorised transport operation carried out for Hire and Reward (i.e. you are paid to do it) is allowed on a basic licence. There is always extra qualification. While a mini-cab driver doesn't need to pass an additional driving test, they and their vehicles are additionally licenced. (I believe there are successful prosecutions of people with basic driving licences driving licenced minicabs even when the minicab was off duty). In aviation, it works the same. You need additional training (mostly in knowledge) to be paid to operate an aircraft. This type of operation would be photography, pipeline patrol, traffic spotting, etc. (i.e. no passengers of freight being carried)

2 - To carry passengers or freight for gain (i.e. Public Transport), not only does the pilot need to be trained (a CPL) but the aircraft must be maintained to a specified (higher) standard and operated within a structure designed to ensure a higher level of safety (an AOC). Not withstanding any views about the AOC just being a piece of paper, the facts would suggest that AOC operations have a substantially lower accident rate than private ops.

3 - The 'trial lesson' structure is sometimes used to get around what would be an requirement to have an AOC if undertaking a pleasure flight. the logic is, you have chosen to give flying a go (you personally flying the aircraft) you know it is not a commercial flight with the service and safety you would expect - therefore complying with the full details of an AOC is unnecessary.

The whole purpose of the law is so ordinary people, who have no real knowledge of the risks and decision processes involved in running air transport are 'guaranteed' a safety standard that is comparable to what they would expect from any other form of public transport (i.e. very safe) and do not need to undertake their own due diligence. The law assumes pilots, flying club members and their invited friends have sufficient understanding of the risks, aircraft, and pilot experience to make these judgements on their own - and due to the lack of any payment, understand the operation has no guarantee of any given level of safety.

[Bla Bla Bla]

Dublinpilot

You have just proved the fact that half of the people on pprune post and don't know a thing about the industry.

Why post if you don't have a clue, don't take in personally but it happens all the time on this site and it detracts from often a sensible debate.

IMHO its just happening to much lately.:ugh:

[Dave Gittins]

flybymike Poorly worded I agree. :O

First flight as a licensed pilot without being under the supervision or authority of an instructor.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Useful CAA leaflet (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1196/20071015IllegalPublicTransportPRCampaign.pdf).

In the meantime, even those correcting incorrect posts may miss something. ANO 2009, schedule 8 allows a CPL holder to fly as pilot in command of any flight except a multi-crew public transport flight - so a multi-crew aerial work, private, positioning or test flight would be fine, as of-course is a single pilot public transport fly. There is a further restriction mind you - without an IR, a CPL holder can't fly public transport in aeroplanes above 2300kg unless the take-off and landings are no more than 25nm apart.

There are a few loopholes - for example there's no microlight CPL, so almost all microlight instructors (under a CAA exemption) are quite legally paid to fly with PPLs. CAA itself allows its own staff to fly on business so long as they hold an IMC (the latter being an internal requirement, not a legal one). Many BMAA and LAA member/PPL holders regularly conduct test flying which technically is an aerial work activity, again with CAA issued exemptions allowing this.

G

[dublinpilot]

Dublinpilot

You have just proved the fact that half of the people on PPRuNe post and don't know a thing about the industry.

Why post if you don't have a clue, don't take in personally but it happens all the time on this site and it detracts from often a sensible debate.

IMHO its just happening to much lately.

Well, because I believed that I did know the answer.

When it was pointed out that my knowledge was incorrect, I acknowledged that and learnt from it.

If people who honestly believe that they know something aren't allowed to post that, in case they might be wrong, then Pprune would not be here for very long.

[ShyTorque]

This document lays down the UK regulations.

Para 5.3 (cost sharing) is relevent to the original question.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/122/summary_of_public_transport.pdf

A breach of these regulations also implicates the owner / operator of the aircraft as the insurance will be invalidated.

[windriver]

What is the actual reasoning behind this?

The reasoning behind it is that if there were no such restrictions there would be chaos and carnage.

Human nature is such that when remuneration is involved ambition and greed WILL override all other considerations. In common with most laws these restrictions are "designed" to protect the many from the few for the greater good.

From a pragmatic perspective it's not worth the hassle mate. For reasons already stated in this thread - if you go much further than BEagle and others state your fare paying 'passengers' WILL at some point drop you right in it when they start moaning, refusing to pay up or turn nasty demanding their rights WHEN you screw up or are subject to some sort of 'misunderstanding' over your presumably non existent terms of service.

[RatherBeFlying]

Here in Canada, the regulatory structure is similar; however the bush operators are pretty much left a free hand. Some are conscientious; others less so and the accident rates reflect that.

Max Ward started out as a bush operator and distinguished himself by never losing a single passenger:ok:

Eventually he closed down his bush operation because it could not compete against the corner cutters:(

[Julian]

"if I ask a mate to take me up in their aircraft for a spin I would be paying a lot more than 50%."

Too damned right!!! It would probably be your life!!



Why not? Good fun, I have spun aircraft a few times - as long they are certified for spins and you have the relevant training & are competent go for it!


On the other hand, I remember reading somewhere that if you were in the USA and have an FAA PPL then you are allowed to fly around an MP (or Senators as they call them) and recieve payment. I dont remember the full details but hoping someone Stateside can come up with facts.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

The Optimist;

There is another very good reason for PPLs not to fly paying passengers, their own safety.

Many of us on here hold CPLs/ATPLs and have thousands of hours and years of training and experience. I fly fixed wing and rotary for my living, recently in the rotary world there have been occasions when helicopter pilots have discovered that the paying customers of one pilot have been flown by a PPL who thinks he has been terrribly clever. The reports to the CAA have had little effect, a strong punch in the mouth and half a dozen very angry helo pilots pointing out the error of his ways seems more effective.

To any PPL who wants to share costs, thats great go ahead and do it, I cost share on lots of private flights with mates in our own aircraft. Cross the line and put passengers at risk and expect your world to become a very uncomfortable place if you are caught. For one thing your pax aren't insured because your flight is illegal, as one poster correctly stated you may be encouraged to fly beyond your limits, and the PPL is a very basic licence.

Cost share on an agreed basis and enjoy the flight. Charge and the pressure comes on heavily, the passengers expect you to perform when you may not be able to.

The CAA issue a very good leaflet on whether a flight is legal. It is aimed at passengers but is well worth a read by pilots too.

[robin]

A very interesting thread

I've been flying passengers for many years on my PPL and occasionally received some cost sharing funds in return - not sure if the beers or rounds of bacon butties count as a benefit though.

What seems odd is that we can perfectly well fly people as long as we don't benefit. I take the view that I intend to corrupt as many people as possible into taking up the sinful activity of recreational flying and I take that task very seriously whether or not I get financial help.

I don't take particularly seriously the view that because I am not an instructor I am automatically putting my passengers lives at risk. I have more hours and experience than some of the junior instructors I've flown with.

