North West airport to Scilly all expenses paid [Archive]

Islander2

23rd Sep 2007, 12:53

AOC cover tour operators and airlines.

Unless you are set up in business as either then you wont need an AOC.Absolute bo!!ocks.

ANO Article 6:
... an aircraft registered in the UK shall not fly on any flight for the purpose of public transport, otherwise than under and in accordance with the terms of an air operators certificate granted to the operator of the aircraft ...

The meaning of public transport is defined in Arts 157 to 163, wherein you'll find no reference whatsoever to 'tour operators', 'airlines' or anything remotely connected with the nature of the operation!

PS Don't say it'll be okay then if the Cirrus is N-reg, 'cos the flight would then require the permission of the Secretary of State (Art 138)!

Towing banners does not require an AOC
Running an FTO does not require an AOC
Aerial application (chemical spraying) does not require an AOCCorrect. That's because they all fall in the definition of aerial work, NOT public transport!

Running mate to somewhere for cash does not require an AOCWRONG ... if the valuable consideration exceeds the cost sharing entitlement set out in Art 160. And this is not an academic discussion. Have a look at the CAA's list of recent prosecutions. Illegal public transport is a core area of interest for the enforcement branch!

stuartforrest

23rd Sep 2007, 12:57

Thanks for all this. I have kindly found someone to do it for free so you can all stop worrying about me (or them) breaking any rules :)

Just out interest I reckon this is a load of nonsense. Of course the naysayers are probably correct that I could not actually cover all the costs without breaking the rules but what a load of cobblers people talk.

If you gave someone a lift in your car and they pay your petrol you possibly would be breaking some rule but nobody makes such a fuss. I wasn't asking someone to setup a charter business and if it was going to cause them so much trouble then of course I wouldn't have expected them to do it.

Is there anybody out there that kind find a rule that will make it illegal to have the guy fly me down for free. I reckon if we keep the thread alive long enough someone will come up with something.

Thanks for all the offers. I would gladly return them in the future if someone needed help like I do at this time.

davidatter708

23rd Sep 2007, 15:32

Surely if you pay them for their time rather than the aircraft cost all is well
dave

Islander2

23rd Sep 2007, 16:01

"Surely if you pay them for their time rather than the aircraft cost all is well"

Wouldn't that be a nice easy defence for the many illegal air taxi operators that have been prosecuted by the CAA over the years for taking paying passengers to the races? The fact that they get found guilty suggests otherwise.

modelman

23rd Sep 2007, 16:09

What a poor state we're in when an appeal from a fellow aviator to help him out of a problem is met by a LOB about the legalities of an act of help in an arrangement between 2 licensed pilots.

MM

Islander2

23rd Sep 2007, 16:23

Funnily enough, I agree with you! Although some might observe that it's a tad unwise to talk in public about entering into an illegal arrangement. ;)

stuartforrest

23rd Sep 2007, 16:30

I had no intention of doing anything illegal so for those of you that were so concerned about my AOC busting scheme you may all stop worrying now. If I had I wouldn't have used my name in the posting. Surely there is bigger crimes to worry about. Anyway I have a free ride now. Is that legal?

PPRuNe Radar

23rd Sep 2007, 16:34

What a poor state we're in when an appeal from a fellow aviator to help him out of a problem is met by a LOB about the legalities of an act of help in an arrangement between 2 licensed pilots.

On the contrary, if we make fellow aviators think about the rules and not get in to trouble, then the thread and the responses are beneficial.

Surely there is bigger crimes to worry about.

I'd like to not pay any tax this year, but my excuse that surely there are bigger crimes to worry about would probably not get much of a sympathetic hearing from the authorities. :O

fireflybob

23rd Sep 2007, 17:41

In aviation it's always best to plan on the basis that the worst might happen. God forbid that an accident involving serious fatality or injuries occurs but assuming it did you have to ask yourself the questions:-

a) Am I or any other party going to be sued for possible negligence etc?

b) Will I be prosecuted by the relevant authorities?

c) Will the insurance company pay out?

Fly Safe and Legally!

Oldpilot55

23rd Sep 2007, 17:42

I think this has been a useful thread since many folk were unaware of the risks associated in receiving cash for unlicensed aerial work. Few of us will agree with the CAA and their sledge hammer approach to this issue but over the years they have changed from no remuneration of any kind to a limited form of cost sharing.

niknak

23rd Sep 2007, 19:25

I don't think the CAA ever had a sledge hammer approach to this subject, merely protecting the interests of those operators who spend thousands of pounds each year ensuring that they and their aircraft comply with the minimum legal requirements.

There are and always will be, a few cowboys (and the genuinely ignorant) willing to undermine the AOC operators who are the only people qualified to operate charter flights.

stuartforrest

23rd Sep 2007, 20:23

Hang on a minute, get a grip. I only asked for a lift to the Scilly's to collect my broken down plane. A favour which I would do for anyone. Don't you all have better things to do than hijack my thread and spout stuff about AOC's and things. Why not start your own thread called "jobsworths".

I only wanted a bloody lift. I didn't want a charter business to be established by the back door forcing poor unsuspecting air taxi businesses to the wall.

I get the point that you cant pay an unequal share etc. Why is it there are so many law enforcers on this forum?

How about a bit of positive co-operation. And before you all come out and say you are doing the pilot community a favour, you are not!

excrab

23rd Sep 2007, 21:40

Were you to offer do such a favour for someone else (although it isn't really a favour if all your expenses have been met) you would certainly be guilty in law of an act of illegal public transport.

Should you then crash and die along with the "friend" who you were "helping", then if his/her dependants weren't happy then your insurance company would certainly wash their hands off it and it would be your dependants who would potentially be facing a massive claim.

You might think this is over reaction by a lot of people on here, but sadly that is the law (cap 85 and all that stuff). Might be worth a bit of study perhaps...

stickandrudderman

23rd Sep 2007, 21:46

Personally I like to live in the real world.:p

POBJOY

23rd Sep 2007, 23:15

Do They Have An Aircraft Jack On Scilly !!

stuartforrest

24th Sep 2007, 05:49

Yes I still think you can have your own thread. My question was who could give me a lift to the Isle of Scilly but there is always people on here who will quote chapter and verse as to why you shouldn't do something. Actually it would be good manners to start your own thread rather than hijack mine but that doesnt seem to bother some people.
Stop trying to justify posting your over zealous comments on my perfectly innocent thread about my request to the pilot community for getting a lift to the Isle of Scilly which after all should be a fairly reasonable request.

POBJOY

No apparently they do not have a jack. The fireman from the local fire station had to come to lift it on to a trolley so it could be moved off the runway.

BEagle

24th Sep 2007, 06:54

No, you didn't ask who could give you a 'lift' to the Scilly Isles.

You actually asked "Anyone fancy helping me out. I need someone with a plane to fly me to Scilly from a north west airport early next week. I will pay all expenses such as fuel and landing fees of course."

People then explained to you (after some internecine bitching with eachother) that what you were asking contravened the law.

Frankly, at this time of year with the equinoctial gales just kicking off, bouncing along in a light aeroplane with a spare tyre in the back sounds pretty unappealing. But enjoy your trip and I hope the Bonanza is soon back in the skies!

Fuji Abound

24th Sep 2007, 10:30

So while we are on this subject, how do trial flights work?

