Fined for carrying fare paying pax in an N reg

[old heliman]

In view of recent threads discussed in this forum this might be of interest, the case was heard earlier this week.

A UK helicopter pilot has just been prosecuted under Article 113 of the ANO for operating helicopter flights in an N-registered helicopter carrying paying passengers. He pleaded not guilty with the defence that as a “freelance pilot” and the holder of a UK Airline Transport Pilot’s Licence he was entitled to earn remuneration/charge valuable consideration for public transport flights in an N-registered aircraft. The Magistrates didn’t agree and convicted him on all 4 counts. He was fined £950 for each of 4 offences and ordered to pay £1,000 towards the prosecution costs.

[SASless]

A license conversion course in the USA would have been cheaper than that.

If he held an FAA Commercial or ATP....has right to live/work in the UK...and it is an N-registered aircraft...would he have been clean then? Or...would the aircraft have to be on an FAA 135 Certificate as well?

Sounds to me like one who wishes to do public transport flying in the UK will be doing it under UK CAA rules....not US rules. Privately owned aircraft....haulling owner/guests only is another kettle of fish then my first scenario would be legal would it not? The 135 Certificate is for air taxi (public transport) flying....not private flying.

[old heliman]

Even if he did have all the above in the first case then he would still not have been legal without obtaining permission from the Dept for Transport, even if a part 135 existed as non EU operators cannot generally operate A-B flights within Europe.

Even hauling owner and guests is iffy if payment is made to him as he is then operating for Aerial work and would need DfT permission again.

If it is to or from anywhere other than a licensed aerodrome or heliport, a non-UK AOC holder from the EU cannot operate without their Permission either.

[mikelimapapa]

Forgive my ignorance and thread creeping, but why are there N-reg aircraft operating in other countries?

[headsethair]

"why are there N-reg aircraft operating in other countries?"

Well - how far back in history do you want to go ? In modern times it's because some people in the UK believe it to be a cheaper way of operating than using "G" or any other European registration.

However, FAA don't like it because they can't stretch their fingers to regulate and inspect. And local regulatory bodies don't like it because........sorry, I've bored myself again......zzzzzzzz....old subject......:zzz:

[Thomas coupling]

Good news. The sooner 'N' reg are denied access to the internal commercial market the better. There is barely enough for the locals.
Why can't they toe the line like normal domestic operators, instead of doing it the sly way?

Old Heliman: Thought you'd retired :)

[SASless]

TC,

With the way aviation is going in the UK....there will be less and less in the future. One or two more rules and user fees and the whole system will grind to a screeching halt ...then where will you be?

We could begin to list all the ills of the archaic system you suffer under but that has been done so many times it becomes boring to even begin.

Instead of turning one's nose into the air....one might consider putting one's own house in order.

[flimflam]

Was this from Battersea a couple of years ago perchance?

[Hilico]

This sounds a bit like the kind of thing GAMTA were/are keen to prevent - they're fixed wing but similar principle applies. Bizjet comes over from the US with pax, flies said pax round Europe on a days-long jolly, no problem. Same bizjet flies over from the US with same pax, drops them off and then starts picking up other fare-paying pax and flying them round Europe - problem. (Is it called 'cabotage'?)

[EESDL]

Atleast the jets could argue that they've atleast been to the States!!!!!!
Let's not dilute the point by discussing 'cabotage' - these 'N' plate choppers have not seen the West side of the Atlantic since they were built - and most of them weren't even built in the US of A!!!!!

Anyone aware of insurance implications for 'fare-paying' passengers on N-plates operating over here - and what about if the bu77er bumps into my G-plated AOC machine????

[Snarlie]

The only remarkable thing about Old Heliman`s original post is that the CAA actually had the strength of mind and resolve to proceed with the prosecution. Illegal public transport is a subject against which every AOC operator in the UK is very keen to see the CAA act with much greater vigour and determination. Hitherto, the Authority appears to have been dragging its heels presumably for fear of embarrassing failure in court. At one stage the impression was given by spokesmen for the Authority that unless the offence was committed with CAA personnel actually on board they were powerless to act!
Illegal public transport has wide ranging implications in terms of validity of insurance cover for passengers, property owners along the route not to mention the pilot himself and his dependants. The prospect of posthumous law suits should cause every `freelance` pilot to consider his actions very carefully.
The CAA should be wholeheartedly encouraged to focus their admittedly overstretched resources on the pursuit and prosecution of the perpetrators such as the joker refrred to by Old Heliman.

