Name & Shame - Operating Commercial Flights on Private Aircraft!!!

[Lost man standing]

Pace

Please paste any bit that I have written here which indicates that I do NOT consider an accident to be a chain of events which lead to that accident?

the cause of an accident will NEVER be illegal charter but always will be Pilot induced aircraft faults or a mixture of both

every accident is due to either Pilot error, aircraft failure or a combination of both

So you used the singular "the cause". You said that illegal charters, where the systems and accountability which break chains of events are not in place, can never be the cause of accident, implying that those systems cannot prevent accidents. You blame pilot error and/or mechanical failure for every accident, just as used to be the case years ago in accident reports. Nowadays they might be considered proximate cause, but never the sole cause as you imply.

The context also implied that. If you do accept that accidents are chains of events then neither of those pieces I quoted above is in any way relevant to the posts you were answering. If there are other links to the chain that can be broken by sound operations, then the point stands that tighter operations can prevent accidents, regardless of the final link in the chain. So why did you bother to post it in the first place?

Masterpieces are few here and not expected, but most people with good English manage to write so posts can be read easily. That is a common courtesy it is good to see you adopting.

Flintstone

My definitions of ultimate were chosen from a few options at "dictionary.com". They were not intended to be legal or technical definitions, but vernacular.

[Pace]

Flintstone

But that is not unique and happens in AOC work too. We seem to be in the same region so without naming names which I am not into I can give one example of a citation crash landing in Scotland by a london based AOC operator??? I am sure you too know the background and some of the attrocious conditions and pressures the pilots there were put under.

So it is not unique to private illegal operations but also exists within AOC operations.

The reasons pilots tolerate a lot is often that they dont have anywhere else to go other than out on the street on their backsides.

Pace

[Lost man standing]

Pace

You mean an operator that then lost its AOC cover and had to cancel a lot of flights? You make a good case for the safety benefits of an AOC that such failings could be addressed, and addressed swiftly.

[scrivenger]

Pace, then you must have had prior knowledge of your passengers. I am simply saying that it is the commanders responsibility to ensure he is satisfied thats his passengers are legitimate. What I wasn't saying was the fact that once your passengers get on board and you've had a good hard look at them you call your lawyer!.


Flintstone, surely you walked away because of the operational integrity of that flight, not because you thought your passengers might be dodgy.

There is a huge difference between a safe and an unsafe operation, and an operation that has been paid for correctly or incorrectly.

I'm glad that you walked away, you did the absoloute correct thing, but I suspect it was more because of the whole operation rather than wether it had been paid for correctly.

And to answer your question in order to keep things lively, the answer is two! I have reported two and both have ceased operations. They were reported to SB, HMRC and Immigration. Far far more effective than the CAA could ever be

[Flintstone]

Answer The Questions!

Thread drift but I'll go with it for now.

I believe that aircaft operator was piggybacking on another AOC at the time of the 'Scottish Incident'. Sounds a bit like having to say 'The Scottish Play' instead of 'Macbeth' doesn't it? (Considered to be bad luck in the theatre luvvy). I would point out though that they never "crashed". My understanding is that the crew overcame considerable adversity and made a safe if somewhat fast landing.

Oddly enough, said operator now has their own AOC. I can't help thinking that's a case of the CAA keeping their friends close and enemies closer. By granting an AOC they now have control over the operator whereas before it was the host AOC who took it on the chin.

Aaaanyway, where were we?


Pace.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. I was told by Planechartering that a flight was private (even though they were piggybacking on another AOC at the time). I didn't believe it so turned the work down. The other factors didn't help either and maybe clouded things on here. I know it happens on AOCs too but this thread is titled "Name & Shame - Operating Commercial Flights on Private Aircraft!!!".

Edit:

Originally Posted by scrivenger

Flintstone, surely you walked away because of the operational integrity of that flight, not because you thought your passengers might be dodgy.

Nope. My primary concern was the status of the passengers ie, private flight or not. The other factors, which I considered to be 'operational', were potentially fixable. A tech stop would have overcome any need to depart above MTOW, training might have made me happier about the co-pilot or he could have been replaced etc. Even had all that been done though I just wasn't convinced about the passengers. Maybe they were legit but my gut feeling was to walk away.




I'll ask my questions again as they seem to have got lost already. Those of you complaining about private operators allegedly chartering, how many of them do you know about? If you have not reported them, why?

