Is this legal without AOC?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flintstone
You mistakes get no less if you compound them with insistence and additional errors. I am who I am, no matter what you insist, and you are wrong in saying "No you didn't", however you insist.
In fact I logged on for the first time in a long while as a colleague pointed me to another article of relevance to me, unconnected with rich who I have never knowingly encountered before, online or in real life, and I tripped over you trying to bully another PPRuNer in very much the same way you tried to bully me - by taking a side issue and running with it, despite the lack of connection with the matter at dispute.
What part of "... I heard from [someone else] ..." are you failing to understand? As he said, richatom didn't say it was true, he said he had heard it, so he was passing on an allegation. In fact I don't personally think he should have done so, but you are the one who decided to start the bullying so you can hardly complain and I can easily understand his reasons for doing.
Of course the fact that former colleagues are willing to pass on such allegations says far more about you than rich's willingness to fly for free (as many pilots do at some point) says about him. Your own words, assuming the worst from that willingness, "Good luck. Without a major shift in attitude I'm afraid you're going to need it", say even more about you. Very much the same bullying tone and very similar nasty sentiments you posted to me.
You mistakes get no less if you compound them with insistence and additional errors. I am who I am, no matter what you insist, and you are wrong in saying "No you didn't", however you insist.
In fact I logged on for the first time in a long while as a colleague pointed me to another article of relevance to me, unconnected with rich who I have never knowingly encountered before, online or in real life, and I tripped over you trying to bully another PPRuNer in very much the same way you tried to bully me - by taking a side issue and running with it, despite the lack of connection with the matter at dispute.
What part of "... I heard from [someone else] ..." are you failing to understand? As he said, richatom didn't say it was true, he said he had heard it, so he was passing on an allegation. In fact I don't personally think he should have done so, but you are the one who decided to start the bullying so you can hardly complain and I can easily understand his reasons for doing.
Of course the fact that former colleagues are willing to pass on such allegations says far more about you than rich's willingness to fly for free (as many pilots do at some point) says about him. Your own words, assuming the worst from that willingness, "Good luck. Without a major shift in attitude I'm afraid you're going to need it", say even more about you. Very much the same bullying tone and very similar nasty sentiments you posted to me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh purlease. Stop whinging.
rich came on here and after a while realised/conceded he'd flown illegally. People tried to help him, he then changed his mind. Personally I think he should have stopped digging early on but he chose not to. He then said he flew on occasion for free when he could have charged. Let's not confuse that with 'flying a Pitts', he said they were commercial flights.
No professional worth their salt likes to see their colleagues undercut. The irony is these low houred pilots are making their own lives harder and if memory serves we've had threads in here where people have reconsidered their actions after such a conversation.
As for accusations of bullying, oh the irony! Take a look at some of your posts both as SC and LaB. Their tone are what identify you. If I recall the reason you got mardy with me was because I cut and pasted some of your 'finer' comments into a thread and I'm sure you didn't change from 'Send Clowns' because that persona had become so popular.
I'm glad you're back Clowns. You make me laugh.
rich came on here and after a while realised/conceded he'd flown illegally. People tried to help him, he then changed his mind. Personally I think he should have stopped digging early on but he chose not to. He then said he flew on occasion for free when he could have charged. Let's not confuse that with 'flying a Pitts', he said they were commercial flights.
No professional worth their salt likes to see their colleagues undercut. The irony is these low houred pilots are making their own lives harder and if memory serves we've had threads in here where people have reconsidered their actions after such a conversation.
As for accusations of bullying, oh the irony! Take a look at some of your posts both as SC and LaB. Their tone are what identify you. If I recall the reason you got mardy with me was because I cut and pasted some of your 'finer' comments into a thread and I'm sure you didn't change from 'Send Clowns' because that persona had become so popular.
I'm glad you're back Clowns. You make me laugh.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good friend of mine who shall remain unnamed has recently ceased operations. He used to operate a fleet of twin engined piston aircraft using the private flight scheme (2 separate invoices etc.) The majority of his clients were jockeys who were fully briefed and were happy to tell any CAA inspector to Foxtrot Oscar.
The real problem is that the CAA knows that this is a loophole that they cannot easily close without testing it in a court of law. If they did, and lost, that would open the floodgates.
So instead the CAA uses intimidation tactics. Some 15 years ago we operated flights in a similar fashion. Company A approached us to carry out a flight from Leeds to France. Two separate invoices were issued and the flight proceeded.
A local AOC operator missed out on this flight and reported it as an illegal charter to the CAA. The CAA arranged a welcoming party at Leeds. The pax were questioned by the CAA man and were asked by immigration to fill in landing cards. Now the CAA had the names, addresses and telephone number of pax.
