Passengers - One at a Time?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: sky
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passengers - One at a Time?
A friend of mine is quite interested in flying and I offered to take him up next time I go, he has asked if he can bring his girlfriend along too (I'll be flying the PA-28, so there are 4 seats).
After doing the mass balance calculations I'm not too happy to fly 3 up as the runway is quite short (there is enough space, but not much margin for error etc), and as I'm still relativelly low on experince I don't want to push it too much at this stage.
My question is, is it okay to take them one at a time? So go up with one, land and swap pax before going again? This seems a little dodgy, as it doesn't really fit with the "would this flight happen without the passenger?" question. Is it okay to do this?
I just wanted to check I'm legal before commiting to anything.
After doing the mass balance calculations I'm not too happy to fly 3 up as the runway is quite short (there is enough space, but not much margin for error etc), and as I'm still relativelly low on experince I don't want to push it too much at this stage.
My question is, is it okay to take them one at a time? So go up with one, land and swap pax before going again? This seems a little dodgy, as it doesn't really fit with the "would this flight happen without the passenger?" question. Is it okay to do this?
I just wanted to check I'm legal before commiting to anything.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand your worry. You're making a command decision not to take two pax for W&B reasons. That's perfectly ok and in fact shows good captaincy.
If you're low on hours it's best not to tackle too many "new" things at the same time anyway. Handling passengers takes vital mental capacity away from flying the plane. The more passengers, the more that can go wrong.
And if you're worried about the legal issue: No, as long as you only accept money towards a fair share of the flying costs, there is no issue here. Only if your passengers start to pay more than their fair share, or even the cost of the flight outright, might you be on the wrong side of the thin line.
If you're low on hours it's best not to tackle too many "new" things at the same time anyway. Handling passengers takes vital mental capacity away from flying the plane. The more passengers, the more that can go wrong.
And if you're worried about the legal issue: No, as long as you only accept money towards a fair share of the flying costs, there is no issue here. Only if your passengers start to pay more than their fair share, or even the cost of the flight outright, might you be on the wrong side of the thin line.
Moderator
Good decision Echo, fly within your comfort zone as much as possible. you'd much rather look back on the flight you flew, and say to yourself "I'm glad I did it that way".
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Decision - Just a quick point on Backpackers comment though;
And if you're worried about the legal issue: No, as long as you only accept money towards a fair share of the flying costs
The "fair share" rule was done away with not long ago I believe, along with the whole flight must not be advertised thing, and your passengers can legally pay for the entire cost of the flight as long as you don't profit from it.
ES
Source: IN-2014/093
And if you're worried about the legal issue: No, as long as you only accept money towards a fair share of the flying costs
The "fair share" rule was done away with not long ago I believe, along with the whole flight must not be advertised thing, and your passengers can legally pay for the entire cost of the flight as long as you don't profit from it.
ES
Source: IN-2014/093
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FYI.
From the above doc,
From the above doc,
3
Cost
-
Sharing by Private Persons
3.1
The maximum number of private persons who must share the direct costs (and only the
direct
costs) of the flight is increased from four to six (including the pilot), and the requirement for
those costs to be shared equally and for the flight not to be published or advertised is
removed.
3.2
The Guidance Material GM2 Article 6.4a(
a
)
;(b)
of
the Operations Regulation states that:
‘Direct cost’ means the cost directly incurred in relation to a flight, e.g. fuel, airfield
charges, rental fee for an aircraft. There is no element of profit.
3.3
It should be noted that the sharing of annual costs i
s not permitted under this arrangement.
The Guidance Material
GM3 Article 6.4a(a);(b)
of the Operations Regulation states that:
‘Annual cost’ means the cost of keeping, maintaining and operating the aircraft over a
period of one calendar year. There is no
element of profit.
Cost
-
Sharing by Private Persons
3.1
The maximum number of private persons who must share the direct costs (and only the
direct
costs) of the flight is increased from four to six (including the pilot), and the requirement for
those costs to be shared equally and for the flight not to be published or advertised is
removed.
3.2
The Guidance Material GM2 Article 6.4a(
a
)
;(b)
of
the Operations Regulation states that:
‘Direct cost’ means the cost directly incurred in relation to a flight, e.g. fuel, airfield
charges, rental fee for an aircraft. There is no element of profit.
3.3
It should be noted that the sharing of annual costs i
s not permitted under this arrangement.
The Guidance Material
GM3 Article 6.4a(a);(b)
of the Operations Regulation states that:
‘Annual cost’ means the cost of keeping, maintaining and operating the aircraft over a
period of one calendar year. There is no
element of profit.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite apart from the legalities which you are OK on by the way as everyone else has said, very good call on doing them one at a time.
It's easy when you're a shiny new pilot to put pressure on yourself to do a flight with friends who are keen. I find the best way to explain GA flying to friends is to tell them that 'we will go flying on such and such a date, there is a 50% chance that it will be cancelled due to a multitude of factors so bear that in mind.'
