AOC or 'Private'

[nigelh]

I hear there has been a recent court case confirming that a lease of an aircraft without pilot, then seperately hiring the pilot , is not public Transport. The AOC operators for years have argued that an flying where money changes hands is PT, but if you HP a heli and fly it yourself that cannot be AOC work ? I would guess that half of all UK aviation , for money, is operated on the lease method so why dont we just scrap AOC,s and have everybody on a level playing field ? I have heard of the CAA ( campaign against aviation ) looking at these people but am not aware of any being taken to court. Any definitive answers ?

[paco]

Here are my thoughts, which may need revising:

Public, or Commercial, Air Transport is defined in the ANO as being where valuable consideration is given (or promised) for the carriage of passengers or cargo on a flight (it actually says in the aircraft on that flight, but you know what I mean). Aerial work is anything else for which valuable consideration is given, including instruction, but, if only the pilot gets paid, it is a private flight. The definition also covers anyone or anything that may be carried free on that flight, not being employees of an air transport undertaking that may be operating it (although it looks as if it's worded otherwise, company directors and anyone working on behalf of the CAA, such as Authorised Persons and TREs, are employees for this purpose).

Thus, if you carry a passenger (say, a friend) on a check flight who is not an employee or a director of your Company, it will be regarded as Public, or Commercial, Air Transport, even though valuable consideration is not promised or given. If the valuable consideration allows a particular person to fly an aircraft, then that is also Public Transport (unless it's being bought on HP or a conditional sale agreement, or is a single-seater below 910 kg). Presumably this is meant to cover self-fly hire, or maybe trial lessons, since the phrase used is "fly the aircraft" rather than "fly in the aircraft". If valuable consideration is not given, or the aircraft is a club glider with club members on board, it is a private flight.

However, these clauses are the only ones to affect the average professional. Otherwise, in broad terms, you are allowed to win prizes in air races (up to certain limits) and recover direct costs and a pro rata contribution to the amount of hours flown every year if you go to air shows and the like. If a payment is made to a (registered) charity (with CAA permission) that allows someone (maybe a prizewinner) to fly, that is a private flight. Equal contributions to the direct costs of a flight borne by the pilot if up to four persons (including the pilot) fly in an aircraft are exempt, but direct costs do not mean HP payments, insurance, hangarage..... There must also have been no advertising for that flight, except in the confines of a flying club, in which case all passengers (over 18) must be members. It also helps if the pilot is seen not to be employed as such (this situation is what anyone else would call "cost-sharing"). A similar situation exists where a pilot reclaims direct expenses paid out on behalf of an employer. There are other exemptions, such as joint or company owned aircraft (that is, chargebacks between companies and subsidiaries). Remunerated parachute dropping (and positioning for it) is regarded as aerial work.

In fact, a flight is private for racing, contests or flying displays, positioning for them or returning from them to the usual base, if the valuable consideration does not exceed the direct costs and a contribution to annual costs, based on the time flown, or prizes not above £500 per race or contest, except with permission in writing from the CAA. Such prizes do not constitute remuneration for services as a pilot. The same applies to a registered charity, not the operator of the aircraft, and with permission in writing from the CAA.

The flight is also private if the only valuable consideration is a contribution to the direct costs of the flight otherwise payable by the PIC (i.e. expenses), with no more than 4 people carried and bearing equal portions of the cost, and no advertising or promotion done beforehand, except inside a flying club, and the people concerned are all members.

Valuable Consideration

Let's have a closer look at the words "valuable consideration" as an example of not-so-good drafting. The word "consideration" means money or something of money's worth that is more than merely nominal. It is legal expression referring to something that is used to bind a contract, even the chocolate wrappers sent in to a manufacturer to obtain a free gift.

The word "consideration" by itself would have been enough, but somebody saw fit to add "valuable" in front of it, which changes the position somewhat, because now everybody has to rush around trying to decide what that particular word means and subsequently how valuable should consideration be to qualify for the ANO?