[Whirlybird]

I believe the original point was that taking friends flying with a basic PPL is legal, but if they pay more than their share it becomes illegal, and that this is illogical. Yes, it is. Personally, I can't think of a good reason for it. But it does happen to be the law. And if you choose to break that law, that's your business, as with any other law. End of story. I don't see how this thread has run to two pages...but that's PPRuNe for you.

[Captain Stable]

I believe the original point was that taking friends flying with a basic PPL is legal, but if they pay more than their share it becomes illegal, and that this is illogical. Yes, it is.No, not illogical (at least, to my mind), Whirly.

A line needs to be drawn somewhere. If the pax pay their share, then it's just a joint jolly. If they pay all the costs (plus a "drink" for the pilot), then it becomes indistinguishable from a charter. So where do you draw the line? It's reasonable if two business associates are going off to a distant meeting, one has a PPL and decides he's going to fly. His colleague decides to come too, and offers to share the cost. Nobody is benefitting. But there comes a grey area in the middle. How much more than "his share" can he pay without it being a charter? Somewhere, I would suggest, between £(Cost/2)+1 and £(Cost-1). The line is, I suggest, therefore logically in the right place.

Public transport needs to be subject to oversight and therefore legislation and licensing, for the public's safety and financial safeguards against operators going bust. Hence the requirements for AOCs and ATOLs. Hence the higher requirements of licensing and recurrent checking and medicals for pilots conducting such flights.

Not only do the public need to be protected against the wiles of the pirates illegal public transport operators. So do legitimate businesses who incur significant costs in ensuring their aircraft are suitably maintained, pilots are trained, checked and medicalled (??), their duty hours within safe and legal limits and the whole caboosh is insured.

Therefore like, I suspect, a lot of commercially-qualified pilots, I would have no hesitation whatsoever in shopping anyone conducting illegal public transport.

[flybymike]

Dublinpilot

You have just proved the fact that half of the people on pprune post and don't know a thing about the industry.

Why post if you don't have a clue, don't take in personally but it happens all the time on this site and it detracts from often a sensible debate.

IMHO its just happening to much lately.

Bla Bla Bla, Dublinpilot has been posting useful, helpful (and accurate) material on here for far longer than recent upstarts. A little consideration for an honest innocent mistake would be prudent and polite, before flying off the handle.

[Pace]

I believe the original point was that taking friends flying with a basic PPL is legal, but if they pay more than their share it becomes illegal, and that this is illogical. Yes, it is. Personally, I can't think of a good reason for it.

I am going to take this from a slightly different angle. There are two well known statements. Firstly gaining a PPL is a basic licence to start learning.
Second is a question we should ask of a pilot is whether we would be happy to send our kids up with that pilot?

Joing the two together would you be happy with a new pilot who has just got a licence to start learning to take your kids up flying?

I know my answer would be NO! There are long established pilots I wouldnt be happy sending my kids up with but I certainly would not be happy sending my kids up with a pilot who flew 12 hrs a year and was not experienced.
The Law states that such a newbie pilot can take his friends, business associates and family for flights.
Obviously the law does NOT regard the friends, family and business associates as having the same rights to safety as those who hand over money.
A lot in flying is about double standards and slight of hand a lot is to do with protectionism and protecting companies who pay a lot of money to comply with certain regulations and restrictions and who then demand that they are protected from pilots who could easely undercut them and operate to lower standards.

So this is a complex one. Would you be happy with Pilot X flying your children in Y aircraft ? that should be the question.

The exhange of money is really irrelevant.

Pace

[windriver]

PACE
The exchange of money is really irrelevant.

I beg to differ. Money trumps boundaries.

[Pace]

I beg to differ. Money trumps boundaries.

Sorry should have added the words "should be" ;)

Pace

[Bla Bla Bla]

Robin,

I agree with you in some regards, but this is not about whether you have the same hours as a cpl guy or not. Apart from it being the law, I'm afraid a ppl say with one thousand hours built over the best part of ten years of non pressured fun flying only in good weather and no real deadlines to meet just does not compare to a cpl with one thousand hours built over a couple of years flying charter often into bad weather and with allot of commercial pressure, heavy loads etc.

I know a few ppl's who are very talented safe pilots, but I also know some right plonkers who think they are talented.
So yes I'm sure you are a safe ppl and in the right circumstances you could be a safe bet to fly with, but if I look back to when I had a couple of hundred hours I cringe at some of the things I did because, I knew very little and didn't realise it.


flybymike,

I'm not flying off the handle and I'm sure Dublinpilot can look after himself!

[Dave Gittins]

Pace

Thread drift alert.

When I did my skills test, the examiner told me the difference between pass and fail was whether he would let me take his kids in the aeroplane.

I agreed with him that if the answer was not "yes" I needed more teaching and practise.

Nowadays the criteria before I fly is would I take take my granddaughter with me.

[Pace]

When I did my skills test, the examiner told me the difference between pass and fail was whether he would let me take his kids in the aeroplane.

Dave

There is a difference between talk and actions :) I knew one who offered his wife as a new PPLs first passenger but he had a massive life insurance on her and couldnt stand the woman :E

Pace

[BabyBear]

Guys, I think there is a danger of viewing these retrictions as specific to GA and PPL holders? It appears to me that some actually believe it is victimisation?

The truth is that the privelages of a PPL holder (and student start at 14 solo at 16) are more generous than other forms of licences.

A better comparison than taxis' may be mini buses:

To drive a mini bus for hire and reward a 'higher' form of licence is required, however, as with the PPL, there are exemptions allowig passengers to be carried on a 'basic' licence. Unlike the PPL the exemptions are subject to greater conditions.

Holders of a full category B (car) driving licence may drive any of the vehicles listed below:

a passenger carrying vehicle manufactured more than 30 years before the date when it is driven and not used for hire or reward or for the carriage of more than 8 passengers
a minibus with up to 16 passenger seats provided the following conditions are met:
i. the vehicle is used for social purposes by a non-commercial body but not for hire or reward
ii. the driver is aged 21 iii. the driver has held a car (category B) licence for at least 2 years
iv. the driver is providing the service on a voluntary basis
v. the minibus maximum weight is not more than 3.5 tonnes or 4.25 tonnes including any specialist equipment for the carriage of disabled passengers
vi. if the driver is aged 70 or over, is able to meet the health standards for driving a D1 vehicle
When driving a minibus under these conditions you may not receive any payment or consideration for doing so other than out of pocket expenses or tow any size trailer; you may only drive minibuses in this country. Drivers aged 70 or over will need to make a special application, which involves meeting higher medical standards.

Another example may be HGV v Public Service Vehicles, although HGV drivers will be more than capable of driving a bus the law requires them to get an additional licence to do so.

So given the limited restrictions on PPL holders I would argue that we actually have it easy with some simple obvious and logical laws (albeit it's not others logic) governing licensing, the reasons for which have already been covered.

