Aerial Survey work on a PPL [Archive]

hoodie

1st Nov 2007, 10:36

This will help you: "Summary of the Meaning of Public Transport & Aerial Work (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/122/summary_of_public_transport.pdf)" (CAA)

Form which comes:

Aerial Work (Article 157 (1) and (2))
2.1.1 A flight is for the purpose of aerial work if payment is made in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight, unless the flight is in fact for the purpose of public transport (see para 2.2 below).
2.1.2 If the only payment involved is the payment of the pilot, the flight is deemed to be private for airworthiness purposes (although it will still be aerial work for other purposes, e.g. flight crew licensing). This enables a private owner to pay a flying instructor for a flying lesson in his own aircraft even though the continuing airworthiness requirements that would be applicable to public transport aircraft may not have been applied.

My undertsnading of 2.1.1 is that it means "No, you can't" because the "purpose of the flight" is to conduct work which will be paid for.

S-Works

1st Nov 2007, 10:48

Whilst not condoning it, yes you can. As long as you receive no valuable consideration you can do it.

There is an FI at Sywell for example who is employed as a receptionist who happens to teach most of the day as he is unable to get a JAA CPL. Perfectly legal unless he is required to fly.

homeguard

1st Nov 2007, 11:00

The simplest way to look at this is to consider the purpose of the flight. From what is desribed the purpose is to undertake an aerial survey. To pilot an aircraft for such a purpose on behalf of other people it is 'aerial work' irrespective of whether money changes hands or not. If others are carried also for the purpose it becomes the public transport of passengers.

I mention "on behalf of other people" because should you be a surveyor and flying yourself to do the survey for your own purposes then it would not be aerial work. In this case you would be using the aeroplane in the same way that you might otherwise use your car. Using the aeroplane musn't in itself be a requirement to do the job otherwise the actual flight is for the purpose of 'aerial work' or 'public transport'.

An example of non-public transport/Aerial work would be; you and three others from your office need to be at a certain place by a certain time. You elect to hire an aeroplane with you as pilot, this being a quicker and preferred method to driving. It is clearly a private flight and you take no benefit for you had to go anyway.

wrathchild666

1st Nov 2007, 11:01

Bloody annoying isn't it? Considering the flying involved would be very straightforward, nothing out of the ordinary at all. I suppose the problem with being employed in some other capacity (officially) with the organisation in question, but performing the flights, raises the problem of the aircrafts tech log corresponding with my log entries. It's not as if i could conceal the fact i was flying the aircraft. Even if i was the 'receptionist' (officially). Would it then mean i could do it if i paid my share of the flights?

DFC

1st Nov 2007, 11:38

Bose said;

Whilst not condoning it, yes you can. As long as you receive no valuable consideration you can do it.

There is an FI at Sywell for example who is employed as a receptionist who happens to teach most of the day as he is unable to get a JAA CPL. Perfectly legal unless he is required to fly.

No. No. and again No.

As many others have pointed out, it is not simply a matter of not paying the pilot. Unless everything done is free i.e. the operator in the back is not being paid anything (and can choose not to fly with no fear of an adverse outcome) and whoever is doing the survey is not receiving anything valuable while remembering that having a survey done to support your own planning application or other project is very valuable indeed.

If the situation is as you describe at Sywell and it is not training for a Microlight Rating (which a PPL can be paid for) then;

a) It is clear from what you say that the person is not "employed" as a receptionist because as you point out, you will never see them "employed" in that capacity.

b) If as you say they spend their time providing flight instruction for an organisation that provides them with valuable consideration when they are not actively employed in another capacity (see a)) then they and the organisation are operating illegally; and

Most importantly -

All training conducted by such an FI would be illegal and thus not count towards the training required for a licence or rating issue.

That would be a very expensive situation for a prospective student

Sounds like a place to be avoided at all costs if what Bose says is true.

If it is not true then he has nothng to support his position.