Many non pilot pax seem to think, and why shouldn't they, that your dispatch rate is the same as a commercial airliner.
It's easy when you're a shiny new pilot to put pressure on yourself to do a flight with friends who are keen. I find the best way to explain GA flying to friends is to tell them that 'we will go flying on such and such a date, there is a 50% chance that it will be cancelled due to a multitude of factors so bear that in mind.'
Many non pilot pax seem to think, and why shouldn't they, that your dispatch rate is the same as a commercial airliner.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First, great to ask this question here to validate your feeling! My first reaction was, if you think of not doing it, don't do.
Could the captain elaborate a bit more on his experience background?
If you had already taken Pax with you and the difference is now wether to take a second it is quite different from first time Pax ops. Further, if this is an airfield you are familiar with and feel your personal margins are low you could choose another field etc etc.
Could the captain elaborate a bit more on his experience background?
If you had already taken Pax with you and the difference is now wether to take a second it is quite different from first time Pax ops. Further, if this is an airfield you are familiar with and feel your personal margins are low you could choose another field etc etc.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
After doing the mass balance calculations I'm not too happy to fly 3 up as the runway is quite short (there is enough space, but not much margin for error etc), and as I'm still relativelly low on experince I don't want to push it too much at this stage.
Doesn't always work, but seems appropriate to this situation.
My question is, is it okay to take them one at a time? So go up with one, land and swap pax before going again?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I took a non pilot buddy flying, and we stopped in at the local aerodrome/waterdrome. I watched a generously proportioned pilot finish fueling a 172 floatplane. He then boarded the two very normal sized passengers he had evidently flown in for the fuel stop. A 172 on floats is generally a two place plane, which struggles with full tanks at that. This pilot was two places all by himself. He pushed off, and started up.
I said to my buddy, "He's not going flying this attempt, he'll come back after five minutes and off load one pax, and even then struggle off the water.
A normal heavy takeoff in a 172 on floats would be 5 to 10 seconds to get onto the step, then maybe another 10 to 20 seconds to get off the water - so we'll give 30+ seconds on the water as normal. Embarrassing would be 45 seconds water run. I started my stop watch when I saw the nose come up and spray, with the application of power.
2:10 later, not even on the step, he gave up. He taxied back to the dock, and off loaded the husband. Thereafter he struggled off the water in a nearly 1:30 takeoff. I'm sure that he trashed the prop too....
I told the husband, who was now annoyingly stuck a 45 minute flight that I'd drop my buddy back, and return to assure that he did have a flight back to where he came from. By the time I got back, he'd had a call from his wife, who made it safely, saying that the pilot was returning for him.
It turns out that the couple had bid the 1.5 hour sight seeing flight at a charity auction for more than $3000! I suppresed the desire to laugh out loud - I hope it was a good charity! He was duly pick up, and struggled off the water.
I mentioned to the owner of the 172, whom I knew (not the pilot) that an inspection of the prop would be prudent. The response: "He hasn't wrecked another one!?!".
If in doubt, fly light, 'till you're really sure....
I said to my buddy, "He's not going flying this attempt, he'll come back after five minutes and off load one pax, and even then struggle off the water.
A normal heavy takeoff in a 172 on floats would be 5 to 10 seconds to get onto the step, then maybe another 10 to 20 seconds to get off the water - so we'll give 30+ seconds on the water as normal. Embarrassing would be 45 seconds water run. I started my stop watch when I saw the nose come up and spray, with the application of power.
2:10 later, not even on the step, he gave up. He taxied back to the dock, and off loaded the husband. Thereafter he struggled off the water in a nearly 1:30 takeoff. I'm sure that he trashed the prop too....
I told the husband, who was now annoyingly stuck a 45 minute flight that I'd drop my buddy back, and return to assure that he did have a flight back to where he came from. By the time I got back, he'd had a call from his wife, who made it safely, saying that the pilot was returning for him.
It turns out that the couple had bid the 1.5 hour sight seeing flight at a charity auction for more than $3000! I suppresed the desire to laugh out loud - I hope it was a good charity! He was duly pick up, and struggled off the water.
I mentioned to the owner of the 172, whom I knew (not the pilot) that an inspection of the prop would be prudent. The response: "He hasn't wrecked another one!?!".
If in doubt, fly light, 'till you're really sure....
the Operations Regulation states that:
‘Direct cost’ means the cost directly incurred in relation to a flight, e.g. fuel, airfield charges, rental fee for an aircraft.
‘Direct cost’ means the cost directly incurred in relation to a flight, e.g. fuel, airfield charges, rental fee for an aircraft.
It should be noted that the sharing of annual costs is not permitted under this arrangement. ‘Annual cost’ means the cost of keeping, maintaining and operating the aircraft over a period of one calendar year.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: yankton, sd
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wondering, was the balance the part you were worried about or was it the weight?
could you have reduced fuel and kept the flight short?
if memory serves there is 48 gals (US) useable on a PA28. you could reduce it to 24 gallons and it might work better for you.