[Bigglesthefrog]

This is a very interesting string which although it started with a simple and sensible question has gone off on many tangents. So let’s be honest about it, there isn’t really much of a logical reason behind a PPL NOT taking payment. The CAA has, by way of presenting the pilot with a license which sanctions the carrying of passengers, agreed that he or she is competent enough to fly with passengers and the insurance companies clearly are happy about this too. Pilots flying children on a basic PPL has been carried out for years successfully (PFA/EAA Young Eagles). But when money comes into it things change because people’s livelihoods are involved. The costs of obtaining the required licensing is very considerable and yes, in most circumstances produces pilots that may be safer to fly with than PPLs. However, I was once chatting over dinner with a good friend who, before his retirement was a Training Captain with a very well known airline. In answer to a question from me about the competence of professional pilots, staggered me by saying that he had met and flown with pilots who he not only considered incompetent, but down right dangerous! So it would seem that the holding of a CPL or ATPL does not guarantee the safety of passengers as some commentators have suggested here.
But let’s for a moment focus on the basic argument that carrying passengers for reward by the holders of a PPL is against the public interest due to safety aspects. It would follow therefore that if this is the real reason, then it should be OK for a PPL to get paid to take a normal package from one part of the country in VFR, to another and deliver it. But it isn’t is it? And at this point I feel that not allowing it by law is tantamount to providing protection to carriers and professional pilots from a much cheaper and possibly (on short journeys) ,a more efficient source.

[mm_flynn]

But it isn’t is it? And at this point I feel that not allowing it by law is tantamount to providing protection to carriers and professional pilots from a much cheaper and possibly (on short journeys) ,a more efficient source.It is much cheaper but is also demonstrably less safe (as the accident statistics clearly show). We accept in almost all aspects of life that undertaking something as a business requires a higher standard, more insurance, licences, permissions, Directors, etc. than doing something for yourself.

Even the basic task of baking cookies - which moms do day in and day out (including feeding the cookies to children) - becomes very different when you start to sell the food beyond your local charity bake sale.

Why should we expect aviation to be uniquely different then everything else in allowing unregulated commercial operations.

[BabyBear]

Biggles, don't take this the wrong way, but you demonstrate well why such laws are required; to guard against the possible actions of those with the inability to understand the basic concept!

Please do not see this as a criticism, but as a statement of fact. If we did not have such laws it would clearly be a free for all. Now whilst I am sure you would deem anything you would do as safe and acceptable, would you be happy that all others actions, 100% of the time, would be safe and acceptable to you?

[S-Works]

Why bother with even a PPL? Why not just go out and fly?

[BabyBear]

Why bother with even a PPL? Why not just go out and fly?


Now that might be an idea, but would you include taking passengers and if so could they be fare paying?

[Bigglesthefrog]

We accept in almost all aspects of life that undertaking something as a business requires a higher standard, more insurance, licences, permissions, Directors, etc. than doing something for yourself.

MM.
Many years ago I worked as a motorcycle courier and in fact jointly ran the outfit for a while. There was never any shortage of businesses willing to trust us with potentially very important documents and in some cases live human organs. We worked on ordinary motorcycle driving licenses and some, I would suggest, more down market outfits even used young provisional license holders complete with "L" plates. Company owners and directors saw the riders and their machines when they turned up for the pick-up, but we never ever had anyone contact us concerned about the young looking kid with the leather jacket walking off with their prized belonging!

BB.
I welcome your comments and certainly don't take them the wrong way at all. I would never suggest that my actions have always been safe and acceptable. We all know our limits and also know when we have exceeded them. Even though we may deny fault in ourselves to others, most of us know, in the back of our minds that we're fallible and this would include professional pilots as well as private!
I accept absolutely that a free-for-all would lead to many problems, but the point in my posting was to refute the explanation of safety as the driving force in the legislation and replace it with the need to protect the professional side of the industry from the competition of cheaper alternatives. But if you should disagree with me and maintain that it is safety that is in fact the issue, then surely delivering a parcel for reward on a good day from one part of the country to another, would be just as safe as any recreational flight for which a PPL is already licensed by the CAA and would therefore be OK?

[BabyBear]

BB.
I welcome your comments and certainly don't take them the wrong way at all. I would never suggest that my actions have always been safe and acceptable. We all know our limits and also know when we have exceeded them. Even though we may deny fault in ourselves to others, most of us know, in the back of our minds that we're fallible and this would include professional pilots as well as private!
I accept absolutely that a free-for-all would lead to many problems, but the point in my posting was to refute the explanation of safety as the driving force in the legislation and replace it with the need to protect the professional side of the industry from the competition of cheaper alternatives. But if you should disagree with me and maintain that it is safety that is in fact the issue, then surely delivering a parcel for reward on a good day from one part of the country to another, would be just as safe as any recreational flight for which a PPL is already licensed by the CAA and would therefore be OK?

Biggles, I believe you are over simplifying the issue by isolating the flying, it is not simply a case of whether the job can be done or not, it is much more complex and many of the reasons it should be so are not related to the actual flying. Yes there are the safety issues, but, rightly, in my view, there are also commercial considerations. As I pointed out in a previous post GA & PPL holders are not singled out for such treatment.

To me it simply would not make sense to have a free for all.

[mm_flynn]

MM.
Many years ago I worked as a motorcycle courier and in fact jointly ran the outfit for a while.

I know nothing about the courier business, but would be surprised to find it is totally unregulated (i.e. anyone with a bike can just punt for business with no permits, licences, approvals required - other than a basic motorcycle licence )


----

Your safety example of delivering a parcel is interesting. Clearly carying a small, stable, non-time critical parcel on a good VFR day from one locality within a country to another has no safety risk relative to a purely recreatioal flight. However, this is only a small stretch from flying a friend - you can't make a business out it.

The law is to prevent people form offering a more general service (eg. I will fly your parcel to a schedule) where the pressures of less than ideal weather, timing, airport environments, cargo packaging/type and all of the other issues that come from offering a service to the public at large come into play.

[Whirlygig]

Biggles, I would suggest that your motorcycle courier operation had riders all with invalid insurance - "hire and reward"? :}

If you allowed PPLs to earn moeny, how would you recommend that your customer distinguishes between you as a conscientious-and-just-as-good-as-a-CPL pilot, and a-wet-behind-the-ears-just-got-my-PPL-in-45-hours pilot? They can't. Or how about a new law which says PPLs can earn money ... but only on a good day :rolleyes:

One aspect of a commercial licence is the monitoring of that licence through more stringent proficiency checks, operational checks and medicals.

Cheers

Whirls

[Genghis the Engineer]

Possibly a motorcycle courier business is allowed to be pretty much unregulated because it's only transporting "stuff".

Taxis and aeroplanes transport "people", on which society rightly places a much higher value.

G

[mm_flynn]

Possibly a motorcycle courier business is allowed to be pretty much unregulated because it's only transporting "stuff".

Taxis and aeroplanes transport "people", on which society rightly places a much higher value.