[Heliport]

flimflam
Unlikely if the Battersea incident was 2 years ago.

Snarlie

The only remarkable thing about Old Heliman`s original post is that the CAA actually had the strength of mind and resolve to proceed with the prosecution.
Why is that remarkable?
The CAA had the "strength of mind and resolve" as you call it to prosecute Dennis Kenyon for giving famil flights to the new owner of an N reg without DfT permission. The CAA always go for easy targets and trivial offences. Pprune is littered with examples.

Illegal public transport is a subject against which every AOC operator in the UK is very keen to see the CAA act with much greater vigour and determination.
Hear, hear. :ok:
It's always been a mystery to me why they don't do something about the examples we and they know about.
'perpetrators such as the joker refrred to by Old Heliman'
?
Was he joker?
Was it a 'bad' case or something petty?
Old Heliman knows but he's not telling us.
Could that be because it was something minor rather than the CAA doing something about the illegal public transport operators we all know about and would like to see stopped?
I don't know - just curious.


H.

[old heliman]

In reply to TC....Soon TC and counting:)
In reply to flimflam, no it wasn't the Battersea thing a couple of years ago, much more recent.
In reply to heliport
Was he joker?
Was it a 'bad' case or something petty?
Old Heliman knows but he's not telling us.
Could that be because it was something minor rather than the CAA doing something about the illegal public transport operators we all know about and would like to see stopped?
I don't know - just curious
1. Can't comment on his sense of humour
2. It was several flights that were public transport and the pax would have had no valid insurance nor the normal safety 'guarantees' that come with flying with an AOC operator. So no it wasn't petty.
3. Believe it or not the CAA does try to do what it can about illegal PT flights whether they are G-reg or other reg. The problem is the legislation is such that unless (a) you actually catch someone at it and then (b) the pax are willing to help by confirming they paid for a flight, it is nigh on impossible to get a conviction. The Flight Ops guys in Belgrano have always tried to get someone to do a ramp check in the past if the info is good enough but rarely does it get that good.

[verticalhold]

At last!!

The financial penalty in this case was rairly hefty. Hopefully some of the smart a:mad: es who have abused the system for so many years will take note and stop taking the P:mad: . For those of us who go by the AOC rules the use of N reg helicopters in the manner in which this one was used has been a source of great anger, most of it directed at CAA flight ops.

Unfortunately I bet the aircraft owner will pay the fine. It would be very unlikely that the owner would not know what his aircraft was being used for.

Well done CAA. For once a bouquet from one of your biggest critics.:ok:

[SASless]

Is it fiddle music I hear?

I smell smoke....cannot see any flames yet!

[Xavier Dosh]

I agree with 'Snarlie' - you've pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Finally the CAA appears to have dealt with this very serious issue appropriately. Unfortunately, the CAA seem to spend the majority of their time, constantly trying to trip up legitimate AOC companies with various issues of none conformity. Most of which, generally amount to producing a piece of paper that covers the CAA’s proverbial, in the event of anything going wrong. We all operate in a highly competitive market and I’m glad that they have targeted the illegal P/T that we all know goes on!

I sympathise with the freelance pilot, to an extent. It may be that he was unaware of the passengers’ position and was told to operate the trip on behalf of the aircraft owner. Perhaps he is employed on a freelance basis and operates trips on behalf of the owner on a frequent basis and was unlucky to be prosecuted?

That said, I’m glad it’s happened and if it prevents other owners operating P/T flights in their machines in the future – so be it!!

[EESDL]

Xavier
Keep the extent of your sympathy in check.........freelance pilot being unaware of passenger/fee arrangement - yeah right!!!

[Heliport]

EEDSL

So you ask the owner if the associates he asks you to fly have paid him anything towards the cost of the flight?

Do you specify all forms of valuable consideration as well as cash?

[SASless]

Lets see....

I am flying a guy's helicopter...he takes all sorts of strangers with him...or he sends me and the helicopter out to fetch some folks from one place and take them to another.

I am now supposed to look at the passengers and say..."Hey Coke Bottle, you paying for this trip....or are you getting squired around in hopes you will spend some money with my boss?"

If the Boss Fellah says "Fetch"....all I want to know is who, what, when, where, and how.....the "Why" is the Boss Fellah's business not mine.

