PPL ferry flight legalities

[Shunter]

It's possible I may soon have the opportunity to fly an aircraft from the UK to Europe for a friend who has sold it to a buyer elsewhere in the EU. I don't have a CPL, so obviously I can't be paid for it, but are there any legal aspects to consider as regards my flying someone else's aircraft for this purpose?

I seem to recall that PPL's have in the past ferried flying school aircraft to things like resprays, maintenance etc., which the flying schools picking up the tab for fuel etc.

Insight and bright ideas welcome!

[DogfighterF22]

Pilot magazine ran an article on this last month.

In short, as long as you are not paid for the flight, and it's flown legally (weather minima etc) then go ahead. I believe you can also claim legitimate expenses (bed & board) but if, for example, you got free use of a boat for a month, then the payment in kind may be unacceptable.

My advise, get a copy of last month's Pilot mag and check it out.

DF.

[Shunter]

Splendid news, thanks. I've got the mag at home somewhere actually so will take a look. All I'm interested in is the experience, and to have fuel, B&B and return transport covered.

Having only a UK IMC rating obviously has ramifications as regards weather and planning, but I thought clarifying the legalities would be a reasonable first step before then considering the logistics.

[DogfighterF22]

Remember AFAIK the UK IMC is just that - Only valid in the UK. So the rest of your trip in Europe needs to be VFR all the way.

Have fun you lucky chap.

DF

[bookworm]

As a PPL you're not permitted to receive payment "in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight". I think payment for accommodation and return transport would definitely fall into that category and would make such a flight illegal.

Fuel reimbursement is slightly greyer. In practice it makes no difference if the owner buys the fuel from the supplier or reimburses you for buying it, but the situations might be considered different in legal terms.

[Heliport]

Make sure you're covered in case anything goes wrong.

Make sure you're a named pilot on the owner's policy, covering damage to the aircraft while you're flying and any claims against you made by anyone else.
Also, get a written agreement from the owner not to make any claim against you if the aircraft is damaged.
Friendly 'gentlemen's agreements' are all very well as long as nothing goes wrong. If it does, people are often not so friendly or gentlemanly. I've heard some horror stories, including owners claiming against pilots for items not covered by the insurance policy.

Best to be discreet about your B&B, and probably return transport. No point in giving some petty-minded type an opportunity to nitpick.

IMHO, reimbursement (for fuel) is reimbursement, not payment to the pilot.

[homeguard]

The quote that Bookworm gives is difficult for it is not precise.
Should you be undertaking a return trip and your friend pays for an expensive dinner and a nice hotel for you it could certainly be considered a perk and therefore, maybe, a payment in kind. There has been such a proven case some years ago.
However, where you have delivered the aeroplane and there it ends it may not be unreasonable afterward to accept an out of pocket expense such as the actual overnight hotel charge and your actual fare home - pay for your own dinner, drinks and entertainment though.

[bookworm]

The quote that Bookworm gives is difficult for it is not precise.


It's certainly open to broad interpretation.

However, where you have delivered the aeroplane and there it ends it may not be unreasonable afterward to accept an out of pocket expense such as the actual overnight hotel charge and your actual fare home

I would suggest the test is likely to be, "if the flight had not taken place (with you doing the flying), would the payment still have been made?". If the answer is "no", it's pretty clear that the payment is "in respect of the flight", isn't it?

[IO540]

Should you be undertaking a return trip and your friend pays for an expensive dinner and a nice hotel for you it could certainly be considered a perk and therefore, maybe, a payment in kind. There has been such a proven case some years ago

Do you have a reference, Homeguard?

The list of successful CAA prosecutions, published recently, suggests that they go only for the most blatent cases of alleged public transport, or where a disgruntled passenger/student goes to the CAA and provides them with a statement that he paid the pilot.

Loads of PPLs ferry planes for servicing (it's common for a flying school to not use the firm on the airfield but take their planes elsewhere) and they get a discount; for example they pay only for the fuel.

[Warrior2]

What are the legalities of when you bring some people for a flight, and they insist on paying for the aircraft rental, the pilot is not actually being paid . Ive always wondered what the legalities are??
Thanks in advance
W2

[Doc 4]

I dont see a problem to ferry an airplane with your license...but what about your flighthours? I know there are many insurances that request 300 hrs on type if you call the flight a ferry flight.

succes:ok:

[S-Works]

I have ferried aircraft for years around the UK and Europe, it's how I got a good many of my early hours as a PPL.