The actual definition there comes from the 19th Century, which reads:

"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."

Try this instead:

"Money or money's worth, which is more than merely nominal (i.e. chocolate wrappers), including the release of debts, meaning money or anything capable of being turned into money, possibly including some services which cannot."

The real problem with this, though, lies with insurance. You may (or may not) know that there is no such thing as a "contract" of insurance, because you are betting; in this case, that you crash your aircraft before a certain date. The insurance people, of course, are betting that you don't (or is it the other way round?). The trouble is that insurance companies are well known not to pay if they can get away with it, so if they can prove that you were doing illegal public transport, you may well find that your insurance is invalid as well, not to mention being caught for third-party liability in some cases. Anyway, back to the subject. The ANO (Art 6) says that an Air Operator's Certificate is needed for all flights that may come under the definition of public transport:
"an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom shall not fly on any flight for the purpose of public transport, otherwise than under and in accordance with the terms of an air operator's certificate granted to the operator…."

Article 6 was originally Article 3A of the ANO 1960, and was inserted as an afterthought to it to cover AOCs that would be unenforceable during the time gap until section 1 (2) (a) of the coming Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act 1960 came into force on 30 March 1961. This section was later repealed by the 1972 Act, so from that time the ANO could no longer legally make provisions for an AOC with enforceable terms. In other words, an AOC is not made by statutory instrument - the 1982 Act says that only statutory instruments can establish enforceable terms; in other words, no enforceable law (that is, by criminal proceedings) can be made below the level of a statutory instrument, which of course an AOC is not. AOC terms are laid down by the CAA, which cannot issue SIs.

By the way, the term "operator" above has been held by leading counsel to include the pilot (any person with the management for the time being of an aircraft is regarded as being the operator). Reference to Road Transport Acts shows that if it had been intended that a "driver" was not to be an "operator", then the proper wording was available for aviation.

Actually, the imposition of public transport conditions is only permitted by the enabling Act (of the ANO) where the aircraft is used for a commercial, industrial or gainful purpose (specifically Sect 60 (3) (f)). What it says is that:

"An Air Navigation Order may contain provision as to the conditions under which passengers and goods may be carried by air and under which aircraft may be used for other commercial, industrial or gainful purposes".

Quite a mouthful, but the use of the word "other" in conjunction with the Rules of Interpretation of Statute infers that "conditions" may only be imposed when aircraft are being used for gainful, etc. purposes. As these rules are meant to be enforceable by criminal proceedings, they become penal situations, and as such must be strictly construed in accordance with the enabling statute. So what may be relevant as to what is or is not Commercial Air Transport is not the presence of any consideration, but, if there is, whether the aircraft is being used for a commercial, industrial or gainful purpose. Therefore, all you really have to do is pin down who the user is and see what his use of the aircraft is to see whether Commercial Air Transport or Aerial Work conditions might apply.

Since, in most circumstances, light aircraft are chartered to a sole user, most "charter" flights could in fact be called private flights (if it were not for the ANO) unless the aircraft is actually being used during flight for commercial, industrial or gainful purposes.

The user (that is, the hirer) is using the aircraft for his own purposes (unless buying and selling is going on in the back) and the "operator" is the pilot. Whoever hires out the aircraft to the user could be held to be their agent in respect of maintenance and all the other things needed to keep the aircraft flying. If passengers are being carried for separate fares, on the other hand, then the aircraft is being used in that way by the person with the right to the money collected. But beware! The terms of an AOC could be enforceable if made as the terms of an Air Transport Licence. If an aircraft is being used for the carriage for reward (er, sorry, valuable consideration) of passengers or cargo, the CAA may apply air transport licensing even if the aircraft is not being used for anything resembling Commercial Air Transport or commercial or other gainful purposes.

All that being said, what about the situation where you're asked to do a job and you're not sure what's going on? Do you feel up to actually asking for a certificate to say a flight is not Commercial Air Transport? This is plainly impractical, so you need to know a few ins and outs to protect yourself (please note the intention is not to enable you to fly illegally!).

