Paying for private flights

[Max Tow]

Following the Emilio Sala crash, there's a huge stink in Europe about a blind eye having been turned to PPLs conducting commercial operations in the guise of the cost sharing exemption(see the "Accidents & Near Misses" section for the sorry saga to date).
I was therefore interested when my 8 y.o. son was invited on a $100 club excursion which apparently includes a C172 flight and saw the following: "flying activities carried out by XXX are conducted as a private flying operation and all participants share in the costs." Pardon my perhaps unjustified concern, but what documentation, if any, should I be asking for? Is this any different from buying a trial flight at a flying school?

[LeadSled]

Following the Emilio Sala crash, there's a huge stink in Europe about a blind eye having been turned to PPLs conducting commercial operations in the guise of the cost sharing exemption(see the "Accidents & Near Misses" section for the sorry saga to date).
I was therefore interested when my 8 y.o. son was invited on a $100 club excursion which apparently includes a C172 flight and saw the following: "flying activities carried out by XXX are conducted as a private flying operation and all participants share in the costs." Pardon my perhaps unjustified concern, but what documentation, if any, should I be asking for? Is this any different from buying a trial flight at a flying school?

Max Tow,
Firstly, no, it is nothing like a "trial instructional flight", which would be conducted under an Air Operators Certificate for a flying school.
"Cost sharing" is "legal" but only under defined circumstances, and cost must be shared by all on board, INCLUDING the pilot.
There is a long history of very inventive excuses/schemes to conduct disguised charters as "private flights", this may or may not be one of them, but one thing is certain, there would be no Passenger Liability Insurance in the event of injury or death. Such insurance is mandatory for all passenger operations conducted under an AOC.
In this particular case, much more detail is needed to determine whether the operation was "legal", let alone wise.
CASA (rightly, in my view) take a very dim view of disguised charters ( soon to be Part 135 Air Transport at this level) .which are private operations.
Tootle pip!!

[Squawk7700]

I would not for one minute let my 8 year old son fly in said aircraft under that arrangement.

I would also voice my concerns to the other parents.

I would also advise the school of your displeasure of the arrangement.

I also would also consider contacting CASA and advising them of the details of the arrangement. If they have nothing to hide, then it won’t be an issue!

Too harsh? Probably not, but better to be safe than sorry.

I so wonder how cost sharing works when the pilot takes up say 10 plane loads of kids??? Sounds like someone with a PPL running a holiday farm for kids wanting to give them a thrill in his 172.

My children only fly with a pilot with gold bars, in a registered charter operation or flying school or with someone I trust implicitly.

[Max Tow]

Thanks for the replies. To clarify, which is difficult I appreciate without naming names, the organisation concerned is well regarded, has been taking kids up for years and does hold an AOC. I'm more concerned about the level of qualification required of the pilot to fly kids around as the "private" and cost sharing bits ring alarm bells (possibly unnecessarily) after poor Mr Sala. Even though I remember being scared s...less at the tender age of 14 in a Chipmunk AEF!

[LeadSled]

Thanks for the replies. To clarify, which is difficult I appreciate without naming names, the organisation concerned is well regarded, has been taking kids up for years and does hold an AOC. I'm more concerned about the level of qualification required of the pilot to fly kids around as the "private" and cost sharing bits ring alarm bells (possibly unnecessarily) after poor Mr Sala. Even though I remember being scared s...less at the tender age of 14 in a Chipmunk AEF!

Max Tow,
Something doesn't jell here.
Either it is a private flight, or it is not, what kind of an AOC does this mob have??
If they are saying it is a private flight, cost share, that is NOT under any relevant AOC.
For the pilot, for a private operation, the only CASA qualification is to have a current Private Pilot's License, which means a valid minimum Class 2 medical certificate and recency.
Tootle pip!!

[Max Tow]

LeadSled: PM sent.

[Cloudee]

Cost sharing in the UK is more lax than in the US and Australia. In the UK you can advertise for passengers and the pilot does not have to pay an equal share. https://www.pprune.org/private-flying/593079-dodgy-legit.html?highlight=Cost+sharing

As this Australian operation is a private operation they can use a pilot with a PPL or RPL, but they can’t advertise for passengers. I’m with Squawk7700 on this, I would not let my kids up in such a case. It would be interesting to know how much of the $100 is for the flight. How many passengers per flight? How long Is the flight? You could then work out the hourly rate they are getting.

