Scenario: Aviation Fundraising event

[Sqwark2000]

Organisation has been offered use of private helicopter to be flown by owner who holds a PPL(H) for purposes of fundraising for said organisation.

Passengers are sought to make a donation to said organisation in return for flight in helicopter.

Organisation claims that no money will change hands between pilot & passengers and therefore does not constitute a flight for hire or reward.

I say Bollocks. The intent is that passengers pay for a helicopter ride and therefore needs to be conducted under Part 135 holder & CPL pilot.

Scenario is NZ based under NZ CAR's

Thoughts?

S2K

[havick]

The exact same scenario is/was occurring in South Australia. I'm still not convinced that it's legal, can anyone shed some light on the subject?

[Old Akro]

This is a dramatically more complex question than you might imagine. If the organisation is a charity and it has deductible gift status then the payment by the passengers cannot be represented as being tax deductible if it is payment for a ride.

If the organisation is receiving donations that are not linked to getting the ride, then they will be tax deductible. This is a whole tax subject in itself. In this scenario where the payment is not directly linked with the ride and the payment can be a deductible donation, then it probably also meets the requirements for a private flight.

One of the many areas where Australia makes life more complex than most other parts of the world.

[Aerozepplin]

In my experience in New Zealand it is considered hire and reward. That is, similar charitable auctions or sales have been stopped or voluntarily withdrawn.

Personally I would call CAA and ask for a legal opinion if in any doubt. Much better to be told not to before the event than to have someone asking awkward question after the flight.

Never a good idea to push a legal grey area.

[truthinbeer]

I would not want to be defending in court an accident in the scenario as described. Slippery high priced lawyers for plaintiffs and or insurance company would quickly rack-up a sum that would leave you gasping for breath imo.

[mostlytossas]

Don't know what the rules are in NZ or care less but as for Australia I have done simular years ago before cost sharing was allowed even on a number of occasions.
Years ago we had an annual "Flight day at Parafield" for my sons scout group. We would have a picnic lunch right under the tower and I would fire up my trusty Cherokee 180 and take 3 at a time on a joy flight over Adelaides northern suburbs. Usually the Tower would even let the kids up to have a look at the operations. The scout group would charge a nominal fee for the day as I fund raiser (not that I would see any of it or expected to) and all the kids enjoyed a good day out. As I said so good we made it an annual event.
I have also on occasions donated "joy rides" as a raffle prize to good causes. So long as the passengers are made aware it is a private flight it is quite legal. If it wasn't do you think the controllers in the tower would have not passed my name along to the relevant authorities let alone been party to it?
Some of you guys need to get a life.
What do you think will be gained by raising "mystery grey areas"? Have you ever read an insurance policy? Are you that jealous that your not included in doing the flying? Or do you think by whinging about it these kids are going to run across to some charter company and pay top dollar to do the same thing? They won't they just won't get to go period.
CASA aren't interested in such petty matters. What they are interested in is blatant rorts of the regs,as they should be. Such as conducting unofficial charters to events for hire and reward.

[VH-XXX]

CASA aren't interested in such petty matters.

I wouldn't be so sure about that!

Ever heard of "petty" crime?

[mostlytossas]

And your point is?

[Howard Hughes]

Personally I would call CAA and ask for a legal opinion if in any doubt.
Ask for it in writing, if they are not willing to give it to you, then you are clearly on shakey ground!:ok:

[Aerozepplin]

mostlytossas, why the sharp reply? I'm answering the question that was asked. 2000's profile says he's in New Zealand, and set his question as such.

If you wanna explore the boundaries of CASA regulations, then go for it. However, in New Zealand concerns have been raised with the CAA regarding advertised charity flights. Each situation is different I guess, but those I know of would not have been allowed to go ahead.

Not a minor matter to be facing enforcement action for illegal hire and reward operations, however good the intentions.

[nig&nog]

Is the helicopter owned by the company that the person is flying employed by. As I remember if its a company employee flying the company helicopter for company work and not for another company than its fine. This was the case for a certain mining/gas exploration company approx 15 years ago but as usual may have changed due regulations.

[Aussie Bob]

There is another wannabe commercial pilot posting here curently about the same thing.

See: http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/464226-legal-implications-should-accident-happen.html

All I say if a member of the public pays anything for a flight with a stranger be it a donation or whatever then the least they deserve is a commercial pilot operating under an air operators certificate.

[tail wheel]

Passengers are sought to make a donation to said organisation in return for flight in helicopter.

In reverse, if a prospective passenger declined to make a financial contribution to the nominated charity, then I assume that prospective passenger would be denied a joy flight? As the private flight is solely dependent upon a financial consideration, I suspect CASA/CAA would take an interest.

In the event of a Common Law claim resulting from an accident, the charity may also be partially liable.

Potentially a very messy scenario of which a prudent person may steer well clear?

[Sqwark2000]

Hi guys,

Thanks for the replies, I rang CAA today and spoke to the GM General Aviation. He was pretty clear it would considered a hire/reward operation and therefore require a AOC etc

I am a member of the organisation involved and despite my information pointing to the legality of it they were determined to go ahead with this fund raising event.

I will take this confirmed info back to them and explain the finer points of hire& reward.

Cheers


S2K

[tail wheel]

Sqwark.

Read my post # 19 is this thread: http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/464226-legal-implications-should-accident-happen.html#post6711396

The ruling mentioned applies to Australia, not New Zealand.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
The NZ CARs are somewhat different to the Australian rules,( and less ambiguous) particularly AU CAR 206, but the end result is the same ---- the potential legal liability, for all involved, is just to great to take the risk.
Tootle pip!!