A workable CAT flight (ANO definition) must have the following:
An Air Operator's Certificate issued to "the operator"

The crew must have current licences (e.g. CPL/ATPL) and be type rated, base/line checked, etc. in accordance with the operator's Operations Manual (indeed, the whole flight must be conducted under it).

The aircraft must have a (current) Transport Category C of A or equivalent, Certificates of Maintenance Review and Release to Service, Technical Log (with Deferred Defect Sheet), Passenger Briefing Leaflets and all legally required equipment (Fire extinguishers, placards, etc.).

You may be able to get around these requirements by ensuring that the person hiring the aircraft does so with a separate contract than the one he hires you with, and you'll be better off if you can also prove that you weren't paid, or at least you were an employee of the hirer's organisation (if you do this, you may have to show that the enabling Act only permits an Air Navigation Order to make different pilot licensing provisions according to whether the person concerned is actually employed or merely engaged in a flight crew capacity). You could also get base and line checked by a proper company and put it through their books, but don't forget you must use their Ops Manual and other documentation.

Finally, you could resort to drastic measures and form a company for a short time with nothing in its memorandum and articles of association about gainful use of aircraft or hiring them out by the hour. There is a Common Law rule that you cannot buy or hire from yourself, which is the basis upon which co-ownership groups and non-profit members clubs are run in every walk of life. However, the ANO says that any agreement between such organisations, or members of them (even within the same group), in respect of a situation where valuable consideration would normally be expected, would be considered as if it had been given anyway. This is notwithstanding any rule of law as to such transactions; in other words, the Common Law purports to be specifically overridden, yet it is not clear from the enabling Act that the ANO is permitted to do this, that is, put Common Law into abeyance.

An unincorporated non-profit members' club can be created for a specific purpose or occasion and exist for one flight or a day only, being dissolved once it has served its purpose. They should pay for their own operating costs to avoid the inference of valuable consideration. For instance, it should not be too difficult for some parachutists to form a club for the day to hire an aircraft.


Any good?

Phil

[puntosaurus]

Well you did ask .....

[nigelh]

:\ :ooh: :bored: :confused: :eek: :cool:
err thanks a lot for that...i assume you must be a lawyer!! I think in amongst all the legal babble you said that airoplanes ( i fail to understand the distinction ) leased for a flight with seperate pilot could be seen to be private. In a nutshell as i said earlier, if 50% of all commercial UK flying is illegal why is nobody stopping it ? The answer can only be that it is NOT in fact illegal and cannot be taken to court. The insurance issue is seperate, the insurance company would have to prove the flight was illegal in order not to pay out...has anyone out there been prosecuted by the CAA for operating a proper lease agreement flying business?

[Heliport]

paco

AOC holder leases an aircraft to a customer.
Customer employs a commercial pilot to fly it, and pays him direct.

1. Is that a Public Transport flight?

2. Who is the operator?

[paco]

Sorry about that - I was short of time and all I could do was a cut and paste. Thanks, heliport for cutting the cr*p!

The flight isn't PT, but there is an undertaking on an AOC to operate any aircraft on it under PT conditions, so you might fall of that one.

The operator, or the person who, for the time being, has the management of the aircraft, in this case, is the person who leases the aircraft and pays the pilot (make sure you can prove it!).

Is the pilot only going to be flying one passenger, i.e. the person leasing the machine? If not, are the others paying anything?

The reason why nobody is stopping anything is because you can drive a coach and horses through the whole lot of it. Under JAR OPS, you can take up to 6 passengers before, during and after an aerial work flight. Since the UK has not officially asked for any exemptions from JAR OPS, I hold that it all applies and could possibly supercede the ANO, so if you make sure you do any of the following:

agriculture, construction, photography, surveying, observation and patrol, search and rescue, aerial advertising, etc.

you ought to be OK.

It's the "etc" bit in the definition of aerial work that is interesting!