[Max Tow]

I think the UK may close that stable door now that the horse has bolted (recent pages by far the most interesting):
https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/617514-cardiff-city-footballer-feared-missing-after-aircraft-disappeared-near-channel-island.html

Advice heeded as ties in with my gut instinct so son is now off the list - I'll make it up to him & he's looking forward to the A380 in a few weeks!

[Capt Fathom]

For God sake, why do we make such a fuss? The kid is going for a fly in a 172 . The most dangerous part of the day will be the drive to the airport!

[gerry111]

Thank goodness my Dad (irresponsibly) allowed me to go flying in GA aircraft. Gliders too! :eek:

[Squawk7700]

For God sake, why do we make such a fuss? The kid is going for a fly in a 172 . The most dangerous part of the day will be the drive to the airport!


It’s all well and good until something goes wrong.

What if the pilot was a freshly minted RPL at 18 years old or 75 and has 41 hours total time? Your children aren’t informed passengers... you have to make the decision for them.

[Max Tow]

It’s all well and good until something goes wrong.

What if the pilot was a freshly minted RPL at 18 years old or 75 and has 41 hours total time? Your children aren’t informed passengers... you have to make the decision for them..


Perhaps I should add that at the age of 8, my son has almost 200 flights in his logbook, from Eurocopters and Beaver floatplanes through to the 380. I intend that he adds many more, on my terms until he can decide for himself.
Fly Safe!

[LeadSled]

It’s all well and good until something goes wrong.
What if the pilot was a freshly minted RPL at 18 years old or 75 and has 41 hours total time? Your children aren’t informed passengers... you have to make the decision for them.

Sadly, how very true.
Some time ago, a private operation, but the pilot was a Regional Captain, the aircraft a private C-172, last flight of the day, of a series of flights at a charity open day.
Bad gust, aircraft wrecked, and the only passenger, a child, permanently disabled.
No insurance cover for TP Personal damage.
The big winners were the lawyer, of course, at the point where I ceased to have any further involvement, the combined legal expenses were already approaching $1.0M, with personal bankruptcy a real prospect for at least one involved, with further damages action ahead.
Tootle pip!!

[megan]

How times change. Used to skydive in the sixties and still have the letter from the regulator giving me approval to fly skydivers as a PPL, didn't pay a dime myself while doing the flying, had to of course if I were jumping. :{

[Max Tow]

Yup, those were the days and I remember the same. Thalidomide babies & a commercial airliner crash every week. I think we've moved on and can still have a lot of fun. By the way, he's an only child so I don't have a spare. Querying paperwork I don't understand has made me long-lived & rich, so I'm happy to be old rather than just bold!

[thisishomebrand]

Cost sharing in the UK is more lax than in the US and Australia. In the UK you can advertise for passengers and the pilot does not have to pay an equal share. https://www.pprune.org/private-flying/593079-dodgy-legit.html?highlight=Cost+sharing


Under EASA rules, while the UK is still part of them anyway, it’s not permitted for a PPL holder to fly passengers and the pilot not pay equal share. I think if you actually look into the details of the link then it’s highly unlikely that the £67 the passenger paid covered anywhere near the full cost of the flight. Wet rental of Warrior is around £150 per hour so once you add landing fees it will be well in excess of £67 to operate.

There are websites that are used for advertising these kind of flights such as Wingly, but as long as the pilot is paying their fair share they are operating within EASA rules.

[Max Tow]

Under EASA rules, while the UK is still part of them anyway, it’s not permitted for a PPL holder to fly passengers and the pilot not pay equal share. I think if you actually look into the details of the link then it’s highly unlikely that the £67 the passenger paid covered anywhere near the full cost of the flight. Wet rental of Warrior is around £150 per hour so once you add landing fees it will be well in excess of £67 to operate.

There are websites that are used for advertising these kind of flights such as Wingly, but as long as the pilot is paying their fair share they are operating within EASA rules.