Regards,

DFC

S-Works

1st Nov 2007, 12:08

I suggest you give Brooklands aviation a call at Sywell and ask them, they are not a microligt school they operate AT-3's. I know the Instructor personally and know his situation. FAA CPL/IR, JAA PPL with FI rating, unable to get a CPL due to eyesight. Flies many hours a day teaching and doing trial flights but is employed in an admin role.

DFC

1st Nov 2007, 12:35

Would steer well clear of that place then if a student. Shame to pay for illegal flying and have your PPL application turned down.

Remember that "employed" does not mean being paid to do something. You can be "employed" and not be paid.

The only way a PPL can provide PPL instruction is where no money changes hand for the instruction.

I could bet that it is not a case of train with instructor A and the rate is £xxx per hour but train with instructor B when the rate is £ much less per hour because they are a PPL. More likely that the rate is £xxx per hour regardless of who you fly with.

Perhaps the CAA need to pay a visit or atleast a call to the General Agrigate and see what is going on. :D

You are such a snith Bose :D :D

Regards,

DFC

DFC

1st Nov 2007, 13:14

Well Bose a big thank you for the tip-off.

Appears that Mr ......can't have a JAA Class 1 because of a visual impairment.

The organisation are aware of this and he is not employed in an admin position. He is employed as an instructor!

Trial Lessons by PPLs etc etc. There are going to be plenty of training organisations that keep to the law who will object strongly to this carry on.

What a can of worms.

Regards,

DFC

S-Works

1st Nov 2007, 13:19

Oh dear.....

homeguard

1st Nov 2007, 15:18

You cannot be paid to act as pilot or as an instructor unless you hold a CPL. There are a few exemptions from this restriction that have been granted just the same.
A Non-CPL Instructor may be paid when instructing for the Microlite Licence and other similar NPPL licences by grant of an exemption. Unfortunately no such exemptions have yet been granted for teaching the PPL 'A', be it for the NPPL or EASA PPL.
However, should you hold a Flight Instructor Rating but not a hold a CPL or valid CPL (ie no current Class 1 medical) you may instruct unpaid. A flying club could come to an arrangement whereby they employ an instructor for one task and pay for that work but require the same person to do any flight instructing without pay. It would be necessary to ensure that it couldn't be construed that any payment for another different task was in fact a substitute for the flight instructing work.

Merritt

1st Nov 2007, 15:47

Ok so if I understand correctly (and as per the article in this months Pilot Mag) - it is possible to instruct with just a PPL license as long as you don't recieve any money for it and you have the minimum hours etc?

S-Works

1st Nov 2007, 16:04

Yes that is correct. There are quite a few PPL Instructors out there.

The discussion is more around the legality of being employed for one task as a 'cover' for doing another.

DFC

1st Nov 2007, 17:15

It is posible to provide JAA instruction when holding just a PPL and Flight Instructor Rating provided that there is no payment made for the flight instruction

For example-

A Another Flying Club Have a PA28.

They offer the aircraft at £100 for PPL hire and £150 Dual.

If the instructor provided by the Club only has a PPL then the club can only charge the student £100 per hour for dual training. i.e. They can not charge for the training because the training provided (by a PPL) can not be charged for.

Thus with a mix of PPL and CPL instructors, they have to offer different rates depending on which instructor you fly with.

With that in mind I know who I would be flying with. :ok:

However, in some organisations they charge the same rate and simply gloss over the fact that your instructor for today only has a PPL and you are paying more profit into the company's pocket.

Other training providers, professional instructors and the CAA take a dim view of such operations.

So if you are getting a PPL instructor (who can be just as god as a CPL one), make sure that you are not paying anyone for the instruction.

Regards,

DFC

Phil Space

1st Nov 2007, 19:57

The Eastern Daily Press has used a ppl to take aerial pictures for the last ten years. They credit PPL Mike Page who is based at Seething.
A lot of the pictures suggest they have been commisioned. ( eg the Lowestoft sewage works in the EDP today!)
His website suggests non profit making but he is listed on Pilotweb as a photo journalist.
Archant own the Eastern Daily Press and Pilot!