Spruit

24th Sep 2007, 10:45

And whilst we're here, we can obviously start talking about the next time your friends ask you for a lift somewhere in your car, he offers to pay your petrol and maybe a few pints down the pub and all of a sudden your an unlicensed taxi driver and oh BTW your insurance doesn't cover that, plus your statistically more likely to die giving your friends a lift to the airport!

I'm not condoning illegal air taxi, or comparing apples and oranges, just laws and laws!

Spru!

gcolyer

24th Sep 2007, 11:05

laws are laws.....mmm ok..

In the Isle of Man it is legal to kill a scottsman, as long as the following criteria is met:

1) It is a Thursday
2) He is wearing a Kilt
3) you must be on a hill
4) You must kill him with a cross bow

Other laws about stuff!

In Athens, Greece, a driver's license can be lifted by the law if the driver is deemed either 'poorly dressed' or 'unbathed'.

On the island of Jersey it's against the law for a man to knit during the fishing season.

In Alabama it is illegal to carry a comb in your pocket, because it may be used as a weapon. This comes after a 13 year old boy was killed when he was stabbed with a comb.

In Michigan, it is illegal to chain an alligator to a fire hydrant.

It is against the law to whale hunt in Oklahoma.

In Fairbanks, Alaska it is illegal for a moose to walk on the side walk. This dates back to the early days if the town when the owner of the bar had a pet moose that he used to get drunk. The moose would then stumble around the town drunk. The only way the law makers could prevent this from happining was to create the law so the moose could not cross the sidewalk and get into the bar.

In Quebec, Canada, an old law states that margarine must be a different colour from butter. This law is the result of Quebec dairy lobbyists' pressure to ''protect'' their dairy business. They claimed margarine was beginning to resemble butter, as to be mistaken for real butter. Make margarine unattractive, and consumers would stick to butter. The Quebec government caved in, and tried to impose a dark vermilion-coloured margarine, which was disgusting. The colour, finally, at the other extreme, is a pallid almost-white-colourless margarine.

According to a british law passed in 1845, attempting to commit suicide was a capital offense. Offenders could be hanged for trying.

It is illegal to sell an ET doll in France. They have a law forbidding the sale of dolls that do not have human faces.

cblinton@blueyonder.

24th Sep 2007, 13:10

I have come into this one rather late, what a load of B******s

If Jeremy Clarkson had read this thread before he wrote a certain recent article it would have been even funnier:ugh:

Stuart wanted a lift and if I had been around I would have given him one.

OpenCirrus619

24th Sep 2007, 13:23

So while we are on this subject, how do trial flights work?

Seems there's another current thread on this.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=293464

OC619

stuartforrest

24th Sep 2007, 13:37

I agree totally without wanting to prod the hornets nest again.

Thanks for that. I would also help any fellow pilot. I promise to try not to break the law also.

S-Works

24th Sep 2007, 13:52

If you ever need help PM me I will come and do it free of charge. What goes around comes around.

Just like the very nice man who recently brought me home from Guernsey to my doorstep when my aircraft went U/S in his shiny turbo prop and would not accept payment.

Aviation should be a fraternity not a bunch of pedants all trying to get one over on each other.

A CPL can be paid to fly someone else's aircraft with an AOC, they just cant offer to provide the service and the aircraft as this would be air taxi work. A good example would have been stuart renting an aircraft from an FTO and then paying a CPL to fly him to the Scillies........

PPRuNe Towers

24th Sep 2007, 14:07

Nah,

Entirely self hoisted by petard

Stuart wrote the title to the thread not us at PPRuNe - title says it all: "Welcome to pedants' corner - rub my nose in this."

Sorry - that should read, "North West airport to Scilly all expenses paid."

A high horse has been back peddled at a rate of knots - triple mixed metaphor points and do not pass go.

Regards
Rob;);)

stuartforrest

24th Sep 2007, 18:04

Thanks Bose-X, always helpful as ever and I will certainly return the favour one day if required.

I cant believe the nonsense on here but in between I have had some very generous offers.

I suppose I did put myself forward to be shot down. If there is anything to take a swipe at there is always plenty of sad people wishing to.

Islander2

24th Sep 2007, 20:17

Stuart, despite having received a thoroughly good kicking for raising what I felt to be an important oversight in your request for help (and, in particular, the wording of stickandrudderman's offer), as a fellow Bonanza pilot I really do wish you well in your endeavours to retrieve your aeroplane.

Good luck from (apparently) the resident pedant!

stickandrudderman

24th Sep 2007, 21:29

Oh I see, it was all my fault was it?
Well, I'm not having that!
I want to complain..........

take coverrrrrrr!

DFC

24th Sep 2007, 21:43

No Bose, your example is clearly Public Transport, unless the CPL is a flight instructor and the flight is a training flight.

The answer actually is very simple;

We have two qualified pilots.

The first pilot (who needs to get somewhere) can hire the aircraft from the willing friend (assuming that it has the appropriate C of A and insurance) and be P1 to where ever they want to go with the helpful friend as passenger.

Note I make no mention of who "manipulates the controls" ;)

At the destination, the helpful friend simply flies the aircraft back home.

Do I have to explain to you well educated perople how much the hire cost for the leg to destination would be? :)

Only outstanding issue would be the tax man.

Regards,

DFC

Fuji Abound

24th Sep 2007, 22:32

DFC

I know you take some stick here, but that is brilliant, infact inspired, and legal too.

That is the thing with the law, as fast as they legislate, a legal way around will be found.

Itswindyout

25th Sep 2007, 07:37

These are trhe threads that keep Pprune alive.

I have been watching a similar situation on a Challenger. The owner has let a business friend borrow it.............after the friend has logged perhaps 50 hours in it, the owner decides that it is slightly too much, so he charged him, for the aircraft, crew, and all services.

The aircraft is not AOC, it is a N reg in europe, and the crew are N reg ATPL, so just is this legal or not.??????

Thanks

windy

A and C

25th Sep 2007, 07:38

For a flight to be "public transport" it has to be open to the public and the arangement above was not open to the public and so was not public transport it was a private flight.

As long as the person who hired the aircraft did not charge any one to fly or cary cargo for reward and the pilot has a CPL then it is within the law.

How do you all think that most of the privatly owned executive jets fly, most don't have an AOC, the owners lease the aircraft from a finance company (better than buying for tax reasons) and then pay pilots to fly them.

Some years back I was flying a Boeing 737 on a private C of A and paid (very well) for doing it, I'm sure that if this was not leagal the CAA would have been on the case after all it was a big enough target for them!

Itswindyout

25th Sep 2007, 07:43

You are correct in your comments re corporate aircraft, but please remember that the pax relationship to the owner / operator MUST be very specific, and not a friend of a friend, (as above). These are technically not public but they fall outside of the scope of private.

Also remmeber the cabotage aspect of coprorate is always open to examination.

windy

S-Works

25th Sep 2007, 08:11

, your example is clearly Public Transport, unless the CPL is a flight instructor and the flight is a training flight.

Nah, you are wrong as usual. According to the CAA that case I cited is perfectly legal and is how corporate aviation works. The aircraft is hired/leased from one place by the person wanting transport usually some corporate bod. They pay a commercial pilot to fly them around in "their" aircraft just as they pay a chauffeur to drive them to the aircraft. That is one of the key purposes of a CPL. If the person hiring the aircraft then started to sell seats this would be illegal without an AOC. If the commercial pilot had there own aircraft and offered it out for the journey it would require an AOC as it would be an air taxi.

