Do I need an AOC???

[Fat Geoff]

Ok I have tried my upmost to read and understand JAR-FCL, however to no avail, so here I am once again hoping someone has more time, patience and understanding of 'AOC' stuff than I.

Basically, I have a UK JAR Frozen ATPL. I have been asked by a businessman to fly him about in his private aircraft, the only money exchanging hands would be my payment as the pilot. Does this therefore constitute Commercial Air Transportation, or a Private Flight, and thus do I require an AOC to operate?? LEGALLY!!!

Cheers

[S.F.L.Y]

As long as this person owns the aircraft it's his right to employ a pilot for his private operations. This is not commercial ops as long as the owner/operator is not charging passengers to be allowed to fly.

The main legal issue in your case would be your employment contract.

[pipertommy]

Sorry to thread creep, if you offered to fly a manager and he rented the aircraft and you were asked to fly it for him for no fee.
Is this pushing the boundary?

[Gulfstreamaviator]

There are so many grey operations, that I would ask the real question would the punisment for an illegal charter, match the ongoing costs of obtaining and running an OAC.

I speak from experience in Luton, and Dubai. Or perhaps I should say UK, and UAE.. more PC....

glf

[Gulfstreamaviator]

Assuming you have the licence, type, and current on the aircraft, and the type does not require two crew, then I would say you may operate this aircraft for the company/owner and be paid for your duties.
You have a commercial licence with all the relevent endorsements.

This is NOT a commercial operation. As the requlations stand you do not require an AOC. You should have an operating / operations manual.

In a previous life this is exactly what I was employed to do, and employed as Pilot.

I had need to discuss with the UK CAA, a matter of FTL, as I was also flying UK AOC similar type, they suggested that I shut up, dont ask any questions, especially in writing...as they did not wish to address this situation.

glf

[S.F.L.Y]

If you offered to fly a manager and he rented the aircraft and you were asked to fly it for him for no fee.
Is this pushing the boundary?

What you probably mean is you rent the aircraft and the manager pays you for the rent... which is purely illegal out of an AOC. It all depend on who has the operational control of the aircraft. If you rent it from an airclub, the aircraft is under the airclub's operational control and should only be "rented" to members/pilots. In such case, being paid to rent the aircraft on behalf of a third party is most probably illegal especially if you fly a "manager" for business, even if you're not paid for flying the aircraft.

This is very different from the situation in which an individual has the operational control over the aircraft (ownership, leasing), in which case you can be paid to fly this individual for his private use, without needing an AOC.

This is NOT a commercial operation. As the requlations stand you do not require an AOC. You should have an operating / operations manual.

What for?

[Doing Whats Needed]

Morning

If this were to become a regular occurrence, then the adoption of the IBAC's standards and auditing under IS-BAO guidelines would be advisable to demonstrate commitment to best practice. Under some regulatory authorities this is about to be mandated, Bermuda is one. The operation will require an Ops Manual, which will include FTL requirements.

Doing Whats Needed

[S.F.L.Y]

If this were to become a regular occurrence, then the adoption of the IBAC's standards and auditing under IS-BAO guidelines would be advisable to demonstrate commitment to best practice. Under some regulatory authorities this is about to be mandated, Bermuda is one. The operation will require an Ops Manual, which will include FTL requirements.

So far private operations are not required to comply with the IS-BAO. This could be one of the alternatives in the future when private operations of high performance aircraft will require a safety management system, which is included in the IS-BAO.

It's difficult for the Bermuda CAA to achieve a satisfactory oversight of the VP-B registered fleet and one of the solution they found is to suggest adopting the IS-BAO, which would spare them to audit foreign operators in order to comply with the ICAO SMS requirements. The deadline for VP-B operators to either have an approved SMS or an IS-BAO registration was set to the 31st of october 2009. I doubt this is the case. In the Middle East there's only one IS-BAO operator, two implementation consultants and one auditor...for how many VP-B aircraft in the region?

In the particular case of the initial question the point was about legally conducting such flights without an AOC. It is legal since the point is to fly the owner of the aircraft, meaning private operations as long as other passengers are free guests of this owner. So far there is no need for an operation manual or an IS-BAO registration. As I said the only legal issue would be to have a proper employment contract with the owner.

