Business trips on a PPL - legality

[AliB]

The "Crossing The Channel" thread seems to have got bogged down off topic and is plainly ignoring my own off topic question ;)

So - here it is in a thread of its own: The original poster indicated his intention to fly his father to a business meeting. Two people posted suggesting that this was potentially illegal under a PPL.

My understanding is that as long as you do not get financial reward (i.e. at least pay an equal share of the cost of the flight), dont advertise for passengers and are current within the 90 day rule then you are legal to fly passengers for any reason - which implicitly includes reasons that are money making matters for the pax (but not the pilot).

So - am I missing something or were the calls for our new PPL to call off (or at least keep quite about) this business flight over cautious?

Ali

[dirkdj]

It is certainly legal to fly yourself on a business trip, as long as you're not being paid to fly. Been doing this for the last 30 years and no problems with our CAA or tax people.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I know that CAA allows it's Engineering staff to fly themselves to meetings so long as they hold an IMC as well - which I believe is just their own insurance issue. Less certain on this, but I think that they claim back equivalent motor mileage as if they were using their own cars (which 3 organisations that I've worked for have also used as a working practice).

G

[Keef]

I'd be wary.

If you're flying yourself on your own business, that's no problem at all.

If it's you and your dad in the club aircraft, and you're sharing the costs of the hire, you're probably OK.

But if there's a sniff of carrying commercial goods, or of "hire or reward" or of touting for business (I forget the exact words), then the book gets airborne in your direction.

Be very careful. Read the ANO and the UK AIM.

[I can't give you the page/chapter because the index is hopeless. Some day, when I have a spare few weeks and am bored, I might even write an index so you can look up things starting with the question. The present index starts with the answer, and assumes you want to know what the question is.]

[FNG]

Here is a link to Article 130 of the Air Navigation Order. Note in particular 130(1)(a), (3)(a), (8) and (9). When I get a moment I shall edit this post to suggest how it works in practice (adding of course a huge disclaimer to the effect that free legal advice may be worth exactly what you pay for it), but for now I am dunlawyerin and off to contemplate the possibility of doing some wholly irrelevant Tiger Mothing if the weather is any good this weekend. If you haven't seen this stuff before, don't be put off by what may at first impression seem to be the odd presentation of the rules. They are written in the style typical of most UK legislation and it all fits together well enough if you read it slowly a few times. It is OK for a PPL to fly his dad to a business meeting so long as the PPL doesn't get paid for it in money or money's worth. The CAA are not quite as mean as people sometimes think they are and are not going to throw the PPL in the slammer if dad buys pilot-kid a pint when they get back to base.

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2000/20001562.htm#130

[bookworm]

(This comes with the usual disclaimers of being a personal interpretation -- for proper advice consult a lawyer)

Your employer (or your company if you are a director) can pay the costs of a flight. There is no restriction on the purpose of the flight or the passengers carried, as long as the passengers do not pay to be carried -- you cannot cost-share with passengers and be paid by your employer for the same flight. Anyone on board must not be obliged to be carried in that way (i.e. you can't be contracted as a pilot, and if your passengers include fellow employees I suggest that they should be offered an alternative method of travel).

This usually covers most business trips flown by PPLs.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Hi Bookworm et al.

Not a legal eagle either but if you get reimbursed for your flying by your employer or company and you are transporting others working for the same outfit on that flight I think you may well need a good barrister to let you of the hook if things go pearshaped.

I think the law does not distinguish your father from any other person in this respect.

If you fly your dad for whatever reason just because you fancy that no problemo. As soon as money starts to change hands you will be getting on a slippery slope.

You may also want to consider that if you have only a vanilla PPL (nowt wrong with that) how happy he will be to miss the business meeting if you feel a bit uncert about the weather.

Just a thought.

FD

[bookworm]

Not a legal eagle either but if you get reimbursed for your flying by your employer or company and you are transporting others working for the same outfit on that flight I think you may well need a good barrister to let you of the hook if things go pearshaped. ... I think the law does not distinguish your father from any other person in this respect.

What's your basis for that? I can't see anything in the ANO to back-up your assertion.