The passenger’s turned out to be buyers for one of the UK’s largest supermarkets and were flown by Company A to visit its production facility in France.
Needless to say, the pax volunteered that they were guests of Company A.
CAA contacted company A and told them that they have been the victim of an illegal
Public transport charter, threatening to inform their passengers (the buyers from the supermarket chain). Company A panicks and agrees to do whatever the CAA demands to avoid the pax being contacted again.
CAA visits company A and gets a statement to say they thought they were buying a public charter flight and that they paid for a charter flight.
CAA goes to court, but their lawyer is presented with 2 cheques on the steps of the court house. CAA drops case (as they do not wish to test this in court). However, company A will never book another flight without having sight of an AOC certificate.
Job accomplished.
The CAA is now leaning on insurance companies to exclude ‘private corporate flights’ from their policies.
The CAA knows that there are more ways than one to skin a cat.
My advice, get an AOC and do it properly, or stay on the ground and wash airplanes!
CG
The real problem is that the CAA knows that this is a loophole that they cannot easily close without testing it in a court of law. If they did, and lost, that would open the floodgates.
So instead the CAA uses intimidation tactics. Some 15 years ago we operated flights in a similar fashion. Company A approached us to carry out a flight from Leeds to France. Two separate invoices were issued and the flight proceeded.
A local AOC operator missed out on this flight and reported it as an illegal charter to the CAA. The CAA arranged a welcoming party at Leeds. The pax were questioned by the CAA man and were asked by immigration to fill in landing cards. Now the CAA had the names, addresses and telephone number of pax.
The passenger’s turned out to be buyers for one of the UK’s largest supermarkets and were flown by Company A to visit its production facility in France.
Needless to say, the pax volunteered that they were guests of Company A.
CAA contacted company A and told them that they have been the victim of an illegal
Public transport charter, threatening to inform their passengers (the buyers from the supermarket chain). Company A panicks and agrees to do whatever the CAA demands to avoid the pax being contacted again.
CAA visits company A and gets a statement to say they thought they were buying a public charter flight and that they paid for a charter flight.
CAA goes to court, but their lawyer is presented with 2 cheques on the steps of the court house. CAA drops case (as they do not wish to test this in court). However, company A will never book another flight without having sight of an AOC certificate.
Job accomplished.
The CAA is now leaning on insurance companies to exclude ‘private corporate flights’ from their policies.
The CAA knows that there are more ways than one to skin a cat.
My advice, get an AOC and do it properly, or stay on the ground and wash airplanes!
CG
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: WGS 84
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are all talking about separate invoices emitted by the same company/individual.
As we said, the way to do it legally is to have the aircraft leased SEPARATELY. I do understand Rich is not owning any aircraft. As long as his passengers are getting the plane on their own, and then asks Rich to fly it, it's absolutely legal, and once again the French CAA confirmed it.
Why do you insist with your AOC stuff ? How many guys do you know that got an AOC to conduct seldom private flights (and for free ?). The AOC is for commercial purposes, and what Rich is doing is not commercial, it's private operations.
Since he is not getting paid, he could even do it with a simple PPL !
As we said, the way to do it legally is to have the aircraft leased SEPARATELY. I do understand Rich is not owning any aircraft. As long as his passengers are getting the plane on their own, and then asks Rich to fly it, it's absolutely legal, and once again the French CAA confirmed it.
Why do you insist with your AOC stuff ? How many guys do you know that got an AOC to conduct seldom private flights (and for free ?). The AOC is for commercial purposes, and what Rich is doing is not commercial, it's private operations.
Since he is not getting paid, he could even do it with a simple PPL !
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Some sunny place with good wine and good sailing
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you to everybody who has contributed advice to my original question, whether your advice was correct or proven to be incorrect. The arguments have allowed me to establish that it in France it is legal to carry passengers or goods during the course of my job by operating privately and ensuring that the passenger or owner of the goods pays directly for the hire of the aircraft. They can even pay me,when appropriate, though as ria sispanys points out, I could even do these flights with a PPL so I am not "undercutting" anybody if I choose not to charge. This has all been confirmed by my CAA. This is what I will continue to do, until my flying experience is worth enough on the free market to enable me to get a paying flying job.
The advice on here has made me think more carefully about the risks of "holding out" to try to get some more flights, and I will certainly avoid organising the hire/insurance of the aircraft myself, which I admit to having innocently done on a couple of occasions in the past in a desire to be as helpful as possible to the the person ultimately paying for the flight.
The advice on here has made me think more carefully about the risks of "holding out" to try to get some more flights, and I will certainly avoid organising the hire/insurance of the aircraft myself, which I admit to having innocently done on a couple of occasions in the past in a desire to be as helpful as possible to the the person ultimately paying for the flight.