But a commercial pilot may just be paid to fly someone else's aircraft.

DFC

25th Sep 2007, 10:16

Bose,

Please read the following CAA document;

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

Let me put some of the important points from that document here;

2.2.1 Public transport flights comprise one major category and two other categories.
2.2.2 The major category is when payment is made for the carriage of passengers or cargo in the aircraft on the flight.

Where in the above does it differentiate between who is paid?

4.2 Having determined that there is at least one passenger on board, the next question is whether any payment has been given or promised which, if it had not been given or promised would mean that the passengers would not have been carried. If there is any payment which could fall into this category, consider what would have happened if the passenger had presented himself for carriage and announced that such a payment would not now be made. Would he still be carried?

No where does it say if you only pay the pilot it isn't public transport.

Regards,

DFC

gcolyer

25th Sep 2007, 10:20

GOD PLEASE MAKE IT END!!!!!!!!!

And send all us illegal transport operators to CAA Hell and take thy righteous ones under your wing.

S-Works

25th Sep 2007, 10:22

Utter tosh. You are as usual twisting the facts to your own ends.

I can go out and buy myself a Citation and I can pay a commercial pilot to fly me around in it without requiring an AOC. If I start to sell seats on my citation it becomes public transport and I require an AOC. If I transport cargo for someone and charge this becomes public transport.

I can not find myself a commercial pilot who has his own citation and pay him to fly me around in it without an AOC as he would be operating as an air taxi.

How the hell do you think all of this private company planes operate, delivering execs and parts?

stuartforrest

25th Sep 2007, 10:27

Thanks for the good luck message. As it is the shortest strip (with an uphill section) I have ever launched from I will take all the luck with me I can.

IO540

25th Sep 2007, 10:30

Just come across this amazingly anally retentive thread....

Bose-x is right, otherwise all non-AOC business jet operations would be illegal.

If I own (or otherwise procure, say by hire or lease) a plane, I can then get hold of a CPL/ATPL and pay him to fly me around in it.

This is legal in both G-reg and N-reg.

Cabotage doesn't come into this. That applies only where fare paying passengers are flown from A to B and where both A and B are outside the state of aircraft registry.

Some people find amazing reasons why something should be illegal.

Islander2

25th Sep 2007, 10:43

At the risk of another kicking, your resident pedant's back. ;)

No where does it say if you only pay the pilot it isn't public transport.Er, wrong, DFC. Try Art 157(2), which says exactly that! If you only pay the pilot, it's aerial work (although private in respect of airworthiness).

The problem with BoseX's example for Stuart, though, is that the pilot's remuneration is NOT the only valuable consideration. The passenger has also rented the aeroplane, paid for the fuel, etc. And, using the CAA's own test, since he wouldn't be carried if he hadn't made those payments, it's public transport. It is materially different from the corporate flight analogy that BoseX makes. If it weren't, the standard way to get around the need for an expensive air-taxi AOC would be to have the pilots and the aeroplanes in different, arms-length companies.

For a flight to be "public transport" it has to be open to the publicYou may think that, A and C, but it's categorically not what the ANO says.

gasax

25th Sep 2007, 10:49

Jezzer Clarkson is completely right.

A guy asks for a lift and then there are two pages of 'opinion' as to how he might be breaking the law. More than half of it is wrong and none of it helps the guy who probably has at least a similar level of understanding of the legal aspects.

Makes train spotting seem a vibrant and absorbing sport. The word Pedant does n't seem to anything like strong enough.

Islander2

25th Sep 2007, 10:55

The word Pedant does n't seem to anything like strong enough.
Absolutely true gasax ... if you don't care whether or not you break the law and whether or not as a result you get a criminal record.

Fuji Abound

25th Sep 2007, 11:06

Islander2

Sorry if I have missed something, but what about DFCs example.

The person who wants the lift rents the plane from the pilot who is giving him the lift from the time he gets on board and is PIC. As the renter he pays the whole cost of the flight just as anyone would who rents an aircraft for the day.

Obviously this assumes the person who wants the lift is qualified to act as P1 on the aircraft concerned.

Islander2

25th Sep 2007, 11:15

Fuji Abound, it seems O.K. to me. But what do I know, apparently I'm some low-life that's worse than a trainspotter! :D

Fuji Abound

25th Sep 2007, 11:34

Fuji Abound, it seems O.K. to me. But what do I know, apparently I'm some low-life that's worse than a trainspotter!

Thank you - interesting.

Yes I know, I never understand why some feel the need to be insulting when it is an interesting debate.

I always recall someone telling me the moment someone starts shouting or hailing abuse they have lost the point anyway! :)

Mind you perhaps it was just a dry sense of humour :):).

Kit d'Rection KG

25th Sep 2007, 14:33

Yet again, what a load of rubbish above spouted as expert opinion or fact. gcolyer in particular deserves some sort of prize.

May I chuck another sausage on the barbeque?

If you need to pay to have someone or something flown somewhere, then there are loads of people who'll do it for you. They're called air taxi or ad hoc charter operators, they have legitimate AOCs, and they put time, effort, and money into complying with various things which make their operations as low risk as possible.

I do a very little bit of flying for a very, very, nice ad hoc charter company. My colleagues and I in the ad hoc charter industry get really peeed off when we see and know unlawful public transport is going on, and, as some of us have friends in the right places, we make sure that the right people get to know about it.

This is because (a) it hurts legitimate businesses and (b) it is prohibited.

gcolyer

25th Sep 2007, 15:03

Better give me an AOC as a prize then!!!

mm_flynn

25th Sep 2007, 17:07

Out of curiosity. How do N-Reg (or the various other non-UK registered) corporate Jets handle Article 140?

The fact the CPL pilot is paid makes it aerial work (just like the flight instructor doing your BFR in your group N-Reg). Article 140 says you need DfT's permission - so do all of the jets have DfT permision or is there something I am missing?

If you need permission for the Jets, can you get it for cost sharing in pistons? and is it similar to the - send off reg, insurance, maintenance release - process you need for instructional flights?

IO540

25th Sep 2007, 17:53

When Flyer magazine did a Freedom of Information Act application on the DfT, a year or three ago, in a attempt to discover various interesting things (which I will happily recollect in email :) ) they dug out some fascinating emails between bits of the DfT (or was it the CAA?) which pointed out that some bits of the UK legislation are in breach of ICAO when it comes to paid crews of the countless business jets that fly through UK airspace.

:O:O

Islander2

25th Sep 2007, 17:55

An easy question for those (A and C, bose-x, IO540, et al) that believe it is legal for him/her to rent a G-reg aircraft from an FTO that doesn't have an AOC, hire a CPL to fly the aeroplane, travel in the aeroplane as a passenger and pay for the fuel, the landing fees and the pilot:

Do you believe this would still be legal if, instead of hiring and paying a CPL, you found a PPL mate who (mindful of his lack of CPL!), required no remuneration?

S-Works

25th Sep 2007, 18:12

I am not even going there on that one as it is a complete tangent to this discussion!!!

Kit d'Rection KG

25th Sep 2007, 18:17

540, there are lots and lots of things that are unlawful in the UK, and for which no-one is prosecuted.

gcolyer will probably google them and make a long post out of it.

...and what does 'in breach of ICAO' mean? Do you mean 'not aligned with ICAO SARPs and not filed as Differences'? Oh wow, what a big deal!

Really, really, fascinating insight...

Can we have a slow handclap emoticon, do you think?