As you probably already know, & if you look at the pPrune Sala thread linked above, the Malibu was flag-of-convenience N Reg, the pilot was allegedly a heavily indebted PPL, apparently not even licensed to fly at night and there's no published evidence that the he paid anything or was intending to fly the same route/time before any cost-sharing passenger climbed on board (also a requirement under FAA rules). The scenario is fairly obvious, IMHO, and no doubt a lot more will come out of the woodwork.

[LeadSled]

How times change. Used to skydive in the sixties and still have the letter from the regulator giving me approval to fly skydivers as a PPL, didn't pay a dime myself while doing the flying, had to of course if I were jumping. :{
Megan,
You still can fly meatbombs on a PPL in AU, it is a private category operation. No approvals required.
Tootle pip!!

[thisishomebrand]

As you probably already know, & if you look at the pPrune Sala thread linked above, the Malibu was flag-of-convenience N Reg, the pilot was allegedly a heavily indebted PPL, apparently not even licensed to fly at night and there's no published evidence that the he paid anything or was intending to fly the same route/time before any cost-sharing passenger climbed on board (also a requirement under FAA rules). The scenario is fairly obvious, IMHO, and no doubt a lot more will come out of the woodwork.

Yeah it’s defintely less stringent than the US and I agree it’s likely more cases will come out the woodwork, I mean i don’t think every flight on Wingly will be happening regardless of whether passengers sign up.

[YPJT]

Leaddy,
you might not need approval from the regulator but nor can you rock up to the nearest DZ, slap your log book on the desk and say “let me fly”
https://www.apf.com.au/apf-members/aircraft-jump-pilot-information/aircraft-jump-pilot-information

[tail wheel]

For the passengers the trip up is free, the trip down costs? Usual CASA intelligent reasoning imposing a fee on the forces of gravity?

Like the PPL in Cairns who some years ago dropped a load of lawn darts in IMC on the approach to RW 33 from a Cessna 402 (or was it a Navajo?), resulting in commercial airliners going every way except towards the airport?

[LeadSled]

Leaddy,
you might not need approval from the regulator but nor can you rock up to the nearest DZ, slap your log book on the desk and say “let me fly”
https://www.apf.com.au/apf-members/aircraft-jump-pilot-information/aircraft-jump-pilot-information
YPJT,
I didn't suggest you could, but the fact remains, no specific CASA approval of individual pilots is required. And, at law, meatbombing is a private operation, as far as the CAAct 1988 and the "Rules" are concerned.
And, of course, there is the little matter of non-APF operations.
As you may or may not be aware, most, if not all, self administering organisations have their own rules, this is one example.
Tootle pip!!

[Okihara]

Whilst definitely sharing the concerns that a low hour pilot taking children on fun flights may raise, I also like the idea that there is some meaning and value to having the licence itself. By that I mean, there's nothing wrong with a PPL holder taking passengers on scenic flights in my opinion. That's even the whole idea or else most of us would ever be flying alone, wouldn't we? Whether the pilot has the ability to fly consistently to the standard of their licence is obviously a totally different story and probably the only that matters. On a side note I remember the first flights taking my loved ones onboard as being more on edge than flying with the ATO. It was one of those experiences that eventually expands your comfort zone (and which I highly recommend) but where you also really realise that the passengers place this huge trust in you. That's the kind of awareness (or maturity?) I'd be looking for in the pilot, whether they have an ATPL or just a RPL.

Ultimately: if something doesn't feel right, don't do it.

[Capt Fathom]

You have either passed the PPL test or you haven’t.
Are we now saying that because you have only just passed the test, I’m not going to fly with you until...
I’d rather fly with someone who has 100hrs, 500hrs, 5000hrs?
Who is safer? A CPL with 300hrs. A PPL with 1000hrs. An airline pilot with 500hrs?
We make it all too complicated!

[Squawk7700]

This chap was a PPL with plenty of hours and I would have never flown with him.

A local social group had recently auctioned off a ticket for a joy-flight in his aircraft to the highest bidder.

He died shortly after when he ran his 172 into a power line when doing a beat-up of his neighbors property on Christmas morning as he had done previously for a number of years.