I contacted the CAA when I first started and asked what I could and could not do and the answer was simple. I could not be paid or receive anything externally to the flight. So I could fly the aircraft, fuel oil etc and stay in hotels arranged by the owner during the trip where required (i.e delivery to Portugal) without providing input. i.e. The DIRECT costs of the trip could be met by the owner of the aircraft in order for the trip to happen.

But I was not allowed to receive cash or gifts by way of a thank you.

What you do on the return trip after having delivered the aircraft is entirely up to you and nothing to do with the flight itself. If we tried to play by those rules, the mate of mine who bought the curry on friday would have been paying me because I dropped his aircraft off after service on Monday. I think sometimes people can be very STUPID when trying to interpret rules. It always seems to me that people try to look for problems.

At the end of the day as IO540 points out the rules exist to prevent PPL's doing work that is public transport.

Doc 4 I think you are possibly confusing a transatlantic ferry flight for an hours minima. Certainly an insurance company will cover any flight that is being legally flown. So as long as you have a valid Class or Type rating and are authorized by the owner you are covered.

[homeguard]

Bookworm
It was some time ago but the gist of it is this;
A chap was flying rugby players (i think) to matchs. They belonged to a club with which he was also a member. The aircraft would have been a C421 or something similar in class. He was proscecuted for 'hire and reward' and claimed that he received only his hotel costs and they also stood his dinner and other expenses. The expenses element was considered reward. If I remember the expenses were quite substantial and were considered more than simple out of pocket costs. Therefore, in simple terms the magistrates considered the expenses received were excessive and a cover for payment.
The Bose-ex outline would be normal and OK, anyway that is how I see it.

[S-Works]

homeguard.

The example you quote is not ferry flying, it is illegal public transport and the guy deserved to be prosecuted and is exactly the reason the rules exist.

If you want to be paid in any form for air taxi work then become a Commercial Pilot and meet the requirements of the law. This protects you and the passengers.

I know of at least one person on this forum who bends the rules in the manner suggested at least once a year........

But what we are talking about here is clearly ferrying an aircraft not people on behalf of another person and is not commercial work. Now if the owner asked you to drop aunt nelly off at the destination at the same time we have crossed the boundary.

[Shunter]

Thanks for your input chaps. I've spoken to the CAA. They were very helpful and they said pretty much exactly what Bose-X said.

No problem with owner paying for fuel, oil, even a B&B en route should the weather intervene. They said they're not particularly interested in what I do at the other end as the flight is over.

[julian_storey]

I think that BOSE X is exactly right. Some people seem to look for problems, where they really needn't exist.

The CAA quite rightly will be looking to catch people who are trying to fly commerically on a PPL. I can't imagine that they would be hugely concerned about someone dropping an aeroplane off somewhere for a friend PROVIDED that he's not paid for doing it.

[bookworm]

I think that BOSE X is exactly right. Some people seem to look for problems, where they really needn't exist.

The question was about legalities, not enforcement. Just because the CAA Enforcement Branch has bigger fish to fry doesn't make a particular act legal. Unless there is an accident or something else to cause a major falling out, it is extremely unlikely that the legality would be tested.

I stand by my view that reimbursement of incidental expenses for such a flight could be construed by a court as payment in respect of the flight. If you choose to take that small risk, it's entirely up to you. Regardless, have a safe and enjoyable ferry flight.

[IO540]

Homeguard

I suspect more details may be called for, because an employee of a company (with a PPL) can be given the option to fly on the company's business (so long as he is not contractually required to fly but can drive etc at his option), be paid for his time as with his normal work, and this is 100% legal.

The same chap could have driven on that trip, stayed in a hotel (paid for by the firm), had a meal (paid for by the firm). This time, he chooses to fly instead, but the firm paying for the hotel and the meal does not make it illegal.

IMHO it would be illegal if the pilot received something which is in excess of what he would have received in his normal employment. For example, a £1000 bonus for flying instead of driving. That would be illegal.