G
Although as Biggles correctly points out, the laws requiring an AOC are not just for people, they apply equally to transporting "stuff".

Although, motorcycle couriers may be totally unregulated (I don't know), I do know that all of the other transport operators (vans and lorries) that transport "stuff" are regulated in a similar way to aircraft operations.

[Bigglesthefrog]

Biggles, I would suggest that your motorcycle courier operation had riders all with invalid insurance - "hire and reward"?

I would agree with you Whirly, the guys we used worked on a self employed basis and got paid per mile. It was their responsibility to make sure their insurance was valid. The company had insurance that covered the cargo and actually had to call on it once when I personally lost an item on the M4 whilst riding my bike on a run to London. But there was no regulation imposed on the riders from our point of view. However, this was many years ago and things may have changed, but somehow I doubt it, as I have noticed that most of the bikers that deliver Pizzas for Piza Hut are riding bikes displaying "L" plates:eek:

To come back to the aviation discussion, which I'm enjoying, I have to say that I do acknowledge the need to have laws to regulate what could become a dogs breakfast if it was a free-for-all. But having said that, I am also very mindful that many regulations that abound today, seem to be unnecessarily restrictive and in some cases designed to increase revenue. But I do think that there may be some cases where a PPL should be able to claim the full cost of a flight on say delivering "stuff" that did not involve the carriage of personnel, apart from the pilot of course and was flown in conditions and airspace conducive to his PPL status. If the money received did not exceed the total cost of the flight it would not be commercial and therefore no threat to any of the aviation businesses.

[BabyBear]

If the money received did not exceed the total cost of the flight it would not be commercial and therefore no threat to any of the aviation businesses.

Again I think you have too simplistic a view. The definition of a commercial transaction is not dependent on a profit being made.

It appears that you do agree there is a need for legislation. If this is the case then I am sure you can stretch to accepting that there will always be 'peculiarities' and that any legislation will not be perfect. Do you not think that, even if it was deemed appropriate, creating legislation to permit the odd PPL carrying the odd parcel would be nonsensical?

I also wonder what your views would be if you had such a commercial organisation. Try asking those trying to make a living out of transport how they feel about 'cowboys'.

[Flintstone]

Biggles.

Putting aside, for a moment, the legalities and obvious points of ATPL-v-CPL-v-PPL in terms of skills and safety let's go back to the time when you derived an income from that motorcycle courier business.

Now let's imagine I approached all your customers and said I'd deliver their stuff for only the cost of running my moped. You, not surprisingly, stop me in the street and ask me what the hell I think I'm doing and I reply that it's ".... not commercial and therefore no threat to any of the motorcycle courier businesses".

How does it sit with you now?

[Bigglesthefrog]

Now let's imagine I approached all your customers and said I'd deliver their stuff for only the cost of running my moped. You, not surprisingly, stop me in the street and ask me what the hell I think I'm doing and I reply that it's ".... not commercial and therefore no threat to any of the motorcycle courier businesses"

Flintstone
There is nothing to stop anyone from doing this and no legislation against it either (unlike CAA regs). But I very much doubt if anyone would ever bother to ride thousands of miles every week in all weathers on his moped only to have nothing to show for it at the end of the week except a sore backside and a face full of dead flies.:{ So the threat would not worry me.

Do you not think that, even if it was deemed appropriate, creating legislation to permit the odd PPL carrying the odd parcel would be nonsensical?

BB
I think that penalising the odd PPL for carrying a parcel is nonsensical.
What would happen if the PPL carried a cost sharing passenger who delivered the package and HE (not the pilot) got paid his costs for it, no profit just his costs. His costs would be his share to the pilot of the cost sharing flight, so no money would have been made out of the flight.
Someone will probably tell me that this scenario is also a no go within the bounds of the legislation because it was a commercial flight. But try as I may, I can not see how more commercial this flight would be to the pilot than if he had done the same trip with just his cost sharing passenger and received half the cost of the flight which in the eyes of the CAA is OK:ugh:

[BabyBear]

BB
I think that penalising the odd PPL for carrying a parcel is nonsensical.
What would happen if the PPL carried a cost sharing passenger who delivered the package and HE (not the pilot) got paid his costs for it, no profit just his costs. His costs would be his share to the pilot of the cost sharing flight, so no money would have been made out of the flight.
Someone will probably tell me that this scenario is also a no go within the bounds of the legislation because it was a commercial flight. But try as I may, I can not see how more commercial this flight would be to the pilot than if he had done the same trip with just his cost sharing passenger and received half the cost of the flight which in the eyes of the CAA is OK:ugh:


As I said it's not going to be easy introduce laws that cover every eventuality, nor is it practical to even try. It's not a case of penalising the odd PPL, the odd PPL is not a consideration to start with, nor should he be. They are there to cover the main issues and to this end they achieve the purpose.

To be honest the more you type the more thankful I become that they do exist.

Let's just agree to disagree on this one!:ok:

[Pace]

BabyBear

Dont complicate things its as simple as this.

You are either a fun leisure pilot and like in any fun leasure activity you pay through the nose to do it, or your a professional and charge for your superior high level of knowledge and the confidence you instill in your adoring passengers that you will save the day even if both wings fall off.

White and Black! Anthing in between is called a grey area and a no go :rolleyes:

Pace

[robin]

BabyBear

Dont complicate things its as simple as this.

You are either a fun leisure pilot and like in any fun leasure activity you pay through the nose to do it, or your a professional and charge for your superior high level of knowledge and the confidence you instill in your adoring passengers that you will save the day even if both wings fall off.

White and Black! Anthing in between is called a grey area and a no go

Pace

No - I don't think so. It's why we have the dispensation for cost-sharing.

[The Heff]

Hypothetically, if it was legally permissible that a private pilot could charge for services rendered; then the PPL would be in-distinguishable from the CPL with regards to the rights and privileges of the holder. So I deduce that the real reason that the CAA impose this restriction is to help keep aviation alive.

Because the purpose of the PPL is to allow someone to fly for their own pleasure, the only importance of the training is that they're able to fly about safely, without too much accuracy. So the minima and skills required for the PPL can be relaxed a bit to make it cheaper and easier to obtain. Thus more people believe that general aviation is feasible and embark upon flying training, buying aeroplanes and generally flying about.

The purpose of the CPL, as I understand it, is to allow someone to fly for business reasons. Commercial traffic seems to take priority over private, because money is involved, and with ATC making demands on commercial pilots to help them expedite their flight, a bit more skill is required than just to be able to fly safely. Hence more training is required, and also more revalidations to prove that the pilot is as good as he thinks he is, etc. More money goes to the flying schools.