Phil

PS I'm not a lawyer, but I do have a law degree

[nigelh]

Therefore, at the risk of sounding pedantic, if a non AOC owner leases an a/c to a person who is not charging passengers or receiving any payment himself and that person contracts his own pilot....it is not PT...........in other words 95% of all commercial charters could be done this way.....that would increase the number of legal sites to operate from dramatically !! Seems abit unfair on the AOC boys tho, they need around 500 metres of unosstructed land to take of from in a single!! Whole system seems B****CKS to me....is there a CAA man out there??!

[puntosaurus]

Serious danger of putting my foot in it here, because this is not my field, but if the passengers are paying for transit, then there must be an AOC involved taking responsibility for the flight. I know there are a lot of subtleties per pacos post but that's the gist of it isn't it ?

Re the case that nigelh posits, it's not public transport because no-one is paying for passage. But most people would not be happy to charter on that basis, nor would most charterers, and more importantly neither would their insurers.

[Heliport]

nigelh

I haven't heard about any court case but I did hear the CAA recently investigated a flight because of a report - allegedly by someone at Air Harrods.
It turned out someone had leased the helicopter to take his friends away for a shooting weekend and employed the pilot separately. As I understand the regs, it was therefore a private flight.
The CAA investigated the complaint but nothing came of it. The CAA Enforcement people tried to question the guy who leased the helicopter about it. From what I've heard, he told them he was happy with the helicopter, chose the pilot because he'd flown with him previously and had confidence in him, and was far too busy to waste time speaking to them.


puntosaurus

If the aircraft is maintained to public transport standards and the pilot is a commercial pilot, what do you see as the problem(s)?

I'm not expressing an opinion, just interested in your thoughts.

[puntosaurus]

No problem at all with the scenario you've quoted, especially if there was no complaint. The core issue is that people know what they're getting into, and who is responsible.

I guess the assumption is that there's a degree of detachment between a paying customer and the operator, and the authorities take the view that the paying public need to be protected by the AOC structures (quality management, ops manuals, SOPs etc). If it's non-paying I guess the attitude is that you make your own choices.

Edited

I had another thought on this one. When I've done charity flights in the past, the Letter of Authorisation from the CAA obliged me to tell the punter that this was a private flight conducted to different standards than public transport work. It seems to me that the flights you are talking about here out to have the same requirement, but since no authorisation is required, there is no opportunity to impose such an obligation.

Having said that, no one ever asked any follow up questions so I think the subtleties are lost on the general public.

[paco]

Yes, as soon as a passenger (other than the hirer) starts paying money or other benefits for transit, an AOC should be in force.

This happened at the Silverstone before last at Battersea, and it was even more complicated with N reg 109s. It was supposed to be private, but a passenger let slip that thay had paid for their trip

Phil

[nigelh]

Thankyou for that! So we all agree that if there is one hirer and other pax are not paying in any form, the a/c is leased for the hours and pilot paid seperately, it IS a private flight. I believe it HAS to be G reg also. Still not heard from the CAA !!

[jellycopter]

From the obvious depth of knowledge of some on this thread, the general consensus appears to be that a flight is PRIVATE if a person leases a helicopter from Party A and selects his own pilot from say, Party B. PACO states this is provided that the person can prove that the helicopter was leased in.

My question to the house is therefore; In UK Law, what constitutes a lease agreement?

JJ

[headsethair]

There's a room full of CAA legal bods looking at this area of the ANO. Trouble is, they are powerless to do anything until the JAR/EASA/Whatever body sorts itself out.

I would say that the pilot you hire must ask some pertinent questions about the flight(s). He is, in law, the Commander and responsible for everything that happens in flight.

So - he has an ass and a hard-earned license to protect.

We all know that there are a load of UK-based N machines doing dodgy stuff without an AOC, we all know that some of them are doing illegal aerial work - and we all know that there are a number of PPLs out there who are employed as butlers by wealthy owners.

As ever, all fine until the ship hits the fan.