:yuk:

Islander2

25th Sep 2007, 18:17

Humour me, bose-x, I think you'll find it is central to the discussion. I was only looking for a simple 'yes' or 'no', it's not that difficult is it? ;)

Kit d'Rection KG

25th Sep 2007, 18:19

bose-x, or is it that you admit you don't know what you're talking about?

S-Works

25th Sep 2007, 18:56

bose-x, or is it that you admit you don't know what you're talking about?

Dunno, do you think I fell of the pack of a cornflake packet....

I am not getting embroiled in a PPL flying argument or anymore arguments on what is a commercial flight. I do know that the nice man who just offered me a job flying his King Air does not have an AOC and does not need one.

Islander: You know as well as I do that the answer is to complex for a yes or no and as I was not discussing what a PPL can or can't do I am not going to be drawn on the subject. (your bag should be here in 2 weeks by the way)

IO540

25th Sep 2007, 18:59

Islander2

25th Sep 2007, 19:15

bose-x: My question was not to do with what a PPL can or cannot do. I merely wanted to establish that your answer to the question was 'yes'. Alternatively, you would have had to make the really perverse argument that the act of paying the pilot converts a public transport flight into a private/aerial work one. (PS thanks for the help with the bag!)

IO540: no problem, but I understand your answer to be 'yes'.

So we've established that you believe a passenger can take a ride with a PPL and pay for the entire costs of the flight.

Which leads us to the more difficult question:

If that's the case, why did the CAA some years ago introduce legislation that enabled the passenger to be able to pay anything at all, in those circumstances, but at the same time limit it to the passengers' share of the costs (what is now Art 160, the cost sharing rule) ??

S-Works

25th Sep 2007, 19:24

Still the answer is I don't know. I only know the bits that I have stated!

bookworm

25th Sep 2007, 19:56

So we've established that you believe a passenger can take a ride with a PPL and pay for the entire costs of the flight.

Nah, you haven't. You've established that the hirer of an aircraft can give valuable consideration for the primary purpose of conferring on a particular person the right to fly the aircraft on a flight. In your scenario, valuable consideration was not given or promised for the carriage of passengers.

S-Works

25th Sep 2007, 19:59

Ah, the voice of sanity, I knew bookworm would be along in due course. I hand over to him to do battle on the pedantry front.

Popcorn anyone?

IO540

25th Sep 2007, 20:04

No Islander.

So we've established that you believe a passenger can take a ride with a PPL and pay for the entire costs of the flight.

That's not what I said. I said:

I can use some PPL pilot to fly me around in a plane which I free issue to him, him being unpaid, of course.

Kit d'Rection KG

25th Sep 2007, 20:06

Has anyone calculated the number of hours wasted here by people pontificating on topics which are utterly beyond their grasp?

Or has anyone attempted to quantify the good deeds which could have filled those hours, and attempted to guess how much better our world could be?

It never escapes me that pilots (and others, oh, too many others) will spend hours on end posting and reading utter rubbish, but ask them to do some training or demonstrate even the most basic competence to a proper examiner, and it's an unfair 'tax' on their activity...

Islander2

25th Sep 2007, 20:08

Bookworm, really?

1. The payer of the valuable consideration was a passenger, he was not being granted rights "to fly the aircraft on a flight".

2. What about his payment of the fuel bill and the landing fees? That's got nothing to do with conferring rights?

3. Again, if you were correct, any passenger flying with a PPL could pick up all the costs ... arguing that it was merely conferring on his pilot the right to fly the aeroplane. Ergo, Article 160 (cost sharing) is meaningless.

S-Works

25th Sep 2007, 20:08

Kit.....

I have calculated how long it will take me to tell you

"to get back in your box" and its 2 seconds. :p

Islander2

25th Sep 2007, 20:12

The CAA regs are intended to prevent the pilot making money.
Well, that's a really new take on the public transport legislation. :D

Fuji Abound

25th Sep 2007, 21:36

If the law cant be understood by those who are having to apply it then something has gone very wrong with the law.

bookworm

25th Sep 2007, 22:34

1. The payer of the valuable consideration was a passenger, he was not being granted rights "to fly the aircraft on a flight".

And it doesn't have to be the payor who is granted those rights. You're the one arguing interpretation on the basis of the choice of phrasing of the law. Why would the law say "on a particular person" rather than saying something rather simpler if it did not envisage a situation in which the payor and the "particular person" were different?

2. What about his payment of the fuel bill and the landing fees? That's got nothing to do with conferring rights?

I don't see what that has to do with it. If paying a fuel bill is regarded as valuable consideration given or promised in respect of a flight, every flight becomes at least aerial work. Someone always pays a third party for fuel and for landing fees.

3. Again, if you were correct, any passenger flying with a PPL could pick up all the costs ... arguing that it was merely conferring on his pilot the right to fly the aeroplane. Ergo, Article 160 (cost sharing) is meaningless.

On the contrary, Art 160 covers a much broader range of cases than one person hiring an aircraft and allowing another to fly it.

IO540

25th Sep 2007, 23:41

Islander you are right about that bit and I have edited my post for that.

Islander2

26th Sep 2007, 06:57

I don't see what that has to do with it. If paying a fuel bill is regarded as valuable consideration given or promised in respect of a flight, every flight becomes at least aerial work. Someone always pays a third party for fuel and for landing fees.So, you too believe that a passenger can pay the entire costs of the fuel and the landing fees for a flight without it becoming public transport? In your interpretation, does the law limit the circumstances where that can be done? If so, which Articles achieve that limitation?

Presumably your argument would extend to euro-nav charges, approach charges, oil used and any and all other direct costs of the flight? It is unclear as to why they would be any different, conceptually, from fuel and landing fees.

How about a proportion of the annual costs then? As you say, someone always pays a third party for maintenance, hangarage, insurance!

Your argument leads to the conclusion that, at least in certain circumstances, a passenger can pay the entire costs of the flight without it being public transport ... which indeed is what happens with a lot of the 'heavier metal' in General Aviation.

But we are trying to establish the legal basis and limitations, if any, for that type of operation in order that we don't fall foul of what is a complex area of legislation.

Edited to delete further reference to Article 160 since it perhaps muddies the waters.

I've lost the will to continue this battle! The consensus seems to be that it is legal:

a) on an ad hoc basis, to rent a G-reg aircraft from an FTO that doesn't have an AOC, hire a CPL to fly the aeroplane, travel in the aeroplane as a passenger and pay for the fuel, the landing fees and the pilot as well as the rental charges; and also

b) to fly as a passenger with a PPL, but get around the cost sharing rules by paying the hirer for the rental cost yourself, as well as paying for all the direct costs yourself.

Speaking as someone who used to run a company with an AOC, I imagine there will more than a few AOC holders who would be disappointed if that is truly the case!

I believe it merits seeking clarification from the CAA, which I shall endeavour to do.

S-Works

26th Sep 2007, 08:25

A passenger can pay the entire costs of a flight, however unless he has a commercial pilot at the helm it would be illegal.

Example:

A. Man owns shiny citation, wants to fly to Guernsey on the beer and asks PPL who has type rating to fly him down there, owner of the aircraft pays all costs this is illegal as PPL pilot is not cost sharing.

B. Man owns shiny citation, wants to fly to Guernsey on the beer and asks CPL who has type rating to fly him down there, owner of the aircraft pays all costs this is a private flight being flown legally as the pilot has a CPL and no seats or cargo space are being sold to make it public transport.

