Is unpaid GA Instructing Aerial Work?

[noblues]

Is unpaid GA Instructing Aerial Work under the ANO?

It seems a debatable issue for the purposes of commercial FTL hours?

I ask my students for a nominal cash payment to cover my expenses only, but maybe this would be deemed to be payment?

[nick14]

I think unless you contribute an equal portion of the costs of the flight it's classed as remuneration.

[Parson]

noblues - more importantly, why are you devaluing instruction and undermining other instructors?

[mad_jock]

Under eu-ops its Aerial work even if you don't get Paid.

It actually changed with JAR ops years ago and if you were under a UK AOC you could do it but if under a JAR-OPS AOC you couldn't. Then everyone transferred and it got stopped.

As soon as you are subject to a FTL scheme you have to declare all of it I am afraid. And no working on mandatory days off.

why are you devaluing instruction and undermining other instructors?

More than likely because he enjoys it. Also as well if your getting paid PAYE if you then have other sources of income you have to do a tax return and more than likely hand over 40% of the cash anyway. Realistically if they are a pro full time pilot they won't be doing many hours a year so the hassle of charging isn't worth it.

Also as well some of the old school pilots think that if they don't charge then they don't have to tell the company about it for FTL's as per the old UK CAA rules on the subject. Which hasn't been the case for some 8 years since the last UK AOC got transferred to JAR-OPS.

[noblues]

Thanks for the reply mad_jock : Looks like I should be declaring the hours to my airline.

Yes, I do it for 'the love of it' and also for the PAYE tax complications, typically charge £15/hr for my 'expenses'.
I've been GA instructing for over 20yrs and only do a handful of hours a month, I don't think I am making a dent in the industry!

[nick14]

Does your airline have a section in the ops manual or a form to tell them your flying outside the company?

[mad_jock]

Your on a sticky wicket if you haven't got receipts for your "expenses" and the tax man starts asking questions.

I haven't bothered taking anything since I went full time airline. There is a school of thought that even if you get expenses you have to file and then offset them when you file and you need supporting receipts to prove what you have claimed for.


So for the 200-300 quid a year it wasn't worth it.

[noblues]

Yeah fair comment ....

Maybe I should get them to just donate to my beer fund as a charitable donation!

I do some instructing in groups and have them credit me with free flying hours which works well.

[mad_jock]

or take them to the petrol station and get them to fill the car up.

But even that is dodgy but very hard to prove.

[FlyingOfficerKite]

Looks like I should be declaring the hours to my airline.


Maybe you should, but airlines don't like pilots 'moonlighting' and it's far easier for them to say 'no' than to have the hassle of determining whether the flying you're doing impacts on flight duty times and the like.

Your on a sticky wicket if you haven't got receipts for your "expenses" and the tax man starts asking questions.

Yes you are and your airline will almost certainly not entertain 'moonlighting' and a second income from alternative employment. This will no doubt be covered in the terms and conditions of your employment.

Your airline is likely to curtail this secondary employment and then you will have no option but to cease instructing.

It's obviously up to you whether or not you carry on instructing 'on the quiet', but to disclose it is almost certainly going to result in the airline objecting and it could cause all kinds of problems with the tax man, as pointed out above.

[Parson]

MJ - fair point and I didn't realise it was a few hours here and there in addition to another job.

I'm not comfortable with the principle of instructing for free in general though.

[mad_jock]

mate honestly the airline pilots that do instruct don't in general steal work away from full time instructors.

In fact I would argue we actually increase there hours.

The schools I have helped out at its always been a case I have only flown when they are short. Quite often all I did was being the supervising instructor and dealt with questions about licensing. Then picked up any check rides and trial flights that needed done thus releasing the full time guys to go and instruct PPL's. Of course if a full time guy wanted a day off I could help out as well.

Like or not people like doing Trial flights with airline pilots and I always had a knack of converting trial flights into full courses when full time. And when doing them as a spare FI I was even better at it as I usually had more time to spend with them.

But its virtually impossible for us to beat the FTL's, mandatory days off can't be used and you can't go over your duty time for the day and screw up the next days work flying.

And to be quite honest after a week of 25 sectors the last thing I want to do is strap myself into a light aircraft on my days off. So I have let my rating lapse.

[Whopity]

Is unpaid GA Instructing Aerial Work under the ANO?If the student rents the aeroplane, then its aerial work. If its his own aeroplane then its not.

[mad_jock]

not according to EU-OPS whopity.

And from the 2009 CAP

1.4 A flight crew member is required to inform anyone who employs his services as a
flight crew member of all flight times and flying duty periods undertaken, whether
professionally or privately, except for flying in aircraft not exceeding 1,600 kg
maximum weight and not flying for the purpose of public transport or aerial work.
Aerial work includes flying instruction for which the pilot is remunerated. It is also
aerial work where valuable consideration is given specifically for flying instruction,
even if the pilot receives no reward.