The CAA never prosecute for aerial pix.
Older pilots will remember the Skyview fiasco

Kit d'Rection KG

1st Nov 2007, 20:10

I should think that anyone who has gone jumped through the various hoops to get a professional license might like to have a one sided discussion with various folk mentioned, ideally behind the ops hut and after dark. :ouch:

Pay peanuts, get monkeys. :cool:

Pay nothing at all, and even opposable thumbs are unlikely... :{

Again, the lowest grade of 'discussion' here. :=

homeguard

1st Nov 2007, 20:24

DFC
I'm not sure that you are correct in your example, for this reason.
The fact that the PPL has a Flight Instructor rating means that the club is acting properly in employing the instructor and not paying him/her and is free to make charges as it deems fit. The CAA has no power with regard to club charges to its members and nor should it.
As long as the PPL Flight Instructor does not receive remuneration then they too are acting correctly.

Phil Space

1st Nov 2007, 20:26

Imagine setting up a proper aerial photo operation at Norwich.
Not a hope in hell when someone will do the same pix free.
http://www.mike-page.co.uk/
He even admits to modding the aircraft!

homeguard

1st Nov 2007, 20:46

Should a PPL use his aeroplane from which to take photos, why not. The PPL photograher may charge what he likes for his photos but must not charge for the flight or his services as a pilot.
Should a PPL transport a photographer with the intention of taking photos then the situation changes. The photographer is a paying passenger and the appropiate laws come into play. If I remember correctly Skyviews said that they employed a person who was a photographer but used an aeroplane only as a means of conveyance for which the photographer was properly qualified to do. The photos were sold as one off items at a later date but had not been commisioned and no charge was made for the actual flying or pilotage.

snowy_owl

1st Nov 2007, 20:46

I think this question is connected to this thread:-

I have an NPPL so the basic of the basic! - and a friend of mine has asked if we can go for a flight for him to get aerial shots for his private photo collection. What is this classed as? is it just a passenger with a camera?

Also how much can he pay towards the flight, is it only up to half of it?

cheers

SO

p.s. i hope i'm not hi-jacking the thread but i think it's related!

homeguard

1st Nov 2007, 20:54

Snowy owl
Of course you can do this Flight and share the costs equally but remember you must be members of the same club! Many clubs insist that all have at least a day membership in order that they do not fall fail of this requirement.

snowy_owl

1st Nov 2007, 20:56

Ah cheers, thanks for the no-BS reply

yeah the club i've joined won't let passengers fly unless they get the 'passenger membership' thing!

DaveW

1st Nov 2007, 21:05

Of course you can do this Flight and share the costs equally but remember you must be members of the same club!

I don't understand this, and would be interested to hear chapter and verse. I think you may be confusing things with the (poorly drafted) rules for advertising a cost share flight.

Many aircraft and pilots have zero affiliation to a club; there is no restriction on private photography because of that.

homeguard

1st Nov 2007, 21:12

Davew
Photography is irrelevent to this. To cost share you must be members of the same club and no more that 4 people, including the pilot, may share costs. The pilot must pay at least one quarter. 'Club' is ill defined in law. You could form your own club if you wish.

Islander2

1st Nov 2007, 21:17

To cost share you must be members of the same clubNonsense!

That's the only response required, but PPRUNE wants more!

DaveW

1st Nov 2007, 21:22

Chapter and verse, please?

There's nothing in ANO Article 160 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051970.htm#160)(Used to be 130) that says this. What it does say is - and see my bold for the precisely relevant bit:

Public transport and aerial work—exceptions—cost sharing

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 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);
(c) no information shall have been published or advertised prior to the commencement of the flight other than, in the case of an aircraft operated by a flying club, advertising wholly within the premises of such a flying club in which case all the persons carried on such a flight who are aged 18 years or over shall be members of that flying club; and
(d) no person acting as a pilot shall be employed as a pilot by, or be a party to a contract for the provision of services as a pilot with, the operator of the aircraft which is being flown.