Air Operator's Certificates allows the CAA an influx of cash so that they can afford to regulate aviation, plus the requirement for the aircraft to have a Certificate of Airworthiness to give the engineers their bread and butter. The CAA can sting for more cash by insisting upon Class 1 medicals - generating jobs and income for the medical sector, and plus the pilot needs type ratings for the aircraft, etc. Its all to prove that he's qualified, of course. But the CAA must be making a fortune out of all the regulation. A fortune that it couldn't make if PPLs were able to earn a monetry benefit by flying.

Sorry if my post seems a bit rambling. The trouble with hypothetical situations is there's a lot to consider, which makes structured thoughts rather difficult. :(

[ShyTorque]

Debate here is quite pointless. Try ringing this number:


T: 020 7379 7311 (This telephone number can also be used for all out of hours emergencies)

[Duck Rogers]

Flintstone
There is nothing to stop anyone from doing this and no legislation against it either (unlike CAA regs). But I very much doubt if anyone would ever bother to ride thousands of miles every week in all weathers on his moped only to have nothing to show for it at the end of the week except a sore backside and a face full of dead flies.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gif So the threat would not worry me.

You're avoiding the question.

He asked "What if?". How would you feel if, after setting up and managing your company, a moped owner with a fetish for flies in the teeth and a sore arse turned up with an A-Z road atlas? One who couldn't be bothered to invest the time and money, didn't have the nous to learn the roads or was too dumb to acquire a full bike licence. What if he started taking money from you as an unregulated operator?

Anyone who wants to fly parcels around is free to do so. Just get a CPL (minimum), an AOC, decent aircraft and they're set. Until then best leave it to those who do it properly.





As a mod I don't usually take a side but in this case, as a professional pilot, I feel obliged to.

[Scratch Pad]

Pace pretty much has it summarised.

If you want to be paid to fly, get the qualification. If you can't do that stay out of it.

The fact that there are so many Walts supporting breaking the rules makes me wonder what else they get up to.

[flybymike]

I am surprised we have not yet drfifted on to the subject of PPLs who run aerial photography businesses, some of whom I am told, have many thousands of hours (mainly in low level orbit ;) ) and who allegedly make a nice living from selling speculative and commissioned photos. The argument is of course, that the payment is for the photo and not for the flying.

[Bla Bla Bla]

Before I was a pilot I was a helicopter engineer, the owner of the maintenance outfit only had a ppl H and ppl A. He used to do all the flight testing of the aircraft which were in for maintenance and ferry the aircraft for people. Now the cost of these trips were paid for by the customer, so is it legal for an engineer to fly an aircraft and be paid if he is flying it in the capacity of an engineer testing the machine.

It seems to be a bit of an odd one, and also if he were to crash with another engineer on board and kill him would there be any insurance payout to the family or would it be void. This was in the UK.

Answers on a post card.

[Rightbase]

There is nothing to stop anyone from doing this and no legislation against it either (unlike CAA regs). But I very much doubt if anyone would ever bother to ride thousands of miles every week in all weathers on his moped only to have nothing to show for it at the end of the week except a sore backside and a face full of dead flies.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gif So the threat would not worry me.Duck's observation on this quote by Biggles does not gel with me. I think Biggles has inadvertently made the real point with his observation that there is no pleasure in having to flog through bad weather. You would have to be well rewarded for doing it to even consider it.

And whatever the official reasoning, that safety consequence justifies the law for me. I pay for the privilege of flying for pleasure, and if it doesn't look like being a nice experience I save the money for later. Anything that might put me under a commercial, legal or moral obligation to fly would dilute the pleasure motive, and shift the balance towards flying in less congenial and therefore less safe circumstances.

[TheOptimist]

I'm fairly surpised that this thread has grown as much as it has. I thought the first couple of posts would be the end of it. Since starting it and reading through the replies, however, I have changed my viewpoint thatnks to your answers.

1. Firstly, I wasn't questionning the difference in qualification and skill level of CPL holders to any degree. I was merely interested in the rationale behind the law that even though PPL holders can carry as many passengers as they like, they cannot do it for any financial benefit.

2. My question pertained to the occasional 'mate' who might ask a favour. I wasn't suggesting that posting an advert in the local paper for an air-taxi service would be acceptable :p

Obviously as a low-hours student I have not had the oppurtunity to take any passengers. Nor have I ever paid a PPL holder for a pleasure flight. I've re-read my original posts and they don't give an actual reflection of the answers I was trying to obtain. I was careless with my wording - for example the section on 'nobody cares what goes on.' Clearly people do care.

In starting this thread I was more interested in finding out exactly why PPL cannot carry any passengers (which to a large degree has been answered) and what constitutes as payment. Someone earlier in this thread mentioned their mate friend them breakfast to say thank you. This is more the 'reward' I am concerned about. Like I said previously I'm not talking about starting up your own airline (don't take that past novelty-value).

It was overly-predispositious of me to suggest that in the future I would 'pay more than half' if a friend took me up and would accept more than half if someone insisted on it etc etc. After reading this thread I will make sure that doesn't happen. I suppose that's the point of being a student isn't it really, you've got to learn these things.

It does still seem a little odd to me that you can carry as many passengers as you can get your hands on, and are judged safe to do so, yet cannot accept money for it. I know that's just the way it is though, and I know that with a CPL you will be ten times more qualified to do this.

Edit: In reference to the comment regarding 'having 100 hours on my belt before taking passengers,' it isn't a set figure. When you pass your driving test you're anything but proficient on the roads. You do more learning in the first day without an instructer than you did in the previous 2 months. Obviously the PPL standards are much higher than the equivalent driving standards so this isn't as much of a case - but even if I feel confident I'd want to take a few hours on top of my qualification to make sure I was comfortable - e.g. a few more difficult landings, or increment weather etc etc.

[eharding]

I am surprised we have not yet drfifted on to the subject of PPLs who run aerial photography businesses

Probably because Google has put most of them out of business.

[Pace]

Optimist

I can understand your confusion to the fact that you can legally take your friends, family and business associates flying while the same people who may pay for a flight have to do so through a licenced establishment.

Should the reason given be based on safety then you are justified at considering the CAA do not regard the lives of your passengers on a private flight as equal to the same people paying for a flight.

If the CAA state that the regulations are in place to protect AOC holders business from unfair competition then that would be more easely understood.

I can also understand especially in this recession hard pressed PPL holders wanting to take money to cover the cost of the flight.

So how would you achieve that without opening the flood gates to a mass of would be commercial PPLs trying to cover their costs.

Go into the higher levels of multi crew private aircraft flown by professional crews yet where they are still not able to profit from the flight and it then does appear to be protectionsism under the guise of something else.

Pace

[englishal]

Part of getting a PPL is learning the rules:

1 - to carry fare paying passengers you need a minimum of CPL
2 - to carry fare paying passengers you need to be operating on an AOC
3 - to carry freight you need a CPL but not nescessarily an AOC
4 - to carry work mates in the company aeroplane, a PPL will do (but there are some requirements). The company can pick up the tab.
5 - to carry your friends in your aeroplane each can contribute and equal share to the cost of the flight - UP TO a max of 6 pax

[Brooklands]

to carry your friends in your aeroplane each can contribute and equal share to the cost of the flight - UP TO a max of 6 pax

Englishal - are you sure its 6? I always thought it was a maximum of four including the pilot.