[puntosaurus]

I think the ownership/leasing issue is a red herring from the pilot's perspective. If he/she knows the passengers are paying then the pilot needs to see an AOC cert and know under whose SOPs/Ops Manual he/she is working.

I don't know if freelance pilots routinely do their work under a contract with their employer, but it would seem to be prudent to have something written (even an email) which says what the job is and some small print about it being the employers responsibility to inform the pilot if valuable consideration for transit is changing hands.

[uncle ian]

Fascinating stuff.

Who can answer this one?

I do a lot of aerial camera work. Fitting the camera system renders the aircraft's C of A downgraded to aerial work category only yet the CAA and most AOC holders insist that the flight is conducted to full PT standards.

Can this be legally enforced?

[headsethair]

"Fitting the camera system renders the aircraft's C of A downgraded to aerial work category only"

Mmmmm - the ANO states that any aircraft involved in aerial work must be Certified for Public Transport. I've never heard of a "downgrade" to aerial work category.

Surely it's either PT or not ?

There is also a theory (based on ANO drafting) that an AOC holder cannot conduct Aerial Work.

[uncle ian]

Hi Headsethair,

That's what it says in the AAN for the equipment.

That means that you can only fly in accordance with Aerial Work rules e.g. operator must be "employed" by the Operator. For most companies this means you are breaking one law or another!

I agree with the earlier comments to the effect that there are few prosecutions because the Law is so unclear and virtually unenforceable.

[Ed Thrust IV]

Uncle Ian – (U.K only.) You will find in the Flight Manual Supplement the category in which the mount has been certified. For example the Wescam film system on the AS 355/350 is certified for Aerial Work. If you fit a Tyler Major mount to an AS 355 it is certified under Transport Category. (Passenger.) Therefore if the Tyler was fitted the aircraft remains in the Transport category. (No problem, nothing to do) If you have fitted the Wescam the aircraft has been downgraded to Aerial work. You then have to go a bit deeper into the A.N.O. and see that exemptions from Articles 8(1) and 9(2) are required. (How sad I am I for knowing this?) The wording in the exemption issued by the CAA (once you have asked for it) will bring the aircraft back up to Public Transport category with the mount fitted. This then covers you to operate with passengers, ie. Director, producer and all the others who want to get in the way of you carrying some extra fuel before the sun disappears behind the clouds.

[uncle ian]

Thanks for that Ed thrust.......I've obviously been breaking the law for many years.

The fundamental problem lies with the wording of the ANO in my opinion. It is clear to almost anyone but our beloved regulators that aerial camera work (along with so many of the things helicopters do that are not passenger transit flights) is not public transport as percieved by "the man on the Clapham omnibuss".

As the ANO only defines those on board an aircraft as passengers or crew (and goes on to define crew in a way that excludes some persons necessary for the completion of the task in hand) the regulators use the device of calling directors etc "passengers" to make reality fit their fantasies.

I have no difficulty in operating within the constraints of PT for all the camera work I do but I refuse to do so whenever possible simply because the law is, once again, an ass.

It seems as if JAR will do much to resolve the problems caused by the ANO but I wait with great interest to see.

[Ed Thrust IV]

Uncle Ian – I think you are correct that when all of us in Europe fall under J.A.R or more likely E.A.S.A rule for flight operations filming will revert to Aerial work. As far as I can make out we are the only country in the world that classes Filming as Commercial Air Transport. However by then it will probably be almost impossible to attach anything to a helicopter without a rain forest of paperwork and we will be grounded anyway.

[paco]

Uncle Ian - the new EASA C of A removes the aerial work category, as if life wasn't complicated enough!

phil

[Ed Thrust IV]

Paco - Could you explain a bit more about how you see the EASA Cof A working. You say that there is no longer an Aerial Work category. Is this repalced with something else?

[paco]

Everything just has a straight C of A now. No differentiation.

phil

[nigelh]

As i have said before i reckon well over 50% of all flights in the UK are "private" if you know what i mean. Most big co a/c are leased and pilot paid seperately.

Interested to hear Flying Lawyer's views.