[headsethair]

Let us assume that a company operates it's own fleet of aircraft - including helis. There is no AOC involved - all the flights are deemed private because they are either flying staff, customers or suppliers around.
It's when you look at the AOC definition of "valuable consideration" that you start to question whether these flights conform with the law.
If a potential supplier is flown apparently FOC, and then that supplier gives a large discount to the company - could this not be construed as "valuable consideration."
In the CAA Summary of The Meaning of Public Transport - which has just been updated and I give the link below - much is made of "valuable consideration" :

".......This term has a very wide meaning, including the provision of goods and services. "

So, to come back to "N" flights and "fare-paying passengers", surely we should be talking about valuable consideration ? It's still not within the law and the CAA were right to prosecute - but doesn't it question the Ops of our mythical large manufacturer ?

CAA http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/122/summary_of_public_transport.pdf




Post edited to remove material which could identify the company you suggest might be carrying out illegal PT flights.
You were very quick to complain recently when people said the helicopter operated by your company infringed the Regs on occasions - even though they didn't give the registration or name your company.

Heliport

[SASless]

Have the CAA "won" or is this yet to be appealed to a higher court for review?

Mi'Lord, my client has a duty to provide safe air transportation...is he remiss not to inquire of his employer the status of each person's status of carriage or does he have only to "trust" his employer in the method of funding each journey? Where in the ANO does the Pilot in Command duties and responsibilities as set forth demand the Pilot in Command seek this information from the operator of an aircraft prior to each flight?

I am sure Flying Lawyer could provide a better argument than that if asked. (For a slight nominal professional fee of course)

[HillerBee]

What where the exact counts. Art. 113 of the ANO is about Traffic Controllers?

The fact that he was flying in an N-Reg without having a FAA license is not permitted so that could be one.

Not having Dft permission could be the second one but as said earlier in my opinion the pilot should have been paid directly by the passengers and he does not have to find out by asking the passengers who or whether they are paying. (I certainly wouldn't do that)

[Flying Lawyer]

HillerBee

You're looking at the current ANO.
The flights which led to the CAA prosecuting the pilot must have occurred when the ANO 2000 was in force. Article 113 of that ANO: Restriction on carriage for valuable consideration in aircraft registered elsewhere than in the United Kingdom
You'll find the equivalent provision in Article 138 of the ANO 2005.


headsethair
It's still not within the law and the CAA were right to prosecute.

I'm intrigued by that, and would like to understand your thinking.

You consider the CAA was right to prosecute because, in your view, any breach of the law should be prosecuted?
or
You consider the CAA was right to prosecute in this particular case because you know the facts of the case and, in your view, they were sufficiently serious to justify prosecuting the pilot? (As opposed, for example, to warning him?)



old heliman

Believe it or not the CAA does try to do what it can about illegal PT flights whether they are G-reg or other reg.

I don't believe it.
Given your position for several years, you know far better than most that there are people who regularly operate illegal PT flights. The CAA spends vast sums of money when it prosecutes pilots for minor and even completely trivial errors, yet it doesn't use the resources at its disposal to tackle what is regarded in the industry as a more serious problem.


The problem is the legislation is such that unless (a) you actually catch someone at it and then (b) the pax are willing to help by confirming they paid for a flight, it is nigh on impossible to get a conviction.

And who writes UK aviation legislation?
The CAA. (It goes through Parliament on the nod - without consideration.)

Do you really consider it's beyond the wit of the five (or is it six) ex-policemen employed in the Enforcement branch to obtain the necessary evidence?
I doubt if it is, but I could tell you how to obtain (a), (b) and a conviction.


I know nothing about the case you posted so can't express an opinion on whether it was reasonable or OTT to prosecute the pilot. Your reluctance to post the facts makes me wonder whether it was a serious example of illegal PT.
I've heard (via the industry) that it was a highly regarded pilot who made a mistake - rather than one of the well-known persistent illegal PT guys. I don't know if that's true, but it wouldn't surprise me. Just over a year ago, the CAA prosecuted a well-known and highly respected FI under Article 113 for what no-one could sensibly argue was a serious breach - and was certainly not an example of the sort of illegal PT ops which cause concern within the industry.