C. Man rents shiny Citation from local Branch of Avis or buys on lease etc etc ...... wants to fly to Guernsey on the beer and asks CPL who has type rating to fly him down there, owner of the aircraft pays all costs this is a private flight being flown legally as the pilot has a CPL and no seats or cargo space are being sold to make it public transport.

Any other attempts at twisting the law that I have not picked up in this discussion are outside of the above comment.

This is exactly how the owners of private jets operate. My friend owns the Citation in this example and does exactly this. He keeps a number of CPL holders on standby with type ratings. He does not require an AOC fro private flying.

Islander2

26th Sep 2007, 08:32

A passenger can pay the entire costs of a flight, however unless he has a commercial pilot at the helm it would be illegal ...Man owns shiny citation, wants to fly to Guernsey on the beer and asks PPL who has type rating to fly him down there, owner of the aircraft pays all costs this is illegal as PPL pilot is not cost sharing.
As I said before, bose-x, if I understand correctly what you are saying, and it's true, it's rather perverse.

Paraphrasing: "it's a public transport flight if the passenger pays all the costs except the pilot, but it becomes an aerial work/private flight if he pays the pilot as well!"

Islander2

26th Sep 2007, 09:16

Islander2

26th Sep 2007, 11:36

Finally, one more scenario for those that believe that either or both of the previous two are legal.

I own an aeroplane (with an EASA CoA) that is maintained to public transport standards. I also have a CPL. From time to time I'm asked by friends to take them somewhere "all expenses paid". Whenever I've obliged, I've limited their payments to those permitted for cost sharing by Article 160. So, are you saying (and let's assume there are no companies involved in this) that instead:

"it would be legal for me to rent my aeroplane to the friend under a hire agreement (at a rate comparable to what an FTO would charge) and also charge them under a separate agreement for my services as a pilot of that aeroplane"?

And if you don't believe that scenario is legal whilst maintaining that one or other (or both) of the previous two scenarios are legal, please give the appropriate references from the ANO.

I really have run out of steam on this now. Anyone care to commit themselves to answers on these three scenarios ahead of any clarification I get from the CAA?

mm_flynn

26th Sep 2007, 11:42

This is a case where the FAA wording is much easier to understand.

If you are the 'Integrator' who procures an aircraft and, from a totally separate source, procure a pilot to fly you around in 'your' aircraft this is private. You are allowed to pay your professional pilot, just as you can pay your driver.

If you procure an integrated service (ie. an aircraft with flight crew) from someone (or closely related entities) this is Public Transport.

Back in CAA land I am now hopelessly muddled:confused:

The actions of large numbers of Jet operators (operating exactly to Bose's Case B and C) who are not being prosecuted, seem to imply these are NOT examples of illegal public transport.

I don't quite understand why Bose's Case A would be illegal (so long as the pilot isn't being paid). This in principle isn't any different from a PPL getting free use of the club plane to collect someone who just dropped another aircraft off - which I am led to believe happens in flying clubs and schools.

However, as Islander says, this then makes the cost sharing rules a bit confusing. They clearly apply in the case where the pilot owns or rents the aircraft. However, the above interpretation allows for member of the public to lease, buy, rent an aircraft and then have his pilot friend fly him.

Now in real life, it is difficult to see this applying to aircraft rental as no one should rent to a non-pilot. However, lease and sale could be agreed by a non-pilot and I am unclear if this would have the CAA's blessing or not??? (though the large number of non AOC jets would say it is fine)

Added - the above two paragraphs reflects the general comments, not the specific example in the post above, which is clearly public transport if not 'cost shared'

S-Works

26th Sep 2007, 13:52

I am actually completely lost as to what we are actually discussing now!

I know the cases I have quoted are correct, response from CAA enforcement branch this morning confirms it.

The example that Islander quotes about providing his own aircraft is illegal as it is basically air taxi work and requires an AOC. But with a CPL he can go and fly someone else's aircraft for them for a wage.

Everything else that seems to be getting talked about here is just an attempt at manipulating what are pretty clear rules. So I shall withdraw from the discussion I think!

IO540

26th Sep 2007, 14:40

A. Man owns shiny citation, wants to fly to Guernsey on the beer and asks PPL who has type rating to fly him down there, owner of the aircraft pays all costs this is illegal as PPL pilot is not cost sharing.

Are you sure, Bose?

Why is the free issue of a plane to a PPL illegal?

Specifically, I mean in the absence of a contract. He is free to walk away from it, or, presumably, he is free to drive me there instead. He freely chooses to fly me from A to B in a plane I make available to him. This is definitely 100% legal in the employment context, where the "company pilot" needs a CPL only if he is contractually bound to fly (has no alternative travel options).

As a related data point, I have myself spoken to the head of the CAA Enforcement Branch a couple of years ago. The man, I have been told later, is actually on the DfT payroll but works at the CAA. His answer to the question I put to him turned out to be made up on the spot and completely wrong.

Another pilot I know has just sold his G-reg plane to buy an N-reg one, because the CAA told him that his FAA PPL is good for a G-reg only in the UK!! In fact it is good worldwide (Art 26 (4) automatic validation IIRC).

Numerous replies which I have had from the CAA in writing have been completely accurate, but they contained references to the ANO articles.

S-Works

26th Sep 2007, 17:18

I guess if the PPL was employed by the company it could work, but my scenario was around a couple of friends doing this with no cost share going on.

Above and beyond that it is beyond my experience and I would defer to the CAA to give a written statement.

mm_flynn

26th Sep 2007, 20:40

I am being thick here, but I still don't understand why a CPL can fly someone else's aircraft (or an aircraft leased/rented by someone else) with them in it but a PPL can not?

The argument advanced by Bose & IO540 (with which I agree) appears to be, for owned or leased aircraft, the vast amounts of money spent by the owner/leasee (Fuel, oil, lease payments, insurance, hangerage, annuals, capital investments, and all of the other things we all know and love) is NOT 'Valuable Consideration in respect of the Flight'; which, as Bookworm points out, is reasonable, otherwise all flights would be Aerial Work.

In the event that the vast sum of money is spent for the rental of the aircraft (which I believe is what 'for the primary purpose of conferring on a particular person the right to fly the aircraft on that flight' means) this makes the flight Aerial Work and Requires most of the airworthiness rules of PT to apply. But does not make the flight Public Transport.

So, in English this says,

If you rent a plane it must be on a Public CofA, but is not public transport,
If you pay a pilot he must be a CPL, but it is a private flight with regard to airworthiness (Part 3) and AOC requirements
It also says (part 160) a passenger can pay to be flown if there are less than four passengers, the passengers pay no more than their share of the direct costs and the pilot is not employed as a pilot by the aircraft operator.

Now, for me, this says gent with Citation and Paid CPL pilot can have his pilot fly him and his friends around for free, but can't ask for a cost share (Pilot 'employed' by operator), but same gent with PPL friend could cost share, but equally could have PPL friend fly his aircraft around for free (as the only valuable consideration is the vast sum that the owner/leasee/renter has paid to acquire and operate the aircraft.

I can't see where it addresses Islander's point that to get around AOC requirements you could simply sell the aircraft and the pilot in two separate transactions. You explicitly are prevented from doing this for cost sharing but I can not see the more general restriction.

Note - Joint owned aircraft are more restricted because 162 makes the operating and ownership costs from the individual to the group a Valuable Consideration and thus seems to prevent employing a pilot for a group aircraft.