Last edited by richatom; 4th Apr 2008 at 08:32.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA is now leaning on insurance companies to exclude ‘private corporate flights’ from their policies.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bear in mind that this sort activity is at best dodgy, at worst illegal. Corporate man slaughter is the charge that will follow if there was an accident and a passenger died as a result.
Furthermore, the insurance companies will use all means at their disposal not settle the claim, including third party liabilities. This means that if found guilty, you would have to pay all the compensation yourself. This being a potentially huge debt, probably for life.
What sort of sentence do you get for corporate man slaughter, anyone know?
Furthermore, the insurance companies will use all means at their disposal not settle the claim, including third party liabilities. This means that if found guilty, you would have to pay all the compensation yourself. This being a potentially huge debt, probably for life.
What sort of sentence do you get for corporate man slaughter, anyone know?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly what sort of activity are you refering to as there are some variations mentioned here. And, are you a lawyer or a pilot or both?
Why should the legitimate AOC operators tolerate cowboys, furthermore, why are the CAA allowing the public to be put at risk in this way? They should close this loop hole for good, and send anyone who operates illegally without the correct licences and operating certificates to prison. It's illegal, dangerous, and damages the General Aviation industry.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: I can see it from here.
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flynowpaylater
I have also been in the business for many years, I have flown for private individuals, AOC, AOC/Corporate and have also been hired to fly aircraft that have been leased by an individual and required competent crew, acceptable to the owner(s) and insurance company to operate the aircraft for them. I have always operated within the scope of my licences and ratings and according to the law. Safe and legal flying does not cease to exist just because it is not hire & reward under an AOC and offered in the public domain. I do not think I know anybody in the industry that has not flown something sometime privately for another. On the other hand I think we have all met pilots with whom we are amazed are able to continue flying within an AOC operation, if you know what I mean
. So, I think we can all agree that there is good and bad throughout the business of aviation, a holier than thou attitude wont change it, nor should it.
All the best (Maybe time to get another name
)
I have also been in the business for many years, I have flown for private individuals, AOC, AOC/Corporate and have also been hired to fly aircraft that have been leased by an individual and required competent crew, acceptable to the owner(s) and insurance company to operate the aircraft for them. I have always operated within the scope of my licences and ratings and according to the law. Safe and legal flying does not cease to exist just because it is not hire & reward under an AOC and offered in the public domain. I do not think I know anybody in the industry that has not flown something sometime privately for another. On the other hand I think we have all met pilots with whom we are amazed are able to continue flying within an AOC operation, if you know what I mean
. So, I think we can all agree that there is good and bad throughout the business of aviation, a holier than thou attitude wont change it, nor should it.All the best (Maybe time to get another name
)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: United states of Europe
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richatom:
Wrt your yacht broker business (which I assume is a paid position) I think the words you are looking for are "incidental to employment". If you get paid for doing a job buying/ selling/ managing yachts, and incidentally use an aircraft and your pilots license, it's not really working for free. Somebody mentioned the FAA "holding out" issue, and "incidental to employment" is a part of that story.
Wrt your yacht broker business (which I assume is a paid position) I think the words you are looking for are "incidental to employment". If you get paid for doing a job buying/ selling/ managing yachts, and incidentally use an aircraft and your pilots license, it's not really working for free. Somebody mentioned the FAA "holding out" issue, and "incidental to employment" is a part of that story.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NuName,
I agree that there are many legitimate corporate operations. I also agree that there are some AOC operations that fall below standards. However, with the AOC operator's, the CAA have the power and means to do something about it.
There are many dubious "corporate" operations that hide behind current legislation. It is a farce that this can be allowed to continue. Surely the CAA and their lavishly paid inspectors can come up with a scheme whereby corporate operations are regulated, licensed and accountable? It need not be as stringent as AOC's, but regulated non the less.
IMHO to not properly regulate this lucrative and busy sector of the aviation business is at best remiss, at worst negligent of the CAA as a governing body.
I agree that there are many legitimate corporate operations. I also agree that there are some AOC operations that fall below standards. However, with the AOC operator's, the CAA have the power and means to do something about it.
There are many dubious "corporate" operations that hide behind current legislation. It is a farce that this can be allowed to continue. Surely the CAA and their lavishly paid inspectors can come up with a scheme whereby corporate operations are regulated, licensed and accountable? It need not be as stringent as AOC's, but regulated non the less.
IMHO to not properly regulate this lucrative and busy sector of the aviation business is at best remiss, at worst negligent of the CAA as a governing body.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting, and what regulations would you like to see introduced and enforced? Besides obeying current regulations that is.