Just "expenses" doesn't really hack it. Travelling expenses are normal, and can be pretty big. Not everybody stays in a £30 B&B :)

[S-Works]

Bookworm, Not wanting to get into a spat with you on this but this is not a case of the CAA turning a blind eye it is a case that I and others have contacted them and asked them specifically for guidance.

The LEGALITIES are that you may do this sort of flight and have the incidental expenses covered provided you do not receive payment, that you are not required to make the flight and that the expenses are not disproportionate.

To have it construed by a COURT requires someone to prosecute, that someone is the CAA and as they have given guidelines as long as they guidelines are observed then how will this end up in front of a court?

[Shanwick Shanwick]

Then again, if the owner were to quietly tip you a few hundred quid to carry his bags, that would be most acceptable!

[IO540]

Well, obviously, one isn't going to get caught unless somebody goes to the CAA with evidence of the payment.

And they can't prosecute unless the person gives them a signed statement saying the payment was for doing the flight.

This is why, so the story goes, when an alleged case of public transport is detected, they quickly take the passengers away and interview them separately, with a view to getting that magic statement that the pilot was paid for the flight.

[bookworm]

Bookworm, Not wanting to get into a spat with you on this ...

Unlike you to not want to get into a spat with me, bose-x ;)

To have it construed by a COURT requires someone to prosecute,

I'd be much more worried about an insurance dispute than prosecution, i.e. a civil case. While it's often been suggested, probably correctly, that insurance companies don't try to dodge payout on the legal details, the status of a flight as aerial work is something that they would pay attention to.

The CAA does not make law. If you have something in writing from the CAA regarding this issue, that would be very useful material if the legality were ever tested in court. If you have merely had a telephone conversation with someone at the CAA on this issue, good luck in getting them into the witness stand in your support!

I'm not making a value judgment or suggesting that you should not do this (in your case presumably "have done this" as you now have a CPL, don't you?). But when someone asks about legality, I think it's reasonable to point out the possible interpretations of the law as it stands, particularly in grey areas like this.

[S-Works]

The word from the insurance company is that as long as the pilot is qualified and approved by the owner there is no issue. Some of the aircraft I have ferried I have had to be specifically added to the policy for, others I have flown under the any authorized pilot banner.

The CAA does not make law they enforce it, sometimes very rigorously. However if the CAA enforcement branch state under which parameters a flight of this nature is acceptable then I would be surprised if you adopted the guidelines they would then try and enforce.

But let me be clear here, I am talking specifically about a flight where the pilot receives nothing other than covering his direct out of pockets costs like landing fees and hotel rooms. Not some elaborate scam for getting paid like tips or whatever.

I really do think we are finding reasons here to not do something that is perfectly legal. Perhaps we should ask for an AIC to be issued with guidance like the charity flights....... :O

[IO540]

Bookworm is totally right in that the insurance is far more important than the CAA, in practice.

If there is an accident, and passengers get injured, then no matter how good friends of yours they were beforehand, you can rest assured that once their discover that by dropping you in the s**t they can collect a lot more money from you (or from your estate) than they would have got otherwise, they will follow the advice. It's human nature, sadly.

Of course, after the successful conclusion of a flight, it's a different matter ;)

Personally, flying an N-reg on which even PPL cost sharing is illegal in UK airspace (Article 140), I make sure nobody gives me anything, beyond a cut of tea perhaps...

[homeguard]

The point, is only whether the pilot receives actual valuable consideration for acting as a pilot. The cost of a hotel and choice of restuarant is of course immaterial when reasonable and a matter of lifestyle I agree.
However should you following a ferry flight to Scotland be booked into Skibo Castle with a partner at £1,500 per night this might be difficult to justify as normal expenses, whoever you are.
Our rugby club member obviously thought that he could admit to expenses as outlined and be immune as no claim no payment for acting as a pilot was received, he said, but he wasn't believed. Being believed is a large part of it.

[IO540]

However should you following a ferry flight to Scotland be booked into Skibo Castle with a partner at £1,500 per night this might be difficult to justify as normal expenses, whoever you are

I wonder whether the CAA judges "reasonable" expenses in the same way as HMRC would. That would at least make sense.

And HMRC has no say in how much money is spent on travelling - short of silly stuff like visiting a customer using a baloon. Staying in the most expensive hotel is certainly OK.

It would be interesting to know how much (and what) that rugby player got.