Back to the original question of Bose's Case A - I still can't see why the PPL is required to cost share but the CPL isn't?

Muddled of Surrey

radicalrabit

27th Sep 2007, 14:18

Excellent Have read this thread with tears of laughter rolling down my face and shared the delerium with many in the office. Your JC comments were spot on and honestly worthy of publication elswhere infact I think a book is in order that could be published with some of the comments on here. Fishing Knitting whale hunting and Drunken Moose' IN AN AVIATION FORUM? WHAT EVER NEXT Thanks guys for brightening up a very quiet day in the I.T. Room.

Islander2

27th Sep 2007, 17:33

Well, you know what, radicalrabit, I am perfectly happy to continue posting on this topic in the face of sarcasm and ridicule from you, confident in the belief that your views are in the minority.

There are three threads running concurrently on this topic of what does and doesn’t constitute public transport flight. Some 50 contributors have made 150 posts that have had 4,500 viewings. That hardly supports the contention of you and your ilk that it is boring/trivial/irrelevant.

There’s always going to be the cowboys who couldn’t give a damn whether or not they break the law and whether or not they get a criminal record. For the others, it’s necessary to understand what the law actually is, and if nothing else I would suggest to you that this thread has demonstrated exactly how much ambiguity there is in this area.

If you think you have a worthwhile contribution to make, why not tell us which, if any, of the three scenarios I’ve quoted are legal, and why?

If not ….....

Edited to add: Ok, I bit, silly me! Now I see you're not actually a pilot ... but someone who asks plentiful questions about the legalities of buying a Cheyenne / Jetstream / Chieftan / Merlin III etc (the actual aeroplane seems to vary with the day of the week!) to fly the millionairess you rescued back and forth to her yacht using pilots (until you've got your CPL, of course!) hired into an operation that you'd like to run as a charity. Would have thought you'd find this 'public transport' discussion quite helpful, in the circumstances, especially since you posed the specific question about the requirement for an AOC, but don't feel the need to say "thank you"!!! What was it Clarkson said? Oh yes: "nothing in all the world is likely to be quite so boring and pointless."

AdLib

27th Sep 2007, 21:05

KerrrIST on a bike. And I thought flying was meant to be fun. It appears we're victims of some cruel joke disguised as a legislative body and an ANO, only some of us are prepared to argue the case until the cows come home, have some dinner, a nice bath, bedtime story, good kip, get up in the morning, breakfast, go out for a bit of a stroll, visit a museum, spot of lunch ......

For pities sake, please stop.

Moderators: can we have a new forum ... "Legal sh1te"
Posters: how about some etiquette? e.g.

What an interesting point your last post raised Thunderbox. I think that's worth some discussion so I've started a thread on "Legal Sh1te". Here's the link: <link>

Now go and do some flying.

I've just realised ... some people must regard flying as just a job! ha haha hahaahaah hhaaaaaahhaaaaaahaaaaaa

Fuji Abound

27th Sep 2007, 21:19

Some people find such discussions interesting and useful .. .. ..

.. .. .. if you dont, its simple,

dont follow the thread! :)

DFC

27th Sep 2007, 23:51

Just a few small points;

The cost sharing articles were put in place not so that passengers could share the costs. They were put in place so that the pilot could with certain limitations share the costs of the flight with his/her passengers and thus have money changing hands (in fact the pilot can make it a requirement) without it being public transport. It also permits advertising in a club environment.

Flights with the sole purpose of carrying passengers or cargo can not be aerial work.

Aerial work includes flight instruction, aerial photography, agricultural work, pipe line inspections etc. Passengers may be carried in the course of the aerial work eg people to operate the camera etc but the purpose of the flight is not the transportation of people or cargo.

If you are flying for the purpose of transporting cargo or persons then the flight is either Private or Public Transport.....depending on if and how money changes hands.

If a pilot who is qualified is asked to or offers to fly any aircraft on what is legally a private flight then they can have a PPL a CPL ot an ATPL because it does not make any difference.

If you have a few million sitting round that you can put into a citation and a few more for the operating costs and you can find a pilot who has a type rating and maintains it with no contribution from you and who can fly you for free then you are indeed a lucky lucky person. I am trying to decide if the people who invest that much money and risk themselves and their investment (insurance must be an issue) with a pilot that they have no way of ensuring the safe operating practices of or pilots who can maintain a citation rating and also cover the personal expenses of flying someone else are more rare. :)

In the above case there is no payment other than perhaps a mortgage or lease on the aircraft but to explain it in simple terms, you can take money out of your own bank account and pay yourself as much as you want without the tax man being even slightly worried. You can't sue yourself and you can't tax yourself and you can't take yourself to court.

If there were so many people doing such things it is amazing that Netjets, LEA and God knows how many othrer operators are making a profit and attracting customers who could well afford to do the above?

No doubt, those that those who claimto have the definitive answer from the CAA will be able to provide the name of the person and what they said. :E

Regards,

DFC

Fuji Abound

28th Sep 2007, 07:43

No doubt, those that those who claimto have the definitive answer from the CAA will be able to provide the name of the person and what they said.

I find the CAA excellent at giving "definitive" answers. If it really matters to you it is well worth writing.

However, DFC, as I suspect you know, those who have taken the trouble to do so probably wont give you what you want!

Here is why .. .. ..

"You should not copy or use this e-mail or attachments for any purpose nor disclose their contents to any other person."

.. .. .. at least that one is easy to understand! :)

stuartforrest

28th Sep 2007, 08:47

Oh I see Islander2 I am a cowboy now because I wanted a lift to pick up my plane. You to**er.

There is some crap that is spoken on here and I bet if you needed to pick up your plane you wouldn't have hesitated offering to cover someone's fuel costs to do it. What a load of rubbish.

I know now why they don't need police in the air because they have got people like you.

Kit d'Rection KG

28th Sep 2007, 09:19

stuart,

If you'd posted saying 'Could someone take me for free, and I'll return the compliment?' or, 'could someone recommend a good NW-based air taxi company?', or 'I've got this problem... can someone suggest a way out of it?', then you'd have no grounds for complaint, and you'd very probably have found the help you needed.

Instead, and probably without thinking, you asked someone to offer to break the law.

As I view it here, there is no shortage of t**sers.

Islander2

28th Sep 2007, 09:21

Oh I see Islander2 I am a cowboy now because I wanted a lift to pick up my plane. You to**er.Taken completely out of context, stuartforrest. I think it's perfectly clear that my comment was aimed at those criticising the debate, not at you for wanting to collect your aeroplane.

Despite you calling me a to**er, I actually do hope your retrieval efforts were successful.

And that, I'm sure you'll be very pleased to learn, is my last word on this thread!

stuartforrest

28th Sep 2007, 09:40

In that case please accept my apology but come on, five pages of nonsense over someone trying to get a lift to pick up their plane. No wonder so many people give up flying.
The bureaucracy in aviation is madness and sometimes it requires a dose of realism I believe. Mind you there is probably a rule about that too.

IO540

28th Sep 2007, 11:10

The main requirement for reading any pilot forum is to pick up on interesting stuff and ignore the rest.

It's fun, up to a point, to debate subtle legal points but it's very difficult because the ANO is such a mess that very few people understand it.

As I've said many times, the whole purpose of the restriction on PPLs and money is to prevent PPLs doing large scale commercial flying and thus it is there to protect AOC holders (a major revenue source to the CAA) and ostensibly to protect the "fare paying" public which is assumed to have greater expectations of safety.