Post edited by Heliport.

[Flying Lawyer]

I don't know the percentage but, yes, I do know what you mean - and so does the CAA.

Leasing an aircraft is perfectly legal, but the CAA is well aware of the 'fiddles' which go on. As with many things, in aviation and elsewhere, 'fiddles' are all very well until there's an investigation and the arrangement is closely examined. An investigation may be triggered by an incident or by a report to the CAA - the latter often by a commercial operator.

If there's an investigation, the CAA will not only check the paperwork thoroughly but also speak to the person named as the lessee. (Or, more accurately, try to - the lessee is under no obligation to answer the CAA's questions.)

If, after investigating, the CAA suspects it was a charter dressed up as a lease and there's evidence to support that suspicion, the CAA is likely to prosecute.

The CAA isn't as active in this area as it could be. I've never understood why, given that they investigate and prosecute very trivial matters.


Tudor Owen

PS
Re your first post -
I haven't heard about the court case you mention, but I know of a report which was investigated earlier this summer.
Everything was in order and nothing came of it.

[nigelh]

i think i know why!! A) It is i believe perfectly legal to get somebody to sign a properly drafted lease agreement, albeit just for a short period, and then let them pay a commercial Pilot seperately, arms length from the owner. This is i believe a private flight as per the rules.. and then B) there is the little point of if you make over 50% of all flying in this country illegal then all the owners AND pilots who work in this area will pack up....then all the a/c that rely on a bit of subsidy will have to be sold.....by which time there will be no need for the CAA as there will be virtually no aviation left, except of course for the very wealthy cruising around in twins ! The benefits of leasing ? example...you can lease a 206 for say £220 dry but charter can be £600 and you can lease my AS350BA for £450 and pay £800+ for charter ! I beliave that if you reduce the prices many more people will fly therefore making the operating costs much lower.....my insurance is £100 per hour but could come down to £25 ! same with all fixed costs. 90% of the people who lease would not pay full charter rates and would be lost and all the revenue that goes into maintenance,parts , new a/c would also be lost.

[SASless]

Nigel,

How dare you suggest such a thing? Can you not understand the need for legislation, regulations, rules, policies, and implementing memorandum's.....what does reality have to do with this?

Just like the US Government policy on paperwork reduction....adds two pages to every federal document explaining what that policy is.:{

[pinkpilot150]

uncle ian - "The fundamental problem lies with the wording of the ANO in my opinion. It is clear to almost anyone but our beloved regulators that aerial camera work (along with so many of the things helicopters do that are not passenger transit flights) is not public transport as percieved by "the man on the Clapham omnibuss"."

I have been asking questions on another forum about this and the unfortunatly I have come up with the following assessment based on the ANO and various other documents:-

Is somebody making money from the flight? If so, it is aerial work although aerial work can be either a public or a private flight. If it is aerial work then the pilot must have a CPL/ATPL.

The bigger question as most operations come under aerial work is therefore is it a public transport flight or a private flight? If it is a public transport flight then you need an AOC.

So....how do you figure out if it's a public transport flight. Simple - are there any paying passengers on the flight where a passenger is defined in the ANO (and pretending you are a member of the flight crew in a C150 does not work - see the wording of the ANO).

So...... filming is aerial work - and therefore needs a CPL flying the plane (unsurprisingly) and as the passenger is paying the pilot to carry him/her then it is also a public transport flight. Pretty simple really - the fact that he/she happens to be carrying a camera aloft is neither here or there - and the fact that it is no a 'transit' flight does not matter either. The simple fact is that a person is paying the pilot to fly him around.

The ONLY way I can see to get around this is if the pilot is the owner of the 'filming business' and has a CPL/ATLP, and PAYS a passenger to take the photos for him. This would make the flight Aerial Work - but in the public flight category and would threfore be exempt from needing an AOC.