[12Watt Tim]

It is legal, however if you look at the history of accidents in the UK this is where they occur, pilots who fly without external operational control and management. AOC and managed private operations have a much better safety record. I am not by any means saying you shouldn't do it - if you are confident then you should, it will be great experience. What I am saying is that you should be thorough in your preparation, and not fly if you have any serious doubts.

Enjoy the flight :ok:

[zoigberg]

Fat Geoff

Provided it is his aeroplane you do not require an AOC.

Just get yourself a good rate for the work and enjoy.

Z

[Fat Geoff]

cheers for the help!! =-)

[Sideliner]

Good afternoon. If you need any information about an AOC hwether needed of not look @ Unique air, U.A.I. Ltd, MD or varriants on this theme. Flying by the seat of your pants constitutes flaunting R&R. Look heavily into the reprocussions before doing anything. Have fun doing IT.:O

[NuName]

Sideliner
I cant see where you saw that FG wants to "fly by the seat of his pants" but reading his post I understand that there is a man who owns his own aircraft who wants a professional to fly it for him, probably because he can abide by all the R&R and fly safe. Jolly good show I say.:D

[boredcounter]

Have something like CAP371 written into the contract hours. Whilst most argue outdated, it is far better than nothing. With no governing body and operating 'private' flights, what is there to protect AOC operators from your fatigue?

[toolowtoofast]

If you're worried about it, become his PA/driver, who sometimes takes him places in his own aeroplane.

[Lazy Bird]

"to fly him about in his private aircraft, the only money exchanging hands would be my payment as the pilot"

This is privat aviation in perfection-
No AOC reqd.

[tac1]

A couple of posts have made reference to IS-BAO on this thread.

IS-BAO is a standard, International Standard for Business Aircraft Operations, and it provides a comprehensive set of criteria for for the control of operations of non-commercial operators or turbojet airplanes, large airplanes and corporate operators.

With effect from 18th November 2010 ALL operations that fall into the above category with have to comply with the requirements of the new ICAO Annex 6 Part II.

The new Annex 6 Part II includes a requirement for a Safety Management System which the IS-BAO contains along with all the other operational management criteria.

Bermuda have decided to take a positive step to enhance safety (my words not theirs) by requiring aircraft on their register that fit into the above criteria are operated by organisations that meet the requirements of Annex 6 Part II by 1st Nov 2009. This is the same incidently for all the UK Overseas territories (Cayman, BVI etc) but Bermuda are the 'pioneers' if you like.

IS-BAO is one way of meeting the new ICAO requirement but there are others.

For those people whose operations meet the new qualifying criteria would do well to look at the requirements now as they will take a while to implement AND I have heard some stories or large operations make very significant insurance savings by meeting the standard.

Hope this helps.

[S.F.L.Y]

tac1, if you're not selling IS-BAO consulting services then I'm Elvis :ok:

[12Watt Tim]

So Fat Geoff, did you fly, and if so how did it go?

[clivewatson]

tac1..........

and what you MAY be peddling will be FREE soon on the internet for all who may be in need of it. Watch this space....

[His dudeness]

@tac1

With effect from 18th November 2010 ALL operations that fall into the above category with have to comply with the requirements of the new ICAO Annex 6 Part II

Havent heard that yet. Is there something on the net about it? I still wait for the EASA to come forward with their new set of rules that have been open for comment and I just wonder what happens if they don´t come forward on time etc.
Been D-reg, will we be grounded if no SMS is in place 18/Nov/2010 ?

[Low life]

If you ar flying a guy around in his plane you do not need an AOC
If you are being paid to fly a guy around in your plane you do
If you are flying other people around in the guys aircraft he does

It is the EASA regs you want not FCL

[tac1]

S.F.L.Y, I wish I could sing like him!

I understand safety management and IS-BAO as well as the background to aviation regulation but the intention of the post was a bit of info really.

His Dudeness - the date on ICAO Annex 6 Part II (18 Nov 2010) is that set by ICAO and will have entailed considerable consultation with the signatory states. The question you ask however relates to how EASA and possibly Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (National Aviation Authority of Germany) decides to implement the ICAO rule. As the case with Bermuda shows, they have decided to ratify the requirement with effect from 01 Nov 2009 through the Air Navigation (Overseas Territories) Order.