I recall "TABS" being 17 gallons a side.
Have you considered this?
I still remember my private pilot checkride (40 years ago) and the examiner asked me how many I could carry in a PA28. I said 4 with enough gas to go around the pattern once. He laughed and we discussed it in detail.
How much does the girl weigh?
could you have reduced fuel and kept the flight short?
if memory serves there is 48 gals (US) useable on a PA28. you could reduce it to 24 gallons and it might work better for you.
I recall "TABS" being 17 gallons a side.
Have you considered this?
I still remember my private pilot checkride (40 years ago) and the examiner asked me how many I could carry in a PA28. I said 4 with enough gas to go around the pattern once. He laughed and we discussed it in detail.
How much does the girl weigh?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think the girls weight is the major issue, it is just that the friend is interested in flying, so can be ecpected to sit right hand front. If she is pretty, it is a waste to carry the nicer in the back 
.
.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've had a 180HP 4 seater for 5 years and flown 500 hours in it and never had anyone in the back seats, I decided to remove the back seat to make more room for cargo, bicycle etc. I think back to some of the crazy stuff I did when first getting my PPL and shudder, like loading myself and 3 other big guys into a 150hp warrior on a 90F day and taking off, luckily it was a long runway.
Don't do anything your are doubtful about or uncomfortable with best to err on the side of caution, take them up one at a time and shut down the engine during stops.
Don't do anything your are doubtful about or uncomfortable with best to err on the side of caution, take them up one at a time and shut down the engine during stops.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 73
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one thing I would advise is to explain it to your passengers in a way that shows it as a positive decision based on flight safety.
Certainly don't say that "I'm newly qualified and a bit nervous about this" that would hardly inspire confidence!!!
Then do what I did & get yourself a share in Cherokee 6 group - such worries over a couple of passengers just fade away
Certainly don't say that "I'm newly qualified and a bit nervous about this" that would hardly inspire confidence!!!
Then do what I did & get yourself a share in Cherokee 6 group - such worries over a couple of passengers just fade away
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: England
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you apply the public transport figures to your take off calculation as per the CAA Safety Sense leaflet, if you did go ahead. if you didnt go and have a look at the runway boundary hedge at Netherthorpe
There appears to be a contradiction here! Anyone leasing an aircraft would seek to cover the cost of operating the aircraft i.e the dry rental rate will be based upon a proportion of the "Annual cost"and therefore does not constitute a Direct Cost!
My question is, is it okay to take them one at a time? So go up with one, land and swap pax before going again? This seems a little dodgy, as it doesn't really fit with the "would this flight happen without the passenger?" question. Is it okay to do this?
I just wanted to check I'm legal before commiting to anything.
I just wanted to check I'm legal before commiting to anything.
Many private flights wouldn't take place without the passengers!
If you are renting the aircraft for the flights, the passenger(s) can contribute anything up to, but not including, the full rental cost. Technically you have to 'share' the cost, so you must make, at least, a nominal contribution.
I can see Whopity's point about the rental incorporating a proportion of annual costs, but;
‘Direct cost’ means the cost directly incurred in relation to a flight, e.g. fuel, airfield charges, rental fee for an aircraft.
As to your reluctance to 'push it too much' towards what you see as the edge of the aircraft's takeoff performance capabilities, I can only commend your line of thought in the highest possible terms!
MJ
Ps. As a matter of interest, what model of PA28 are youi using?
Last edited by Mach Jump; 13th Mar 2015 at 22:05. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"back in the day",- Iwas getting earache from the distaff-side, as I started bunking-off flying with my mate (both self-employed in the Motor Trade) He thought it a good idea if he invited Her and the pans* to Barton for a jolly. Well, it was breezy.....me and the kids took our turns for a 10-minute hop. (Plane was an Aeronca Chief, fly it backwards in a good draught) Anyway, her turn......after a half hour I was seething with jealousy.....around last landings (OK, dusk was decidedly dusky) He appeared over the hedge, plonked down and went straight to the pumps.
Not a lot was said, but on the debrief the following day, he explained.
"We reached Blackburn in 10 minutes flat, when i realised the Groundspeed, I turned and headed straight back....well, there were times when we just hovered, balls to the wall....she thought it was great and loved dropping down between the hills to snake our way back at low-level.....Me, I was looking at a land-out if the tank ran dry"
We never told her!...we both learned about checking the weather first, even for a local jolly!
*Pans = pan -lids = kids.
Not a lot was said, but on the debrief the following day, he explained.
"We reached Blackburn in 10 minutes flat, when i realised the Groundspeed, I turned and headed straight back....well, there were times when we just hovered, balls to the wall....she thought it was great and loved dropping down between the hills to snake our way back at low-level.....Me, I was looking at a land-out if the tank ran dry"
We never told her!...we both learned about checking the weather first, even for a local jolly!
*Pans = pan -lids = kids.
Last edited by cockney steve; 15th Mar 2015 at 15:28. Reason: explanatory note.