[FNG]

POLITE DISCLAIMER: I may be a lawyer, but reading this doesn't make you my client or otherwise create any duty of care betweeen me and you. As always in flying, YOU must make up your own mind. If in doubt, obtain specific advice on your precise situation.

First general point: there is a distinction between reimbursement of costs and getting paid for flying (see below). Second general point: any PPL who feels tempted to push at the limits of his/her licence should give him or herself a slap and shout "stop it!" Remember what the first "P" in PPL stands for. If you want to replace that "P" with a "C" or even "AT", that's fine, but you have to do some tests and stuff first. The point of having a PPL is to SPEND (lots of) money, not to make it.

Going back to the question, it may help to look at the text of the ANO. I set out chunks of this below, interspersed, at the points marked with asterisks***, with comments.

Start with the licence privileges for a PPL in Part A of Schedule 8:-

Privileges:

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the holder of the licence shall be entitled to fly as pilot in command or co-pilot of an aeroplane of any of the types or classes specified or otherwise falling within an aircraft rating included in the licence.

(2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(aa) towing a glider in flight; or

(bb) a flight for the purpose of dropping of persons by parachute;

in either case in an aeroplane owned, or operated under arrangements entered into, by a club of which the holder of the licence and any person carried in the aircraft or in any glider towed by the aircraft are members.

(b) He shall not receive any remuneration for his services as a pilot on a flight save that if his licence includes a flying instructor's rating, a flight instructor rating or an assistant flying instructor's rating by virtue of which he is entitled to give instruction in flying microlight aircraft or self-launching motor gliders he may receive remuneration for the giving of such instruction or the conducting of such flying tests as are specified in sub-paragraph (a)(i) in a microlight aircraft or a self-launching motor glider.

***

So, the points to note are: No aerial work (except for the very limited kinds specified) and no flying for purposes of public transport.

Next question: What is "aerial work", and what is "public transport"? [Edit: the CAA have published useful guidance on this: see lower down this thread for a link to this]

Look at Art 130 ANO:-

***

(1)

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

(b) [omitted as not relevant to this thread]

(2) Subject to the provisions of this article, 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;

(b) if any passengers or cargo are carried gratuitously in the aircraft on that flight by an air transport undertaking, not being persons in the employment of the undertaking (including, in the case of a body corporate, its directors and, in the case of the CAA, the members of the CAA), persons with the authority of the CAA either making any inspection or witnessing any training, practice or test for the purposes of this Order, or cargo intended to be used by any such passengers as aforesaid, or by the undertaking; or

(c) for the purposes of Part III of this Order (other than articles 14(2) and 15(2) thereof), if valuable consideration is given or promised for the primary purpose of conferring on a particular person the right to fly the aircraft on that flight (not being a single-seat aircraft of which the maximum total weight authorised does not exceed 910 kg) otherwise than under a hire-purchase or conditional sale agreement.

***

Note for non-lawyers: valuable consideration includes money or anything with the value of money. This could include a meal, accommodation, or a free hat, with or without a cheesy corporate logo.

Article 129 ANO indicates that 'valuable consideration' means any right, interest, profit or benefit, forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility accruing, given, suffered or undertaken pursuant to an agreement, which is of more than a nominal nature.

Back to Article 130. Here's the relatively well known (comes up in the exams) bit about four people (inc pilot) paying equal shares of the flight cost. This covers the PPL and his/her pals going for a jolly (frankly I've always thought it somewhat naff to ask friends to pay for the privilege of being scared witless: they can buy me a drink if we survive the landing).