FL

[headsethair]

FL: I believe that the CAA was right to prosecute if they had the evidence that an illegal flight had taken place. And it doesn't matter whether the pilot concerned was vastly experienced or newly-qualified : every commercial pilot has to know these rules without exception.
I don't think a warning is correct. It sends the wrong message and would do little to make a dent in what is a large problem.
Let's not forget "duty of care" here - those passengers and that aircraft, its owner and the pilot would all be without recourse if the insurance was invalidated by an illegal flight.
We cannot expect passengers to know the laws - the profession has enough trouble trying to understand them! How would you feel if a relative innocently took one of these flights, there was an incident, your relative is put in a wheelchair for life and has no possibility of getting any insurance money ? And what about innocents on the ground ?
I don't understand why we cannot have more details of this case - it must surely be public domain.

[old heliman]

FL you might not believe it but it happens to be true that the line in CAA flight ops has consistently been that if an AOC holder can give information to enable a ramp of a 'suspect' aircraft to be arranged in time, that every effort would be made to get somebody there. However they are a limited resource and it would not be practical or cost effective to send them hither and thither based on a slim offchance. It is the AOC holder who picks up the tab!

Insofar as your comment regarding this particular case, yes I do know more but it would not be fair on the pilot concerned to release info too readily and make known his identity (in my personal view). I would be happy to discuss a bit more with you if you wish to pm me. However in essence a well known (non-political) person was carried on a number of flights for which a monetary fee was paid. The last time a well known person was involved in a fatal accident having paid a fare where the flight was not conducted by an AOC operator, the ramifications to the helicopter industry were very significant, as I suggest was the bad publicity for the industry that went along with it.

Please also remember that investigations are conducted by the Air Regulation Enforcement Dept at the behest of the D f T who fund them, not the CAA even though they are employees of the CAA. Who they do or don't prosecute is not for me to comment on.

As for who writes the legislation, yes its the CAA....lawyers:)

[EESDL]

SASless
You misunderstood me.
You suggested the difficulty in acertaining the sort of trip if you were flying the 'boss man' - slightly different than a 'freelance' pilot being sourced to fly an aircraft 'hired' for the flight in question.

Have no beef about a salaried pilot flying a company-owned machine - indeed, sounds quite familiar.

[Xavier Dosh]

I think it's irrelevant whether the Captain, on the day, was employed on a full time basis or freelance.

I get the impression that the above posts, are just trying to play 'Devils Advocate' and suggest that the Captain may not always be in possession of all the facts, regarding his passengers and how they have, or have not, paid for the flight.

I don't think we know enough about this particular scenario to assume the pilot knew exactly what had gone on, prior to departure and that in fact, this was a P/T flight?!

[Flying Lawyer]

old heliman
I believe it of Flt Ops. What you said originally was "Believe it or not the CAA does try to do what it can about illegal PT flights ......" I don't accept that, for the reasons I've given.

As for who writes the legislation, yes its the CAA....lawyers You won't find me, in any forum on this website or elsewhere, jumping to the defence of fellow lawyers simply because they are fellow lawyers. ;)


headsethair
I believe that the CAA was right to prosecute if they had the evidence that an illegal flight had taken place.
I disagree on the general principle and don't know the facts of the particular case so can't comment.

And it doesn't matter whether the pilot concerned was vastly experienced or newly-qualified : every commercial pilot has to know these rules without exception.Again, I disagree. I think someone's history should be taken into account when deciding whether to prosecute, formally Caution or issue a warning, as should whether the incident was deliberate flouting of the law or honest mistake. Neither should be decisive, but IMHO should be taken into account in each particular case.


"Every commercial pilot has to know these rules without exception"
They don’t in my experience.
Questions about public transport and aerial work etc come up regularly in this and other forums on Pprune. Those who ask the questions don’t know or they wouldn’t be asking. The responses range from confident assertions in opposite directions via ‘I don’t know’.
I can well understand why pilots find it difficult. Partly because the legislation is so complicated and partly because a fertile imagination allows "valuable consideration" to extend to a wide range of activities which IMHO are not the sort of activities which the legislation was intended to catch - nor should sensibly be intended to catch.

Do you, as an operator, know the rules?
I don't mean being able to refer to the legislation or a CAA commentary upon it. I mean being able to apply the legislation to given facts and say with certainty whether the flight does or does not constitute a public transport. You didn't seem able to do so in your previous post where you posed a question rather than asserting the position with confidence.
If you can, you have my respect. Sometimes, the best I and other lawyers in the field can manage is: 'It’s difficult to say. In common sense it’s not public transport but, if the meaning of 'valuable consideration' was stretched far enough ………..’