Perhaps a minimum term aircraft lease, or maybe aircraft owners being more accountable over who is flying their aircraft, and for what purpose. Maybe regulating corporate pilots flying hours similar to CAP371, the aircraft being maintained and operated to a minimum level and crews having to be trained to AOC standards. Why should the corporate client have to accept a lesser level of safety?
The currently regulations are not strong enough, that is clear, therefore new regulations need to be drawn up to protect the general public, and the bona-fide operators, both AOC and corporate.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let he without sin cast the first stone
Perfect post, this thread should have gone very quiet after that.
Apart from the brokers who have a ve$ted interest in making sure it doesnt happen and the corporate owners who put their pilots under pressure to "fly freinds and aquaintances" around perhaps not illegally but certainly uninsured when the worst happens and you actually need the insurance and not just the certificate within the aircraft docs.
CAA are far from toothless over this, got ramp checked at Biggin last year, in an N reg bizjet. Idiot didn't have his ID with him so I told him to poke off, had just dropped my CEO off who strode 10 yards into our N Reg heli - must have looked really dodgy.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: I can see it from here.
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flynowpaylater
Well now, as a ATPL having done AOC work and dutifully completed my OPC's and LPC's I can tell you that it did not change me at all. Any ATPL with a decent type rating could do it, and they do. So you must be talking about all the recurrent training for prohibited articles, fire fighting, first aid, etc etc that has me fighting to stay awake. As for "Why should the corporate client have to accept a lesser level of safety?" they don't do they, they can have even more than you provide if they wish, and some do, like my boss of a few years ago, its only money isn't it. And if the present rules were relaxed for AOC operators in some way, how many AOC operators would say "oh no, we are going to stick with the previous regs as it safer, we don't care about the money" Yeah right. AOC's operate according to the law and as long as everybody else you have nothing to complain about. If Joe Baggsofmoney wants to lease himself a Jet I will be happy to fly it for him.
Well now, as a ATPL having done AOC work and dutifully completed my OPC's and LPC's I can tell you that it did not change me at all. Any ATPL with a decent type rating could do it, and they do. So you must be talking about all the recurrent training for prohibited articles, fire fighting, first aid, etc etc that has me fighting to stay awake. As for "Why should the corporate client have to accept a lesser level of safety?" they don't do they, they can have even more than you provide if they wish, and some do, like my boss of a few years ago, its only money isn't it. And if the present rules were relaxed for AOC operators in some way, how many AOC operators would say "oh no, we are going to stick with the previous regs as it safer, we don't care about the money" Yeah right. AOC's operate according to the law and as long as everybody else you have nothing to complain about. If Joe Baggsofmoney wants to lease himself a Jet I will be happy to fly it for him.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nuname, I understand where you are coming from, and as I stated previously, I am sure there are many corporate operations that are totally safe and legal.
The point I make is simple. There are also quite a few individuals that sail very close to the wind, and often cross the line. These operations are sub standard, and therefore need to be stopped. At the moment, the feds are pretty much powerless to stop it, due to the legal framework being inadequate. If you are legal, which it sounds like you are, then no problem. These cowboys tarnish the image of the industry. Surely you can see my point?
A great example being a certain Italian jockey who nearly met his maker at Newmarket. I know of people who refused to fly in PA34's thereafter because they deemed Seneca's dangerous. They are not dangerous, only if trying to operate outside of it's capability, as was the case that day. Better regulation may have avoided this accident, and countless others.
The point I make is simple. There are also quite a few individuals that sail very close to the wind, and often cross the line. These operations are sub standard, and therefore need to be stopped. At the moment, the feds are pretty much powerless to stop it, due to the legal framework being inadequate. If you are legal, which it sounds like you are, then no problem. These cowboys tarnish the image of the industry. Surely you can see my point?
A great example being a certain Italian jockey who nearly met his maker at Newmarket. I know of people who refused to fly in PA34's thereafter because they deemed Seneca's dangerous. They are not dangerous, only if trying to operate outside of it's capability, as was the case that day. Better regulation may have avoided this accident, and countless others.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: I can see it from here.
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flynowpaylater
OK, we are now on common ground, I just get angry when I see GA pilots being run down for just trying to make a living, you can find rogues in any walk of life. Better the guy that gets off his butt and does something than the guy who sits at home and lives off our taxes.
OK, we are now on common ground, I just get angry when I see GA pilots being run down for just trying to make a living, you can find rogues in any walk of life. Better the guy that gets off his butt and does something than the guy who sits at home and lives off our taxes.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NuName - Agreed, but they need to know how to do it properly. A new ATPL (frozen) where the ink is still wet, who thinks he can now fly for money in a rented baron or C340 etc...is a danger to all, including him/herself.