Brooklands

[englishal]

ahem....:O...perhaps it is:ok:

[Bla Bla Bla]

Wow this is going on a bit its simple really.

As a ppl you have been tested to the minimum ppl standard to see if you can be a safe hobbyist.

As a cpl you have been tested to the minimum cpl standard to see if you can be a safe commercial pilot.

Both types of pilot are expected to improve with experience and have allot lot still to learn its just the cpl has a more in depth flying training and allot more theory and a harder flight test due to the tighter standards required. This gives him or her a safer starting point than a ppl.

You cannot join the red cross and do a few weekends medical training and then do the work of a doctor even if you think you may know as much as one.

[Whirlybird]

You cannot join the red cross and do a few weekends medical training and then do the work of a doctor even if you think you may know as much as one.

But you CAN get a PPL and do pretty much what a CPL holder does; you just can't be paid for it. That's the whole point.

[flybymike]

to see if you can be a safe hobbyistPerhaps EASA should change the name of the proposed leisure pilots licence ( the source of much fury and a gift to the anti aviation lobby) to "Hobbyist pilots licence" and see what effect that has.

[Captain Stable]

But you CAN get a PPL and do pretty much what a CPL holder does; you just can't be paid for it. That's the whole point.With the greatest of respect Whirly, no it's not the whole point.

A PPL holder is tested to a far lower level of competence than a CPL or ATPL holder. He does not have a mound of regulation with which to comply (He may think he does, but, until he's got an AOC, as the saying goes, you ain't seen nothin' yet).

A commercial operation needs approved post-holders in certain jobs. Those post-holders are approved by the CAA based upon their experience. The Ops Manual has to be approved, and relevant to the type of operation undertaken. The aircraft has to be maintained by an approved organisation, not just Joe in the hangar at Lesser Snodgrass airfield. Pilots have to be subject to a satisfactory Duty Hours Limitations scheme. None of these are of any relevance to a PPL holder taking a back-hander for taking his boss off to a meeting or running a package to the factory at the other end of the country or even to "here - buy yourself a drink or ten" for taking people up pleasure flying.

The argument about carrying pax or goods is irrelevant. Protection of the public is the point, whether it's protection from injury or death or, depending on the nature of the package, financial damage (or ruin).

I worked f***ing hard for my ATPL's, IR's and instructor ratings. I paid a lot for them. I have now EARNED the right to be paid to fly. I am a professional pilot, and give a professional service, whether taking people up for a 30-minute jolly in a PA28 or flying them across Europe in a BE200. They can be confident that my hours are subject to statutory limitations. They can be confident that my company keeps track of my medical due date and any recurrent training and checking. They can be confident that I have been trained to a sufficent level that I can single-handedly carry out a procedural NDB approach in crappy weather down to minima with one engine failed, a go-around and diversion. They can be confident that I've been trained (and retrained) in CRM regularly. They can be confident that I have the minimum number of hours for the job as specified by my employers.

What can they be confident of in a PPL?

[Pace]

Captain stable

Very valid and good points until we get to this part Protection of the public is the point

I am more cynical and would fire at the CAA A question. Is not the family, the friends the company employee who can all be legally carried by a PPL not the Public? Are they not entitled to the same safety requirements and standards as the "Public"? as next day they could buy a ticket with an AOC to go somewhere and suddenly become "the public".

It stinks a bit of double standards and work and revenue to the CAA.
We think of private operations as being 18 year old jamie in his Cessna 172 with three PAX but private ops can be a Challenger jet with commercially rated crew carrying business personel all over the world.

Pace

[windriver]

The argument about carrying pax or goods is irrelevant. Protection of the public is the point, whether it's protection from injury or death or, depending on the nature of the package, financial damage (or ruin).

Captain Stable is spot on.

Having operated under an AOC in the past for the types of operation the OP alludes to (pleasure flying and other aerial work)

I can tell you it's reassuring to have clearly defined parameters to work within and know that had something dreadful happened there wouldn`t have been an open goal for the legal people and insurance companies to aim at.

Not to mention a robust set of terms and conditions of operation to deal the the financial and business side of things. (and the added bonus of making some proper money for flights)

Could we physically have done this stuff without CPL's and AOC's etc - Yes of course. The public wouldn`t have been any the wiser.

Are you safe to fly a few mates around and share costs - probably, if you've got a licence.

Would I use you to fly people I know for a local jolly on a nice day - no chance! Unless you could show me a copy of your AOC and professional licence. Others may see things differently - (It's nothing personal as I don`t know you.)

The hire and reward thing isn`t just about individual skill levels - there are plenty of PPL's that are "good operators"

As in so many aspects of a modern society it's about protecting the many from the few who WILL cause problems in pursuit of money. We may not like it but it's a function (duty) of the regulatory body to oversee such operations.

Is the law over restrictive? That's for individuals to decide.

[englishal]

I don't think the law is over restrictive at all....though I do think that PPL's with a speciality should be able to charge for SOME things - for example a PPL FI or a PPL who is an aerobatics expert giving tuition.

Personally I never ask for a cost share nor do i expect it from my pax but if they offer to pay the landing or lunch, then fine. The only one who has given me anything is my dad who insisted even though I refused....but that is what dads do.

[Pace]

Windriver

I also know of AOC ops in the past who I would never send my family with and who have been a disaster regarding maintenance and operating procedures with some notable accidents. One involved a business jet into a certain major airport in Scotland :sad:. I have also known superbly run and operated private ops.

Dont presume all AOC gardens are Rosy. If you are in the business then you will know thats not always the case.

Which would you rather fly in a shiny much loved and well cared for private business jet operated by a professional crew non AOC or a knackered 900 hrs a year run round the clock poorly maintained AOC business jet with crew who are also knackered and poorly treated.

Pace

[robin]

Would I use you to fly people I know for a local jolly on a nice day - no chance! Unless you could show me a copy of your AOC and professional licence. Others may see things differently - (It's nothing personal as I don`t know you.)

Your choice, but then I would never fly anyone who turned up and asked for a flight. Generally, the people I fly are friends who know me and my level of skill and experience and take the (small) risk.

When I fly the Young Aviators on trips we have to prove insurance, experience and currency and that is taken very seriously. But you'll not find an AOC or professional licence amongst us.

Why do we do it? Not for the money, as we don't even get a contribution. It means that young people can experience flight for nothing - certainly something an AOC outfit wouldn't want to do.

[windriver]

Dont presume all AOC gardens are Rosy

I don't, but it's a valid point - in the same way I don`t assume any other "regulated" group or individual professional (how I hate that overworked term) in society is. BUT such operations are at least accountable and subject to oversight and peer review. (on the radar as it were)


When I fly the Young Aviators on trips we have to prove insurance, experience and currency and that is taken very seriously. But you'll not find an AOC or professional licence amongst us.