How would react if I was emotionally involved in some incident?
I don't know; I wouldn’t be detached so I suspect my ability to think rationally would at least be impaired and might be suspended completely.
I don't find the introduction of emotion helpful in these discussions. I've been involved in too many cases where distress, understandably, leads people to want to sue when there's no basis for a claim, to demand that 'something should be done', that someone should be 'locked up for years' etc etc.
I’ve also listened to too many daft and wholly unrealistic “danger” and “potentially very dangerous” assertions being made on behalf of the CAA when pilots are prosecuted for some trivial breach of the Regs.

I don't understand why we cannot have more details of this case - it must surely be public domain. Old heliman has given his reason. Whilst I don't assume I'd necessarily share his views about what is or isn't serious/petty, I respect him for declining to reveal the pilot's name or post facts which would enable the pilot to be identified.


FL

[headsethair]

FL: Every time you post we learn. And believe me, I am grateful.

This issue isn't about PT vs Aerial Work : it's about an "N" helicopter operating for money in the UK without the required permissions.

I stand by my assertion that all CPLs and ATPLs must know these rules without exception. Whilst some of the legislation is confusing and badly-drafted, the rules on "N" ops are very clear. The very least a professional pilot should do before embarking on such a job is to ask the owner of the aircraft if DfT permissions have been obtained. This is not an embarassing question to ask.

[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 .

[SASless]

It is the AOC holder who picks up the tab!

I report a possible on-going violation of UK Law...rules...and/or regulations....the CAA tears someone away from the Gym...lunch...teabreak...or heaven forbid...a meeting...and the AOC holder providing the "tip" has to pay for the Inspector to do his duty? Is my understanding of that situation correct?



investigations are conducted by the Air Regulation Enforcement Dept at the behest of the D f T who fund them, not the CAA even though they are employees of the CAA.

Now there is a simple chain of command for ya!

[headsethair]

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 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/122/summary_of_public_transport.pdf) 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 ?

[old heliman]

SAS, clearly living in the land of the free(?) has caused your mischief cells to work :>)

It is the AOC holder who picks up the tab!


I report a possible on-going violation of UK Law...rules...and/or regulations....the CAA tears someone away from the Gym...lunch...teabreak...or heaven forbid...a meeting...and the AOC holder providing the "tip" has to pay for the Inspector to do his duty? Is my understanding of that situation correct? Wrong, The CAA is funded by industry, Air Reg Enforcement (ARE) by the DfT. If the CAA flight ops inspector (FOI) goes off to do a check on a dubious flight there is no direct charge for that AT ALL. It is however a fact that his time and so forth are being paid for by the industry and in the case of an FOI that is the AOC Holder.




Quote:
investigations are conducted by the Air Regulation Enforcement Dept at the behest of the D f T who fund them, not the CAA even though they are employees of the CAA.


It isn't a chain of command at all as you try to make it appear. In most cases illegal flights tend to be bubbled by AOC holders to their FOI and a ramp check would be carried out if at all possible. If it apeared there was a question mark over the flight then ARE would be advised as appropriate and an investigation might be started. Flight Ops and ARE are independant of each other.

[nigelh]

Headsethair

We have been through this before if you look at previous AOC threads. I was pulled off the air by the moderator for mentioning a new company specializing in non aoc flights and booking them on the web. I will not mention its name again , but i am sure you will hear about it soon !! Basically if you lease a helicopter and have a proper lease agreement and then arms length hire a professional pilot then that flying is not P.Transport, so long as you are not selling on any seats. ie you lease helicopter to fly to London and pay pilot seperate you can fly into Battersea in a single without floats, as it is a private flight. Before a load of people disagree, i have had extensive legal advice and the CAA are i am sure well aware of the situation . If they wish to change the law then that is up to them. As i have said before i think the days of the small aoc operator are now over, due to so much bull**it involved and the vast cost. Everyone in the industry should welcome a move that gets more people flying and reduces costs......not every person who wishes to hire/lease an aircraft is loaded !!

[EESDL]

....despite the CAA attempting to 'clamp' down on operators using 'N' aircraft for charters, or any private aircraft for that matter.

Irish company contacts heli company,, based just outside regional airport, and enquires about chartering a 'twin'.
Caller offered to partake in a temporay share of heli-operator's N-reg twin - which would have been flown by FAA PPL (!) - they didn't tell them that though.

Irish company well-versed in the ways of commercial ops and went to a legitimate twin-operating aoc company.

have to hand it to them - ballsy move...............

Have you noticed how few N-reg choppers actually shutdown at special events??????