Is this legal without AOC?

[DFC]

www.caa.co.uk/docs/1428/summary_of_public_transport.pdf

The above is a good explanation of what makes a flight public transport and what does not.

Recomended reading.

As is the following;

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1196/20071...PRCampaign.pdf

Regards,

DFC

[richatom]

Thank you - very useful.

[Bravo73]

Originally Posted by richatom

Depends who you listen to - read the thread.

I have been reading it, thanks. And from the further details that you've given us, please let me re-phrase it:

"Then you've definitely been conducting illegal PT."


Look at it from another angle - if you and your hired aircraft weren't available and yet the buyers still wanted to take the flights, what options would they have? Exactly. They would charter an aircraft and pilot from an AOC operator. Which is, in essence, what you have been doing.

Certain areas of the legislation are indeed 'grey'. But what you've been doing is one of the 'black and white' areas.

[richatom]

They would charter an aircraft and pilot from an AOC operator.

No, they would not fly at all because without the yacht related business that I generate there would be no need for the travel. My company certainly would not pay for a "professional pilot" who has no productive use outside of the cockpit.

You may be right that it is illegal (I am making further enquiries) but if it is, it is not a good regulation. The regulation is the equivalent of forcing every businessman to travel only in licenced taxis and preventing them from driving themselves on business. Business would clearly suffer for no advantage and that is not good for anybody.

[richatom]

An update on my last post having finally managed to speak to a very helpful chap in the DGAC in Paris.

What he told me is that it is illegal without an AOC to offer air transport services (ie an aircraft and pilot as one service). However, it is legal for third parties to hire an aeroplane without a pilot, and then hire a pilot separately to fly the plane (as long as he is qualifed to fly the plane).

Thus the flights that I have undertaken in the past were legal as the hire of the aircraft was invoiced directly to either my company, or the yacht in question. I did not actually invoice for my time as a professional pilot, though I could choose to raise a second invoice if I wished.

So voilà, in France at least it is legal.

[Flingingwings]

You're talking about two completely different sets of circumstances.

1) Your employer asks you to fly yourself to a meeting. Your employer pays for all the aircraft hire costs. But you recieve NO additional money for your piloting (and or professional services etc etc). That's legal See the link to the CAA document. You can even carry your colleagues - so long as they are offered an alternative method of transport (IE they don't travel with you under duress), and it doesn't cost them ANY money.

2) Your main business is not aviation. You hire an aircraft to fly some customers to see a yacht. (You're not doing it for free. The passengers aren't cost sharing). What you're getting the customers to do is pay for the aircraft hire, and then pay for your piloting skills. Doesn't matter how you 'dress' it up, that's what your doing. Bet the potential yacht buyers wouldn't get the trip if the REFUSED to pay for the aircraft hire or for your individual 'yachting services'

Your passengers do have a choice. You tell them about a yacht. What stops them from hiring not only the aircraft and a pilot (from the AOC holder you'd be hiring the aircraft from anyway) and then taking you along purely as a yacht sales representative????? The answer is nothing

That you hold a CPL/IR is immaterial. Are you base and line checked? Do you comply with all the other training requirements that charter pilots have to comply with? What about insurance?

I'm amazed the place you hire from lets you. After all, you're only taking business from them.

Your opening post sets the scene when you describe the work as 'Air Taxi'

Sorry but no matter how you twist this the facts won't change And comparing aviation to car driving is a last desperate 'grasp at straws' almost as logical as comparing flying to the moon with eating a curry

[richatom]

1) Your employer asks you to fly yourself to a meeting. Your employer pays for all the aircraft hire costs. But you recieve NO additional money for your piloting (and or professional services etc etc). That's legal See the link to the CAA document. You can even carry your colleagues - so long as they are offered an alternative method of transport (IE they don't travel with you under duress), and it doesn't cost them ANY money.

Thanks for agreeing on that one - some here were arguing that even that was illegal!