[Pace]

LostManStanding

I will take note on my typing speeds Obviously an accident happens with a chain of events which can even start with the pilot having a row with his wife the morning of a flight.

Regulations are put in place to save pilots from themselves and the same goes with the operator maintenance etc.

Once the aircraft leaves the parking lot the regulations become meaningless as there is only the pilot and the aircraft in the skies.
ie if the pilot chose to fly the aircraft into a mountain and kill himself no amount of regulations will stop that.

It is our compliance with the regulations which are on the whole in place to make flying and hence our passengers safer.

When I referred to the fact that an accident is always pilot blame, aircraft blame, or a mixture of both it is.

Ok a pilot may make an approach and land off an ILS with the RVR below minima. That is Pilot Blame if he crashes on landing as the regulations stipulate a minima considered as safe for that approach.

he may get away with it and make a safe landing with an RVR of 200 metres as was the case with a KingAir forced to land when both destination and alternative went down in fog on a ferry flight from the states.

A regulation is a regulation ie the RVR maybe 550 metres so if the pilot lands on 550 Metres he is safe if he lands on 549 metres he is unsafe?
If he lands below the RVR minima yes he is breaking a regulation but that will not be the reason for the crash. The reason for the crash will be that he could not control the aircraft given the visibility.

Maybe I am being pedantic but I think you know what I mean and I am sure you know what I am getting at. Yes an accident is a chain of events which may start with the row at home and end up with the aircraft stuffed in the runway.

Pace

[Pace]

Flintstone

I met the pilot while flying a jet in the south of france prior to that event
We had an evening out and some of the stories made my hair curl so I was not in the least bit surprised.

Pace

[Phil Brockwell]

Flintstone,

I am aware of 2 non-AOC operations in the UK and 3 in Europe, and yes I have reported them.

I'm not talking private aircraft, I'm talking charter Ops without an AOC - dressed up as hours programes etc.

Phil

[tommoutrie]

I don't think the rules are clear. The interesting bit for pilots is probably section 4. There are still cases that are not easy to decide using these rules.


SUMMARY OF THE MEANING OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND AERIAL WORK

1. The Overall Approach
Public transport and aerial work are defined at Article 157 of the Air Navigation Order 2005 using a number of terms which are defined in Article 155 (1) of the Order. The general rules are defined at Article 157 (1)-(8). Six exceptions to those general rules are then established in Articles 158 to 163. (See also table at pages 6 & 7 below).

2. The General Rules
2.1 Aerial Work (Article 157 (1) and (2))
2.1.1 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 para 2.2 below).
2.1.2 If the only payment involved is the payment of the pilot, the flight is deemed to be private for airworthiness purposes (although it will still be aerial work for other purposes, e.g. flight crew licensing). This enables a private owner to pay a flying instructor for a flying lesson in his own aircraft even though the continuing airworthiness requirements that would be applicable to public transport aircraft may not have been applied.
2.2 Public Transport (Article 157 (3))
2.2.1 Public transport flights comprise one major category and two other categories.
2.2.2 The major category is when payment is made for the carriage of passengers or cargo in the aircraft on the flight.
2.2.3 The second category is when passengers or cargo are carried gratuitously by an air transport undertaking. An air transport undertaking is defined as an organisation whose business includes the carriage by air of passengers or cargo. An AOC holder is almost bound to be an air transport undertaking. There is an exception in this second category for employees of the undertaking and authorised persons making inspections or carrying out tests (i.e. they can be carried gratuitously without the flight being deemed to be public transport).
2.2.4 The third category of public transport flights relates only to airworthiness. If an aircraft is hired for a flight, e.g. from a flying club, then that flight is deemed to be public transport for airworthiness purposes, i.e. the aircraft must be maintained as a public transport aircraft. The flight will be private for all other purposes (provided no other payments are made in relation to the flight).
2.2.5 Article 157 (3), (4) and (5) deal with some legal technicalities relating to clubs etc.