If somebody hires the aircraft and the pilot separatly as suggested, this can be tested against the 'rules'. Is somebody making money from the flight - yes they are so it is Aerial Work and the pilot therfore must have a CPL/ATPL. Is there an ANO defined passenger on the flight who has paid somebody/something so he/she can be on the flight. Yes- they paid both the pilot and the aircraft hire so the flight is P.T. and needs an AOC.

[NickLappos]

SASless,

I read all this stuff above (about how many pinheads it takes to ground an angel) and then I go outside and salute my flag, even with W in office.


Nick


PS isn't that a cool play on words in there?

[Flying Lawyer]

That is the first time I have ever, on PPRuNe or elsewhere, heard anyone describe the law in this area as "pretty simple really."
Simple? :eek:

It is nothing short of a disgrace that the ANO is so appallingly written and so difficult to understand. The CAA expects pilots and operators to comply with provisions, and may prosecute them if they fail to do so, yet even lawyers who specialise in aviation don't find the provisions easy to understand.
Here's an example of what the CAA regards as acceptable legislation for modern times. You can't get much more 'modern times' than this - it came into force about a month ago on 20th August. Article 157. Public transport and aerial work—general rules

(1) Subject to the provisions of this article and articles 158 to 163, 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.

(2) If the only such valuable consideration consists of remuneration for the services of the pilot the flight shall be deemed to be a private flight for the purposes of Part 3 of this Order.

(3) Subject to the provisions of this article and articles 158 to 163, an aircraft in flight shall for the purposes of this Order be deemed to fly for the purpose 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 3 of this Order (other than articles 19(2) and 20(2)), 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.

(4) Notwithstanding that an aircraft may be flying for the purpose of public transport by reason of paragraph (3)(c), it shall not be deemed to be flying for the purpose of the public transport of passengers unless valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of those passengers.

(5) A glider shall not be deemed to fly for the purpose of public transport for the purposes of Part 3 of this Order by virtue of paragraph (3)(c) if the valuable consideration given or promised for the primary purpose of conferring on a particular person the right to fly the glider on that flight is given or promised by a member of a flying club and the glider is owned or operated by that flying club.

(6) Notwithstanding the giving or promising of valuable consideration specified in paragraph (3)(c) in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight it shall—
(a) subject to sub-paragraph (b), for all purposes other than Part 3 of this Order; and
(b) for the purposes of articles 19(2) and 20(2);
be deemed to be a private flight.

(7) Where under a transaction effected by or on behalf of a member of an association of persons on the one hand and the association of persons or any member thereof on the other hand, a person is carried in, or is given the right to fly, an aircraft in such circumstances that valuable consideration would be given or promised if the transaction were effected otherwise than aforesaid, valuable consideration shall, for the purposes of this Order, be deemed to have been given or promised, notwithstanding any rule of law as to such transactions.

(8) For the purposes of—
(a) paragraph (3)(a), there shall be disregarded any valuable consideration given or promised in respect of a flight or the purpose of a flight by one company to another company which is—
(i) its holding company;
(ii) its subsidiary; or
(iii) another subsidiary of the same holding company;
(b) this article "holding company" and "subsidiary" have the meanings respectively specified in Section 736 of the Companies Act 1985. Those are just the "general rules." You then have to turn to the exceptions set out (in similar 'easy to understand' style) in Articles 158-163 inclusive.

Pretty simple really. ;)
Even the guidance (CAP 393 Air Navigation Order and Regulations) written by the CAA, and intended to assist people to understand the virtually incomprehensible relevant provisions written by the CAA into the ANO, contains a disclaimer!

Some examples from PinkPilot's understanding of these "simple" rules:
"Is somebody making money from the flight?"
That's not the test.
"aerial work can be either a public or a private flight."
'Aerial work' is a category of Private flight.
"So....how do you figure out if it's a public transport flight. Simple - are there any paying passengers on the flight where a passenger is defined in the ANO."
That's not the test.
"Aerial Work - but in the public flight category"
:confused:
"Is somebody making money from the flight - yes they are so it is Aerial Work"
The CAA might well say that, but the ANO doesn't.