None of it is relevant to some private deal between a couple of individuals. The deal may be illegal but history suggests the CAA is not going to prosecute (even if they find out) unless they are out to get somebody for some other reason. They like going after individuals who have a "history". Just like the police actually; after all the enforcement dept is staffed with former policemen.

I can think of only one occassion where a deal between two people resulted in legal action; in that case the person paying had a dispute (an axe to grind, therefore) with the recipient and he took his grudge to the CAA who then went after the other one who, being an honest chap, freely admitted it. IMHO had he denied it they would not have been able to do anything about it.

BEagle

28th Sep 2007, 11:43

"You should not copy or use this e-mail or attachments for any purpose nor disclose their contents to any other person."

That is a recommendation only - it does not say "You shall not......"

Which presumably the Belganists understand, talking Eurospeak as they do.

I must say that the FAA definitions seem a lot clearer. Far too many fuzzy boundaries in CAA-land.

"I'm going to LeTookay - anyone fancy coming and sharing the costs?" = Legal on the Club noticeboard/private website. Illegal if adertised in the Smalltown Echo.

"If I pay the cost, would you take me to LeTookay tomorrow?" = Illegal unless it's a call to some air taxi operator.

Anything in between - as we've seen, somewhat grey.

IO540

28th Sep 2007, 12:02

Correct, Beagle, except the ANO does not refer to "private website".

This is a little extension which a lot of people think is allowable and I can't see why not. But a private website does not amount to "club premises" which IIRC is what the ANO requires.

This is why most such proposals, on websites, refer to seat sharing, and any cost sharing deals are left to be done between the individuals when they meet up.

What is a "private website" anyway? One which is password protected? One where you have to purchase a membership? It's a good question which is relevant to other contexts too. The world is changing....

bookworm

29th Sep 2007, 16:34

Worth, perhaps, reminding people that the CAA's own paper attempting to simply the law in this area poses two key tests to determine whether or not a flight is public transport:

1. whether or not there are any passengers on board (and a passenger is defined as anyone other than crew); and

2. whether any payment has been given or promised which, if it had not been given or promised, would mean that the passengers would not have been carried.

In the two scenarios I put at the bottom of post #81, it seems to me that these key tests have not been passed - if the passenger didn't pay the costs of the flight, they wouldn't be carried (seems difficult to argue otherwise).

OK, here's another scenario.

I'm a PPL. I'd like a nice day at the seaside with 3 friends. I go to a flying club, get my wallet out, and ask to rent an aeroplane. They offer me a C152, barely capable of lifting me, let alone my friends. I tell them that if I can't rent something that can take 3 passengers, I'm not going to bother. So they offer me a C182. I say "that's better but haven't you got something with the wing in the right place?"... oh no sorry, I digress. ;) I accept the C182 and the 4 of us fly to the seaside and back, with me picking up the entire bill at the end of the day.

If my payment had not been given or promised, the flight would not have taken place, and the passengers would not have been carried. Additionally, if there had been no passengers, I would not have bothered to hire the aircraft. My flight was clearly for the purpose of carriage of both me and my passengers. Was it therefore a public transport operation (for the purposes of all sections of the ANO, not just Part 3)?

The law is ambiguous. In the end, I think it comes down to the intention of the legislation to offer a higher level of protection to the fare-paying passenger who may not have the knowledge nor the experience to protect themselves. If a potential passenger genuinely procures a general aviation aircraft and, perhaps separately, procures a private pilot to fly the aircraft, it is likely that passenger has a good idea about the nature of general aviation, its limitations, and its risks. If by contrast the passenger is duped into an air taxi operation masquerading as aircraft hire with a crew thrown in for free, it's right that the law should offer some protection.

(FWIW, I think Stuart clearly falls into the first category!)

IO540

29th Sep 2007, 16:48

Good example bookworm.

However I think the CAA rather likes the ambiguity, because it enables them to go after various unapproved public transport schemes.

Including ones where the pilot isn't being paid anything but the money goes to some related party.

Having said that, there was some PPL "up north" running sightseeing pleasure flights who had a very imaginative scheme (described to me in a PM a year or so ago but I have lost the details; certainly the pilot was not getting paid anything) which the CAA tried to bust but they failed.

Fuji Abound

29th Sep 2007, 20:27

(FWIW, I think Stuart clearly falls into the first category!)

Nah, for what it is worth any pilot who sits in the right seat with me is crew - whatever the CAA says .. .. ..

I always tell them if you are not happy with anything you see me doing for ch**£$ sake tell me!

DFC

29th Sep 2007, 20:58

You did not pay for the carriage of passengers on any flight.

You did pay for the right to fly the aircraft.

No more and no less.

You could have flown the aircraft empty in the circuit or full to the beach, it would not have made any difference to the arrangement you made. You could have even taken the aircraft on a busy Sunday and left it parked for 6 hours and paid the owner the minimum hours rate that many charge. In other words, having arranged for and obtained the right to use the suitable aircraft the owner's part in what happened next ended.

What the person with the aircraft did was simply do what every flying club in the country does ( stop make that most or atleast some) - provide a service to it's customers that matches their needs.

The aircraft needs a C of A/ maintenance standard for public transport flight and that is all.

You could have shared the costs as per the rules with the passengers and you could have even told them that if they did not pay an appropriate share they could not travel. However, you and the adult passengers would have to be members of the same club.

--------

That leads nicely onto the question of what is a club!

Four individuals with absolutely no connection decide since one of them is a pilot to hire a C182 and go to the beach. Unless they form a club they can not strictly share the costs.

So they meet and agree to club together for the costs of the flight. Hence a club is born!

Regards,

DFC

flybymike

29th Sep 2007, 22:57

Goodness me. Well, haven't we come a long way since a lift to the Scillies....
Well here is a new bit of thread drift. Can a PPL who takes photos from his aeroplane and receives no direct payment for the flying, legally sell the photos afterwards ?

bookworm

30th Sep 2007, 09:42

You could have flown the aircraft empty in the circuit or full to the beach, it would not have made any difference to the arrangement you made.

Similarly, my friend could have paid the entire cost of the aircraft rental. He could have allowed me to fly the aircraft empty in the circuit or full (including him) to the beach.

He did not pay for the carriage of passengers on any flight.

He did pay for the right for me to fly the aircraft.

No more and no less.

Agreed? If not why not?

However, you and the adult passengers would have to be members of the same club.
...
Four individuals with absolutely no connection decide since one of them is a pilot to hire a C182 and go to the beach. Unless they form a club they can not strictly share the costs.

Of course they can. The only mention of a club in the legislation is in relation to advertising the flight.

DFC

30th Sep 2007, 12:04

Flybymike,

If the purpose of the flight was to take photographs which could be sold at a later date then it is aerial work.

If however, the flight was simply a private flight from a to b on which you just happened to take some nice pictures which some time later someone offers you money for then the flight would not have been aerial work.

Similarly, if you are on your merry way from A to B with your wife and a video camera. By pure coincidence you come across something unusual and newsworthy which you had no way of knowing about before departure. While continuing the flight, your wife videos the event and then offers the coverage to the BBC on return. Even if they pay her for it, it was not aerial work.....merely a lucky co-incidence.

----------

Bookworm,

Your friend paid a sum of money and you paid nothing. You obtained the right to fly the aircraft.