3 Definitions(Article 155 (1)
3.1 Passenger
A passenger is defined in the Order as a person other than a member of the crew. Crew means members of the flight crew, cabin attendants and persons authorised to supervise training and carry out tests. It will be appreciated that observers, cameramen and other persons carried to operate particular pieces of equipment on board an aircraft will, if they do not fall within the definition of crew, be passengers. Insofar as payment has been made to enable them to be carried it will be a public transport flight.
Secretary & Legal Adviser’s Office – April 2005 Page 3 of 7
3.2 Direct Costs and Annual Costs
Direct costs and annual costs are defined in the Order. Direct costs means those directly incurred in relation to a flight (e.g. fuel) but excludes any remuneration payable to the pilot. Annual costs means the cost of keeping, maintaining and operating the aircraft over a period of one year (e.g. maintenance and hangarage). There must be no element of profit in either direct or annual costs.
3.3 Valuable Consideration
Throughout this paper, the question of whether a flight is public transport or aerial work is discussed in terms of whether "payment" has been given or promised in respect of the flight. In the Order itself instead of "payment" the term which is used is "valuable consideration". This term has a very wide meaning, including the provision of goods and services.

4 How to determine whether or not a flight is public transport.
4.1 To determine whether or not a flight is for the purpose of public transport of passengers, the first question is whether or not there are any passengers on board. This is not always entirely straightforward as an occupant may claim to be a member of the crew.
4.2 Having determined that there is at least one passenger on board, the next question is whether any payment has been given or promised which, if it had not been given or promised would mean that the passengers would not have been carried. If there is any payment which could fall into this category, consider what would have happened if the passenger had presented himself for carriage and announced that such a payment would not now be made. Would he still be carried?
4.3 If passengers are carried but there appears to be no payment for their carriage consider whether the operator is an air transport undertaking. If it is, even gratuitous carriage will be public transport (subject to certain exceptions - See Article 157 (3) (b)).
4.4 Even if no passenger is carried or there is no payment for the carriage of the passenger (and the operator is not an air transport undertaking) so that it is not a public transport of passengers flight, it may of course be aerial work if any payment has been made in respect of the flight or for the purpose of the flight.