2) Your main business is not aviation. You hire an aircraft to fly some customers to see a yacht. (You're not doing it for free. The passengers aren't cost sharing). What you're getting the customers to do is pay for the aircraft hire, and then pay for your piloting skills. Doesn't matter how you 'dress' it up, that's what your doing. Bet the potential yacht buyers wouldn't get the trip if the REFUSED to pay for the aircraft hire or for your individual 'yachting services'

Yes, but see my immediately preceding post. In France at least, the passengers can choose to rent a light aircraft without pilot, then they can separately hire a pilot to fly them. If the pilot happens to be me, that is fine (even better for them as I don't actually charge them anything for the flying, and then I can be useful on the ground on arrival at the destination). As long as the aircraft hire is invoiced directly to the client, then this is legal in France at least (and I would be surprised if the UK was more restrictive than France).

Your passengers do have a choice. You tell them about a yacht. What stops them from hiring not only the aircraft and a pilot (from the AOC holder you'd be hiring the aircraft from anyway) and then taking you along purely as a yacht sales representative????? The answer is nothing

Except that it costs a lot more, and one seat is taken by somebody who does nothing except fly the plane.

I'm amazed the place you hire from lets you. After all, you're only taking business from them.

No, I am bringing them business. The aircraft would sit idly on the tarmac if it was not for my industry.

Your opening post sets the scene when you describe the work as 'Air Taxi'

. Admittedly clumsy wording, that is all.

Sorry but no matter how you twist this the facts won't change And comparing aviation to car driving is a last desperate 'grasp at straws' almost as logical as comparing flying to the moon with eating a curry

On the contrary, I think it is a very apt comparison. I am not trying to belittle professional pilots, but it is perfectly possible for somebody to fly a plane professionally and safely, but not actually be paid for it and earn their living in another profession.

[IO540]

An update on my last post having finally managed to speak to a very helpful chap in the DGAC in Paris.

What he told me is that it is illegal without an AOC to offer air transport services (ie an aircraft and pilot as one service). However, it is legal for third parties to hire an aeroplane without a pilot, and then hire a pilot separately to fly the plane (as long as he is qualifed to fly the plane).

The above is quite correct and is the de facto situation with more or less the entire light jet scene around the world (most of which is not owner flown but the owner hires a professional pilot/crew).

[sispanys ria]

Beside the fact that the topic is about french operations (nothing to do with CAA), I suppose it would be same in UK.

A client can perfectly hire/lease/buy a plane and SEPARATELY hire a pilot to fly him wherever he wants, as long as it's for his PRIVATE USE. What would make the client (and the pilot) conduct illegal OPS, would be to use the aircraft to generate income (that would become COMMERCIAL OPS).

Remember the reference to car-taxi operations. If you provide the car, then it is illegal. If a client hires a car and separately hires a chauffeur, it's absolutely legal as long as he's using as a private car. It's same with a plane...

[Bravo73]

Originally Posted by sispanys ria

A client can perfectly hire/lease/buy a plane and SEPARATELY hire a pilot to fly him wherever he wants, as long as it's for his PRIVATE USE. What would make the client (and the pilot) conduct illegal OPS, would be to use the aircraft to generate income (that would become COMMERCIAL OPS).

But richatom's clients haven't been doing this.

From his earlier post:

Originally Posted by richatom

What I have done up to now is hire the aircraft, then send an invoice to the clients for the aircraft and fuel, and another invoice for my own time.

By his own admission, richatom has told us that he has hired an aircraft and provided his services as a pilot. (ie illegal PT.) He is just trying to hide behind the '2 invoices' scam.

Now, if his clients had genuinely approached an aircraft owner, hired/leased the aircraft and then hired richatom as the pilot, that would be legal (just). But that isn't happening here.


PS richatom is patently using the aircraft 'to generate income (that would become COMMERCIAL OPS).'

[richatom]

What would make the client (and the pilot) conduct illegal OPS, would be to use the aircraft to generate income (that would become COMMERCIAL OPS).

Yep, just what the DGAC chap said. The flight itself cannot generate income. But if just carrying spare parts, tools etc that belong to the client, or the client himself, or passengers working for the client, then all is perfectly legal, as long as it is the client who has hired the aircraft.

The only other caveat he mentioned is that the requirement for the flight should be initiated by the client and not by the pilot - thus, for example, it would be illegal for a pilot to promote or advertise such an opportunity, and it would be illegal for the pilot to hire the aircraft as part of the service to the client.