Sometimes rules become effective early, some on the target date and some have implementation timescales (remember Elementary and Enhanced Mode S) it depends largely on the NAA's of each country.

Best advice is contact LBA (of you NAA if not in Germany) and ask them.

[themoonsaballoon]

AIRCRAFT MANAGEMENT

The law and public transport

The starting point is the definition of public transport. Article 157(3)(a) of the Air Navigation Order 2005 provides that a public transport flight is one on which valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers in the aircraft on that flight. In applying that definition, one should ask in respect of a particular flight whether there is a passenger on board and if so whether any payment has been made for the purpose of carrying the passenger on that flight. This is a question of substance and not of form. It matters not how the payment is characterised (eg, as an access fee, facilitation fee, utilisation charge).

Contracting in expertise

A person may wish to have the benefit of an aircraft but have insufficient expertise or be unwilling to devote the time and effort to undertake all aspects of the operation himself. He may buy aircraft management services to support the operation.

Payments by an owner for aircraft management services

Where an owner pays for aircraft management services, the question which needs to be determined is how those payments should be characterised. In particular, in what circumstances will those payments amount to payment for the carriage of a passenger on the flight so that the flight would be public transport. Alternatively, in what circumstances might the payments be characterised as not being for the carriage of a passenger on a particular flight in which case the flight may be operated as either a private or an aerial work flight.

Where the owner is the operator

In the view of the CAA, where, notwithstanding services bought in from an aircraft management company, an owner operates his own aircraft, payments to the aircraft management company will not be for the carriage of passengers on a flight.

Identifying the operator

To determine who will be the operator one must look at the operation as a whole in order to determine who is managing it. Where virtually all aspects of an operation are contracted out, and in particular where they are largely contracted to one supplier, at some point the person would cease to be the operator in substance and thus in law. It would be the external supplier who becomes the operator.

The Air Navigation Order 2005

“Operator” is defined at Article 155(3) of the Air Navigation Order 2005 as in essence being the person who has the management of the aircraft at the relevant time. There is no further assistance in the legislation as to what amounts having the management of an aircraft. In practice, it means the person who is in substance (and not in form) managing the operation of the aircraft. CAA interprets it by reference to the case of CAA v Internationale Nederlanden Lease BV and JAR-OPS 1.175 (see below).

CAA v Internationale Nederlanden Lease BV

In the case of CAA v Internationale Nederlanden Lease BV, the Judge stated:
“It seems to me that the management of an aircraft typically includes two crucially important aspects: ensuring that the aircraft is at all times airworthy, and ensuring that it has a competent, qualified and certificated crew.”

Mere ownership of an aircraft is not in itself relevant to these considerations. It is possible to operate and aircraft one does not own and it is possible to own an aircraft which one does not operate.

JAR OPS 1.175

It is useful to consider the provisions in JAR-OPS setting out those matters which must take into account when granting an AOC. JAR OPS 1.175 provides that an applicant for an AOC must have a management organisation capable of exercising operational control and supervision over any flight operated by it and have an accountable manager who has corporate authority for ensuring that all operations and maintenance activities can be carried out to the standard required by the Authority.

Appendix 2 to JAR OPS 1.175 provides that an operator must have a sound and effective management structure in order to ensure the safe conduct of their operations.

IEM OPS 1.175 states that the responsibilities of management related to JAR-OPS Part 1 should include at least the following five main functions:

(a) determination of the operator’s flight safety policy;

(b) allocation of responsibilities and duties and issuing instructions to individuals, sufficient for the implementation of person policy and the maintenance of safety standards;

(c) monitoring of flight safety standards;

(d) recording and analysis of any deviations from person standards and ensuring corrective action;

(e) evaluating the safety record of the person in order to avoid the development of undesirable trends.

Where an owner is not the operator

Where an owner is not the operator whether payments made in connection with the operation are for the carriage of a passenger on a particular flight will depend on all the circumstances. The following factors may be relevant:


Ownership

Whether the person making the payments is the sole or a substantial owner and the registered owner.