Why do we do it? Not for the money, as we don't even get a contribution. It means that young people can experience flight for nothing - certainly something an AOC outfit wouldn't want to do.


Quite rightly and I'm delighted to hear that you are doing this...

I've don`t have a problem with the notion of PPL's versus CPL's carrying out certain operations - it's the management and framework of such operations that is designed to provide the protection for the many from the few.

[Captain Stable]

Pace, it's not the friends and family of a PPL holder who need the protection - it's the PAYING public.

Taking my wife or kids flying is one thing. Taking a paying punter up is another. One is simply for fun. The other is a business.

A Holiday company has a load of regulations with which to comply, for the protection of the public. I have just (finally!) completed arrangements for our family to go off on a half-term break this autumn. Do you then believe that I should have an ATOL for having arranged it on my family's behalf? Of course not.

Our local council licenses taxi drivers. They charge for their business. I give lifts to school to my daughter. I also give lifts to friends and family. On some trips we (my friends and I) share petrol costs. But my failing to get a taxi licence for my car is not simply a revenu-raising exercise by the council, as you accuse the CAA of being for CPL holders. But those taxi drivers would (very rightly) be up in arms if I started hanging around outside the station trying to pick up fares. Why should it be different for pilots?

Englishal, in the old days a PPL (A/Q)FI could instruct without a commercial licence. It was seen as a legitimate way to build the requisite hours, and was the standard way to progress one's career if you couldn't afford to go to Trent or Oxford and do the 13-month course. PPLs could also do aerial photography, glider tugging, para dropping etc. In my first flying job I was instructing part-time. Now, however, the whole structure of the training sequence has changed. Whether for better or for worse, I can't say.

However, the end result is that it is not legal for PPLs to carry on taking anything except cost-sharing for flying.

And why?

As an instructor, I regularly carry out currency checks on PPLs. I can quite confidently say that some of them are excellent pilots, and I wouldn't worry on a basis of safety about my wife and kids being in the back with them driving. However, I can equally confidently say that a somewhat larger number of them are, in the event of anything untoward occurring, thoroughly dangerous. They don't practice PFLs or EFATOs, and have no idea what to do if the donk suddenly goes quiet or they suddenly find oil all over the windscreen and bits of the engine departing the aircraft in unusual directions. They can't remember how to plan a PFL circuit and some have no idea what best glide speed for their aircraft is. They like to sit around bull****ting in the cafe or bar, get in their C172 or TB10 with a PPL mate, head off to the next airfield and do some more bull****ting about aviation. Very, very few that I can recall are of the "pirate" mentality and like to do silly things in aircraft, but the majority would not be able to handle a genuine emergency.

And yet some of these would like to be paid for their flying and can't accept that the rules prohibit it??????

Commercially-licensed pilots are subject to regular checks. They spend time on OPCs and LPCs practicing handling emergencies. They are kept informed of latest theory and practice, and put them into effect. Yes, some of them are worse pilots than some of the best PPLs. So what? If those PPLs want to be paid and are so good, then let them take the exams and demonstrate their flying skills to an examiner. Once they have paid the fee to the CAA (not the "purchase price" of a licence, but a contribution to the cost of regulating air safety in this country) they can do so.

[Intercepted]

As have been explained so many times in this thread already I think it's quite clear that current rules for non-commercial and commercial flights make sense.

Since I'm Swedish I would like to add a small difference between Sweden and UK though.

In Sweden we are allowed to do forest fire prevention flights where the state pays for the airplane and the pilot gets free flying hours. This is obviously very popular and helps a lot of ppl's staying current. The total flying hours allocated to fire prevention are divided between clubs and interested ppl's need to attend a short course before they can take part.

Personally I think ppl's should have to be non-commercial and I believe the above scenario is non-commercial.

What about changing the requirement of equal share of flying costs to only passengers share the cost? This is only free hours for the ppl and no revenue. Would this really be a commercial flight? I think not.

[Pace]

Intercepted and Captain Stable.

Firstly I am not in any way suggesting PPLs start flying commercially. Thinking of some I know god help the paying public if that ever happened ;)

Somehow this thread got into private and AOC operations. PPLs fly private but commercially rated pilots also fly private and are paid to do so.
My point in that is dont think all AOCs are good or all private ops are bad.
The main point is that the authorities have more control over AOC ops than private and get a lot of revenue for exercising that control. In Turn the guys paying for the AOC demand to be protected from their business being taken away by pilots or private ops that can easely undercut them.
Yes a bit like the Black cab private hire scenario.

Intercepted yes I agree with you that especially in these hard times the CAA could look at ways of making it cheaper for PPLs to fly and getting back some or all of the costs without making a profit.

Pace

[S-Works]

From a recent accident report.....

Other than in a flying club environment, there is no system for checking that pilots are suitably qualified for flying an aircraft. Thus, when a member of the public accepts a flight with a private pilot there is no assurance that the pilot is qualified and fit to fly other than the pilot’s
own integrity.

[Say again s l o w l y]

I think Bose's quote pretty much sums it up to be honest.

[IO540]

I think Whirlybird's post

I believe the original point was that taking friends flying with a basic PPL is legal, but if they pay more than their share it becomes illegal, and that this is illogical. Yes, it is. Personally, I can't think of a good reason for it. But it does happen to be the law. And if you choose to break that law, that's your business, as with any other law. End of story. I don't see how this thread has run to two pages...but that's PPRuNe for you.is pretty much right.

It's the law.

There is some safety-based logic to having to have additional training if one accepts money, but the argument tends to fall down when one considers the boundary between, say, carrying 3 passengers and a) getting them to contribute 75% and b) getting them to contribute 75.1%. For the pilot to make money (and thus acquire the alleged incentive to fly like a cowboy), they would have to contribute 100.1% or more (in fact even more depending on the "direct costs" argument........).

But then very little of aviation regulation is evidence based. Nobody has ever sat down and determined that a pilot who sat 14 exams is 12.2% likely to kill his passengers over his flying lifetime, whereas one who has sat just 2 exams is 17.3% likely to do the same.

The need for an AOC for public transport has been institutionalised for many years, worldwide, under ICAO, and the resulting fee structure is what props up every country's national CAA. Consequently the AOC regime is tightly enforced, and the enforcement is enthusiastically supported by AOC holders who understandably don't like a non-holder undercutting them.

[Whirlybird]

IO540,
I think that post made history in a minor way, in being the first time you and I have ever actually agreed about something on PPRuNe. ;)

[RTN11]

Haven't read every post, so this may already have come up, but...

To get a CPL you must also hold a class 1 medical. There are plenty of people who are allowed to fly with a class 2, who would not pass a class 1. This is more restrictive for a reason.