5. THE SIX EXCEPTIONS
There are now set out at Articles 158 to 163, six exceptions to the general rules and these exceptions are summarised below.
5.1 Exception No 1. – Flying displays etc (Article 158)
5.1.1 This exception concerns an aircraft taking part in an aircraft race, contest or flying display or on a positioning flight to enable it to carry out such a flight, or returning from such a flight. The owner or operator may now recover from the organiser of the race contest or display: his direct costs and an appropriate contribution to his annual costs of operating the aircraft, but the flight shall nevertheless be deemed to be a private flight for flight crew licensing purposes.
5.1.2 In addition the pilot is entitled to receive prizes. This means that the aircraft can be flown by a PPL holder since the prizes will be deemed not to be remuneration and the payment of permitted costs will not mean that the flight is for the purposes of aerial work for flight crew licensing purposes.
5.1.3 This exception only affects the appropriate flight crew licence. It does not affect any other requirement of the Order (e.g. airworthiness).
5.2 Exception No 2 - Charity flights (Article 159)
Secretary & Legal Adviser’s Office – April 2005 Page 4 of 7
A flight will be deemed to be a private flight for all purposes if the only payment is to a registered charity which is not the operator of the aircraft and the flight is made with the permission in writing of the Authority. (A general permission has been issued in an Aeronautical Information Circular (79/2005 (White 114)) so that pilots do not have to approach the CAA each time, provided the flight will be conducted in accordance with the operating conditions set out in the annexes to the AIC.)
5.3 Exception No 3 - Cost sharing (Article 160)
5.3.1 A flight will be deemed to be a private flight for all purposes if the only payment is a contribution to the direct costs of the flight (not annual costs) otherwise payable by the pilot in command. This is provided that (a) no more than four persons (including the pilot) are carried, (b) the pilot pays at least his proportionate share (e.g. if four persons are carried the pilot must pay at least 25% of the direct costs) and (c) the flight has not been publicised in any way except within the premises of a flying club (in which case all the adult persons being carried in the aircraft must be members of that flying club).
5.3.2 There is a further proviso that a pilot cannot take advantage of this exception if he is employed as a pilot by the operator of the aircraft. This is intended to deter flying instructors from abusing the exception by offering quasi-public transport flights in aircraft of the flying club for which they work.
5.4 Exception No 4 – Recovery of direct costs (motor mileage) (Article 161)
5.4.1 In the past PPL holders have queried whether they are entitled to recover from their employers the costs of running their own aircraft or hiring an aircraft to fly themselves on business, e.g. to a business meeting. As they have reasonably argued, they would be entitled to travel by train or car and recover their expenses of so travelling and wish instead to recover some or all of the costs of flying. Insofar as the employer has an interest in the employee travelling to a particular location at a particular time, then any payment made by the employer (even a contribution to costs) in relation to the flight will be in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight. Thus the flight would be for the purpose of aerial work and outside the privileges of a PPL. However, an exception has now been established permitting a PPL holder to recover the direct costs (but not the annual costs) in such a situation the flight being deemed private for all purposes.
5.4.2 There is a proviso ensuring that on such a flight no one is carried who is under any legal or contractual obligation to be carried, e.g. the boss cannot order members of his staff to travel with a PPL holder but must permit the option of an alternative means of travel.
5.5 Exception No 5 - Jointly owned aircraft (Article 162)
5.5.1 Many aircraft are jointly owned by groups of persons. The most sensible way of operating such a group owned aircraft is for all the members to pay into a central fund a contribution related to the number of hours they fly, so as to ensure that the central fund has sufficient money to pay the costs of operating the aircraft over a period of time. Such a contribution by a group member to that central fund is however, in law equivalent to the payment made by a person hiring an aircraft from, e.g. a flying club. This payment has the effect of making a flight public transport for airworthiness purposes so that the group owned aircraft ought to be maintained to the public transport requirements.
5.5.2 An exception has been established so that the continuing airworthiness requirements applicable to public transport aircraft do not have to be applied. This is provided: (a) payments are made by members of the group to a central fund which amount to no more than direct and annual costs of operating; and (b) the group comprises no more than 20 persons (each with at least 5% share) whose names have been notified to the CAA. The exception applies whether the aircraft is jointly owned directly by no more than 20 persons or by a company which is owned by no more than 20 shareholders. The shareholders must be individuals and not companies.
Secretary & Legal Adviser’s Office – April 2005 Page 5 of 7
5.5.3 It should be noted that this exception can only be relied upon if the only payments are those made within the group relating to the direct and annual costs of operation. No other payments can be made if it is wished to rely on this exemption. In particular, a member of the group cannot pay an instructor to train him in the group owned aircraft. (However, see AIC 7/2004 (White 94) which allows a joint owner to undertake flight tests and pilot licence renewal/revalidation flights.)
5.6 Exception No 6 - Parachuting (Article 163)
Where a person pays to be carried up in an aircraft for the purpose of parachuting out of that aircraft then the flight is clearly for the purpose of public transport of passengers, notwithstanding that those passengers will not be on board the aircraft when it lands. An exception has been established so that provided the flight is carried out in accordance with Article 67 of the Order or the flight is positioning for such a flight or returning after such a flight then the carriage of parachutists (and other authorised persons, e.g. a jump master) will not mean that the flight is public transport. The flight will be deemed instead to be aerial work.

6 Application of the exceptions to hired aircraft or jointly owned aircraft.
6.1 The four exceptions relating to flying displays etc, charity flights, cost sharing and recovery of direct costs (motor mileage) are so defined that they are still available to an aircraft which has been hired or a group owned aircraft operated in accordance with the group aircraft exception of Article 162.
6.2 The four exceptions provide that flights coming within them will be deemed to be private flights for the purposes of one or more parts of the order if the only payment in respect of the flight falls within the specified category of payment, e.g. in the case of flying displays the costs of the flight and prize money. However, if an aircraft has been hired then there will be another form of payment in respect of the flight, i.e. the payment for the hire of the aircraft. Similarly, if the aircraft is group owned, there may well be some payment by the group member to the group for the use of the aircraft. Thus two types of payment (group and hire) are discounted when applying the four exceptions (although if the aircraft is hired it will still need to be maintained as a public transport aircraft).

7. Conclusion
The above is intended to be a summary of the effects of Articles 157 to 163. It is somewhat simplified and it is the Order itself which must be relied upon.
Secretary


Tom

[scrivenger]

So there you go then!! simple.

[flynowpaylater]

Tom, thanks for cutting and pasting the ANO onto the thread. Very informative.

[youngskywalker]

So, four pages later and still nobody has been named and shamed! Must we continue??