Purpose of Payments

Whether the only payments made may properly be considered to be for the purpose of aircraft management services.

Whether payments are in respect of a flight

Whether the payments are part of a long-term aircraft management contract or are in respect of a particular flight or short period.

Use of Aircraft

Whether the aircraft is used solely or mainly by the owner.

Responsibility of owner

Whether the owner has selected the aircraft management company and placed his aircraft within it.

Conclusions

Where payments are made:

• under a long term management contract;
• to an aircraft management services company selected by the owner;
• by a sole owner;
• for the provision of operational services for the owner’s aircraft
• which aircraft is solely or mainly used by the owner for the carriage of himself and persons personally known to the owner;
• without any other payments being made in connection with their carriage:

the CAA is likely to conclude that the payments are not for the carriage of passengers on any particular flight and therefore the flights will not be public transport. ; The CAA would not therefore expect such flights to be conducted under an AOC.

However, as noted above the position will depend on all the circumstances, the legal test is open to interpretation and the CAA cannot certify that any particular arrangement will be lawful. It will be for the owner and the management company to satisfy themselves that their arrangements are safe and lawful both in terms of the requirements of the Air Navigation Order and any applicable insurance policies.



Civil Aviation Authority

December 2002
(Revised to ANO 2005 references)


TMAB

[NuName]

Crikey:confused: I say what:O time I got myself another job.:ugh:

[alpineflyers]

form a club, make your customer a club member and charge him a club fee - Bingo, no AOC needed.

[Sepp]

Don't worry, the buggers in the UK won't ever do you... or if they try, they'll fail.
Their record in that department ain't hugely inspiring.

We (AOC holders) here in the UK have been trying to get the "regulator" to stop illegals (I am not suggesting that what you propose is such) for... well, ages.... and still it happens. Toothless, apparently. And it's not just pvt ops doing illegal CAT - I once reported an openly dodgy AOC operation, CAT, into a waaaay too-short UK field - the official response? "Can't do anything without proof". Erm... ain't that what FO(I) and/or SAFA ramp checks are for??

Fill yer boots, mate, and if anyone ever wants to ramp check you, say "sorry, it'll take me out of duty, make an apointment", and walk straight ahead off the field.

They'll soon be too interested in whether you've filled your ETS returns in to bother with owt else, anyway. Bitter, moi?

[Nikai]

If you are flying a guy around in his plane you do not need an AOC
If you are being paid to fly a guy around in your plane you do
If you are flying other people around in the guys aircraft he does
Nice succinct explanation...

In terms of aircraft ownership... assuming this means the registered aircraft owner... (ie. the one who signed on the dotted line) does anyone think there would be any leeway for flying someone around that has leased a plane for their private use?

Example 1, person leases a plane (say for 6 - 12 months) so that it is available to them for flight instruction, occasionally (once every month or two) they need to get from A-B and aren't a certified licence holder yet, would it still qualify as private ops to either:

(1) fly them/fly with them to their destination
or
(2) on the occasion that they need a friend or relative who isn't paying for the privilege to get somewhere, drop them at the destination

Example 2 - Person attains (borrow or hires....who knows?) a plane from a friend then calls and says can you fly my son to (destination) on Friday and wants to pay you for your time...

Both assume person holds a commercial licence with instructional privileges.

I know it varies by country but was just wondering what people thought... I know plenty of people who just go ahead and do it without questioning how it fits together, but it would be nice to get a better idea where the boundary lies... :confused:

[choxs]

From experience of operating a private aircraft.

As long as the gentleman or company owns the aircraft and that the only money exchanging hands is your costs then that is absoutely fine.

No AOC is required.

All you need to do is ensure that you or the company / owner can demonstrate that "no profit" is being made for the flight. Just enure you keep a paper trail of costs paid; i.e direct operating costs.

Just so you can read yourself, Google "CAA Public Transport Summary" this is a very useful document and will explain it more clearly.

Hope this helps.

[Nikai]

Thanks Choxs - does help, that link is fantastic (wish we had the same type of document here!). Keen to stay on the right side of the line and spent hours reading and re-reading the rules and advisories, but they really don't help!:ok: