So what is aerial work really?

[Bladerunner]

I guess this is for UK/European pilots.
If a photographer hired you would you consider it Aerial work or Public Transport. I've always put photographers and camera crew down as Public Transport, but a recent accident report I read involving a camera crew was operating under Aerial.I've turned down filming work before (single engine over water) because I've always presumed PT.
Whats your thoughts? Or is it another can of worms??


;)

[Hilico]

Definition my customer uses is, if only employees of the AOC holder are on board, it's AWK. Otherwise it's PT.

If I hired them to fly over my house to impress people while I stood outside it, that's AWK.

If I hired them to fly me over my house, that's PT.

[helipedro]

Would anybody know into wich consideration would fall a flight
taking off from an airport and returning to the same and during the trip the passenger takes a few pictures pictures?
Would it be AWK, PT, JOY-RIDE or all of them...The winner gets a free ticket!!!!

[Aser]

I think in Spain it isn't public transport until you have a regular line transporting people, then you have to comply with all the Anex 6 part III (we don't have JAR yet), otherwise it's aerial work (also without a clear regulation).
Just my two cents...
I'm not sure at all , I'm in the school :}

Regards.

[Helinut]

The general view expressed is similar to the way I have worked it in the past in the UK - so if you carry a cameraman who is NOT an employee of the operator, then its AOC work cos you are carrying a pax and being paid for it.

However, if you fit some camera mounts to do the photography the Flight Manual Supplement temporarily downgrades the aircraft's C of A from PT to Aerial Work. But you need to carry the cameraman (and possibly a director too) in order to do the job.

When raised with a rep from the Belgrano, they are just evasive.

But, as long as they don't decide to prosecute anyone its OK - unless of course there is an accident, when the insurers will use it as an excuse to NOT pay out .......

[arm the floats]

It seems to be a bit of a grey area although I'm sure the CAA don't see it that way.

I've seen two recent accident reports with filming peeps involved but flights classed as aerial work for them both.I too have always put them down as PT in the past,maybe I should review this!
I've turned down work before filming a boat race in a single, too far out for PT, the client who was decidedly p****d off told me the last company he was with (also a single ac ,also over water),put the job down as aerial.I still didnt take him but we obviously lost out on big ££ :confused:
I'd be interested to know if the guys involved in the 2 recent reports were pulled up for this?
The aaib don't mention it, but the CAA may be having a quiet word.

[headsethair]

There's a CAA pdf on this subject......

http://search.caa.co.uk/query.html?charset=iso-8859-1&ht=0&qp=&qt=Aerial+work&submit1=+search+&qs=&col=aandocs&col=caaws&qc=&pw=555px&ws=1&la=en&qm=0&st=1&nh=10&lk=1&rf=0&oq=&rq=0&si=0

[Helinut]

headstheair,

That's the first I have seen of that - it generally reads as I would have guessed, but it is a useful summary.

I am not sure that it explains the case I quoted about fitting camera mounts degrading the C of A to aerial work, but using the mount and camera necessarily requires the carrying of pax

Mind, you learn eventually that it is not sensible to ask some questions, because of the answers you may get .............

[Bladerunner]

The CAA document seems to make it quite clear cut.ie. unless your airtesting/maintenance flight testing or crew its pretty much got to be PT.

Thanks for the link and the good feedback guys much appreciated.I liked your point about not asking the CAA too many questions Helinut.....maybe I'll just keep asking the awkward ones here then!!:D

[paco]

the ANO says it is anything that is not public transport, what is public transport? As soon as you alter the aircraft configuration, the PT C of A becomes invalid, so anything you do afterwards is aerial work, but what about photography? or deer counting?

The JAR OPS definition is something like:

"Where an aircraft is used for specialised services such as agriculture, construction, photography, surveying, observation and patrol, search and rescue, aerial advertising, etc."

It's the etc bit that's interesting. I take the view that as soon as you stop going from A to B and do something weird, that becomes aerial work and therefore JAR OPS 3 does not apply and therefore you don't need an AOC (JAR OPS 3 does not apply to flights immediately before, during, or immediately after aerial work if they are connected with that activity and, excluding crew members, no more than 6 persons indispensable to the activity are carried).

It would be nice to have a definitive list! Suggestions, please, on a postcard......

Phil

[moosp]

Generally speaking a law will not give definitive lists because there is always someone who will come up with a new item that flouts the spirit of the law.

Thus it is easier to proscribe everything, then allow what the legislators deem reasonable. That is why the ANO starts off with the words, "An aircraft shall not fly..." but then tells you the occasions that it may.

Depending on your country, "Public Transport" was once defined to me in the UK as "Transporting a public." In other words, if it talks and pays you money, that is PT.

This may render carrying certain 14-16 year old adolescents outside this guideline, but then without the odd exception to the rule Barristers would lead a meager life.

:D

[Hilico]

Don't you mean, 'if it talks, pays you money and you carry it in your aircraft'?

If I asked XYZ helicopters to fly over my house and take pictures of it, I'd have to pay them to do it. If I wanted to appear in the pictures standing in the back garden, I wouldn't be in the a/c. So it would be AWK, not PT. If I asked them to fly me over my house so I could see what it looked like, that would be PT. I think.

[moosp]

Yes, good point. You have to carry said bi-ped in the aircraft. I'm sure there are more accurate definitions than mine...

[J.A.F.O.]

You have to carry said bi-ped in the aircraft.

So, if I only have one leg, but can still talk, is it aerial work?

[moosp]

You've been reading Doonesbury have't you?

I give in, I'll get me coat

[trimpot]

Isn't aerial work what you do when you can't meet the requirements for Public transport. :}

[paco]

yes, but they very neatly leave out the details - PT is where remuneration (or valuable consideration) is given for the carriage of passengers and cargo on a flight. Aerial work is anything that is not PT, and JAR OPS 3 gives a list with etc on the end of what they might be. Certainly, if you alter the C of A so that it is no longer PT, then that is aerial work by definition, but other cases also apply.

As I said, it could be read that anything other than going from A to B is aerial work, since patrol and photography are mentioned and you don't need to take the doors off for those.

And JAR OPS 3 does not apply to aerial work.....

I guess we have to start with defining passengers and cargo, and when you can say someone is "crew and not a passenger", which could mean someone who is doing other than sitting in the back looking out of the window, i.e. taking notes, etc.

Phil

[Aesir]

I´m involved with a company that wants to start up a operation to provide aerial seismic work.

The company has already started operating a B206 for its own operation but needs an AOC to sell its services to others.

Does anyone out there know of any operator in Europe who has AOC based on aerial work only, not JAR-OPS 3! and would be willing to sell or let me copy his flight operations handbook and aerial work manual.

[paco]

Be careful! As soon as you add that helicopter to an AOC you have to apply public transport standards to aerial work. Better to just do the aerial work, then you don't need an AOC under JAR OPS 3 (as yet - but watch out for JAR OPS 2). The definition of aerial work is quite generous for JAR OPS and contains an interesting word - etc. You can even carry up to 6 essential persons to and from it.

I may be able to help with manuals though - PM me

Phil

[JimL]

Paco,

I think you mean JAR-OPS 0 and 4.

It is not correct to say that if you have an AOC you have to apply CAT standards to Aerial Work - but it is true that the definition of Public Transport (in the UK) includes some activities that are regarded by all other States as Aerial Work. That is because the UK does not have any categorisations apart from Flight Crew, Cabin Crew and Passenger - hence if you are not one of the first two, you must be a Passenger (and apply PT standards).

The definition of Aerial Work comes directly from ICAO; it could not possibly be an exhaustive list without having to be constantly amended as new activities are thought of by imaginative operators.

It is also true that some States in Europe already have a separate AOC for Aerial Work; the nascent JAR-OPS 4 would also require certification although it would be a much lighter touch than that for CAT (it might be called an AWC).

Jim

[paco]

I was told by a very senior ex CAA inspector that if the machine was the subject of an AOC, then you couldn't "ignore the rules" for aerial work as most companies do. He also told me it was JAR OPS 2 (and 4 for corporate). However, if that's not so, I stand connected!

Be that as it may, once "they" decide whether we are actually JAR OPS or still come under UK standards it would be a lot easier for all of us.

Phil
author
JAR OPS in Plain English

[JimL]

Paco,

Take it from me there is nothing in the ANO, JAR-OPS or ICAO that requires an operator to apply CAT rules to Aerial Work; as I said in my earlier post, there is an anomaly in the ANO that AW activities are included in PT if a 'passenger' is carried.

I can guarantee that JAR-OPS 0 and 4 is meant to apply to AW and JAR-OPS 0 and 2 to Corporate.

[paco]

OK, but there is an undertaking in the AOC to operate all aircraft listed on it to CAT standards

phil

[JimL]

Yes, for the purposes of CAT.

[Heliport]

JimL

Can a company which owns a Permit to Fly helicopter (eg an ex-MoD Gazelle) use it for business purposes of that company?

If one company in a group pays another company in the same group for a flight, the ANO says that's not public transport.
Does that mean a Permit helicopter can be used?

[RotorDompteur]

Paco;

Two things;
First regarding the JAR-OPS 4.

Quote from jaa.nl:
"JAR-OPS Part 4 (JAR-OPS 4), when developed, will be applicable to General Aviation operations (including Aerial Work) involving helicopters which are used by an operator based in a JAA Member State. "
(JAR-OPS 2 for fixed wing)

And I believe the JAR definition you mentioned earlier is the FAA Part 11 definition of aerial work... :confused:

In "JAR-OPS 3.001 - Applicability" I cannot find a clear definition but only a vague description of where JAR-OPS 3 does not apply - military, customs, police, (SAR), parachuting and firefighting are the only types mentioned...

I have looked through all section 1 without stumbling over any clear definition... :ugh:

I have always been told that if the person being carried along for the flight is necessary for the mission - it is considered aerial work.
E.g. inspection flights where the flight could not be carried out without the inspector.

RD http://www.helitech.dk/pprune/p.gif

[headsethair]

This is all v interesting. Let me just throw in something else - read carefully ANO 129 (definitions) & 130.

Buried in 130 I think you'll find that if an "air transport undertaking" tries to carry anyone other than "crew" for aerial work, then that flight becomes PT. This seems to translate into - if you are an AOC holder be very careful about how you file for AWK.

Definition of "crew" (129) needs updating - there is a strong argument that an onboard director for a shoot is vital for that mission - only she/he may know what's required for successful completion. And so long as you haven't charged any extra for that person to be carried, you cannot say that it's PT.

Also - read carefully the CAA leaflet which gives guidance for Aerial Photography. This states that minimum crew should be 2 but that you should take a third pair of eyes for safety. And it doesn't say that they have to be your employee.

But all the above maybe irrelevant. The CAA successfully won a court case against the Met Office in recent times. Met Office had a new plane for weather forecasting - filled in the back with weather wonks, not all of whom were Met Office staff. Some were sub-contractors. CAA proved that the flight was PT.

And if one public body is going to sue another public body - what hope is there for the little guys? (Wonder if the Met charges to the CAA climbed after the case ???)