[moggiee]

Originally Posted by richatom

Depends who you listen to - read the thread. Seems that if the passengers hire the plane, and hire me, then it is legal. This is what I have done on some occasions when I didn't know the pax well enough to be sure that they would reimburse me if I hired the plane myself. On other occasions, where I knew the pax well, I just hired the plane myself and got reimbursed later. I realise now that by the letter of the law I shouldn't have been doing the latter, though in practical sense it makes no difference to operational safety.

Incidentally, this distinction is not covered in my air law books and I am yet to find this explained anywhere in any legal text.

Have you checked the insurance status of the aeroplane you're hiring?

You may well find that with you using for (probably) illegal "AOC" work then the insurance will probably be invalid, too - potentially leaving you with a huge liability and risk of prosecution if there's an incident.

[IO540]

A client can perfectly hire/lease/buy a plane and SEPARATELY hire a pilot to fly him wherever he wants, as long as it's for his PRIVATE USE. What would make the client (and the pilot) conduct illegal OPS, would be to use the aircraft to generate income (that would become COMMERCIAL OPS).

The words "private use" above are superfluous and incorrect.

In my business, I can get hold of a plane, and get hold of a pilot to fly it. The pilot needs a CPL. This is legal, even though this is business flying.

The important thing is that the flying has to be incidental to my business (which as it happens is nothing to do with aviation).

The funny thing is that the pilot doesn't even need a CPL (he can be a PPL) if he is my employee, and always has the option to take the train etc. It is only a pilot who is employment-contractually required to fly that needs a CPL. This is how many business owners (with a PPL) fly on their own business, perfectly legally.

The only other caveat he mentioned is that the requirement for the flight should be initiated by the client and not by the pilot - thus, for example, it would be illegal for a pilot to promote or advertise such an opportunity, and it would be illegal for the pilot to hire the aircraft as part of the service to the client.

Yes, this is what under FAA rules is known as "holding out" and one gets closely quizzed on it in the FAA CPL oral. Holding out is out of the question; you need not just a CPL but an AOC and the whole damned lot. This is why, probably in the whole world, a CPL alone is worthless unless one gets a job in a company with an AOC. Except that you can be a paid pilot with it, retained by a company or by a private individual, to fly his plane.

The situation w.r.t. legality varies around the world but is not that complicated. If it was, business flying (especially jets) would be finished, because one is carrying one's own employees, sometimes customers or suppliers, or subcontractors, etc. And the whole business is international anyway. And MONEY is always changing hands.

One can have grey areas caused by who the flight is billed to afterwards. But establishing who a specific flight is billed to could be quite difficult, and obviously if there was an incident then the invoice will not be raised!

An example of a grey area is a G-reg plane, on a Private CofA, owned by a company, and the company owner rents the plane from the company. The act of rental means the plane needs to be maintained to the Transport CofA standard, which multiplies the operating cost through 150hr checks and some component certification issues. But the "rental" is rental only because some adjustment is done in the company accounts (in the Director's loan account) for the private use. The adjustment is done at year-end and if there was an incident then you would obviously not make that adjustment!

[richatom]

By his own admission, richatom has told us that he has hired an aircraft and provided his services as a pilot. (ie illegal PT.) He is just trying to hide behind the '2 invoices' scam.

Yes, I now realise that on some occasions last year when I hired the plane myself, paid for the hire myself, then sent an invoice to the client (at the written request of the client - they wanted it that way), that this was illegal. Hence I have been asking on here to clarify the situation, and I won't be doing it that way again.

However, on the majority of the occasions the aircraft operator sent the invoice directly to the client, and I provided pilot services for free, which we have now established is the correct and legal way to operate, and is what I will be doing in the future.

There is no such thing as a "2 invoices scam". It is not a scam, because it is legal to operate in that way.

[Flingingwings]

Seems our posts crossed Rich.

Clearly within France what you need to do if you hold an AOC is scrap it. Save the costs! Allow your customers to hire the aircraft and pilot seperately and you're away.

The last comment above mine that says 'if there's an incident you wouldn't make the adjustment' highlights the 'dodgy' path you're probably following.