You, your friend and the aircraft owner are standing together.

Your friend gives you the money which amounts to the full direct cost of the flight and you pay the money to the owner.

or

Your friend bypasses you and hands the money directly to the owner.

Please explain the difference in overall payment!

You go flying and it is public transport if your friend is carried because;

a) You have received valuable consideration - how much did you gain by not having to pay the hire cost of the aircraft; and

b) A passenger was carried who would not have been carried if the money was not paid.

If however, you pay your share of the costs or no passengers are caried then it is not.

------

Here is a different situation which is what you are trying to get at - Your friend hires the aircraft for you for 2 hours. Insted of flying solo, you take your wife to the beach and back. Not public transport because the payment is not linked in any way to your wife travelling or not.

------

You are correct regarding the advertisement. However the point I was trying to make is that the term club is not well defined legally. You could form a club that meets at several premises which just happen to be public houses or golf clubs and there-in you (with the permission of the landlord of course) advertise flights.

Regards,

DFC

IO540

30th Sep 2007, 12:46

As usual, there is a certain amount of amateur brain surgery going on here.

Similarly, if you are on your merry way from A to B with your wife and a video camera. By pure coincidence you come across something unusual and newsworthy which you had no way of knowing about before departure [my bold]

I would like a reference for the bit in bold. That would rule out the commercial use of virtually any picture one ever took while flying.

To break the law in a way in which there is the slightest possibility of a prosecution supported by any evidence whatsoever (surely a requirement of an illegal act?) the picture taking would have to be either within an established pattern of previous flights followed by picture selling, or commissioned by another person in advance of the flight.

I also think that if the "club premises" bit ever got tested legally then some case law from other walks of life would uphold that a website based gathering of people, with a membership mechanism, is just as good. However I am sure the CAA would be very unhappy about even trying to establish this as it would (in their eyes anyway) open the doors to various imaginative but fairly obvious schemes for advertising and conducting charter flights.

bookworm

30th Sep 2007, 15:42

Your friend paid a sum of money and you paid nothing. You obtained the right to fly the aircraft.

You, your friend and the aircraft owner are standing together.

Your friend gives you the money which amounts to the full direct cost of the flight and you pay the money to the owner.

or

Your friend bypasses you and hands the money directly to the owner.

Please explain the difference in overall payment!

OK. Compare with my original scenario:

I, my friend and the aircraft owner are standing together.

I give my friend the money which amounts to the full direct cost of the flight and he pays the money to the owner.

or

I bypass my friend and hand the money directly to the owner.

Please explain the difference in overall payment!

In either case, if my friend is not going to be carried, neither of us is going to be paying the money to the owner. And yet you say this isn't public transport but the first scenario is.

We can discuss this forever and I think all we're going to do is illuminate shades of grey.

DFC

30th Sep 2007, 18:48

IO540,

If it was coincidence then there was no intent. Hearing about a newsworthy item and setting off to film it shows that the intention of the flight was to take the photos or record the coverage......hence in Court it would be hard to deny that the purpose (intention) of the flight was aerial work if you later received valuable consideration for them.

If you depart on a flight for the purpose of photgraphing a nice sunset or another aircraft in flight and get paid for the photos then ot could be hard to convince the jury that the purpose was not aerial work.

If you offer to do your photgrapher friend a free favour and take him up for free to photograph a petrol station. Provided that you can convince a jury that you had no idea why he was photographing the petrol station then no problem if after the flight your friend sells the photo to a local estate agent.

One-offs are not what the CAA are chasing up. They put the effort into catching those that reguluarly do the same trip or same type of trip and there is a snif of PT or aerial work.

With regard to imaginative schemes - there are plenty that can be done without even having to go to such lengths. However, in all cases the pilot has to pay atleaset 1/4 (pilot plus 3 passengers) of the costs. Many hour builders cost share their flights with atleast one other person and thus reduce the cost of building the 100 or so hours between PPL and CPL. Perfectly legal especially since the hour builder can turn round and say that the hours were going to be flown anyway - passenger or no passenger.

--------

Bookworm,

The difference is that in one example the pilot is paying the full cost of the flight - no problem but in the second, it is the passenger who is paying the full cost of the flight and not just their share of the cost.

If you go back the the suggestion I gave to the original situation i.e. pilot friend hires the aircraft for the leg from NE to SW UK at a rate that (by coincidence) covers the cost of the round trip. It only works because the pilot friend can be P1 on the leg they pay for and are not a passenger on the return.

Regards,

DFC

bookworm

30th Sep 2007, 19:37

The difference is that in one example the pilot is paying the full cost of the flight - no problem but in the second, it is the passenger who is paying the full cost of the flight and not just their share of the cost.

My point was that the law doesn't distinguish on the basis of whether the pilot is paying or not. Nowhere does it say "the pilot must pay for his flight".

It distinguishes on the basis of whether valuable consideration is given or promised by anyone for the carriage of passengers on the flight. And I don't think that's adequate to distinguish the two scenarios.

However, let's just look at that cost-sharing provision again:

160 (1) Subject to paragraph (4), a flight shall be deemed to be a private flight if the only valuable consideration given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight falls within paragraph (2) and the criteria in paragraph (3) are satisfied.

(2) Valuable consideration falls within this paragraph if it is:
(a) valuable consideration specified in article 157(3)(c);
(b) in the case of an aircraft owned in accordance with article 162(2), valuable
consideration which falls within article 162(3); or
(c) is a contribution to the direct costs of the flight otherwise payable by the pilot in
command;
or falls within any two or all three sub-paragraphs.

(3) The criteria in this paragraph are satisfied if:
(a) no more than 4 persons (including the pilot) are carried;
(b) the proportion which the contribution referred to in paragraph 2(c) bears to the
direct costs shall not exceed the proportion which the number of persons carried on the flight (excluding the pilot) bears to the number of persons carried (including the pilot);
...

Note that it doesn't say "the contribution referred to in paragraph 2". It says "the contribution referred to in paragraph 2(c)". But the rental fee is referred to in paragraph 2(a). If a passenger may give the valuable consideration referred to in paragraph 2(c) (which he clearly can otherwise cost-sharing can't work), what's to stop the passenger giving the valuable consideration referred to in paragraph 2(a), and giving the whole of it?

(The wording was different before the 2005 draft.)

mm_flynn

30th Sep 2007, 19:41

IO540,
Bookworm,
The difference is that in one example the pilot is paying the full cost of the flight - no problem but in the second, it is the passenger who is paying the full cost of the flight and not just their share of the cost.

We have already established it is common for the passenger to pay the full cost of the flight (everyone who has a professional pilot fly their aircraft with them in it, or lets some one fly P1 in their aircraft) and the first example is so common and blatant, that if it were dodgy the CAA would have a field day!

The fact Bookworm's scenario is a rental certainly means that the aircraft has to have a Public CofA (the whole 157 3c thing), the more transactional nature of a rental makes it closer to a charter, but a payment being made by someone other than the pilot for the rental, falls very squarely into the language of '... conferring on a particular person...' (noting it does not say '... conferring on the payer...'), 157 4 then specifically identifies this payment as not in and of itself making a flight Public Transport.

So a true case where a knowledgeable renter hires an aircraft and is flown by his pilot (or his pilot friend) seems to be legal. 157 7 appears to be the bit that says if wanna be operator rents a plane and organises a pilot to carry a punter this is Public Transport.
----
PS. and what BW said.