[Captain Stable]

Very good point, RTN.But then very little of aviation regulation is evidence based. Nobody has ever sat down and determined that a pilot who sat 14 exams is 12.2% likely to kill his passengers over his flying lifetime, whereas one who has sat just 2 exams is 17.3% likely to do the same.The accident statistics are out there if you want to analyse them. Go through AAIB reports. Check out how many accidents are PPLs and how many commercially-qualified.

But we don't want ATPLs/CPLs to be merely "less likely" to kill passengers. We want them to be very significantly less likely to kill passengers, and for several reasons:-
They tend to carry far more pax than does a PPL
They tend to carry pax on a much more frequent basis than do PPLs
The pax they carry are paying for the privilege and expect to be carried safely from A to B - they are not up for a jolly.
The pax they carry expect their pilots to be better-qualified than your average weekend pleasure flyer.The reason PPLs are not permitted to carry paying pax is that the law forbids it.

The reason the law forbids it is for the protection of the fare-paying public and for protection of legitimate businesses.but the argument tends to fall down when one considers the boundary between, say, carrying 3 passengers and a) getting them to contribute 75% and b) getting them to contribute 75.1%.Why does it fall down? A line has to be drawn somewhere. To be quite honest, I would draw the line elsewhere - at NO cost-sharing, unless those sharing the cost were also licensed pilots.

[Crash one]

No doubt it's all been said but as a miserable 150 odd hr NPPL I know that some airborne situations require more competence than others. The full complement of competence does not arrive along with the "poo brown".
Frinstance yesterday I changed the oil & thought "a quick blast round the coast to circulate the stuff as it is a nice evening & the wind had dropped"
Taxi out to the far end (nearly) looked over the fence & the farmer next door ploughing, field full of seagulls, more inbound overhead! The better part of valor being cowardice, I put the thing away & went home.
If I had had a passenger on board who had paid to be there I can imagine, "What the hell are you doing? I want to get to xxxx before 5 oclock, the sun is shining, no wind, what's the problem?"
Most flying training to PPL is in good wx, that's why half of it gets cancelled. As a basic (N)PPL where do you draw the line & be able to say "Now I can do it"? There are plenty of over confident people out there who would draw the line long before I would.
Which is the reason for the CPL extra training/time. Bloody obvious really.

[trex450]

The law is simple, you cannot be paid for your services as a PPL. However one quick question. If as a PPL (which I guess you technically are if you a flying an aircraft on a private category C of A irrespective of whether you hold an ATPL or not) what happens if you carry a passenger (for no reward or even cost sharing) who asks to be flown over certain locations which they then photograph. You know in advance that those photographs are going to be published and are thus. While you have absolutely no reward and have paid the full operating cost of the aircraft can you be seen as operating outside the law? I am guessing that this is very much a grey area especially as the photos published might be published but not be profitable.

[Pace]

If as a PPL (which I guess you technically are if you a flying an aircraft on a private category C of A irrespective of whether you hold an ATPL or not)

Trex

Not the case at all it is quite common for a CPL or ATPL to be flying and to be paid to fly a private cat aircraft. What happens if the owner cannot fly and has to employ someone to fly for him?

Pace

[Captain Stable]

What would happen? I would suggest that a responsible pilot could say "It's not legal - I could lose my licence so sorry, but the answer's no".

And Pace is quite correct - I used to fly a Private Cat. KingAir for a private owner, and he paid me to do so. What he could NOT do was offer his aircraft (and pilot) for hire by anyone else.

[trex450]

How is it possible then for GA magazines to publish flight test articles, with photos, on aircraft that are on a private C of A and also happen to be for sale in the same magazine. Surely this breaks many rules? The magazine profits with the article and the seller (assuming they sell) gains a considerable financial reward.

Pace, Capt Stable,
if you can be paid (as a pro) by your employer to fly a private aircraft I assume that you can only transport your employer on social rather than business journeys as any business trips would be undertaken for financial gain on their part therefore breaking the law.

[Say again s l o w l y]

We're getting into semantics here, but a journalist isn't being paid for the flight, they are being paid for the article that they write. The subject might be an air test, but that is irrelevant. They are one step removed from being paid to fly the machine.

The ruse of paying someone to be a gardener, but then their actual job is to fly you about, has been tried on numerous occasions. If I recall correctly, as long as your primary role isn't flying then it is sort of legal but in a very grey and dodgy area.

[Dave Gittins]

It seems to me that we are drifting away from the subject.

The key question is whether as a PPL you can contract with somebody to directly sell your few skills as a pilot. The answer is that you cannot enter into a commercal arrangement without a commercial license. That's it.

If you contract with somebody to write a magazine article that is different. You are selling your skills as a journalist not a pilot and you don't have to be a commercially licensed journalist to write commercially (more's the pity sometimes).

There are doubtlessly as many ways to try and twist the law so you get paid for piloting as there are are shades to the weather - the only reasonable certainty is that you'll get caught out in the end.

[Captain Stable]

I can't answer your point about the magazine articles, but I don't see any big problem there.

As to your second point, it doesn't matter what the purpose of the owner's trip is. The aircraft is simply a form of transport.

[Pace]

if you can be paid (as a pro) by your employer to fly a private aircraft I assume that you can only transport your employer on social rather than business journeys as any business trips would be undertaken for financial gain on their part therefore breaking the law.

Trex

I think you are in the mentality of the PPL in a small single and what he can use the aircraft for It is quite feasable for a large aircraft (jet) to be operated on a private cat, with a highly qualified crew and to not only fly the owner and his friends/family but also his employees, business associates and their employees, etc too. He doesnt even need to be on the aircraft.

Pace

[trex450]

Not at all Pace, an aircraft with a private category C of A surely is such regardless of what it is. It simply highlights what a grey law it is.

[mm_flynn]

Not at all Pace, an aircraft with a private category C of A surely is such regardless of what it is. It simply highlights what a grey law it is.the particular case you are talking about is not very grey - the first paragraph of the law says you can pay your pilot and it is still private - 'your pilot' is a guy flying 'your aircraft' not 'his aircraft'.

There has been quite extensive debate about the reasonableness of the law. However, it is important to keep clear what the law says.

At a very simple level, if strangers (or their goods) are flying with you and they have provided any valuable consideration related to the flight - it is likely to be public transport and not allowed.

The CAA also take a broad view of the valuable consideration that will make a flight aerial work (which covers almost everything involving payments in respect of a flight or its purpose (which catches photo runs) that isn't public transport) and then carve out a very specific set of exemptions that they consider private (this is a more onerous approach than in the US).

Understand these exemptions and what 'in respect of the flight or purpose of the flight' means and the law becomes much closer to black and white.

[Pace]

mm

thought this was well written till we got to this bit and the law becomes much closer to black and white

Having been involved in private jet ops I think the law is far from Black and White and has very large grey areas.

Having said that this topic is supposed to be about a PPL charging for his/her services and I dont want to steer the thread way off course :=

Pace