A few questions do spring to mind though.
For the very first yacht viewing trip you ever did. How did the potential purchasers know you had access to another operators aircraft and that you could fly it?????
Were you asked or did you offer?
For subsequent trips are you surprised each time you're asked or do you offer/advertise the aerial viewing service?
How do you decide how much to 'indirectly' charge for your piloting time?

As you provide a freelance piloting service to those that hire an aircraft and then hire you, what liability insurance do you have? Who pays if either the aircraft is damaged or the passengers are injured?

Does the aerial viewing ever clinch the sale? If so, are you not making a profit/income out of that flight (Hire or reward is different to simply recieving hard cash as payment for the actual flight costs).

It would of course be a different set of circumstances if your employer actually owned the aircraft, and the potential yacht buyers were given the trip for free.

End of the day it's YOUR licence and reputation if things go wrong.

FWIW thats a major fact I'd consider if my long term ambition was a full time flying career. (Apologies if my assumption that you are relatively low hours and trying to get some flying whilst awaiting a 'break' are incorrect.)

[Bravo73]

Originally Posted by richatom

There is no such thing as a "2 invoices scam". It is not a scam, because it is legal to operate in that way.

It is a scam because all you are doing is trying to get the paperwork to show that the aircraft hire and the pilot hire were independent. Which they weren't. You, in effect, were offering both services to your clients.

And what was it the man from the DGAC said?

Originally Posted by richatom

The only other caveat he mentioned is that the requirement for the flight should be initiated by the client and not by the pilot.

So, who's idea were the flights? Your's or your client's?



If I was you, I would probably be starting to get worried if anybody from the South of France AOC community or the DGAC enforcement department (if such a thing exists) reads these forums. I can't believe that there are that many English CPL/IRs with connections to the yachting industry hiring light twins on an ad-hoc basis in that area. Like FW said, reputation can be everything in this industry.

[richatom]

It is fine - as I said operator is happy for me to use their aircraft, I tell them exactly what I am doing, and DGAC is happy too. It is not a scam - it is perfectly legal so nothing for you to get upset about.

And as I said at the start of the thread, I get asked to fly people, mostly friends and freinds of friends - I don't advertise or initiate anything. So from now on I will just tell callers to hire an aeroplane, and if it is one that I can fly, that I will happily fly them for free and for pleasure. They can have the choice, if they wish, of paying for one of the operator's company pilots. Happy now?

[Flingingwings]

It is fine - as I said operator is happy for me to use their aircraft and DGAC is happy. It is not a scam - it is perfectly legal so nothing for you to get upset about

Excellent.

Still a bit confused about whether the potential buyers (and hence the aircraft hirers) are YOUR clients. Or whether you as the hired pilot are simply THIER client????

Perhaps to help further my knowledge you'd spare the time to offer answers to some of the questions posed?

Thanks.



Easy Rich, No need for teddies or soap boxes.
Advice is simply that. You digest it, then either follow or not. After all it was you that asked

[Lost man standing]

richatom

All I can suggest is, as I have said before and Bravo has implied, is that you should not arrange the aircraft hire. Keep as much distance as possible from that side of it, let the customer arrange a price with the owner, and pay directly. You might not get immediate problems but if you are involve in an incident, maybe as small as a passenger falling, then you could end up in court and find you have hefty liability. If the passengers claim you arranged the whole thing, then you could suffer a fine and risk your licence as well. The DGAC might say one thing, but their enforcement branch and a court might disagree - that is where the law is tested!

Remember, it isn't just what is technically legal that matters, but what you can justify to a court.

[richatom]

Yes, I am insured with the operator's insurance. That is first thing I checked!

I don't understand you other question - I have a CPL so I can fly for hire or reward, and I could (if I wished) invoice for my services as a pilot to the passengers. I just choose not to do so, as I enjoy the flying.

All I can suggest is, as I have said before and Bravo has implied, is that you should not arrange the aircraft hire.

Exactly, that is the key point. Incidentally I also learnt today that if somebody wishes to hire an aircraft in this fashion it is considered private hire and they are not restriced by JAR/OPS. So they can, for example hire a SEP, then hire a pilot to fly it.