Read about that here:

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/national/lightplane-enthusiast-dies-in-south-gippsland-crash-20081225-754q.html

[YPJT]

You still can fly meatbombs on a PPL in AU, it is a private category operation. No approvals required.
Can't see any reference in your statement there to the regulator.

[LeadSled]

Can't see any reference in your statement there to the regulator.
YPJT,
And your point is??
Don't take my comments out of context
Tootle pip!!

[Okihara]

This chap was a PPL with plenty of hours and I would have never flown with him.
A local social group had recently auctioned off a ticket for a joy-flight in his aircraft to the highest bidder.
He died shortly after when he ran his 172 into a power line when doing a beat-up of his neighbors property on Christmas morning as he had done previously for a number of years.
Read about that here:
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/national/lightplane-enthusiast-dies-in-south-gippsland-crash-20081225-754q.html
Sad story. Flight time is not the issue here in my opinion but the mere fact that tickets for a joy flight in a C172 in a private operation were auctioned to the highest bidder just doesn't pass the smell test here. Why that? What's there to auction anyway? The price would be capped by equal cost sharing so for four occupants in a 172 that's roughly $50/person/hour, plus maybe $20/4 = $5 in landing fees (at an expensive strip). Therefore I find it quite an overkill for a "local social group" to auction that.

What's the strict legality of selling "tickets" for private flights anyway? Who's the emitting entity? The private pilot? The aircraft operator or owner?

[mostlytossas]

Why doesn't it pass the smell test? I used to do this for the scouts many years ago when my kids were in it, when they were having a fund raiser. I would donate an hours flight for up to 3 people. They would either make it a raffle prize or silent auction (up to them ) and they would state the flight was in a single engine 4 seat private aircraft so everyone knew what they were buying/bidding on. I would be advised who my passengers were days later and I would take it from there. Did it for a number of years too. The first time I did check with CASA first that it was legal and was told as long as I made no financial gain from it which I didn't it was fine as it was a private flight ( actually cost me the hours flying). I know of another chap who to this day still does the same for a cancer research fund raiser every year.
What's the issue here? I suspect it comes from some disgruntled CPL's who are struggling for work that think that is a job they could have. It isn't. If punters had to pay full tote odds for a flight with the profit going to a commercial enterprise they would't buy it. So no one benefits.

[Max Tow]

[QUOTE}
What's the issue here? I suspect it comes from some disgruntled CPL's who are struggling for work that think that is a job they could have.[/QUOTE]

Well, to the extent that this thread is any longer to do with my original query, that's incorrect. It's to do with my wish to feel confident in the ability (and that there's effective and regulatory monitoring) of a pilot I've never met, before I wave goodbye to my child in a light aircraft. After reading the advice gratefully received, I don't so I won't. As explained, my concern was heightened by recent events in Europe where the pilot, the CAA & FAA all clearly failed to protect poor Mr Sala, which set me wondering whether the same sad story could happen here, in particular in the context of "private" flights where money has changed hands.

[mostlytossas]

And you have every right to do so if you don't feel comfortable about the pilot and or aircraft. Just as you or I have about jumping into a car with unknown driver. ( one reason I won't use UBER ). But that's me thousands do.
Best comparison I have heard between surface and air transport about safety and control is : Airlines think Railways, Private aircraft think private cars, Commercial GA think everything from taxi's to buses/trucks depending on size, Ultralights to homebuilts think motorcycles.
Just pick the level of safety you are happy to go with.
But don't knock those who are happy to accept a lower level on any given day.

[Max Tow]

But don't knock those who are happy to accept a lower level on any given day.

Quite agree, which is why I haven't suggested what others might do or named the subject of my concern. Just asked for advice on my own quandry.
Besides which, I wouldn't criticise any Joe Public user if the regulator has turned a blind eye or the pilot has knowingly misled a passenger. Sorry to use the example yet again, but Emiliano Sala in the UK had every right to believe that he was in safe hands and probably wasn't aware let alone "happy to accept a lower level", until it was too late and he made that last pre -take off tweet about his concerns.

[gerry111]

Following the Emilio Sala crash, there's a huge stink in Europe about a blind eye having been turned to PPLs conducting commercial operations in the guise of the cost sharing exemption(see the "Accidents & Near Misses" section for the sorry saga to date).

