Nigelh : I think it is quite clear that tit is the fact that it was a N reg machine. If it had been G reg with a freelance pilot , with no association with the ownner, there would have been no case to answer. It would have been a private flight .
Nigel, it's not clear at all, because we don't know the facts. However, are you sure you've got your interpretation of the "G" scenario correct ?
If a passenger pays for a flight, rather than sharing costs, then that makes the flight subject to PT rules and therefore it must be conducted under an AOC. In addition, the helicopter itself must be certified for PT.
A "sharing costs" flight is clearly defined - and the pilot must be a participant in that sharing. (Although, how the hell are you supposed to police this ?)
Look at the
Summary pdf.
Surely there are 2 simple questions that a CPL or ATPL must ask before departing with pax: (1) is this flight in compliance with the laws for passenger transport ? and (2) am I doing anything which invaildates the insurance ?
The costs involved in applying for and keeping an AOC are immense for most helicopter operators - because they tend to be small fleets so have limited revenue opportunities to spread the load. I do think if the whole AOC system was simpler and cheaper to run, there would be fewer "pirates". I believe that getting an AOC can cost £20,000 and maintaining it is around £6,000 a year in mainly labour costs. These are big sums to extract from hourly revenues.
Plainly, the AOC system was designed for airlines and other large fleets. Is there a case for an "AOC-lite" for small operators ?