***

(8)

(a) Subject to paragraph (b), a flight shall be deemed to be a private flight if:

(i) the only valuable consideration given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight other than:

(aa) valuable consideration specified at paragraph (2)(c); or

(bb) in the case of an aircraft owned in accordance with paragraph (10)(a), valuable consideration which falls within paragraph (10)(b);

is a contribution to the direct costs of the flight otherwise payable by the pilot in command; and

(ii)

(aa) no more than 4 persons (including the pilot) are carried on such a flight;

(bb) the proportion which such contribution bears to the total direct costs of the flight shall not exceed the proportion which the number of persons carried on the flight (excluding the pilot) bears to the number of persons carried on the flight (including the pilot);

(cc) no information concerning the flight shall have been published or advertised prior to the commencement of the flight other than, in the case of an aircraft operated by a flying club, advertising wholly within the premises of such a flying club in which case all the persons carried on such a flight who are aged 18 years or over shall be members of that flying club; and

(dd) no person acting as a pilot on such a flight shall be employed as a pilot by or be a party to a contract for the provision of services as a pilot with the operator of the aircraft being flown on the flight.

(b) If valuable consideration specified at paragraph (2)(c) is given or promised the provisions of that paragraph shall apply to the flight.

***
Now we get to the bit about reimbursement of employees/directors:-

***

(9)

(a) Subject to paragraph (b), 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:

(i) valuable consideration specified at paragraph (2)(c); or

(ii) in the case of an aircraft owned in accordance with paragraph (10)(a), valuable consideration which falls within paragraph (10)(b);

is the payment of the whole or part of the direct costs otherwise payable by the pilot in command by or on behalf of the employer of the pilot in command, or by or on behalf of a body corporate of which the pilot in command is a director, provided that neither the pilot in command nor any other person who is carried is legally obliged, whether under a contract or otherwise, to be carried.

(b) If valuable consideration specified at paragraph (2)(c) is given or promised the provisions of that paragraph shall apply to the flight.


***

How does this work? If a X Ltd wants its employees A, B and C to go to meet a client, and A has a PPL and access to an aircraft, he can fly himself, B and C to the meeting, and X Limited can pay the direct flight costs so long as it is not A's job to fly himself or the others there, and neither B nor C are contractually obliged or entitled to travel in the aircraft. As for being contractually entitled, no problem, none of them has bought a ticket (a contract of carriage), but, you may ask, surely they are all contractually OBLIGED to go on the trip: they are employees, and their employer has instructed them to travel to a certain place to meet a certain client. The answer to this is that they are not contractually obliged to travel in the aircraft: they can go to the meeting however they like : by car, by submarine, or towed in a golden chariot by 50 prancing llamas (whether the employer will pay the costs is another matter).

Going in employee A's badly maintained and wonky-sparred spamcan is just like going in his knackered Mark II Cortina, or on a train (except that the latter option is suicidal and no sane person would attempt it). If the employer ever starts ordering A to fly to a meeting, or to take colleagues, A should decline to accept the instruction. It's not a lawful instruction, and the employer cannot fairly sanction A for declining it. Commonsense dictates, however, that it may be wise for A to prevent this tense situation arising by not putting himself forward as a transport resource in the first place.

What about PPL-kid and his proud dad en route to dad's business meeting? If PPL-kid works for dad's company (NB not as a pilot): see (9) above. If not, this will fall under (8): dad can pay up to half the direct costs. All arrangements must be voluntary and not based on any contract. As always, PPL kid MUST NOT get paid for the trip.

What about PPL on his own going to a business meeting? If doing this for his employer, or his own limited company, see (9) above. If self employed in a partnership or as a sole trader, he can't be reimbursed, but may be able to offset legitimate business travel costs against tax.

There are some PPLs who use their licences for business travel, but they tend to have IMCs or IRs, IFR-kitted twins or fast singles, or helicopters. PPL business travel is not very practical for vanilla PPLs in the average spamcan or wacky taildragger. Matter of taste, but I can't see the point of mucking up a pleasant hobby with nasty business. Last time I did a case in the Eurocourt I noticed the GA terminal at Luxembourg and pondered for a moment the "fun" of getting IR-ed up and flying myself there next time, but then I shuddered at the thought of having to flog through a single-pilot IFR trip and then having to argue with all those grumpy old men in dresses. Yuk.

Lastly, I haven't included 130(10), as this post is already too long, but it's there on the link. It shows how aircraft ownership groups work.

[AliB]

FNG,

Thanks for that :) - disclaimer noted.

All terribly sensible when you get down to it. I am glad that my understanding of the simplified version from the PPL law books was broadly correct.