(4) If valuable consideration specified in article 157(3)(c) is given or promised the flight shall for the purposes of Part 3 of this Order (other than articles 19(2) and 20(2)) be deemed to be for the purpose of public transport.

This is why I think you are confusing things with a detail regarding advertising.

homeguard

1st Nov 2007, 22:01

Fair enough, clear as a bell - no arguement.

DFC

1st Nov 2007, 22:49

Homeguard,

If it was that simple then we would have PPLs getting FI ratings and then setting up a Limited Company.

Legally the limited company is a separate person from the person who sets it up.

To follow your argument would mean that this company could be contracted to provide flight training either directly to individuals or through another organisation such as a flying club and provided that the PPL who owns and set up the company does not receive a pay cheque for flying then all is rosy.

That is not the case.

Remember it is the fact that the flight training is "Aerial Work" which requires the pilot to have a CPL. As soon as the student pays for the services provided on that flight it is aerial work. It does not matter if they pay the instructor, the instructor's company, a flying club who employ the instructor unpaid or a trial lesson voucher company.

If the student does not pay for the instruction or if it is a flight test does not pay for the test, it is not aerial work.

For that to happen in the example organisation provided by Bose, they would have to either charge no students for instruction (unlikely) or not charge the PPL instructor student's for the instruction.

Regards,

DFC

englishal

2nd Nov 2007, 01:11

Who cares....

Seems that being "anal" is a JAR-FCL requirement though....

kiwi chick

2nd Nov 2007, 01:18

Well, I don't mean to be a stick-in-the-mud here, but...

Bloody annoying isn't it? Considering the flying involved would be very straightforward, nothing out of the ordinary at all.

Well - no, it's not. :*

There's a reason that some of us have paid the money, done the time, and the hard work, to get a commercial licence. :suspect:

To get work as a Commercial Pilot. Simple.

Kiwi Chick

homeguard

2nd Nov 2007, 01:44

DFC
You, me may or may not like it but it is the way it is. It is not always the case that aerial work requires a CPL. There are many exemptions from that as you know. Such as Microlite Instructing, Glider Instructing, Glider Tugging and Parachute Dropping to give just a few examples. In fact a PPL Flight Instructor is still undertaking Aerial Work although unpaid. In France Flight Instruction is not included within the commercial sphere at all and the aircraft are not required to have a 'Public Transport' CofA.
Please realise that i'm not advocating any particular arguement but to vary the debate things are changing fast. Microlites are already very sophisticated machines and the VLA types are in already in operation. The NPPL take-up is growing with the SSEA class rating being the only NPPL rating that still requires the instructor to have a CPL to be paid. A few more years of statistics and that will change too. EASA themselves are proposing a 'Recreational' Licence, another name for our NPPL. The irony of all this is that Microlite Instructors are in the main paid better than Group A Instructors.
However, please don't turn this into yet another what have the romans ever done us thread

DFC

2nd Nov 2007, 16:36

I don't have anything against instructors who only hold a PPL.

However, flight training must be legally completed if for no other reason than to provide a good example to the student.

France is not the only place where instruction is not considered to be aerial work or commercial flying. As far as I am aware, JARs say that is the case as does ICAO.

If this PPL was a member of a flying Club or Group that operated on a not-for profit basis and where all the members owned the club and it's assets (if any) then there would be a good argument to let it continue because in efect the only payment would be for the aircraft and all members would be treated equally and all instructors would operate on the same basis etc etc.

However, the organisation that employs this person is set up for the purpose of trading and making money i.e. it is a Company.

No problem with going back to the days when I trained and the most experienced instructors were PPLs.....provided it is legal and above board.