Max Tow, I assume you mean the PPRuNe section: "Accidents and Close Calls"? Would you please supply a link to the thread that you refer, regarding Emeliano (or Emelio) Sala?

[Okihara]

https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/617514-cardiff-city-footballer-feared-missing-after-aircraft-disappeared-near-channel-island-4.html

[Max Tow]

Thanks, Okihara, though it was already linked in post # 7. As mentioned there, the last half dozen pages give an idea of the latest regulatory investigations if you don't have the time for 86 pages!

[gerry111]

Thankyou Okihara and Max Tow.

[oggers]

For God sake, why do we make such a fuss? The kid is going for a fly in a 172 . The most dangerous part of the day will be the drive to the airport!

Not according to AOPA:

One of the oldest and most incorrect sayings in GA is that flying light aircraft is safer than driving. By every statistical measure we can come up with to make the comparison, flying is much riskier.

[Okihara]

Sure but that's as blanket a statement as it gets. The source is: https://blog.aopa.org/aopa/2009/02/27/its-safer-than-driving-a-car-not/. Not very deep, statistically speaking that is.

In the Melbourne basin area, the air must be safer than the road if the number of people driving and texting at 80 km/h on the Nepean Hwy is any measure to go by.

[Max Tow]

Max
I don’t think ‘where money has changed hands’ is the issue. Even in poor Mr Sala’s case, in that aircraft, if it was fully serviceable, with a properly licensed pilot, acting within the law, that fight should have been safe, whether money was paid or not.

I was once familiar with an organisation of the type you describe. Yes, the legality of the organisation’s private/cost sharing might be questionable. But they used private pilots (who paid some proportion of the flight costs) for flying sort of ‘fare paying’ children from a young persons organisation, where the flights were advertised. They flew thousands of children around the block over many years and as far as I know had no serious issues. They were very well organised and pilots were well trained and checked by a high ranking instructor very regularly before they were allowed to take part. I believe CASA were aware of this operation and gave at least tacit approval. Unfortunately, this organisation suffered some very badly managed political problems and whist they did have an AOC and training approvals I have no idea how or whether they operate now as I have moved far away. I am not implying that this is/was the organisation you might be thinking of. There are a few such organisations.

Quite so, but I would guess that the permitted handing over of money under the "private flight/cost sharing" scenario is intended to cover "mates flying with mates" or hours building, and not to allow what is effectively the sale of flights to the general public under a lighter-touch regulatory regime of which the passenger might not be aware (and perhaps with insurance implications as per LeadSled's example above).

[zanthrus]

Whether or not money changed hands in strict accordance with the private cost sharing regulations or not, it does not mean that said flight was any more unsafe than a bonafide charter. Plenty of legal charters have crashed too. I think some are missing the essential point. Is the aircraft and pilot safe? Will the intended flight be able to be completed safely given weather, fuel, load, time, daylight, terrain etc. If in doubt don't go. Same same for a charter as well. My 2 cents.

[Max Tow]

Whether or not money changed hands in strict accordance with the private cost sharing regulations or not, it does not mean that said flight was any more unsafe than a bonafide charter. Plenty of legal charters have crashed too. I think some are missing the essential point. Is the aircraft and pilot safe? Will the intended flight be able to be completed safely given weather, fuel, load, time, daylight, terrain etc. If in doubt don't go. Same same for a charter as well. My 2 cents.

Now you've lost me. Why bother to have AOCs,CPLs and even CASA if you're expecting a member of the public to have sufficient expertise to make those judgements?

[Flying Ted]

Hi Max,
I've just read through this discussion and its an interesting read. You asked a good question, got good answers and a lot of opinions.

I think what zanthrus is saying is, "did you have enough information to satisfy yourself of your son's safety?" I think you didn't and therefore you made a logical and safe decision. Someone else in your position may have made more inquiries into what exactly was being organised and who would be flying the plane. Maybe, with more information, you might have made a different call. It doesn't matter, its not big a deal and maybe you will go on and organise a charter of your own with your son.

I'd suspect that even if you thought the operation was going to be a commercial charter you would still want know whose's the pilot and the organisation oversighting the whole thing.

Cheers Ted