[flynowpaylater]

young sky walker - look through the thread and you will see that a) You have to be careful due to libel etc..., and b) someone did name and shame. Try reading through the posts before commenting on them.

[Pace]

My understanding is that the crew overcame considerable adversity and made a safe if somewhat fast landing.

Flintstone

Somewhat Fast landing I think the touchdown speed was worked out at 210 kts in a citation 2.
ATC refused a landing and told them to ditch in the sea.

Whether on the back of an AOC or not it was still legal charter and no more said. I think some of us know more than we are prepared to say.

Some post here on how they think things should be some of us know how things are.

Pace

[Phil Brockwell]

Duck,

I report these guys often as you know, in 10 years, just 2 convictions, however I'd like to think that the unwanted attention from the CAA has acted as a factor to shut down at least 2 others and severely hamper one more.

Phil

[tommoutrie]

The absence of names on this thread reinforces the idea that its not easy to interpret the rules.

If a local council asks an aerial photography company to go for a flight and take photo's of someones back garden to see if they have built an extension thats aerial work isnt it? Is it aerial work if an inspector from the council gets in the plane to ensure the correct back garden is photographed?

Here's a question that I'd like to get the CAA to answer. Why is there so much focus on incidents like the one above (its ongoing at the moment) and so little interest in the ones that Phil and Drunk report?

I posted the CAA's interpretation of the rules because I think that section 4 has a simplified version of the questions that a pilot can reasonably ask himself to satisfy the private/public transport question. While jobs are scarce and cash is tight I think its more likely that pilots will get asked to do things that are moody and applying these questions may keep someones licence intact.

[Lost man standing]

tommoutrie

Is it aerial work if an inspector from the council gets in the plane to ensure the correct back garden is photographed?

The answer is in the bit you quoted. If the passenger is not an employee of the operating company then it is public transport, not aerial work.

[tommoutrie]

actually I'm not sure thats correct. The test is in 4.2 "Having determined that there is at least one passenger on board, the next question is whether any payment has been given or promised which, if it had not been given or promised would mean that the passengers would not have been carried."
The flight would have gone ahead without the carriage of that passenger. The payment of the fee was for the collection of the photographs and not for the carriage of the passenger and therefore it is aerial work not public transport. The CAA certainly used to be completely happy with carrying a camera operator in the back of an aerial survey aircraft that I used to fly and he worked for a different company. I just think that imprecise rules make this a difficult subject. Which is why I posted the waffle in the first place.
What surprises me is that the CAA will quite often get involved in situations which are on the borders of what is public transport but may well be aerial work but seem reluctant to bring a prosecution against the sort of operations that Phil and Drunk are reporting. I wonder if the CAA put enough emphasis on the evidence of the whistleblower.

[Gulfstreamaviator]

ref Post 65

"But that is not unique and happens in AOC work too. We seem to be in the same region so without naming names which I am not into I can give one example of a citation crash landing in Scotland by a london based AOC operator??? I am sure you too know the background and some of the attrocious conditions and pressures the pilots there were put under."

I was very close to that operation, and the owner of the aircraft was being taken to Scotland by his pilot. There was a PA in the right seat.
I do not rememebr too many attrocious conditions, in fact it was a perfectly clear night, below the cloud layer. I also do not remember any pressures prior to the flight.

However there have been many examples of commercial flights by private aircraft, and in the past perhaps I also undertook some, it is not easy to determine if the owners friend has paid his friend cash to let him go to Nice for the weekend.

glf

[scrivenger]

glf,

QTE However there have been many examples of commercial flights by private aircraft, and in the past perhaps I also undertook some, it is not easy to determine if the owners friend has paid his friend cash to let him go to Nice for the weekend. UNQTE

This is precisely my point. 1. The rules are so complicated that they are at best difficult to interpret. 2.By its very nature this business requires people to act/react pdq, so much so that you may well not be able to acertain the nature of the financial transaction that has placed the passenger behind you, assuming that is, that you understood the rules in the first place and 3. you have a job to do and you need to get on with it.

Phil, I think we all know a dodgy operation when we see one, normally in my experience it is pretty much the same people that keep popping up. What I am refering to here is how easy it is, or can be, to misinterpret the rules and regulations and find that with all the best will in the world you are in fact operating illegally.

I think if the CAA were to get too involved they might be making a rod for their own backs and that of ligitemate operators too.