My company keeps threatening to send me regularly to Gloucester (from Watford) on business. I am seriously considering flying if they do (with my car acting as backup when the weather is bad) and am glad that if someone asks that I could take them too.

I doubt my company would cough up for the cost (if I talk sweetly maybe they'll pay me what it would cost to drive) and I don't expect it to be a practical form of travel - but its the sort of flight I would make at weekends anyway so doing it on company time and avoiding a boring car journey sounds like a good deal to me.

Thanks again,

AliB

[Timothy]

AliB

I do a lot of business flying, and reckon that there is a minimum distance which makes it worthwhile (taking into account pre-flight checks, airport security, paying fees, getting fuel etc etc.)

That distance is considerably greater than Watford/Gloucester.

W

[FNG]

You are welcome, AliB

Here is a link to the CAA's very clear and helpful document on this subject. Note in particular paragraph 3.6.

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

[AliB]

WCollins,

I am sure it is! In fact I would think it is hard to find a route in the UK where a PPL can get any real advantage over car transport.

However, taking into consideration, as the car sticker I once saw said, "I would rather be flying" I think I will try it all the same. :)

FNG - thanks for the link. As you say - clear and helpful.

AliB

[andrewc]

Not so AliB, I do Cambridge - Cardiff in four hours by
car and ~50 minutes by aircraft. This transforms the
weekend trips to my folks...

Not only do you go far faster, but the straightline
distance ~140 miles versus the wiggling ~180+ of
fast roads counts as well.

-- Andrew

[Timothy]

andrewc

I do Cambridge - Cardiff in ~50 minutes by aircraft

That's a hell of a trick!

I assume that you live within ten minutes of Cambridge? So ten minutes drive. Ten minutes to get through security, get to the aircraft? Ten minutes pre-flight check? Five minutes cockpit check? Five minutes taxi, wait for the DC10 to land?

Now let's cut forward to touch down at Cardiff. Ten minutes to taxi in and find a parking space at the flying club, secure the aircraft and walk in.

The taxi company won't take bookings in advance, because of the number of no-shows, so you call one over from the terminal. There is often a complete absence of taxis on stand, but we'll be generous and say that there is one today and it comes straight across. Ten minutes for it to drive and you to deal with landing fees and security.

I assume (remember this discussion is about business trips, although I read that in your case it is family) that you are not going to the throbbing metropolis of Barry, but to central Cardiff. A good 30 mins on a working day.

That's 1:30 on top of the flying time. The distance in a straight line is 140 miles, so we'll assume that you were quoting 160kts, hence 50 mins.

So now we are at 2:20 with everything going swimmingly, you living in Fen Ditton, no delays, no hassle. But you won't rely on that for your business meeting. You will allow a minimum of 30 mins hassle factor. If, like me, you are obsessionally incapable of being late for a meeting you will also allow time for de-icing, refuelling, delays at the hold, delays on the approach, no taxi etc and add an hour, make it 3:20. This makes no allowance for flight planning, which is unlikely to be less than half an hour for the average PPL.

And that journey is Cambridge - Cardiff in your 160kt whizz machine. We are talking average PPL business trips here, so 110-120kt may be more average and the journey I expressed surprise about was Watford (nearest airfield Elstree) to Gloucester, where the road time would be considerably less than Cambridge - Cardiff example.

Don't get me wrong. I wholly own an Aztec (165kt) solely for the purpose of business travel. I travel a lot on business and believe that flying is an excellent way to do it. Travelling by car has as many uncertainties as flying. So I am "sold" on the idea. But I also know from many years and thousands of hours of doing it, that there is definitely a minimum distance that makes it worthwhile. Somewhere around London-Liverpool, I reckon.

The other kind of trip where it is really, really useful is London - Liverpool for a morning meeting, Gateshead that afternoon, overnight in Glasgow, then back to London in time for tea with the kids...that really makes sense.

Also if you enjoy doing Watford-Gloucester, Cambridge-Cardiff then that is justification in itself.

But saying you do it to save time only really only washes with the tax-man, you shouldn't start believing it yourself ;)

W