[Aesir]

Yes- they paid both the pilot and the aircraft hire so the flight is P.T. and needs an AOC


Pinkpilot - That is exactly what authorities in Scandinavian countries require. I have always been surprised to see discussion on the forum that AOC would not be required for Aerial work like photoflights etc.

If a CPL pilots is doing photo or film flight´s without beiing under an AOC then what are the duty hr limits, altitude requirements, is harness needed, who is responsible for permits and so on and so forth. These are all issues specified in the HOM manual.

In Scandinavian and Nordic countries the law in this regard is very straightforward, a AOC is required for Aerial work! In the UK it seems that the rules are sometimes very complicated but it´s really common sense to require AOC for all aerial work be it Aerial work or Public transport (JAR-OPS 3). A private flight is a pilot flying for his own pleasure or building hours while flying self fly hire in some circumstances he can share the direct operating cost of the aircraft with a friend who comes along for a ride but he most surely cannot operate the aircraft to make money!

Edit: To add reply to FL comments, sometimes I feel sorry for you Brits ;) Meant in the way that your CAA works in mysterious way´s.

[NickLappos]

The FAA is somewhat clearer.

If you are a company operating its airplane, the company is considered a private individual, and can operate the aircraft subject to Part 91 as a private aircraft. Your pilots, if paid as pilots and not flying incidentally to their employment, are commercial and must be so rated.

Other than company employees may fly in the company airplane, as long as no fee is charged. These others might share in the expenses, proportionately, but seldom do.

[headsethair]

For AOC holders ("air transport undertaking") it gets even more interesting. Art 130 (2) states:

"(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........."

So - if you are an AOC holder any flight you do carrying non-employees is a PT flight whether or not they are paying passengers.

[mickjoebill]

Questions

1/If a company leased an aircraft for say a 6 month period, provided camera kit and employed camera operator and (CPL) pilot under short term contract could the flights be operated under aerial work?


2/ What would the operational diferences be that could impact a filming job, between such an outfit and an AOC operating Public Transport?



Mickjoebill

[pinkpilot150]

"Is somebody making money from the flight?"
That's not the test:-
But it seems to work - from the ANO - aerial work means any purpose (other than public transport) for which an aircraft is flown if valuble consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight.
- If anybody (anybody) is making money - its either aerial work or public transport. Is the pilot being paid? - then it's aerial work or public transport.

"aerial work can be either a public or a private flight."
'Aerial work' is a category of Private flight.
- fair enough, to keep it clean in my head I always think aerial work includes public transport (working in the air!). My bad! Should have made that clear - but it does not change the intent.

"So....how do you figure out if it's a public transport flight. Simple - are there any paying passengers on the flight where a passenger is defined in the ANO."
That's not the test. Actually I think it is for our purposes:-

- from the ANO - "bla bla bla...deemed to fly for the puposes of public transport if valuble consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers"

"Aerial Work - but in the public flight category"
- yup - my bad again! By that I meant not Public Transport - sorry!

"Is somebody making money from the flight - yes they are so it is Aerial Work"
The CAA might well say that, but the ANO doesn't.
Actually, I think it does - see above - and by Aerial Work - I actually meant Aerial Work or Public Transport!

By the way - I am an engineer, not a lawyer so I have to simplify things so I can understand them! And if I t

Basic question is:-

Does Aerial Photography where the photographer pays the pilot require an AOC according to the ANO?

My answer (which may well be wrong) is YES!

Is valuble consideration (money) being given (yes - to the pilot) for the carriage of passenger (yes - the photographer is bein carried). Therefore - is seems to be simple (sorry) but this is a Public Transport Flight and threfore needs an AOC.

In answer to mickjoebill......I give up. Its all a load of B*^*Cks. I just get my head around it then I read it again in another context and it all goes to pot. I hate the CAA. I wish I was a Lawyer and not just an engineer!

I still stand by my reconing above on Aerial Photography though but what happens when it's all operated by a company - god knows. It took my 2 months to get this far!

Jesus........