Oh ignorance...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Age: 48
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh ignorance...
Hello everyone,
I apologise in advance for what wil probably be a few stupid questions. After some research I got confused so decided to check with whom has more knowledge.
Could you please let me know which of these scenarios aren't legal?
- renting a single engine piston and pay a Comercial pilot to fly it.
-renting a single engine piston plane. A private pilot, friend of mine, will fly it for me, for free.
Many thanks for your time.
I apologise in advance for what wil probably be a few stupid questions. After some research I got confused so decided to check with whom has more knowledge.
Could you please let me know which of these scenarios aren't legal?
- renting a single engine piston and pay a Comercial pilot to fly it.
-renting a single engine piston plane. A private pilot, friend of mine, will fly it for me, for free.
Many thanks for your time.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first would require an AOC, but legal and possible.
The second would likely require some contribution from the pilot to be fully legal. Private pilots making money from flights is dodgy territory really.
The second would likely require some contribution from the pilot to be fully legal. Private pilots making money from flights is dodgy territory really.
Could you please let me know which of these scenarios aren't legal?
- renting a single engine piston and pay a Comercial pilot to fly it.
-renting a single engine piston plane. A private pilot, friend of mine, will fly it for me, for free.
- renting a single engine piston and pay a Comercial pilot to fly it.
-renting a single engine piston plane. A private pilot, friend of mine, will fly it for me, for free.
MJ
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no need for an AOC for the first one, so long as they are seperate transactions.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the first case as long as the aircraft is operated by an AOC holder, no problem. It's effectively a wet or dry lease arrangement for the pilot and he is entitled to be paid.
In the second case it's flight sharing and the pilot would have to pay his share of the direct cost of the flight.
In the second case it's flight sharing and the pilot would have to pay his share of the direct cost of the flight.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No AOC required for either scenario. You can rent an aircraft from one source and pay your own pilot to fly it. What you can't do without an AOC is rent an aircraft and pilot from the same source.
In the second case it's a lot more great as the PPL is getting valuable reward in return for flying by not paying for the flight. Technically it comes under the cost sharing rules.
In the second case it's a lot more great as the PPL is getting valuable reward in return for flying by not paying for the flight. Technically it comes under the cost sharing rules.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does Bose's 'nuance' simply apply to the need for an AOC?
If I remember correctly a flight can be a private flight provided that the only payment made is for the services of a pilot. Since, in this Thread, the aircraft is being rented neither of these flights could be considered 'private'.
There is also the question of an organisation wanting to know, probably to check out, any pilot who will fly/command their aircraft.
In the second scenario it is not possible to 'Cost Share' with the PIC because the flight has not, actually, cost the pilot anything.
The simplest way of achieving this would be for the pilot to rent the aircraft and then to share the cost of this (and any other flight costs) with any passengers they fly with - Now, under EASA, there are no percentages mandated so the pilot only has to pay 1pence/1cent with their passengers paying the rest.
If I remember correctly a flight can be a private flight provided that the only payment made is for the services of a pilot. Since, in this Thread, the aircraft is being rented neither of these flights could be considered 'private'.
There is also the question of an organisation wanting to know, probably to check out, any pilot who will fly/command their aircraft.
In the second scenario it is not possible to 'Cost Share' with the PIC because the flight has not, actually, cost the pilot anything.
The simplest way of achieving this would be for the pilot to rent the aircraft and then to share the cost of this (and any other flight costs) with any passengers they fly with - Now, under EASA, there are no percentages mandated so the pilot only has to pay 1pence/1cent with their passengers paying the rest.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the second case it's flight sharing and the pilot would have to pay his share of the direct cost of the flight.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thing
Thing is correct. As long as only direct costs are involved, the passenger can pay all costs associated with that flight. The pilot would not have to pay 1 pence/cent as stated above.
IN-2015/029
"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."
Followed by:
‘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'
ES
IN-2015/029
"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."
Followed by:
‘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'
ES
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thing is not correct
From your own quote: "...private persons who must share the direct costs..."
Paying nothing is not sharing, now matter how small a nominal contribution must be made.
From your own quote: "...private persons who must share the direct costs..."
Paying nothing is not sharing, now matter how small a nominal contribution must be made.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see your point from a literal point of view, however in reality you wouldn't say that the cost of a flight was £200 therefore you pay £199.99 and I'll pay a penny.
I'm happy splitting the cost two or three ways anyway whether or not I don't have to.
I'm happy splitting the cost two or three ways anyway whether or not I don't have to.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a practical perspective, I think it is unlikely one can rent an aircraft (as a non-pilot) and have the commercial pilot who you pay to fly it so far removed from the rental transaction that you don't risk the regulator viewing them as a linked transaction of plane + pilot (which would be public transport and require an AOC).
Above, I am assuming 'rent' means hire from an operator for a one off trip on an hourly basis, rather than hire for 1000 hours over 2 years (i.e. a proper dry lease where you become the operator). In the former case, the operator will probably only rent to the pilot (thus bundling the pilot and aircraft when the non-pilot pays the pilot and the pilot's cost of the aircraft); in the later case, it would be common to lease an aircraft to a person/company (who will become the operator) who will then obtain commercial pilots to fly the aircraft (i.e. a normal corporate jet operation )
However, the ANO and EASA rules both seem clear that it is perfectly legitimate for someone to acquire an aircraft's use and then pay a commercial pilot to fly the plane for them.
Equally, with the revised EASE rules quoted in IN-2015/029, a private pilot flying 5 or fewer friends and having them pay the direct operating costs (which includes the hire of the aircraft) is clearly allowed. The fact that it is also clearly defined the shares are not required to be equal, to me, would allow one or more shares to be 0. If they felt some minimum share was required by each person (or only applied to the pilot) then they would have written the law in that way.
Above, I am assuming 'rent' means hire from an operator for a one off trip on an hourly basis, rather than hire for 1000 hours over 2 years (i.e. a proper dry lease where you become the operator). In the former case, the operator will probably only rent to the pilot (thus bundling the pilot and aircraft when the non-pilot pays the pilot and the pilot's cost of the aircraft); in the later case, it would be common to lease an aircraft to a person/company (who will become the operator) who will then obtain commercial pilots to fly the aircraft (i.e. a normal corporate jet operation )
However, the ANO and EASA rules both seem clear that it is perfectly legitimate for someone to acquire an aircraft's use and then pay a commercial pilot to fly the plane for them.
Equally, with the revised EASE rules quoted in IN-2015/029, a private pilot flying 5 or fewer friends and having them pay the direct operating costs (which includes the hire of the aircraft) is clearly allowed. The fact that it is also clearly defined the shares are not required to be equal, to me, would allow one or more shares to be 0. If they felt some minimum share was required by each person (or only applied to the pilot) then they would have written the law in that way.
Last edited by mm_flynn; 13th Apr 2015 at 15:18. Reason: clarified