Regards,

DFC

spernkey

2nd Nov 2007, 20:28

Hello everyone. I have a ppl and make my living taking SPECULATIVE aerial photos. I have done this only for the last 20 years. I keep getting "handed-in" to the CAA by legal experts not unlike some of the posters on this thread. The CAA dont even bother to come and see me any more about it as they say i am legal. I don't go getting myself all embroiled in paragraph this or that as i'm real happy that the authority know what i do and the armchair legal eagle self-righteous i- dotter t-crossers don't upset me anymore.
I won't enter into too much debate on the rules and laws cos my limited mental energies are better spent working on how to operate better. However i do recall some factors that seemed to be relevant from the last time i got myself "handed in" by a diligent CAA "Deputy" (you know the type i mean dont you? - very well versed in all the rules and regs and quick to pass judgement, always at the airfield - but never flying?!- and very very watchfull of others). I seem to remember the inspector saying things like "Not public transport to carry a phtographer as he is "Crew" and not paying to be transported"
"no-one pays you to go do speculative shots" This one makes sense, actually, cos otherwise a lovely shot of a Yak that someone took air to air couldn't find its way onto the front of a magazine for a fee. This happens all the time. Mate of mine took a shot of that big explosion near London as he flew by, it got published, and he got paid and he only has a ppl! And he asked the authority before he agreed to accept the money - just to be on the safe side.
Naturally i will be a bit pissed off for all of us in the business if it turns out weve been illegal these last 50 years or so - especially for all the salespeople who also make a living. By industrial standards it is a small industry employing less than 500(?) people in the UK (we supply 70-80 by the way).
One question i do have is how all the companies that offer to do pre-commissioned work are mainly one man bands with ppl's? I can see that people like me monging about taking photos no one has asked for is legal but someone commissioning the work seems different possibly? Live and let live though - buzzards gotta eat - same as worms.
I still employ cpls for my other crews as these pilgrims need all the help getting the experience they need to get jet jobs so if i am illegal it'll only be when i go to work personally.
Depressingly my competitors are mainly single man crew which though legal i find astonishing. Even with a cpl, dfc and bar how can it be right for someone to spend 6 hours a day orbitting looking through a camera? whilst sacrificing at least a bit of attention to the plane and other aircraft! Funny old world innit?
Can we have a campaign for the return of the old ppl holding instructors and let them get paid like before? They were good guys they were - real enthusiasts for GA and all round good eggs! The vested interests (cpl factories) will never let them put the toothpaste back in the tube on this whilst they have the ear of the authority i fear, not while there are wannabe's wanderering about with the ability to borra dosh - shame!
Spernkey Bowlock

DaveW

2nd Nov 2007, 21:52

Fair enough, clear as a bell - no arguement.

No problem; I checked because I wanted to be sure I hadn't missed something... The "advertising" issue came up some time ago in a discussion about whether it was legal to offer trips on an internet group, and I could remember what was said. Or maybe I'm just a JAA approved anal personality. :}

IO540

3rd Nov 2007, 10:29

A PPL holder can fly on his own business. If he is an employee then he also can do so provided he is not contractually required to do so.

I am not aware of an ANO clause which specifically prohibits aerial photography or aerial survey work, so a PPL should be able to fly around and do that and make money out of it.

There is a provision somewhere that the flight must be no more than incidental to the company's business, however, and (if true) this could be the catch.

A dedicated aerial survey business would then require a CPL but more to the point would require an AOC which rockets the cost by 5 digits annually.

I know for a fact of one outfit (a flying school actually) which was contracted to a local radio station for traffic spotting and they had an AOC for that. What I don't know is whether they actually needed the AOC or whether that was some scam by an insider - the school collapsed later following some massive fraud.

DFC

3rd Nov 2007, 15:07

The problem with the whole issue of Aerial photography is in many cases getting good enough of a case together to meet the requirements for a prossicution.

Joe Bloggs pays Mr. A Pilot to go and take pictures of his house - Aerial Work, Illegal if a PPL.

However, Mr. A Pilot goes up and photographs a house that belongs to Joe Bloggs and then sells the photo and even though you and I know full well that Mr Pilot departed with the sole intention of taking photographs and selling them on i.e. aerial work, it is very hard to prove that is the case when Mr. Pilot is willing to swear that they were going flying anyway and just happened to snap a few (rolls) of photographs and by chance after the event a few people liked the photo's ebough to purchase them.

That is why some people can do it and with the hekp of their lawyers give two fingers to the CAA.

Regards,

DFC

spernkey

3rd Nov 2007, 19:36

"That is why some people can do it and with the hekp of their lawyers give two fingers to the CAA."

Thats never been the case with me - the CAA bloke just turned up cos he had to and said it's legal, thereby not necessitating the need for super slickering lawyers etc...

The poster who said after "all the hoops he'd had to jump through......" and wanting to duff people like me up in the dark or something is missing the point. It is likely that all those hoops were necessarry for what you do with planes but it just aint for me operating in the best of VFR.

Lets suppose for a moment that i go do all that hoop jumping meself. Did a degree in Physics oncet so i would hope the exams would not be too much of a strain. Pay some appalling money for some indifferent training. Eventually come out with say a cpl or an atpl etc...

Trouble with that is it would still be me in a cessna using my judgement, experience and skill to fly around low level in peachy VFR!! There is just no need for all that mince.

If the system was actually producing competant commercial pilots anymore i wouldnt mind, but the handling skills and airmanship i have witnessed from the sausage factory cpl's has been woeful of late.

One idea which i think is good is for a basic type of AOC to cover this area and also to include flying schools doing sight seeing and casual bits of transport for less than 4 passengers(why a club instructor cant fly a businessman somewhere is a real missed oportunity as a market) etc... The current AOC costs are geared up for real big businesses and prohibitive but a "mini" AOC which concentrated on developing a "responsible" management of such activities would be a goer methinks!

IO540

4th Nov 2007, 06:01

A mini AOC would be a great idea but knowing human nature would result in massive protests to the CAA from holders of "proper AOCs".

It would be a great idea for another reason: in most places in Europe you can get tax free avgas (half price approx) on production of an AOC.

Whether you can in the UK is not widely known. I believe you can but not at the pump - you have to reclaim it separately. It would certainly explain why some schools have an AOC for charter which cost them a fortune but they seem to rarely operate it.

As for sticking a finger up to the CAA, the way the law works is that it states what is prohibited, and everything else is permitted. Someone might take a moral ground on it but that's a different topic. Everything not prohibited is 100% legal.

englishal

4th Nov 2007, 19:28

If someone is stupid enough to spend £00,000's getting a CPL when they don't need one, then that is their fault an no one elses.

Believe it or not, there are ways to get a JAA ATPL, 1500 hrs, jet time, turbine time, and loads of experience for £35,000 or less....Or you can give £65,000 to an FTO and walk away with an fATPL and 250 piston hrs....

There are lots of people in aviation who don't do proper research before parting with their money, think that everyone owes them everything, and like to blame everyone else for their "mistakes".......and then like to cause trouble by "grassing up" other people, for no reason....

kiwi chick

4th Nov 2007, 19:30

If the system was actually producing competant commercial pilots anymore i wouldnt mind, but the handling skills and airmanship i have witnessed from the sausage factory cpl's has been woeful of late.

:D :D :D

A comment my boss made to me about his observations (PRIOR to me, I might add... ;) :) :ok: :E)

KC

Islander2

4th Nov 2007, 22:10

A dedicated aerial survey business would then require a CPL but more to the point would require an AOC which rockets the cost by 5 digits annually.That isn't the case, IO540: see ANO Art 157 for the distinction between public transport and aerial work. 'Tis only public transport (Art 6 refers) that requires the operator to have an AOC.

madlandrover

5th Nov 2007, 14:35

I still employ cpls for my other crews as these pilgrims need all the help getting the experience

Wouldn't happen to have any vacancies for a new CPL/IR, 370TT by any chance? Cheeky I know to break in here, sorry - but you don't get anywhere by not asking in this world.

spernkey

5th Nov 2007, 16:42

Madlandrover - incoming pm!

madlandrover

5th Nov 2007, 17:05

Talk about speedy reply - wouldn't get that from Ryanair etc!

Thread hijack over...

kiwi chick

5th Nov 2007, 19:43

Hahaha, but when he comes over to NZ - keep your hands off and don't come with him... ;)

It's mine.... :E

tigerbatics

6th Nov 2007, 09:40

Pitts 2112, just a small point. You say that 'just logging hours is considered compensation' and indeed the CAA in the past have tried to argue this. Sometimes they were successful before some Benches; but not always.

However that cannot be the law as it stands today. There is no Divisional Court (Administrative Court if you prefer) or Court of Appeal authority upon the point but when the giving of flying instruction for reward was a privilege of the PPL it was (just) possible to argue that 'reward' covered flying hours other than instructional hours.

The position today is different. The PPL FI is in no special position in relation to flying for reward than his non FI PPL. If the mere logging of hours itself constituted a breach of the terms of the PPL then the FI could give no instruction at all and the rating would be meaningless.

IO540

6th Nov 2007, 10:46

Do you have any more details of the court cases, Tigerbatics?

I don't see how logging hours can amount to compensation because it would make illegal any flight with passenger(s) who already pay their maximum share permitted under the PPL cost sharing rule.

The logging of the hours would amount to additional compensation which would breach the limit.

Anyway, what are logged hours worth? They are worth exactly nuffink unless one is working towards an ATPL or something similar.

tigerbatics

6th Nov 2007, 12:02

Io540, There are no cases to provide any guidance. I agree with you I have never thought that it amounted to 'reward' but it was the position taken over the years by the CAA. Since it was mentioned again, and by someone I understand is a Magistrate' I thought I would do my best to put that old one away for good even if it meant giving my opinion free!

Whoever said, on this or another thread, that the CAA like 'grey areas' is correct. This is why there is so little authority to be found in decided cases.They seldom appeal if they loose because they can try again with another case later provided no higher court has taken the point away by prior decision.

They do not make the law and sometimes do not seem to like it very much. Then they publish CAPs which slightly distort the meaning of the rules and allow misconceptions to continue if they have a 'chilling effect' on behaviour that is legal but for some reason they want to discourage.

Please do not ask for examples because I have none off hand. However I have seen it over and over again during the last 30 years.

bookworm

6th Nov 2007, 12:32

Not sure I follow this, tigerbatics. On teh one hand you say:

There are no cases to provide any guidance.

on the other

Sometimes they were successful before some Benches

Surely if there are prosecutions based on 'just logging hours' then you should be able to tell us about the cases, even if they don't create precedent.

DFC

6th Nov 2007, 12:52

Logging hours is not a reward it is simply an administrative reacord keeping task that every pilot is legally required to do.

If however, you agree with someone that if they do a certain task or provide a certain service or provide certain goods and in return you will give them x number of hours flying in an aircraft then the giving of the x number of hours flying is indeed a reward and is valuable consideration.

Thus if a PPL was not being paid for the time they were giving instruction but the club in return permitted them to use the aircraft for their own pleasure at no cost then there is valuable consideration being provided.

This is not to be confused with asking a PPL to fly your aircraft from A to B. In that case, they have not got the use of the aircraft. They are providing a service for you which you do not compensate them for.

Of course, there is one fly i the ointment for all this - the minimum wage. If you employ a person to complete a task they are entitled to the minimum wage. So how does an organisation employ a PPL to complete flight instruction and not pay them. Dammed if you do and dammed if you don't situation!

Regards,

DFC

IO540

6th Nov 2007, 13:08

Surely if there are prosecutions based on 'just logging hours' then you should be able to tell us about the cases, even if they don't create precedent.

Magistrates' Court cases (where most CAA GA stuff is processed) are usually not transcribed, so short of somebody sitting in the public gallery nobody will know what happened.

tigerbatics

6th Nov 2007, 16:30

IO540 is quite correct. What I intended to convey was that there was no 'authority' on the matter because a higher court had not spoken. Magistrates' Court cases are not reported and cannot be cited in any way in any court even to another Magistrates' Court and even if the advocate appearing has personal knowledge of the earlier case.

The information I have for the CAA view of many years ago is therefore purely anecdotal from gossip at the time at the Bar (legal not public or saloon). It is subject to all the caveats of such gossip. However I think it is true. DFC explains why quite clearly it would have been rational for the CAA to take that view.

I make the point that now the 'reward', to be outside the terms of the PPL, must be something other than the flight itself. It was not clear that this was so before.

There is nothing whatever wrong with a club/school employing someone in an administrative capacity and paying them as such and also, if they have a PPL FI, allowing them to give instruction to students provided they are not paid anything additional and the student is not charged for instruction in respect of the PPL FI's time. I would add that in most instances a PPL FI would not be 'employed' by the club/school at all but be a club member.

bookworm

6th Nov 2007, 19:00

Thanks for expanding your answer tigerbatics. I understand now.

If the mere logging of hours itself constituted a breach of the terms of the PPL then the FI could give no instruction at all and the rating would be meaningless.

I think it's possible to construct other examples even without the flight instructor aspect (IO540 gave an example). What I've never been sure about is how persuasive such apagogical arguments are in court.

DFC

6th Nov 2007, 20:31

There is nothing whatever wrong with a club/school employing someone in an administrative capacity and paying them as such and also, if they have a PPL FI, allowing them to give instruction to students provided they are not paid anything additional and the student is not charged for instruction in respect of the PPL FI's time

Agree totally.

I take it then that you would say that a commercial organisation could not get a PPL(FI) to fly a trial lesson because the "student" (or the person who purchased the voucher) has already paid for the as you say "instruction in respect of the PPL FI's time" when they purchased the voucher.

However, I am not sure I agree with your statement of;

I would add that in most instances a PPL FI would not be 'employed' by the club/school at all but be a club member.

I agree that in a club you would be correct. However, most flying schools in the UK are limited companies who make a profit by trading in flight instruction through a "club". With the officers of the company making the decisions regarding the organisation and hiring and firing, would it not be the case that the instructor (regardless of licence type) is employed by the limited company.

There has for years been the "self employed flight instructor" which many schools used to try and get themselves out of various comittments. However, since the PPL(FI) could not be a self employed instructor (it is illegal) they have to be employed by the school. This then leads into minimum wage, etc etc etc.

Regards,

DFC

tigerbatics

6th Nov 2007, 21:03

Interesting DFC thanks for your post; my thoughts are as follows:

1) An FI can no longer be 'freelance' in the sense that he used to be. In the old days he could just work from home as it were. Now he must work through a registered flight training organisation but there is nothing in the ANO or in any rule which prescribes what his tax situation must be. Consequently there is no problem with such work being done by self employed instructors, registered with and working through, such an organisation. In that event there is no question of the minimum wage.

2) Trial Flights by PPL FI is a very interesting question and you raise a good point. It may well be that some such flights at some places could be illegal but I do not think that it is wise to assert that all are. It depends in any given instance on the exact circumstances and I can see that some arrangements would be better than others.

tigerbatics

6th Nov 2007, 21:14

Bookworm, that type of argument is the very stuff of legal argument and the manner in which the vast majority of arguments are cast. How effective it is in any given case really depends on how it fits into the total picture of the case being presented by the party concerned.

You are right, it is possible to construct other examples.

For fun, or if you get bored, you may like to take time out to consider an interesting point: you may conclude that the cost share provisions are, or may be, inconsistent with the PPL FI situation. However you may come to a different view entirely. It really is not straight forward at all.