Company Pilot - Commercial or Private?

[Warren G]

Hey everyone, I've been reading the forums for a while now and picked up many useful bits of info...

I have a question though, i ran a search trying to glean an answer with limited success but gained some idea, just looking for a clarification of what you guys may think.

I'm looking at working for a company, on a salaried basis, that will not rack up huge flying hours but be doing other associated tasks aswell, who are about to purchase a 6 or 7 SE a/c for company use. basically to fly around management staff to different sites where they have workers based and what not.

my initial thoughts were that this would be a commercial op, thus requiring and AOC and CP and all that. however after reading the regs and some searching on previous posts (particulary the one about the pc12 FO job) i was leaning toward the belief it would be private.

so question is, what category would this type of flying technically fall into?

just to get an idea of what type of operational requirements would be in place..

cheers in advance

[Hasselhof]

Private operation, no CPL or required. Plenty of companies do it. :ok:

[Warren G]

Ahhh sweet i was leaning toward that conclusion...

cheers for the quick reply

may be a way to get a few hours and pay back some flying loans at the same time...

[Brian Abraham]

Unless the rules have changed in the last few years you could be employed by the company soley to fly its aircraft, with no other duties, and it will still be a private operation. There is one company which runs what amounts to a mini airline with half a dozen aircraft and is all private. No AOC and not required to have an ops manual, though it does have one.

[AerocatS2A]

Paspaley Pearls is a private op isn't it? With the Mallards running workers into the pearl farms.

[bushy]

I think you have to have a CPL if you are going to fly for hire or reward, regardless of what category of operation it is.

[Hasselhof]

I think you have to have a CPL if you are going to fly for hire or reward, regardless of what category of operation it is.

No. You need a CPL to fly an aircraft that is conducting Aerial Work, Charter or Regular Public Transport. If your operation isn't defined as any of those operations, or indeed clearly falls within the scope of a private operation, then only a PPL is required.

[Flyingblind]

Are there any specific regs covering this or what Hasselhof posted the only guidline on the matter?

[NZScion]

First of all, I note that all previous posts (including the original) are from Aus, but I can't imagine your rules being very different to NZ.

CAANZ Rule 61.155 (b):

The holder of a private pilot licence must not act as pilot-in-command
or as co-pilot of an aircraft—
(1) for remuneration; or
(2) if the aircraft is being operated for hire or reward; or
(3) if the aircraft is—
(i) being operated at night; or
(ii) being operated on a cross country flight; or
(iii) a helicopter carrying a sling load—
unless an appropriately qualified flight instructor has certified in
the holder's logbook that the holder has satisfactorily completed
the flight training required to perform that activity.Source Document (http://www.caa.govt.nz/rules/Rule_Consolidations/Part_061_Consolidation.pdf)

In other words, you may not conduct a flight for which you do not pay for yourself with a PPL.

The only way you could possibly make it work would be to share costs proportionally between yourself and your company. For example, if there were 4 of you traveling to one location, you would have to pay for 1/4 of the flight cost out of your own pocket, and your company could
pay for the other 3/4. You would not be able to be paid for the time you are flying. If I were you, I would make sure I could prove that my portion of the cost was truly paid for out of my own pocket, and that there was no form of under the table disbursement (Difficult to prove I'm sure).

[TwoTango]

Flyingblind, its covered in the CARs:

5.78 What does a private pilot (aeroplane) licence authorise a
person to do?
(1) A private pilot (aeroplane) licence authorises the holder of the licence:
(a) to fly an aeroplane as pilot in command, or as co-pilot, while the
aeroplane is engaged in a private operation; and
(b) to fly an aeroplane as pilot in command while the aeroplane is
engaged in flying training operations for the purpose of
increasing the holder’s flying skill.
[Note Paragraph (d) of subregulation 2 (7) sets out the operations that are classed as
private operations.]

2.(7)(d) an aircraft that is flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the
course of:
(i) the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft;
(ii) aerial spotting where no remuneration is received by the
pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or
organisation on whose behalf the spotting is conducted;
(iii) agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the
owner of the aircraft;
(iv) aerial photography where no remuneration is received by
the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or
organisation on whose behalf the photography is
conducted;
(v) the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a
charge for the carriage being made other than the carriage,
for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the
pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft;
(va) the carriage of persons in accordance with subregulation
(7A);
(vi) the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes of
trade;
(vii) conversion training for the purpose of endorsement of an
additional type or category of aircraft in a pilot licence; or
(viii) any other activity of a kind substantially similar to any of
those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vi) (inclusive);
shall be taken to be employed in private operations.
Replacement Page Amdt No. 8
December 2004
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 31
(7A) An aircraft that carries persons on a flight, otherwise than in
accordance with a fixed schedule between terminals, is employed in a
private operation if:
(a) public notice of the flight has not been given by any form of
public advertisement or announcement; and
(b) the number of persons on the flight, including the operating crew,
does not exceed 6; and
(c) no payment is made for the services of the operating crew; and
(d) the persons on the flight, including the operating crew, share
equally in the costs of the flight; and
(e) no payment is required for a person on the flight other than a
payment under paragraph (d).

[Flyingblind]

Thanks TwoTango, looks like i'm going to have to sit down and decipher all the law speak and seriously think about how it may affect me.

[Wizofoz]

(c) no payment is made for the services of the operating crew;

...Is the relevant point. A private operation still requires a CPL if the pilot is being paid for it.

[Warren G]

Thanks again everyone, this has been quite informative,
just for the record i do hold a cpl so that is not the issue at hand
the topic has proved an interesting one :)

Wazza

[Flyingblind]

My interest comes from my mear completion of the PPL, the company i work for as a office type person are intrested in using my licence to transport fellow employees to meetings if they occur on short notice and in areas not served by RPT ops.

You know, the type of jobs where a GA A/c is a better a tool for staff productivity than a 3 hour drive for a 2 hour meeting and same 3 hour rtn drive.

I would still be employed under the same conditions and pay rates i guess yet i get the hours in my log book and out of the office for a while. I'm just trying to get a feel for this as if it goes against the intent of the Reg's then my employeer may need to fund a CPL for me?

Yippe for me if thats the case and work see the cost as a nescessary investment but then again.

Any ideas? i personaly would love for this to work but think the cost of putting me through CPL may put them off.

[WannaBeBiggles]

We had a guy in our CPL class who was working for a government agency and was flying staff to remote sites (not his primary job role), however CASA clamped down on that and told him he needed a CPL, hence his presence in our class.

Law is rather open to interpretation, however you have to be careful and read it fully, as there are often caveats further down the paras...

Why not just call CASA and find out from the proverbial "horses mouth" (yes I'm well aware "mouth" could be replaced here and it wouldn't be far from the truth :p) instead of asking for other peoples interpretations of aviation law?

[Stationair8]

Isn't VH-ING crewed by at least one PPL?