Cost sharing?

[mrmum]

If you were duty FI or running a flying club, would you let this following flight happen and is it legal? Assume you are in a RF and don't have an AOC.

A guy phones or comes in and says that he wants to go and take some photos of a property which is about a half-hour flight away. He explains that he's done this previously at a different airfield, nearer to where he lives and they put him in touch with one of their PPL holders who was hour-building and they took him up for half the cost. He knows the situation with hiring an AOC aircraft and pilot, or doing it as a "trial lesson", but obviously cost sharing is his cheapest option. So, do you point him at one of your members, who'll be very happy to get a half-price flight and make the photographer a temporary member for the day?

Looking at ANO article 267, I think it does technically meet the criteria, but perhaps doesn't go with the spirit or intention of the legislation.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Are any of your PPL's trained in how to keep an aircraft under proper control and maintain good CRM with the photographer during aerial photography sorties? Are you and they familiar with the various AAIB reports into the fatal accidents which have occurred during such flights.

Unless the answer to this is "yes", I'd not even bother with the legalities.

G

[madlandrover]

It may be legal (although I'd doubt it if the PPL holder is being introduced to prospective clients by the school!), but one of the beauties of running the business is that you can apply requirements more restrictive than the ANO.

[Whopity]

260.—(1) For the purposes of this Order and subject to Part 34, an aircraft in flight is flying on a public transport flight if the conditions specified in paragraph (2) are met.
(2) The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are—
(a) the aircraft is not flying on a commercial air transport flight; and
(b) that
(i) valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers or cargo in the aircraft on that flight

In the case you describe, valuable consideration is promised in respect of the flight, the sole purpose of which is to take photographs. Ask yourself a simple question; would the photographer pay a half share if the pilot flew somewhere else and no photographs were taken?

If the Pilot instigated a similar flight taking with him a friend who took photographs, then he could claim that it was a private flight and apply the cost sharing rules. If however it was subsequently proved that the sole purpose of the flight was to take photographs, for the purpose of being sold, and that the flight was procured by a third party for that purpose, then I suspect you would have trouble justifying it to a jury as a private flight.

Why break the law and pay half the costs yourself?

[DFC]

I would not introduce or get involved in the situation because as described it would clearly be an illegal flight.

The prupose of the flight is clearly aerial work.

Photographers who approach us with such requests are referred to another establishment that provides such services - and who we provide the training for. Why would we try to cut our own throats by undercutting an organisation that we supply?

For PPL's who ask to do something like this, we have training available - CPL and assistance with setting up an Aerial Work organisation.

Why would we assist a business in cutting corners and at the same time cut our own throat?

[bookworm]

In the case you describe, valuable consideration is promised in respect of the flight, the sole purpose of which is to take photographs. Ask yourself a simple question; would the photographer pay a half share if the pilot flew somewhere else and no photographs were taken?

You have to read Article 260 (which you quote) in conjunction with the exceptions in Part 34, in particular Article 267 (which you do not).

Public transport and aerial work – exceptions – cost sharing
267 (1) Subject to paragraph (4), a flight is a private flight if:
(a) the only valuable consideration given or promised for the flight or the purpose of the flight is of a sort described in paragraph (2); and
(b) the criteria in paragraph (3) are satisfied.
(2) Valuable consideration is of a sort described in this paragraph if it is one or more of
the following:
(a) valuable consideration [given or promised for the primary purpose of conferring on a particular person the right to fly the aircraft on that flight];
(b) in the case of an aircraft owned [jointly], [contributions to the direct or annual costs] or
(c) a contribution to the direct costs of the flight otherwise payable by the pilot in command.
(3) The criteria in this paragraph are satisfied if:
(a) no more than four persons (including the pilot) are carried;
(b) the proportion which the contribution referred to in paragraph (2)(c) bears to the direct costs is not more than the proportion which the number of persons carried on the flight (excluding the pilot) bears to the number of persons carried (including the pilot);
(c) no information has been published or advertised before the commencement of the flight other than, in the case of an aircraft operated by a flying club, advertising wholly within the premises of such a flying club in which case all the persons carried on such a flight who are aged 18 years or over must be members of that flying club; and
(d) no person acting as a pilot is employed as a pilot by, or is a party to a contract for the provision of services as a pilot with, the operator of the aircraft which is being flown.

The criteria are clearly met. If "the only valuable consideration given or promised for the flight or the purpose of the flight" is the payment of the photographer to the pilot, then the conditions in paragraph (2) are met. Thus, provided no fee is being paid to the photographer for the purpose of the flight (taking photographs), I agree with mrmum's assertion that the "it does technically meet the criteria".

If a fee is being paid, then I would concur with Whopity. Though there is the following defence:

241(4) If a person is charged with contravening a provision of this Order or any regulations made under this Order by reason of that person having been a member of the flight crew of an aircraft on a flight for the purpose of commercial air transport, public transport or aerial work, the flight is to be treated (without prejudice to the liability of any other person under this Order) as not having been for that purpose if the person proves that they neither knew nor suspected that the flight was for that purpose.

The issue of the "spirit or intention of the legislation" is a more interesting issue. I believe the legislation was put in place to protect "unsuspecting" passengers from being subjected to a level of risk that they were unable to assess when paying for a flight which they believed to meet the customary standards of public transport. It doesn't sound as if this passenger was ignorant of the nature of the flight, nor the standards applied.

None of the above is a suggestion that it would be wise, nor safe, to make the introduction.

[Ty-Fry-Typhoon]

Hay DFC, what kind of training is involved for photography work?