It was the same before that from JAR-OPS time.

Of course the OP's part A is the ruling document for them. But I am 99% certain that's what they will have in it.

[Whopity]

Thats what I said. If valuable consideration is given it is aerial work!

[mad_jock]

It doesn't matter who rents the plane or who owns the plane that only effects the CofA requirements.

The hours always need to be reported if there is even a second of instruction taking place.

[Whopity]

It is also aerial work where valuable consideration is given specifically for flying instruction So if its your own plane, no valuable consideration is given! Its not aerial work. That was the original question. Whether you have to report it or not to your employer is another issue.

[mad_jock]

Yes there is if instruction is taking place. Be it paid, unpaid through a rto, school, club, group, ato, freelance, self employed, paye, your own aircraft, a share aircraft, a mates aircraft, anyones aircraft.

[breakscrew]

If you are 'not getting paid' where do you stand with insurance?
Is the aircraft owner or student going to sue you personally when something goes wrong.
Seems to me you are on a very dodgy wicket.

[Whopity]

Is the aircraft owner or student going to sue you personally when something goes wrong.That has nothing to do with being paid or not. Very few instructors have liability insurance so it is always an issue, the aircraft policy seldom covers the instructor.

[bookworm]

Yes there is if instruction is taking place. Be it paid, unpaid through a rto, school, club, group, ato, freelance, self employed, paye, your own aircraft, a share aircraft, a mates aircraft, anyones aircraft.

No, Whopity has it. It is only aerial work if someone is paying for the instruction (even if they are not paying the pilot). Unpaid instruction in a privately owned aircraft is a private fight, not aerial work.

I hope this debate, which revolves around the ludicrously complicated definitions of PT and AW and the corresponding exceptions, has a shelf-life, and will sink gracefully into the PPrune archives under the EASA Ops rules. ;)

[Whopity]

I think that the shelf life has almost expired, now that all training has to be conducted at an ATO there is little chance of any free ab-initio training in the future.

[mad_jock]

Can you give the reference for that bookworm that you can ignore that section of the FTL cap.

It doesn`t though it revolves round the change to the FTL schemes on transfer from a UK National AOC to a JAR OPS compliant AOC. Its been like this since I have been work as a Line pilot. If you log anything as Instructor it has to be declared and added to your FTL account.

[Whopity]

The CAA website contains a document titled:
SUMMARY OF THE MEANING OF COMMERCIAL AIR TRANSPORT, PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND AERIAL WORK (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1428/SummaryOfCATPTAWANO2009May2010.pdf)
From that document:
3.1 Aerial work (Article 259)
3.1.1 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 paragraph 3.2 below). So if no payment is made it is not aerial work.

[mad_jock]

That's got nothing to do with the reporting of flight times for commercial crew which is what's under discussion.

So a reference please from FTL regs. The controlling one is the one I have quoted which is also present in subpart Q

[Whopity]

Look at it another way, what rule says that a private flight counts towards FTL? If you commute to work in your light aeroplane instead of a car, will that count towards you FTL because it has exactly the same legal status as a non remunerated instructional flight in the candidate's aeroplane.

[mad_jock]

If the plane is under 1600kg then you don't have to count it, if its over that you do.

Its all in the FTL regulations including that instructional flights of any form are counted as aerial work in powered aircraft.

[nick14]

Beware if your an IAA licence holder they require all flight time regardless of weight to be counted in your 900/year.

[bookworm]

The answer is in the passage you yourself quote, mad_jock

except for flying in aircraft not exceeding 1,600 kg
maximum weight and not flying for the purpose of public transport or aerial work.
Aerial work includes flying instruction for which the pilot is remunerated. It is also
aerial work where valuable consideration is given specifically for flying instruction,
even if the pilot receives no reward.

There is nothing that suggests that flying instruction where no valuable consideration is given specifically for flying instruction is considered aerial work.

The controlling one is the one I have quoted which is also present in subpart Q

Where?

[mad_jock]

even if the pilot receives no reward.

Seems pretty solid to me. The fact you are instructing means you are working if you get paid or not. Which actually makes sense as the whole point of the FTL schemes is to limit your flying and in theory stop fatigue. If you are flying 7 days per week and doing hours before or after your duty period your not resting. The being paid or otherwise doesn't really affect your fatigue level.

And if your not putting any "work" into instructing you shouldn't be instructing.

[Whopity]

MJ You are referring to the Physics definition of Work; Force x Displacement whereas the law refers to a legal definition which requires remuneration and/or payment or valuable consideration. There being none, there is no Work! Eating you breakfast, driving the car or having a constitutional are all work in the physical sense.

[mad_jock]

No I am not.

I am talking about doing something which is counted towards FTL's as per instructions by 4 different flight ops inspectors.